LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

You decided if the same skit was directed at Catholics or Jews... if the response would be the same.

Top 40 radio station KDWB-FM in the Twin Cities has apologized for an on-air comedy skit called "Muslim Jeopardy."

The skit included an announcer using a fake South Asia accent introducing contest categories such as "infamous infidels" and "potent portables," according to the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, which said it had received complaints about the skit.

The skit also included a threat to behead a female host when she got an answer wrong, CAIR said.

On Monday, the station's Web site contained a short apology: "KDWB does not condone making light of Islam and Muslims. We regret that listeners found the Muslim Jeopardy comedy skit of one of our on-air hosts to be insensitive."

LINK:
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/716339.html

Sonny wrote:You decide if the same skit was directed at Catholics or Jews... if the response would be the same.

Nope.

I would agree.

The response would not be the same.

I'm not sure about the realm of bad comedy, but I know the art world has had problems in the past.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ for an example.

So on the radio you can make fun of someone for being overweight, looking a certain way, listening to a certain type of music, living in a certain area, the president....but if you joke about someone's (someone = muslim) culture...it's the end of the world?? Ive heard so many catholic molestation jokes made and I dont see an uproar or adds removed. Deal with it.

I agree that the response would not be the same, however, there is an undercurrent of fear in this country directed at Islam. It is derived from the stereotypes people form about muslims being "terrorists." Rather than terrorists being muslims. Because of this there is going to be a heightened sensitivity with regard to media protraying mulsims in a bad light. After all a lot of muslims in this country are just normal Americans like you and me who don't appreciate the dirty looks, the comments, and the bad press.

It is similar to the lacrosse community, and the athletic community to some degree. Athletes are sometimes viewed as dumb jocks, rapists, egotistical, etc. Add to that the lacrosse community, which is sometimes viewed as rich, white, elitist, racist, etc. We know these stereotypes are occasionally true, but are the exception and not the rule. So when something like the incident at Duke hits the media and Nancy Grace fires up the lynch mob right off the bat, we get a little offended at the notion that every athlete/lacrosse player fits into these stereotypes, because after all we are just normal people trying to excel at our sport. We like to wear our lacrosse t-shirst in public without the dirty looks, the comments, and the bad press.

Sensitivity to certain media is going to vary across different groups. Just because I don't find something offensive doesn't mean someone else doesn't. And it is not my place to decide what does or does not offend someone. As for the radio station, they have a choice in the type of programming they present. If they choose to alienate a portion of the population, I think that should be their right. Obviously, they (Clear Channel) felt it was more important to them to apologize for their "insensitive" programming and retain that group of listeners.

I would love to have someone explain to me how this is any different than the cartoons run at Oregon and UVA. Apparently it's okay to show the Virgin Mary with an STD but not okay to make fun of Muslims.

There's no difference- Either way, it's all in poor taste.

DanGenck wrote:There's no difference- Either way, it's all in poor taste.

What is your point Dan? Are you going to be the one to decide if it is in poor taste or not? Or do we live in fear (in a free society I might add) of offending someone?

Sonny wrote:

DanGenck wrote:There's no difference- Either way, it's all in poor taste.

What is your point Dan? Are you going to be the one to decide if it is in poor taste or not? Or do we live in fear (in a free society I might add) of offending someone?

I get the point you're getting at, which I respect, but just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

If Catholic or Jewish radicals had commandeered planes, crashed them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, blown up US Embassies in Kenya, blown up the USS Cole, blown up subways in Madrid, London, France, and been caught before blowing up subways in Germany, taking potent portables on British flights, poisoning American water supplies, or putting bombs in shoes....

there might be a radio station willing to make fun of them and the stereotypes about them.

Sonny wrote:

DanGenck wrote:There's no difference- Either way, it's all in poor taste.

What is your point Dan? Are you going to be the one to decide if it is in poor taste or not? Or do we live in fear (in a free society I might add) of offending someone?

The point is that it's common sense and good manners to not blast any religion. It's in poor taste to do so, however, if you really must, what can I do about it other than voice my dissatisfaction?

Offending someone is a broad scope. If I say, "Your t-shirt is stupid" that is a little different than saying, "Your religion is stupid" or "Your skin color is stupid". We have set a good precedent (socially and legally) that there is a hazy line that you do not cross and I think religion might be past that line.

Sonny wrote:

DanGenck wrote:There's no difference- Either way, it's all in poor taste.

What is your point Dan? Are you going to be the one to decide if it is in poor taste or not? Or do we live in fear (in a free society I might add) of offending someone?

It is a free society Sonny. Feel free to offend whoever you want, just don't be surprised when people get mad about it. Lets not forget that this was a radio station, not a government agency. They have a right to say what they want and people have a right to change the station. The radio station chose to apologize for their programming. I also assume that CAIR is not a government agency.

Maybe CAIR contacted Clear Channel and said, "You know, this doesn't help things. It might be funny, but with the current situation in this country we need to unify Americans not divide them, by perpetuating stereotypes of a segment of our population." And then maybe Clear Channel decided they didn't want to be that kind of company. If anything all complaints about this should be directed at Clear Channel not the oversensitive muslims in this country, since they made the final decision.

I agree with Dan that offending any religion is wrong. Beliefs are a choice and we should all respect the choices people make, even if we disagree with them.

My point was that there was not any loud call for action, oustide of Bill O'Reilly, following the publishing of cartoons mocking Christianity in Virginia or Oregon.

You decided if the same skit was directed at Catholics or Jews... if the response would be the same.

...obviously not. You can show the Virgin Mary with an STD or Jesus crashing a car and killing a woman but you better not make fun of Muslims. You can depict Sec. of State Rice as a slave from Gone With the Wind or Colin Powel as an Uncle Tom but how dare you draw a cartoon of Muhammed.

I'm not advocating that any group should be the target of ridicule but let's have an honest dialogue and admit that there is a double standard.

It's life as the top dog, Cliff. It is very unfair sometimes, and I hate it as much as you do.

Of course there's a double standard...but our society actually listens and cares about what people think (sometimes a good thing, sometimes not), but that of course is what makes this country what it is. Although...I didnt see any firebombings or nun-murdering when a cartoon of Jesus is drawn though...