AS ONE of Bill O'Reilly's biggest fans, I feel a certain obligation to criticize one of his favorite topics of discussion: gangster rap. Bill O'Reilly has for at least a few weeks, especially in light of Anheuser-Busch's recent hiring of rapper Ludacris, been an adamant critic of gangster rap.Although O'Reilly makes some good points about the negative influence of gangster rap on inner-city culture and attitudes, his criticisms of music and lyrics have thus far failed to be racially consistent.
Most arguments against gangster rap and any music with hateful or immoral lyrics have been intensified by the emergence of Marshall Mathers, commonly known as Eminem, in the late 1990s. Eminem's lyrics include details of murder, spouse abuse, homophobic comments and other controversial topics. His opponents, ranging from feminists to pro-gay and lesbian groups to Bill O'Reilly himself, have vastly criticized him for his negative cultural influence. While fellow detractors have advocated censorship, Bill O'Reilly, with good reason, has not taken his criticisms that far. The First Amendment's guarantee of free speechis unequivocal in its position in the lyric wars: Artists have the freedom of speech to create any lyrics they desire, limited by their own conscious and popular tastes. Granted their constitutional freedoms, many of these artists have proceeded to exercise this freedom to no limit.
The recent history of this hot topic brings us to O'Reilly's criticisms of the hip-hop sub-culture, and especially his criticisms of corporations such as Reebok and Anheuser-Busch. Claiming that corporations "should be ashamed of themselves" for their affiliations with gangster rappers, O'Reilly has dedicated several segments of his show to discussions of rapping extremes, from hosting rapper/CEO Cam'ron to representatives of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). O'Reilly's quote to the Boston Herald best summarizes his position: "Reebok should be ashamed of themselves. They're embracing a guy who's hurting children."
But this position is inconsistent, and although O'Reilly probably does not mean to spotlight based on race, he is doing exactly that. He only devotes considerable attention to corporations signing immoral characters when those characters are in the rap industry, which is strongly dominated by blacks, with the exception of Eminem.Because his show only targets a black dominated industry, there is an inherent introduction of racial inconsistency, whether it is intentional or not. Going as far as to poll his obviously biased Web page visitors and sending the results to corporations as pseudo-petitions,O'Reilly fails to take any such action when corporations such as Pepsi hire characters like Britney Spears. Britney's sometimes ignominious lyrics, which cover topics from masturbation to promiscuity, also have a substantial impact on culture, an impact large enough to receive attention from many public figures. More and more parents are finding their little girls in middle school practicing dancing in sexually provocative ways to Britney Spear's music. Britney is one example out of many; quite a few suicides have been committed to corporate-signed Blink-182's "Adam's Song."Many other corporate-signed artists also have different negative influences on society, from promoting violence to drug use, but they miraculously escape O'Reilly's heated spotlight of persistent criticism, a spotlight he uses to hector gangster rappers today.
Also ironic is who O'Reilly is accusing of what: Chastising Anheuser-Busch for signing rappers who promote negative cultural influences is almost humorous. Anheuser-Busch, the maker of today's most socially destructive drug, and also a corporation that can easily be blamed for targeting underage drinkers for economic gains, is probably doing harm in more imminent and detrimental ways than signing a rapper. O'Reilly also condemns Reebok for signing rappers that hurt children without addressing the sweatshops that athletic companies such as Reebok have been using to make their products (factories that create outsourcing as well as exploit labor).
The O'Reilly Factor's shows of opprobrium toward lyrical irresponsibility may be well-founded, and although the show obviously has limits in what it can cover, it has a social responsibility to be consistent and thorough in its broadcasting. O'Reilly should target not only gangster rappers but other popular figures ranging from actors to musical artists that have negative messages.Also, he should not stop at merely criticizing corporations in their signing of gangster rappers, for abuses run far deeper than these endorsements.But in due credit to Bill, he does send a good message about artist responsibility while obviously still respecting the First Amendment, a message that should be heeded by not only rappers, but all artists that impact today's youth.
Sina Kian's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at skian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
