Chickencasters
By Callimachus | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Cartoons, Comedy, Religion, The Politics Of Film, The War On TerrorismJeff Goldstein on the latest “South Park.”
As most of you know by now, Comedy Central censored last night’s episode of “South Park,� refusing to run an image of Mohammed�evidently out of cultural sensitivity to those who Comedy Central executives fear might, I dunno, key their cars? Write angry emails?
Or maybe there really is something to this jihadist threat after all, for all the time spent by other Comedy Central shows and personalities ironizing the threat away with a lot of wink-wink talk about duct tape and plastic sheeting and color-coded warnings and cowardly soccer moms.
Jesus taking a dump? Not a problem for Comedy Central. After all, Comedy Central execs realize that poking Christians with a stick�while it might raise a bit of controversy and bring in higher ratings�is not much different than, say, burning Steven Hawking with a cigarette: sure, he might not like it, but it ain’t like he’s going to get out of his chair and lop off Jon Stewart’s head.
But with the Krazy Islamists (who, as Hillary and Tbogg and Digby and Atrios will happily remind you the Bushies keep “using� as a “scare tactic� to get neocon “bedwetters� to vote their way), it seems the execs at Comedy Central, at least, just couldn’t be too sure.
Some of you who actually watch TV probably are better qualified than I am to comment on this. But it seems to me the comments on that thread get right to the gist of it.
One, defending CC, writes, “Would you force me to wear a t-shirt with a Mohammed cartoon on it? If I refuse am I ‘giving in’ to terrorists or just being smart?” And one replies, in part, “[N]o one can force Comedy Central to have the courage of their convictions, no one is even trying. But we can all point out what cowardly, hypocrtical, chickenshits they are. That’s what free speech is all about.”
Let’s see … if the left’s beloved “chickenhawk” argument is that you should not advocate for some potentially deadly policy unless you’re willing to bear personally the consequences of it, where does this leave Comedy Central on the question of free speech?
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 13th, 2006 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Cartoons, Comedy, Religion, The Politics Of Film, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Interesting question.
Should you antagonize crazy people into violence just to prove your not intimidated by them?
On the other hand Comedy Central is a business. I would guess the only question they ask themselves is “Will this make us money?�
April 13th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
The “South Park” creators antagonize because that’s what they do. I used to know a guy who you could get to do anything by saying things like, “I bet you wouldn’t stick a fork in an electrical socket.” That’s them.
Comedy Central, on the other hand, only antagonizes those whom it’s safe to antagonize. I knew kids like that, too. We called them “bullies.”
April 13th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Nothing is better proof that there really IS a serious radical Islamist threat than the decision by businesses (comedy central, Borders, network news, etc.) to not anger the Muslims. It has nothing to do with cultural sensitivity. None of those businesses shows such sensitivity to any other group. It’s about those businesses not wanting to incite violence against themselves.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Islam and Mohammed are valid topics of debate. Public debate at times involves caricatures. Its absurd to say we can’t display a picture of a character because we fear reprisals.
Personally I find this to be a scary turn of events. As a woman, I get scared when I see society take a step backwards.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:14 am
This is sick. It is teaching terrorists that terror works. What cowardice! If everyone who had a mind or a reason to portray Mohammed just went ahead and did so, they couldn’t kill us all. In fact, “they” wouldn’t know where to start. All they could do is throw tantrums, which is pretty much all they’re doing right now.
Why don’t we ALL just sew depictions of Mohammed on our sleeves, like the yellow star?
April 14th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Jeez amba, because this isn’t that important. And it certainly isn’t “sick.” Moussaoui is sick. Comedy Central is simply scared.
Listen, I think CC can determine whatever they hell they want to show or not show on their network. That’s their business. They have advertisers to think about. And I’m sure most other networks would do the same given potential economic pressures. Speech isn’t free on paid programming. It’s regulated by dollars and sense. And Comedy Central doesn’t want to be in the middle of a controversy over showing the cartoons. Sure, they’re going to take some flack from the blogosphere for a while, but I think that’s a risk they’re willing to take.
However, if it were me, I’d let the South Park boys show the cartoons. Personally, I think rebroadcasting them isn’t a wise move, but I wouldn’t stand in their way. Of course, then again, I probably would never be the head of a network either. ;-)
April 14th, 2006 at 6:24 am
Justin,
Are you saying that the outrage from a Muslim minority has more economic power than the numbers that actually watch CC? That doesn’t seem demographically supprtable.
“…potential economic pressures…” I don’t think that this was an economic decision, but I do think that there were “potential pressures,” real or imagined. The point here is that, like Borders, CC decided that it wasn’t even going to risk anything, as if their execs were under some secret warning. This is only mildly absurd.
“And Comedy Central doesn’t want to be in the middle of a controversy over showing the cartoons.” Huh? That’s what they do! Their stock and trade is controversy, especially over cartoons. CC has demonstrated that there is now a special class of people–Muslims (right up there with Scientologists)–that is above ridicule, at least for them.
CC has basically exposed themselves as weaklings. Let’s face it, it isn’t all that difficult or edgy to criticize Bush, Rummy, etc. or to take a swipe at Jews, Christians, Hindus, whatever. So much for irreverence.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:13 am
All that said, I’m beginning to think that this might be a prank, and we’re making fools of ourselves. I guess we’ll see if the some episode to come has Mohammed in bed with the Easter Bunny and Britney Spears’ nanny.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:59 am
because this isn’t that important. And it certainly isn’t “sick.�
Moral courage isn’t important? The lack of it isn’t a sign of sickness?
Wow.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Again, I don’t think the word “sick” is anywhere close to an appropriate characterization of Comedy Central’s decision. But I’m going to quit arguing semantics on this one because we can go around and around about one’s own definition of “sickness.”
Also, I made this argument in the Michael Graham case, the shock jock who get fired for calling Islam a terrorist organization. Comedy Central has economic concerns and advertisers to think of. And who knows what they were told behind the scenes. I would have let the guys run the cartoon, given the information I have now, but given other information that only network execs have, I might be whistling a different tune.
One last thing…moral courage? People, this is cable television. The only people who show moral courage are journalists who potentially or demonstratably put themselves in harm’s way to report the truth. Everybody else on television are simply news personalities, actors and reality TVites. Moral courage isn’t part of their equation. Ratings are. And maybe, in the end, that’s what we’re seeing. A ratings ploy to pull in more “South Park Conservatives.” Now that would be a courageous move. ;-)
April 14th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I’m with Justin on this one. I didn’t realize a prerequisite for running a cable comedy channel was “moral courage.” It’s a business, and they’re going to take the easy way out. If an NBC program that’s sponsored by Ford wants to do an episode on how Ford vehicles blow up, you’d see the same lack of “moral courage.” It’s a comedy channel. If they want to go after easy targets, guess what? That’s the nature of most comedy. I’m a stand-up, and I was on stage two days after 9-11. I’m sure I could have thought of some 9-11 jokes, and they might have even been funny. Was I lacking “moral courage” because I knew those jokes would inflame the audience? If I think a joke is going to cause the audience to storm the stage, I’ll demonstrate the same lack of courage.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Rewarding behavior reinforces it and elicits more of it.
Knuckling under to riots, threats, and intimidation will only produce more of same. We are teaching them that IT WORKS. Want respect? Use threats and violence.
If the West is going to hand the keys over to the Islamists, this is how it begins.
April 14th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Why is it that if I have the right to offend someone, everyone is claiming that I’m obligated to do so? Prior to the cartoon flap, did any of you want to make images of Mohammed? Why are you wanting to do so now, when you know that the only reason you’re doing it is to make a group mad?
Comedy Central may be bullies (I certianly don’t like South Park’s repeated jabs at Catholicism), but how are we not bullies if we’re doing something intentionally to offend others for no other reason than to offend them? How are we better?
Yeah, someone’s going to make the point, “Hey, but Tim, when they showed the episode of a statue of the Virgin Mary bleeding out the butt, you didn’t riot.” No, I just turned the damn thing off midway through and went on with my life. I think the point that we’re a better society than radical middle eastern Islam has already been proven, what with our flushing toilets and freedom of religion. The lack of riots over Jesus defecating on the American flag proves nothing that we didn’t already know.
I also think that if the episode had been shown uncensored, we wouldn’t have had riots here in America, because again, we’re a better society and we don’t have a large number of radical Muslims. Instead, we’ve got kind, peace-loving Muslims whom I imagine are getting a little pissed off that everyone here wants to keep doing things for no other reason than to show they’ve got the right to piss them off.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I don’t really need to lectured about “what goes on” in television since I’ve worked at a TV station. Actually, I’ve worked in a lot of settings, and both individuals and entities can exhibit moral courage, which you scoff at so dismissively. Frankly, your tone is such that you’re appearing pretty darn dismissive of someone bringing that up. What’s up with that? This isn’t a religious concept I’m bringing up, but rather an ethical one. Is it being put in quotation marks because you think it’s a quaint concept, a religious one, or merely a stupid idea?
We ask corporations of all types to examine their ethics all of the time, and to operate more ethically. We’ve even done that when it’s counter to their strictly business interests.
The television world–broadcast, no less, which requires more audience and higher ratings than cable–has displayed moral courage many times in its history. I fail to see why what I’m saying is so controversial here.
How about I just apologize for bringing up the concept (and especially for the way I phrased the original comment–the wow part) and drop it.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:53 am
It’s interesting how this is one point (relatively minor in my perception, though others may disagree) where I diverge a bit from the views of many other libertarian hawks. I think it’s right to avoid antagonistic imagery – but not because it will offend terrorists, but rather because it shows disrespect for those Muslims who are utterly unconnected to terrorism.
Ideally, I’d want CC to permit some clever image that manages to simultaneously flip the bird to terrorists and still respect the sensibilities of all other Muslims.
Which means I think it was also poor taste to instead show imagery offensive to Christians instead. And during the Palm Sunday-Easter week, no less.
However: South Park is pretty much well-known to be Offensive Territory, so anyone who ventures there without a thick skin deserves the poking they get. Moreover, CC’s words and actions (”in light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision”; offending one religion it knew it could get away with, rather with one it couldn’t) betray its motive. They’re not being brave.
But then, to be fair, they’re also not necessarily being cowardly. Suppose you’re a CC exec with the power to make this decision, and you decide to show the episode anyway. One week later, an angry mob of Muslim boys breaks into one of CC’s studios and kills 20 studio staffers. (You, being an exec, were miles away in an office building with security.) How brave would you feel then?
April 14th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Did they realy censor out Mohammed, or are CC and SouthParks writer pulling a joke on us all. Remember the “Super Friends” showed all the deities. If they are afraid, I doubt if this episode will ever be seen again. Also, alot of wingnuts/biblethumpers are calling for their own jihad because Jesus crapped on GW during the Holy week. We need to laugh at alQuaeda and the Biblethumpers both, if not religous intolerance (Christian and Islamic) wins.
April 14th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Rudi –
CC has acknowledged that they censored the image of Mohammed out of fear. FEAR – not economics, not religious tolerance, but FEAR.
Great, now that the prescendent is set – any religion or group of people can prevent public debate thru terroristic means.
This is a slippery slope and I believe that those who dismiss this as a non-issue are in complete denial.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
It’s despicable that bigots like Rudi have the audacity to draw some kind of equivalence between al Qaeda and Christians. I haven’t heard of any Christian “jihad” over the broadcasting of Jesus crapping on GWB during Holy Week. And even if some whacko did call for jihad, do you honestly think anyone is going to lose their head because of it?
CC is just as pathetic. They seem to have plenty of intestinal fortitude to offend Christians, but can’t stomach “offending” Muslims. How nauseating is it to watch some CC comedians preen as they deliver “social commentary” jokes about GWB or Christians? I don’t see how “speaking truth to power” is supposed to make them appear brave in our society, wherein virtually no danger of physical retaliation exists for their expressions of outrage or criticisms of our government and/or Christian institutions. If they truly had the courage of their convictions they would “speak truth” (or, in the case of CC, allow others like SP, to) about the real threat to our freedoms–Islamofascism.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Larry,
I don’t think Rudi was equating Islam and Christianity, as much as he was advocating equal opportunity ridicule. I also don’t think you needed to call him a bigot or despicable. That was a little overreactive, don’t you think? WWJD?
April 17th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
There is both peacefull Christians and Moslems. I don’t recall any riots in the US over the Danish cartoons. Radical fringes of all religions take spiritual thought to promote their dogma. I saw Catholic League president William Donohue hyperventalating over the SouthPark show. Relax, it is a cartoon that lampoons both conservative and liberal people and thoughts. Barabra Streisand is a favorite of SP ridicule. Like I said before, where was the uproar over the “Super Friends” episode. Donahue and Terry Randall are more dangerous than Cat Stevens.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:50 am
This certainly makes a good point. I’d like to see the response of others on this topic. Makes interesting reading.