Earlier this month Atlanta based news network CNN suspended longtime contributor Roland Martin over comments he made on his Twitter account in response to ads during the Super Bowl.
In response to David Beckham’s Super Bowl commercial which showed the soccer player in nothing but his underwear, Martin tweeted, “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about Beckham's H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him." A following tweet read, “Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass."
Following Martin’s tweets, gay rights group GLAAD demanded that CNN fire Martin. CNN initially had no reaction to Martin’s tweet or GLAAD’s demands, but days later gave in, somewhat, issuing this statement, “Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.” Martin has been suspended since.
To be clear, I do not think Martin’s suspension was in any way motivated by his race, it is more than likely that CNN would have reacted the same way had Martin been of any other racial descent. For perspective, MSNBC recently fired Pat Buchanan as a contributor, after suspending him for four months over his new book Suicide of a Superpower that many felt had racist and anti-gay overtones. At one point CNN chose Martin to take over hosting duties on Campell Brown's show while she was away on maternity leave and (though the network recently came under fire for having no people of color in their primetime line-up) it is responsible for some of the most recognizable faces of color in Journalism, including TJ Holmes, Don Lemon and Soledad O’Brien (who hosts CNN’s continuing series Black In America).
The reason CNN was wrong to suspend Martin is simply this: They suspended him for something he did not say. At no point in his tweets does Martin advocate for violence against gays. Even if his tweets are taken literally, ignoring the clearly jovial tone of the expressions he used and what he was tweeting about, he is arguably advocating for violence against a man who is excited about underwear promoted by David Beckham and who thinks it is okay to wear a pink head to toe suit. To translate that into advocating for violence against homosexuals is a bit of a leap, and assumes on the part of GLAAD (somewhat ironically) that all men who wear pink or who would wear underwear promoted by Beckham, are gay. Also, the expressions Martin used, that were said to be advocating violence against homosexuals, are generally expressions not to be taken literally, but more as a figure of speech (much like ‘I could eat a horse’ or ‘I’m so mad I could scream’).
Martin’s tweets do somewhat perpetuate the mentality that if you are anything outside the normal male stereotype, that you should not be embraced by “the guys” which, several stages of evolution later, could be equated with homosexual men being shunned by heterosexual men in school, the workplace, etc. (and the possible violence that may come with that kind of thinking), but again that is a bit of a stretch and doubtfully was Martin’s intention. Violence against gays has been rampant in recent years (and even dating back to the heinous murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998) and so in some ways I think it might be the responsibility of GLAAD to go after anything that may even lead or appear to support something so deplorable, but CNN should have reacted differently, perhaps encouraging Martin to clarify, on their network, the fact that he is against violence toward gays and that he in no way intended to perpetuate that kind of dangerous ignorance with his tweets. I understand the importance of being on the right side of social issues both in appearance and in practice, but CNN’s approach on this was incorrect and wasted the opportunity to refreshingly raise awareness for a large number of people on a very important subject, by instead taking a route already incorrectly taken so many times before.
Anti-gay sentiment is wrong, dangerous and should be condemned by everyone who values living in a civilized society where people should be expected to be safe and respected, but seeing it when it is not there causes people to become riled-up erroneously and as a result, become somewhat desensitized to the subject. And it is that very sensitivity that is needed on the part of decent people in order to eradicate the kind of ignorance, bigotry and prejudice that is at the root of things like anti-gay sentiment and violence against gays - it should not be wasted. In many ways it is like ‘crying wolf’.
Now, I am not the biggest fan of Roland Martin, I have never found his commentary particularly riveting and I find some of his views on issues like homosexuality, for example, socially irresponsible, given the fact that he is a public figure, provided a platform for his opinion, which makes that very opinion one that can affect those of others, on a large scale. That said, to suspend him for something he did not say, is simply absurd. It is difficult enough to manage what you are saying when you are a commentator, particularly when that is applied to when you are both on and off the air, but to have to add to the list, managing things that may be inferred incorrectly by some, is simply a ridiculous and an unfair task.
Last Sunday Martin took to his TV One show Washington Watch to point out that in his meeting with GLAAD he reiterated his apology saying, “If anyone who construed my comment[s] as being anti-gay or homophobic, or advancing violence, that was not my intent, and for that I was truly sorry.”
GLAAD immediately issued a statement in support of Martin’s comments, saying, “Martin today took another important step, acknowledging that his words had a negative impact, and making it clear that he understands how serious the issues of anti-LGBT bullying and violence are."
Comments