Talk:Black Entertainment Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WHY SO MUCH CRITICISM? 2 Need to Find Latest BET Logo 3 The Content and intent of this article... 4 Unsourced "critics" opinions 5 about that "banned artists" list 6 Criticism 7 Encylopaedic or Commentary? 8 Merge SOS (Saving Our Selves) The BET Relief Telethon into BET article 9 Enhanced History 10 Criticism Section 10.1 Third Opinion

[edit] WHY SO MUCH CRITICISM?

I think most of this article should not be about criticism of the cable network. It should give more info about the network and how it has evolved into the cable network we know today.--Tigermichal

I think you should sign your comments. Haizum 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you like minstrel shows? Why do you care if there are criticisms about BET? Have you ever sat through a single day of BET programs? If you have then I'm puzzled as to why you'd even ask such questions. In my opinion that section of the article just about scratches the surface. Majik43 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to Find Latest BET Logo

Obviously the logo used in this article is dated. BET will be turning 25 soon and I think that should be given some consideration in this article as well. --Tigermichal

Obviously your comment isn't dated because you didn't bother to sign it. Haizum 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Content and intent of this article...

This article has no real history in it that a person doing a research project for college or high school could use. And it leaves out the fact the on the 2005 BET Awards on June 28th Bob Johnson annoused that he was handing the CEO Title to A Woman by the name of ?Lisa...?; the woman then came out and gave a speach. This article also does not foucus on the immense popularity of the channel and its mainstream appeal. The article fails to show its high rating, and appeal to much more that black people touching the lives of many. The article should also go into more depth about the channel and shows like "106 $ Park" (which is so successful and popular). It needs fixing, and should be much longer! Thank you...

[edit] Unsourced "critics" opinions

The article's comments about critics views are unsourced, leading to the presumption that they are merely editor's opinions. If references are not supplied, the comments will be removed. --Blainster 04:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It appear to be an accurate summary of wide-ranging coverage of the subject, so I suggest you refrain, unless there is something you believe to actually be wrong? Jamesday 17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a few sources, and linked them. I didn't link The Boondocks, for the simple reason that there most have been at least thirty Boondocks strips that parodied BET or made light of its poor programming. BET's programming is a major source of controversy within the entertainment industry, but I removed the point about "some people don't think it should even exist", for what should be obvious reasons (that is, the unfounded and ridiculous argument "why isn't there 'White Entertainment Television'?"), which has no place in a encyclopedia article.--FuriousFreddy 22:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no position on the controversy. But any opinions that are not supported with references are not useful to the encyclopedia. Thank you for providing the links that you did. It is a good start. The other unsourced "critics arguments" remain in danger of removal if they are not referenced, but I am in no hurry. The point is to encourage accurately sourced articles, not to annoy other hard-working editors. --Blainster 23:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find articles on the Tavis Smiley controversy (and I did, [1] [2] [3] [4]), and the listed reasons for why BET is considered controversial are the reasons provided by the three references. Here's another major reference [5]. --FuriousFreddy 02:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about that "banned artists" list

That list has been floating around the internet for quite some time, and is of questionable verifiability. Leave it off unless someone can get actual referenced proof of its factuality. --FuriousFreddy 11:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Information that I put into the criticism section was deleted, though I'm not sure why, as it is a widely-enough-held criticism of the channel to warrant significance. I reworded it to give it a better flow and try to tone down the hostility of the sentence. If someone still believes it should be deleted, please discuss it here and reach a conclusion before doing so.

[edit] Encylopaedic or Commentary?

I find it very difficult to credit the first paragraph of this article as being encyclopaedic. IMO, the first sentence of the "25 years of BET" paragraph doesn't belong or should be revised, and Im guessing that this is not a unique view. The author's speculation about how "someone" twenty five years ago would have responded to the idea of BET doesn't add any real value to this article. 68.237.98.55 22:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Probably copyrighted, not at all neutral point of view; it's been deleted. -Josh, October 10, 2005, =8:23 AM EST

[edit] Merge SOS (Saving Our Selves) The BET Relief Telethon into BET article

The SOS article doesn't really contain enough info to justify its own article and I think it should just be merged into the main BET article. It could be done with just a sentence or two. -- PS2pcGAMER 04:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week since I proposed this and I have heard any comment either way, so I'm going to merge that article into the main one. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enhanced History

After looking on the official site for a more in-depth look at the history of BET, I've revised the history of BET and placed an outside link to the corporate section of the main site, which has an in-depth timeline. I also added some details about some of BET's non-television properties, including its (now-defunct) magazines and the Arabesque book line, and the "Rap It Up" HIV/AIDS campaign. There was a lot of talk about the controversy, but the history of BET was very limited here. Nemalki 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

This section is incomplete because it fails to point out how BET is racist by default. There should also be a link to the article "reverse racism" somewhere in this section. Haizum 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How is BET racist? It is just serving a group of people that are underserved on mainstream television. It's just like having Spanish only stations --Tigermichal 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish language stations are not considered racist. Race and language are two entirely different concepts. There are a multitude of races in Latin America as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.168.111 (talk • contribs).

I strongly agree BET is not racist merely because of the name. It profiles racially, as it is intended for blacks, and not whites, and is racist in it's programming, showcasing black actors, musicians, etc, and not whites. This practice is racist, and I challenge you to claim otherwise. They make their decisions solely on race, with no other factors. There is no other word for this kind of practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.161.74 (talk • contribs).

I've taken this to talk for several days now and no one seems to be offering a rebuttle. I'll give this one more day and then take the silence as concession. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.161.74 (talk • contribs).

POV weasel words have no place on Wikipedia (see WP:WEASEL). To call BET "racist" falls into that category. Showcasing black talent there is no different than showcasing gay talent on Logo, or women on Lifetime. From a marketing standpoint, they serve a niche category. There is certainly significant money to be made within categories of that sort (witness the earnings of Oxygen over its first decade of existence - they certainly helped make Oprah Winfrey a billionaire). The term does not belong in the article. --Mhking 13:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In a purely abstract and technical sense, BET could be called "racist", because among the definitions of that word is "discriminating on the basis of race." However, as noted above, BET "discriminates" only in the same sense that Spanish-language channels discriminate against non-Spanish-speakers, and the same way that cooking shows "discriminate" against people who don't like to cook. Furthermore, "racist" is not a word that is used in an abstract and technical way; it is used for inflammatory and derogatory purposes only. As such, including it would be blatent and extreme POV. KarlBunker 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish language networks are not racist because, believe it or not, Spanish is a language not an ethnicity. Argentines are white, Mexicans Latino, Spanish European, and they all watch Spanish language programming because they are more comfortable seeing something in their native tongue because it is what they spoke first. Black is not a language.

Racist is not a weasel word, in fact, it is used quite often in Wikipedia articles, in articles on civil rights, and known racist groups. We shouldn't be afraid to point out the inherant hipocracy in BET and the racism it promotes. This is an encyclopedia, to avoid POV we must examine all sides, not hide from one which we find inconvient. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.161.74 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~. I didn't say Spanish language networks are racist, I said that, in a nonsensical way, they could be called "discriminatory." The notion that BET promotes racism is a point of view, and an irrational one, in my opinion. However, you make a good point by saying "to avoid POV we must examine all sides." If you can find a notable source who has said that BET is racist, then it wouldn't be a violation of WP rules to quote that person in the article. Whether or not such an inclusion is considered valid and worthwhile by other editors would probably depend on what person or persons the quote is from. KarlBunker 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding a notable source that confirms that would satisfy me, but only in terms of noting the criticism; likewise, any descriptor in that vein should not be included within the lead description of the network. --Mhking 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I pose a very simple question: Why would a White Entertainment Channel be racist, whereas a black one is not? I am not attempting to incite an argument, but am genuinely curious as to what one's reasoning behind this would be.

White Entertainment Television is normal television. If you didn't know that well then you're perhaps a little naive (no offense). Why do you think a multiracial country such as America has so many "specialist" channels instead of catering evenly to all groups and races? Of course to me it's all the same because the 'Black' In BET is an insult to self-respecting blacks everywhere. Do your worst Willy. Majik43 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything aside, the level of criticism is far too rampant and gets more coverage than it deserves right now. Criticism must be notable and come from reliable sources. Currently, it seems like the article tries to pinpoint every single piece of controversy ever regarding BET. All we need is quasi-generalized statements about what the criticism against BET is. We don't need a list of incidents. This is an encyclopedia, not an endless repository of information.UberCryxic 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

I've been asked to give a third opinion on this issue. Frankly, I think it's irrelevant whether BET is racist or not, because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We could argue back and forth here and come to a consensus about whether BET is racist or not, but that would violate Wikipedia:No original research. As things stand, we cannot say that BET is racist without violating Wikipedia:Verifiability, however, 74.135.161.74, if you can find a reliable source that says BET is accused of being racist, please put it forwards. It can then be put in the article in a neutral manner. --Scott Wilson 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding a notable source that confirms that would satisfy me, but only in terms of noting the criticism; likewise, any descriptor in that vein should not be included within the lead description of the network. --Mhking 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My third opinion: Inclusion of the word "racist" to describe BET is only appropriate in the context of citing a notable critic. Also see the racism article before debating further — if anyone has demonstrated that BET consistently exhibits the belief or doctrine that inherent biological differences determine achievement or superiority, then it would be valid to characterize BET as racist. However, one must be careful that the analysis is verifiable, and avoid violating the policy of no original research. Like it or not, blacks do have a unique cultural niche in America, and BET is simply catering to that cultural niche; doing so isn't racist, it's merely demographic targeting. -Amatulic 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that The Boondocks comic strip recently featured Huey complaining to BET that he wasn't seeing any blacks in the programming any more. If this is true, that further weakens any claims of racism. -Amatulic 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its my fav. station!!!