Would a TV channel called "White Entertainment Television" be offensive?

Great Debates
1

I have noticed that there is a channel called “BET” which stands for “Black Entertainment Television” - I believe. It seems to me that quite a few people would be offended if I were to start a network called “White Entertainment Television”.

Would WET be offensive?

Is BET offensive?

If yes to WET and no to BET - why the double standard?

Are minorities entitled to special treatment because of the wrongs that have been done in the past? Should we be striving for equality or trying to give minorities special allowances? Is being a minority grounds for special treatment? Should it be?

DaLovin’ Dj

2

I wouldn’t be offended at a “White Entertainment Televuision,” though I’m tempted to argue that most television today is already WET. :wink:

Just IMO, but Black Entertainment Television seems to me no more offensive than the Spanish-, Chinese-, Korean-, and Whatever-else-language local UHF channels that populate much of the American airspace. It’s television programming that features a lot of members of a particular group, but there’s nothing restricting non-members from watching and enjoying…

3

This again.

There don’t seem to be many people who are offended at the idea that a minority group can devise holidays, news or entertainment sources etc. to suit itself. But some are offended. I think you’d have more of a case if BET only allowed blacks to watch its programming.

Maybe it’s best to ignore stuff like this that you find obnoxious.
For some reason when you mentioned White Entertainment Television I immediately thought of Pat Boone. Ecch.

4

Now see, when I hear of a network called WET, I think of something else entirely.

5

In Order:
**Would WET be offensive? ** I’m sure some would find it so.

**Is BET offensive? ** There seems to be a certain population who find it so.

**If yes to WET and no to BET - why the double standard? **

While I didn’t say yes to either, there’s a reason BET exist. It’s called all the other networks. In a few months the networks will release there new fall schedules. If current trends hold: You can bet that as usual minorities will be under represented as based on their population.

BET was an attempt to fill this niche. Feel free to start a WET if you want, but I don’t envy you the backlash.

BET is privately run, so I wouldn’t call it special treatment. It would be different if it was a government program of some kind. Incidentally how do you “strive for equality” without addressing “past wrongs”? By the way, aren’t you going to complain about Lifetime and Oxygen?

6

Would I be offended by WET? No. Would I wonder what’s the point? Yes. If you haven’t turned on your TV lately, it’s almost all WET.

“Black Entertainment Television” serves as a useful descriptor, telling me why this channel is different than others. Just like I know what I’ll find on MTV and ESPN, I know what I’ll find on BET. What’s WET? Is it Nickelodeon? AMC? Cartoon Network? Comedy Central? Fox News?

We’ve already got WET, how would yours be any different? Ohh, I see, WET makes no bones about its exclusion of a minority of TV viewers. Gotcha.

7

Personally I am not offended by BET nor would I be by a channel caled WET. The only position I would find offensive would be that one is offensive and the other is not.

DaLovin’ Dj

8

Let’s ask the question again.
Assume that all four major networks are owned by African-Americans. And 95% of the shows on these four networks are completely starring African-Americans, with occasionally a white American showing up for a cameo. A few shows exist with a white actor as the star, but that’s a single show (The MacBernie Show). Everywhere else, a sea of African-American actors; and the two most popular shows of the last ten years- Friends in the Hizouse and Shabozzfeld- never had a recurring white character.
Now, someone stars up White Entertainment Television as a way of showcasing white talent that seems to be conspicuously absent from the major networks. Is that offensive?

Quite frankly, as a conservative, I say more power to BET. If they’re turning a profit, then they’re appealing to a segment of the population that feel marginalized. And hopefully that will spur the major networks to show more diversity in an attempt to steal market share from BET.

9

I think it would be considered offensive, but not for the reason that you seem to imply (a double standard and that racism among blacks is OK).

White people are the majority. As the bulk of the American television audience, they are the implied audience for TV unless stated otherwise because there are simply more of them. Black folks and people who primarily speak Spanish are in the minority. If most TV is being aimed at the primary audience (white people), then, assuming that there are differences in preferences for the type of material shown between these groups (which there are), it’s profitable to target this niche with programming directly aimed at them. However, you need to get the attention of said group in order to do so. That’s where BET gets its name. Now I’m sure the folks who run BET would be perfectly happy if lots of white people and Spanish speakers and whoever else started watching, because it makes them more money and they don’t mean to be exclusive.

Now, to call a station “White Entertainment Television” makes a different implication because white people are the majority and, therefore, the default audience. It reeks exclusivism and therefore would be taken as offensive.

The same would apply for other minority/majority divides. For example, having magazines targeted at gay people (like The Advocate) is acceptable as not offensive; however, turning around and having a magazine target the majority audience (straight people) would be offensive, because, generally, magazines imply having a mostly straight audience. Hence, I see no reason for straight people to understand that mainstream media focuses on them, and therefore there is a market for gay segment of the population. If gay magazines are slamming straight people, then there is grounds for offense.

This is not a double standard. There is simply an obvious difference in how we treat terms racially. “Black pride” and “white pride” give off vastly different vibes to Americans who hear those terms. This does not mean that minorities are given license to be racist; it means that racism is implied in one term and not the other. Were that to change, WET might become societally acceptable as not being associated with racist groups.
For now, however, we must accept that racial differences in terms and treatment do exist. To say so does not make me a moral relativist – I simply can’t ignore that there are these differences in tone and meaning.

I suspect that in the future these terms will be less and less necessary. In the meantime I do not think BET needs to change it’s name. A reasonable person understands that there is no racism implied in the name and so there is no offensiveness. You can argue that it SHOULD be offensive, but it isn’t; therefore, there can be no “double standard”, no “special allowances”, and
no inequality.

10

I think it would be considered offensive, but not for the reason that you seem to imply (a double standard and that racism among blacks is OK).

White people are the majority. As the bulk of the American television audience, they are the implied audience for TV unless stated otherwise because there are simply more of them. Black folks and people who primarily speak Spanish are in the minority. If most TV is being aimed at the primary audience (white people), then, assuming that there are differences in preferences for the type of material shown between these groups (which there are), it’s profitable to target this niche with programming directly aimed at them. However, you need to get the attention of said group in order to do so. That’s where BET gets its name. Now I’m sure the folks who run BET would be perfectly happy if lots of white people and Spanish speakers and whoever else started watching, because it makes them more money and they don’t mean to be exclusive.

Now, to call a station “White Entertainment Television” makes a different implication because white people are the majority and, therefore, the default audience. It reeks exclusivism and therefore would be taken as offensive.

The same would apply for other minority/majority divides. For example, having magazines targeted at gay people (like The Advocate) is acceptable as not offensive; however, turning around and having a magazine target the majority audience (straight people) would be offensive, because, generally, magazines imply having a mostly straight audience. Hence, I see no reason for straight people to understand that mainstream media focuses on them, and therefore there is a market for gay segment of the population. If gay magazines are slamming straight people, then there is grounds for offense.

This is not a double standard. There is simply an obvious difference in how we treat terms racially. “Black pride” and “white pride” give off vastly different vibes to Americans who hear those terms. This does not mean that minorities are given license to be racist; it means that racism is implied in one term and not the other. Were that to change, WET might become societally acceptable as not being associated with racist groups.
For now, however, we must accept that racial differences in terms and treatment do exist. To say so does not make me a moral relativist – I simply can’t ignore that there are these differences in tone and meaning.

I suspect that in the future these terms will be less and less necessary. In the meantime I do not think BET needs to change its name. A reasonable person understands that there is no racism implied in the name and so there is no offensiveness. You can argue that it SHOULD be offensive, but it isn’t; therefore, there can be no “double standard”, no “special allowances”, and
no inequality.

11

My problem with ‘Black’ anything, is that you limit your potential entertainment. When you watch basketball, you’re not just watching the best black athletes; you’re watching the best athletes, period. Imagine whites feeling that they don’t get proper representation in the NBA, so they start watching a ‘white’ basketball league. Wouldn’t happen - people want to see the best, not the best of a particular color or gender.

Is there something on BET that the “white” community is missing out on? Some unbelievably funny or talented artist that has been ignored by the networks because of racism?

12

zwaldd, your analogy is flawed. If you need an analogy, BET is more like the “Negro Leagues” before blacks were allowed to play major league baseball.

You could go to a major league baseball game before Jackie Robinson, and tell yourself you were just seeing the all the “best” baseball players, but that wasn’t the case, and that the play of the Negro Leagues was inferior.

To convince yourself that the actors you see on mainstream TV are not the “best” regardless of race, take a look at David Schwimmer. Would he even have a job if he was black?

Was there something in Negro League baseball that the “white” community was missing out on? Some unbelievebly skillful or talented player that had been ignored by the Major Leagues because of racism?

13

Black people?

<don adams>Missed it by that much</don adams> BET exist because the people who started it felt that the mainstream networks ignored it’s black audience, and set out to create e network to fill the gap. Nothing more sinister.

Again I never see these complaints in regards to: Lifetime (Television for Women) Oxygen (I am strong, I am invincible…) hell even TNT (for guys who like movies).

14

I think this is an even more flawed ananlogy. Or are blacks not allowed to be on any the of main-stream channels? Now that blacks do play MLB, I think we are seeing the best (for the most part).

It seems like most people here are focusing on sitcoms when they say that TV is geared towards a white audience. I’ll agree; most are. However, aren’t sitcoms a very very very small part of the programming on BET (someone correct me if I’m wrong - I don’t watch it much).

Also, the analogy to Spanish, Korean, etc TV is not reall appropriate. Those channels are in other languages! A division along national/language lines is fine; one based on color seems wrong.

One thing that bothers me much more than BET is exclusive black programs - number one being Black Miss America. As someone said, anyone can watch BET, not just black people, so it’s not as bad (perhaps). But exclusive programs seems unfair, since black ladies can participate in (and win) the overall Miss America pageant, but other races cannot even enter the Black Miss America pageant.

15

**

BET sucks, but not because it’s all black or because it’s “limited”. It’s because the CEO is a jackass who only cares about the bottom dollar.

What makes you think a white basketball league wouldn’t be interesting? At least we’d get to test the theory that white men can’t jump.
**

It’s just different. Black Americans have a different way of talking and interacting with one another than white Americans. One might assume that Seinfield had universal appeal, but this isn’t so. Someone might not be able relate to Seinfield or Friends, but they might be able to get Martin or Living Single. It’s called Different Strokes for different folks (hehe, get it?).

16

Newton meter -

Don’t get me wrong…I wasn’t implying that there aren’t talented artists on BET - I don’t watch it. I was asking if there was one. If the artists on BET are David Schwimmer caliber, then I’m glad we’re not seeing more of them on the networks. If, on the other hand, you’re saying there’s a couple Jackie Robinsons on BET then who are they? Has any black performer gotten recognition on BET before hitting the mainstream?

17

Yes, they are allowed to be on main-stream channels, but only in a minority capacity. Which sucks if you want to do a show that portrays a black family, or a predominately black workplace.

UPN is an exception to most network channels. Monday nights is it’s “black” prime-time. But most of its black shows are rejects from the bigger, more mainstream networks like FOX and ABC.

The average TV exec thinks Americans would much rather prefer shows about talking babies and talking hand puppets than black Americans.

**

You are right. BET is made up mostly of music videos that won’t get airplay on MTV and VH1, comedy shows, and Gospel performances. On the weekend, it’s crappy infomercials. That’s why BET–IMHO–sucks.

But it’s the idea that black Americans have a special space on cable television–however crappy–which makes it marketable. To me, it’s no different than having a country-western channel (TNN) or a channel for gay folk.

**

Believe me, it’s not all about color. Black people and white people are not just the same people in different colors. We have different cultures, styles, and senses of humor. We have different experiences and opinions. Minorities–by definition–aren’t mainstream, so their views are not generally represented in mainstream media. Why shouldn’t they be able to go to a place that speaks just to them?

**

Maybe Black Miss America pageants have different criteria than the mainstream contest. Perhaps beauty as defined by mainstream is different than beauty as defined by minority groups. All sorts of ethnic groups have their own beauty pageants, even though theoretically anyone can participate in the mainstream event. Remember: black people are much more than white people with brown skin. They have a culture that is unique from mainstream culture, and expecting them to behave as if they aren’t as much an ethnic group as Polish-, Chinese-, and Mexican-Americans is not fair.

(Are you sure other “races” can’t enter the Black Miss America pageant? I’d be curious to know if there is a codified restriction on non-blacks from participating.)

18

Now this is almost a legitimate beef, that is until you look at history. At one time black women could not participate in the Miss America pageant. The Black Miss America Pagent was originally created to provide a forum for black women. It continues now because of the same reason all the others do. It makes money for it’s promoters and sponsors. If the revenue stream dried up, it would probably disappear. Since it hasn’t, there’s obviously a market for it.

On preview I see monstro has addressed the BET program content.

19

Good points. Especially about the Black Miss America pageant - I didn’t know it started when black girls were not allowed in the mainstream one.

I guess what bothers me overall is that it seems like minority groups want total equality, yet also want special “things” (pageants, clubs, channels, whatever) set aside for them. I know that there have historically been many such things that excluded minorities, but I think it would be better to eliminate all such “things” based on race than to reserve minority ones to make up for historical problems. It seems unfair that minorities get to participate in mainstream events AND get to have their own.

20

Sameness is not a prerequisite for equality. You can want to be treated fairly without having to give up your unique culture.

To ask them to give up their “special things” is essentially to ask them to give up their unique culture and adhere to white values, styles, interactions and traditions. African American culture has been around for hundreds of years, and has developed in parallel with white American culture. Certain outlets of cultural expression (like BET) have formed in order to provide a place for this culture that exists outside of the mainstream. Think about it. Your grandparents probably don’t laugh when they watch black sitcoms. Why should we expect a black person’s grandparents to laugh at a sitcom about white people doing white things. Why do we expect them to want to compete in beauty pagents that reward features normally found on white women and normally appreciated by white men? Yeah, a black woman can win Miss America if she has straight hair, a skinny butt and a thin nose. Why do we get to call accusations of “reverse racism” whenever they try to set up one that doesn’t demonize the kinds of features typcially found on black women?

This isn’t about “resolving historical problems”. This is about provided an outlet for a culture that is not found in the mainstream. That isn’t racism and it isn’t something that should get in the way of equality.