[QUOTE=Malthus]
I haven’t listened to the extract (and I admit I’ve never seen his show and I have scant sypathy for bounty hunting as an occupation), but from this transcript, I gotta say I have more sympathy for the guy then I had reading the headline.
My transliteration of what he’s trying to say: 'I’m a guy who says stuff like “nigger” a lot when in private. I can’t help it [presumably because that’s the way I was brought up or whatever - judging by the rest of the conversation, he usually talks in ‘low-class scum’]. If you bring your Black girlfriend around, chances are she will hear me say it, be offended by it, and make a big deal about it, costing me my very public job by making me out to be a racist. I do not believe I am a racist, and I do not dislike her because of her race, but because of this potential threat to my occupation, which threatens the livelihood of the whole family. She has already threatened to wear a recording device.
Therefore, while you go out with her, you must work elsewhere. I will help you find another job.’
The fact is that his use of the word “nigger” did become public, and his livelihood is threatened by it, through the recording of this very conversation. So he’s not totally crazy.
Naturally, the whole dilemma could be solved by him just not saying “nigger”. Most people manage that feat. But then, maybe that is part of his lower-class-scum persona.
[/QUOTE]
I think you nailed it.
That’s exactly what I heard.
What you think of it, whether he’s right or wrong, stupid, shortsighted, unable or unwilling to change, of low character, etc., etc. doesn’t change the communication.
And you nailed exactly what he was trying to communicate.
By the way someone upthread said that the station has the right. That was conceded in the question that was posted for the thread in the first place.
I think what was being asked is: should things be that way, regardless of the fact that they have the right?
Diogenes nailed the reality completely, though it can be seen as skirting the overarching moral question if one chooses to see it that way.
The reality, as D said, is that the station can’t be expected to put on a show whose advertisers have left so it’s a moot point about “should” at that point.
The broader societal question that’s implied by the scenario, however, is pretty fascinating: should use of that term be so outre that advertisers, rightfully, fear repercussions from society and therefore pull the ad? Once you concede the fact that advertisers are at risk of losing money, it is – as D said – just capitalism then.
(Personally, I think whenever anyone asks a “should…” question, it logically requires a suffix to the question, so to speak, specifically: “…in order to what/towards what end?” So, should it be that way in order to…what? be moral? be fair? It matters what’s meant or implied by ‘should’.)
Hypothetically, if society at large was capable of taking things in context and – without having to condone every single thing in right/wrong terms – understood where people are coming from so as to not be so outraged by some things, then the advertisers wouldn’t have to pull the show because they wouldn’t be in fear of being monetarily damaged and A&E could keep the show on the air. He knew that society doesn’t work that way, of course, and pretty much says so in the tape.
If **that **were true, **then **you could truly say that you’re left with A&E’s “morals” or value judgments as to what kind of brand image they want to have.
Of course, that goes back to capitalism too if you extract it out since A&E is in business. LOL