popular economic news image
Q. There are hardly any news programs in the U.S. on tv or cable stations that are owned and operated by non-Whites.
Why do Whites feel the need to control the interpretation of world and national events for everybody? Is this monopolizing of communication channels dangerous ?
Why do Whites feel the need to control the interpretation of world and national events for everybody? Is this monopolizing of communication channels dangerous ?
Answer
The monopolization of the airwaves is to make sure White Supremacy/Racism continues and those oppressed do not have an effective voice to communicate with others about their experiences from their point of view.
The 'corporate not racist' argument is a silly one when you acknowledge the reality that America's treatment of Black people, in particular, has been an economic one as well as a social one. It made the Black community the ONLY community in capitalistic America that was prevented from using their own labor to build capital for 200 years (via enslavement and Jim Crow). No other group went through 200 years of that in the United States' democratic and capitalistic society.
Whites have used that long-standing American injustice to build this monopoly on the media. Even 'corrective' actions (Affirmative Action) has been used to further benefit the White community (via White women and White gays, the former being the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action).
Anyone who tries to 'unconnect' race from economics is either ignorant or, if he/she knows better, deceptive.
In addition, 90% of the networks/cable/broadcast are owned by a White person and geared toward White Americans for 'entertainment'. They don't have to worry about coming home and trying to find a news station or tv show that's giving a White perspective on events and situations, even when it's coming to them from the occassional "minority" face. So they don't need to label a channel "WET". "BET" is used to differentiate its 'content' and target audience from the WET channels. So, a logical person would ask, why would a group pick a channel and label it "WET" when more than 90% of the channels are WET??? Many White people will usually use semantics to avoid a hypocritical, racist reality of what is before us. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."? Well, that saying was about semantics and many Whites tend to use semantics when discussing racial matters. We can use that Shakepeare take on semantics to recognize that just because a station is named "TNT" or "TCM" or "IFC" or "WB", doesn't mean it's not a WET. Come, come now.
Anyway, when Black Americans are able to build capital (after such a harrowing American economic start), we know that they face racism in their ability to buy from those in control of the monopoly. And that goes across the board, whether it's a house in a certain neighborhood or a t.v./cable station. Also they face racism on WHAT they are able to buy from those in control of the monopoly. It has been shown that Blacks can obtain a loan for a car easier than we can obtain a loan for a house or business. Media is very important and you'll find the same sort of 'selective' selling and ease operating within that area. Blacks looking to buy music radio stations will have an easier time than those looking to buy talk radio ones. Those looking to buy stations that show nothing but silly videos may have an easier time attempting to buy a station with that sort of 'format' plan than those who are looking to buy a station that delivers news and dramas. Even in the former case, Blacks are finding it difficult to buy and maintain ownership of such stations. This goes back to the lack of capitial we were FORCED to operate with in comparison to White America and the disparity in business-ownership (AKA sponsors) it would've produced from the community, BTW, BET is now owned by Whites.
We know that there are Whites with lower incomes than Blacks who face less difficulty establishing bank accouints, getting loans, buying houses in certain areas, etc etc. So contrary to popular opinion, the color green does not override the consideration of race when it comes to Whites and relinquishing any ill-gotten gains and/or monopoly on media. Green is not the issue, race is. And although it may not 'hurt' a White person to pretend otherwise, it definitely hurts any Black person to do so.
Good news is that we can change our viewing and shopping habits to reflect our disgust with this White monopoly of the media and with the inappropriate behavior of some brain-washed Blacks who choose to act as co-horts in behavior that hurts the Black community.
As far as other groups and their issues with Whites and monopolies, they can speak for themselves. They should address this issue in whatever way it has affected their groups.
As far as Black people though, if you want to learn more about why this problem exists and some solutions we can employ to make things better, read this newsletter:
BET Sold to Viacom article in this back issue:
http://www.harvestinstitute.org/final-harvest_news2001_no.1.pdf
And read the other newsletters there. Very informative.
I gave that link to an African man who I talk to alot. He didn't quite understand how slavery and jim crow affected Black America's wealth and 'opportunities' until he read that. And I like that he forwared it (and cc'd me a copy of the forward) to others in his country so they would have a better understanding of America's real 'economic' structure and how it affects race, ownership of things and the transference of community wealth from one generation to the next.
And to answer your question: Yes. White Supremacy/Racism is DANGEROUS in all of its forms, including the control of media.
The monopolization of the airwaves is to make sure White Supremacy/Racism continues and those oppressed do not have an effective voice to communicate with others about their experiences from their point of view.
The 'corporate not racist' argument is a silly one when you acknowledge the reality that America's treatment of Black people, in particular, has been an economic one as well as a social one. It made the Black community the ONLY community in capitalistic America that was prevented from using their own labor to build capital for 200 years (via enslavement and Jim Crow). No other group went through 200 years of that in the United States' democratic and capitalistic society.
Whites have used that long-standing American injustice to build this monopoly on the media. Even 'corrective' actions (Affirmative Action) has been used to further benefit the White community (via White women and White gays, the former being the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action).
Anyone who tries to 'unconnect' race from economics is either ignorant or, if he/she knows better, deceptive.
In addition, 90% of the networks/cable/broadcast are owned by a White person and geared toward White Americans for 'entertainment'. They don't have to worry about coming home and trying to find a news station or tv show that's giving a White perspective on events and situations, even when it's coming to them from the occassional "minority" face. So they don't need to label a channel "WET". "BET" is used to differentiate its 'content' and target audience from the WET channels. So, a logical person would ask, why would a group pick a channel and label it "WET" when more than 90% of the channels are WET??? Many White people will usually use semantics to avoid a hypocritical, racist reality of what is before us. Wasn't it Shakespeare that said "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."? Well, that saying was about semantics and many Whites tend to use semantics when discussing racial matters. We can use that Shakepeare take on semantics to recognize that just because a station is named "TNT" or "TCM" or "IFC" or "WB", doesn't mean it's not a WET. Come, come now.
Anyway, when Black Americans are able to build capital (after such a harrowing American economic start), we know that they face racism in their ability to buy from those in control of the monopoly. And that goes across the board, whether it's a house in a certain neighborhood or a t.v./cable station. Also they face racism on WHAT they are able to buy from those in control of the monopoly. It has been shown that Blacks can obtain a loan for a car easier than we can obtain a loan for a house or business. Media is very important and you'll find the same sort of 'selective' selling and ease operating within that area. Blacks looking to buy music radio stations will have an easier time than those looking to buy talk radio ones. Those looking to buy stations that show nothing but silly videos may have an easier time attempting to buy a station with that sort of 'format' plan than those who are looking to buy a station that delivers news and dramas. Even in the former case, Blacks are finding it difficult to buy and maintain ownership of such stations. This goes back to the lack of capitial we were FORCED to operate with in comparison to White America and the disparity in business-ownership (AKA sponsors) it would've produced from the community, BTW, BET is now owned by Whites.
We know that there are Whites with lower incomes than Blacks who face less difficulty establishing bank accouints, getting loans, buying houses in certain areas, etc etc. So contrary to popular opinion, the color green does not override the consideration of race when it comes to Whites and relinquishing any ill-gotten gains and/or monopoly on media. Green is not the issue, race is. And although it may not 'hurt' a White person to pretend otherwise, it definitely hurts any Black person to do so.
Good news is that we can change our viewing and shopping habits to reflect our disgust with this White monopoly of the media and with the inappropriate behavior of some brain-washed Blacks who choose to act as co-horts in behavior that hurts the Black community.
As far as other groups and their issues with Whites and monopolies, they can speak for themselves. They should address this issue in whatever way it has affected their groups.
As far as Black people though, if you want to learn more about why this problem exists and some solutions we can employ to make things better, read this newsletter:
BET Sold to Viacom article in this back issue:
http://www.harvestinstitute.org/final-harvest_news2001_no.1.pdf
And read the other newsletters there. Very informative.
I gave that link to an African man who I talk to alot. He didn't quite understand how slavery and jim crow affected Black America's wealth and 'opportunities' until he read that. And I like that he forwared it (and cc'd me a copy of the forward) to others in his country so they would have a better understanding of America's real 'economic' structure and how it affects race, ownership of things and the transference of community wealth from one generation to the next.
And to answer your question: Yes. White Supremacy/Racism is DANGEROUS in all of its forms, including the control of media.
Do you think the economic depression and international problems caused people to believe the War of the World?
Q. (continuation of title) Radio Broadcast was real. Back in 1930s people didn't have TV so they relied on their radio for news and entertainment. Do you think problems going on in the world helped people to beleive the broadcast was real?
Answer
There was concern over the situation in Europe, since Germany had occupied both Austria and Czechoslovakia at that point. But, the broadcast had disclaimers aired at the beginning and during each commercial break telling the audience that it was only a radioplay. The problem was in the presentation and its unfortunate timing. Opposite the Mercury Theater of the Air was the very popular Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy show sponsored by Chase and Sanborn coffee. About twelve minutes into that show, Edgar presented a new singer whose singing style was almost sleep-inducing. So , people changed the station just in time to hear someone talk about the Martians landing at Grovers Mills in New Jersey. The voice that actor used in portraying the "Secretary of the Interior" sounded remarkably like that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose voice was well-known to the radio audience.
You can download a copy of the show from a lot of different internet sites. Give it a listen.
There was concern over the situation in Europe, since Germany had occupied both Austria and Czechoslovakia at that point. But, the broadcast had disclaimers aired at the beginning and during each commercial break telling the audience that it was only a radioplay. The problem was in the presentation and its unfortunate timing. Opposite the Mercury Theater of the Air was the very popular Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy show sponsored by Chase and Sanborn coffee. About twelve minutes into that show, Edgar presented a new singer whose singing style was almost sleep-inducing. So , people changed the station just in time to hear someone talk about the Martians landing at Grovers Mills in New Jersey. The voice that actor used in portraying the "Secretary of the Interior" sounded remarkably like that of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose voice was well-known to the radio audience.
You can download a copy of the show from a lot of different internet sites. Give it a listen.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment