Outrage culture and the Apology: How Netflix stand-ups have become fodder for public outcries and the ethics of the platform

Curator's Note

The access to comedians is at an all-time high with the growth and popularity of stand-up comedy on Netflix. Moreover, Netflix has adopted a business model that highlights the likes of comedy’s Mount Rushmore from Jerry Seinfeld, Adam Sandler, Ellen DeGeneres, and John Mulaney.  This meteoric exposure of some of comedy’s greats has also showcased three prominent comedians -- Hasan Minhaj, Dave Chappelle, and Tom Segura -- who have come under fire for sensitive subject material. This topic underscores the ethical considerations of Netflix as a platform, as well as the necessity for comedians to defend themselves as Netflix watches from afar.

Netflix as a platform is a premium, pay-to-use content provider that ultimately has the final say as to what content appears. With that stated, Netflix has the affordance to add and remove content without providing a public-facing response. In the cases of controversy, Netflix has historically refused the goading of writers to receive a formal statement from the organization. Recently, Dave Chappelle has been called “reckless” for his comments regarding the #MeToo movement and the trans community. Given Netflix’s refusal to respond publicly, Chappelle has received quasi-journalistic assaults over and over again. Similarly, comedian Hasan Minhaj, who told a story of being referred to as a “sandn----r”, has continued unscathed.

Comedian Tom Segura’s comments regarding Louisiana and the departure of the “R-word” in common vernacular has created a vortex of animosity. Segura’s use of the word “retarded” has sparked outrage from a number of critics including commentary from Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe. The magic concoction to finally receive a public comment from Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, appears to be one part commentary from Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe and precisely 97,102 signatures on a Change.org petition.

A lack of transparency has comedians fending for themselves on programs such as Breakfast Club, Conan O’Brien, and even the PBS NewsHour. Unfortunately, the true magic combination for a public response is still unknown. Growing tensions and comedians pushing the boundaries may reveal the primary ingredients of the recipe sooner than later...

Comments

Michael, your piece has me thinking about what an ideal response to outrage would look like. What motivation dominates the call for Netflix as a platform to take public responsibility for its content? Is it the desire for the comedian to demonstrate learning, for the comedian or the platform to offer an apology or retraction, for the comedian or the platform to act to repair a harm, or for an ethical principle to rely on as a sort of fair standard? Your video shows Chappelle explaining that he learns from criticism he receives, and I wonder if the need for him to respond personally to that criticism in public is part of that learning. I wonder, too, if audiences would be satisfied with an official statement from Netflix as an authentic response. Can a platform offer a meaningful, thoughtful, genuine consideration of criticism, and how might it avoid the appearance of merely a strategic branding move (or would it want to)?

Hi Dale! All valid comments.

Here are a few quick responses:

Michael, your piece has me thinking about what an ideal response to outrage would look like. What motivation dominates the call for Netflix as a platform to take public responsibility for its content? Is it the desire for the comedian to demonstrate learning, for the comedian or the platform to offer an apology or retraction, for the comedian or the platform to act to repair a harm, or for an ethical principle to rely on as a sort of fair standard?

A student said to me, "What if they do not think they did anything wrong? Should they be resigned to public apology? which I thought was a great sentiment. In a perfect world, the individual in question would want to demonstrate, (a) that they understand the impact of their comments, (b) that they want to change/improve, and (c) that they are genuinely sorry. That would follow some of the Image Repair Theory steps provided by Benoit. 

Can a platform offer a meaningful, thoughtful, genuine consideration of criticism, and how might it avoid the appearance of merely a strategic branding move (or would it want to)?

I think that there are platforms more conducive to providing meaningful feedback. Unfortunately, committed critics can quickly retort, "It's a PR move!" Truthfully, that's always a point of concern when trying to repair the image of a brand. There is something to be said about the importance of having a variety of media (e.g., live video interview and written response).

Add new comment

Log in or register to add a comment.