It is impossible to get large groups of people to cohesively agree on the same topic. Personally, my family of five can’t even decide on a restaurant we all want to eat at without the conversation intensifying into an all-out UFC match. Just imagine the chaotic disagreement between the 7.4 million at-home viewers judging the 77th Primetime Emmys Awards last week. An uproar of arguments about winners, performances, statements, and the deliverance of jokes spread quickly over social media. However, the biggest controversy regarded the freedom of speech for those accepting their awards on stage.Â
Nate Bargatze, the award’s host, created a rule that winners could only give a 45-second speech. For every second they spoke over that time limit, he deducted $1,000 off the $100,000 he was planning to give to the Boys and Girls Club of America. By the end of the night, the donations ended in the negatives. The results of this regulation, coupled with the insensitive jokes surrounding it, left fans shocked. Â
Bargatze, one of the most popular comedians in the United States, is known for his clean and deadpan approach to comedy. He particularly avoids both political and contentious content in his performances. So, despite his usual wit, the community of media consumers did not find his hypocrisy funny, instead blaming him in disbelief for the departure from his usual style. Notably, as reported by Indiana Times, a fan on X exclaimed, “Why are winners being forced to choose between celebrating themselves and feeding kids?” Another joked that he made a prestigious awards event into an unserious game show. However, others disagreed that he was at fault and instead criticized winners like Hannah Einbinder and John Oliver for going over their allotted time, arguing that these celebrities already have large spotlights for their fame and screen-time, how much more time do they really need to shine?Â
Ironically, at the end of the day, the joke was on Bargatze. He taught a lesson to America: you can’t outrun the clock — it will always catch up to you. The backlash for the rule ended up being too strong, leading him to collaborate with CBS to donate $250,000 more than the original goal. But hey, at least the night was a big win for charity! Not only did the Boys and Girls Club make considerable profit from CBS and Bargatze, but advertising the organization to a mass audience also brought awareness to the needs of adolescents struggling at the brink of poverty. The CEO of the Boys and Girls of Chester, PA stated “it was outstanding in terms of just trying to get people engaged.”, As a result, the organization saw a substantial incline of donations from viewers. Â
Overall, when looking at the bigger picture, maybe the Emmys should start handing out stopwatches, or actually, base donations on goodwill rather than incentives. Or maybe we shouldn’t be worried about the origin of intentions, instead viewing what began as a ticking clock on acceptance speeches as a spotlight on generosity — showing that sometimes the messiest controversies can spark the most meaningful change. However, at the end of the day it is up to each individual to answer the questions of morality: Would I put what is universally virtuous on the line in order to create a positive result, or is being labeled by the whole world as unethical and a liar too much to handle? Â