04-23-2007, 06:14 PM
YOU COULD HAVE ALSO USED A DIFFERENT COLOR TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DIFFERENTIATE.
CNN AND ESPN AREN'T REALLY UNDER THE FCC. THEY ARE CABLE CHANNELS THAT DON'T AIR OVER PUBLICLY OWNED WAVELENGTHS. WHETHER OR NOT ABC OR NBC AIRED THE SAME REMARKS WITHOUT CENSORING THEMSELVES, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF THEY DID PROB WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.
Well, I did say “every news outlet” and just used those two channels because I know for sure I heard it quoted on them since that’s where I happened to see it. I didn’t actually see it on ABC/NBC but I can assume with 99% certainty that if the phrase was quoted, it was done so unedited.
THIS IS PRETTY TRUE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE DON'T FOLLOW IMUS ONLY SEE WHATS ON OTHER NEWS CHANNELS ABOUT HIM, OR WHAT OTHER MEDIA HEADS ARE SAYING, AND QUITE FRANKLY MOST DON'T LIKE HIM, SO ITS PUT IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. THEY DON'T MENTION THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ARE IN A COMEDY SETTING. WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA.
That’s another thing I didn’t even touch on because it had been said enough over and over again already. The show is a comedy show and even if you think the words he said were offensive, the context should still matter. It’s not as if he had been insulting the team and/or blacks in general for the entire show. If I remember correctly, Imus’ previous statement was something along the lines of, “those are some tough girls.” And you can even tell in the tone of the dreaded NHH line that there was no hate or rage or disgust in his voice. It wasn’t meant to hurt or demean anyone.
EVERYTHING IS ABOUT CONTEXT. ARE YOU REALLY NOT ARGUING THAT IMUS'S WORDS WERE IN CONTEXT NOT HATEFUL, BUT ON A COMEDY SETTING? THATS WHAT MY ARGUMENT, AND WHAT I BELIEVE ANYONE WHO KNOW'S IMUS AND WHAT HIS REAL INTENTIONS WERE TO BE, WERE ABOUT ITS CONTEXT. SO THEN WHATS DIFFERENT THEN A BLACK PERSON SAYING IT TO ANOTHER BLACK PERSON, AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT THEN, BUT NOT UNDERSTANDING IT WHEN A WHITE PERSON SAYS IT, OR IN THIS CASE, MOST LIKELY BEING TOLD WHAT A WHITE PERSON SAID BUT ALSO BEING TOLD IT WAS SAID BY A RACIST COWBOY? I DON'T KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK YOU ARE I WILL EVER BE IN A SITUATION TO UNDERSTAND THEIR THINKING. BUT IT HAS BECOME SOMETHING COMPANIES HAVE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND. SO, YOU CAN EITHER WORK FOR A COMPANY LIKE THAT, OR NOT. YOU CAN LISTEN TO TV/RADIO SHOWS THAT TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR NOT.
Yes, obviously context has a lot to do with it. If Dave Chappelle and Carlos Mencia can ayaggh3h0o3098fbdkklrinrnghevag3ngn 80@**# BLAH BLAH BLAH you know how this sentence is going to end. I just got bored of reading everybody citing the same argument so didn’t bother even going there. I’m not saying that Imus is a racist (though I’m not saying he isn’t one) or that he was trying to do anything other than make a comedic observation. He’s probably offended every group of people imaginable over the last 30 years; what makes this offense so much greater?
AGAIN, THIS CAN BE ARGUED THAT ITS JUST THE MEDIA JUMPING ONTO SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER FOR RATINGS, ALSO, THERES ALREADY BEEN LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WENT AFTER RAP ALBUMS FOR THEIR "HARSH" WORDS AND LOST. IF SHARPTON WENT AFTER IT ON THE LEVEL THEY DID, ESSENTIALLY ANTI-fREE SPEECH, HE KNOWS HE WOULD LOSE. BUT IF HE GOES AFTER IT A DIFFERENT LEVEL, WHICH HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REALLY DONE, IT JUST DOESN'T GET AS MUCH MEDIA COVERAGE. GOING AFTER IMUS IS SOMETHING MANY PEOPLE HAVE DONE BECAUSE ITS ON A COMMERCIAL LEVEL. HE GETS ADVERTISERS SCARED TO ADVERTISE WITH SOMEONE. THIS IS THE SAME THING CHRISTIAN GROUPS ATTEMPT TO DO WITH STERN AND OTHER RADIO PEOPLE. IF HE CAN GET THE RIGHT ISSUE THATS HITS THE RIGHT PEOPLE, ITS A LOT EASIER. THERE ARE NO ADVERTISERS ON HIP HOP ALBUMS. ITS THE RECORD COMPANIES AND PEOPLE WILLING TO BUY A GROUPS ALBUM AND GO TO THEIR SHOWS. AN INDIVIDUAL BUYING AN ALBUM IS A LOT MORE PRIVATE THAN A COMPANY ADVERTISING ON SOMEONES NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW.
I do agree the media coverage is vastly different for these two extremes. But, especially in light of these events, I don’t think Al Sharpton would have much problem gathering enough media attention towards a current event. He is obviously a man with a lot of power, so I’m sure if it were important enough to him he could crusade around on whatever show he wanted to to spread his message. I hate when people use this argument too, but it is very true: If a black radio host made the same comments, in the same context as Imus, there would be no controversy because all the Sharptons out there wouldn’t have cared. And this, once again, is racist in and of itself. The irony is that even if Sharpton weren’t a racist and did target Imus for all the “right” reasons, it wouldn’t matter. He goes about things and his demeanor is such a way that he comes across as being just as racist as the people he’s persecuting. Of course, the media does blow things way out of proportion, but that does not change the fact that he feeds off of their overreaction. He feeds off of the media by getting his face all over the media. Then angry white folks get mad at him for only being seen when a white man says something “derogatory”. It is a vicious cycle of racism that he perpetuates more than anyone.
Very true, it will probably be impossible to censor musicians as it is a different medium altogether. Part of Sharpton’s hip hop commentary makes mention of him talking to rappers about incorporating positive messages into their music and persona. Things like investing in a retirement plan, opening a savings account, the importance of education and politics. Yeah, that would sell. That’s what kids want to listen to. That commentary was written in 2002, how far has he got in his quest towards opening a real life Wu-Tang Financial? I’m not advocating Sharpton go after rappers with the same ferocity that he did Imus. I don’t think he should try to censor anybody. The words have been around long before Sharpton was born and will be around long after he is dead. His agenda shouldn’t be to eliminate the words, but to eliminate the way people react to the words. That’s the kind of education he should be trying to inject into the inner cities to curb gang related violence. By responding violently or aggressively to words, all you’re doing is making them more powerful.
AGAIN, AS LONG AS IT NOTS THE GOVERNMENT SAYING WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE SAID, ITS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. ITS A COMPANY ISSUE. YES, THERE ARE LIKE 5-10 BIG COMPANIES, EVEN LESS, THAT RUN MASS MEDIA RIGHT NOW. YES, THAT SUCKS FOR US. BUT THATS WHY THE INTERNET IS SO COOL RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK LISTENING TO WHAT THESE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES WANT US TO HEAR.
It may not be the government per se, but it is the big companies that happen to control government and politics that determine what can and cannot be said. An overwhelming majority of people polled believe Imus should not have been fired. But the people’s voice no longer matters; it is the big corporations that control this country that decided Imus’s fate. When these corporations have such a huge influence on the government, it does become an issue of free speech.
IT IS ALSO THE RIGHT OF A COMPANY TO SAY "WE DON'T WANT A PERCEIVED RACIST ON OUR AIRWAVES."
True enough. But this just feeds into the dumbing down and weakening of this country. Whatever happened to that disclaimer, “the views and opinions of blah blah blah do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of blah blah blah” It seems like such a formality to need such a disclaimer, but apparently it has become necessary. Apparently people have become so overly sensitive that they can no longer differentiate people’s individual opinions or thoughts. Do people sincerely believe that since Imus is a (perceived) racist, that Staples and Dunkin’ Donuts and whatever other sponsors dropped him, are companies full of racists? Randy Marsh said that niggers annoy him; does that mean that Viacom and its employees feel the same way? Of course not. The sponsors that fund the companies are too sensitive, which in turn makes the companies themselves too sensitive. The companies control the government which in turn becomes too sensitive. The government controls the people, and they become overly sensitive. A company has every right to terminate a perceived racist, but what it does is create a trickle down effect that creates a society of weak, ill-informed, overly sensitive zombies incapable of thinking for themselves. What all of this does is set a precedent that aids in reverting grown adults back into petty children squabbling over someone calling them a name. <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/am-nypd0424,0,5181074.story?coll=ny-top-headlines">Case in point.</a>
THIS AGAIN IS CAPITALISM. BLACKS WEREN'T PLEASED WITH THE WAY MAGAZINES WERE GEARED TOWARDS THEM, SO THEY CREATED THEIR OWN. OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES SOMEONE MONEY OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T STILL BE AROUND. I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THIS IS SEGREGATION BECAUSE BLACKS STILL VIEW MEDIA THAT ISN'T WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND WHITES ARE ALLOWED TO BUY/VIEW THE MEDIA THAT YOU MENTIONED. ITS A FREE MARKET.
I never claimed it to be segregation, just a counterproductive way of embracing integration. Of course it’s a free market. There is a supply and demand for these publications and that was the point of my argument. Whereas 40 years ago the demand was to be integrated and blend into white society, today the demand is to stand out from white society by reading these magazines that only focus on black issues. It is not segregation and they have every right to want to associate with things relevant to their race. But it just creates this whole mindset of wanting to be seen as different because of the color of your skin, rather than being equal despite of the color of your skin.
I THINK YOU LOOK DOWN ON THE RUTGERS GIRLS MORE THAN YOU SHOULD. THEY WEREN'T THE ONES WHO MADE A BIG DEAL OF THIS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ONLY CAME OUT WITH THEIR STATEMENTS BECAUSE ITS ALMOST LIKE THE MEDIA DEMANDED THEY DID. I THINK MOST OF MY COMMENTS SEEMED GEARED TOWARDS AN ANTI-MEDIA STANCE ON THIS, MOSTLY BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE THE MOST TO BLAME. SHARPTON CAN HAVE HIS WORDS AS MUCH AS IMUS, BUT THE REASON PEOPLE CARED WAS BECAUSE THE MEDIA MADE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY SHOULD. AND WHY? FOR RATINGS, WHICH AGAIN, IS A CAPITALIST THING. YOU LIVE AND DIE BY THE SYSTEM I GUESS.
I think we’re both arguing essentially the same thing. My point is that the comments were only offensive because people overreacted to simple words. Your point is that the comments were only offensive because the media, which is comprised of people, overreacted. I agree that the Rutgers hos didn’t make a big deal of it until after the media blew it up, because, well, otherwise they never would have known the comments were made in the first place. But they are just as guilty as Sharpton for feeding into the media frenzy by claiming to be shocked, appalled, and scarred for life. Yes, the media forced them to make a public statement. But they could have just as easily come out and, as I mentioned earlier, chalk up his comments as meaningless and irrelevant. The only reason the comments took anything away from their accomplishments is because they allowed it to have that effect. Even if they weren’t really offended and only said they were because it’s what was expected of them, that makes them every bit as guilty as the media themselves.
I don’t know how relevant this is, but I feel like pointing it out anyway. The whole controversy a couple years ago over the Native American mascot thing at colleges and universities. The media made a huge deal over how offensive and belittling the mascots and logos of the teams are. At some point, Native Americans from the tribes in question came out and they said it wasn’t a problem. They were proud to be represented and honored in that way and didn’t view it as offensive at all. Even after hearing that, the decision was still made to change the logos. This adds to the point that the media controls far too much. This was a simple issue that should have been handled between the schools and the tribes. But the media, acting as a third party in all of this, had to interject to tell people what they ought to be offended by.
CNN AND ESPN AREN'T REALLY UNDER THE FCC. THEY ARE CABLE CHANNELS THAT DON'T AIR OVER PUBLICLY OWNED WAVELENGTHS. WHETHER OR NOT ABC OR NBC AIRED THE SAME REMARKS WITHOUT CENSORING THEMSELVES, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF THEY DID PROB WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.
Well, I did say “every news outlet” and just used those two channels because I know for sure I heard it quoted on them since that’s where I happened to see it. I didn’t actually see it on ABC/NBC but I can assume with 99% certainty that if the phrase was quoted, it was done so unedited.
THIS IS PRETTY TRUE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE DON'T FOLLOW IMUS ONLY SEE WHATS ON OTHER NEWS CHANNELS ABOUT HIM, OR WHAT OTHER MEDIA HEADS ARE SAYING, AND QUITE FRANKLY MOST DON'T LIKE HIM, SO ITS PUT IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. THEY DON'T MENTION THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ARE IN A COMEDY SETTING. WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA.
That’s another thing I didn’t even touch on because it had been said enough over and over again already. The show is a comedy show and even if you think the words he said were offensive, the context should still matter. It’s not as if he had been insulting the team and/or blacks in general for the entire show. If I remember correctly, Imus’ previous statement was something along the lines of, “those are some tough girls.” And you can even tell in the tone of the dreaded NHH line that there was no hate or rage or disgust in his voice. It wasn’t meant to hurt or demean anyone.
EVERYTHING IS ABOUT CONTEXT. ARE YOU REALLY NOT ARGUING THAT IMUS'S WORDS WERE IN CONTEXT NOT HATEFUL, BUT ON A COMEDY SETTING? THATS WHAT MY ARGUMENT, AND WHAT I BELIEVE ANYONE WHO KNOW'S IMUS AND WHAT HIS REAL INTENTIONS WERE TO BE, WERE ABOUT ITS CONTEXT. SO THEN WHATS DIFFERENT THEN A BLACK PERSON SAYING IT TO ANOTHER BLACK PERSON, AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT THEN, BUT NOT UNDERSTANDING IT WHEN A WHITE PERSON SAYS IT, OR IN THIS CASE, MOST LIKELY BEING TOLD WHAT A WHITE PERSON SAID BUT ALSO BEING TOLD IT WAS SAID BY A RACIST COWBOY? I DON'T KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK YOU ARE I WILL EVER BE IN A SITUATION TO UNDERSTAND THEIR THINKING. BUT IT HAS BECOME SOMETHING COMPANIES HAVE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND. SO, YOU CAN EITHER WORK FOR A COMPANY LIKE THAT, OR NOT. YOU CAN LISTEN TO TV/RADIO SHOWS THAT TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR NOT.
Yes, obviously context has a lot to do with it. If Dave Chappelle and Carlos Mencia can ayaggh3h0o3098fbdkklrinrnghevag3ngn 80@**# BLAH BLAH BLAH you know how this sentence is going to end. I just got bored of reading everybody citing the same argument so didn’t bother even going there. I’m not saying that Imus is a racist (though I’m not saying he isn’t one) or that he was trying to do anything other than make a comedic observation. He’s probably offended every group of people imaginable over the last 30 years; what makes this offense so much greater?
AGAIN, THIS CAN BE ARGUED THAT ITS JUST THE MEDIA JUMPING ONTO SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER FOR RATINGS, ALSO, THERES ALREADY BEEN LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WENT AFTER RAP ALBUMS FOR THEIR "HARSH" WORDS AND LOST. IF SHARPTON WENT AFTER IT ON THE LEVEL THEY DID, ESSENTIALLY ANTI-fREE SPEECH, HE KNOWS HE WOULD LOSE. BUT IF HE GOES AFTER IT A DIFFERENT LEVEL, WHICH HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REALLY DONE, IT JUST DOESN'T GET AS MUCH MEDIA COVERAGE. GOING AFTER IMUS IS SOMETHING MANY PEOPLE HAVE DONE BECAUSE ITS ON A COMMERCIAL LEVEL. HE GETS ADVERTISERS SCARED TO ADVERTISE WITH SOMEONE. THIS IS THE SAME THING CHRISTIAN GROUPS ATTEMPT TO DO WITH STERN AND OTHER RADIO PEOPLE. IF HE CAN GET THE RIGHT ISSUE THATS HITS THE RIGHT PEOPLE, ITS A LOT EASIER. THERE ARE NO ADVERTISERS ON HIP HOP ALBUMS. ITS THE RECORD COMPANIES AND PEOPLE WILLING TO BUY A GROUPS ALBUM AND GO TO THEIR SHOWS. AN INDIVIDUAL BUYING AN ALBUM IS A LOT MORE PRIVATE THAN A COMPANY ADVERTISING ON SOMEONES NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW.
I do agree the media coverage is vastly different for these two extremes. But, especially in light of these events, I don’t think Al Sharpton would have much problem gathering enough media attention towards a current event. He is obviously a man with a lot of power, so I’m sure if it were important enough to him he could crusade around on whatever show he wanted to to spread his message. I hate when people use this argument too, but it is very true: If a black radio host made the same comments, in the same context as Imus, there would be no controversy because all the Sharptons out there wouldn’t have cared. And this, once again, is racist in and of itself. The irony is that even if Sharpton weren’t a racist and did target Imus for all the “right” reasons, it wouldn’t matter. He goes about things and his demeanor is such a way that he comes across as being just as racist as the people he’s persecuting. Of course, the media does blow things way out of proportion, but that does not change the fact that he feeds off of their overreaction. He feeds off of the media by getting his face all over the media. Then angry white folks get mad at him for only being seen when a white man says something “derogatory”. It is a vicious cycle of racism that he perpetuates more than anyone.
Very true, it will probably be impossible to censor musicians as it is a different medium altogether. Part of Sharpton’s hip hop commentary makes mention of him talking to rappers about incorporating positive messages into their music and persona. Things like investing in a retirement plan, opening a savings account, the importance of education and politics. Yeah, that would sell. That’s what kids want to listen to. That commentary was written in 2002, how far has he got in his quest towards opening a real life Wu-Tang Financial? I’m not advocating Sharpton go after rappers with the same ferocity that he did Imus. I don’t think he should try to censor anybody. The words have been around long before Sharpton was born and will be around long after he is dead. His agenda shouldn’t be to eliminate the words, but to eliminate the way people react to the words. That’s the kind of education he should be trying to inject into the inner cities to curb gang related violence. By responding violently or aggressively to words, all you’re doing is making them more powerful.
AGAIN, AS LONG AS IT NOTS THE GOVERNMENT SAYING WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE SAID, ITS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. ITS A COMPANY ISSUE. YES, THERE ARE LIKE 5-10 BIG COMPANIES, EVEN LESS, THAT RUN MASS MEDIA RIGHT NOW. YES, THAT SUCKS FOR US. BUT THATS WHY THE INTERNET IS SO COOL RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK LISTENING TO WHAT THESE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES WANT US TO HEAR.
It may not be the government per se, but it is the big companies that happen to control government and politics that determine what can and cannot be said. An overwhelming majority of people polled believe Imus should not have been fired. But the people’s voice no longer matters; it is the big corporations that control this country that decided Imus’s fate. When these corporations have such a huge influence on the government, it does become an issue of free speech.
IT IS ALSO THE RIGHT OF A COMPANY TO SAY "WE DON'T WANT A PERCEIVED RACIST ON OUR AIRWAVES."
True enough. But this just feeds into the dumbing down and weakening of this country. Whatever happened to that disclaimer, “the views and opinions of blah blah blah do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of blah blah blah” It seems like such a formality to need such a disclaimer, but apparently it has become necessary. Apparently people have become so overly sensitive that they can no longer differentiate people’s individual opinions or thoughts. Do people sincerely believe that since Imus is a (perceived) racist, that Staples and Dunkin’ Donuts and whatever other sponsors dropped him, are companies full of racists? Randy Marsh said that niggers annoy him; does that mean that Viacom and its employees feel the same way? Of course not. The sponsors that fund the companies are too sensitive, which in turn makes the companies themselves too sensitive. The companies control the government which in turn becomes too sensitive. The government controls the people, and they become overly sensitive. A company has every right to terminate a perceived racist, but what it does is create a trickle down effect that creates a society of weak, ill-informed, overly sensitive zombies incapable of thinking for themselves. What all of this does is set a precedent that aids in reverting grown adults back into petty children squabbling over someone calling them a name. <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/am-nypd0424,0,5181074.story?coll=ny-top-headlines">Case in point.</a>
THIS AGAIN IS CAPITALISM. BLACKS WEREN'T PLEASED WITH THE WAY MAGAZINES WERE GEARED TOWARDS THEM, SO THEY CREATED THEIR OWN. OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES SOMEONE MONEY OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T STILL BE AROUND. I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THIS IS SEGREGATION BECAUSE BLACKS STILL VIEW MEDIA THAT ISN'T WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND WHITES ARE ALLOWED TO BUY/VIEW THE MEDIA THAT YOU MENTIONED. ITS A FREE MARKET.
I never claimed it to be segregation, just a counterproductive way of embracing integration. Of course it’s a free market. There is a supply and demand for these publications and that was the point of my argument. Whereas 40 years ago the demand was to be integrated and blend into white society, today the demand is to stand out from white society by reading these magazines that only focus on black issues. It is not segregation and they have every right to want to associate with things relevant to their race. But it just creates this whole mindset of wanting to be seen as different because of the color of your skin, rather than being equal despite of the color of your skin.
I THINK YOU LOOK DOWN ON THE RUTGERS GIRLS MORE THAN YOU SHOULD. THEY WEREN'T THE ONES WHO MADE A BIG DEAL OF THIS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ONLY CAME OUT WITH THEIR STATEMENTS BECAUSE ITS ALMOST LIKE THE MEDIA DEMANDED THEY DID. I THINK MOST OF MY COMMENTS SEEMED GEARED TOWARDS AN ANTI-MEDIA STANCE ON THIS, MOSTLY BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE THE MOST TO BLAME. SHARPTON CAN HAVE HIS WORDS AS MUCH AS IMUS, BUT THE REASON PEOPLE CARED WAS BECAUSE THE MEDIA MADE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY SHOULD. AND WHY? FOR RATINGS, WHICH AGAIN, IS A CAPITALIST THING. YOU LIVE AND DIE BY THE SYSTEM I GUESS.
I think we’re both arguing essentially the same thing. My point is that the comments were only offensive because people overreacted to simple words. Your point is that the comments were only offensive because the media, which is comprised of people, overreacted. I agree that the Rutgers hos didn’t make a big deal of it until after the media blew it up, because, well, otherwise they never would have known the comments were made in the first place. But they are just as guilty as Sharpton for feeding into the media frenzy by claiming to be shocked, appalled, and scarred for life. Yes, the media forced them to make a public statement. But they could have just as easily come out and, as I mentioned earlier, chalk up his comments as meaningless and irrelevant. The only reason the comments took anything away from their accomplishments is because they allowed it to have that effect. Even if they weren’t really offended and only said they were because it’s what was expected of them, that makes them every bit as guilty as the media themselves.
I don’t know how relevant this is, but I feel like pointing it out anyway. The whole controversy a couple years ago over the Native American mascot thing at colleges and universities. The media made a huge deal over how offensive and belittling the mascots and logos of the teams are. At some point, Native Americans from the tribes in question came out and they said it wasn’t a problem. They were proud to be represented and honored in that way and didn’t view it as offensive at all. Even after hearing that, the decision was still made to change the logos. This adds to the point that the media controls far too much. This was a simple issue that should have been handled between the schools and the tribes. But the media, acting as a third party in all of this, had to interject to tell people what they ought to be offended by.