| Author | Message | ||
     Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 756 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
A prominent individual in Black publishing recently suggested that “I choose a side”. Basically I need to stop supporting the negative literature; you know the stuff that includes all of the negative Black stereo types, or an abundance of sex, violence, etc. This person felt that if your support both you are contributing to the harming our community, in much the same way as if you supported only the negative stuff. Basically, you can not have it both ways. My gut reaction is disagreement. I enjoy a good literary read and as well as the some of the controversial stuff that is published. I try to portray, in balance, the variety of stuff that is available. I fully realize I will make more money selling Karrine Steffans and Zane than Martha Southgate or ZZ Packer; but I promote both. Despite the fact that Zane and Karrine WILL promote and advertise their work here while Packer and Southgate will not (but I digress)… Again, I think that balance works and is actually necessary – if done with sincere intentions. Fact of the matter is, in a free society, both will always persist. Now where it does NOT work is with BET. I watched two episodes of BET’s We Got to do Better/Hot Ghetto Mess and was completely underwhelmed. Honestly, We Got to do Better is a Hot Ghetto Mess! The show is simply poorly done. The clips are unfunny, the setups are lame and the whole charade of saying we can use these videos to learn to do better in our own lives is insulting! Why can’t BET just create quality low brow content and forget about trying to position it as righteous?! It is disingenuous, misleading and makes them look stupid. Even their Read a Book Video which I found amusing was purportedly done in an effort to get folks to read more… Gimme a break. It is like the same ‘ole tried refrain I hear from mediocre urban lit authors; “…You know I’m just telling the story so that you don’t make the same mistakes I did...”. Please, no one cares about that in a novel, just tell a good story and forget about trying to make a shot‘em up sex‘em up book have socially redeeming value. Lets all do better; whether we produce the high brow stuff for the intellectuals, the low brow stuff for the masses or both. And whatever we produce lets be honest about it. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1788 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: |
You know I’m just telling the story so that you don’t make the same mistakes I did...”. Please, no one cares about that in a novel, just tell a good story and forget about trying to make a shot‘em up sex‘em up book have socially redeeming value. I agree with this statement, Troy. But I think it applies to so called literary fiction as well. Just tell the story and save the preachy "get my point of view and live by it" type messages found in all things literary. Also I get sick and tired of people taking a point of view--the way THEY feel about a certain thing and trying to shove it down everyone else's throat! So just because some snobs think urban fiction needs to be swept under the rug, and ignored, THE WHOLE WORLD is supposed jump up and applaud them all the while nodding in agreement! PLEASE the world is DIVERSE Or supposed to be, with each person having different tastes, likes, dislikes. SO WHY THE PUSH from those in power to make things over to suit their SNOBBY tastes???? | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5465 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
I know this is going to seem kissy, but it's sincere. You are to be commended for all the work that you do for the Black community. Not only are you an internet marketing pioneer, setting an example that more people should follow, but you've created a spot for us to come and read up on what's going on with our favorite writers, news about the industry, a place to buy reasonably priced books online on any subject of our choosing, as well as a place for us to discuss current topics or whatever's on our minds. Your accomplishments probably won't be recognized for another 50-100 years, but hopefully you will be rewarded for all that you have done in your lifetime. The publishing person sounds as if he/she expects you to read every book and censor/filter what you will offer your audience and that's ridiculous. If someone saw fit to publish it and the community demands it, you should make it available. It's not as if you're promoting murder manuals or straight-up smut. You're providing us with Black topics as experienced or imagined by Black writers. And I find it amusing that you have authors who refuse to be showcased here. I'm pretty sure that the bookstores that they sell thru carry materials which they would deem objectionable, so what's the difference. As to BET, I saw a few minutes of the show and I don't need to revisit it. It's obvious that they are in desperate need of some truly creative people who are able to think outside the "bun," because they just keep rehashing and refrying the same crap over and over again. It's almost as if the executive decision makers can't grasp that most Black people desire thought-provoking entertainment that stimulates our intellects. Sadly for us all, not everyone is capable of making the most of current opportunities. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9509 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Literary fiction is not about what is said but how it is written. There are many classical books that deal with the sordid side of life but the style used to tell the story is rich in prose that maximizes the use of the English language. Literature is just like anything else. Standards of excellence should be maintained: The NBA is the establishment that represents a sport that is played by superior athletes. You may be a star on the playground court, but you don't make the NBA unless you are the cream of the crop, able to compete for a championship. You don't become a piano virtuoso unless you can master the keyboard. You are not the head chef in an 4-star restaurant unless you have superior culinary skills. Yes, there should be diversity in the world, but just as academia shouldn't devalue street lit, pop culture should not equate classical literatury with snobbery. IMO As for BET and its output, until this network stops catering to the lowest common denominator in the guise of "keeping it real" in order to appeal to the black masses, it will continue to do more harm than good - continue to be a sorry example of the blind leading the blind. As Troy implies, in trying to convey a message, there's no excuse for amateurism in a professional venue. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1789 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: |
In the world of publishing, anyone who seeks to elevate one form of the art above another by virtue of some percieved standard of excellence is still limited by thier conception of what excellent is. It is still very subjective. One man's meat is another man's garbage. And as many authors have noted, it is not a matter of some notion of excellence that propels some to the top while others flounder or even sink. It is many, many, times a matter of taste, timing, and preference. Cream doesn't always rise to the top sometimes it just blends and is indistinguishable from the mix. There can be two people equally skilled and talented one will be chosen, the other will not. Why? Because the person given the authority to select prefers one over the other. This is how it is across the board, whether you're talking books or sports. This only reinforces my stance that the world is diverse people like what they like, there can be no logic applied to this fact. And people who insist that their preference is better than someone else'a based upon thier own limited criteria are snobs. IMO | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 757 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
Mzuri, I just wanted to clarify that the Southgate types don't "refuse to be showcased". Advertising on site is simply something that has not occurred to them or their publishers. Thank you, Mzuri, for the very kind words. Awoman, I hear what you are saying. But we really should make a very clear distinction. There is good garbage and there is bad garbage. Often we confuse thing as being a matter of opinion, when it is simply a statement of fact. Just because there is someone that likes something, does not make it quality. If I call myself a sprinter and I can not cover a 100 meter distance in under 20 seconds. It should be obvious that I’m a really pretty bad sprinter. Now my mom might enjoy my performance and I may even be able to beat a few people, but that does not change the fact that I’m really a lousy sprinter. The problem we have in our society is that we unwilling or unable to distinguish the bad from the good. Like the mom who swears her son is the a great sprint with a 22 second time for the 100 meters. But we also have people who are unaware that people can run 100 meters under 10 seconds, so the 20 sec guys looks pretty good based upon their limited knowledge.. BET’s Hot Ghetto Mess is simply bad garbage. It is poorly executed. That fact that BET is trying to position it as a program for improvement and it is in fact perpetuating negatives Black stereotypes makes it a complete disaster. It would be interesting if even the masses find Hot Ghetto Mess appealing. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9510 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
The standards of excellence are constant and have nothing to do with subjectivity. When 2 well-written manuscripts are pitted against each other in the publishing world, in all probability the book with the most commerical potential will win out. If a book that is poorly-written is pitted against a well-written book, again the book with the most commerical appeal stands a better chance of winning out. Publishing is a business and, as such, is profit-oriented. In other fields of endeavor, when excellence competes against excellence then other factors are taken into consideration. But in order to get in the competition, excellence had to be the criteria. It's too easy to dismiss those who want to maintain standards as being "snobs". | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1790 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
Awoman, I hear what you are saying. But we really should make a very clear distinction. There is good garbage and there is bad garbage. Often we confuse thing as being a matter of opinion, when it is simply a statement of fact. Just because there is someone that likes something, does not make it quality. Of course there is a distinction between good and bad, but there are different degrees and shades of good and bad and this is why when measuring something like quality of writing and you apply a standard of excellence it has to be qualified with subjectivity. No matter what, someone is setting a standard of what is considered good then the unknown something is measured by that mark. But the standard is established by SOMEONE is my point and is subject to whatever criteria they choose to measure whether or not the unknown meets such standard. So long as a human being is setting a standard of excellence thereby injecting subjectivity into the mix the standard can never be a "fact" | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9511 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Using your standards, then your subjective opinion on this matter keeps what you say from being a fact. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5468 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
We judge things based on what a reasonable person would think about the matter. This is referred to as the reasonable person standard. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1791 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
Using your standards, then your subjective opinion on this matter keeps what you say from being a fact. Only if you have an non subjective standard to determine what makes a post a fact...hahahahaha! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9512 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
I'm sure others would say that reasonable people can be subjective. There ought to be at least a consensus of reasonable people, and these reasonable people should at least be knowledgeable about the subject they are judging. A reasonable auto machanic may not be qualified to judge a work of literature. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9513 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
"Only if you have an non subjective standard to determine what makes a post a fact...hahahahaha!" By virtue of your assertion being a opinion, it is automatically subjective and, as such, is automatically questionable as to its factuality. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1792 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
By virtue of your assertion being a opinion, it is automatically subjective and, as such, is automatically questionable as to its factuality. You know it took a couple of posts, but I finally understand what you're saying. I wasn't saying that the entire premise I put forth in my post was a fact- only this part "people like what they like, there can be no logic applied to this fact" | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5022 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
A prominent individual in Black publishing recently suggested that “I choose a side”. Basically I need to stop supporting the negative literature; you know the stuff that includes all of the negative Black stereo types, or an abundance of sex, violence, etc. (Troy, you tell the punk to give you some money to keep your site up or kiss your black ass. Better yet, give me his name and email address and mail address or phone number and I will harass his ass back to the plantation. I get sick of these tired, "postive" "literary" types who have to sit up and pimp at the public trough or in private education and have never and would never know what it means to make a payroll, put out and sell and distribute a publication on their own telling everybody else what standards they should keep. Now, as everybody knows, I was trained by academic literary types and the kind of work I read for recreation, renewal and relaxation is literary type stuff (John Edgar Wideman, Yusef Komanyakaa, Ishmael Reed some of my favorite LIVE authors) but let us be frank--all these cats have to teach or they would starve BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DON'T WANT THEM Assholes like this elitist don't understand the dire boredom and drudgery of the average person's life that leads them to have to seek relaxation rather than work. Maybe if he would get up off his butt to try to make their lives better they would have time to appreciate the finer things in life In short, tell whoever it was to let the door hit him where the good lord split him-- It's all about the Benjamins until somebody has the nerve to change it--don't hold your breath. Let me close by saying you are a better brother than me--I would put his name out here so he might be held up to villification and public ridicule. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 758 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chris I hear you. However the person is an an entrepreneur in the field. Admittedly, even his own actions, in the recent past could easily be interpreted doing the same thing he cautions other not to do. Time will tell how this works out for him...us I also agree that it is "work" to consume literary work. You need what is increasing a luxury called "time", not just any time but time when you are not tired or stress. You also need what is defintely a luxury now -- education. Troy | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9517 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chrishayden implies that the average person reads books to provide an escape from their hum-drum lives and that, for them, literary books don't fill the bill. But anybody who turns to the printed world as a form of recreation, as opposed taking the easy route of going to movies or watching TV or hangin out at the club, is somebody who has the potential to become a discriminating reader, - a convert to a "cult" whose members read books that offer "challenge" as a form of escape from their boring lives, and this type of reader should be encouraged. A-womon says it's a given that when it comes to books, people "like what they like". True. But a person can't dislike something if they never try it. Readers who won't venture outside of their comfort zone when it comes to books, are in a rut. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1793 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
But a person can't dislike something if they never try it. Readers who won't venture outside of their comfort zone when it comes to books, are in a rut. Agreed. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 228 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chrishayden wrote: (Troy, you tell the punk to give you some money to keep your site up or kiss your black ass. Better yet, give me his name and email address and mail address or phone number and I will harass his ass back to the plantation. I get sick of these tired, "postive" "literary" types who have to sit up and pimp at the public trough or in private education and have never and would never know what it means to make a payroll, put out and sell and distribute a publication on their own telling everybody else what standards they should keep. Now if you replace Troy's name with Bob Johnson, site with TV newtork, and a publication with programming, what's the difference? | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 229 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri wrote: The publishing person sounds as if he/she expects you to read every book and censor/filter what you will offer your audience and that's ridiculous. If someone saw fit to publish it and the community demands it, you should make it available. What is the difference if BET says, if a record company or artist produces a video, and there is an audience that demands it, based on ratings, like books are based on sales, then why shouldn't BET make the videos available? By the same token, I rarely hear people asking for the head of the artist or the record companies, but always go after those who air the programming (namely BET), but as with books, folks take the writer and publishing company, to task but never those who promote (or sell) the books. Not solely for you Mzuri, but it's more a general question to those who criticize BET for promoting smut but then it's fine and dandy and even admirable that Troy promotes smut. Mzuri wrote: It's almost as if the executive decision makers can't grasp that most Black people desire thought-provoking entertainment that stimulates our intellects. Perhaps, but then again, those programs didn't/don't generate viewers. Just as the lit books don't have the readers as other genres. From what I gather, sponsors buy ad time based on ratings, and if a show doesn't have viewers, then sponsors aren't going to buy advertising. So no matter how thought-provoking, positive, intellectual, etc. the programming, if there aren't any viewers, then the show isn't going to stay on the air -- not long anyways. Regarding the negative books, then it's because readers wanted them, then it's all good that sites like this one to promote them, but if it's negative television programming on BET, it doesn't matter if the viewers wanted them, and there's a special spot in hell reserved for Johnson. I am just trying to understand the double standard. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5471 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
There is no double standard. We should expect quality television from venues such as BET. Bear in mind that we are the minority racial group in the U.S.A. and we are scattered about. Some of us reside in areas of dense populations of Black people, and some of us are in areas where there aren't many Blacks at all. Further, we still don't see that many positive Black roles in mainstream television, although more shows are starting to incorporate the token Black. BET has the power to unite us and it's so much deeper than I can express. BET is the place where many of us go for the latest trends and happenings in the community. Our children watch BET (if we permit it). And so I personally would prefer that BET provide quality programming that portrays Black people in a positive light (for a change), as opposed to Blacks being depicted as being clueless, the female rumpshakers and all of that. Since there are only 24 hours in the day, BET should be more selective with their offerings. Why? Because we're stuck with whatever they feed us. The viewer doesn't have any other choices (besides changing the channel or not watching at all) and we must watch whatever they offer - whether it's deemed as garbage or quality entertainment. Have you ever tuned into Discovery, TLC or the History channel and caught bad programming? I'm talking about straight up trash that you're not interested in or stuff that you wouldn't want your children to see. I haven't. It might not be my cup of tea but I could watch those channels all day long. Why can't we expect the same level of service from BET? We pay for it - it's part of our cablevision package. Why can't BET produce Black cooking shows, instructional television, news programming, etc. I find it hard to believe that all we want is stand-up comedy, situation comedy, and stuff that's related to the music industry. I mean, is that all we are? Only interested in music and comedy? The situation is completely different when we purchase books and videos because there we have choices. We can choose whether we want books with photos/illustrations, comic books, poetry, scientific journals, street lit or whatever. So again, there is no double standard. BET gives us a steady stream of crap and Troy provides us with choices. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5025 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Admittedly, even his own actions, in the recent past could easily be interpreted doing the same thing he cautions other not to do. (Then he's probably trying to steal your thunder. Screw him) Chrishayden implies that the average person reads books to provide an escape from their hum-drum lives and that etc etc (You might as well have saved the meager energy you had to summon up to type this swill) But a person can't dislike something if they never try it. Readers who won't venture outside of their comfort zone when it comes to books, are in a rut. Agreed (Make them. Better yet put out your money while you are waiting for the avalanche of people who achieve enlightenment. This is internet talk, people. Troy is in a real situation and doesn't need your ivory tower flights of fancy) Now if you replace Troy's name with Bob Johnson, site with TV newtork, and a publication with programming, what's the difference? (I don't understand. Does not Viacom, ie THE WHITE FOLKS, own BET? Have you got your 40 Acres and a Mule? When you get it is when the white folks give a damn about you getting some quality programming. Again I will give this advice to couch potatoes who apparently don't have the will or energy to hit the channel changer or the off button. Don't watch the crap. I don't eat Frosted Flakes for breakfast. See how quick that makes Keloggs stop making them) Why can't BET produce Black cooking shows, instructional television, news programming--etc etc (This is the problem with being a gradeschool drop out. You can't do math. There are not enough Negroes who will watch such shows to make it worth their while to make them. You people will never get it together. You cannot process reality. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOOD PROGRAMMING. They want crap. Why is Shakespeare, the greatest playwright in Western History, only on PBS? This is internet talk, people. Try to get real for a moment. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1794 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
There is a show featuring af am's on the family channel and it is not coonish or any of those things and its about to begin season two in september. positive shows featuring af ams never get the exposure that negative ones do. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1795 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
oh, and it isn't a sit com | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9518 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Of course chrishayden thinks that his irrational tantrum has merit and the observations of others are "internet talk" and that all that tired crap he spewing is something that Troy and everybody else doesn't already know, but unlike chrishayden, prefer to explore viable alternatives to brainwashing the black masses. In attacking Troy's detractor, chrishayden rants: "Assholes like this elitist don't understand the dire boredom and drudgery of the average person's life that leads them to have to seek relaxation rather than work." And then when I say what he says in another way, remarking that the average person wants "an escape from their hum drum lives," he calls it swill. But if you're looking for an example of real swill check out what chrishaydhayden also said: "Now, as everybody knows, I was trained by academic literary types and the kind of work I read for recreation, renewal and relaxation is literary type stuff (John Edgar Wideman, Yusef Komanyakaa, Ishmael Reed some of my favorite LIVE authors)..." Puleeze. What a pompous ass! LOL | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5027 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
There is a show featuring af am's on the family channel and it is not coonish or any of those things and its about to begin season two in september. positive shows featuring af ams never get the exposure that negative ones do. (They don't get the exposure because NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THEM. Damon Wayans tried to put on a thoughtful show dealing with AIDS and other subjects at a community center and it didn't make a season. Him and his brothers put on the coon stuff and they stay on several seasons. You people are just talking to be talking aren't you? You really don't understand this? Puleeze. What a pompous ass! LOL (I'm YOUR pompous ass! The pompous ass you would run a country mile for! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9519 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
I wouldn't move an inch to get closer to you, chrishayden. I keep my distance from jerks. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9520 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
What I want to know, chrishayden, is why it's OK for YOU to have a low opinion of the common black folks but anybody else who gets disgusted with their coonishness is labeled an elitist who is a self-loathing negro by you. You have nerve enough to chide Bill Cosby for his "don't-do-as-I-do, do-as-I-say-do" attitude. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5473 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
Chris is such a moron. He really expects us to believe that his ghettofried brokedown butt http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/179/27144.html is so sophisticated that he only reads snooty literature. Whatever. Try pulling the nappy wool over somebody else's eyes. Thank you. | ||
| Schakspir Veteran Poster Username: Schakspir Post Number: 1142 Registered: 12-2005 Rating: N/A |
Chris is looking at everything from a St. Louis perspective--and even he admits how horrible that place is. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 760 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Jmho, ”… Troy's name with Bob Johnson… what's the difference? This is a valid question, one that I’ve ask myself occasionally when I find myself getting off track. First if I were Bob I would not be trying to sell books. I would be selling music, Viagra, porn, ringtones, videos or any number of things with more upside potential. Bob said the “E” was for entertainment not education. If Bob where forced to sell books I’m sure he would focus on the ones making the most money. BET did have some smart programming. They even had a TV program dedicated to Black Books… Again it failed because of poor execution. Now as Chris says; THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOOD PROGRAMMING…They want crap.” Hyperbole aside I essentially agree with Chris. However, we are drawing different conclusions. I think more people would want the good stuff if they simply knew it existed. Sure it may take some convincing, a little education, some and some investment of time and money, but we have to keep trying. I already know people are discovering great authors you all take for granted. Adults are discovery Langston Hughes every day. Some people have never read Toni Morrison, there are people who have never heard of The Coldest Winter Ever… I think people do want quality; we just have to continue to create and sell it. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1796 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
there are people who have never heard of The Coldest Winter Ever…  | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9527 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Black people have been made conscious of how, as as good as it tastes, soul food can be hazardous to the health, and gradually they have started to modify their diets. Too bad this same message can't resonate with the black audiences when it comes to their taste in books and TV. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5029 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
I think more people would want the good stuff if they simply knew it existed. Sure it may take some convincing, a little education, some and some investment of time and money, but we have to keep trying. I already know people are discovering great authors you all take for granted. Adults are discovery Langston Hughes every day. Some people have never read Toni Morrison, there are people who have never heard of The Coldest Winter Ever… (Trust me. They don't. Don't try to give it to them. They will break your heart. Now somebody who just posts on the internet will post some more "but we gotta keep trying" talk. Spare me. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5030 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
What I want to know, chrishayden, is why it's OK for YOU to have a low opinion of the common black folks but anybody else who gets disgusted with their coonishness is labeled an elitist who is a self-loathing negro by you. You have nerve enough to chide Bill Cosby for his "don't-do-as-I-do, do-as-I-say-do" attitude. (This just shows how daft you are. I am not talking about the common black folk I'm talking about the so called elite. They don't have books or magazines in their homes. I am talking about college educated professional people. They watch more crap television than anybody. They go on the gambling boat. This is how bad it is. The so called elites are a bunch of idiots--and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Poor blacks don't have much disposable income for books and magazines. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5031 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chris is such a moron. He really expects us to believe that his ghettofried brokedown butt (I'm talking about idiots like you. Idiots who think Prince is the highest form of music. Have you ever listened to Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue"? Charlie Parker? Coltrane? (Naw. Dat kinna musick make mah haid hurt! Idiots who use this, the internet, the most advanced forum yet devised to discuss what Beyonce is doing. Look in the mirror for the idiot. The idiot is you. If you, the computer literate, are such idiots, what chance does anyone else have?) | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9529 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chrishayden sputters in response to my criticizing his attack on other blacks: "I am not talking about the common black folk I'm talking about the so called elite. They don't have books or magazines in their homes. I am talking about college educated professional people. They watch more crap television than anybody. They go on the gambling boat." Cynique responds: All you are doing is generalizing about a segment of the black population who you have a personal disdain for. You may think you are an arbitrator of the black American ethos and an authority on the black American zeigeist but you're nothing but an inocuous cantankerous malcontent. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5034 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Cynique responds: All you are doing is generalizing about a segment of the black population who you have a personal disdain for. You may think you are an arbitrator of the black American ethos and an authority on the black American zeigeist but you're nothing but an inocuous cantankerous malcontent. (I can arbitrate you all out of your high top Converse All Stars. It pains me to remember how you used to have game and how now I just run rings around you. Alas, poor Cynique. I knew her well, Horatio! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9532 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
You're right, Mzuri, chrishayden is a moron. Comparing Prince to John Coltrane and Charlie Parker is like comparing apples to oranges, but this fact eludes a moron. (Wonder if chrishayden knows that Miles Davis and Prince had a mutual admiration for each other and collaborated on some music.) Beyonce is an icon of the pop culture community which is a part of the broad cross-section making up the cyber-space audience. That's what the internet is all about; something for everyone. And on this board, it's not like those who discuss Prince and Beyonce cannot participate in intellectual discussions about other subjects. With his tunnel vision and linear pattern of thought, however, the only thing a moron like chrishayden can keep up with are his narrow interests and he begrudges others their curiosity about all aspects of society. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9533 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Just keep trying to believe that you run rings around me, chrishayden. Deluding yourself is the one thing you're good at. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 230 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri wrote: There is no double standard. I read the entire response. But, you insist there isn't one, and I think there is one, so I'll just agree to disagree with you. Mzuri wrote: BET has the power to unite us and it's so much deeper than I can express. BET is the place where many of us go for the latest trends and happenings in the community. Our children watch BET (if we permit it). And so I personally would prefer that BET provide quality programming that portrays Black people in a positive light (for a change), as opposed to Blacks being depicted as being clueless, the female rumpshakers and all of that. But BET hasn't never been or is presently 24 hours of clueless, female rump shakers. Don't know how old you are, but I remember Video Soul with Donnie Simpson, and the videos have come a long ways from time. But, sadly, it seems those rump shakers programs get the most viewers now. Curious, though, are you as discontented with the artist who star, in those rump shaker programs or the record companies who produce such programs? Should they be held to the same expectations? Mzuri wrote: Since there are only 24 hours in the day, BET should be more selective with their offerings. Why? Because we're stuck with whatever they feed us. The viewer doesn't have any other choices (besides changing the channel or not watching at all) and we must watch whatever they offer - whether it's deemed as garbage or quality entertainment. Not sure I get that. But, that last statement, could be said of any network. No network offers 24 hours of programming that a person enjoy watching. Even Bravo TV and many other 'quality networks' has hours of those infomercials. I don't like them, don't watch them, but I know they help pay the bills, and others watch them and order those products. But I do think we have other choices, other than change the channel or not watch at all, and that is to help keep the good quality programs, on the air, by viewing them, writing the network and sponsors voicing approval, etc. Mzuri wrote: Have you ever tuned into Discovery, TLC or the History channel and caught bad programming? I'm talking about straight up trash that you're not interested in or stuff that you wouldn't want your children to see. I haven't. It might not be my cup of tea but I could watch those channels all day long. Why can't we expect the same level of service from BET? We pay for it - it's part of our cablevision package. Yes, there is bad programming on BET but there is also bad programming on other networks. And, sure, it's all subjective. I would say that the Nickelodeon and Disney channels are no more than 24 hours a day, advertising for products. There were a time when cartoons aired on Saturday morning, and the commercials were the advertising. But, now the cartoons, and other children programs, themselves are nearly 30 min commercials. Now that is bad programming to me, and as destructive as the rump shaking programming. A young viewer is fed 30 to 60 mins segments of, you got to have this to be cool and popular, for hours on end. Those programs have merchandising and licensing that brings in billions. Raven-Symone has generated $400 million alone in merchandising. Mzuri wrote: Why can't BET produce Black cooking shows, instructional television, news programming, etc. I find it hard to believe that all we want is stand-up comedy, situation comedy, and stuff that's related to the music industry. I mean, is that all we are? Only interested in music and comedy? By the ratings and popularity of those type of programming, that seems to be the case. When programs not related to music and comedy tanks -- that's a telltale sign, if ever there was one. On the other hand, even Troy said that the lit writers don't promote on the site as much as the other less literary genres. So, if one ventures onto the site, and see all the covers and descriptions of many of those books, then it would appear we are only interested in those types of books. The pendulum swings both ways. Mzuri wrote: The situation is completely different when we purchase books and videos because there we have choices. We can choose whether we want books with photos/illustrations, comic books, poetry, scientific journals, street lit or whatever. On BET, there are choices, but if they offered 24 hours, of the same type of programming, then I could agree with you, but they don't. Now if you think every single minute of their programming is crap then ... | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 231 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Chris_hayden wrote: (I don't understand. Does not Viacom, ie THE WHITE FOLKS, own BET? Okay. Yes, they do now, but the same holds true for that corporation. So replace Troy's name with BET, Hudlin (he's running the network now) or even Viacom. Chris_hayden wrote: (There are not enough Negroes who will watch such shows to make it worth their while to make them. You people will never get it together. You cannot process reality. THE PEOPLE DON'T WANT GOOD PROGRAMMING. They want crap. I've come to think the same. It's evident by books sales, TV ratings, CD sales, box office receipts, ad rates etc. But, I was just wondering why only certain producers, promoters and sellers of crap get the ire of folks while others get praises -- when both are offering crap, though in a different format or form. All the venom towards BET, regarding the crap on the network, could be thrown out against a lot of folks, who produce, promote and sell crap but they not only get a bye, they get praised. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5476 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
They go on the gambling boat. WTF are you talking about? And when did I say that Prince was the highest form of entertainment? Is that the impression that you have because I post his pix? Do you believe that the only music I listen to is Prince? I enjoy his music at times but I'm much more faceted than you could comprehend. As to my use of the computer and the internet, if you'd like to believe that it's my tool to discuss Beyonce, be my guest. But I can promise you that I am so far advanced from ordinary people such as yourself that just about all of my income is derived from my internet activities, and it's not chicken feed. Now - I suggest that you wash the cracker crumbs out of your eyes, dismiss your outdated notions, get with the program and realize that it's 2007. Time for washed up, played out, one-track negroes such as yourself to renew their tired thinking. Because you're way late my brother, trust me. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
Troy wrote: First if I were Bob I would not be trying to sell books. I would be selling music, Viagra, porn, ringtones, videos or any number of things with more upside potential. You can be Troy and still sell those. But, then again, Bob didn't sell music, Viagra, ringtones, .. I am not sure, I'm following your thinking here. But, once, again my point was when Chris wrote: "would never know what it means to make a payroll, put out and sell and distribute a publication on their own telling everybody else what standards they should keep.", that the same could be said of BET detractors. Just as you are expected to offer products that your customers want, so does any business, including BET. I never looked at one network to be all end all of TV programming for blacks. And, until I am in the position of yourself or Johnson, then I wonder how thoughtful or relevant would my criticism be. I am sure both of you all have made some very tough decisions and sacrifices, in the course, of running your respective businesses. Troy wrote: Bob said the “E” was for entertainment not education. I know, which is why I find interesting that he got slammed for providing "entertainment" programming. As you mentioned, there was the program about books, which I don't think lasted a couple of months, as well, there was a news program, there was an health and fitness show, there was Teen Summit, there was plenty of shows that didn't feature 'entertainment', but all the shows got canned because of low ratings or low profitability. I find it very hard to believe all those canceled shows tanked because of "poor execution." Even some previous and present entertainment shows that are of poor execution but had/have higher ratings. I believe this is way beyond "poor execution." Troy wrote: If Bob where forced to sell books I’m sure he would focus on the ones making the most money. I agree, but then, he did seem to focus on the programming that made the most money. *shrug* I guess the gist of my point, is that folks can always explain away or offer a rationale, for what they do, but when others do something similar, then it's a horrible thing. Just trying to get why it's good, excuable, or acceptable, for one person, but bad for another. Besides, there are books published which perpetuate negative Black stereotypes (starting with some of those covers, the models are as scantily dressed and in highly suggestive stances and positions -- the same in the music videos) but the refrain has been well, folks are reading which is good and they'll eventually get tired of those books and move on -- but looking a increasing promotions and sales of such books, I wonder, when it's going to happen, or if ever. Just as folks always find bad things, they can find good things, if they wanna. Online, it's just a mouse click or two away. The network is in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation -- has always been so. Some folks complain they don't offer high brow programming, and then when make an attempt then they still get criticized because they are trying to offer something not low brow or those shows are canceled due to low ratings. Go figure. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5477 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: |
JMHO - You have totally missed the point. Further, you have taken my comments out of context. For example, I never said anything about "But BET hasn't never been or is presently 24 hours of clueless, female rump shakers." I said "And so I personally would prefer that BET provide quality programming that portrays Black people in a positive light (for a change), as opposed to Blacks being depicted as being clueless, the female rumpshakers and all of that." What's on during their entire 24 hour programming cycle is irrelevant - no one watches television 24 hours a day since people take sleep breaks. I realize that there are late night infomercials, but again you missed the point. I'm concerned about their programming during the prime time hours, the time of day when most people watch television. It doesn't really matter that they have eliminated the booty videos, because it's so ingrained in the collective psyche that, that is the programming that BET is about. Look, I'm 46 years old, will be 47 in a couple of months. I was around when TV was black and white. I witnessed the advent of CNN, MTV, BET and other cable programming. I was also around when you could go to a party or the club without having to worry about being raped, carjacked, kidnapped, stabbed, shot and disappeared. Not saying that those things didn't occur back then, but it wasn't as prevelant as today nor was it at the forefront of my concerns when leaving my home. Do you think that the crappy crap that's on television has influenced society? And if so, has it influenced society in a positive or negative way. Do you believe that BET has had a positive effect on the Black community? Do you think they could have done things differently? Just as I can turn off the television or watch any of about 300 different channels, you don't have to get your books thru Troy nor do you have to surf to AALBC. And while AALBC/Troy is influential (as evidenced by the traffic that AALBC generates), many more people are aware of BET than AALBC. So to compare the power of BET to the power of Troy, or to even put the two entities up for comparison is absurd. This is yet another reason why there is no double standard. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 233 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri wrote: JMHO - You have totally missed the point. I don't think I totally missed your point. I got your overall point, but I disagreed. You think there's no double standard, and I do. Mzuri wrote: Further, you have taken my comments out of context. For example, I never said anything about "But BET hasn't never been or is presently 24 hours of clueless, female rump shakers." And, I didn't say you said that either. Sheesh. However, you did mentioned if you watched other networks (i.e., Discovery, TLC, History Channel) all day long, (now in this response you mentioned it's the prime time hours that are of your concern) then you're wouldn't find bad programming. So, what other comments of yours that you think that I've taken out of context? Mzuri wrote: What's on during their entire 24 hour programming cycle is irrelevant - no one watches television 24 hours a day since people take sleep breaks. I realize that there are late night infomercials, but again you missed the point. Actually, when I mentioned infomercials, I was referring to those on Bravo. I like the network but my point was they show programs, that I don't like or think are bad programming, and couldn't watch the network all day. And, yes, maybe no one watches TV 24 hours day, but if you watch a network's programming for 2 hours, and then form an opinion, about the network, based solely on those 2 hours, yet not view any other programming, the other 22 hours, how fair or accurate is your assessment. Mzuri wrote: I'm concerned about their programming during the prime time hours, the time of day when most people watch television. It doesn't really matter that they have eliminated the booty videos, because it's so ingrained in the collective psyche that, that is the programming that BET is about. One can have an opinion, but I would think it'd better, if it's at least be based on fact. And, folks can definitely change their psyche, to reflect reality, if they wanna. I acknowledge that BET has an image problem, could be argued mostly of their own making, but if folks are still holding against them for programs, that have been long gone off the air *and* refuse to recognize or acknowledge that there were some programs, on the network, which were not negative, then as I said, they are in damned if they do, damned if they don't position. I also don't think BET is above criticism, I have some of that for them myself, but I think it'll be best if we voice constructive, thoughtful and fair criticism. In the same vein, the viewers have to take some responsibility to what's aired, as well. As I always say, there's enough blame to go around, for everyone to get their share. It's going to be interesting to see what'll be on TV One network 10 years from now. The bulk of their primetime schedule are syndicated sitcoms and entertainment shows (another complaints of BET). I wonder how long their non-entertainment programs (G. Gavin, Singletary Says, Our World, etc.) will stay on the air. MBC (later changed to Black Family Network) was also touted as another alternative to BET, featuring family programming, but they folded tent, a few months ago, after less than 10 years. Mzuri wrote: Look, I'm 46 years old, will be 47 in a couple of months. Older than myself, I must say. Mzuri wrote: I was around when TV was black and white. I witnessed the advent of CNN, MTV, BET and other cable programming. I was also around when you could go to a party or the club without having to worry about being raped, carjacked, kidnapped, stabbed, shot and disappeared. Not saying that those things didn't occur back then, but it wasn't as prevalent as today nor was it at the forefront of my concerns when leaving my home. The world today isn't what it was last week, last year, 10 years ago, etc. -- I know this. Mzuri wrote: Do you think that the crappy crap that's on television has influenced society? Sure, just as I think the crappy crap on the internet has also influenced society. Mzuri wrote: And if so, has it influenced society in a positive or negative way. I think it has influenced society in both ways. To me, it's not always an either-or. Crappy crap can influence, motivate or inspire another to try and do better -- which could be seen as a positive. Mzuri wrote: Do you believe that BET has had a positive effect on the Black community? Yes. Just as I think Troy has had a positive effect on the Black community. Mzuri wrote: Do you think they could have done things differently? Actually, I think that's debatable. I would think that many would say they would have done some things differently, after the fact. If they never aired any bad programming, would they even be still on the air today, who knows, can't speak to what didn't happen or never happened and how the outcome would be different. Though I would like to think the network did the best it could with the resources they had. BET couldn't have gone into every home, and force folks watch the good programming, along with the bad, if only for balance sake. But, it's useless that the same folks who won't watch the good programming, but want to only complain about the bad. That's rather hypercritical. Mzuri wrote: Just as I can turn off the television or watch any of about 300 different channels, you don't have to get your books thru Troy nor do you have to surf to AALBC. And while AALBC/Troy is influential (as evidenced by the traffic that AALBC generates), many more people are aware of BET than AALBC. So to compare the power of BET to the power of Troy, or to even put the two entities up for comparison is absurd. This is yet another reason why there is no double standard. I am not comparing the "power" of BET to the "power" of Troy's site. For me, this about responsibility for the products that one produce, promote, sell. If BET should be taken to task, for it's less than positive offerings, then so should everyone else, including Troy. Just don't think there should be any sacred cows, so to speak, just because we all like to read (more than watch TV) or we like to visit this site. You disagree, that's fine, I'm okay with that. And, yes, I agree, and believe that Troy is influential, hence my original question and comments. It's states on the "about us" page for aalbc.com (http://aalbc.com/aboutus.htm): "AALBC.com is the most popular site for Black literature averaging over 900,000 unique visitors each month. " So, because Troy may have less visitors to the site than BET has viewers, then he's exempt? Now that to me is absurd. Being the newest kid on the block or have a smaller audience doesn't get one an exemption for accountability. To say or think differently, proves there's a double standard. But, like I sad before, I'll agree to disagree with you on this. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5485 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
So Troy is not a sacred cow (in your opinion). But what is it exactly that he's guilty of? Promoting what's available thru Amazon.com? Because that's what you're getting here unless he's advertising something that's self-published. And what do you feel that he should do? Read every single book to see if it contains adult content, religious text, discussions of politics, etc? Should he separate what he thinks you (and all the other likeminded self-righteous do-gooders) find acceptable from what he thinks you might consider objectionable? Or do you only have a problem with Troy's negative opinion about BET? Are you suggesting that because he promotes all manner of Black writing, that he cannot/should not have a negative opinion about BET? He doesn't have the right to express his dismay with things he finds offensive within the Black community or elsewhere? What are you saying? Elaborate. You seem to be confusing the issue of quality with that of censorship. I don't believe in censorship and I don't speak for Troy, but I don't think that he does either. And I don't think anyone's calling for censorship over at BET, just expect quality programming. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 761 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Hey JMHO, Given the finite number of hours I a day. I can only sell a few things. The point I’m trying to make about Bob is that he focused on the profitable stuff and not the enlightening things. All I’m saying is that I really try to do both. The point of the tread is that some fell this may not be the righteous thing to do. As I mentioned and you emphasized Bob seemed to attempt to put in place some up lifting content. However I still assert the problem was execution. Execution includes commitment of time and resources. I get the impression Bob just was not very committed to anything other than the entertainment that appeals to the masses. It is easier to pull off and good got a quick buck. BET had the financial resources to create programming like The, or to produce movies like Talk to Me Wire (quality programming that appeals to the masses) AND play the music videos. And have intelligent news programs. I just think it was a missed opportunity… BET had Arabesque books too what happened to that? What would it have take to make it successful Of course BET will be praised and criticized no matter what they do. We all are. Some people argue that the crack dealer is justified in what he does. That does not mean it is right. Now I’m not equating BET with a crack dealer I’m just saying, in the content of the topic of this discussion, that I think BET was more wrong than right… and by extension maybe I am too. I don’t think I am, but it is worth considering… I think the comparison to BET on this basis is valid and fair. My personal opinion is that BET did and continues to promote, globally the most negative stereotypes of Black people – without any balance. I’m not sure the Viacom version owned version of BET could get away what they do now had not Bob Johnson not did it first. Bob set the stage, the standard. I need to update the aboutus page we are doing better than 900,000 unique visitors now. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 235 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri wrote: So Troy is not a sacred cow (in your opinion). But what is it exactly that he's guilty of? Promoting what's available thru Amazon.com? Because that's what you're getting here unless he's advertising something that's self-published. Well, self-published books are advertised and sold on the site. Let me ask you, what is the difference between BET and Troy both being conduits? If you read back (carefully) over my posts, I originally asked, what is the difference between Troy promoting and offering less than positive books and BET promoting and offering less than positive programming? And, why can't the same complaints be made against those who own and run BET also be made against Troy, who owns and runs this site? Seems to me if you're against negative images of black folks, in whatever shape, form or format, and those who produce, promote and profit from such images, then why aren’t ALL producers, promoters and profiteers condemned. Why some, and not all? Why the double standard? Why does one get praised and the another doesn't? Mzuri wrote: And what do you feel that he should do? Read every single book to see if it contains adult content, religious text, discussions of politics, etc? Should he separate what he thinks you (and all the other likeminded self-righteous do-gooders) find acceptable from what he thinks you might consider objectionable? Now, I have to say, you missed my point. I've noted your backhanded slur, but you should know by now, I don't operate that way, don't find it necessary or productive, and won't respond in kind, regardless of your prodding. Would you call those who complain about BET's programming self-righteous do-gooders? But, anyway, I don't under understand your first question, what I feel that he should do about what? He can read every single book he promotes, if he would like to. Though I do think his sense of discernment is much greater than you allude. And, I don't understand your last question, as well, should he separate (?) what he think I find acceptable from what he thinks I might consider objectionable? Could you rephrase your questions or explain further what you're trying to ask me? Mzuri wrote: Or do you only have a problem with Troy's negative opinion about BET? Are you suggesting that because he promotes all manner of Black writing, that he cannot/should not have a negative opinion about BET? He doesn't have the right to express his dismay with things he finds offensive within the Black community or elsewhere? I don't have a problem with Troy's negative opinion of BET. In fact, I don't have a problem with anyone's negative opinion of BET or anything else for that matter, nor what Troy finds offensive within the Black community, or elsewhere, or anyone else being offended. Whether Troy promotes all genres of black writing, one genre, or none at all, then he can/should have any opinion of BET or any other subject, that he so desire. Is that explicit enough for you? I think I covered all the bases, if not, let me know. Interesting though, how these questions read like veiled indictments. Mzuri wrote: You seem to be confusing the issue of quality with that of censorship. With all due respect, I think you are confused, I know the difference between the issue of quality and censorship. I NEVER said or even suggested that anybody be censored -- either regarding books on aalbc.com or programming on BET. If you read me to say or imply such, then you're interpretation is just flat out wrong. Ironically, or maybe not, many of BET critics have wanted programming off the air -- now wouldn't you call that censorship. Mzuri wrote: I don't believe in censorship and I don't speak for Troy, but I don't think that he does either. And I don't think anyone's calling for censorship over at BET, just expect quality programming. And, I expect quality programming, too, and there has been quality programming, but if you disagree, then that's okay. We'll just differ in opinion. I love this site as much as the many others who visit, nearly daily, and others, obviously, who visit several times a day. I was here back when the message board was off the main site, aalbc.com and, there wasn't a Thumper's Corner website. I've participated in the author chats and read and discussed the books on the reading list that Thumper provided, brought books through the site, and currently subscribed to the newsletter. So, trust my questions and comments haven't been in spite or out of malice or boredom. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 236 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy wrote: As I mentioned and you emphasized Bob seemed to attempt to put in place some up lifting content. However I still assert the problem was execution. Execution includes commitment of time and resources. How long should a program, with low ratings, be on the air? How long do you think an advertiser is going to (continue) buy ad time, if they have evidence that 10 people are watching a program? How much money should be allocated to a venture that is losing money? Perhaps as business people, we would draw a line, in a different place, but the point is each of would have to draw a line somewhere. I admit I have never owned or operated a cable network, nor a book web site, so I am sure there are millions of things, that go on, in the course of running such a venture, that I am clueless about. But its seems like just as any other legitimate business, it's more about supply and demand. And, I also think I would be hypocrite, to call out another person for wrongdoing, and I am doing very much the same thing, no matter how much I think I am justify in what I am doing or my good intentions. Troy wrote: I get the impression Bob just was not very committed to anything other than the entertainment that appeals to the masses. It is easier to pull off and good got a quick buck. I think if he wasn't committed, then there wouldn't have been any programming that wasn't entertainment related, and we know that's not true. And, I also have to thread lightly on questioning and judging others' commitment, when I don't know the entire story, so to speak. As Chris mentioned to you, in response to that e-mailer, the man had to run a business, he had payroll and financial obligations that had to be met, had to offer programming that viewers wanted. The owners sold the network after 20 years, I think it can be argued, he wasn't in for a quick buck. By the same token, would you be as critical of authors, who write crappy crap, borrowing Mzuri's phrase, for entertainment purposes only, to appeal to the masses, just to make a quick buck? And, if you suspected as much, would you still promote and sell the work? Would you think those who criticized you would have merit? Troy wrote: BET had the financial resources to create programming like The, or to produce movies like Talk to Me Wire (quality programming that appeals to the masses) AND play the music videos. And have intelligent news programs. I just think it was a missed opportunity… I have no idea how much it took to make the movie, Talk to Me. And, the series The Wire originally aired on HBO. Again, don't know how much it cost them either to produce the show. And, I thought they put on some intelligent news programs. But, you keep neglecting to consider those "intelligent" shows didn't have the viewer ship. Consider, if Johnson was in it only for the money, and those intelligent shows, made the network money, wouldn't you think they would still be on the air. Troy wrote: BET had Arabesque books too what happened to that? What would it have take to make it successful I had to a bit of research, on this before responding, as I don't read romance, though I was aware of the line, but didn't know what became of it, but based on what I read, it was sold along with all the other BET holdings to Viacom. And, now it's owned by Harlequin. Under BET ownership I thought it do well, but look at this, I found this while searching: http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/5049/1519.html Though I never read the books, I did see a few of those TV movies which were made from the Arabesque titles. Johnson also published Emerge magazine, of which I was a faithful reader/subscriber. I read that he lost money on it for years but kept publishing it. The most ironic thing about all of this is everyone wants another or others, to make all the sacrifices, for the greater good of the whole, but don't want to make any (personal) sacrifices themselves. If Johnson had said, okay you viewers want better programming, then how about each of you all send in $10, to help us produce such programming. I bet he wouldn't get $100, in return. As much as I enjoy public television and radio, I dread those pledge drives, but I understand they are necessary. Troy wrote: Some people argue that the crack dealer is justified in what he does. That does not mean it is right. Well, I aint one of those people. I am probably more of a hardliner, especially on certain issues, than others. One example, when you asked Chris in another thread, who did he blame the drug pusher or drug addict, my response would have been both are to blame. Troy wrote: My personal opinion is that BET did and continues to promote, globally the most negative stereotypes of Black people – without any balance. And, my personal opinion differs regarding the balance aspect, because all their programming didn't promote the most negative stereotypes of Black people. Thus, on that, we can disagree. Lastly, would you admit that there are some books, in which you feature, promote and/or sell that include the most negative stereotypes of Black folks? And, would call out those authors publicly as you have Johnson? | ||
| Nafisa_goma Regular Poster Username: Nafisa_goma Post Number: 224 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: |
I was talking to Kola about this thread and she said that if it hadn't been for Jaqueline Sussann's "VALLEY OF THE DOLLS", which was "theee" Trash Novel of the 1960's and 70's right? Then she never would have went on to pick up "Bluest Eyes", "Invisible Man" and "The Color Purple". She says that reading Jackie Collins can lead to reading Gloria Naylor. I tend to agree with her. Kola says that "street lit" is very good for the black community because it's training millions of young non-readers to get in the habit of reading books and she says these late teens and twenty-somethings will probably switch to more serious books in their late thirties and forties which will cause another renaissance for black literary writers down the road. Kola says that only the literary writers who aren't strong storytellers with something concrete to say are threatened by street lit. Kola says: "Imagine an artist like Bob Marley feeling threatened by Pussycat Dolls. In the long run, Marley's records will sell forever, but the Pussycat Dolls have a very short life span." Kola claims that some "street lit" is very well written and has a point of view. Kola says that when she has sex, she sometimes likes to listen to Too Short and 2-Live Crew, when she's mad she will put on Millie Jackson, and when she was a kid, she loved reading Donald Goings and Iceberg Slim, so she feels that some of this "trash" is still art. Kola says that when black kids of today prefer meaningless hip hop samples and exploitation novels it's because the black community is reaping what it has sewn. Shallow parents make shallow offspring. Kola believes that Troy Johnson is actually helping black literary writing by exposing it on the same site with "street lit" and by initiating your readers to pick up the "habit" of reading. Having the "habit" will eventually lead to more serious tastes. Kola points out that Barnes and Nobles stocks her books, but "black bookstores" like Hueman said they wouldn't stock them because she's topless in African settings on the back cover. They will, however, stock a book that has a BLACK WOMAN with blonde weave and blue contact lens on the book jacket. She asks that black people take a moment to think about that and to consider how the black community lacks principals over all. Kola says: "I just can't believe that blacks would be suggesting "censorship" and "non-accessability" for any type of literature after all that happened to Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston and others in their quest to be published in their own voices". NG | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 762 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: |
I reread my last post sorry for all of the typos... Juan Williams did a piece on BET this morning on NPR and mentioned that the National Association of Black Journalists Bestowed their ‘Thumbs Down Award’ on BET (http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/2007/story/53052p-81780c.html May 7 2007)
You can choose to disagree, but I can’t see why this should be a point of contention. It is plainly obvious that virtually all BETs programming is and has always been low brow entertainment. BET even acknowledges the lack of balance.
That is cool that you found this. I clearly remember that party. My question of What Happened to Arabesque books was rhetorical. Not very long this party Harlequin purchased of the assets of BET Books. Interestingly side bar: I recently videotaped an interview with Walter Zacharius who founded Arabesque books, Dafina Books, and Kensington Publishing. I hope to have the interview published shortly. Zacharius is a fascinating dude and provides some insight on the Arabesque story
No. Again, I submit that BET chooses the low brow route because it was MUCH more profitable and required MUCH less effort. BET had/has the money, not the desire, to create intelligent programming that ALSO appeals to the masses like HBO’s The Wire. We all understand the principals of capitalism. It should go without saying that a program that is loosing money should not, can not remain on the air indefinitely. But the implication is that you are suggesting BET’’s positive programming lost money? The beating-the-dead-horse issue here is that BET, under Viacom, is doing more harm that good. People who know a lot more about that industry than I appear to concur; but we can agree to disagree on that…
Of course I do believe this to be the case. I do not think we have to “choose sides” I think if we strive for quality on all fronts we will all be better off. That does not mean we (I) will always hit the mark, but we try. AALBC.com for example, did not start out where it is today. It took almost a decade of work to get it here. AALBC.com has a lot of room for improvement, but it is a far cry from where it was 10 years ago and where it will be 10 years from now. Even the effort of considering the books I sell and promote is up for discussion in an effort to strike the correct/right/proper balance. If I based my decision of which books to promote solely on money, the answer would be amazing plain and I would not even have started this thread AND I would be making more money. I think we all know the choice BET would make. Go to the BET website and do a search on books. BET, one can argue, is going backward. Its programming reflects a lack of quality, balance, or the even the slightest bit of cultural sensitivity -- at best. We hold BET to a higher standard because it purportedly represents Black people.
Yes, this was one of the points I was trying to make. | ||
| A_womon Veteran Poster Username: A_womon Post Number: 1806 Registered: 05-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy said: Of course I do believe this to be the case. I do not think we have to “choose sides” I think if we strive for quality on all fronts we will all be better off. a_womon says: Ah can I get a AMAN? AMEN BROTHA! | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9554 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Don't all major TV networks allot a certain amount of air time for public service programming? BET wouldn't go bankrupt if it devoted a couple of hours a week to worthwhile well-prooduced shows which, if given a chance, could acquire a following. | ||
| Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 5045 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
BET wouldn't go bankrupt if it devoted a couple of hours a week to worthwhile well-prooduced shows which, if given a chance, could acquire a following. (It does. Nobody watches them. Nobody wants them. Nobody watches public service programming on WHITE STATIONS? Why is it there is no Black Talk radio? Negroes want to listen to music--either popular or Christian. You people are just pretending not to know this, right? | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9556 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
What quality public service programs does BET have??? Why aren't these shows brought to our attention, when BET is criticized? BTW, whenever PBS has programs about prominent black Americans or black history or black subjects, they earn decent ratings. And Chicago has several black talk radio stations that are very popular. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 237 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Nafisa_goma wrote: Kola says: "I just can't believe that blacks would be suggesting "censorship" and "non-accessability" for any type of literature after all that happened to Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston and others in their quest to be published in their own voices". And, I just can't believe that people have read this thread, and deduced there has been a suggestion of censorship and/or non-accessibility, of any type of literature. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 238 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy wrote: Juan Williams did a piece on BET this morning on NPR and mentioned that the National Association of Black Journalists Bestowed their ‘Thumbs Down Award’ on BET Yeah, I heard him on yesterday too, but the NABJ just two years ago, honored Johnson (http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases/2005/story/28687p-41493c.html). They saluted him for 25 years of media innovation and entrepreneurship. The president of the organization said, at that time: “We lacked a news and entertainment venue for black people on major television until Mr. Johnson started BET,” said NABJ President Bryan Monroe, assistant vice president/news at Knight Ridder. “He saw through the fog and led the way, and for that we are all grateful." And, despite the thumbs down award this year, BET also received three nominations for their Salute to Excellence contest journalism awards from NBAJ. Yep, BET canned it's nightly news program, some years ago, but it seems that NABJ biggest issue was that BET didn't exempt their regular scheduled programming, and air live Coretta Scott King's funeral. From (http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/08/nabj_urges_media_to_do_better.php): "As said in their main reason for giving them the thumbs down: BET nabbed the Thumbs Down award for not providing continuous live coverage of Coretta Scott King's funeral. "We're not saying they didn't cover it, we're just saying that they didn't provide continuous live coverage in the way that other news outlets did," explained Mr. Deggans. "As a journalism organization, we thought there was an opportunity there for some quality journalism that they missed." Ironically, NBAJ gave a thumbs up award to CNN, mainly because the Paula Zahn Show's town hall meeting in Vidor Texas. Now, the irony of all ironies, she quit the show, but knew the handwriting was on the wall, as her show couldn't gander viewers away from FOX and MSNBC. Troy wrote: You can choose to disagree, but I can’t see why this should be a point of contention. It is plainly obvious that virtually all BETs programming is and has always been low brow entertainment. BET even acknowledges the lack of balance. The point of contention is because it isn't or hasn't been plainly obviously that virtually ALL BET's programming is and has always been low brow entertainment. BET acknowledges their targeted audience is age group of those between 18 to 34 by primarily offering music programming. Troy wrote: We all understand the principals of capitalism. It should go without saying that a program that is loosing money should not, can not remain on the air indefinitely. But the implication is that you are suggesting BET’’s positive programming lost money? I don't see how low viewer ship of any program can earn money. I remembered Johnson mentioned Tavis' ratings during that bruhaha a few years ago. I was shocked, at the number, he mentioned, as BET was in millions of households. I had to search around, but I found a commentary which mentioned some numbers ( http://www.popmatters.com/columns/criticalnoire/010329.shtml) : The stark reality was that the show's viewership did not justify Smiley's salary. BET Tonight reached an average of 212,000 viewers. In comparison, BET News with Ed Gordon (who returned to the Johnson plantation last year after a stint with MSNBC) attracted 253, 000 viewers, which means that over 40,000 houses would change channels or turn off the television when Smiley came on. More telling is the fact that BET Live, an underwhelming "late night" show hosted by former NBA star John Salley has an audience almost double that of BET Tonight at 409,000. For the record the network's highest rated program is the often vulgar and atrocious Comic View, [...]The fact that the show is supported by more than 500,000 viewers speak volumes about the network's core audience [...] In this context, Smiley's forced departure seems a no-brainer. Troy wrote: quote: Nafisa_goma Kola believes that Troy Johnson is actually helping black literary writing by exposing it on the same site with "street lit" and by initiating your readers to pick up the "habit" of reading. Of course I do believe this to be the case. I'm still waiting for the jury on this. But, if the verdict was read today, it wouldn't be positive. There was a news article recently, in the NY Times(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/books/11potter.html?ex=1186891200&en=3b5586eb6 7a92e2a&ei=5070) that said even with the gazilions (okay that's an exaggeration) books of Harry Potter sold, over the past 10 years, that reading habits for children haven't increased, and the kids of today are reading fewer books than previous generations. Of course, Rowling can't do it alone, but you would think for all those books sold and read, that those young readers would want to pick up other books -- but it ain't so. Troy wrote: I think we all know the choice BET would make. Go to the BET website and do a search on books. But I can tell you didn't. I did -- there's a range of search results. Now, I wonder what I'll find, if I searched on quality TV programming, at this site or aalbc.com. Troy wrote: We hold BET to a higher standard because it purportedly represents Black people. I think that's why we are continuing down this slippery slope now, we are selective in whom we think needs to be of a higher standard or any standard, at all, obviously. Seems like a convenient to give oneself a pass for what you are doing, though you want hold others to a high(er) standard. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 239 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Cynique wrote: Don't all major TV networks allot a certain amount of air time for public service programming? BET wouldn't go bankrupt if it devoted a couple of hours a week to worthwhile well-prooduced shows which, if given a chance, could acquire a following. But, of course. It's one thing, to say, I didn't like or enjoy (or never liked or enjoyed) viewing the news and/or public affairs programming on BET, and they never had such programming. The former is a matter of opinion, yet the latter is lie. I didn't know that Teen Summit aired for 13 years, and Comic View, which is sill going strong, has been on for 15 years. While trying to find ratings, came across the following: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/blackenterta/blackenterta.htm (Doesn't include all their programming, past and present, but it provides some facts and context.) From the very beginning, the heart and soul of BET programming was the music video. Predating MTV by a year, BET has offered as much as eighteen hours of music videos a day, prompting many to perceive the 24-hour network as essentially a black-oriented music video service. Thus while MTV was being criticized in 1983 for excluding black artists from its playlist (Tina Turner and the interracial group English Beat excepted), many viewers were tuning into BET for such offerings. Indeed, the network's flagship program, VideoSoul, has became a household word in many black communities. But as BET grew, the network began to diversify its program offerings and image. By its tenth anniversary in 1990, the network had initiated several original programs/projects, including: For the Record, featuring members of the Congressional Black Caucus; Teen Summit, a Saturday noon show for youth; Black Agenda 2000, a series of forums on issues of interest to the black community; Conversation with Ed Gordon, an interview program with contemporary newsmakers; Inside Studio A, concerts and interviews taped before a live audience; Personal Diary, one-on-one interviews with prominent blacks; On Stage, plays written and performed by blacks; and Our Voices, a daily talk show. More recent BET program schedules have included: ComicView, a stand-up comedy review; Screen Scene, a black-oriented entertainment journal; Jazz Central, a jazz music program; and Rap City, a rap video program. From time to time, BET also airs sporting events featuring teams from historically black colleges and universities, and rounds out its schedule with reruns of popular black-oriented shows such as Sanford and Son, What's Happening, Frank's Place and Roc. News and public affairs programs tend to be relegated to the weekends. Nonetheless, BET has become much more than just a basic-cable network since its humble beginnings. By 1995, BET Holdings owned and operated a broad array of black-oriented media products, including: Black Entertainment Television, the basic-cable network; YSB (Young Sisters and Brothers), a magazine targeted at black youths; Emerge, a magazine offering analysis and commentary on contemporary issues facing black America; Action Pay-Per-View, a national, satellite-delivered, pay-per-view movie channel based in Santa Monica, Calif.; BET International, a provider of BET programming throughout Africa and other foreign markets; Identity Television, a London-based cable service targeting Afro-Caribbean viewers; BET Productions, a subsidiary providing technical and production services to outside companies; BET Radio Network, a radio service providing news and entertainment packages to affiliated stations across the U.S.; and BET Pictures, a joint venture with Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation to produce and distribute black, family-oriented films. | ||
| Emanuel Regular Poster Username: Emanuel Post Number: 342 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
I think that's why we are continuing down this slippery slope now, we are selective in whom we think needs to be of a higher standard or any standard... I agree. I wrote about this on the post titled "Their Eyes Were Watching Smut." What makes what we read have to meet a certain standard that other forms of entertainment (music, movies, TV, etc.) doesn't? Who gets to judge what is moral and what isn't, especially if laws are not being broken? In regards to morality, please check out the discussion on Blogging in Black titled "Telling Our Stories" by Monica Jackson here http://blogginginblack.com/?p=489#. Be sure to watch the streaming video from Christ Abani while you're there. | ||
| Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 9568 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
As an explanation, it seems to be a cop-out to say that the correlation between what BET airs and what the Black masses watch, is a sign of the times. But it is. We are living in a visually-oriented, electronically-dependent era and since such priority is given to what is convenient, it's just easier to sidestep any diversion that requires mental exertion. Furthermore, this state of intellectual inertia also extends beyond the black culture. The United States of America is a dumbed-down nation, and like Europe once did, this country may have to go through an age of enlightenment that will inspire a renassiance. But things will probably get worse before they get better. It's left up to conscientous parents and teachers to unsurp the media by trying to motivate the upcoming generation as a whole to diversify its interests. IMO. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 241 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Emanuel wrote: What makes what we read have to meet a certain standard that other forms of entertainment (music, movies, TV, etc.) doesn't? Who gets to judge what is moral and what isn't, especially if laws are not being broken? Other forms of entertainment have may not have "standards", in the strict sense, but each have a rating system and/or warning labels, whereas books don't. Ever tried to watch a TV show and every two words, there are bleeps, or they fuzzy out things on the screen? Not very enjoyable at all. That's why I wonder how do people watch shows like Jerry Springer. Half the show, you don't hear, and the other half, you can't see. It’s not only about breaking laws -- it's also about standards. The publishing industry may not impose a standard, but the readers can. One example, I can't imagine many other industries, that allows defected products, to be sold, at full price, no less. With some other products, you can negotiate, to get a discount, but you can buy a book with errors galore, and still be expected to pay full price, and further, to excuse or over look the errors. Maybe one receives what they expect. Everyone has to determine and judge for themselves based on their moral compass. What I find alarming is that folks have different standards based on whateva -- thus very little consistency. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 764 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
JMHO, thanks for placing the NBAJ award in perspective. When you look at the “Thumbs Down Award” in the larger context it almost makes the gesture meaningless… rendering that aspect of my point rather weak. I will read the articles you referenced. Mark Anthony Neal’s article looks particularly interesting. You seem to be equating quality with a low number of viewers. The two do not go hand in hand. Perhaps in BET’s case it does (back to execution), but certainly not in the general case. Now Tavis salary might not have been justified given his audience. However, that does not mean that Tavis was any “good” and deserved the numbers. JMHO, who did not say what you found when searching for books on BET? I did not read the Rowling article, but your logic is resulting in a flawed conclusion. One simple question to consider is what would the kids have read it the Potter books never existed. Even anecdotally we know people are reading other copy cat ttitles. I like being compared to a multinational, multimedia conglomerate, even the likes of BET, on the basis of content :-). Funny you should mention TV programming. Ramping up on the quality and quantity of video content is one of my goals. Chris my brother I could not disagree with you more. As in Chicago, NY has a bunch of Black talk radio (Not counting Baisden, Harvey, Williams, et. al.). Public programs like NPR seem to be doing very well… You realy do need to move. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5532 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: |
There's a very simple reason that the NABJ chose to recognize BET's accomplishments one year and admonish them the next = Different board members. JMHO - If you haven't done so already, expend your energy into writing a novel or something. Because your endless rants haven't changed anyone's mind. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 244 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy wrote: You seem to be equating quality with a low number of viewers. Nope, don't think so. No more than I would equate quality with a low number of book sales or readers. Troy wrote: Perhaps in BET’s case it does (back to execution), but certainly not in the general case. Now Tavis salary might not have been justified given his audience. However, that does not mean that Tavis was any “good” and deserved the numbers. The point that I took from the commentary, regarding this was that Tavis show didn't attract viewers, (or keep viewers, if many turned the channel after watching the preceding news show) hence making his salary hard to justify (return on investment), which was one reason his show was canceled. At the time, Tavis made it seem like, it was all a personal thing, and that Johnson was upset about the interview, he did on another network. I think that played a part, but then, I also think a show ratings are always a factor. Troy wrote: JMHO, who did not say what you found when searching for books on BET? I found links to the message board, I found links to articles about different kinds of books, both fiction and non fiction, I found a link to a listing of books about blacks and mental health, I found a link for discussion questions for books, I found a link regarding books published by Sepia, ETC,. I am not sure I am getting your point. Are you trying to make a point that based on the TV programming, then books on their site, are in the same vein? The books related material, on the site ranged, from one extreme to the other, just as their TV programming. Did your search around the site prove differently? Troy wrote: I did not read the Rowling article, but your logic is resulting in a flawed conclusion. Maybe you should. It was the conclusion by educators and researchers -- National Assessment of Educational Progress. For myself, as I stated, the jury is still out regarding black readers. However, I don't think this logic is no more flawed than the logic that folks will automatically go onto higher quality books because they got tired of the books they are reading. Granted for some that might hold true, but is there any evidence, to make any concrete conclusions. More importantly, will that number be enough to make a major shift, in the type of books written, published and read. Troy wrote: One simple question to consider is what would the kids have read it the Potter books never existed. Maybe for some, nothing, and others, other books. But the research showed, the percenage of those who read for fun continues to drop significantly, as they age, despite the millions of books sold, in the past decade. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 245 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
Mzuri wrote: There's a very simple reason that the NABJ chose to recognize BET's accomplishments one year and admonish them the next = Different board members. Do you know this to be so? Do the board members serve one year terms or two year terms? I did noticed, in those press releases, that the president of the organization was the same in 2005 as in 2007. The thumbs awards were announcement, in the spring, yet NABJ just had it's convention last week, and elected a new officers. Mzuri wrote: JMHO - If you haven't done so already, expend your energy into writing a novel or something. Because your endless rants haven't changed anyone's mind. Always wondered why folks won't take out the advice they so freely dish to others? But, I am sure you know, your advice is worth what I paid you for it. Just as I am sure, you knew you aren't going to change anybody's mind, with your "endless rants," but you post them anyway. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. Just informing the uninformed or refuting some of the lies. Take your pick. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 767 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
JMHO, I read all the articles I was particularly impressed with Mark Anthony Neal's piece. His argument simply bolsters my own, albeit more eloquently. Interesting that it was written over 6 years ago and things have only gotten worse ala We Got to do Better/Hot Ghetto Mess We will have to disagree on the Tavis’ show. I think the show with a better host would have garnered more viewers. As Neal’s piece pointed out the show was cut to 30 minutes and …In its current format, the show has quite frankly been bad. BET just did not want to invest in this type of programming. BET also killed Emerge. This is simply another example of the above. Regarding the Potter book: While it makes for interesting reading; the premise of the article is silly. Discussing Rowling’s impact on the reading rates of a generation of kids is like discussing Google’s impact on the use of the Internet. Both are powerful, however if they both never existed the impact would be negligible. Both would be replaced by something else. The reading trends are driven more much bigger factors than a single author. Regarding my flawed logic, I never wrote …folks will automatically go onto higher quality books because they got tired of the books they are reading… I’m not sure where you got this from but I too agree some readers will do this while others will not. Yes my conclusion about the books seen on the BET site mirrored their TV programming. Honestly I did not look first. I did not have to. I did however look a few moments ago. You obviously put your network search skills to use to find a variety of books on the BET site. Here is what I found: on the BET site http://www.bet.com/ On the homepage I did not find a single book, nor did I find the word book or a reference to any books. At this point it would be reasonable to give up a search for books on this site. But I dug deeper and typed book in the search engine provided. The first page of results did not turn up any direct book links or section on books. Sure there were links to other sites like numerologist Lloyd Strayhorn’s site where he has a book, but one had to click 4 or 5 time to get to that. I even went to the discussion boards. I did not find a category or sub-topic on the subject of books. While BET is a global media conglomerate server the planet an image of Blackness, their coverage of books is for all partical purposes missing. JMHO, even you must admit it is a real stretch to consider the BET web site a source of information about books. What do you think? BET is a Hot Ghetto Mess and We Got to do Better. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5582 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: |
LOL @ JMHO. I always take my own advice which is why I don't engage in endless dissertations. I do not have time. Besides all of that, I rarely even watch BET - I lost interest in that network years ago due to their low quality content. And you read correctly, I wrote different board members. You see, the dynamics of the universe is such that living organisms naturally change and progress. So the NABJ executive board either had different members or the same members changed their thinking. Either way, they are different. That's a good thing too - if everyone stagnated they'd all be stuck in your same old tired rut. BTW, my advice is priceless, you should consider taking it | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 246 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy wrote: We will have to disagree on the Tavis’ show. I think the show with a better host would have garnered more viewers. As Neal’s piece pointed out the show was cut to 30 minutes and …In its current format, the show has quite frankly been bad. BET just did not want to invest in this type of programming. What exactly are you disagreeing with me regarding Tavis' show? I only said that the show was canceled mainly because of ratings. I never offered any commentary on Tavis' hosting skills, or lack thereof. You seem to be saying his show would have been better with a different host, so what difference would it make if he had 30 mins, 60 mins or 120 mins? Ironically, Travis' TV show on PBS has been and is currently 30 mins. Troy wrote: BET also killed Emerge. This is simply another example of the above. The magazine didn't have the readers and was losing money. So, not surprisingly, it was 'killed.' (From http://www.blackamericatoday.com/article.cfm?ArticleID=203 : Emerge circulation was 150,000 and was losing $1 million annually.) So, again, how long is anyone expected to publish a magazine, that's at the best, is breaking even, and worse, losing money . Should he had waited until it was losing $2 million, a year, and had 25 readers, to avoid the refrain: he didn't invest enough? Even you wrote earlier: "We all understand the principals of capitalism. It should go without saying that a program that is loosing money should not, can not remain on the air indefinitely." If Johnson published a serious issues oriented magazine, and had low readership, and then ceased publication, then he'd be criticized because of "poor execution" or lack of investment or didn't do whatever he need to do to attract readers. On the other hand, if he'd published a more entertainment oriented magazine, and yet had more readers, then the criticism would be, he should invest more money in a higher quality publication or he's wrong offering a low brow product. As I said, damned he did, damned if they didn't. Troy wrote: Regarding the Potter book: While it makes for interesting reading; the premise of the article is silly. Discussing Rowling’s impact on the reading rates of a generation of kids is like discussing Google’s impact on the use of the Internet. Both are powerful, however if they both never existed the impact would be negligible. This logic is circular and beyond speculation. You have to make conclusions based on what is, and not on coulda/woulda/shoulda or what ifs/abouts. Troy wrote: The reading trends are driven more much bigger factors than a single author. Maybe, but then one can't ignore the obvious, even if it doesn't jibe with one's opinion. Two words in response: Terry McMillan. Troy wrote: Regarding my flawed logic, I never wrote …folks will automatically go onto higher quality books because they got tired of the books they are reading… I’m not sure where you got this from but I too agree some readers will do this while others will not. All I'll say to this is, you really should re-read your postings on this subject -- and not just in this thread. Troy wrote: Yes my conclusion about the books seen on the BET site mirrored their TV programming. Honestly I did not look first. I knew that -- no confession necessary. Troy wrote: You obviously put your network search skills to use to find a variety of books on the BET site. Hardly so, as one usually finds what they are seeking. Troy wrote: Here is what I found: on the BET site http://www.bet.com/ On the homepage I did not find a single book, nor did I find the word book or a reference to any books. At this point it would be reasonable to give up a search for books on this site. [..] But I dug deeper and typed book in the search engine provided. The first page of results did not turn up any direct book links or section on books. Let's see, BET is Black Entertainment TELEVISION, and you're deriding them because they don't feature books, on their site. I know there was a folder on their message board for books because I've posted on it, in the past. However, this is the same company, that at one time, had a TV show about book; featured authors, spanning the genres, on their network, over the years, on various programming; published 3 magazines: Emerge, Heart and Soul, BET Weekend; published books, fiction and non fiction, under three imprints: Arabesque, New Spirit, Sepia. Besides, this is akin to going to the website of HBO, ABC or even TBS, and criticizing them for having little, or no, information, on their site about books. Sheesh. This has become comical. Would you think it's fair for one to make an assessment of African American LITERATURE BOOK Club website because there isn't any significant information on the site about TV programming, sports or even widgets? You don't specialize in those products, so to hold you accountable for lacking contents on your book site is ludicrous. Troy wrote: While BET is a global media conglomerate server the planet an image of Blackness, their coverage of books is for all partical purposes missing. JMHO, even you must admit it is a real stretch to consider the BET web site a source of information about books. What do you think? No more than it's a real stretch to consider that your site is a web site source of TV programming. There's a salient point there somewhere, I'm sure, so maybe, if you keep spinning this, it will fall out on it's own. Troy wrote: … We Got to do Better. I agree wholeheartedly, we ALL need to do better. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 247 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri wrote: I wrote different board members. I read you to mean there were new board members, and not that the board members changed their opinion. That's why I asked if you were sure if they were different members, on the board, from 2 years ago, of which, I noted you didn't answer. But, even if they changed their minds, and were the same members, on one hand, they give a thumbs down award, to the network for not preempting programming, for a live funeral service, yet on the other, gave the network 2 journalism awards. Mzuri wrote: BTW, my advice is priceless, you should consider taking it Again, then you should be the first to take heed, and follow it, since you think much more highly of your self proclaimed sage advice than myself. | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 782 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
JMHO, ”…one usually finds what they are seeking.” Deep. Does this apply to me or you? You attest that BET has plenty of book information on the site, when I demonstrate that they do not, you tell me they are a TV network. You are a squirrelly rascal JMHO. Going to HBO, ABC or even TBS… is irrelevant. Why do we always run to “them” to justify what we are doing or not doing? One hand you point out that BET has/had several magazines and several publishing imprints, but on the other hand you imply it is unreasonable for me to expect to see a book on their website. Your own points are inconsistent. My original point was that I could direct ALL of my focus and energies, in a BETisian fashion, on Karrine Steffans type books, and content (did you notice the top selling books on the non-fiction side http://books.aalbc.com/julaug_2007.htm) and make a lot more money than I would trying to sell (get a pen) Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (http://aalbc.com/authors/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie.htm) or Percival Everett (http://authors.aalbc.com/percivaleverett.htm) both excellent writers. Despite Southgate and Childes lamenting, I would have to work very very hard not to go broke trying to sell Adichie and Everett only. So, I see I really have three choices:
For now I chose #3 Agreed: “We ALL need to do better.” | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 250 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A |
Troy wrote: ”…one usually finds what they are seeking.” Deep. Does this apply to me or you? You, of course. See more below. Troy wrote: You attest that BET has plenty of book information on the site, when I demonstrate that they do not, you tell me they are a TV network. You are a squirrelly rascal JMHO. You shouldn't play fast and loose with your phrasing. But, here's what I wrote: I found links to the message board, I found links to articles about different kinds of books, both fiction and non fiction, I found a link to a listing of books about blacks and mental health, I found a link for discussion questions for books, I found a link regarding books published by Sepia, ETC,. If you want to claim my findings to be plentiful, that’s on you. And, I certainly don't appreciate the inference that the pages, I referenced, to be on the site, were nonexistent, since you didn't find them in your "search." I accepted you found only books like that of the numerologist, though I knew there other pages unlike those, because I knew you were not looking for them, as they wouldn't support your premise/opinion. However, I found the following today, which are some of the same ones I found a week or so ago: http://www.bet.com/News/dividedsoulofclarencethomas.htm http://www.bet.com/Health/books+onmentalhealthforafricanamericans.htm http://www.bet.com/News/readingguidefortempestrising.htm http://www.bet.com/News/Readingguideallaboutlove.htm http://www.bet.com/News/readingguidefornativeson.htm http://www.bet.com/accidentaldivaexcerpt.htm http://www.bet.com/News/nelsongeorgetranscript.htm http://www.bet.com/Entertainment/News/BlairUnderwoodInterview.htm http://www.bet.com/ForMen-Old/Cheating+101.htm http://www.bet.com/Music/dondawestraisingkanye.htm http://www.bet.com/Site+Management/Packages/GOLDBOOKSGIFTS.htm Troy wrote: Going to HBO, ABC or even TBS… is irrelevant. Why do we always run to “them” to justify what we are doing or not doing? Ironically, you think it's irrelevant, to go the websites of HBO, ABC or TBS, but not BET, of which all are TV networks, and white owned, and complain about a lack of literature content. However, you missed the point, and the analogy, but that's okay, and in case, you've forgotten, 'them' owns BET now, but I named other TV networks, for a comparison, but if you want to not include 'them', for comparison sake, then search for book related contents, on these other black owned/operated TV network: http://www.TVOneonline, http://www.mbcnetwork.com or http://www.africantvnetwork.com/. Troy wrote: One hand you point out that BET has/had several magazines and several publishing imprints, but on the other hand you imply it is unreasonable for me to expect to see a book on their website. Your own points are inconsistent. Yes, BET did published magazines and books, and yes, I do think it's unreasonable to expect one to find plenty of book related information, on their website, since they are a TV network, though they do have such pages, and especially given that Viacom sold BET Books in 2005. You offered an opinion about a TV network website's book related content, before even visiting the site, but I went and searched it, and told what I found. At the time, I thought it was irrelevant, to the discussion, but rolled with the punch, so to speak, as I knew you were attempting to prove a point. Then you went and visited the site, to see, if I was being truthful, and reported back that you only found book info about a numerologist and similar books. I wasn't surprised though, that you only found information on the site, which would support the opinion, you had before visiting the site. And, you wanna call me a squirrelly rascal. Now that is laughable. LOL You want to admonish another for doing exactly what you're doing. And, if they are doing as you are doing, why is that bad that they do it, but okay, if you do? Now that to me is being inconsistent. Just along the same vein, earlier you said: "BET did have some smart programming.", but then later, in the discussion you said: "It is plainly obvious that virtually all BETs programming is and has always been low brow entertainment." Sounds to me you're saying, yeah, I may feature low brow products, but I am not as bad as BET. As well as, asserting my intentions and goals are more noble than BET, though we're both are businesses, and I do throw in some high brow offerings for 'balance sake', but I got to give my customers what they want, and have to offer/promote/sell the lower brow stuff, as it also financially supports or sustains my business. I am fine with alla that, but you also must acknowledge or realize that rationale then can be asserted by anyone, and not just yourself. Just as you've offered a spectrum of books on your site, BET also has offered a range of programming on their cable network. The kicker is just as BET discovered over the years, by ratings, and you have by sales, that most people prefer don't prefer 'quality' or that which is empowering, uplifting and thought-provoking, for their viewing and reading pleasure. | ||
| Mzuri "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Mzuri Post Number: 5619 Registered: 01-2006 Rating: N/A |
More advice to JMHO - Get a life. Troy Johnson doesn't have time to scour the BET website looking for books. He probably meant books that were easily found, not things that could be found by searching thru the deepweb and the archives. And you can type until your fingaz fall off, Troy's expectations of BET are not unreasonable. Neither are anyone's. You act as though a person must be a saint in order to recognize a sinner, and that is just not so. No double standard. | ||
| Jmho Regular Poster Username: Jmho Post Number: 255 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: |
Mzuri wrote: More advice to JMHO - Get a life. Ah, more of words of wisdom, that apparently speak more truthfully about yourself, than those to whom you're offering. Just couldn't stay away, eh, though you claimed earlier, that you didn't have time to engage in "endless dissertations." Well, obviously you do. Mzuri wrote Troy Johnson doesn't have time to scour the BET website looking for books. He probably meant books that were easily found, not things that could be found by searching thru the deepweb and the archives. I didn't "scour" to the "deepweb and the archives" either. I typed my search word, into the search engine, on the site, and voila. I just love it when the clueless try to offer clues to others. LOL | ||
| Troy Veteran Poster Username: Troy Post Number: 791 Registered: 01-2004 Rating: N/A |
Mzuri, my point was that one would have to dig deep to find information about book on the BET site. While, as you suggest I don’t have time (who does, save JMHO) to look through every page. I did make a more than reasonable attempt to find such content. It does not appear that JMHO believes that to be true. JMHO. After I did not find the word “book” on the homepage. I typed the word book in the BET search engine and had to go 4 levels before I found an actual book. I did not follow every path but I followed several before abandoning the effort - -the way a typical suffer would went trying to look for something on a site they are not quite sure is there. The fact of the matter is I searched as if I was someone who just stopped by the BET site looking for coverage of books. You obviously dug much deeper than the average person to make and support and argument. I was looking to find book coverage on the site the way an typical person might -- which is something I do all the time on other sites and have done on BET in the past, but not recently. JMHO your last three paragraphs touched on the whole point of the conversation, something that I am still actually contemplating. When you write "Sounds to me you're saying, yeah, I may feature low brow products, but I am not as bad as BET." I'm am, in essence saying just that. As my friend said “choose a side” (referenced in the first post in this conversation). He was, In effect, saying that I’m no better than BET because of the low brow content. You obviously agree. JMHO you say that; Troy may have less visitors to the site than BET has viewers…doesn't get one an exemption for accountability. To say or think differently, proves there's a double standard” JMHO, AALBC.com is very different than BET. I can see that you are smart and resourceful, however at this stage if you can not make a distinction between AALBC.com and BET, in the context I'm discussing, I doubt there is anything I can say to help you understand the difference… I’ll put it this way, If I operated AALBC.com the way BET operates it’s cable channel; AALBC.com would be a site that featured celebrity tell all novels, street lit, erotica and anything with Madea in it – and I would make a lot more money too. But it is not only about the money – another difference. |
