Nowadays the role of mass media is gaining more importance, as it serves as a means of communication and information proliferation. Its ubiquitous intrusion into social, political, and cultural life makes television and radio programs the main monitors of current events occurring in this societal realms. However, the desire to remain on the peak of popularity and to maintain high rates, there has appeared many programs that use some radical methods of information submission. In the constant quest for sensations and celebrities, the radio and TV anchors forget about moral and ethical norms; instead, they are more focused on grabbing the viewers’ attention. Hence, the Koenheiser’s case described in Chris Chase’s article brightly illustrates this problem.
The problem of violation of moral and ethical norms are revealed in the article called ESPN suspends Tony Kornheiser for criticizing anchor’s wardrobe. In particular, the article discloses Kornheiser’s comments on the clothes of Hannah Storm, Sport Center host in his program Pardon The Interruption (PTI). His rough and scandalous remarks raised a ‘storm’ of indignation among the ESPN regular listeners. However, Kornheiser’s intentions are explicable and can be hardly justified, as his show success is based on sarcastic display of sport celebrities and events. In the article, Chris Chase inserts two direct remarks of famous anchor to compare his motives before criticism and after it. Judging on his speech, Kornneiser recognizes his mistakes and apologizes for his inappropriate behavior but the real motive is hidden in his implicit desire to maintain his job. In the concluding part of the article, the author puts an emphasis on that fact the criticism imposed on the anchor was explained by ESPN policy that forbid to criticize ESPN members.
The article has a well-organized structure with introducing and concluding part. In the main body, one can pursue the display of arguments supported by direct remarks. However, it is hard to identify the main purpose and idea of this article, as it is a piece of new rather than an evaluative paper. On the other hand, the author implicitly imposes his opinion by the following concluding phrase: “…Kornheiser might say similar comments about any number of people. He got in trouble this time because ESPN has a strict policy about criticism within the network” (Chase n.pag.). This is, perhaps, the only phrase that reveals Chase’s subjective attitude to the event, which is again supported by following phrase as well: “…what usually gets those guys into trouble is the stuff you wouldn’t have found offensive upon first listen” (n.pag.). At the same time, he still prefers to take a neutral position to provide more space for outer discussions, which is another aim of this piece of information.
I believe that the article reveals many points for discussions in terms of social and moral problem existed on the radio. In particular, it highlights the role and negative influence of sarcasm and satire on TV and radio target audience. A special consideration requires the analysis of commercial value of such television project as PTI whose format allows imposing an audacious criticism of people. To my mind, the criticism imposed on the commentator is justified but partially, as channel owners still allow using this sarcastic behavior and comment for the channel nonmembers, which is not morally justified. Such an evaluation brings me the idea that both parts are more interested in the commercial success of the program until it concerns network members.
These issues also concern the introduction of sarcasm notes an inherent component of popular culture. The author recognizes that such form of criticism “may have a drawback though” but still justifies his point this incident “insensitive news” insensitive comment (Chase n.pag.). Viewing the problem from another angle, sarcasm, and sensational news is a contemporary underpinning of media culture and ESPN Media Empire who tries still tries to protect their respectable image. In this respect, such notes do imply negative intentions, as they aimed at entertaining people only neglecting the real consequences. Therefore, Kornheiser only depicted or emulated emotions which are opposed to his true feelings. Such a behavior may provoke confusions in the audience that often fails to distinguish a real sarcasm from real commentator’s intentions. In that regard, the Koerheiser’s statement proves this concept: “If you put a live microphone in front of someone, eventually that person will say something wrong” (Chase n.pag.). I guess that it is a bit confusing statement but it still does not contradict the PTI format standards. In this respect, Kornheiser’s suspension from the radio programs is rather justified.
Due to the fact that the main function of radio programs is to entertain rather than to inform, PTI programs fully covers this requirement thus grabbing absolute attention of the listeners. Therefore, the occurred problem is the guilt of ESPN channel, as well. However, current listeners have a vague image of real offences and sarcastic comments where Koerheiser justifications turn out to be false and unsubstantiated. To my mind, his real intention was to gain more popularity and recognition among mere people so that he did not think about the consequences.
The negative influence of the commentator’s sarcastic utterances is also viewed in a deeper context. Hence, it reveals the necessity to consider moral sarcasm from immoral where the latter conforms to this case. His response to suspension was predetermined by his reluctance to leave the program but by moral realization of his guilt. This point is brightly supported by the idea in the interview:
As a result of this, I have been sent to the sidelines from PTI for a while and when I’m allowed back on PTI I will happily go back because I really love the PTI show and love all the people on the PTI show (Chase n.pag.)
Koenheiser’s case is a bright example of how mass media corrupts a people’s social stereotypes and moral norms. His fault is even more proved, as media culture has now penetrated to each layer of society where the radio and television broadcasting are veritable sources of information. The commentator, therefore, provides a negative example thus cultivating a sarcastic behavior that can be taken for granted.
Drawing a conclusion, it is necessary to state that Koerheiser suspension was a right decision due to many reasons. First, Koerneiser’s behavior contradicts the main principles and policy strategies of ESPN channel that does not allow to assault network members. Second, this Koenheiser’s comments can lead to the decrease of PTI popularity and image, as this audacious criticism raised a range of scandalous discussions undermining ESPN reputation. Finally, the speaker’s attitude was morally and ethically unjustified thus cultivating social disturbances and proliferation of immoral behavior within the society. Therefore, PTI program is not interested in advocating ethical norms and cultural behavior but revealing a distorted vision of criticism.
Works Cited
Chase, Chris. ESPN suspends Tony Kornheiser for criticizing anchor’s wardrobe. Sports Blogs. 2010. Web.