Whitlock begins his article by stating that he should be the vessel through which all public racial comments deemed inappropriate, should go through in order to be aired on television. Right off the bat, Whitlock reveals his stance on the subject, joking that following comments made by a MLB network newscaster, Matt Vasgersian, “provoked our lawmakers into creating a Racial Apology Czar” (Whitlock). The joking done by the rhetor ridicules the subject he is arguing about, and makes racial apologies for mild jokes seem utterly ridiculous. The reader gets the sense that the entire topic is simply a joke, and that it is not even worth getting worked up over.
Whitlock goes on to say that “Well, that brief moment of silence is all a few bloggers needed to justify turning Vasgersian's poorly-timed quip into a Vasgersian-believes-all-black-people-look-alike controversy” (Whitlock), juxtaposing his previous feelings that the topic is indeed a joke. The rhetor opens up his article with a bang, making an elaborate joke out of Vasgersian’s circumstance regarding his own racial joke on national television that no one lauged at. Since bloggers can make a lot out of a little, Whitlock argues, it is imperative that these apologies go through some higher authority that is able to make the decision on what to say following any seemingly inappropriate jokes or comments made about minorities.
A cynical view of the broadcasting and television world in general is then put forth. This sparks the readers’ interest further by making him or her think about just what they can about it. An example of another slip-up concerning inappropriate comments on television is then given. “Broadcasters and entertainers appear on television at their own risk, realizing they're an innocent slip of the tongue from having a publicity-seeking "citizen journalist" channel their inner Al Sharpton and frame a perfectly acceptable joke into an Al Campanis moment.” Whitlock uses words such as innocent and perfectly acceptable, heavily defending the wrongdoing broadcaster.
This cynicism is backed up by the rhetor’s own opinion on the controversy surrounding Vasgersian’s joke. He concludes that the person joked about as looking like star NFL quarterback Donovan McNabb did indeed look like him. Whitlock goes on to say “I know I'm not the only one who chuckled when Vasgersian pointed it out” (Whitlock). The rhetor states that since the evidence for punishment of the broadcaster, Vasgersian, if a public apology was not given, is simply not enough, that Vasgersian has the right to “scream Kiss My Ass during his next MLB Network appearance” (Whitlock).
The use of crude language further pushes the envelope that the entire topic is a big joke. Readers get the sense that the rhetor does not take seriously the power of the public in pushing controversial statements to the forefront and getting people fired on account of cancelled viewership or general complaints. Nevertheless, Whitlock does get serious and states that no racial joke is the same, that “there are no hard and fast rules” (Whitlock). He states that what may be a harmless joke to some may be very offensive to others. He then uses an example of famous basketball player and broadcaster Charles Barkley’s comments concerning Barkley’s “hatred” of white people. The statement was a joke, and Whitlock makes that clear by giving an example of what he used to say to people who “pretended to be upset by Barkley's quip, ‘Marry a black woman, have a kid and I won't get offended when you joke, 'I hate black people' ‘’ (Whitlock).
The rhetor, in conformity with the rest of his rant, does not do well here to reassure that he respects the opinions of the majority. He makes good points, in that people should indeed not be offended by a simple joke, but to say that those people he knew were pretending to be mad is a foolish statement to make in an article regarding the foolishness of the public getting angry after hearing mild racist jokes on TV. Whitlock should have instead simply stated that the racist jokes go both ways. Both black and white people experience them and both black and white people make them up on national television in front of millions of racially sensitive Americans.
In conclusion to his rant, the rhetor gives one last example where two white broadcasters made a bad judgment call concerning a statement about a black broadcaster texting a white woman late at night. Whitlock points out that the text was made during “booty-call hours” (Whitlock). This type of language suggests that the statement by the white broadcasters weren’t simply speaking out of context. The slang helps to accuse the black broadcaster of indeed committing some type of moral crime in attempting to hook up with a woman whom he may or may not have been in a relationship with. Nevertheless, Whitlock defends the black broadcaster, stating that his white accusers weren’t racist, but that they were simply “hating” (Whitlock).
Whitlock reveals a black man’s opinion on the very hot subject of racial comments and jokes in public, and what should be done to deal with such racism, whether one agrees it is negative or not. The use of slang and appeals to popular figures and emotions in his article really makes his audience think hard concerning the use of racially charged statements in public television, particularly in the sports world, where the most popular spectator sports are dominated by minority athletes. Whitlock concludes his article with an example of when two white people, in the rhetor’s own opinion, were simply “hating” on a black man and disregarding certain “man laws.” This slang also appeals to the common sports fan, helping him get his point across by allowing readers to relate to his thoughts concerning the issue of racism in the sports world.
No comments:
Post a Comment