Dangerous Dan

1/22/2007

The Other “F-Word”?

Filed under: General,Media,Society — Dangerous Dan @ 12:18 am

While I'm talking about vapid entertainment news, another recent brouhaha has embroiled Grey's Anatomy's Isaiah Washington.  According to reports, back in October while on-set, Washington referred to his co-star, T.R. Knight, as a 'faggot.'  Knight is gay.  Though this wasn't publicly known as the time, it seemingly was the cast and crew.  The incident was apparently privately resolved when it happened.

Earlier this month, however, it started prickling entertainment reporters' ears and then Washington was asked about it backstage at the Golden Globes, to which he replied, "No, I did not call T.R. a faggot.  Never happened, never happened."  People are now demanding Washington's head for uttering the term at the Globes… not so much for the angry invocation of it in October.

This is bizarre.  Washington wasn't using it maliciously on the latter occasion, he was using it in context (and denying its use at that, lending to his dislike of the term) as prodded by reporters.  While I quite agree that the word is inappropriate, I also think it should still be used given the proper contexts, such as, "One should not refer to someone as a 'faggot.'"  Given the uproar with Washington, however, it seems improper to use it in even this way.  Washington in his lengthy mea culpa, for example, apologizes for "using a word that is unacceptable in any context or circumstance."  If this is the case, then I cannot but wonder why no uproar has arisen against media outlets that reprinted the term.  Weren't they also quoting or using it in context as Washington was?

It seems that 'faggot' is now going the way of 'nigger' in that the term is so frighteningly offensive, it can only be referred and alluded to by some silly euphemism.  For the latter, it's 'the n-word.'  Unfortunately for the former, 'the f-word' is already taken by another very versatile obscenity, so it will have to come up with something else. 

Let me be clear that I am against the malicious and/or discriminatory use of either term and both should be used with some prudence.  But it seems simply ridiculous that any term should be so loaded with meaning, that no one dare utter it, even when it's being quoted or used in a context such as the above.  Using a euphemism for it is akin to a child using gustatory terms to refer to his/her personal anatomy.  Words are not to be feared, only their improper use.  The euphemisms already do language an injustice.

The argument has been made that the euphemism for 'nigger' is used because the term is so fraught with hideous meanings and implications that sensible African-Americans and anybody with a reasonable conscience will and/or should have fainting spells upon hearing it.  Poppycock.  The euphemism actually succeeds in a strange paradox in that it strengthens the fear of the word while simultaneously removing it's meaning.  People come to fear the word itself for the use of the euphemism makes it plain that the term is to be feared.  At the same time, the meaning of the actual term slips away as it is never directly used in any context.  The word itself is feared and not what it stood for.  It's becoming a linguistic 'boo!' – something that is itself supposed to frighten though it has no real meaning.

As best as I can remember, the use of the 'N-word' euphemism first came into vogue during the O.J. Simpson trial.  Detective Mark Fuhrman was on tape using it numerous times and the media outlets felt queasy using it context.  While I don't care at the moment to wade through the transcripts, I believe Simpson's attorney, Johnnie Cochran, used it in the trial.  This was a brilliant act of courtroom theatrics since he was trying to discredit Fuhrman.  By acting as though the word were so offensive to him and civilized people that he could only allude to it by a euphemism just made it seem so much magnificently worse than anyone imagined, and Fuhrman that much more of a monster for having said it, thereby completely impugning his character.  How curious that the euphemism was given birth and popularity in the cynical, theatrical service of freeing a double-murderer.  Not an auspicious birth, to be sure.

1/21/2007

American Idol Flack

Filed under: General,Media,Society — Dangerous Dan @ 11:25 pm

Ah, it's American Idol time.  This is when the show starts up with plenty of bad singers, fame-coveting no-names, and twits who just want to get on TV, show up and perform poorly while the few talented make it through to further potential cuts.  This is also the time when people start whining about how mean the judges are.  It's now become an annual rite as some are complaining about comments made during the auditions that were televised last week.  This is all somewhat amusing because I remember quite well last season when there were complaints about how mean the judges were being, how it was much meaner than in the past, etc. – pretty much everything being said now.  The public has a short memory.

The lead whiner is The View's Rosie O'Donnell.  Rosie is apparently a human PR machine for The View as she has made a habit of picking fights with other quasi-celebrities and utterly manufacturing controversy where there none existed.  Thus far, she has publicly feuded with Kelly Ripa, Donald Trump, The View's own Barbara Walters, and now American Idol.  Be warned not to peek inside Rosie's teapots lest yea be blown away by the tempests.

All that said, yes, American Idol is a silly, somewhat unfair show.  At each city audition, there's one or two rounds of cuts before people get to see Randy, Paula, and Simon.  Plenty of talented people are assuredly turned away in those cuts, and many clearly talentless self-deceived people are sent through for the sole purpose of being ridiculed by the judges and the American public.  It's a talent show, but it's also a reality show and events are unfairly manipulated for TV.  Once you realize this and get past the hang-ups, it's possible to be entertained by it.  I am entertained and I know it's quite silly; I am entertained because I know it's quite silly.  I am as much amused by the absurdity of it all as by the amount or dearth of talent.

As to Rosie's comment that the American public doesn't like the fare being provided by the show, this seems to be an eminently disprovable statement through empirical evidence: the two shows last week had nearly 40 million viewers.

Powered by WordPress