Potential Media Censors on the warpath: MTV, BET are misrepresented targets of public outrage this time

In recent weeks, protesters have been gathering outside Viacom studio executives' houses to protest demeaning images of minorities on MTV and BET.

Now, I'm not going to say that these protesters are incorrect in saying that the images are degrading, nor do I want to denigrate their seemingly appropriate complaint. However, this is a strange demand:

"Among other things the protesters want media companies like Viacom to develop 'universal creative standards' for video and music, including prohibitions on some language and images."

Hmmm. . . didn't this already happen?


The question here lies in who is going to create the standards. Another protester explains, “A lot of rap isn’t rap anymore, it’s just people selling their souls," and while this may or may not be true, does this not seem like a matter of personal preference? Clearly, as was shown by Ms. Gore and her group in the example above, censorship does not end these violent and degrading images; much of popular music reflects the interests of the greater masses — this is why it's referred to as "popular music."

“Why are these corporations making these images normative and mainstream?” asked Mr. Coates, 34, a pastor of the Mount Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, Md. “I can talk about this in the church until I am blue in the face, but we need to take it outside.”

This is a fair argument, if the corporations were creating these images. However, the fact remains that these representations already are normative and mainstream for better or for worse; the corporations have a little thing called "market research," and they sell what is being bought. Granted, they might put something more wholesome on TV, but then they'd lose ratings. If you dislike the way this works, addressing the foundations of our economic system rather than those who are simply working as a part of it seems a more appropriate course of action. Also, while we're on the subject of propriety, going to these people's houses, where they probably live a separate life from the one behind their desks at Viacom, seems questionable.

In contrast, "'[Creating] standards is a coded way of exerting control on free expression,' said Todd Boyd, a professor of critical studies at the School of Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California. 'People are less interested in broad representation than in hand-picking the images they approve of.'" He continues by explaining, "'I believe everything is permissible in speech and imagery, [but that] doesn’t mean that I can’t object to it.' In a still-segregated society, he said, people often get their ideas about other groups from what they read, see and hear."

This is an unfortunate consequence, and I agree with the protesters on this account: the public has a very skewed image of what they understand as "urban" culture. At the same time, is it not every person's responsibility — if we're going to arbitrarily pin responsibility on people here — to become educated regarding the things they don't understand? It's not like the resources are unavailable.

The fact is that many people want to be prejudiced against hip-hop, and as a result, many artists, I'm sure, continue to make "offensive" music in order to perpetuate this prejudice as a protest of their own. In that context, there is not much being done from either side to learn about the other. However, censoring and ignoring this conflict seems to do very little to remedy the situation.

However, though I am taking a step way beyond my usual bounds in doing so, I will defend the Industry and say I don't think the "blame" falls on them. For example, "Viacom’s standards for language and images already prohibit some of the most common racial and gender slurs, gang symbols, gratuitous violence and drug use in music videos, said a spokeswoman, Kelly McAndrew. A statement from Viacom said in part the company was 'concerned about negative portrayals of African-Americans in the media' and takes a 'positive pro-active approach' with programming that respects freedom of expression and serves an audience with diverse interests."

In other words, they do keep an eye out for this, and maybe aren't even happy with the things that are being portrayed in the videos and on the records. The corporation is solely responsible for distributing them, and I, for one, appreciate the job they do (although the music on MTV and BET doesn't suit my particular appetite most to all of the time). In the end, then, the "issue" remains on the level between the artist and the viewer, and comes down to a matter of personal tastes.

Will that conflict ever be resolved? Probably not. But in the meantime, I think a more productive course of action would be to address the way we feel about things that are offensive to us and accept that they exist apart from us instead of marching off to some random stranger's house on a Saturday morning to try and make them purge the world of everything that is personally distasteful.