Who's Responsible?
June 21, 2001
7:24 a.m.
I attended a small convention a few years ago. It was a fairly big deal for me back then because two prominent editors in the field were there, and I was pretty much a neophyte unknown who hadn't managed to put a whole lot out ... kinda like I am now only more so. So I went, and I went to panels they talked at and I rubbed elbows and did all the schmoozy things that newbies are supposed to do. The two editors were sitting on a panel when I asked them if they ever ran into ethical or moral problems in regard to the content of the material they buy. Specifically, I used a Marilyn Manson video--"Sweet Dreams" I think it was at the time, but I really don' remember--as an example. Now, let me stop to say that I actually do like Manson's rendition of "Sweet Dreams." It's interesting, and it's different, and it's well done. The video, as I remember it though, is really disturbing with lots of blood and weirdness. At the time of the convention, Brigid was maybe seven. I remember having seen that video and being really concerned about content because I knew she was nowhere near ready for seeing such a thing, and I had been struck with the program director's decision to air it. To be fair I believe it only aired at late night. This, however, is only a band-aid since no one can say what the daily cycle of every individual is. I see no reason to think that the kids of a famiy that works night shift wouldn't be up and awake at those hours ... but that's just me. (Of course, I see Catherine just noted that her child was watching a movie up past midnight, so in a case of synchronicity, my point is proven) Let me say that I'm also not advocating censorship--though I think we get the argument all wrong here in America. If MTV had chosen not to air Manson's piece, it would not have been censorship, but rejection. Censorship is an act of government done specifically to erase a piece of work that has already been created, or to squash its ever being created. Censorship is an act of government that is based on keeping a fact from being distributed due to its affect on politics. I'll give you that lobbying groups that pressure companies to block publication of some book or fact or work of art is at least "intent" to censor or something close to it. But an independent company choosing what to publish and what not to publish based on their own standards--especially when they are taking no action to keep other publishing houses from publishing whatever they want to publish--is not censorship. A person can ALWAYS publish his own material, and can ALWAYS distribute it assuming they have the money to do so. I would argue that controversial content is the primary reason that may small presses actually exist ... but I digress ... Anyway, there I was at this convention. I asked my question. The first reaction was from the audience, which was almost unanimous in their angst at the fact that I even asked the question. How could I suggest such egregious, authoritarian behavior? When finally the two editors got around to answering the question, they basically shrugged their shoulders and said (and I paraphrase) "If it will sell, we'll publish it." The answer did not surprise me.   I had almost forgotten this event until yesterday when I saw that two Dallas DJs had been fired for broadcasting the fake deaths of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. I had heard about the hoax and the commotion it had caused a few days prior, and so the news that these two had been fired came as no real shock either. But I scanned the news report out of generic interest. I'm like that, you know? I'll take thirty seconds to dip into something I don't really care much about just to see the details. Maybe it's a writer thing. maybe just human inquisitiveness. I don't know. But what caught my eye was that this news event had not been something that just came up on the spur of the moment, but was, instead, something planned out well in advance. In fact, it had been (and here's the important part) approved by the program director. To me, this changes almost everything. Two loose cannon DJs who take it on their own to cause such a furor may or may not deserve to be fired. But I don't understand how the radio station can possibly fire two people who have followed a script that their management has approved. This, to me, is a problem. "If it will sell, we'll publish it." Who is accountable here? Who should pay the price? Two DJs are without jobs today--which you may find acceptable or not. But I wonder what the program director is up to... Think about it a little.  Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
BACK TO 
|