How many is enough? How is this metric determined? By show, network, cable platform, etc.?
12.6% of the US population is black. Is the % on mainstream television, less than that %?
Nope, because I can advocate for minority-specific content on NBC or other “white” networks.
(Much like I can advocate for desegregating schools instead of having special ones for blacks.)
I’m not advocating a law, but why shouldn’t I?
I agree, but that’s not the scope of the discussion.
But they don’t show only whites doing those sports.
So should we apply it to TV?
No, I reject the argument that it’s too early for racial justice or whatever. That’s what they said in opposition to Brown v. Board.
Good question, and I don’t know the answer (or even whether there are not enough for sure, though I suspect there are not). Perhaps it’s worthy of another thread.
Are you under the impression that BET only shows black people on TV? Because if you are, then that’s easy to correct – there are people of all backgrounds in various programming on BET.
The four broadcast networks are always going to aim for middle-of-the-road mainstream audiences, because of the structure of the television model (they only get revenue from getting eyeballs on ads, not the fees that allow cable to offer more specialized content). They’ll have minority elements, sure (characters here and there), but they are going to appeal to mainstream audiences, and in America, that’s a straight, white, middle-class (and these days, old) audience.
You could do it on cable, which is where you do find minority-specific programming.
Apples and oranges. Minority-oriented programming takes away airtime that could have been used for mainstream fare; there’s only so many shows you can fit on a schedule. There’s no constraint like that on schools.
Because there’s no reasonable argument for compelling media providers to put out a certain type of media.
Isn’t it? The question of why such networks exist, even in an era when there’s minority characters on mainstream TV shows, is certainly relevant to whether they should exist.
It’s an analogy: if you remove outlets for specialty content, speciality content will cease to be available. Mainstream content is what it is for a reason.
ETA: If we were ever to go back to a 1950s-era level of representation on TV, that’s how it would happen: go back to three networks, and no other outlets.
I don’t know how you envision it being done, so that’s hard to argue either way. I’d need to hear an actual proposal.
That wasn’t my argument; my argument was that the existence of BET isn’t going to stop a producer with a black-oriented pitch from getting his show on NBC (if NBC thinks it’s a money-earner), which is a point you used for why the existence of BET was a problem.
I didn’t say it had only blacks. But is it just like a “white” station? It’s name is meaningless?
No, I doubt that.
So if American media companies were all white-owned, and used the publicly-owned airwaves to completely shut out black voices or actors, you still wouldn’t think so?
It is, and like I said, I don’t oppose BET. I’m just exploring this for the sake of argument.
Not if you simply put specialty content on the mainstream networks.
Yes, ultimately, that’s how the problem was solved.
Say, require a certain number of hours with black-oriented programming or whatever. AA for TV.
If NBC didn’t want to air a black show because of racism (or fear of racism by viewers), it might still want to reject a money-earner. And it could use BET as an excuse to do that by saying “go to BET, that’s where black shows go.”
(Not that this is a likely scenario in this day and age, of course - it’s all for argument).
That’s funny, you sound like an exec defending the lack of diversity on TV.
So? Why should black programming suffer because white programming needs room?
And there is a similar constraint with schools - they don’t have unlimited budgets. A desegregating school system that is half black half white simply moved kids around so that each school was roughly half and half, it didn’t build any new ones, nor did it need to.
Doubtful, considering the First Amendment, but since this isn’t happening and shows no signs of ever happening, I’m not too worried about it.
I assumed that was the case.
By force? Why? No one wins. Networks get lower ratings and less money, people who would have watched BET or Logo or a Hispanic/Spanish-language oriented station go from an entire network to plus whatever other networks did, to a few government-mandated (always sure to create quality creative work!) shows here and there, people that like mainstream fare get shows they won’t watch. It’s lose-lose-lose.
And the proliferation of media outlets shows no signs of abating.
Ugh. So now there’s a bureaucrat in charge of deciding what’s black-oriented and what’s not, and the network has every possible incentive to make their mandated program as white-friendly as possible (to still draw that audience), defeating the goal of having programming that truly speaks to the issues and cultures of minorities. Hmm…The Will Smith Variety Hour?
In that case, with money to be made, wouldn’t NBC be wise to start their own black-oriented network? It wouldn’t reflect on them in the eyes of these hypothetical racist viewers (how many people know that CBS owns Showtime, or that NBCUniversal owns the Syfy Channel?), and they’d make more money.
Again, there’s a reason things are the way they are, and it’s not due to evil. This isn’t strictly a racial thing, either…how many shows speak to the incredibly wealthy? The desperately poor? Muslims? Scrapbookers? Anyone with interests outside the mainstream, be it due to race, politics (how many Communist-oriented shows? Even The Americans, where the leads are Soviet operatives, mentioned the concept exactly once in the 14 episodes that’ve aired), socioeconomics, or any other reason, will be poorly served by the mainstream outlets. The answer is more outlets, not trying to cram all of those into the limited slots available on four networks.
As noted in the previous post, I don’t think your proposal would actually result in black-oriented programming, but rather tokenism. That aside, though, people should be able to broadcast what they want to, and watch what they want to. The television market isn’t like gas stations or hotels, where there’s a constraint of availability that justifies something like the CRA.
How is that similiar? Each student costs the same to educate, regardless of race.
Would people who have problems with BET still complain if the channel’s name made it less obvious that it targets black viewers? Like ONE and Centric?
Spike TV caters to men the same way BET caters to black folks. No, the channel isn’t named Men Entertainment Television, but the channel doesn’t hide the factthat its intended demographic is young men.
I really do have to wonder why BET is so frequently the go-to example of media discrimination on these boards and elsewhere. Telemundo isn’t mainstream entertainment simply translated into Spanish; it’s TV that predominately features Latinos and Latino culture. Lifetime appeals to a certain subset of female viewers the same way. Singling out BET as though is it any different than all the other niche stations out there really. makes. no. sense.
Personally, whenever I see this kind of black fixation (it’s the same thing with Affirmative Action…the conversation 99.9% of the time revolves around all the undeserving incompetent blacks hogging all the positions rather than the demographic groups that actually benefit from AA the most not just because of their numerical importance but also their racial membership) it makes it exceedingly difficult for me to take the “white straight men have valid gripes, too” side seriously. And I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is.
The arguments on that side often are often dismissed because they are readily dismissible.
Agreed, and the gripe that people would protest a network called White Entertainment Television is pretty meaningless, when, as it stands, probably 90% of networks offer white entertainment.
It’s a station that, from what I understand, strives to offer programming that appeals to urban minority communities (which are largely black) in the USA, which, they would probably argue, is an underserved community as far as TV programming.
In that sense, it’s just like any other TV station – it’s trying to carve out a niche and make money. So it probably has lots in common with many other networks.
So yes, it’s just like “white” stations (if by “white” you mean “most other TV stations”). Its name is as meaningless or meaningful as other network names, I suppose, and is mostly about marketing. I imagine they would change their name if they thought it would make more money for them.
I agree.
I’d say that’s true of many AA or similar efforts.
So you’d have no problem with WET.
And each program costs the same to broadcast, regardless of race.
I understand that and have no problem with it. I’m just using it as a bouncing off point for a larger discussion that I find interesting.
Probably because the race is actually part of its name.
I disagree strongly with that characterization of the conversation. And I don’t think you frame it fairly either.
Still, white straight men DO have valid gripes. Anyone who is discriminated against by race or judged by race, or sex, or sexual orientation, has a valid gripe. Don’t you agree?
Well, that’s a nice observation about your past discussions, but it’s not much use to us here. If you want a discussion now, with me, let me know.
FTR, The only problem I have with BET is it’s name. I wouldn’t want a WET, not only because I think it would be racist, but I would hate the notion that a TV station’s trying to represent me as a white person.
Doubtless, and the business of television would be especially prone to it. Whether a room is rented or a meal sold is a fairly cut-and-dried matter, the extent to which a television program is oriented around minority interests is not. It’d be a nightmare to regulate, and the incentives are all against the outcome you want.
Other than noting that almost every channel is already WET, no.
Not on a net basis, no, some bring in more revenue than others, and the size of the audience (and their demographics) is a major factor in that.
There’s no parallel to a school, where teaching black kids and white kids has the same effect on the bottom line (which isn’t for-profit anyway). So, there’s no rationale for building new schools instead of integrating the extant ones; there is a rationale for broadcast networks only airing material with a broad appeal.