Controversial in American Media - Admission/Application Essay Example

Jimmy Kimmel and the Controversy of Killing all Chinese Citizens BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Jimmy Kimmel and the Controversy of killingall Chinese Citizens On October 16, 2013, Jimmy Kimmel aired an episode that attempted to satire the recent government shutdown in the United States as well as address the problem of American debt payable to China. A discussion panel involving a group of children was being utilized as a means of lampooning American issues in the contemporary economy, with the show attempting to illustrate that U.S. government representatives were comparable to children.

During the skit, Kimmel solicited a response from one of the panel members about what solutions would be considered viable for the mounting $1.3 trillion debt currently owed to China. The child’s reaction was to “kill everyone in China” as if this would be a logical and ethical solution, thereby preventing the country from ever having to repay this sizeable obligation. Kimmel’s rather unsympathetic response was that the proposed answer was “interesting” and continued to discuss Chinese citizen murder as a potential solution.

These comments and lack of empathy for the position of Chinese citizens led to considerable outrage and allegations of racial insensitivity. High-profile figures in the media have an obligation to stakeholders in society to be responsible, balanced and non-bigoted if they are expected to retain loyal viewership and maintain the reputation of the network sponsoring their continued television appearances. This is a fundamental aspect of being contracted as a representative of the network in which television hosts are employed.

However, at the same time, society must also be mature and recognize that satirical television shows often develop concepts and unique programming that challenges the complacency of social values and attitudes. In this particular situation, both Kimmel and societal stakeholders that protested the network were not dedicated to obligations of being even-handed regarding the rationale for appraisal by which both groups’ actions were evaluated. Kimmel and network representatives were exploring current events that were impacting all members of society, attempting to lighten the social gravity of national debt and its subsequent impact on the national economy, something quite commonplace for satirical programming.

This situation occurred on the proverbial heels of recent media spoofs about the competency of government and the lack of transparency and reciprocation that should be taking place with national leadership. Hence, it was already on the forefront of social consciousness that there were problems and immaturity occurring in various governmental divisions which are those responsible for ensuring proficiency in controlling debt and managing national crises. The individuals who protested the alleged racist motivations for the skit seemed to have lost touch with the intention of satirical television shows, instead believing that Kimmel’s comments were a prejudiced statement indicating the beliefs and values of the network.

This is rather problematic in modern society, whereby certain members of society become so deeply entrenched in their own social agendas that they lose impartiality and the ability to see situations from the perspectives of others. This placed the network and Kimmel in a situation between protecting the interests of the network, satisfying these special interest individuals, and also entertaining stakeholders with a much more open-minded and mature attitude about television humor. It is not to say that Kimmel and the network should be defended and admired for scripting the suggestion that all Chinese citizens should be murdered as by virtually all Western ethics and morals, such comments would be offensive and inappropriate.

However, one must look at the dynamics of modern television satire and realize that the suggestion of killing was only sardonic and attempted to mock the social status quo to better engage more flexible citizens toward finding hilarity in situations with considerable gravity in modern culture. Though some people in the country believe that, simply because it is America, all members of society are free to say virtually anything they please. Granted, this is essentially the foundation of liberty, however those that have control over media and can serve to influence the cultural values of society should be more diligent about avoiding comments that challenge long-standing moral and ethical codes of an established culture.

What really occurred was a sensationalized controversy that could have been better controlled with more mature discussion and evaluation by both parties involved in the scenario. Not everyone in society maintains the same values and beliefs and it should be the responsibility and obligation of media representatives to consider the appropriateness of television programming content. Conversely, those who are quick to offend based on inconsequential social banter, such as in the aforementioned situation, should be more considerate of a changing social dynamic that prefers to find humor in cultural situations that are legitimately solemn.

If network representatives, television figures and broader society could work toward being more accommodating, such controversies would likely be minimized.