Talk:BET/Archive 1

Beware of White People

This is in reference of the line "BET is currently owned and operated by Viacom, which is led by Philippe Dauman, a white person." I think after the phrase 'white person' there should be the words (dun, dun, dun) to illustrate the inherent sinistry that all white people posses.

Seriously, I can think of a dozen ways this can be worded better like, "the white Philippe Dauman...." This change would be helpful for NPOV.--67.234.209.142 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

NEW: I hate BET!!!

All BET is good for now a days is starting sterotypes for young black people. They're coming out with stupid cartoon shows which inforces the sterotypes and most of the hosts on BET are corny as HELL. Alesha Reneé, Tigga, Daniella, Touré, Free and AJ were too! And they basically rip off MTV. The president sucks, she should be fired and everytime I think they are going to do something great for the show, it ends up either being corny or ghetto. But mostly corny. Black people are not corny nor disrespectful, loud, rude or ghetto. At least not all the time, but Toccara and Joe Clare on Take the Cake get on my freaking nerves. She's always screaming and then they always cut each other off. Rip the runway was a failure. I'll admit i enjoyed seeing chris brown but the show was an hour and 30 minutes. Waste of my time, then you put Deelishis (or whatever) on it?!!! She makes BET look so professional! If you're going to do a fashion show, the least you can do is show it for 3 hours, just like the BET awards. I would like for BET to show more about graffiti art and djing and not just about "making money". They They should also quit ripping off other channels just because theirs sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.8.232.22 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is not the place to discuss your feelings on the TV station. This is a talk page for discussion on how we can improve this article. There are many appropriate websites out there where you can discuss your feelings on BET, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Thank you! 209.12.14.211 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

as a 23 year old from the projects of the south bronx nyc i feel BET is the worst thing to happen to black people in the past 10 years. the station is wachted more by whites then blacks and is only interested in pimping rap music for their own personal profits instead of preserving the integrity of rap music. Black people do more then roll on 20"s and invent dances. and who wrote college hill was and educational program? that could not be farther from the truth. its basically real world with more stabbingsPj3050 01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

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...

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Most Rap music fans are surburban white kids and BET tailors to there tastes and not the taste of black people. no channel would have that kind of succes with only a minority viewership.Pj3050 01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

BET is racist as in no people from any other race are ever shown on the television. The argument that all other channels are white ones could be made 100 years ago, but now now. Absolutely every single tv channel gives blacks, as well as other races, more than enough space, even more than their % of america's population. BET discriminates based on race in a unique way, being the only monorace channel in the entire world. I will wait two days and if no one says anything im adding to the article that BET is racist.

BET is not racist. it's the same like AZN tv. Is Asian a language, why no it isn't. Creole and slang is a language in the black community, but black isn't a language. AZN tv focuses on Asian people and their accomplishments just like BET. IF you're going to critize, you may want to have some proof and other channels who do the same thing too!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.176.72.93 (talk) 01:48, 22 April 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)

"Detractors are also quick to point out the irony they see in the network's choice to also show strong religious programming once a week, although they fail to realize that religious programming also airs Monday through Saturday on the network from 4 a.m. to 9 a.m. (EST) in addition to the Sunday programming. Some educational programming like Season of the Tiger and College Hill that display black people in an intelligent, positive point of view have also aired on the channel. Not long ago, people began referring to the acronym BET as standing for "Black Exploitation Television."

I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to comment of the criticisms of others; it's intent in a criticism section is to just report the factual evidence and statements made by notable critics. Whether or not the criticisms is warranted should have nothing to do with the article and should not try to be refuted, only presented. This quote might suggest NPOV problems. 75.136.245.231 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

External link

I'd like to add a video interview with Stephen Hill. He talks about Black Entertainment Television. Here is the interview. Ammosh11 00:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As a black American, I find BET to be a disgusting, ignorant network that constantly portrays blacks in a negative, stereotypical image all the time. There is no balance in the programming. To me, BET stands for Black EXPLOITATION Television. Entertainment? I don't think so. That's why I don't watch that dumb network. Besides, BET is MTV in blackface. BET has College Hill, MTV has The Real World. BET has Baldwin Hills, MTV has Laguna Beach. BET has Hell Date, MTV has Next. BET has 106 & Park, MTV has TRL. BET has Access Granted, MTV has Making The Video. Now BET has really gone off the deep end with Hot Ghetto Mess. I could go on but I think you get the point. I hope that network goes back to what it was back in the day. If not, the network should just die with no hope of coming back. Fclass 16:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bet network logo.gif

Image:Bet network logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Xm2631

Logos

Previously User:Bmwman89posted a version of the logo that is no longer used on-air. The current logo was put back on the main page as it currently represents the station's current branding.

BetacommandBot 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)