"I am not racist. Just careful."
Firstly:
For all those telling me to write more, you're preaching to the converted. Unfortunately, since the start of this last NBA season, I've been annoyingly busy. I was working ever hour God sent until December 21st, and most of those hours were also at night, which meant I missed a helluva lot of NBA action. Then I was making Christmas presents, because I am a tightarse who refuses to buy people things. Then, it was Christmas day. And then on Boxing Day, I fell ill. I have been in bed since then, with a rather rambunctious fever, the details of which I won't go into. It's basically involved lots of lying down, massive temperature fluctations, more mucus than you could shake a stick it, the constant struggle to prevent your head exploding, and a disturbing craving for oranges. I'd still be in bed now, but I have to get up, for my big ol' school assessment is in for three days time. Basically I'm just wringing it out for sympathy now, so say awww or something.
Nevertheless, I've had 7 cocktail sausages and a slice of pizza, and have mustered up enough energy to return to the computer and start tackling my long to-do list, a which should feature my really-rather-important assessment at the top, but doesn't.
Instead, I've been Googling my own name. And, after finding nothing interesting from doing that, I started to Google this website.
Part way down the list of rather strange and uninspiring hits (I really need to advertise more, I reckon. Even once would be a good start) was a piece on AOL Fanhouse linking to a blog post that I made on here nearly three months ago. The post was this'un about the NBA's preseason game played in London.
I'd never noticed the Fanhouse page before now. I read through it, and also the 7 comments people had made (I DREAM of comment numbers that high). Two of them annoyed me, and I felt that I had to respond.
I could respond via the comments system on that page, but being two and a half months late, that might be a bit pointless. No one would see it.
I could maybe try and contact the person directly. But this requires effort, which I don't have. And it also might annoy them, which I don't want.
So instead, I'll write a completely un-topical rebuttal on here, two and a half months too late, and to the interest of basically nobody. Hooray!
(The quote, by the way, is from the talk radio station on GTA San Andreas, and is used ironically.)
This is the bit that I object to.
No. Not even close. (Although yes, I am white. Like that matters.)
I am not offended by the sight of black people. Not by one of them, not by one million of them. I am not offended by the sight of any minority, or even any majority. To judge people based on how they look is pathetic, trivial, and the bane of my entire existence, and it should only be done if it's not serious and rather funny.
To actually be racist is just a really, really stupid thing. You might as well just top yourself if you are.
But yes, the whole thing did annoy me. However, note this key difference below.
It did not offend me because I dislike looking at black people. It offended me because I really want the NBA to succeed over here, and it will never do so if it's continually promoted to such a tiny market.
That's a pretty key point that needs some funky text on it or something. I don't care about skin colours, I care about NBA basketball. And that's why it offends me that the people trying to sell NBA basketball here seem to care so much about skin colours.
Since when did the fact that it is mostly black people who play the sport at its highest level mean that it has a solely (or even predominantly) black viewing audience? Obviously, that's not the case. We all know this. And Five's TV executives probably know this too. So why have they chosen to appeal to an incredibly small market?
And if you don't think they have, you're just going to have to trust me that they did. I can't go through and relay to you every single poorly impersonated Dizzie Rascal impression used to overdub an advert for the game, or every instance of grime music, or who used terms like "blood" and "bling" and when, because I can't be fucked. You'll just have to trust me that these things were rife, to the point of idiocy. And if you can't trust my judgement on that, then just say nothing and move on. I at least saw all this, and even if my recollection or rants on the subject aren't entirely accurate, they be a helluva lot more informed than those living in a different continent could offer up.
Black culture doesn't offend me, alienate me, or upset me. But all this pandering to it, does. It's needless, narrow minded, and frankly a bit silly. Appeal to everybody, and then you have a wider range of potential viewers. And that's what you want, isn't it? It's sure as hell what I want, and I don't get paid to care about viewer figures.
People just need to loosen up their sphincters enough to be able to reach a point where they can see the words "black", "race" and "annoy" in the same passage and actually remain calm enough to judge the passage on its merits, rather than instantly getting the arseache and screaming racism. Seriously. It's not that hard.
Secondly:
Happy new year. Let's run this.
For all those telling me to write more, you're preaching to the converted. Unfortunately, since the start of this last NBA season, I've been annoyingly busy. I was working ever hour God sent until December 21st, and most of those hours were also at night, which meant I missed a helluva lot of NBA action. Then I was making Christmas presents, because I am a tightarse who refuses to buy people things. Then, it was Christmas day. And then on Boxing Day, I fell ill. I have been in bed since then, with a rather rambunctious fever, the details of which I won't go into. It's basically involved lots of lying down, massive temperature fluctations, more mucus than you could shake a stick it, the constant struggle to prevent your head exploding, and a disturbing craving for oranges. I'd still be in bed now, but I have to get up, for my big ol' school assessment is in for three days time. Basically I'm just wringing it out for sympathy now, so say awww or something.
Nevertheless, I've had 7 cocktail sausages and a slice of pizza, and have mustered up enough energy to return to the computer and start tackling my long to-do list, a which should feature my really-rather-important assessment at the top, but doesn't.
Instead, I've been Googling my own name. And, after finding nothing interesting from doing that, I started to Google this website.
Part way down the list of rather strange and uninspiring hits (I really need to advertise more, I reckon. Even once would be a good start) was a piece on AOL Fanhouse linking to a blog post that I made on here nearly three months ago. The post was this'un about the NBA's preseason game played in London.
I'd never noticed the Fanhouse page before now. I read through it, and also the 7 comments people had made (I DREAM of comment numbers that high). Two of them annoyed me, and I felt that I had to respond.
I could respond via the comments system on that page, but being two and a half months late, that might be a bit pointless. No one would see it.
I could maybe try and contact the person directly. But this requires effort, which I don't have. And it also might annoy them, which I don't want.
So instead, I'll write a completely un-topical rebuttal on here, two and a half months too late, and to the interest of basically nobody. Hooray!
(The quote, by the way, is from the talk radio station on GTA San Andreas, and is used ironically.)
This is the bit that I object to.
It sounds to me like the ShamSports writer was simply uneasy with seeing so many black faces on television all at once. Is he white and uneasy not seeing a face that looked like his?
No. Not even close. (Although yes, I am white. Like that matters.)
I am not offended by the sight of black people. Not by one of them, not by one million of them. I am not offended by the sight of any minority, or even any majority. To judge people based on how they look is pathetic, trivial, and the bane of my entire existence, and it should only be done if it's not serious and rather funny.
To actually be racist is just a really, really stupid thing. You might as well just top yourself if you are.
But yes, the whole thing did annoy me. However, note this key difference below.
It did not offend me because I dislike looking at black people. It offended me because I really want the NBA to succeed over here, and it will never do so if it's continually promoted to such a tiny market.
That's a pretty key point that needs some funky text on it or something. I don't care about skin colours, I care about NBA basketball. And that's why it offends me that the people trying to sell NBA basketball here seem to care so much about skin colours.
Since when did the fact that it is mostly black people who play the sport at its highest level mean that it has a solely (or even predominantly) black viewing audience? Obviously, that's not the case. We all know this. And Five's TV executives probably know this too. So why have they chosen to appeal to an incredibly small market?
And if you don't think they have, you're just going to have to trust me that they did. I can't go through and relay to you every single poorly impersonated Dizzie Rascal impression used to overdub an advert for the game, or every instance of grime music, or who used terms like "blood" and "bling" and when, because I can't be fucked. You'll just have to trust me that these things were rife, to the point of idiocy. And if you can't trust my judgement on that, then just say nothing and move on. I at least saw all this, and even if my recollection or rants on the subject aren't entirely accurate, they be a helluva lot more informed than those living in a different continent could offer up.
Black culture doesn't offend me, alienate me, or upset me. But all this pandering to it, does. It's needless, narrow minded, and frankly a bit silly. Appeal to everybody, and then you have a wider range of potential viewers. And that's what you want, isn't it? It's sure as hell what I want, and I don't get paid to care about viewer figures.
People just need to loosen up their sphincters enough to be able to reach a point where they can see the words "black", "race" and "annoy" in the same passage and actually remain calm enough to judge the passage on its merits, rather than instantly getting the arseache and screaming racism. Seriously. It's not that hard.
Secondly:
Happy new year. Let's run this.
Labels: Genuinely Interesting Analysis, Your Questions Answered


7 Comments:
Happy New Year.
I'm the one who left the comments at FanHouse. You are saying in this post that you are not offended by the mere sight of black people, as I had wondered in my comment. If you say so, I believe you, and I am glad to know it.
I still do not feel satisfied with the argument you are making.
To be clear, if it is true that the TV coverage tried to pander to some idea of "black culture" in a way that was offensive to viewers (black and non-black), then I agree with you that it is highly annoying and worthy of complaint.
My beef with your post was that you made this assertion (which is one I would agree with) but the only evidence you presented to back it up was that there were black commentators and lots of black celebrity interviews. Personally, I would LOVE to see a television broadcast that featured black commentators and lots of black interviews, so I was offended that you were so outraged that someone would dare to put on such lovely programming.
Now, if the black folks are all shucking and jiving and eating watermelon while notable white celebrities are being ignored, then that's a different story and I'm offended. But if all you tell me is "there were lots of black people" and "trust me, it was offensive," then I'm not sure. I could trust you -- as you pointed out just now, you were the one actually watching it, not me. And in my FanHouse comments I specifically say that I agree with your outrage if the TV coverage was indeed offensive. But do you see why I would not blindly trust your assessment that it was offensive without further evidence? (Because it would be impossible to tell the difference between a lazy post that offers no evidence and a racist post.) And do you see why I would be offended when you say that you are outraged by a TV program, but then when I read your post, I can't find anything actually offensive about the program, just notes about how many black people were shown? (Because then it appears you are implying that the mere appearance of black people is offensive.)
In your latest post, you mention a few more details that help color the situation like use of the word "bling" and Dizzie Rascal impressions (I don't know who that is). I'm a little concerned that you "can't be fucked" to flesh this out more (why should you expect readers to trust your judgment if you can't be fucked to fully make your main point?) but at least with the addition of these details it does convince me more that there was something offensive about this program rather than just that there were lots of black people shown. So thank you for somewhat attempting to clarify that.
I am still a little concerned about your logic though. You say "Black culture doesn't offend me ... But all this pandering to it does." Are Dizzie and "bling" what you think black culture is? If things were really "idiotic" as you say, then please do not try to say that was pandering to black culture -- that was pandering to some poor ignorant producer's stereotype of what he or she *thinks* black culture is. If that's what was going on, then we can all be offended at this producer's stereotype. But you seem to be saying that the TV coverage was actually appealing to black audiences (is that accurate, or am I misreading you?). If things were idiotic, then I don't think they appealed to a black audience.
I understand that your main point is that you want the NBA marketing to succeed. If the marketing is idiotic and targeted to a watermelon black culture stereotype, then it will fail with all audiences, black and non-black, and you are right to be annoyed. Your original post did not make this argument. Instead, your original post seemed to say that the marketing showed black celebrities, and it therefore targeted only black viewers while "freezing out" the white majority. I was offended by your claim that the white majority would be frozen out just by the mere fact that only black celebrities were being shown (do you see why?). I am not convinced by this follow-up post that you have addressed that.
"I was offended by your claim that the white majority would be frozen out just by the mere fact that only black celebrities were being shown (do you see why?)."
This here is the crux of it.
That's NOT why, and that's NOT a mere fact. That's just a part of it.
Maybe I didn't explain myself fully, but like I said in this post here, I can't give you every single example of when this facade was thrust upon us. Over these two posts I've given you several, but I can't give them all. I can't remember them now.
You're going to have to take my word for it that it was extreme. Really, really extreme. I've given a few examples, but it was literally every facet of the broadcast. It permeated everything. The Ade Adepitan interviews were merely one part of it, not all of it. But it's a bit that I chose to focus on, because it was funny in a you've-got-to-be-kidding-me type of way.
But I'm glad that we've come to an understanding that I have no problem with black people, black culture, or the act of appealing to it. It's just that.....don't do it all the damn time. Mix it up a bit.
It's like when the NBA was reviled for constantly doing the Elvis and Sinatra thing, only in reverse. In both cases, a race was being tuned out, unwittingly or not.
"I'm a little concerned that you "can't be fucked" to flesh this out more (why should you expect readers to trust your judgment if you can't be fucked to fully make your main point?)"
It was over two months ago now. I can't be expected to remember every detail. I've given you as much as I can remember. My point is quite compact, I've given you a lot of examples of how they chose to go about this, not just the courtside interviews.
And by the way? I too want to see more black people on the NBA's American TV coverage. The only black play-by-play commentator (as far as I know) is Mike Tirico, who I think has left to do football anyway (don't forget that being over here, I can't watch nationally televised games there, so I don't know about this for sure). The only other ones to get TV work are as ironically titled "color" analysts. It seems a pretty bloody farfetched idea that no black man out there is qualified for the role (and some of the white men doing these jobs are reaaaaaaaally bad at it), so I'm with you in that this needs addressing. Same with team executives and that.
It just concerns me that we've gone too far the other way over here. Can it really be that hard to strike a balance?
I do truly understand that my argument seems one sided and perhaps blind, and that that makes it easy to distrust. But I can only implore to you once again that it really did have an excessiveness to it. And I again implore to you that my reasons for being upset by this are in no way racist, but just because I wanted this to go well, and it didn't.
I think there's more to what I wrote than what you read, but perhaps not enough substance to back up my point. So you're more than entitled to ask me to justify it. Hopefully I've explained my stance here better.
For what it's worth, which is not a lot at the moment, all of Five's subsequent NBA coverage has been a whole lot better. They've even started making their own highlight shows rather than just renting the ones from NBA TV, although they're having a tough time editing them together with much continuity. But they'll get better.
Additionally:
"Are Dizzie and "bling" what you think black culture is?"
Obviously it's not the entire thing, but yeah it's a part.
"If things were really "idiotic" as you say, then please do not try to say that was pandering to black culture -- that was pandering to some poor ignorant producer's stereotype of what he or she *thinks* black culture is."
Maybe. But is that not worse?
Thanks for the response.
Pandering to a *stereotype* of black culture is definitely bad -- that's the point I make in my comment. We can agree on that, right? Catering to genuine average black viewers (say by showing black celebrities, without gratuitous bling references) would be a dumb business move, but I would not find it offensive. I think that's where we differ. You sound like you would be frustrated with "all black all the time" regardless of whether it's offensive (bling/stereotype) or whether it's just genuinely showing black people. I guess I can understand that, because I get frustrated whenever I see "all white all the time." So ok, we are both allowed to be frustrated respectively for those, right? I guess it just always bothers me when I see a white person crying "too much black" on the 1% of times when black actually gets some coverage when that person doesn't recognize that 99% of the time there is too much white. Does that make sense?
Also, maybe there is a difference between over here and where you are, but if you think "real black culture" (if there is such a thing) is truly made up of idiotic stuff like "bling" then I think your view of black culture is somewhat stereotypical yourself. There is definitely a culture out there that worships "bling" type stuff. In America, that culture is made up of mostly suburban WHITE teenagers who are trying to look tough/gangsta/"black," although the media and marketers use black models to promote the culture because that's what the white teenagers want to see. But who knows, I'll admit I don't know much about English black culture.
"You sound like you would be frustrated with "all black all the time" regardless of whether it's offensive (bling/stereotype) or whether it's just genuinely showing black people."
Yeah I would, but I want to reiterate that this would also be the case if they were all white, all Phillipino, all Martian, all anything. As I said before, the dominance of white commentators is really annoying to me because it's just needless and shameless.
I'm all up for a spread. I'm annoyed by when there's too much white too. I've never been to America but from what I know of your TV, it's more of an issue there than here. We're pretty sedate people who've been home to minority news reporters for decades (just an example). George Alagiah is the shit.
And re: black culture - I took the time in my second response to reiterate that no I DON'T think it's 'truly' made up of shite like that. But it's a part of the hip hop movement that is (accurately) associated with black culture. It's all really stupid bollocks and stereotypical, and not a good stereotype at that, but it's one based partly in fact.
But I know that it's far from being entirely accurate, or even particularly fair. That's a large part of why its usage is annoying.
As I stressed in the original post, a lot of who they're appealing to with that stuff is towards wiggers, as you yourself explain at the end there. That's not a good niche market to appeal to either.
Basically I'm trying to reassure you that I know that the bling rap culture isn't exactly indicative of black culture. But while they're not arm in arm, or joined at the hip, they're associated.
And right now I'm just trying to get as many shit cliches into this reply as possible.
and now...smthn completely diffrent;)
number of comments aint matter that much, man. i got my own site that quite a large number of people read. i know the stats. but-like in your case, they barely leaves comments..on the site. they rather send me a msn msg, email etc. It pissed me of in the very begining, but than I got used to it.
I do believe loads of people read shamsports. if they dont comment it just means they agree with absolutely everything u say, hahaha;)
have a good year!
It wasn't racist, but there's always someone who will bitch about pretty much anything that gets posted on the internet.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home