Ms. Tang also implies that the fact that there was an uproar against the show, based on it’s title alone, was a matter of PC. That all the bloggers involved were seeking to restrict the things being said about African Americans. Perhaps that was true of some bloggers, but speaking for myself that is not true. This was about the dissemination of context to the world. Context of the program, and therefore the quality of the program was the issue not words.
Virtually any program can be put on television, or in a blog. I may not agree, but I respect the right neo-nazi’s have to speak what they wish. I support statements, that do not evoke harm or inflict undue pain, being made by anyone. BET had every right to make a show called Hot Ghetto Mess, and given the context and quality of the program I’d have not even noticed. But when looked at in a total view, which it appears Ms. Tang has not done, what the program suggested did in fact seem to inflict harm and evoke pain.
I submit to Ms. Tang that if a program was announced to appear on say ABC Disney that was titled ‘Hitler Rules’ it would catch attention. IF ABC had on it’s website a desrition of the program that stated it would feature KKK rallies, neo-nazi marches, church burnings and equated this to a plane crash you can’t stop watching. Lastly if the logo of the company was an image of a burning cross inscribed in a no symbol. It is well within the First Amendment to state these things. And without context I would imagine many would be outraged.
If Disney, which owns ABC, then refused to comment on the show other than to say it’s not what the outraged public was stating would you be satisfied? If television critics requested a preview of the program and were denied, would you be concerned that perhaps this was not a positive program?
If such a program description and image evokes emotion from you or other readers, is that PC? Is demanding an explaination and/or the removal of the program infringing on the First Amendmant? Or is it a statement of the thoughts of people using their First Amendment rights to ensure that no harm or pain is inflicted on the nation and world.
The fact that the program showed video clips of people being arrested for these actions, or derided, or the resulting pain inflicted on people by these actions does not change the lack of context made prior. The fact that questions asked of the public about Aschwitz, the Holocoust, slavery, ethnic cleansings, genocide, prejudice, and other events – then providing facts on each – would not change the implied meaning that was lent to the program prior.
PC is a useless and dangerous trend, I believe, and I think Ms. Tang does as well. But there are too many people that seek to claim serious questions are merely stifling of the First Amendment. There is a difference between moral outrage and civic duty vs mere discomfort of terminology used.
This is not
“targeting the hip hop industry seems to be a favorite pastime of political correctness junkies”
To say that
“But the content of the series isn’t going to change”
is too simplistic a comment, and highly likely incorrect, as I stated above.
I believe that Ms. Tang only caught the last bit of what the anger of most bloggers on this issue was about. I suggest that she go back to the beginning of this issue and see what it really was about. Regardless of what was finally presented to the public, the outrage and protest of bloggers was necessary and hardly PC. To claim otherwise is minimizing and disrespectful of the actual issue.
This is what I think, what do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment