Comments (6)

1. 

   Follow
   Girlcrawl says Viewed the video and did not find Allen's questioning 'inapropriate' or 'offensive'; lacking a certain social graciousness perhaps, but his comments hardly rise to the level of 'highly offensive'. Actually sent an e-mail to the station supporting his right to freedom of speech. Am very concerned given ongoing attempts to limit people's right to free speech as outlined by The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These sort of attacks seem increasingly personal, and lacking in objectivity. Personally, I find such 'campaigns' distasteful and a form of biased censorship. Seems popular as of late, but demanding that persons be fired or feel threatened because they do not express themselves within a rather narrow 'politically correct' paradigm is quite a dangerous slope. Another point: I've always believed that if persons claim to be offended then the burden of proof is upon those who feel offended to articulate why (specific, rational reasons) they have taken offense to something or someone. There is nothing wrong with people expressing valid grievances or injuries, but there should be adequate justifications and clearly stated reasonings for doing so, especially if those claiming to have suffered offense then seek to cause harm (loss of employment, humiliation, character assasination, etc.) to the person or persons believed to have committed the offense. What displeases one individual or group of individuals may not be seen as offensive by everyone. Here's a site I particularly favour: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ A well-written article by Michael Gartner entitled 'Those who'd rein in speech should read E.B. White' (pertinent to the points I've made, but it specifically addresses 'tyrants' attempting to limit or control political speech in America): http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15191 Cheers.

   Permalink posted 10/16/2007
2. 

   Follow
   Girlcrawl says Meant to add that I did find his comments remote from the subject at hand which, of course, was the film's release - thought that Tyler Perry effectively dismissed the interjected 'superbowl' incident as topic, and directed the interview back to its appropriate or central topic.

   Permalink posted 10/16/2007
3. 

   Follow
   2Serenity says Thank you for sharing your observation. However, if you listen to the very end of the video it states that the parties agreed to only discuss the movie they were promoting which is Tyler Perry's movie, Why Did I Get Married. This is where I have issue because I feel that the Superbowl fiasco has been put to bed. Janet make a public apology which I felt should have been jointly with Justin Timberlake but he has never come clean with her in jointly discussing this incident on television. He apologized to her but it was too late. Months later. This broadcaster wanted to make an example out of Janet Jackson by defaming her on his show by using the reference of her wearing "iron suspenders" in the future. I found this to be highly offensive to be used by someone who is to be reporting facts and not giving an opinion. The beginning of the interview is all factual if you listen to the questions asked of Tyler Perry and Janet Jackson. When the broadcaster went into his Superbowl tirade then that is where I wanted to draw the time. That was not on the subject matter that they agreed to be discussed in their interview. Tyler Perry came to Janet's aid everytime the broadcaster continued to ask questions outside of the scope of their interview. This is where I was getting frustrated in listening to this broadcaster attempt to badger Janet. Further, I have worked in television and his decorum was completely harsh, brash and in your face from anyone I had worked with. This man is a complete jerk. I actually have no idea how he could be employed with his obnoxious behavior. I know I would not hire anyone that arrogant to work for my television station if he cannot tone it down. This was a local channel and not cable television. No wonder this particular tv show is on early in the morning because if he were on the regular news I would never watch it. But that is the great thing about television you can choose to turn on and turn off what you like. But, I felt that as a journalist this man had a duty to be calm and respectful of the person he interviews. I do not feel as though he had any respect for himself or for Janet and that is why many of my friends have written in to the television station where we have voiced our unfavorable opinion of the broadcaster. What really turned me off though is that as a woman watching this video, why would this male broadcaster man jump into Janet's face and make her out as the main cause of what happened at the Superbowl? None of use know what really went down. Just remember there were two people involved in this situation. Justin was at fault just as much as Janet and I am really tired of everyone putting the blame only on Janet. You never hear anyone yelling out about Justin Timberlake. Justin Timberlake never came to Janet's aid in this situation. He apologized to her months later. I wonder if this broadcaster would use this decorum if he interviewed Justin Timberlake? I do believe in Freedom of Speech but there are boundaries especially when it comes to reporting the news. For me, I am someone who prefers getting the facts first accurately if at all possible. There are many limits in how Freedom of Speech is expressed though. I have studied this area of the law and it can be complex in how it is interpreted in many venues. First Amendment issues are always going to be debated and interpreted in various ways. But, there truly needs to be some type of ethical standards that media journalists use when interviewing subjects. Look at how the paparazzi has gotten away with the frenzy of taking photographs of anyone at any time? I am so tired of hearing of certain celebrities every minute but the paparazzi gets away with this. At some point some people need privacy and this includes the obsession with celebrity culture. The main issue though here is that the parties agreed to discuss the movie and the broadcaster felt it was best to just jump into another area which was not agreed upon for their interview. That is why Janet did the best thing in keeping quiet because the broadcaster made himself look bad. If Angeline Jolie were badgered this way on television by this broadcaster about her questionable past, this would make front page news. Why? She is America's darling. But because of all the negativity that the world wants to infer from the Superbowl situation few are aware of this bad Janet Jackson interview. I appreciate your thoughts but that is just how I see it.

   Permalink posted 10/16/2007
4. 

   Follow
   Girlcrawl says Excellent; I knew you had it in you. That is sort of reasoned response I was hoping my provocation might elicit. Think it's important when one criticises, and especially if spurring others to take action based on an perceived wrongdoing, to offer concrete reasoning as to why one feels justified in taking offense. Unfortunately, perhaps half of those who would feel compelled to fire off a complaint would do so in a knee-jerk reactionary way without examining whether your perception/accusation was sensible or accurate...more so if there's an implied allegation that the 'disrespect' stemmed from racist and/or sexist biases. I do not feel he exhibited racism or that his attitude toward Jackson was racist whatsoever, but I would agree that his behaviour demonstrated sexism. There are several points I would like to respond to if you have no objections. Am pressed for time at the moment, so I shall leave it up to you. Appreciate that you took the time and effort to articulate why you viewed the interview as offensive. Such clarification enables me, at least better than before, to understand your perspective. Will add that I am not defending Allen's interviewing tactics as I felt he was abrasive, tactless, and without point, however, I am defending his right to free speech and consequently to behave as a jack-ass. Thanks again for the response, and cheers.

   Permalink posted 10/18/2007
5. 

   Follow
   2Serenity says He admitted to being a jack-ass and apologized. I rest my case. Here ya go: http://cbs13.com/video/?id=25898

   Permalink posted 10/18/2007
6. 

   Follow
   Girlcrawl says Posting one's ideas, beliefs, and/or agendas on an open forum such as MOG invites others to debate and offer differing, sometimes challeging, viewpoints. It will often reveal the limits and impediments to true discourse as well...I shall respect your wishes. Though the link doesn't particularly interest me, thanks for sharing just the same. Congratulations on having the 'offending' issue resolved to your satisfaction.

   Permalink posted 10/20/2007

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Email

Password

Remember me on this computer

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!