Michael Savage - Autism - the Search for Moral Compasses
Watching CNN this morning I heard about yesterday's events around the crass or harsh (depending upon how you look at it) words of Michael Savage about Autism. On a diatribe about other issues [context context context] he switched into a mode of saying that autism is simply a character flaw compounded by the moral absence of strong fathers in the lives of their children. A bit harsh. Totally off base. Yet the public outcry gets me. Why are people so angry? His words are unfair and unjust, yet he's not a moral compass, a cultural prophet, intellectual master or spiritual guide for the American people? So why do we give him so much credit, so much moral authority, assuming that his words are so important and meaning-making in terms of our lives, our collective consciousness, the way our children see each other, and the way that we see ourselves? He's on radio in order to PROVOKE, so why are we surprised when that's what he does?
Makes me think of the brouhaha over which presidential candidate best pronounces the word "Nevada". Is that really how we're going to decide? It seems to me that we collectively have lost any sort of compass, or even general consensus on who should serve as our cultural compasses. We look to the radio and Hollywood for guidance that we ourselves should be giving our children and nurturing in our communities and neighborhoods.
You can also see the interesting responses of listeners on youtube HERE.
3 comments:
No, Savage is not the moral compass, but I'm glad there was a huge outcry on his remarks. I thought his statements were outrageous, belittling and humiliating to those families with autistic children and to the children themselves. I personally can't stand him, don't listen to him but he should spend some time with autistic children before he goes down this avenue.
I agree with you that he's basically a loser - a fact which his comments affirm. I wonder if he really thinks what he said, or if it's just shock power propaganda/marketing.
I don't know. I listened to his remarks several times to be sure I heard them in context from several sources. I think the media quotes out of context to make it worse. But in the end, my feeling was still the same, why even go there. I'm all for freedom of speech, but autistic children and their families? They've got enough to deal with. I think that's why the outrage and anger. On the other hand, I'm all for freedom of speech. I guess then the other people have the freedom to rebut. I don't think he has the knowledge base of dealing with autistic children to sling the remarks around. If he had, he would not. Usually, I'm pretty callously about these shock jocks but this remark really pushed my hot button too. I wish I could explain it better.
Post a Comment