MaKenzie Beck
July 10th 2014
Synthesis Essay
The Hashtag Effect
As a partial
twitter user and fan of a good laugh, I was surprised at my ignorance when it
came to the #CancelColbert campaign. I had no idea the drastic measures twitter
users go through to feel as though they have been heard, but what is it they
are sayinging? This question could have many answers, but the two following
articles differ enough to express this point. “#Cancel Your Outrage:
Stephen Colbert In Not a Racist” by James Poniewozik and “The Campaign To
“Cancel” Colbert” by Jay Caspian Kang are two articles that came out to address
the “#CancelColbert” twitter hashtag. In his article Kang gives a detailed
description of what occurred and how the purpose behind the hashtag was more to
bring racism awareness to the American community then it was to cancel the show
“The Colbert Report”. Unrelatedly, Poniewozik’s article only lightly touches on
the “race” topic, while his main point is more about how twitter users are so
quick to assume the worst and judge, with no thought of further research. I
found these articles to point out two major flaws of today’s society, myself to
be included: most of society does not tend to think about the effects of a
funny joke with racial undertones or how quick we are to pass judgment,
through social media, without a thought to facts, though both definitely impact
our society.
In their articles brought about by “#CancelColbert”, both Kang and
Poniewozik address the issues of race and the misinterpretation of twitter, for
society, but have little else in common. In his article, Poniewozik views
the “#CancelColbert” campaign as “A race to be the most offended first”, that
is, who can be the first to win at being the most disgusted? and addresses the
hasty demand that trended on Twitter after a “Comedy Central account”
under the name ‘Stephen Colbert’, tweeted “I am
willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong
Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever,” a quote
from one of Stephen Colbert’s skits meant to make fun of the Washington
Redskins owner, Daniel Snyder and his foundation for “Original Americans”. But
the tweet from Comedy Central lacked context and therefore was viewed as
racist. Aside from explaining this, and pointing out that the whole skit the
tweet came from could be considered racist by some, Poniewozik does not talk much about racism being a main issue. Rather,
Poniewozik discusses, his disappointment at how individuals on twitter
were so quick to be offended by the tweet and then ready to judge instead
of looking into further information on the subject or even Colbert’s history
and credibility. Poniewozik credits this to, “the
instantaneous urge ...to react fastest and most righteously, to...demand the
greatest punishment, to … immediately assume the worst of somebody who crosses
you the wrong way.” (Poniewozik), this is the mentality that the media world
provides. With the interconnectedness of individuals through media one acquires
a sense of authority and therefore feels has the right to demand an
“instantaneous”“punishment”, even if it really isn’t called for. This instant
need to express one’s undeveloped, uneducated opinion and demand justice is
gratified by twitter use in today’s society and this, rightly so, is what
upsets Poniewozik about the “#CancelColber” campaign.
In Kang’s article he addresses the same
misunderstood tweet as Poniewozik, but instead of ranting about the misinformed
social media community, his research led him directly to the issue of racism
and it’s impact on society. Kang writes about how the “#CancelColbert” campaign
came about by an Asian-American, writer, activist and twitter standout, Suey
Park, who was identified by the Guardian for her efforts in “top 30 young people in
digital media.”. Kang
explains how Park had read the Tweet supposedly from Stephen Colbert's twitter
account, and been greatly offended, but despite the strategic hashtag she
created, did not actually desire that the show “The Colbert Report” be
canceled. Park
“saw the
hashtag as a way to critique white liberals who use forms of racial humor to
mock more blatant forms of racism. “Well-intentioned racial humor does not
actually do anything to end racism or the Redskins mascot,” ... “That sort of
racial humor just makes people who hide under the title of progressivism more
comfortable.”’ (Kang).
That is to say, Park was pointing out that
liberals were failing in their progressiveness as they attempted to use racial
humor to make fun of others’ obvious racism, “Well-intentioned racial humor” is
still racist and doesn’t make those who are racist change their minds. Kang
continues his article stating that he understood the Stephen Colbert tweet to
be a joke and as an Asian-America was not offended by it, but he does
understand Park’s desire to bring racism awareness through her “#CancelColbert”
hashtag. As Kang finishes his article he asks, “if those of us who find it
distasteful know as much about the intentions of the hashtag activists as we
think we do.” (Kang) And I would say, most of the time we don’t. Clearly some
would think that “#CancelColbert” is simply a plea to cancel a TV show, but as
we’ve seen, the underlining meaning was a call to raise racism awareness in
today’s society!
Both Poniewozik’s “#Cancel Your Outrage: Stephen Colbert In Not a Racist” article and Kang’s “The Campaign To “Cancel”
Colbert” address issues of society, but along
with their main points, differ greatly in structure. When reading Poinewozik’s
article I thought he took more of an opinion expressing approach rather than
factual: “ Because what else did you need to know? What context did you need?
The tweet was right there! Somebody retweeted it! People whose reactions I
trust about this sort of thing are angry!” (Poniewozik), He expresses how
society too often believes something simply because we trust who said it. But
Poniewozik is, I feel, guilty of doing the same thing, his article lacks
sources and has a take “take my word for it” tone that while reading didn’t
feel the need to dispute , I found this to make him, despite the article being
on “TIME”, uncredible. While reading Kang’s article I felt well informed
and thought he was credible because he stated the information, talked about his
interview and then expressed his views from a professional and personal point.
It is my opinion that Poniewozik and Kang use their style of writing to
attract the audiences they have, the “agree by persuasive tone” of Poniewozik
and Kang’s “facts and opinion based” through these styles both authors grip
societies attention.
I tend to place myself with society when it comes
to the undertones of racial jokes and do not escape the fast opinion based on
little information. I appreciated what Kang had to say in his researched
article “THE CAMPAIGN TO “CANCEL” COLBERT”, about the “#CancelColbert” hashtag
underlying racism message. And I tend to agree, and view myself guilty, of
Poniewozik’s idea that with social media and hashtags people too often create
an opinion based solely on the catchiness of a title instead of the actual facts
in ”#Cancel Your Outrage: Stephen Colbert Is Not a Racist”. The hashtag
“#CancelColber, as we’ve seen can, was meant to bring carial awareness, but
also brought to light the mentality people of have of passing judgment without
any other reason than a catch title they think they should defend. In society
we should take this, the underlying meanings, into account the next time
we see a controversial hashtag. It is up to society to try and understand the
deeper meaning and effects though a little research before we take a “stand” on
the topic.
KANG, “The Campaign to “Cancel” Colbert”
Poniewozik, “#Cancel Your Outrage: Stephen Colbert Is Not a
Racist”
