If there was a WET...

[rexanglorum]

Why is this even an issue? If we only had one channel and could never have any more, I could see arguing over what group gets it its "proper share"of air time.

As it is, we have hundreds of channels and since black people, on average, watch more TV than whites, they seem pretty satisfied with a product that isapparently made without their interests or ethnic identity. It seems like arguing over who controls or who should control whatever channel is akin to theproverbial argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.


On a lighter note, not having a WET is probably a win for the white community. If we truly had a WET, it would have to be jam packed with programming thathighlights and celebrates every negative white stereotype that and the same 10 songs, played every hour, for six month blocks.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Why is this even an issue? If we only had one channel and could never have any more, I could see arguing over what group gets it its "proper share" of air time.

As it is, we have hundreds of channels and since black people, on average, watch more TV than whites, they seem pretty satisfied with a product that is apparently made without their interests or ethnic identity. It seems like arguing over who controls or who should control whatever channel is akin to the proverbial argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.


On a lighter note, not having a WET is probably a win for the white community. If we truly had a WET, it would have to be jam packed with programming that highlights and celebrates every negative white stereotype that and the same 10 songs, played every hour, for six month blocks.

Too much wrong with that post to even address all

1: Blacks watching more television is baseless, and even if you find merit has no input in the discussion.
2: You obviously are arguing that blacks are deciding their programming, I disagree.
3: Your whole basis for not having WET is based on that it would be the same as BET; although I got the subliminal remark, it was very prejudicial. Care toelaborate on the stereotypes that would be portrayed?....I thought so.

 

[nycknicks105]

Originally Posted by infamousod

CMT is the one that really comes to mind

and "WET" would fail horribly because nobody wants to be white, everyone wants to be black...unless they had a WET: Uncut which would have a 90% black audience and ratings would skyrocket

The Hell??

 

[ripyzyz]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

Why is this even an issue? If we only had one channel and could never have any more, I could see arguing over what group gets it its "proper share" of air time.

As it is, we have hundreds of channels and since black people, on average, watch more TV than whites, they seem pretty satisfied with a product that is apparently made without their interests or ethnic identity. It seems like arguing over who controls or who should control whatever channel is akin to the proverbial argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.


On a lighter note, not having a WET is probably a win for the white community. If we truly had a WET, it would have to be jam packed with programming that highlights and celebrates every negative white stereotype that and the same 10 songs, played every hour, for six month blocks.

Too much wrong with that post to even address all

1: Blacks watching more television is baseless, and even if you find merit has no input in the discussion.
2: You obviously are arguing that blacks are deciding their programming, I disagree.
3: Your whole basis for not having WET is based on that it would be the same as BET; although I got the subliminal remark, it was very prejudicial. Care to elaborate on the stereotypes that would be portrayed?....I thought so.

Prepares for a 10 page thesis from Rex.

 

[iblink]

I'll call thread fail. This was not what I intended.

 

[airant23]

YO!

kix... I'm having a hard time understanding your position on the issue. You've seem to have raised some sort objection with everyone's reply,regardless of what side they're on.

And I was highly upset at your comment about MTV making hip hop commercial.

DF!!!

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

kix... I'm having a hard time understanding your position on the issue. You've seem to have raised some sort objection with everyone's reply, regardless of what side they're on.

And I was highly upset at your comment about MTV making hip hop commercial.

DF!!!

MTV brought hip-hop to suburban youth. White people buy more records (For obvious reasons)

My position has been the same from jump.
BET is no longer needed.....That being said does not necessarily mean that there is not a need for black programming.
The two issues are separate.

I have an issue with people stating the majority are white so of course 99% of programming should be white?

Media should reflect reality not the other way around.

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of themfrom MTV....

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by iBlink

I'll call thread fail. This was not what I intended.

And this is what I'm talking about. I think it IS what you intended. You became that much more known on NT, and that's the whole purpose of thispost. If it isnt, why dont you DO something about what you think is wrong instead of making posts and calling them off as failures over and over again? Befor real...

 

[airant23]

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....
It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell,hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that theyjust liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been just fine.

DF!!!

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....

It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell, hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that they just liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been better off just fine.

DF!!!


Fixed, and agreed.

I am not giving rap credit to MTV..I am simply stating that Hip-hop started out as a rebellion against society. MTV transformed it into society.

They are talking about WAY different things than in the 80's and 90's. The reasons for that are commercialization: In essence MTV. That is where wedisagree.

 

[dublbagn]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....

It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell, hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that they just liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been just fine.

DF!!!
since this situation can never truly play out, we will never know......

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....

It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell, hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that they just liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been just fine.

DF!!!

since this situation can never truly play out, we will never know......




Nah man.. Trust me... It would have been better off. Take the sneaker culture as an example... People who were on NT and in the scene 4+ years ago canrelate very well and know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[airant23]

YO!

They are talking about WAY different things than in the 80's and 90's. The reasons for that are commercialization: In essence MTV. That is where we disagree.
Eh... yeah and no.

But I will say this... your logic would add some validity to ol' dude who made the poorly worded point that "everyone wants to be black."

DF!!!

 

[dublbagn]

Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....

It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell, hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that they just liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been just fine.

DF!!!

since this situation can never truly play out, we will never know......

Nah man.. Trust me... It would have been better off. Take the sneaker culture as an example... People who were on NT and in the scene 4+ years ago can relate very well and know exactly what I'm talking about.
for the purity factor, sure it would have been better....for the money making factor, it helped a ton......and I feel you on the NT 4 years ago,even just buying shoes 4 years ago was more enjoyable......

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

They are talking about WAY different things than in the 80's and 90's. The reasons for that are commercialization: In essence MTV. That is where we disagree.

Eh... yeah and no.

But I will say this... your logic would add some validity to ol' dude who made the poorly worded point that "everyone wants to be black."

DF!!!


Care to elaborate?


What does race have anything to do with my argument?........Nothing......

We can agree to disagree that is fine, I just want to make sure you are getting my point: If you think my logic has anything to do with race, you are notgetting the point.

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

I did not intend to offend... Do you not believe MTV made hip-hop commercially profitable?...Beastie Boys? 50? Eminem? Nas? Mobb? Big? Pac? I heard all of them from MTV....

It has long bothered me that MTV pats itself on the back for this. Hip hop was what it was, just as it is what it is. Yo! premiered in 1988. Hell, hip hop was a decade old... So was BET. Run DMC had already gone platinum. It's not like there was some noble gesture made by the executives. Or that they just liked Ted Demme so much, they'd give him a show. They were neglecting an audience. In essence, it was reactionary.

While appreciated, hip hop would've been just fine.

DF!!!

since this situation can never truly play out, we will never know......

Nah man.. Trust me... It would have been better off. Take the sneaker culture as an example... People who were on NT and in the scene 4+ years ago can relate very well and know exactly what I'm talking about.

for the purity factor, sure it would have been better....for the money making factor, it helped a ton......and I feel you on the NT 4 years ago, even just buying shoes 4 years ago was more enjoyable......




Right. That's one of those blessing/burden type things.

 

[airant23]

YO!

Care to elaborate?


What does race have anything to do with my argument?........Nothing......

We can agree to disagree that is fine, I just want to make sure you are getting my point: If you think my logic has anything to do with race, you are not getting the point.

I got your point completely.

The comment about "everybody wants to be black" was an attempt to come back to the original topic. Basically, some felt that even if there was a WETit wouldn't be as "successful" because "nobody wants to be white." (not saying I agree with that point) So, if you believe thatMTV's participation in hip hop made it more commercial - that would lend itself to dude's argument.

For my elaboration... MTV's stamp of approval increased the profitability - yes. I took your initial mention of MTV as a statement of "where wouldhip hop be without MTV?" when maybe I shouldn't have. But it seemed as if you were questioning what cultural impact has BET had to match that... Mypoint would be that BET provided the platform for these artists when MTV didn't and thus making a Black Entertainment Television network necessary.

Back on topic.

DF!!!

 

[rexanglorum]

1: Blacks watching more television is baseless, and even if you find merit has no input in the discussion.


No input to the discussion? Really?

So we have to believe that the media work together to exclude anything that black people might want to watch but blacks still watch television. It is hard tosee how it is that black people sit down and watch TV that, with the exception of one channel, is designed to not appeal to them at all.

2: You obviously are arguing that blacks are deciding their programming, I disagree.


You can disagree but with dozens if not hundreds of channels and a handy remote control, TV viewers in general choose what they watch and more importantly theychoose what they do not watch. You are right that most black people, most TV viewers for that matter, do not get to design and green light a particular showbut they can turn off the TV and the show tends to go away if enough people do the same.

People in entertainment want to make money and you don't make it by not having anyone watch your show.

3: Your whole basis for not having WET is based on that it would be the same as BET; although I got the subliminal remark, it was very prejudicial. Care to elaborate on the stereotypes that would be portrayed?....I thought so.


There was nothing subliminal. Normally when BET comes up, black people are the first to say how bad it is in how it shows programs and music videos thatperpetuate negative black stereotypes. Stereotypes about black men being uneducated, prone to crime, alcoholic, disrespectful towards women and only concernedabout flashy shows of wealth are promoted through the music videos. Some have even compared them to minstrel shows. For more on this phenomenon, watch the twobanned episode of Boondocks on youtube.

I really don't see why you are offended by me pointing out what almost every black adult says about the current state of BET. Considering how much blackpeople seem to dislike BET, it is probably good that there is no white counter part on the air.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

1: Blacks watching more television is baseless, and even if you find merit has no input in the discussion.

No input to the discussion? Really?

So we have to believe that the media work together to exclude anything that black people might want to watch but blacks still watch television. It is hard to see how it is that black people sit down and watch TV that, with the exception of one channel, is designed to not appeal to them at all.

2: You obviously are arguing that blacks are deciding their programming, I disagree.


You can disagree but with dozens if not hundreds of channels and a handy remote control, TV viewers in general choose what they watch and more importantly they choose what they do not watch. You are right that most black people, most TV viewers for that matter, do not get to design and green light a particular show but they can turn off the TV and the show tends to go away if enough people do the same.

People in entertainment want to make money and you don't make it by not having anyone watch your show.

3: Your whole basis for not having WET is based on that it would be the same as BET; although I got the subliminal remark, it was very prejudicial. Care to elaborate on the stereotypes that would be portrayed?....I thought so.


There was nothing subliminal. Normally when BET comes up, black people are the first to say how bad it is in how it shows programs and music videos that perpetuate negative black stereotypes. Stereotypes about black men being uneducated, prone to crime, alcoholic, disrespectful towards women and only concerned about flashy shows of wealth are promoted through the music videos. Some have even compared them to minstrel shows. For more on this phenomenon, watch the two banned episode of Boondocks on youtube.

I really don't see why you are offended by me pointing out what almost every black adult says about the current state of BET. Considering how much black people seem to dislike BET, it is probably good that there is no white counter part on the air.





your first counterpoint is in agreement with mine. No need for BET...

The fact that blacks watch more T.V. which IS baseless still has no merit.

I agree that people chose out of a lesser of two evils. Unfortunately all people would rather watch "Flavor Flav" over " TavisSmiley"....There are reasons for this.

I have watched the boondocks episodes I agree at the stereotypes. That is not where we disagree.
You stated that WET would be formatted under the same format while making a satire on BET...going on to state that you were happy that white stereotypes wouldnot be perpetuated. I was just wondering what "white" stereotypes you were thinking of?

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23

YO!

Care to elaborate?


What does race have anything to do with my argument?........Nothing......

We can agree to disagree that is fine, I just want to make sure you are getting my point: If you think my logic has anything to do with race, you are not getting the point.

I got your point completely.

The comment about "everybody wants to be black" was an attempt to come back to the original topic. Basically, some felt that even if there was a WET it wouldn't be as "successful" because "nobody wants to be white." (not saying I agree with that point) So, if you believe that MTV's participation in hip hop made it more commercial - that would lend itself to dude's argument.



Where we disagree is that hip-hop = "wanting to be black"....once again, not my point.

 

[paidnhalf]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum

1: Blacks watching more television is baseless, and even if you find merit has no input in the discussion.

No input to the discussion? Really?

So we have to believe that the media work together to exclude anything that black people might want to watch but blacks still watch television. It is hard to see how it is that black people sit down and watch TV that, with the exception of one channel, is designed to not appeal to them at all.

2: You obviously are arguing that blacks are deciding their programming, I disagree.

You can disagree but with dozens if not hundreds of channels and a handy remote control, TV viewers in general choose what they watch and more importantly they choose what they do not watch. You are right that most black people, most TV viewers for that matter, do not get to design and green light a particular show but they can turn off the TV and the show tends to go away if enough people do the same.

People in entertainment want to make money and you don't make it by not having anyone watch your show.

3: Your whole basis for not having WET is based on that it would be the same as BET; although I got the subliminal remark, it was very prejudicial. Care to elaborate on the stereotypes that would be portrayed?....I thought so.


There was nothing subliminal. Normally when BET comes up, black people are the first to say how bad it is in how it shows programs and music videos that perpetuate negative black stereotypes. Stereotypes about black men being uneducated, prone to crime, alcoholic, disrespectful towards women and only concerned about flashy shows of wealth are promoted through the music videos. Some have even compared them to minstrel shows. For more on this phenomenon, watch the two banned episode of Boondocks on youtube.

I really don't see why you are offended by me pointing out what almost every black adult says about the current state of BET. Considering how much black people seem to dislike BET, it is probably good that there is no white counter part on the air.





your first counterpoint is in agreement with mine. No need for BET...

The fact that blacks watch more T.V. which IS baseless still has no merit.

I agree that people chose out of a lesser of two evils. Unfortunately all people would rather watch "Flavor Flav" over " Tavis Smiley"....There are reasons for this.

I have watched the boondocks episodes I agree at the stereotypes. That is not where we disagree.
You stated that WET would be formatted under the same format while making a satire on BET...going on to state that you were happy that white stereotypes would not be perpetuated. I was just wondering what "white" stereotypes you were thinking of?


QFT

*Waits for response*

 

[airant23]

YO!

Where we disagree is that hip-hop = "wanting to be black"....once again, not my point.

I GET YOUR POINT!!!

You're missing mine. I never said hip-hop = "wanting to be black", nor did I attribute that point to you.

My point is that if you think MTV commercialized hip hop by bringing it to a broader audience (that exposed more whites), then that you'd be giving theguy who said "everybody wants to be black" a leg to stand on. And even that point ("everybody wants to be black") is not something Icompletely agree with.

DF!!!

 

[paidnhalf]

Originally Posted by AirAnt23


YO!

Where we disagree is that hip-hop = "wanting to be black"....once again, not my point.

I GET YOUR POINT!!!

You're missing mine. I never said hip-hop = "wanting to be black", nor did I attribute that point to you.

My point is that if you think MTV commercialized hip hop by bringing it to a broader audience (that exposed more whites), then that you'd be giving the guy who said "everybody wants to be black" a leg to stand on. And even that point ("everybody wants to be black") is not something I completely agree with.

DF!!!



Just curious: How does bringing it to whites (MTV) give the argument of everybody wanting to be black?
I am not taking sides, I just think kix is saying that they expanded the audience...The fact that it was to whites doesn't connect to me on how it goeswith race....I am just ssayin

 

[rexanglorum]

The fact that blacks watch more T.V. which IS baseless still has no merit.


You have repeated your claim that this has no relevance but could you please actually say why blacks' watching TV is not relevant to a discussion aboutrace and television.

I agree that people chose out of a lesser of two evils. Unfortunately all people would rather watch "Flavor Flav" over " Tavis Smiley"....There are reasons for this.


People can also turn off the TV if it is so stacked against black people. If TV is so dominated by whites that there is apparently no real alternative on TV,then the Internet has got to have something, there are millions of websites and videos, or there plenty of books, video games, going outside ect. Picksomething and let your not picking the offending material speak for its self.

I have watched the boondocks episodes I agree at the stereotypes. That is not where we disagree.
You stated that WET would be formatted under the same format while making a satire on BET...going on to state that you were happy that white stereotypes would not be perpetuated. I was just wondering what "white" stereotypes you were thinking of?


You got good taste. I thought you were upset that I mentioned that negative stereotypes exist about blacks. Since you ask about negative stereotypes aboutwhites I guess I'd say, neurotic, soft, bad at dancing, bad at sports, effete, almost enjoying drama with parents or significant others. Those are off ofthe top of my head, check stuff white people like for more.

 

[airant23]

YO!

Just curious: How does bringing it to whites (MTV) give the argument of everybody wanting to be black?
I am not taking sides, I just think kix is saying that they expanded the audience...The fact that it was to whites doesn't connect to me on how it goes with race....I am just ssayin
By "everybody wanting to be black", and I hate to assume, but I'm sure my man meant white people. It's a common belief thatI've seen implied within this thread. So if MTV largely contributed to making this art form a product and white people then became the largest consumergroup for this product, then those who subscribe to this notion that "everybody (white people) want to be black" could use this as an example.

I'm not saying that kix's argument had anything to do with race, but that his argument could very well tie-in to an earlier statement within thethread. I didn't think that would be difficult to understand.

DF!!!