Prospects for Liberty

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" - Thomas Sowell

Name:
Location: North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, United States

I'm a sophomore at Umass Dartmouth, double majoring in Political Science and Economics.I'm a Roman Catholic and a Libertarian. Not much to say here really.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Why its okay for South Park, and not for Don Imus

Recently, Don Imus was canned both from his radio show on CBS Radio and his televised simulcast on MSNBC. The motivation for this was that, when announcing a female college basketball game, he referred to the girls who played for Rutgers University as “nappy headed hoes”. The media uproar was epic in scale. Imus apologized to Al Sharpton on his radio show, apologized to the basketball team, apologized to just about anyone he could find who would listen. Clearly, it was no use. He was fired in short order and without ceremony. Over the course of this incident, many have begun to wonder: Why Imus? Certainly shows like South Park and films such as Borat get away with far, far, worse material, of both racial and non-racial types without censure.

The Catholic League of America protested an episode of South Park that featured a statue of the Virgin Mary shitting blood on Pope Benedict’s face. Nobody cared. The Catholic League was widely perceived as whining, not demanding social justice, and South Park produced another episode this season mocking them. The Anti-Defamation league was all over Mel Gibson for his anti-semitic drunken rant some months ago, but an event from the film Borat, the “Running of the Jews” received barely any major media attention. Is there any rhyme or reason to this? Are advocacy groups just picking victims at random and ruining their careers for kicks? I do not believe this is the case
It is my view that the difference between, on one hand, a South Park and a Borat, or a Don Imus and/or Mel Gibson on the other, goes as follows: Shows like South Park have raised their bigotry to such a level that it is an art form. No sane human being could seriously entertain the notion that South Park or Borat are to be taken seriously. Besides the fact that these people are all fictional characters, they also engage in majestic feats of bigotry that a mere mortal can only dream about. It then, becomes clear: The reason we love this stuff is because it makes no bones about its hatred, it makes clear that its content is meant not to mock those who are bigoted against, but the bigots themselves. Finally, when it is called out, it refuses to apologize. South Park’s normal reaction to outside criticism is to create an episode that truly annihilates the critic in question is the most horrifying possible ways. Don Imus, by contrast, clearly wants to be taken as a serious commentator. While he is also a comedian, he has made his career out of being taken seriously when he advances a view. His show has become a regular pit stop for politicians and presidential candidates, and a venue for some of the most popular talk on the issues of our day that currently exists in American media. So when Don Imus says something, Don Imus is usually gong to be taken seriously. For that reason, a racist statement made by him is not something that is simply laughed off, the way the antics of Eric Cartman or Borat are. Imus presents himself as a serious person, and serious people get taken seriously. He should have realized that that is a two way street before he opened his stupid honky mouth.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home