Blatant, Unabashed Racism

[Big Don]

TV One to cover Democratic convention -- but not Republican

The Live Feed/The Hollywood Reporter
July 08, 2008



TCA -- Given Barack Obama's historic run for the Oval Office, African American-themed cable network TV One plans to break from its usual entertainment programming to provide extensive coverage of the Democratic National Convention in August.
"Sen. Barack Obama running for president is a huge deal for TV One as it is for the African American community," said Johnathan Rodgers, president and CEO of TV One, a channel in about 40 million homes. "African Americans have fallen in love with his candidacy, his family … we will be covering the democratic convention all the time."
But John McCain shouldn’t expect the same treatment. The network doesn’t plan any coverage of the Republican Convention.
"We are not a news organization," said Rodgers, speaking at the opening session of the semi-annual Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills. "We are a television network designed to celebrate African American achievement. If Hillary was the nominee, we would not be covering this year's Democratic Convention."
"My audience is 93% black," Rodgers added. "I serve my audience."
++++++++++End Excerpt++++++++++++

A "White" TV network would not ever be allowed, why then is this "African American-themed cable network" allowed to exist? Isn't racism wrong, no matter who it is biased against?

 

[Twin Fist]

there you go using logic again, you know better than that

 

[CuongNhuka]

There's nothing actually stopping you from making a white themed tv station. But, if you did and 93% of your viewers were Hispanic, you would probably change programing. Welcome to a Free Market.

That aside, there is a differnce between not caring about a white Presidential Canidate, and being a racist. It is more likely, that the viewers of TV One support Barack Obama, and the owners are apeasing that. There are other Black Canidates that aren't getting looked at. You have to remember that.

 

[Andrew Green]

A "White" TV network would not ever be allowed, why then is this "African American-themed cable network" allowed to exist? Isn't racism wrong, no matter who it is biased against?

Isn't Fox News a "white" station? *ducks*

Wording is always the key it seems, but they are not claiming to be a news channel. There are definitely other cultural and ethnic communities that have stations dedicated to the interests of that community. Several Christian channels are definitely in existence and I suspect that had Huckabee been the Republican nominee they might have increased there election coverage as it would have been of interest to their viewers.

That said, you are right. There are certain groups that it is "ok" to openly show preference too, and other groups that it is not. Being a white male I have less oportunities then other groups. Here being Aboriginal opens a few doors as I imagine being black does down there. Being female opens other doors.

We have several "Womens only" fitness centers, big chains, no "Mens only equivelant. It likely would get protested...

We see stories of female players fighting to get into male leagues, and often winning if they are good enough, but the reverse isn't likely going to happen.

I can see both sides of the issue, on the one hand some groups have had the scales tipped against them very steeply for generations, that sort of damage takes time to undo. TIpping the scale back is a form of catch up. Like if we had a dozen beer, I drank 6 before you got there, I might give you 4 of the remaining 6 rather then insisting we split them evenly starting then.

The problem is I didn't drink those beer, People that looked sort of like me did. Yet I did benefit indirectly from them drinking all the beer and not sharring with the others.

So whats fair? I keep those benefits as it wasn't me personally that took advantage of anyone, or that I allow those people that where left dissadvantaged some room to catch up?

Not a easy question, and not one with a clear answer.

 

[DavidCC]

A "White" TV network would not ever be allowed, why then is this "African American-themed cable network" allowed to exist? Isn't racism wrong, no matter who it is biased against?

Ever hear of CMT? or the GOLF channel? :lol:

 

[jkembry]

Never heard of TV One....If it is a cable channel...that may be why since I don't do the cable TV. If it is a Cable channel...do politically equality rules apply?

Just a thought.

 

[CuongNhuka]

do politically equality rules apply?

Because they're not actually a news program, they probably don't. And the owners don't have much incentive if most of there viewers want Obama.

Let's use the Golf Channel as an example (so as to reduce the idea of this being racist). If 85% of The Golf Channels viewers wanted to elect the Green Party (for what ever reason), The Golf Channel is probably going to show a few things about The Green Party, and nothing about Obama or McCain. It's becuase of this thing called a 'Free Market'. IE, you provide the services to your clients that they want.

Kinda funny, Republicans want a Free Market.... With TV Channels are forced to be equal with there news coverage. Haha.

 

[CoryKS]

Sorry, I don't see catering to a particular demographic as being racist, even when the obvious demarcation is by race. Racism, to me, is having a belief that one race is superior to others and then acting on that belief when dealing with others. Choosing to target a racial group as a prospective audience doesn't qualify.

It may very well be hypocritical, however. There was a big whoopty-doo some years back because sitcoms like "Friends" didn't have any black characters. And of course, that too was labeled racism. I didn't agree with that argument on the same grounds. The producers of the shows and the owners of the cable channel should be able to tailor their product to fit the audience they are seeking.

 

[Big Don]

Sorry, I don't see catering to a particular demographic as being racist, even when the obvious demarcation is by race. Racism, to me, is having a belief that one race is superior to others and then acting on that belief when dealing with others. Choosing to target a racial group as a prospective audience doesn't qualify.

From Dictionary.com:
rac·ism

/ˈreɪ

sɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh

m] P –noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Racism, simply, is ANY bias based on race.
Racism is stupid when practiced by anyone. You cannot tell a good person from a bad one on sight alone, trying to do so is foolish, encouraging others to do so, evil.

 

[CoryKS]

From Dictionary.com:
rac·ism

/ˈreɪ

sɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh

m] P –noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Racism, simply, is ANY bias based on race.
Racism is stupid when practiced by anyone. You cannot tell a good person from a bad one on sight alone, trying to do so is foolish, encouraging others to do so, evil.

Yes, that was the definition I was working from. I don't see where the TV One folks are promoting racial superiority. They are catering to a market.

 

[Andrew Green]

From Dictionary.com:
rac·ism

/ˈreɪ

sɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh

m] P –noun
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Racism, simply, is ANY bias based on race.
Racism is stupid when practiced by anyone. You cannot tell a good person from a bad one on sight alone, trying to do so is foolish, encouraging others to do so, evil.

That first part you bolded is important. Are they saying that Black people are inherently better for the job because of there race? I don't think so.

I think they are celebrating the fact that the United States could have its first black president. This is relevant news, especially for that community.

This is also a community that has been getting told, directly or indirectly for a long time now that they simply cannot get that sort of job because of their race. Now they can finally say it is possible, this is very relevant news to that community, much more so then another old white male.

Racism, to me, is something negative. From what I can tell they are presenting this as something positive, so I have a hard time calling it racist. It is simply promoting the interests of a community.

Not really any different then stories about plane crashes, that specify how many "Americans" where on board, but nothing about anyone else. Or if a bomb goes off somewhere and there where Americans there, in American media they get the extra mention, if none where there the story might not even get reported.

Racism would be when they start attacking people because they are white, and putting out material on the evils of "the white man". There are definitely organizations that do that, as there are white organizations that do so against other groups, and religious groups that do so against other religious groups.

But there is a difference between saying "I want x to win because he is y" (where y is a religion, cultural group, ethnic group, etc.) and saying "x should not be allowed to win, because he is y"

One is a positive message of promoting your own group, the other is a negative message and is racist.

 

[CuongNhuka]

This is relevant news, especially for that community.

This is true, but he's not saying there coverage is racist, he's saying the whole idea a Black-Themed TV station is racist, and implying that he would be tarred and feathered if he made a White-Themed TV station.

 

[Andrew Green]

This is true, but he's not saying there coverage is racist, he's saying the whole idea a Black-Themed TV station is racist, and implying that he would be tarred and feathered if he made a White-Themed TV station.

Don't know, it would depend entirely on the approach. I could see a "British" or "Irish" or "French" themed channel. Probably even a "European" themed channel. That targeted the interests of the Irish-American community (or any other group), as well as highlighted important figures from that community.

Would that not be a "white" channel?

I think part of the issue is there are two things that get referred to when you say "African-American" or Black, the first is race, but the second is a cultural group.

"African American" essentially forms a cultural group, now there may be ethnically "African-American" people that do not belong to that cultural group, something I believe Obama was accused of at some point. However overall there is a much stronger correlation between ethnically "African-American" and say ethnically "British-American" and culturally "British-American".

 

[CuongNhuka]

"African American" essentially forms a cultural group, now there may be ethnically "African-American" people that do not belong to that cultural group, something I believe Obama was accused of at some point. However overall there is a much stronger correlation between ethnically "African-American" and say ethnically "British-American" and culturally "British-American".

I know a hispanic girl who describes herself as a beaner, and her parents as El Salvadorian-American. Her rational is that she was born in the States, and her Parents were born in El Salvadoria. She uses the name rational for whitey (an Irish born American is an Irish-American, and a native born white American is White), and Blacks (Nigerian born Americans are Nigerian-American, and native born African-Americans are Black). It makes sense to me. If you were born in another country, even if you were Naturalized you aren't really a full-blown American, so you add your Nationality. But, if you were born here, you aren't really an El Salvadorian, so she calls herself a beaner.

You know? But, yah, I don't know how or why someone would want to make a White TV station, since our culture can be seen in almost any aspect of American 'Culture'. But, Black Americans do have a differnit Culture in many respects.

 

[Big Don]

I know a hispanic girl who describes herself as a beaner, and her parents as El Salvadorian-American. Her rational is that she was born in the States, and her Parents were born in El Salvadoria. She uses the name rational for whitey (an Irish born American is an Irish-American, and a native born white American is White), and Blacks (Nigerian born Americans are Nigerian-American, and native born African-Americans are Black). It makes sense to me. If you were born in another country, even if you were Naturalized you aren't really a full-blown American, so you add your Nationality. But, if you were born here, you aren't really an El Salvadorian, so she calls herself a beaner.

You know? But, yah, I don't know how or why someone would want to make a White TV station, since our culture can be seen in almost any aspect of American 'Culture'. But, Black Americans do have a differnit Culture in many respects.

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" You know, the "Melting Pot" view of America. The one divisive stuff like a black tv network is diametrically opposed to.
To me the "Melting Pot" has always been something of a misnomer, ideally American culture should be more of a smelter, taking the best parts of everything and combining them into a single alloy that is stronger and more durable than it's component parts

 

[Andrew Green]

E Pluribus Unum describes an action: Many uniting into one. An accurate translation of the motto is "Out of many, one" You know, the "Melting Pot" view of America. The one divisive stuff like a black tv network is diametrically opposed to.
To me the "Melting Pot" has always been something of a misnomer, ideally American culture should be more of a smelter, taking the best parts of everything and combining them into a single alloy that is stronger and more durable than it's component parts

Melting Pot is not a view everyone shares though, and IMO isn't really a useful one. In a country of that size trying to have a single culture across the board is simply not going to work and takes us into dystopian sci-fi nonsense.

There are too many religions, economic classes, world views, races, etc. for everyone to melt into a single culture. Trying to force it will never work, and to be perfectly honest in a free society should definately not be the case. Part of freedom mean being able to live your life as you see fit, not as is culturally mandated by someone elses melting pot philosophy of assimilation.

In the end, you are stuck with a multi-cultural society, whether that was the intent or not.

Mono-culture is, IMO, not compatible with freedom.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Mono-culture is, IMO, not compatible with freedom.

Japan is largely a homogonous in terms of culture culture and Nationality. But, Japan has never really been a source of immigration. Infact, I saw a stat that said that last year Japan only accepted something like 18 people as naturalized immigrants.

A more correct statement would be "for a country that encourages immigration, mono-culture is not compatible with freedom."

 

[Nolerama]

It makes sense to me. If you were born in another country, even if you were Naturalized you aren't really a full-blown American, so you add your Nationality. But, if you were born here, you aren't really an El Salvadorian, so she calls herself a beaner.

I disagree and am offended. I was born in the Philippines and came to this country as a youngster. I've assimilated into American culture, as well as older family members. It's a bit of a surprise (and a little saddening) to be put into a situation where one thinks of such terms.

At the same time, I've embraced Filipino culture.

We're Americans first. Being Filipino-American is brought up in conversation when ethnicity is questioned. It's not an overtly identifiable thing.

I vote as an American. I think in terms of American ideals and goals. I am about as full-blown American as it gets.

I think you're touching on a gray area of ethnic identification, as well as your friend's trouble with accepting herself completely being from two different cultures. That's where she degrades herself when she calls herself "beaner."

Oh yeah, it's El Salvador. Not "El Salvadoria."

Your post is probably the topic of a completely different thread as well.

 

[Twin Fist]

Melting Pot is not a view everyone shares though, and IMO isn't really a useful one. In a country of that size trying to have a single culture across the board is simply not going to work and takes us into dystopian sci-fi nonsense.

it worked just fine till the 60's when the hippies convinced people being "fill in the blank" was more important than being an american.

I could not disagree with you more Andrew. Sorry.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I disagree and am offended. I was born in the Philippines and came to this country as a youngster. I've assimilated into American culture, as well as older family members. It's a bit of a surprise (and a little saddening) to be put into a situation where one thinks of such terms.

That's her logic, not mine. I'm just conveying it. And, i know it's "El Salvador". It's just a typo. They do happen.