Quote:
Originally Posted by James Anthony
The way I see it is that people weren't offended until Jackson & Sharpton jumped in and told everyone they should be offended.
|
What I like about such cases is they offer a glimpse into the mind of the masses.
1. By adding laughing tracks to comedy shows, the producers ended up making the shows more funny. The content was the same. But the laughing tracks in the background allowed people to know when it was "safe" to find the content funny - and increased their enjoyment in the process.
2. Stage artists all over the world always hire people to join the audiences to clap or gasp at the right moments -- for the same reason.
3. A few centuries ago (especially during Mozart's era) - people judged how successful the stage show will be - not on the shows merit - but on the fact how many times the King yawned. If you get a tired King to watch your show - you're doomed!
4. Today, people look up to people like Jackson and Sharpton to make their decisions for them. If such people are going through a lean phase and don't have much to do - you're very very unlucky. Its not what you say that matters. Its how much attention the "influentials" want.
5. Having 250 news channels has just made matters worse. When they don't have much to show - they end up giving importance to the tiniest of footnotes.
The best thing imo - is not to defend the message (what Don Imus said). But to try and dis-credit the messengers (Jackson and Sharpton are moist robots who have a poor sense of humour and crave attention).
But you need a very strong personality to discredit the messenger. It could get very ugly.