Jim Farber of the Daily News begins ominously, [i]t says a lot about the current state of debate in this country that even Madonna feels antsy about offending people.
Yes, Madonna. Her newest video American Life is not being shown in the U.S. because the chanteuse deems it will hurt her career. Poor woman. She has become the latest victim of the state of debate in this country.
Let's get one thing clear. To have a debate you have to have, er, a debate. That means you have to have something to say and it should be expressed with at least a smidgen of intelligence. As Farber makes clear, there is much less in Madonna's video than meets the eye.
Like many ambitious music videos, it has enough open-ended (read: impenetrable) images to invite debate, to provoke and - most importantly - to skirt boredom for those MTV fans who would have to see it several thousand times before it ran its course.
Actually, Farber is wrong. Debate is signified by clarity, not impenetrable images. Obfuscation is the work of post-structuralism and other so-called "post-mod" fashions that are finally getting their due: dinosaur status. Such is the long lamented state of eduation in the humanities that an MTV video, let alone Madonna's, is credited with inviting debate.
As if MTV fans are all that concerned about debate anyway. Besides, Madonna herself decided the video would not air in the U.S. Only the more "enlightened" Europeans will have the singular privilege of watching it.
Farber regrets the fate of the Dixie Chicks since they don't get as much radio play anymore. I wonder, was the decision to can the Texan trio made by the government? No? Then it "ain't" censorship. Farber doesn't say it is but he accuses the political atmosphere of stifling debate. Such an allegation goes hand-in-hand with the often heard claim of censorship.
What about the idea that the "people" (read: democracy) are outraged by the Dixie Chick who denounced the president? One may agree or disagree with her comment but a critical mass of listeners is not happy about it. No debate? What debate did she have to offer? Like Madonna's video it was dross. As with Madonna, the market has a lot to say about what is popular and unpopular. Anyone is entitled to make an offensive comment. No arrests. No jail time. No re-education camp. But, if you're famous, you might get flak over it. And why not? Shrewed businesswoman that she is, Madonna knows to pull her video in the U.S. Her career would take a hit otherwise. Is that stifling debate?
Debate stands or falls on the merits of the argument over time. Since the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd have, so far, not offered much in the way of debate, no one calls for their silence, but a little outrage over egregious commentary or an offending video does not constitute a stifling of debate. Rather, a lack of debate stifles debate. Remember what happened to David Duke when he aired his views on race? Popular outcry pretty much tanked his political career. Would we say debate was stifled then?
It is one thing to lobby corporations to withdraw advertising to put an end to Dr. Laura Schlesinger's anti-gay radio show. That was an anti-democratic and censorious move on the part of gay activists. It is another thing entirely for listeners to be so disgusted with the Dixie Chicks that radio stations across the land don't air their music because of ratings. That's the name of the market game. Majority numbers boost profits or sink them. Get over it, Farber.
Marjority rule or, in this case, majority disgust, is a sign democracy is alive and well, especially when you consider that the American people freely express their outrage at a slur against the president during a time of war. Democracy can be vulgar but it can also be decent. The decent thing is to disapprove of Madonna's video and the wayward commentary of a Dixie Chick.