Black only channel will ONLY cover DNC covention.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
The only reason i can derive, is that you hate black people, and dont want them to have their fair share of the airwaves.


That is very unfair. He is voicing his frustration, as misguided as it may be, over what he percieves to be a double-standard. That is no where near "hating black people," or saying they cannot have their fair share of the airwaves.




posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
So, black people should just leave it up to white-oriented networks to allow their celebration of black history on TV all the time?

Don't you realize what you're saying?

"typical" white people wouldnt watch it.

Do you watch BET or TV ONE?

Personally - i don't. I rarely find it interesting, because it doesnt apply to me, im white.

But i don't have a problem with black people celebrating their history.

Whats my history? Hell if i know. I couldnt give you a guess as to where my ancestors originate. Because *I* dont care.

So black people are left with 2 choices


  • Leave it up to old white men from the 50's and 60's to allow BLACK PROGRAMMING on white oriented networks
  • Or start their OWN network with black oriented programming


Did you have any problem with "the original kings of comedy" who "happened to be" all black comedians?

me? I laughed my ass off. Though i thought George Carlin should've been in there, IMO, he IS the king of comedy.


Maybe the HISTORY channel should report on current events and predict the future...maybe they shoudl hire Miss Cleo to do her own "this will happen" series


Maybe National Geographic should run animated cartoons from the old days, like PopEye and Roadrunner


Maybe CMT should allow Jay-Z and tupac videos to be played on thier networks

or


Maybe you should realize that you're making a mountain out of a no-hill and making everyone h ere think you're racist.

Its okay man

Let it go. There is nothing to be angry about

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
The only reason i can derive, is that you hate black people, and dont want them to have their fair share of the airwaves.


That is very unfair. He is voicing his frustration, as misguided as it may be, over what he percieves to be a double-standard. That is no where near "hating black people," or saying they cannot have their fair share of the airwaves.


how is it unfair?
He's voicing his opinion, yes. Is it "unfair" for me to voice mine?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 

I don't have any issue with B.E.T. only showing black programming or Latino Magazine only featuring Latin American people.

What you're focusing on is simply a symptom of the issue. The real issue is that blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama. What's new? They usually vote Democrat anyway (75% - 90%). I don't see how this changes anything or even makes a difference in the elections. They'd be showing the DNC convention even if it was Hillary as the nominee.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

me? I laughed my ass off. Though i thought George Carlin should've been in there, IMO, he IS the king of comedy.


Maybe the HISTORY channel should report on current events and predict the future...maybe they shoudl hire Miss Cleo to do her own "this will happen" series


Maybe National Geographic should run animated cartoons from the old days, like PopEye and Roadrunner


Maybe CMT should allow Jay-Z and tupac videos to be played on thier networks

or


Maybe you should realize that you're making a mountain out of a no-hill and making everyone h ere think you're racist.

Its okay man

Let it go. There is nothing to be angry about

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



All my my favorite comedians are black. Why cant you get it through your head that I don't have a problem with black people. I'm the most UNracist person you'll ever meet. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly accept a media channel basing their political coverage solely on skin color.

I see where your coming from, but I think your way is the wrong way. It only serves to build resentment and continue the racial cycle. At some point, we have to quit basing every sittuation on skin color and just focus on the people. Just like Dr. King advocated. I think hes rolling in his grave these days.



Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Dronetek
 

I don't have any issue with B.E.T. only showing black programming or Latino Magazine only featuring Latin American people.

What you're focusing on is simply a symptom of the issue. The real issue is that blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama. What's new? They usually vote Democrat anyway (75% - 90%). I don't see how this changes anything or even makes a difference in the elections. They'd be showing the DNC convention even if it was Hillary as the nominee.



I honestly think that people with this opinion have the best of intentions. The problem is, your accepting a practice that has been categorically denounced as legitimate when it comes to white people. You cant keep having a different standard for non-white people and white people. Its a slippery slope and gives people mixed messages.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
I see where your coming from, but I think your way is the wrong way. It only serves to build resentment and continue the racial cycle. At some point, we have to quit basing every sittuation on skin color and just focus on the people. Just like Dr. King advocated. I think hes rolling in his grave these days.


With all due respect, Dronetek, im not the one in here condemning black people their right to host programming celebrating their history

:shk:


Look at it this way

the quotes you gave about Obama, which you said you insinuated were racist, because you assume you know who he's talking about


how is that any different than this situation?

The overwhelming majority of cable/sat television depicts white people, white history, and white culture.

Just because its not labeled "White"
doesnt mean there is not the "assumption"

[edit on 7/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Dronetek
I see where your coming from, but I think your way is the wrong way. It only serves to build resentment and continue the racial cycle. At some point, we have to quit basing every sittuation on skin color and just focus on the people. Just like Dr. King advocated. I think hes rolling in his grave these days.


With all due respect, Dronetek, im not the one in here condemning black people their right to host programming celebrating their history

:shk:


Interesting, because I'm not either. When the hell has their right to learn their history even come up in this discussion?

Like many small minded people, you stoop to constantly implying I'm a racist, instead of arguing the points. Its getting old.



[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
They'd be showing the DNC convention even if it was Hillary as the nominee.


So, you think they're just lying about that part?

BET, TV One Gear up for Convention



The four-year-old TV One, which is covering its inaugural presidential campaign, will provide blanket coverage of the four-day convention, including live primetime coverage and a nightly post-convention show, said its president, Johnathan Rodgers.

Both networks say the historical presidential run of the U.S. senator from Illinois is the driving force behind their unprecedented coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.

“If Obama were not the presumptive nominee, we would not have covered the convention at all,” said Rodgers. “This is a huge event in the history of African-Americans and we are a network that's proud of the fact that 93% of our audience is black. Not only do we feel an obligation to cover it well, we feel it is part of our promise to our viewers.”



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dbates
They'd be showing the DNC convention even if it was Hillary as the nominee.


So, you think they're just lying about that part?

BET, TV One Gear up for Convention



The four-year-old TV One, which is covering its inaugural presidential campaign, will provide blanket coverage of the four-day convention, including live primetime coverage and a nightly post-convention show, said its president, Johnathan Rodgers.

Both networks say the historical presidential run of the U.S. senator from Illinois is the driving force behind their unprecedented coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.

“If Obama were not the presumptive nominee, we would not have covered the convention at all,” said Rodgers. “This is a huge event in the history of African-Americans and we are a network that's proud of the fact that 93% of our audience is black. Not only do we feel an obligation to cover it well, we feel it is part of our promise to our viewers.”


Why wouldn't they cover it? What do you think the reason is?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Don't worry much about Wiggin, he's paid by the Obama campaign to post here.

They're racist, plain and simple. Only covering one party's convention is an obvious form of bias, no matter how you spin it. "Black only" programming is racist in itself. It's okay to have a show about black people, but...come on. "White only" programming would be shut down, and most of TV today is pretty diversified.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Do you think blacks are only interested in politics if a black man is in the running? I don't think that's a fair assumption. They would still show parts of the convention even if it was Hillary. Now they might now show hours and hours of it, but it would be shown in some manner either way. Obama has just made this a bigger event for them.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Why wouldn't they cover it? What do you think the reason is?


Because they're not covering the convention as JUST a political "happening", they're covering a black man's achievement.

Would you expect MTV to cover the Country Music Awards?
Would you expect the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) to host a Yom Kippur ceremony?
Would you expect the Sci-Fi Channel to cover the Oscars?

It's a specialized TV channel. There are a lot of them. They air what the viewers want to see.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Let's look at it from a different perspective. Both conventions are going to be thoroughly covered by the major news networks. So, it's not like the Republican convention coverage is going to be zilch.

I honestly don't see a problem with a privately-owned media company such as BET electing to cover only one convention. It is what appeals to their demographic viewers. Unlike news organizations that are beholden to have balanced coverage, BET can show whatever it wants.

So what's the big deal?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Do you think blacks are only interested in politics if a black man is in the running?


No. But they can see both conventions on another channel. But TV One will likely celebrate the fact that a black man has reached this position.


They would still show parts of the convention even if it was Hillary.


Not according to what they say. That's your opinion. There's nothing to base that on and they are a fairly new channel.


Obama has just made this a bigger event for them.


Absolutely. I agree. And I don't have any problem with the channel celebrating that.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Don't worry much about Wiggin, he's paid by the Obama campaign to post here.



That's hilarious....especially if you knew me

Thats right, i must be paid by the Obama campaign to support a black guy, right?

:shk:



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Do you think blacks are only interested in politics if a black man is in the running? I don't think that's a fair assumption. They would still show parts of the convention even if it was Hillary. Now they might now show hours and hours of it, but it would be shown in some manner either way. Obama has just made this a bigger event for them.


Nope, thats not what they said. They pretty clearly said they were only interested in covering the black guy. They wouldn't cover Hillary because shes white.



Would you expect MTV to cover the Country Music Awards?
Would you expect the TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) to host a Yom Kippur ceremony?
Would you expect the Sci-Fi Channel to cover the Oscars?

It's a specialized TV channel. There are a lot of them. They air what the viewers want to see.


Yes and this one is based on race. Geez, you guys are killing me here. You cant see that you have a different standard for racism, based on the color of the offenders skin.

The fact is, some of you support racism. You don't see it that way, but by definition you are accepting discrimination based on race.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
OOOOOOOH, Don't you just love election years



Seriously guys, please continue with your debate, however keep in mind:

Civility and Decorum are Required

Civility and Decorum are Required


Thanks



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Dronetek
 


Don't worry much about Wiggin, he's paid by the Obama campaign to post here.



That's hilarious....especially if you knew me

Thats right, i must be paid by the Obama campaign to support a black guy, right?

:shk:


You can really dish it out, but you sure cant take it.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek

You can really dish it out, but you sure cant take it.



What is that supposed to mean, first off?

I can't take it because i think its HILARIOUS that you accuse me of being paid by Obama?


Okay - ill tell ya what, since that'd be a violation of the T&C - why dont you use the complaint form and tell the moderator what you think about who i am




back on topic:

I want you to answer this, pretty please, very seriously.

Why does it anger you so bad that BET exists?

Is it because no "white" TV exists?

if not

please educate me.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Glad to see that everyone has read my last post



Maybe you should scroll up a bit and take a peek.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join