Re: [TV orNotTV] SNL Apology

[Doug Eastick]

Agreed. It was well done. And spoke to the weekend of the 11th.


On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 1:42 PM PGage,  wrote:

> I thought this was a good example of an apology. It seemed sincere, it was
> accurate and specific (none of that “sorry If I offended anyone BS), and it
> was given during the same part of the show as the offense, so it had the
> same media footprint (more, because it was given significantly more time),
> and it put most of the focus on the guy who was slighted, and gave him a
> platform to send out his own message. And the message was a good one, and
> appropriate for the weekend.
>
> Yes, it also served to try to rehab the reputation of SNL and the people
> involved, but that is part of all apologies.
>
>
> https://youtu.be/GKaakjMVtyE
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] SNL Apology

[PGage]

I thought this was a good example of an apology. It seemed sincere, it was
accurate and specific (none of that “sorry If I offended anyone BS), and it
was given during the same part of the show as the offense, so it had the
same media footprint (more, because it was given significantly more time),
and it put most of the focus on the guy who was slighted, and gave him a
platform to send out his own message. And the message was a good one, and
appropriate for the weekend.

Yes, it also served to try to rehab the reputation of SNL and the people
involved, but that is part of all apologies.


https://youtu.be/GKaakjMVtyE
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Megyn Kelly steps in it again

[Doug Fields]

The examples aren’t equivalent because there is no history of blacks oppressing 
whites in America, so acts of overt racism committed by whites against blacks 
don’t hold the same meaning (or threat of violence) if they’re committed by 
blacks against whites.  And the examples of black comedians using whiteface 
either ironically or just as makeup for a role they’re playing that requires 
them to be Caucasian for the bit to work isn’t equivalent to white actors who 
don blackface for the explicit purpose of demeaning blacks.

No one took John Griffin to task when he donned blackface to experience life as 
a black man in the South in the early 60s, chronicled in the book and movie 
“Black Like Me.”  He didn’t do it to demean blacks, but rather to help them by 
opening a window on their experience that whites couldn’t otherwise experience. 
 His blackface was in no way equivalent to vaudeville performers like Amos & 
Andy.

It’s not the act of changing the color of your skin that’s offensive; it’s the 
context of when and why you’re doing it that determines whether it is.

Doug Fields
Tampa, FL


From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com  On Behalf Of 
Steve Timko
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:15 PM
To: TV or Not TV 
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Megyn Kelly steps in it again

But lighting a cross on the lawn of a white family is still pretty bad, even if 
it doesn't carry the weight of lighting the cross on the lawn of a black family.
The Ku Klux Klan tried to scared migrant coal miners in western Pennsylvania in 
the period immediately after World War I. They burned a cross in my father's 
town.. He and his older brother, who were maybe not teens yet, took a pickle 
barrel ring and mounted it on a pole, doused it with gas and lit it on the 
hillside. The community braced as they thought the Slavs were fighting back.

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:03 PM PGage 
mailto:pga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It’s not that it is not quantitatively equivalent. It is not qualitatively 
equivalent. The two have nothing substantive in common. Lighting a bag of dog 
poop on a white neighbors porch on Halloween might be obnoxious, even 
potentially dangerous, vandalism. It does not deserve to be even mentioned in 
the same paragraph as lighting a cross on the lawn of a black neighbor.



On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM Steve Timko 
mailto:steveti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Does it have to be equivalent to be offensive?

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:06 PM PGage 
mailto:pga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Not really - except that anyone who thinks this is in any way close to 
equivalent to blackface has zero understanding of blackface.



On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:59 AM Steve Timko 
mailto:steveti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Any thoughts on Dave Chapelle in white face?
LINK

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 6:09 AM PGage 
mailto:pga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
As I wrote, some things are a matter of opinion. I think the term “politically 
correct” is imprecise and loaded and unhelpful, but people do vary in their 
sensitivity to offense, and some are so sensitive they cause a burden for 
others. This is not that.

Blackface is objectively racist. The racism is not imputed by the observer, it 
does not depend on the act of perception. Al Jolson singing Mammy is a racist 
image. People do not impute offense to it; it is, in itself, offensive. Now 
context and relationship can make offensive acts tools of resistance, or 
excusable ignorance. But nothing changes the inherent racism.

If a really old German said something like: “Boy it’s hard to keep up with what 
is and is not OK. When I was a kid back in the early 1930s we used Swastikas to 
decorate kid’s birthday parties, and now it is politicallly incorrect to just 
fly a Swastika flag in your front yard” everyone would, appropriately, call 
bullshit on that. What Kelly said is exactly like that. I am sure lots of 
people remember when they could dress in blackface without condemnation, or use 
the word nigger in polite conversation. The appropriate observation about that 
is not “gee, people have become so sensitive these days” but more like “gee, I 
guess we were really fucking racist in those days.”

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:21 PM Steve Timko 
mailto:steveti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure when you mean "honestly say it was not racist." In my case, we did 
a school play when I was in fourth or fifth grade, maybe third (I was in the 
east wing of the school at the time) and it included a survey of entertainment. 
There was the obligatory reference to Al Jolson so they put a kid in black face 
and had him sing a few Al Jolson lines. To be honest,. I'm not sure we 
understood that we were caricaturing black people. My town had one black 
couple. The woman worked in the post office and part time in the high school 
library in a near by town. When I got to high school I actually had a black 
classmate. I won't speak for either of them but I never saw overtly racial 
remarks towards them., I'm sure