|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
A racist TV network?
| 
Oct 25 06:30 UTC 2000 |
A TV network in Utah, KJZZ-TV, is in a bit of hot water right now over
its request to not carry 'urban/ethnic' (aka 'black') TV shows. It
wants either the network to limit them or give it the option of
alternative programming. It finds that one nights lineup of such
-primarily comedies (the question remains is that all 'blacks' are good
for on network TV- 'brought in half as many viewers as the next lowest
performing night'.
(Utah's demographics have its population as less than 1% 'black'.)
|
| 75 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 1 of 75:
|
Oct 25 09:20 UTC 2000 |
What are they affiliated with? It sounds like a sickening sort of economic
decision to me. The network they're petitioning, if it's smart, should
laugh in their face.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 2 of 75:
|
Oct 25 09:49 UTC 2000 |
So somehow a station should be forced to carry programming that its
population has no interest in viewing? 'Force' I think is the operant
word. There are people that think that sex acts with children are
normal. Is that the type of programming you think every station should
be forced to offer? Is that what you advocate?
|
danr
|
|
response 3 of 75:
|
Oct 25 13:03 UTC 2000 |
They're not being forced to carry the programming. They can always cancel their
affiliation with the network or come up with their own alternative programming,
depending on how their contract with the network reads.
|
krj
|
|
response 4 of 75:
|
Oct 25 15:42 UTC 2000 |
The name of the station is kind of ironic. I know that when I think
of jazz, I think of Mormons in Utah. :)
|
tpryan
|
|
response 5 of 75:
|
Oct 25 16:58 UTC 2000 |
Sounds like a WB or UPN station.
|
jazz
|
|
response 6 of 75:
|
Oct 25 17:10 UTC 2000 |
I am *not* a Mormon!
|
ashke
|
|
response 7 of 75:
|
Oct 25 17:23 UTC 2000 |
Sounds stupid to me, that they are being slammed for choosing not to have some
programming, when the numbers show it isn't being watched? God, we're so pc
that we can't even offend people who aren't even there or interested!
<throws her hands up in disgust>
|
brighn
|
|
response 8 of 75:
|
Oct 25 17:46 UTC 2000 |
While I disagree with #1 (they're a business, of course their decisions are
based on economics. Cope, deal.), I also agree with #3 and disagree with #7.
If they're affiliated with, say, WB, and WB's nationally provided programming
isn't making economic sense for them, they should seek to discontinue their
relationship with WB. If only 90% of WB's programming makes economic sense,
while the other 10% doesn't, then they should lump it. the point of a network
is that people can get reliable product from market to market. If affiliates
are allowed to choose what they show during the national time slots, that
defeats the major purpose of networks.
|
jazz
|
|
response 9 of 75:
|
Oct 25 18:04 UTC 2000 |
It's amusing that the network can target television at black
Americans, but can't say they're doing it openly (i.e., it's "urban" or
"ethnic").
Is it particularly racist if a local chain store doesn't carry
clothing that's more popular in areas with a higher black population?
|
ashke
|
|
response 10 of 75:
|
Oct 25 18:06 UTC 2000 |
You're kidding right? They do it around here all the time. Local stations
playing what they want on top of the national programs. Channel 4 does it
all the time, when I lived in Brighton and could get both Flint Stations and
Detriot, I never missed a show. I think people are up in arms not about which
programs are shown or who they are affiliated with, but they do not prefer
to have these sit-coms, and because they have black stars, they're in "hot"
water.
|
brighn
|
|
response 11 of 75:
|
Oct 25 18:08 UTC 2000 |
when does channel 4 not show the national feed? It postpones Conan by an hour,
and I don't know about daytime programming, but I'm not aware of it replacing
any primteim national feeds with local feeds (barring specials).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 75:
|
Oct 25 18:20 UTC 2000 |
I agree with #3. If they don't like network programming, they can go it
alone and show what they want (and pay for). What's the problem?
|
gull
|
|
response 13 of 75:
|
Oct 25 20:58 UTC 2000 |
Notice: It's okay to have "black-targeted programming" and black cable
networks. If you started a network to show "white-targeted programming"
you'd get litigated against. Double standard.
|
jazz
|
|
response 14 of 75:
|
Oct 25 21:08 UTC 2000 |
Besides "WET" is aleady taken by some porno channel.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 15 of 75:
|
Oct 25 22:22 UTC 2000 |
re13: most programming IS white targeted, duh.
|
brighn
|
|
response 16 of 75:
|
Oct 25 22:27 UTC 2000 |
#13: Here, here.
#15: How naive. The spirit of BET and Lifetime aren't to provide generic
entertainment for blacks and women, it's to provide entertainment targeted
at making blacks and women feel empowered and justified. While the major
networks (with the exception of UPN and, less so, WB and FOX) feature mostly
white characters, the point isn't to empoer and justify whites. Granted, the
situtation is much more complicated than suggested in #13, but it *is* a
double standard.
Lieberman, for instance, offered to sit down with Farrakhan and talk through
the issues (Farrakhan is a black anti-semite). While I applaud that sentiment,
I wonder if Lieberman would be willing to sit down with the KKK's Grand Wizard
for a similar sort of discussion (maybe he would, but I wouldn't wager on it).
|
jazz
|
|
response 17 of 75:
|
Oct 26 00:15 UTC 2000 |
Still, there's some validity in what HB said; most programming does
feature a primarily white cast. But let's not pretend that there are people
in favour of some vague concept of "diversity" - it's all about seeing people
of their same racial group on television. So you don't see many
primarily-Chinese or primarily-Hispanic shows, let alone other, less
well-represented, minorities.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 75:
|
Oct 26 00:54 UTC 2000 |
There are some Chinese shows on most of the time. I guess they show what
their clientele like - not that I can tell.
|
jazz
|
|
response 19 of 75:
|
Oct 26 13:23 UTC 2000 |
I'm not thinking of the International channel ...
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 75:
|
Oct 26 15:04 UTC 2000 |
#17> As I said: Granted, the
situtation is much more complicated than suggested in #13, but it *is* a
double standard.
|
ashke
|
|
response 21 of 75:
|
Oct 26 16:01 UTC 2000 |
I'm wonder when situations became skin-color specific? I like watching some
shows, without caring what the skin color of the cast is. I grew up watching
the Cosby show, but at what point did the color of the kids skin's determine
how they solved problems or made us laugh? OH NO! Friends has a white cast!
So what? They don't go on about the white/black issues, and OMG, there
are actually more things to talk about in this world???? yes, it might be
nice to see a representitive of your race, someone you can identify with, on
the little or big screen...but someone like me, I look for the content, the
issues, the jokes, and whats in the character, not who plays it.
|
jazz
|
|
response 22 of 75:
|
Oct 26 16:49 UTC 2000 |
And someone like you will watch shows based on their content. Notice
how many shows there are out there with content, and how many shows there are
with racially homogenous casts?
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 75:
|
Oct 26 17:18 UTC 2000 |
Situations have long been skin-color specific. I doubt Sanford and Son or
Chico and the Man would have made as much sense not featuring minorities,
ditto Good Times. Also, Sanford and Son and The Jeffersons had interracial
couples/partners (a married couple in the latter case, a pair of police
officers in the former), and many of the jokes revolved around that (the white
cop was fond of saying not-quite-right jive things, like, "Keep it cold,
dude."). Racial issues were also relevant in other shows from that time
period, such as Welcome Back, Kotter, Barney Miller, Room 222, and The Mod
Squad, as well as Cosby's early foray into TV, The Bill Cosby Show.
And even when race isn't directly relevant to the "premise," social views on
race taint the final piece. there are certain things that are true about
"Friends" that probably wouldn't be true for a group of black friends, if only
the environments where they hang out.
That's not to say that race DETERMINES environment, social class, economic
class, and social interaction, but rather that society DOES dictate how people
of various races will interact. And that's the difference I was trying to get
at before -- networks like NBC tend to focus on white people being white
people. "Friends" is a hopelessly white show, frankly. Networks like BET, in
contrast, tend to focus on blacks OVERCOMING social expectations to lead
self-determined lives. A nobler cause, certainly, but with a much different
flavor.
the obvious refutation is that white males don't NEED programs on how to
overcome social expectations, since they have all the advantages already. And
THAT's what I'm saying is a naive view. White males don't have as many burdens
built-in by society because of their race and gender, but they do have some,
and there ARE programs aimed directly at those burdens: Daddy-o and Home
Improvement come to mind, as well as Men Behaving Badly. Other shows are aimed
at rewarding the behaviors that men should be eschewing: The X Show and The
Man Show, as well as Son of a Beach and Baywatch.
you're right, ashke, that the overall majority of entertainment shouldn't be
race or gender-specific... Sitcoms frequently lose their appeal by trying to
get overly social or political (Ellen comes to mind). But there *is*
entertainment that doesn't make sense unless you've been raised with a
particular set of experiences, and those sets of experiences are frequently
defined by race or gender in our society.
|
ashke
|
|
response 24 of 75:
|
Oct 26 18:38 UTC 2000 |
Wait, white males don't have as many problems? Since when? That's an
asumption based upon the sterotype. But EVERYONE has problems, and while it
seems popular to assume that one group dosen't have problems based on their
skin tone is just as bad as perpetuating a sterotype that the others do.
Ellen was a BAD show in the final seasons. It was a funny show, I enjoyed
watching it, but I did'nt care whom she dated, but the content of the show
decreased immensly. What you said, Paul, trying to justfiy that some programs
are made because that's the way others see their enviornment is like saying
that gangsta rap is fine if you grew up in that environment and ebonics should
be it's own language. If you want to take this to the morality item, fine,
but I'm so SICK <and this isn't aimed at anyone in particular> of hearing
about others being "repressed" or "left out" or the industry is trying to make
up for it. The protests at the Oscars? You know what? Beloved was a BAD
movie, it had nothing to do with leaving out the black artists. I want to
watch a show the same way I watch life. I"m not going to judge you on the
shade of your tan, from my seeming lack of pigment to your overload. I am
going to judge you on who you are and how you treat me. If I don't like some
kinds of rap it isn't because I am scared of it, or even because I am a
racist, but maybe it's just that I DON'T LIKE IT. I'm so fucking tired of
an opinion being evaluated as a terrorist action against another skin color,
gender, nationality, or species. I don't want to watch some shows. I didn't
want to see the movie Booty Call. But that means nothing other than me
wanting some content in my viewing, and some good writing for a change. I
say that if the tv station does not want to show programs that the constiuants
don't want to watch, it's their right! And no one should tell them that they
are wrong, racist, in hot water, or make fun of the predominant religion in
the state.
I know everyone isn't like me, but that shouldn't be held against everyone
either. I shouldn't be judged for anything other than my actions, like I
wouldn't expect other white redheaded females to be judged by my actions.
|