This open letter is in response to the Spectacular music video, by former Cheetah Girl, Kiely Williams. It is just one of many letters that have been sent directly to Kiely's management. There are links at the end of this note to view the Spectacular video, the video responses from Kiely and her manager, as well as the other open letters and video blogs related to this issue. Feel free to join us in our efforts to demand better choices from artist who have such a significant influence on young women. The contact information for Kiely's manager, Tse Williams, is as follows: Ninelivesent@gmail. com.


Dear Kiely,


Initially, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt after viewing your “Spectacular” video. I did not want to play judge and jury before actually hearing what you had to say for yourself. While I understand your disclaimer states you intended to “bring attention to a serious women’s health and safety issue”, I also think it’s safe to say you went about it the wrong way. Hence the reason, I expected you to own up to the mistake and be accountable for your irresponsibility in addressing this very serious problem. Because you didn’t apologize, I decided to provide a direct written appeal pleading with you to make better choices in the future.

In addition, if you were really attempting to get people “to talk more” about date rape and promiscuity, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is a cacophony of contradictions that can be heard throughout your entire song. For example, “Even though I’m not sure of his name/He could get it again if he wanted/Cause the sex was spectacular”. Not only do I need you to point out the regret in that verse, I challenge you to show viewers any verse of regret because I am having trouble hearing it—and I listened to the song quite a few times.

As it stands right now, Kiely, the only message being conveyed by your “Spectacular” video is a very poor attempt to stay relevant—as opposed to bringing “attention to a serious women’s health and safety issue”. In the future, you should be mindful of the platform that you stand on as an artist, and like it or not, a role model to young girls. That said, instead of contributing to the dysfunction that is celebrated everyday in our society, take a stab at being an anomaly and make a difference. That is the kind of feat that would really make you spectacular.


Sincerely,



LaShon

Spectacular music video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J96ujGstSUw&feature=player_embedded

Kiely Williams video response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbMfzkZXUIU&feature=player_embedded

Tse Williams video blog response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGe-ibecoJE

Chakka's vlog: http://www.freedomreeves.com/?p=717

Moya's open letter: http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/148/

Nuala’s blog: http://nualacabral.wordpress.com/

Animation, Buffoons, and Bears! Oh, My!

I think it’s safe to say that Seth McFarlane has ascribed to the “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” adage. Any why wouldn’t he, it’s not as if Fox expects anything more from him. McFarlane has found a dysfunctional niche that has proven to be a very profitable formula. But who is really paying the price? The Cleveland Show, McFarlane’s newest Family Guy clone, premiered to an audience which exceeded 9 million viewers. Granted, my funny bone is hidden beneath my obsession with media literacy, maturity, and common sense. That being said, I do not find McFarlane’s lowbrow humor to be funny. So under normal circumstances, I would just turn the channel. However, McFarlane’s target audience just happens to be young-men of all demographics over the age of 14, which, in my opinion, creates a very atypical situation. As a parent, I understand that “everything” is happening sooner than later. But I think networks are beginning to expect a little too much from teenagers, a little too soon.

The show has been assigned a rating of TV-14, but this rating has been a thorn in my side since its premiere on September 27^th. Does Fox really expect a 14-year old to be mature, or well-versed, enough to interpret the characters in The Cleveland Show as mere animated buffoons—who are being portrayed as over-sexualized toddlers, suddenly obese adolescents, red neck neighbors and a religious talking bear? By the way, the dysfunction does not stop there; the show is packed full of recycled shock humor, which happens to be delicately wrapped with a racially tinged bow. The show has not yet ventured beyond what its rating allows, but with each new episode, the writers are beginning to blur the line between what is deemed appropriate, and what is not.     

Theory vs. Practice

Because I am not their target audience, I’m sure the McFarlane crew could care less if I tune in each week. However, I do have a son that does. So out of curiosity, I decided to do a little experiment, and I allowed my son to watch the first two episodes of The Cleveland Show. Granted, my son has been taught to look at the media through a different lens, but I wanted to hear his interpretation. I didn’t provide any instructions; I just simply asked him to watch a new show on Fox with me. I’m sure he knew I was up to something, but I tried to make my little experiment appear as innocent as possible. After watching the two episodes, I asked him what he thought. Here are a few of his responses:

“The stupidity is kind of funny”.

“The neighbor always being drunk is not needed, nor funny”.

“The writers need to work on their portrayal of Black people”.

“A portion of the show is unrealistic”.

“The son’s sudden weight gain and calmness was never addressed”.

“The dog being killed is disturbing and made me feel uncomfortable”.

“The kid [Rallo] threatening to do drugs should not have been allowed in the show”.

Granted, this little experiment was just conducted for my own curiosity and doesn’t really mean anything, but I thought some of his responses were very interesting. In addition, I’m sure that my son does not fall far from my tree, so I’m sure that prevents him from being completely objective.   

The Stereotypes

Honestly, I would commend Seth McFarlane for introducing ridiculous stereotypes into his program, if the generalizations were being introduced to create some form of a dialogue. I think it’s very irresponsible for a writer to just throw stereotypes out and leave their viewers holding the ball. Say for instance, a viewer is unfamiliar with a particular culture and he is expecting the media to answer those questions. If he used The Cleveland Show to address those issues, I wonder if McFarlane would be please with the answers given by his show. That being said, if you want to talk about race related issues, you need to show both sides of the coin. But I don’t know why I am expecting this from McFarlane when he is already writing in a vernacular that he doesn’t even understand. At the end of the day, Family Guy may be a satirical depiction of a dysfunctional family, but it is based on his upbringing and his hometown. I’m going to guess that McFarlane has never been Black.

Food for Thought

I guess being familiar with a particular culture doesn’t matter because according to Mike Henry, who plays the voice of Cleveland, “Cleveland basically is me, masked as an African-American cartoon. There are a lot of similarities between my life and Cleveland's life and, really, his character is largely me”. I’m sorry, but just because Seth McFarlane has found a way to create, what some critics have called an animated version of blackface, does not automatically make them familiar with the Black experience. Normally, I would end my rant with a simple prayer hoping The Cleveland Show would suffer the same fate as its predecessor when it was first introduce, but because the show was picked up for a second season even before it premiered, I will simply pray for our society. Because if we consider Fox’s Sunday night line-up to be entertainment, it’s our society that needs the prayer.   

“Didn’t Bo know, first???”

It was questions such as this one that started most of the discussions at the Sports and Media Professional Development Program at Temple University on September 19th. This specific “Didn’t Bo know, first” question was asked during a debate concerning the original “Air Jordan 1” marketing campaign, which was the infamous shoe worn by then rookie Michael Jordan, and the “Bo Knows” marketing campaign that was created for Bo Jackson, who played in both the NFL and the MBL. During this particular debate, I have to admit I was a little lost—and I considered myself to be pretty well-versed in sports. But I realized very quickly, my “vintage sports” knowledge needs a little work.

Even though I didn’t recall which ad campaign came first, I did remember that the entire “Air Jordan” marketing campaign originated after Nike realized its sales were struggling. Reason being, Nike was not considered a reliable basketball shoe before Michael Jordan. So while the men continued to debate over which ad campaign came first, I thought of a parallel between the Nike situation and this Sports and Media Literacy program. During the early eighties, traditional marketing was no longer working for Nike, so they needed to adjust. Nike’s change included a new, somewhat radical, advertising campaign create solely for the rookie Michael Jordan. Thinking outside the box really paid off for Nike because as I write this, Nike continues to reap the benefits of that gamble.

Just like Nike, Patrick Johnson and Erik Sakamoto, the presenters of the Sports and Media Literacy program, also realized that “traditional” curriculum would not work for the students they served. The two responded by creating a new, somewhat radical, curriculum that could—teach and speak—to their students. Now let’s just hope they experience the same success as Nike. (By the way, the “Bo Knows” campaign came after the “Air Jordan 1”). 

Sports connoisseur or not, everyone had an opinion after these images were displayed. The majority of the Sports and Media Literacy participants agreed it was a loaded image, to say the least. However, other perceptions were quite diverse. For instance, one particular participant believed Annie Leibovitz, the photographer responsible for the cover, didn’t intend to create any ill-will. Others believed Leibovitz used the cover as a catalyst for racism, and some people, myself included, blamed Lebron James for being “generationally ignorant.” I was not surprised by any of perceptions, but I have to admit, I was jarred by one Black participant who stated that anyone who thought the Vogue cover was racist was suffering from “Black Paranoia”.

In conclusion, it does prove that one’s perception has a lot to do with their culture, lifestyle, and beliefs, which is something that I often see in media literacy. In addition, it was a very enlightening debate, but it was very disheartening to hear some of the youth’s responses in reference to certain perceptions and generalizations that are forced upon them on a daily basis.

Did Hypermasculinity Play a Role in the Death of Vernon Forrest?

In July 2009, Vernon Forrest, a professional boxer, was shot to death after he chased after potential carjackers. His death was at the center of our “hypermasculinity” discussion as we tried to determine if his death was preventable. The majority of the group, youth included, believed his aggressive behavior and his perceived ego caused him to run after his killers, which ultimately cost him his life. According to Forrest’s manager, the boxer would never allow anyone to just “take anything from him”. But in the end, he did allow someone to take something from him, his life. This particular dialogue clearly revealed the link between sports, hypermasculinity, and one’s lifestyle and the discussion turned out to be very engaging to everyone involved.

I believe the youth gained the most from this portion of the program because it is something they struggle with on a daily basis. A few of the youth even thought they would have reacted the same way that Vernon Forrest, but Patrick followed the youth’s hypothetical notion with one simple question, “Where would that lead?” The only answer he received was dead silence. However, the unanswered question caused the discussion to venture into the importance of teaching youth how to deal with emotions. Reason being, if young men learn early how to productively deal with emotions they will be able to make rational decisions throughout their young, and hopefully, mature lives.     

Food for Thought
There was plenty of food for thought to be had concerning critical thinking, masculinity, health, sports, etc. etc. However, the statement that really rang true for me was when Patrick said, “Sports is not just sports”. In fact, one of our “take-aways”, as Dr. Renee Hobbs calls them, was how sports can be used as an umbrella for dialogue. So very true.












http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Jordan
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/education/20090918_Pa__official__Vacancy_hurts_Phila__schools.html