Nothing says Hollywood like turning charity into a gimmick.
On Sept. 14, the 77th Emmy Awards began just like any other until host Nate Bargatze revealed their new plan to reduce long speeches. Bargatze announced $100,000 was going to be donated to the Boys & Girls Club of America, but the donation would drop by $1,000 each time a winner gave a speech over 45 seconds. There was something uniquely dystopian about watching a room full of rich people make jokes about money that means far more to its beneficiaries than they will ever know.
The money counter was extremely out of touch and gave the ceremony a rushed feeling—leaving a bad taste in mouths as to why the gimmick needed to happen in the first place.
Taking a few steps back, what’s surprising is the number of people who had to approve of the money counter idea before it came to fruition. It’s hardly believable that no one within CBS raised any concerns regarding the tally, suggesting they knew how controversial it would be—knowledge brands have been capitalizing on.
Discourse surrounding the tally at the Emmys comes at a time when award shows are rapidly decreasing in viewership, suggesting there might have been a marketing scheme even more ethically dubious at play. Controversy marketing is when an event or statement intentionally sparks debate to generate attention for a brand, or in this case, a show.
There’s something uniquely wrong about using people’s real-life problems to stir up viewership, even more so than using them to limit speech times. Either way, the tally was an unnecessary addition to this year’s Emmys.
Though the money was donated anyway and some may write this off as a harmless stunt, considering recent events, this isn’t the right political climate to be limiting free speech; even if it means a show runs long. Many actors use their platforms to highlight political messages, something that should be encouraged in the face of government overreach in the public domain.
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination two weeks ago, U.S. President Donald Trump has reiterated the claim that critical coverage of him is “illegal.” Clearly, now isn’t the time to limit what few opportunities there are for free speech.
Outside of ethical leanings and political complications, the money countdown was gimmicky and took away from what’s supposed to be a special night for award winners. It’s cheap to take away an individual’s chance to express a message they’ve after winning a monumental life award—adding to the notion of the Emmys as an unserious event compared to the notion of the Emmys as an unserious event.
There could’ve been a variety of ways to encourage winners to keep their speeches short, and the money counter should’ve never been on the table.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.