TV One, the cable network aimed at African-American viewers, will cover the Democratic National Convention and Barack Obama's nomination, but not John McCain's and the Republican National Convention."Obama's nomination as the first black to be a major party presidential nominee is an historic event for African-Americans, so it's important for the network to be there," said Johnathan Rodgers, the network's president and CEO. He continues by stating that while viewers can get convention coverage from any number of networks, they plan to present a uniquely African-American perspective.
I see Rodgers's point. TV One is not a news network and if the network specializes in African-American coverage, then this is pretty much the biggest news story of the century. On the other hand, don't elections require some sort of provision for equal television time? Of course enough networks will be reporting on both conventions to the point that I doubt John McCain will offer any complaints about a lack of equal coverage.
Seven greatest hand cannons in TV history
TV Squad previews NBC's new shows (part 1)
TV 101: How ESPN controls the world and what the other networks can learn from it
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-09-2008 @ 9:41AM
rick cokely said...
Equal time doesn't apply to scheduled newscasts, which is probably what this is going to be. Fun fact: TMZ and the 700 Club both meet the qualifications of a newscast.
http://www.variety.com/VR1117985089.html
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 9:46AM
Han Solo said...
I wonder how these people feel about the 'fairness doctrine' that the liberal democrats are always cheering for??
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 10:48AM
0megapart!cle said...
Again, fairness doctrine doesn't apply to cable, and was never meant to. Second of all, it is really a double whammy. Most African Americans are Democrats, so there would be little interest in the Republican Convention regardless who the nominees were. And second of all, there is Barack Obama, a black man, who has inspired many African Americans to be interested in politics. For a small network with TV One's resources, it just wouldn't make sense for them to spend the money to cover both conventions.
As far as your perceived black racism, while I am sure it exists on both sides, I think we have the preponderance of the hate, don't you think. African American's respond to the condition of their communities, the real lack of opportunity in many places, while white hatred is based on prejudices and fears that have no basis in reality.
7-09-2008 @ 9:50AM
Han Solo said...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/07/09/black-cable-channel-will-cover-dem-convention-not-gop
>When asked why TV One wasn't covering the GOP
>convention as well, Rodgers said, "We are not a news
>organization. We are a television network designed to
>celebrate African American achievement. If Hillary...was
>the nominee, we would not be covering this year's
>Democratic convention."
>
>"And you think that's okay, though?" one critic pressed.
>
>"My audience is 93 percent black. I serve my audience,"
>Rodgers said.
Since they are ONLY covering it because there is a black man running, then I assume this means that its ok for the 'white' stations to just cover the republican convention and ignore the democratic one."
After all, CNN's viewers are 90% white, and the only white guy is at the republican convention.
Why is pure deliberate racism so very acceptable on the other side?
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 9:57AM
rick cokely said...
Newsbusters link? Please. Let's try and cite sources that actually, you know report truth?
And just to counter your claims, try watching any of the so called religious shows like the 700 club or FOX news (as previously mentioned in my earlier note) and see how much "equal time" they give to Obama.
7-09-2008 @ 10:04AM
Franklin said...
It's acceptable on "the other side" because they're the party of diversity, but only as long as that diversity doesn't stray beyond their narrow definition of the word. In other words, diverse within the myopic world of liberalism.
It's acceptable because most liberals are nothing more than hypocritical socialists. True acceptance of differences and enjoyment of freedoms is not in their agenda, but saying otherwise definitely is.
It's acceptable because liberals honestly believe that a "person of color" cannot be racist, no matter what they say or do. They're given free license to bring the hate because of some "struggle", whether real or perceived, gives them the right.
Basically, it boils down to the fact that liberals are the most rabidly racist and narrow-minded bunch of fools on this planet. They're even stupid enough to think that people will believe they're not racist if they just deny it long enough and loud enough. Their strategy is to turn such accusations around on to the accuser(s), exactly like toddlers caught up in an argument would do.
It's almost laughable and it won't change until the last of their useless, bigoted kind has been ground under the heels of history.
7-09-2008 @ 10:03AM
Han Solo said...
Every word quoted came from the original newspaper article.
7-09-2008 @ 9:55AM
Steven said...
"Obama's nomination as the first black to be a major party presidential nominee is an historic event for African-Americans..."
Wrong.. He's 1/2 black, 1/2 white. I don't know why people keep calling him black.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 11:42AM
bc said...
Because by white definition, anyone with an iota of negro blood is a negro. And he himself tends to play up his black identity.
7-09-2008 @ 10:09AM
Oreo said...
First of all like Steven said Obama is mixed, he's a true American mix.
Second, why does anyone care? Does anyone get this network? Is anyone going to watch this network? No. Plus blacks voted for him 9 to one in the primaries, they are all ready for Obama.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 10:52AM
khia213 said...
I haven't noticed that very many people of color post here that often, so I'm not really surprised by the reaction this article is getting.
Not that the people with the strong reactions want clarification, but I'll try it anyway.
1. TVOne is responding to it's audience. A for profit commercial enterprise usually does that. Univision, a Latino television channel, does the same thing. The Asian channels do exactly the same. They cover what interests their viewers. And their advertisers either approve or disapprove with their money.
2. Barack Obama self identifies as black. The iilogic of saying he's white in this country, where you are what people see, is not one he accepts.
3. As to the old, "Why is there a black channel, but not an all white one?" song, because there isn't a single, major network television drama with an all black cast, dealing with issues that black people can identify with on television and there hasn't been one which lasted more than a single season, ever. People in this country safely assume that whiteness is the norm and don't respond to things were aren't directed to their viewpoint. TVOne doesn't assume that whiteness is the norm and responds to that in it's programming and perspective. (I will not, however defend BET in any way.)
4. The grievances cited here boil down to "Why can't they be like us?" with a side of "just get over it." We, people of color, don't want to be just like you. We want images that reflect us and inspire us. In it's way, that is like you. As for getting over it, I personally vow to get over it as soon as I perceive that other folks "get it." Cause right now that isn't happening.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 11:09AM
const said...
This seems to be a major campaign contribution. So much for presenting your audience with a choice when it comes down to electing their next president.
This is pretty shameful. If Fox decided only to cover the Republican National Convention, we'd hear the term "racist" ad naseum every hour of the day.
I wonder if the lefty boob who dismissed the report because it came from newsbusters feels the same about media matters. I'm sure the answer is no, but accompanied with a ton of spin to justify it.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 12:59PM
rick cokely said...
I'm the boob in question, and the next time I post a link to media matters (which I never have before) feel free to call me out on it.
I'll stick with citing real news sources, tyvm.
7-09-2008 @ 11:22AM
Thom said...
Talk about hypocritical - Franklin, your characterization of liberals is laughable and idiotic. Talk about a loose conglomeration of stereotypes pieced together in the most lazy fashion possible, as if that can argue against...the supposedly loose and lazy stereotypes liberals have about minorities or majorities! How pathetic.
I'm a liberal. Everyone is racist. Racism is part of human nature. I believe that the decision of this network is discriminatory in nature. It also defies common sense. You can't really get to know the platforms of a candidate unless you differentiate that candidate from others who have differring platforms.
So Franklin, take your lazy, pathetic agenda and, perhaps if you have even the most minute amount of cognitive capability, realize your entirely hypocritical, pathetic, ludicrous argumentation is a waste of time.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 4:08PM
Franklin said...
"Talk about a loose conglomeration of stereotypes pieced together in the most lazy fashion possible"
You just summed up the Democrat party in 15 words. Congratulations and thanks!
By the way, you've got my sides splitting with laughter as your hacked-out and so-called argument cements my assertion that you socialists' main debate strategy is to simply turn an accusation around on the accuser. Again proving there's not an original thought in the entire Democrat gaggle.
I appreciate your spew, though. I've already shared it with several friends. It'll come in handy as a quick joke and reminder of the vacuous nature of The New American Communist®
7-09-2008 @ 3:08PM
Eric Hines said...
Equal time only applies to broadcast television and there are several exemptions. It does not cover documentaries, news interviews, scheduled newscasts or live news events including political coventions. In other words, even if TV One was a broadcast network like NBC it doesn't require equal coverage of the convention. Equal Time should also not be confused with the fairness doctrine which was dismantled by the Supreme Court and Ronald Reagan.
Reply
7-09-2008 @ 6:09PM
Thom said...
Franklin said...
"By the way, you've got my sides splitting with laughter as your hacked-out and so-called argument cements my assertion that you socialists' main debate strategy is to simply turn an accusation around on the accuser. Again proving there's not an original thought in the entire Democrat gaggle."
I see you have a reading problem, as well as a thinking one. I clearly responded to the accusations and laundry list of things liberals supposedly think. If you don't have the smarts to respond to it, I understand.
I'm sure your fragile ego has "friends" to read it only because so many people thought negatively of your initial post - so negatively, in fact, that its faded out due to so many giving you the thumbs down. They did so for a reason. First, you're nothing better than a troll, and second, you don't even do a good job at it.
Your photo should be next to the words "pathetic," "desperate," and "pitiful" in the Oxford Dictionary.
Reply
7-13-2008 @ 2:01PM
Panola said...
Not all African Americans are racist, however most certainly are.
Reply
7-27-2008 @ 6:12PM
The Talking Hamburger said...
Conservatives have loved the death of the Fairness Doctrine as it gave them talk radio to counter those nasty liberal press outlets. So when one of those anti-American liberal outlets decides to do extential coverage of one of their own terrorist candidates, who gets mad? Conservatives.
Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
Reply