Here again I’m amazed at the simple minded approach Bill O’Reilly peddles through to his viewers on Fox. Should I be surprised; hell No! O’Reilly is an expert at stripping any topic down to its most base and simplistic level, then of course positioning himself as the authoritative expert. In other words, he frames the discussion and tries to pass his opinion off as fact. How does he do this you wonder; well let’s take a minute, albeit a long minute, which is more time than he deserves and deconstruct his approach.
Here is the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/gretchen-carlson-michael_n_226707.html
Last night on his show, O’Reilly along with his two cheerleaders ponder this question; “Why are Black Americans so interested in a Guy with White kids and a face?” First, the question itself positions black Americans as being somehow misguided in their adulation for Jackson. A more general question to ponder may have read; “Why is the American public so interested in Michael Jackson?” It is a less nuanced question, but one that is much more inclusive because it doesn’t allow O’Reilly to subtly play the race card. What he suggests to his predominately white audience is that “those black folks, they are so silly, going on and on about that man who didn’t even like the color of his black skin.” Watch the clip; it is pretty much what O’Reilly is suggesting. When one of his co-host attempts to fire back, offering a bit of rationalization for Jackson’s appeal to blacks, “he was one of the first African-American crossover artists in pop music.” O’Reilly immediately interjects. Remember in his infinite wisdom he knows best, or everything. He claims Jackson was not the “First” to crossover pop artist, appealing to both black and white audiences. Mr. O’Reilly, he was not the “First” but he was surely a part of the pack that history considers the “First”. He continues to argue that other Motown artists were doing that long before Jackson. Ah, Bill you forget; Jackson was a Motown artist; the Jackson 5 were apart of that push into mainstream pop for African-Americans.
And, as an adult artist, although not the first black artist to be played on MTV, his success on the station was far more influential for generations to come. Consider this, although Susan B. Anthony, Madeline Albright, Maxine Waters, and Geraldine Ferraro were some of the “first” to crack the ceiling for women in politics, it is most likely Hilary Clinton’s 2008 run for the Democratic nomination that people will remember and the case that history will cite as being the most influential, thus far.
O’Reilly once again you treat your audience to minimalist thinking. Simply put, because Michael Jackson’s skin color changed doesn’t negate the fact that his musical success is some how less than to African-Americans. And, to answer your question, African Americans claim Jackson because there is a history in the culture to laud and be loyal to celebrities, especially in music and sports.
But, I realize that at times that adulation and loyalty may be miss-appropriated and in it, opportunities for engaging criticism are lost. The real analysis O’Reilly could have expressed or exposed, instead of the racial issue, is gender expression & sexuality issue, and how despairingly pervasive homophobia in the black community still is. For me, Jackson was a stark reminder of how many individuals in the black community are slow to embrace difference, especially if it doesn’t fit the community’s social script for masculinity. Questions about Michael Jackson’s sexuality were so ubiquitous in the black community that he became the standard joke. The man was ridiculed and seen as somehow less than. His effeminate behavior was characteristically patronized as something tragic. But, O’Reilly really doesn’t have the balls [or academic background] to supply a deeper analysis here, one that doesn’t placate to his audience’s sensibilities. O’Reilly you’ve cried wolf too many times to now try and sit in judgment on a topic that does deserve attention. Maybe his criticism was an attempt to shine a light on an inconsistent view, but seeing this man in action, I seriously doubt it. He lacks total credibility.
Still, it’s no secret that the Michael Jackson was an eccentric man. He was not your average Joe, so to speak, which most artistic people are not. He was a true iconoclastic personality, challenging traditional notions of masculinity and race.
Here is the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/gretchen-carlson-michael_n_226707.html
Last night on his show, O’Reilly along with his two cheerleaders ponder this question; “Why are Black Americans so interested in a Guy with White kids and a face?” First, the question itself positions black Americans as being somehow misguided in their adulation for Jackson. A more general question to ponder may have read; “Why is the American public so interested in Michael Jackson?” It is a less nuanced question, but one that is much more inclusive because it doesn’t allow O’Reilly to subtly play the race card. What he suggests to his predominately white audience is that “those black folks, they are so silly, going on and on about that man who didn’t even like the color of his black skin.” Watch the clip; it is pretty much what O’Reilly is suggesting. When one of his co-host attempts to fire back, offering a bit of rationalization for Jackson’s appeal to blacks, “he was one of the first African-American crossover artists in pop music.” O’Reilly immediately interjects. Remember in his infinite wisdom he knows best, or everything. He claims Jackson was not the “First” to crossover pop artist, appealing to both black and white audiences. Mr. O’Reilly, he was not the “First” but he was surely a part of the pack that history considers the “First”. He continues to argue that other Motown artists were doing that long before Jackson. Ah, Bill you forget; Jackson was a Motown artist; the Jackson 5 were apart of that push into mainstream pop for African-Americans.
And, as an adult artist, although not the first black artist to be played on MTV, his success on the station was far more influential for generations to come. Consider this, although Susan B. Anthony, Madeline Albright, Maxine Waters, and Geraldine Ferraro were some of the “first” to crack the ceiling for women in politics, it is most likely Hilary Clinton’s 2008 run for the Democratic nomination that people will remember and the case that history will cite as being the most influential, thus far.
O’Reilly once again you treat your audience to minimalist thinking. Simply put, because Michael Jackson’s skin color changed doesn’t negate the fact that his musical success is some how less than to African-Americans. And, to answer your question, African Americans claim Jackson because there is a history in the culture to laud and be loyal to celebrities, especially in music and sports.
But, I realize that at times that adulation and loyalty may be miss-appropriated and in it, opportunities for engaging criticism are lost. The real analysis O’Reilly could have expressed or exposed, instead of the racial issue, is gender expression & sexuality issue, and how despairingly pervasive homophobia in the black community still is. For me, Jackson was a stark reminder of how many individuals in the black community are slow to embrace difference, especially if it doesn’t fit the community’s social script for masculinity. Questions about Michael Jackson’s sexuality were so ubiquitous in the black community that he became the standard joke. The man was ridiculed and seen as somehow less than. His effeminate behavior was characteristically patronized as something tragic. But, O’Reilly really doesn’t have the balls [or academic background] to supply a deeper analysis here, one that doesn’t placate to his audience’s sensibilities. O’Reilly you’ve cried wolf too many times to now try and sit in judgment on a topic that does deserve attention. Maybe his criticism was an attempt to shine a light on an inconsistent view, but seeing this man in action, I seriously doubt it. He lacks total credibility.
Still, it’s no secret that the Michael Jackson was an eccentric man. He was not your average Joe, so to speak, which most artistic people are not. He was a true iconoclastic personality, challenging traditional notions of masculinity and race.
