September 29, 2001

1:10 PM

Robert Johnsonis the first black billionaire, and ranks #172 on the list of richest Americans after he sold BET to Viacom. Does he have a social responsibilty to show more than T&A and comedy on BET, or is he being unfairly singled out?
posted by owillis (32 comments total)

He sold his soul to the devil to become a better bluesman. Then he was poisoned to death by a jealous man. I've got his boxed set.
posted by websavvy at 1:25 PM on September 29, 2001

is he being unfairly singled out?

yep.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:29 PM on September 29, 2001

He's being singled out-- he's a business man, a damned good one, and just about as sleazy as any other entertainment mogul. My main beef with BET is that they just don't have enough programming, what's up with all the infomercials going on FOREVER at night and weekends?
posted by chaz at 1:34 PM on September 29, 2001

He has fulfilled his social responsibility: made lots of money. Why should he have to program certain things as a social obligation when in fact all who program do it to make money? Oh, right. He is not white and he must be a credit to his race.
posted by Postroad at 1:46 PM on September 29, 2001

is he being unfairly singled out?

Absolutely. Johnson is right when he says (in the article) this is job is to build a business and run it profitably. If he doesn't want to be a public servant, nobody has the right to make him into one. First black billionaire or not.

So much for the unbreakable nature of class structure in America.
posted by gd779 at 1:58 PM on September 29, 2001

Bob Johnson is a damn good businessman. The fact that his market is a black audience does not mean he is obligated to be the spokesman for Black America. He saw a market, and he attacked the market aggressively. It's a business, not a non-profit organization. Certainly there's an opportunity for him to play a larger role in helping others recognize the concerns of his audience; however, he doesn't take it. Not everyone wants that podium.

Listen to an NPR segment about Johnson and this very subject...
He's "caught in the contradiction between race and capitalism."
posted by Hankins at 2:22 PM on September 29, 2001

Read the article again. There are fives sources of quotes. The protestors who say things like Mr. Johnson is " the 2001 version of the dude who drove Ms. Daisy around." are anonymous. They're used by the author to imply that all black people are sitting around critizing Johnson because he's black. Then there's the quote from Thomas Joyner. He is critizing the programming on BET but I don't see where he is attacking Mr. Johnson because he's black. There's Mr. Johnson himself. And oh yeh, there's Spike Lee and others talking about how they don't want to appear on BET because it doesn't pay enough and one more from some recording artist thanking BET for playing her videos.

I especially love the sweeping (but carefully qualified) generalizations without any support like; "But for all his success, the 55-year-old executive is resented, even reviled, by some leading voices among the very audience he built his fortune catering to--black America. " or, "To many black Americans, BET is like an ill-mannered relative--dearly loved, but a little embarrassing." The article is bullshit. It's possible that Robert Johnson is being singled out because he's black but the only evidence we have of this is Mr. Pulley's assertions, some anonymous quotes, and Mr. Johnson's responses.
posted by rdr at 2:27 PM on September 29, 2001

I watched a biography of Mr Johnson once. He's a very very sensible man. One time he went into his horse stall, and the repair man thought he was the plumber. He corrected him, but didn't feel angered or disgruntled. He has sense enough to realize it was an honest mistake. Johnson lives his social responsibility, he doesn't have to show it to the world on a cable channel.
posted by geoff. at 2:38 PM on September 29, 2001

I'm of the opinion that media should show some type of social responsibility to the audiences that they define. I know that's not an extreme opinion. Since the article doesn't go into more specific details about the content of the criticism raised against Johnson, it's difficult to tell how valid his response is. If anyone wants to fill me in on some of the types of comments that are being leveled at him, it would be appreciated. I'd listen to Hankins realmedia link, but have had too many problems with real player to want to use it any more.

I do believe that getting an audience involved in the building of a business enterprise geared towards their wants can help build a loyal viewership, and can attrack advertisers. Is it a good business practice to label criticism as an "unfair singling out" rather than an opportunity to develop a larger, more loyal audience by trying to respond to it in a positive manner, if possible?
posted by bragadocchio at 2:42 PM on September 29, 2001

He sold his soul to the devil to become a better bluesman. ha, ha, I laugh so hard snot comes out my nose...Not. Not true, too, devil sold soul story re other Robert Johnson: confabulation between brag of Tommy Johson (the more influential of those 2 Johnsons among OG delta bluesmen as opposed to 60s white rockers upon Clumbia LP release in '61), plus Son House's alcoholic memory loss plus Samuel Charter's romantic fantasies got that ball rolling...
posted by y2karl at 3:10 PM on September 29, 2001

Make money.If what you do is illegal, then you are bad. If legal, those with much less will be critical. Ignore them. Only minority people are asked to be role models...take a look at our role models in congress.
posted by Postroad at 3:28 PM on September 29, 2001

Ok, devil's advocate time (har): He's being unfairly singled out because he's one of the very few who has a chance to show a positive reflection of black America to itself; maybe when more black billionaires come along, it won't be so much of an issue. I think the question is, in a medium that is seen as reflective, if not representitive of our culture, is the free market really the best model? Those who have the cash decide what gets to be seen?
posted by transient at 3:28 PM on September 29, 2001

Those who have the cash decide what gets to be seen?

Cause and effect backwards here. People make money by providing what people want to see. American television is an almost perfectly refined delivery system for what the majority of Americans actually want from that medium.
posted by marknau at 3:59 PM on September 29, 2001

I feel sorry for the BET demographic, then.
posted by websavvy at 4:05 PM on September 29, 2001

transient: Like you, I'd ideally like to see those in charge of television programming show a little more social responsibility. They have tremendous power to guide the development of a large segment of society; if they were to start using that power consistent with some social values (my values, of course) America would be a better place.

However, as Marknau correctly points out, that is asking them to bankroll their vision of what America should see, as opposed to what America actually wants to see. A few actually do this (PAX comes to mind). But by and large, it's important to remember that the beauty of a free market is that it's free. Americans get to see whatever kind of programming they want to see, without much regard as to its "value". And that's a good thing.
posted by gd779 at 4:24 PM on September 29, 2001

It is Black ENTERTAINMENT Television after all, not Black ISSUES Television. The people want booty, the people get booty.
posted by aaron at 5:03 PM on September 29, 2001

He has a responsibility to air better programming on his station, but it has nothing to do with him being a black billionaire. If you know what I mean.
posted by Hildago at 5:28 PM on September 29, 2001

American television is an almost perfectly refined delivery system for what the majority of Americans actually want from that medium.

Far, far, from perfect when you consider how many shows are canceled before their first season even ends. People get cable not only because the networks fail at providing what people want but also to hedge their bets. 100 channels? Bring it on. Something good has to be on.

I've always seen TV as conditioning the viewer. Like sitcoms? Then you'll love the witty gay guy, the dumb blonde, the wacky neighbor, etc. Or just follow the formula: 1. Character opens for an obvious joke. 2. Character2 delivers punchline. 3. Repeat for 24 mins. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in stupid stereotypes and formulas but if that's all you have then you have a problem.

So what's Black America anyway? Sure BET has a certain demographic, but that isn't most black people. Some black people think BET is the shit and others think its shit. If we're going to slice up society it should be along economic levels. Arguably people making the same amount of money simply have more in common.

He's being unfairly singled out because he's one of the very few who has a chance to show a positive reflection of black America to itself; maybe when more black billionaires come along, it won't be so much of an issue.

If he's managed to draw one person away from the WB he's deserves a nobel peace prize.
posted by skallas at 5:37 PM on September 29, 2001

He sold his soul to the devil to become a better bluesman.

LOL!!!

It is Black ENTERTAINMENT Television after all, not Black ISSUES Television. The people want booty, the people get booty.

they at least make an attempt with that one show that has tavis smiley as a host...
posted by lotsofno at 5:57 PM on September 29, 2001

marknau sez: Cause and effect backwards here.

Mmm... I don't think so. I can't imagine a great social and economic cross-section of people are really waltzing up, saying what should be on television, and being paid for it. The people who are making money from television are the people who produced it in the first place; i.e. those who had the money, in the first place, to produce it.

gd779: the problem comes when 51% of America decides what 100% of America should see. I realize this may be anathema, especially these days, but I wouldn't ask them to bankroll it; I'd ask us to bankroll it. Or maybe just give tax breaks to independent Internet content producers... :)
posted by transient at 9:20 PM on September 29, 2001

hicandenza: The instant that Johnson tries to spend his fortune (in anything besides another stock-swapping deal), it's going to be taxed. The only way that he avoids taxation altogether (excluding the estate tax) is by dying, leaving his fortune in stocks to his heirs, and somehow making sure that the stocks never rise in value from when he died. Otherwise, his heirs pay tax on the rise in value since they've possessed the stocks. Am I right?
posted by gd779 at 9:26 PM on September 29, 2001

> Does he have a social responsibilty...

Everyone has social responsibilities. He does and you do. Johnson, though, happens to have greater means to do good.

But more than what he puts on television, it matters what he does with the money he gets out of television. No one can fix television if the audience is already ignorant and lapping it up, but a man with a billion dollars might be able to help schools turn out less ignorant children.

And if I were black, I think I would be embarrassed that such tripe is labeled Black Entertainment Television and not the Crass Crap Channel. Imagine, you white folk out there, if there were something called White Entertainment Television pushing a steady stream of the dumbest available programming featuring white-skinned entertainers. Yes, there are channels like that, but the owners don't implicate every white on the planet by calling it white entertainment.
posted by pracowity at 2:38 AM on September 30, 2001

Everyone has social responsibilities. He does and you do.

No I don't. I don't owe you, or anyone else, anything. It's called freedom.
posted by gd779 at 8:47 AM on September 30, 2001

Now that I think about it, that's overstated. After all, I have social responsibilities created by my religious convictions. Also, I have to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions. And, arguably, I have a social responsibility as a human being.

But those sorts of convictions have to be developed by Mr. Johnson, they can't be forced on him by the government or by the public at large. Until Pracowity is willing to abide by my opinion of his social responsibilities (created by achieving enough financial success to own a computer), he has no right to tell Mr. Johnson about his social responsibilities.

When I was a kid, I would occasionally complain to my Mom about something that my sister was doing. Her response is worth repeating: You take care of you, and let your sister take care of herself. The world just works better that way.
posted by gd779 at 1:41 PM on September 30, 2001

hicandenza:

I didn't mean that literally! I was overstating for effect. The fact of the matter is, you do have one very large responsibility in this world: take responsibility for your actions. Don't lie, cheat, or steal to get out of situations that you've caused; clean up your own messes; when you harm someone else, make restitution. And, most importantly, don't blame others for who you are or what you don't have.

Beyond that, I agree with you that the rich have a much larger responsibility to society. And when they appoint me God and King, that's the way that it'll be. But right now, I'm not willing to let other people tell me what to do with my life, beyond the occassional suggestion. Therefore, I can't tell other people what to do with their lives. So, as things stand now, I have neither the authority nor the desire to go around telling everybody else what to do.

Not even if they're rich, like Mr. Johnson.

That's why I don't like the way that Johnson's being singled out. He did his part (presumably) by building the sort of life that he wanted. Now everybody else is criticizing him because they think that he should have done it different. He's expected to be some kind of selfless saint just because he's black and rich. We don't do that (as much) with people who are white and rich. That's dumb, and unfair as well.

all wealth is luck

I totally disagree. Luck's a part of the equation, sure, but to say categorically that all wealth is luck is seeing what you want to see. It's just not that simple.
posted by gd779 at 2:01 PM on September 30, 2001

I guess I'm saying I don't buy the myth of the truly self-made millionaire, and no one is an island unto themselves...

Well, self-made billionaires there are none, certainly. There's a point at which the numbers take you out of the gravitational pull of regular financial existence. (I note that a new class survey of the UK comes up with "Lower-Middle-Lucky", which fits me down to the ground.)

Anyway, is there any programming explicitly targetted to black Americans that isn't booty and badly-scripted gags?
posted by holgate at 9:45 PM on September 30, 2001