"LAW & DISORDER: Law &
Order creator Dick Wolf is blasting NBC for its
decision to bar Wednesday's
controversial "ripped from the headlines"
episode from future airings.
Latino activists complained that the episode
sensationalized last summer's
"wilding" spree in New York's Central Park
during the Puerto Rican Day
Parade. "The bedrock of American democracy is
free speech and lack of censorship,"
Wolf said. "The network has caved in to
the demands of a special interest
group and I am extremely disappointed with
this decision, about which
I was not consulted, as I think it sets an
extremely dangerous precedent."
In an interview with The Associated Press,
Manuel Mirabal, head of the
National Puerto Rican Coalition, countered that,
"Every Puerto Rican shown in
that show was portrayed negatively as a
criminal, as a delinquent,
as someone who abuses women." In a statement, NBC
said: "We sincerely apologize
for offending members of the Latino community
regarding the portrayal of
Latinos and the Puerto Rican Day parade... we
have agreed not to repeat the
episode on NBC."
Now, this bothers
me for a number of reasons. I missed that episode because I was out with
Rob at a business dinner. I can't comment on the exact episode, but I can
say as an avid viewer of the show that the show has a long history of being
genuinely diverse without succumbing to political correctness or tokenism.
It constantly addresses truly controversial issues in an honest and compelling
way. Anyone who has seen more than two episodes of the show would know
that it is far from being two dimensional or re-inforcing stereotypes.
It challenges every stereotype and pre conception out there.
The other
thing that bothers me is the blatant censorship. Sure, right now it's episodes
that are insulting to the National Puerto Rican Coalition. Just like the
episode of Seinfeld was pulled for the same reason. (1) But the fact is,
it's up for each individual to decide whether they're offended or not.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to watch it, but that doesn't
mean you have the right to take away my ability to view the episode. And
right now, censorship is beind advocated under the pretense of "sensitivity"
but really it's all about precedent. Some time in the future, and it probably
won't be too far off, censorship will be done against the very same
people it's being done to supposedly "support". Do you think NBC, or for
that matter any of the major networks or the media really care about you?
No, they know that this is a very trendy country. Society develops its
sense of right and wrong but here in the states, we're very big on backlash,
we're very big on constant reversals. And when that happens, it's going
to be every so called "special interest" (2) group that gets censored.
Yes boys and girls, every time you advocate censorship for something you
believe in you are essentially taking the rope they have handed you, making
the noose yourself.
There's
a lot of two dimensional stereotypes out there. Sure, there's a lot in
Hollywood that would depict Sicilians as a bunch of blood thirsty mobsters.
I realize this, but I also realize that it's my choice not to watch it.
I also realize this is basically entertainment. To think that anyone will
hear my last name and thing I have mob connections is about as likely as
anyone thinking those are real people on Springer(3) or that Boston Public
actually is a realistic impression of teachers in an inner city public
school or that the characters on Will and Grace fully encompass the gay
community.
Am I saying
that makes it okay? Am I saying that there is really an honest portrayal
of Puerto Ricans on network television?
No. I am saying
that it is up to the individual to decide whether something is offensive.
That it is extremely dangerous to advocate what is acceptable viewing and
what is not. I'm saying that protesting every episode of television on
the networks will only result in the most sterile, two dimensional portrayals
and will stifle free speech. It won't prevent racial stereotyping or bring
more diversity to television.
So what
will?
First of all,
good programming. Yes, I know that's a lot to ask but for the sake of argument
let's say it's possibly to have network television regularly depict characters
of substance, and have shows where the majority of the plotlines don't
insult our intelligence. The first step is to have storylines that actually
require good writing.
Secondly,
no more tokenism. Let's have shows with a diverse cast where not every
African-American on the show is expected to summarize some collective opinion.
We've moved from the two dimensional stereotypes of the 70s and 80s and
gone toward the politically correct stereotypes of the 21st century. But
let's face it, there is no pre packaged thoughts, we aren't these plastic
creatures whose entire belief systems are based on what category we can
be easily defined by. Just because I'm a woman doesn't make me a feminist,
or mean I buy the whole scapegoating crap of the effect I'm supposed to
feel by being raised in a "sexist" society.
In other
words, while I'm all for diversity in television, let's actually give every
character a personality, okay? Let's ditch all the writers that determine
a character's personality by which quota they fill. Let's not put any stipulation
on art or writing or film. Let's allow ourselves to be controversial because
it's controversy that will force people to think, force people outside
their shells, force people to question the categories they set. And let's
sure as hell not pave the way for the relinquishing of our own rights.
1) In New York, an episode of Seinfeld was pulled
for similar reasons.
2) I use the special interest group in quotations.
I realize it's often used for convenience, but I'm not sure what differentiates
between special interest and the general populace.
3) Well, except maybe in Indiana.