The White Community needs to speak out! - Did that get your attention? Imagine the awesome magnitude of shit that would befall anyone of note who might utter a bigotted, racist comment like that on, say, a top-rated (#1 at the time this was written) morning-drive radio program? I don't say shit lightly, just in italics, and by it I mean the negative response of the entire media establishment. Nod your head if you agree that the above comment is bigotted and racist, and if you're a liberal, write down yay or nay on a sheet of paper so you can't convince yourself that you thought otherwise after you read the rest of this.
The #1 rated morning radio program in Atlanta is the Frank Ski program. Frank Ski, from the data I've seen (google his name, you can see it, too), seems to be a nice guy, a decent person. Hard working. Successful. Idiot.
No, fucking idiot is more appropriate. He's a racist bigot to boot.
I listened to Mr. Ski complain, on his show, about Pepsi's decision to end it's advertising/marketing relationship with the rapper Ludacris. Bill O'Reilly took a few moments of his FoxNews broadcast to comment on that relationship, and urged his viewers to pressure Pepsi to end it. That same evening, Pepsi announced that it had ended the relationship, and apologized for any offense it may have caused. Now, the Pepsi / Ludacris flap is not a serious issue in and of itself. The point of this rant is Mr. Ski's reaction to it, and everything that follows from that.
Mr. Ski has spent a lot of time on the air discussing this issue, mostly encouraging the "Black Community" to "speak up for itself" and to not let white, "corporate america" make decisions for it. He sees the Pepsi flap as an attack on black people, and it is. Pepsi is using the poorest possible example of what any person should strive to be, in the form of Ludacris, and using his ethnicity to market a fizzy beverage to people of similar ethnicity. Reebok is doing the exact same thing, but with shoes and clothes. The AJC story that really started it all pulls a typical, stupid liberal error: it rats out another stupid liberal. The entire article is premised on how Pepsi is using "multicultural" and "urban" performers to focus marketing to the "mainstream" and on "promotions aimed at youth ages 12 to 24." To any liberals reading this, the above linked article was printed before the O'Reilly comments, and was most likely what precipitated his comments.
Mr. Ski tries to equate Ludacris to Eminem and Britney Spears, the former because of the similar performance style, and the latter because of her focus on sexual appeal and similar Pepsi ad deal. I do not see Eminem helping to sell Pepsi (or any other "mainstream" product), and it seems that Ludacris' lyrics are much more explicit than Eminem's anyway. Britney Spears may dress like a 'ho, but I don't hear her songs glorifying violence, or sex, or profanity.
Mr. Ski glosses over the fact that kids, especially those with similar ethnicity to Ludacris, will be negatively influenced by his "art" if exposed to it at too early an age, and Pepsi's use of him in advertisements makes it very easy for young children to be exposed to him, and subsequenty to his "art." I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to protect their children from such filth, and any kid in school is going to learn who he is sooner or later, but it is one thing to be exposed to his music at a young age, but quite another to have the aura of appropriateness, in the eyes of a child, given to the music because the musician was featured in an ad for an ok company. As the AJC noted, the entire campaign is focused on the 12 to 24 age bracket, specifically "multicultural" and "urban" groups. That means black kids, for those of you on the North Side. If I was a black parent, I think I might be a little bit upset at the notion of my children being targeted by Ludacris in Pepsi ads, knowing that my children have been exposed to him at school from older kids, because those ads will be saying to my kids, "Look at me, I'm hip, I'm cool, and I'm making the bling-bling with this Pepsi deal. And you remember my CD? That's why I'm here, that's why I'm famous." Famous for what he sings about, and this is fine and dandy, except when my kids are looking up to their peers who are all listening to Ludacris, because it's hard enough trying to explain to them that singing about the 'ho's is wrong without them looking up at those ads and wondering if I'm not being up front, wondering if I ain't just a little out-of-touch, because Pepsi doesn't think it's bad, and their friends don't think it's bad, and their parents aren't stopping them from listening to it. Even if your kids are smart, or really smart, they aren't going to listen to you explain the details of multi-level, targeted marketing, nor think you're cool for trying. The bottom line is that the ads undermine the credibility of parents in the eyes of their children, when those parents try to control their children's access to filth like Ludacris.
Frank Ski's program is number one in Atlanta. His target audience is predominately black, from the "South Side," as his show proudly proclaims. His program works hard to tell its audience that black people are oppressed, that they need "a voice," that his program is that voice, and then it proceeds to demonstrate the worst aspects of the "Black Community." For any "white" people listening, it stinks of black stereotypes, making jest of them while denouncing those who might believe them. It's sad that, most definitely, his audience believes the stereotypes.
Surely, there are many parents listening to his show. Do they not care that their kids are listening to filth, and watching filth on TV? Judging from the comments made by callers to the program, I would bet that they have already given up the fight for their kids, and that their kids are already falling into the poor lifestyle promoted by the likes of Ludacris. Poor in morals, poor in the pocket, poor in intelligence, poor in manners, poor in esteem, and poor in the future. But hey, that's already what I see when I go to the "South Side," why should it not be that way for the next generation? There is no excuse. The "Black Community" needs to truly fend for itself against "big media," and if the number one rated morning radio show in Atlanta isn't "big media," I don't know what is. "Big media," including the AJC, CNN, the big-three, the little-two, they are all pulling a fast one on black people and poor people, expecially poor black people, and only they can choose to wake up, realize it, and fight it. The "Black Community" needs to realize what "big media" means when it says "the Black Community" (read: poor, uneducated black people, for those of you who didn't vote for Cynthia McKinney), and decide if that's really where it wants to be. As long as people like Frank Ski are getting the ratings, and are acting as "the voice," expect a bumper crop of poor, uneducated black people for the "next generation" in the South Side.
The #1 rated morning radio program in Atlanta is the Frank Ski program. Frank Ski, from the data I've seen (google his name, you can see it, too), seems to be a nice guy, a decent person. Hard working. Successful. Idiot.
No, fucking idiot is more appropriate. He's a racist bigot to boot.
I listened to Mr. Ski complain, on his show, about Pepsi's decision to end it's advertising/marketing relationship with the rapper Ludacris. Bill O'Reilly took a few moments of his FoxNews broadcast to comment on that relationship, and urged his viewers to pressure Pepsi to end it. That same evening, Pepsi announced that it had ended the relationship, and apologized for any offense it may have caused. Now, the Pepsi / Ludacris flap is not a serious issue in and of itself. The point of this rant is Mr. Ski's reaction to it, and everything that follows from that.
Mr. Ski has spent a lot of time on the air discussing this issue, mostly encouraging the "Black Community" to "speak up for itself" and to not let white, "corporate america" make decisions for it. He sees the Pepsi flap as an attack on black people, and it is. Pepsi is using the poorest possible example of what any person should strive to be, in the form of Ludacris, and using his ethnicity to market a fizzy beverage to people of similar ethnicity. Reebok is doing the exact same thing, but with shoes and clothes. The AJC story that really started it all pulls a typical, stupid liberal error: it rats out another stupid liberal. The entire article is premised on how Pepsi is using "multicultural" and "urban" performers to focus marketing to the "mainstream" and on "promotions aimed at youth ages 12 to 24." To any liberals reading this, the above linked article was printed before the O'Reilly comments, and was most likely what precipitated his comments.
Mr. Ski tries to equate Ludacris to Eminem and Britney Spears, the former because of the similar performance style, and the latter because of her focus on sexual appeal and similar Pepsi ad deal. I do not see Eminem helping to sell Pepsi (or any other "mainstream" product), and it seems that Ludacris' lyrics are much more explicit than Eminem's anyway. Britney Spears may dress like a 'ho, but I don't hear her songs glorifying violence, or sex, or profanity.
Mr. Ski glosses over the fact that kids, especially those with similar ethnicity to Ludacris, will be negatively influenced by his "art" if exposed to it at too early an age, and Pepsi's use of him in advertisements makes it very easy for young children to be exposed to him, and subsequenty to his "art." I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to protect their children from such filth, and any kid in school is going to learn who he is sooner or later, but it is one thing to be exposed to his music at a young age, but quite another to have the aura of appropriateness, in the eyes of a child, given to the music because the musician was featured in an ad for an ok company. As the AJC noted, the entire campaign is focused on the 12 to 24 age bracket, specifically "multicultural" and "urban" groups. That means black kids, for those of you on the North Side. If I was a black parent, I think I might be a little bit upset at the notion of my children being targeted by Ludacris in Pepsi ads, knowing that my children have been exposed to him at school from older kids, because those ads will be saying to my kids, "Look at me, I'm hip, I'm cool, and I'm making the bling-bling with this Pepsi deal. And you remember my CD? That's why I'm here, that's why I'm famous." Famous for what he sings about, and this is fine and dandy, except when my kids are looking up to their peers who are all listening to Ludacris, because it's hard enough trying to explain to them that singing about the 'ho's is wrong without them looking up at those ads and wondering if I'm not being up front, wondering if I ain't just a little out-of-touch, because Pepsi doesn't think it's bad, and their friends don't think it's bad, and their parents aren't stopping them from listening to it. Even if your kids are smart, or really smart, they aren't going to listen to you explain the details of multi-level, targeted marketing, nor think you're cool for trying. The bottom line is that the ads undermine the credibility of parents in the eyes of their children, when those parents try to control their children's access to filth like Ludacris.
Frank Ski's program is number one in Atlanta. His target audience is predominately black, from the "South Side," as his show proudly proclaims. His program works hard to tell its audience that black people are oppressed, that they need "a voice," that his program is that voice, and then it proceeds to demonstrate the worst aspects of the "Black Community." For any "white" people listening, it stinks of black stereotypes, making jest of them while denouncing those who might believe them. It's sad that, most definitely, his audience believes the stereotypes.
Surely, there are many parents listening to his show. Do they not care that their kids are listening to filth, and watching filth on TV? Judging from the comments made by callers to the program, I would bet that they have already given up the fight for their kids, and that their kids are already falling into the poor lifestyle promoted by the likes of Ludacris. Poor in morals, poor in the pocket, poor in intelligence, poor in manners, poor in esteem, and poor in the future. But hey, that's already what I see when I go to the "South Side," why should it not be that way for the next generation? There is no excuse. The "Black Community" needs to truly fend for itself against "big media," and if the number one rated morning radio show in Atlanta isn't "big media," I don't know what is. "Big media," including the AJC, CNN, the big-three, the little-two, they are all pulling a fast one on black people and poor people, expecially poor black people, and only they can choose to wake up, realize it, and fight it. The "Black Community" needs to realize what "big media" means when it says "the Black Community" (read: poor, uneducated black people, for those of you who didn't vote for Cynthia McKinney), and decide if that's really where it wants to be. As long as people like Frank Ski are getting the ratings, and are acting as "the voice," expect a bumper crop of poor, uneducated black people for the "next generation" in the South Side.
posted by koalabear at
7:29 PM
