Tiger Woods parody on Saturday Night Live - good or bad?

Like the Saturday Night Live of old, the buzz for Monday will likely be the parody on Tiger Woods. There is controversy in this one, not only for what was done but also because of the celebrity guest - which was Rihanna.

In case you missed it, here is the skit in question



Now just looking at that, I think it was damn funny. It would have been funny if the guest on SNL was anyone. It's funny even though it's about "domestic abuse" as some like to call it.

But I think the controversy is overblown here. This is not making light of domestic abuse. The incident this is based on is not domestic abuse. Let's keep this focused on what it is. This is about a fight between a husband and wife - solely because the husband was caught cheating.

Couples of every description have fights from time to time (non-physical). More than a few members of any couple tend to cheat. These are facts as old as the world. And it is a fact that when the secret comes out, the other member of the couple is going to be pissed. That's not abuse, it's a natural reaction to the situation.

Rihanna was involved in domestic abuse. Chris Brown beat the hell out of her. There is no justification for this and it had no cause other than his own misguided and commoditized sense of what is a Black man. I stand by the thoughts I had on that and wrote about.

Now the SNL skit is what comedy is about. It takes a subject that is normally taboo and speaks about it in a broad sense. It twists the pathos and makes us smile where we might cringe. It's no different than the jokes about 9/11, or war, or anything else you can imagine.

The way Tiger has handled this private matter was bad from the start. SNL picked up on that and ran with it. And they did so in a tasteful manner in my opinion. But in a world of PC insanity, doing anything that any liberal might object to is tantamount to committing a crime. Which is a shame.

I think that if this skit were insensitive to Rihanna, she wouldn't have done the show. Or she would have said something about it. But neither is the case. As they shouldn't be.

But having seen the skit, what do you think? Is this just taking an unfortunate situation and making fun of it's comedic pearls or is it a slap in the face of a serious issue that remains largely unspoken?

The more things change

It's amazing how things have changed in television over the years. I'm not talking from the 1950's compared to today. I mean the 70's and even the 80's. Saturday Night Live is a great example.

Back in the 70's and 80's there were people that thought television was to wild and violent for children. They sited various FCC regulations and codes. They complained that television was morally bankrupt. But cartoons like Road Runner (before he got his Verizon deal) and Bugs Bunny stayed on the air uneditied. At the same time George Carlin was on Saturday Night Live, and had the show shut down by censors because he said a couple of bad words so fast that most of America had no idea what he said before his mike was turned off and the studio lights were shut off. Then the show went immediately to commercial.

In the 1980's it was not nearly that bad. People still complained about television violence and its morally corrupt nature. Shows got racier, especially soap operas. Bugs Bunny and Road Runner, et al., still were uneditied and tens of millions of kids watched Sesame Street every day. But when Charles Rocket said a bad word on Saturday Night Live, the show kept going. He did get fired immediately though, ending his career.

We hit the 2000's and there was an uproar about morality, violence and television. By this time every wrong of kids was blamed on television. Columbine and other similar events were claimed to be the product of television (and not bad parenting). By this time Road Runner and Bugs Bunny were so editied to be unwatchable and without any meaning (just like most shows on MTV). Sesame Street - the episodes from the 70's and 80's - were categorized as adult programs unfit for children to watch. The nation (well some of the more uptight parts of it) lost their minds when there was an accidental exposure of a naked breast for 2 seconds during the Super Bowl halftime show.

And just this weekend, on the 35th anniversary of SNL Jennifer Slater relived moments of the past. **Warning - the video contains the unaltered word**



Noticed her face after she said it? I will give her credit, as well as the other actress, as they just kept going. Good thing the lights didn't go out.

So think about it. Several aspects of television have improved, according to some, while outrageous actions that never would be allowed in the past are ignored. Slater still has a job as of this moment, Sesame Street has become almost as mindless as American Idol, and you can't even find Bugs Bunny on television without looking on cable.

Have things been getting better or worse? Does it matter as almost no one watches broadcast television anymore? And was this a plan by SNL since the show long ago stopped being funny, even to people too young to know it once was funny EVERY episode?

Reader comment: Jorge on Tropic Thunder and Robin Kassner

This comment comes from Jorge at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author. In his comment I am questioned on my thoughts about Robert Downey Jr., the movie Tropic Thunder, and the event involving Robin Kassner at the Regan National Airport.

Jorge's comment verbatim is:

You ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

You either condemn all double standards based on race or you have to accept them all.

It is ridiculous to say that blacks air exempt of criticism or parody because of history but they can make fun of white lifestyles, mannerisms, and looks. Again, either accept the fact that like all double standards, such as those based on gender, racist double standards are a double edged swords and you cannot pick and choose which parts are convenient to you and which aren’t.

My response is:

Jorge,

I’m glad to see that you are an avid reader of my posts. I thank you for that and your comment.

It’s important for me to be honest and consistent in what I write. I don’t do this to create shock (though I admit that some of the things I say may shock some readers) or for self-aggrandizement. I speak my thoughts and often comment on the racial complexities that is race in America. So I went back and re-read every post on Tropic Thunder (Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American? - 3.5.2008.1 and Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1), and my comments about Robin Kassner.

Now you state that I

“...ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.”

In fact my comments about Tropic Thunder are not to accept the double standard but to highlight it. And I did not ask anyone to accept anything, other than the history of the work by actor Robert Downey Jr. has consistently been quality work which is a positive towards a movie that I feel unease about.

“This could be like the absurdity of Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. Or it could be Al Jolson. When you add in the nudge against Eddie Murphy, the undertone is not quite so positive.”

I have no problem with an actor portraying a character of a different race, if it is done with respect and done well. But I also do understand that far too often Hollywood has avoided using highly qualified and available actors of color, insteasd using sub-standard White actors in a manner that is degrading.

“A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.”

The question is the intent of the portrayal. Too often it has been to embarrass or humiliate those being imitated. Too often it has been an act of White privilege to presume they can accurately portray other races, and that their depiction was more than fair. That is where I have conflict.

But in regard to Robin Kassner the issue is how the media portrays reality. This is not a film, there are no characters. The reality is that Kassner was treated in a manner that many Muslims and people of color have experiences since 9/11 in airports across the nation. But instead of taking the same lazie faire attitude that has come from the media, or blaming those persecuted, the major news media has taken sympathy on her plight.

That is a different double standard.

Either Kassner was presenting a danger to the public interest, as was the excuse for the reaction when Muslims and people of color were treated in this manner, or all the other victims were over-reacted against and deserve the same sympathy and funds claimed in her lawsuit.

Whether it’s the presumption of innocence as in the Duke rape case, or the avoidance of the topic like in the Megan Williams case, or the near total absence of fact like in the number of reported missing Black, Hispanic, Asian children in the nation the major media is playing a double standard that is not only unfair but potentially damaging.

When I highlighted that fact how is it the same as questioning the ability of an actor to make a respectful portrayal?

When Eddie Murphy made a portrayal of a White man on Saturday Night Live, was that wrong or funny? I say funny because it was honest and respectful. When Joel Grey played a Korean it was honest and respectful and he got a Golden Globe nomination for it. When the Wayan brothers portrayed 2 White girls it was stupid and ignorant. When Gene Wilder tried the Black face in Silver Streak it was funny because it was an admission of absurdity and the ignorance (stupidity) of some people.

Robin Kassner was either being treated like a threat or abused. There was no respect, humor, social commentary in it. The news media coverage of the event was biased, but in similar events the bias goes in the opposite direction.

How am I wrong to point that out? How is that like questioning if the storyline in a movie is respectful and humorous? How is pointing out when the news media identifies Blacks in chest high flood waters as looters the same double standard as questioning the script a White actor in make-up follows?

Hollywood has long believed that a White actor can portray another race in any manner and it’s ok – which I disagree with. The media has long believed that people of color, especially African Americans, can be portrayed as dregs of society – which I disagree with. I believe my posts highlight those views.

If I am incorrect, please do show me where I was wrong.

Radio & Television Correspondents' Association dinner w/ Dick Cheney serving jokes

Some people think that politicians and pundits that follow their actions have no sense of humor. At least no on purpose anyway. But that is far from true. And the proof was found at the Radio & Television Correspondents' Association dinner tonight.

There were several normally stolid speakers at the dinner, an event that occurs annually and gives the speakers a chance to pick back at the news media with humor and the occasional bite. Notable were the Vice President Dick Cheney and former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney was especially funny, poking most of his humor at his failed bid for the Republican nomination. Of course a certain Democratic Presidential hopeful didn’t escape comment either. You have to enjoy the self-deprecating humor.



Not to be outdone, though less funny was the Vice President. I especially like the quip his wife makes in reference to his being Darth Vader.



As for Mo Racca, he needs to stick with his day job. He is horrible as a comedian – at the least he was falling flat tonight.

So there you go. Our politicians and the pundits that follow them trying their best at stand-up for a night. Saturday Night Live has nothing to fear, and thankfully this occurs only once a year. If only the Democratic Presidential candidates’ proposals, and the Government’s Darfur stance, weren’t jokes as well. The very unfunny kind.

Taking a look at the past and present race relations - 10.31.2007.1

** This can also be seen at Black & White Blog, where I am a co-author. You can comment either here or at that site, which is a forum for views on race issues from many sides. **

I was going through some of my favorites at YouTube yesterday and I ran across an old Saturday Night Live skit that is classic and funny on so many levels. But it’s more than that as well. It features Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor, from the 70’s when SNL was at its best and most biting social commentary.

I’m sure everyone my age and older have had the joy of seeing this long ago. For those who are younger, check out the clip.



Now the point is this. What really has changed since then? While there is PC this and that, and Blacks have gone from being “Black and Proud” to ‘Forshizille my nizzelle’, has anything become better?

Yes there is more interracial dating, yet it is still shunned as the recent death threat against the Boise State player that asked his girlfriend to marry him on national television proved. Yes there are Black doctors, lawyers, and even Secretaries of State yet Blacks still have disproportionate poverty and unemployment levels. While Senator Obama is running for President of the United States, the number of CEO’s of major corporations (on the stock market) can be counted on 1 hand.

In the 70’s the N-word was understood to be a negative term, and even this video showing its use to evoke humor recognizes the absolute anger attached to the word. Today kids, of all races, routinely play on pronunciation and use the term daily as a greeting. Yet its use has not changed its meaning as we have seen in the Jena, West Virginia and Lititz cases.

The KKK, and neo-nazi groups still exist. Cops still beat and kill Blacks (name one year where there have not been several unjustified explosions of police abuse since 1980, whether or not it got national media attention). The legal system (the word Justice is unwarranted in describing the system we have) routinely continues to convict innocent Blacks, and invoke penalties so harsh as to be ludicrous to compare on those Blacks convicted of crimes, as with the Jena 6 and Genarlow Wilson.

While the surface of the nation may seem like calm waters, it’s not. There is as much or more racial tension in this nation than ever before. Political Correctness may prevent hearing all the tension, but it’s doing little to nothing to prevent the action itself. The media, without uttering a single slur, has never stopped presenting slurs or negatively portraying African Americans.

In 1977, the year Roots was on television (I haven’t seen it on ever since), there were 24 Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian characters on all of television (not less than 69 shows). That number includes 5 shows where the characters had starring roles, but does not include a cartoon (Fat Albert) or a dance show (Soul Train) which was only on Saturdays. It also includes 2 programs that ended that year, Sanford & Son and Electric Company, and one star (Freddie Prinze) that died.

While it’s harder to define all the shows on television today, including cable and reruns, looking at the top 100 first-run programs I get an estimate of 18 African Americans. I’m sure I’m missing a few characters (only counting leading and featured support characters) and television shows. My previous efforts, including reruns, came to less than 2% of all characters are African Americans and less for other minorities. That’s sad when there has been an increase of 1000% in television channels since 1977.

So what has really gotten better? Yes some individuals are doing better, but not society. The realization is pitiful. At least in 1977 we were honest, but the main thing I see that improved the most is our ability to hide the anger that exists.

Do you agree?