13 May 2007

On Sunday, 13 May 2007, The New York Times published an article by the Associated Press titled, “CBS Radio Pulls Show After D.J.’s Prank Call to Chinese Restaurant.”  In the article, we are informed that “ ‘The Dog House with JV and Elvis’ featuring Jeff Vandergrift and Dan Lay, ‘will no longer be broadcast’ ” after they “broadcast a call to a Chinese restaurant…in an exaggerated accent, placed an order for ‘shrimp flied lice,’ claimed [to be]…a student of kung fu and compared menu items to employees’ body parts.”  Although this may seem more appalling than comical, there is something rather amiss in the firings of Vandergrift and Lay, especially in light of the recent Imus firing. 

As disclosed in the article, complaints about the Chinese restaurant call did not surface until after a second airing of the call – the first airing being on April 5th, before the Imus firing.  Interestingly there was not one complaint lodged at the pair after the first airing of the call.  So why did the Asian-American community decide to complain this second time?

Stereotypes and censorship will always be prickly topics.  As an Asian-American from a communist country, I have experienced both and probably will not be free from either any time soon.  This is just a plain fact of my reality.  (A little ironic in an age where we have the ability to transcend the limitations of time, space, and geography on a daily basis through our electronic technologies.)  However, in a way, I am embarrassed to admit that I have been somewhat desensitized to racial stereotyping.  I find now that when I am exposed to it and when I do bear witness to it, the sting is a little less sharp than when I was in my twenties.  Although my desensitization may not necessarily be a bad thing, it does not make me proud.  Rather, it is a reflection of my disappointment with society and its lack of culture and etiquette to be accepting – at least tolerant – of difference.

Despite how progressive we think we are in America, this ersatz land of democracy really is conservative.  There is a club with an invisible divider.  Although we can not see what bars our entry, we know the bar exists to preserve a class of the mainstream cleanly separated from the marginalized.

Although the stereotype – especially the Asian stereotype – can work to our advantage, the mystique of the exotic and the unknown ‘dark arts and practices’ still lurk to haunt our every step, as a silent but indelible shadow.  From Charlie Chang, Murder By Death, The Pink Panther,  and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon to The Transporter and Rush Hour, the mysterious Chinese character – whether genius, comical, sinister, side-kick, detective, heroine, or villain – is an accepted character that works in the Hollywood machine to sell as box office gold.  Asians are at once entrepreneur and enemy.  There just does not seem to be an in-between because to be in the mainstream would be allowed entry as a fellow man – the common John Doe – ‘one of us’. 

Going back to the Vandergrift and Lay prank call then, why was there a reaction only after the second airing – after the Imus firing?  Why was action taken by the Asian-American community and CBS Radio only then and not sooner?

Perhaps the real question lies not with the phone call and not even with Imus’ firing.  The real question points to something Alec Baldwin wrote in his blog about the Imus firing (The Huffington Post, 12 April 2007):

“Imus is an entertainer. […] He must walk a line between informed, reliable broadcaster and witty madman. Jon Stewart walks that line effectively, or one similar to it. Letterman walks it better than anyone. Intelligent, yet free. Sometimes even loopy, but always in a controlled way.

Imus said something that sounded racist without really being a racist. His only crime was that he didn't walk that line very carefully. And that's his job. Don't fire Imus because he's racially insensitive. His employers should have let his audience decide that. But, perhaps, fire him because his talent is diminishing. Imus was once one of the smartest guys in radio. Maybe he's just another radio host now. […] Imus isn't a bad guy. He's just not the old Imus anymore. He's no longer that guy who always keeps that line in the corner of his eye.”  

You see, Baldwin’s take on Imus is that Imus slipped – he strayed from that fine line he once walked so adroitly – so his loss was not in his morals but rather, in his talent.  In straying the line, Imus betrayed his talent and more importantly, his history of talent walking that line.

The same could be said of the Asian-American community.  What is amiss in firing Vandergrift and Lay is the belated reaction of the Asian-American community and their misguided attack on the two D.J.s.  Rather than lambast the two, the community should have taken steps long ago, when Hawaii detective Charlie Chan introduced us to his eight children on the celluloid screen. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, thou dost protest too late!

If the prank call was genuinely offensive, why did it offend only after the second airing?  If CBS tried to exercise and demonstrate racial sensitivity, why would it air something so racially insensitive a second time – or even one time?

No, the offense is not in the call.  The offense is the self-betrayal of a community that is long overdue in protesting and perhaps has missed its chance to be offended when it has shown itself to turn profits by perpetuating its own stereotypes.