Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian Part 2 - 7.26.2007.4

Continued from Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian Part 1...


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?

Comment on article by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian - 7.26.2007.3

I want to reply to an opinion piece by Victoria Tang at The Daily Californian. Ms. Tang is commenting on the nature of the First Amendment and how the virus of political correctness (PC) has affected it. As many long-term readers of this site are aware, I am a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment. But the reason I wish to reply is that Ms. Tang is addressing the concerns I and many bloggers had on the We Got To Do Better (formerly Hot Ghetto Mess) program.

I, among others, strongly criticized Black Entertainment Television for the program prior to it’s airing on cable television. We were lead to believe, through the choice of logo, title, BET’s description, and lack of critical review or corporate reply to requests or previews that the program would not adhere to a standard worth of broadcasting. The program aired on cable television last night, and I subsequently replied about it, happily proven wrong in my criticism.

That is not to say that the attention placed on BET and Viacom was misplaced. Anyone who thinks that the program merely changed its title and logo does not understand the nature of film or television production. Many changes were occurring behind the scenes prior to the debut. The much heralded self-description of the program (since pulled of the BET website) was offensive, that was proven by the departure of 2 advertisers – State Farm and Home Depot. The focus of the program was stated to feature “booty-shakin” and “pimped-out high schoolers.” They were described as a “car wreck.” The actual program featured none of these in its video clips or show.

While few, even within BET, knew what the program was supposed to look like it is hardly difficult to understand that the make up of the program was changed. Why else would BET deny critics a chance to preview the program and dispel the bloggers that assailed the company? Why else were advertisers not shown the program to assuage their concerns?

And I will correct something that Ms. Tang stated.

“After a public relations squabble last Tuesday, Black Entertainment Television decided to scrap the original name “Hot Ghetto Mess” for a show depicting mostly young African Americans displaying what is deemed to be unpleasant behavior (mainly related to hip hop culture) less than 48 hours before its debut. What’s the new name? It’s called “We Got to Do Better.” Even gumdrops are less sugarcoated than that.”

The “public relations squabble” was started on July 4th for me and a day or so earlier at What About Our Daughters. This was not a sudden fly-by-night issue that caught on among bloggers, but a serious debate over concerns on how African Americans were being portrayed.

The title of the show is not so much “sugarcoated” as an accurate social commentary that is often stated in the Black community. Young or old, this has been said for a long time and it’s implication is far deeper than the words themselves. Ms. Tang is not African American so I can understand that she may not see the impact that this title means, but to call it sugarcoated is to belittle it’s meaning too much.

Continued in Part 2...