What should be the penalty for inappropriate references? What's inappropriate? Who defines that?
http://thebiglead.com/?p=8527
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Hitler talk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We spend time learning WHAT media workers do, but it's just as important to think about HOW they do it and WHY they do it. Let's get some ideas percolating about what we see and how it affects us. I call it "Sunrise on Media" because I often arrive at work obscenely early and will update this blog then.
What should be the penalty for inappropriate references? What's inappropriate? Who defines that?
http://thebiglead.com/?p=8527
Posted by
Katy Culver
at
11:35 AM
Labels: media ethics, sensitivity
3 comments:
I think that Lou Holtz's reference to Hitler is by no means different to that of Hill earlier this year. I never think that there is an appropriate place or time to jokingly compare anyone to Hitler. The Holocaust is not a light subject, and never will be. I think Holtz should have been punished in the same fashion Hill was, and I am disappointed that this story was not publicized more and that ESPN has not mentioned anything about repercussions for Holtz.
I think part of the reason Holtz is not receiving the same criticism as Hill is because one he said it on TV, a fleeting medium, he was being taped live, and it was a Friday night, the slowest night for television. However, ESPN should have still taken some sort of action or warned Holtz, whether or not negative publicity came from his comment.
Holtz has always been "off the cuff" and kind of eccentric in his analysis and comments. But, I definitely don't think he should get away with jokingly comparing anyone to Hitler. I agree with kfriedman. There's rarely, if ever, a situation for that.
I can't believe they are not responding to that comment. I can't think of any context where a Hilter reference is appropriate. I am not sure, however, the extent the punishment should be, but he is barely getting a slap on the wrist right now.
Post a Comment