Dog Chapman: Who Says that "good" Celebrities Have to Be "good" People?

Yet another celebrity has shown his less-than-perfect (okay, let's call it what it is-ugly) side. I'm not a fan of the show but, like everyone else I have heard and read that Dog Chapman, of Dog the Bounty Hunter fame, has been outed by his son, and the whole world, even if they haven't actually heard the audio clip, is aware of his racist comments reported in the National Enquirer.

And my question today is, "So, what?"

Unlike a Don Imus, who committed his sin on live radio, Dog (Duane) Chapman has been revealed as a racist in his private life. The former made wildly inappropriate choices in his topics for discussion "on air". The latter simply proved that he is an ingrate in his private life.

Should an entertainer's private opinions have any impact on their art, if you deem "Dog The Bounty Hunter" to be art? Should viewers stop viewing, or sponsors stop sponsoring, because of the way that a performer behaves in his or her "real" life?

Which of us (and I include myself, because I have seen one episode of Dog the Bounty Hunter) thinks that Duane Chapman is an inherently "nice" guy? Which of us thinks that, when he apprehends a target, he says "Gosh, darn. Put your hands behind your back, you rascal, 'cause you've been caught"?

Duane Chapman is "from the street", and his behavior, and his language, is not a surprise to me. I'm not convinced that it is a surprise to anyone.

If we, the viewing public, shied away from every performance given by someone who didn't meet our personal moral standards, there would be precious little to watch on TV. We, individually and based on our own standards, would stay away from anything presented by an actor or actress who was, for instance, gay, Jewish, German, Catholic, Italian, Republican, Democrat or, dare I say, black.

We are an interesting group, which takes no offence to Alex Baldwin's admitted verbal abuse aimed directly at a child (an incident that resulted in no repercussions from networks or sponsors) but demands, and receives, the ouster of a series based upon a single episode of using a racial epithet that was directed to a third party, and not to the subject of the conversation.

That is, perhaps, a sad commentary on what we believe to be "acceptable".

Even "nice" people aren't "nice" 100% of the time. Even our heroes have feet of clay. I believe that we need to get over it and accept our entertainment for what it is. A pleasurable waste of time, no matter who presents it. No matter how "nice" or "good" they may be.