February 6, 2004

AS LONG AS THEY SPELL MY NAME RIGHT.

By James Eugene*

Andy Warhol once said that in the future, everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. He should have added "make it count." (Be forewarned, this is going to be a ranting and raving column.)

Early in my political life, I worked for a politician who got a lot of negative publicity. I asked him if he minded. "No," he responded, "as long as they spell my name right." His attitude that any publicity was good publicity is generally correct for elected officials. This attitude has now been taken to new extremes as people go to remarkable lengths to preserve their fifteen minutes (or fifteen years or fifteen seconds) of fame.

It seems as if outlandishness is the order of the day. The thought seems to be "If I can be outrageous and get noticed, people will respect me or make me rich." How else can one explain a figure like Al Sharpton who brings practically nothing constructive to the debates, but is given a seat at the presidential primary table? Or how about the kiss between Britney Spears and Madonna? Was it a sign of affection? Respect? Lesbianism? Or even pop culture? It was none of these, because it was purely a publicity stunt.

Or Janet Jackson's and Justin Timberlake's stupid act at the Super Bowl? The "wardrobe malfunction" was a desperate measure by a has-been and a wanna-be, designed to shock us into noticing them. (Pity they could not do that by just singing well. But when you lack talent you must look to something else.) Why would I even want to notice them? Because they show us some silly T&A? Give me a break.

Or let's get to a more serious media outlet. The History Channel. It recently aired a piece suggesting that Lyndon Johnson conspired to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Where did this come from? Was there any substantive evidence? No. But the program made news, as I am sure was its original intent.

The History Channel justified the program by asserting that "[b]y presenting different viewpoints we enable our viewers to decide to agree or disagree with them and to arrive at their own conclusions."

Basically, they are using free speech as a sword for irresponsibility.

This is Black History Month. Is the History Channel going to air a piece from the Ku Klux Klan that advocates killing all blacks, Jews and gays? That would be a different viewpoint all right!

Over in Iraq, Afghanistan and in other parts of this world, we have soldiers fighting and dying to protect our right to free speech while at home, entertainers and businesses are exploiting free speech in the basest possible way for their own profit. They do not care whom they offend as long as there is some financial benefit to them. They will apologize, of course - usually with a wink and a nod. It gets so old.

I do not support censoring any of these entities, but no one says I have to watch them. Nor do I need to buy their advertiser's products. And thankfully, I have my own tiny media outlet in which to vent.

So, the next time I see or hear Janet Jackson or Justin Timberlake on the dial, onto the next station and I certainly won't buy their albums. Britney and Madonna, get a life! The History Channel, boycotted for the next month (and, in the future, every program watched with a large grain of salt).

The last few months demonstrate that we have forgotten the lessons of 9-11. I can see the crass exploitation of 9-11 in the future, trotted out in a superficial show of patriotism whenever someone wants to exploit that sentiment. Meanwhile, what happen to the sober lessons and the true priorities that we all felt in the months that followed that tragic day?

AND I CAN'T EVEN HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS.

It would be nice if one could actually unsubscribe to the History Channel, but as you all know, you can't. Whether we like it or not, we all must subscribe to a whole host of channels or none at all. So I cannot protest against the History Channel by depriving them of my cash. Each month, a little bit of my money goes to a network willing to promote a lie to attract viewers. How galling.

Why shouldn't we be able to subscribe to just those cable channels we want and pay a price per channel? This way I could avoid paying the History Channel its tribute.

Both the left and right media despise this concept. They argue that those Southern Christians who sought to boycott Disney would cancel the Disney Channel and that liberals would eliminate the FOX news channel.

The liberal and conservative media do not care about the other as long as nothing impacts their bottom line. They defend the all or none policy by talking about economies of scale, technology, economics, infrastructure and the like. But why should anyone have to pay money to those who offend them? Wouldn't you be mad as hell if you were told that if you wanted to buy Time Magazine, you also had to pay for Newsweek, US News, Playboy, Playgirl, Maxim, Cosmopolitan, the NY Post, the NY Times and the Washington Post? It is media taxation and you have limited freedom (either buy them all or buy nothing).

I am not the first to propose the idea of having the right to buy or cancel individual cable channels, and I will not be the last. But it is amazing that the concept gets little play by the body politic. Oh, I forgot, the body politic won't criticize the media because the politicians want to make sure the media is not mad at them so their names get spelled right.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.