If Someone's Gotta Go, it should be the producers of the show

With television programs you usually have the choice of bottom of the barrel, idiotic, brazen, a complete copy, or boring. Since the advent of cable television programming this has widened a bit to the sophomoric, the original, the good, and the blatantly wild/violent. On rare occasion, mostly by accident, we even sometimes get a great show. But rarely is an idea on cable or broadcast television so far into bad taste as what I have heard is now in production.

Fox Network is creating a new reality television program, yes yet another one. But this on has a twist. A bitter hemlock sort of twist. The show, made with Endemol USA – responsible for Fear Factor and Deal or No Deal – is called Someone’s Gotta Go. There is your first clue how bad the taste in your mouth will be.

Someone’s Gotta Go is the opposite of the Apprentice. The premise is that a small company of some 15 – 20 employees, cannot continue to keep everyone in this economy. So the books are opened up, co-workers gather and likely plot to isolate an employee, and then a vote commences. The winner of the vote gets fired.

No joke. No punchline. They are now part of the expansive number of people on unemployment in this nation. And you get to watch this happen on national tv.

Now there is one consolation for the loser. They will receive an undisclosed severance pay. It is unclear, but likely, that the television show will pay that severance.

But that hardly makes up for the loss of a job, the search for a future position, and the embarrassment of the worker and/or their family. I mean what is that person to do? Walk into an interview and be recognized as the guy (or gal) who everyone at their old job said goofed off and thus was fired. Well that really will help the resume.

What about the family of that former employee? Imagine the kid that has to go to school with the stigma that their parent was so incoherent that they lost their job on national tv the day before. Kids would never use that public display of incompetence to pick on someone. Plus the fame of being a loser and useless is just the kind of self-esteem building experience that every kid, or adult for that matter, needs in a time of economic crisis the likes of which most have never seen before.

I can’t understand one aspect of this show that is entertaining, fun, family-oriented, or positive. If you can, please do share that with me.

I understand that all good ideas seem to have dried up in Hollywood. I understand that a ‘reality’ program is the most cost-effective way to keep couch potatoes vegetative for an hour at a time. But where is the decency. Where is the respect for another human being?

And if this show, somehow, becomes better than the bottom of the Neilsen ratings what comes next? A show about kids dropping out of school? A show following the homeless begging? A show where someone gets to lose all their money – oh wait, that’s the Obama economic plan.

Look, I understand that television today is all about the lowest common denominator. That the cheapest, fastest television programming is the first line of approach. Still there has to be some modicum of quality and sensitivity involved. Or have we all just gotten to the point where when we are given sand we will drink it like water?

Fall 2008 broadcast television season

Next week starts the new television season. New shows and many old ones will be back, seeking to gain your attention. Now I rarely watch broadcast television these days because the general tone is mind-numbing programs meant to keep you in one place while you get to see the television commercials that are the real important point. But what will this season bring?

Well on Monday the big winner is the return of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. The continuation of the Terminator movies in a TV format. This should also receive and give a boost to the up-coming Terminator movie that takes place after the machines have made their first strike.

Of course there is Monday Night Football. Or you can watch celebrities dance.

For Tuesday hands-down House is the winner. This show has a great lead actors, intelligent writing, and is bitingly sarcastic. All winning parts in a television show to me. But this might be a bit too high-brow for some.

That means in the same time slot you can get comatose watching the new version of 90210 – which I despise – or families taking on questions about each other in a ‘revisioned’ family-safe version of the Dating Game. I’d rather watch the original Dating Game re-runs than these 2.

After that you have the choice of going to sleep, watching more celebrities dance, or try on The Menatlist. The Menatlist is basically a broadcast version of Monk, without the neurosis and adding in a lot more guilt. It may be good, but I always tend to prefer the originals to copycats.

Wednesday is the perfect night to work overtime, learn how to play GO, or revisit the coma inducing qualities that television writers these days excel at. Maybe if you are a complete car fanatic you might want to watch one episode of the new Knight Rider program. But I would suggest reading Wuthering Heights. You’ll get the same type of thrill.

On Thursday there is the chance to see CSI. With the addition of Laurence Fishburne there are so many interesting storylines that can be tapped into, especially if he becomes a serial murderer. But before that comes on, you can always have a late dinner.

Still some just will insist on watching TV from 8 til 9. So that means Ugly Betty or Smallville. But really, why not catch up on politics, or learn about investing. You’ll do better and save more brain cells.

On Friday you have just enough time to see Everybody Hates Chris, get dressed, and go out for the night. If you are sitting in the home and watching the drivel on TV this night you have to be 80. It’s the perfect time to go to the gym and excercise off the extra pounds you gained mind-melding with the couch earlier in the week.

Saturday you can watch college football, or fix the house like your significant other has been bugging you about. Again if you are in during this night you really have no life. Go bowling, or watch the grass grow if you hate football.

Sunday has 60 minutes and Sunday Night Football. The Simpson’s are too old, King of the Hill is not worth missing the opening kick off, Family Guy is good but can be caught on re-runs at Cartoon Network, and American Dad is too on and off.

Now later in the season Lost will return. I don’t see the excitement. Scrubs should be worth the time even on a new channel. Fear anything on the CW, and CBS as no winners coming in late.

24 is sure to be a great television show, and well worth the time. American Idol will sadly return to lower the collective IQ’s of America. Such is the fate of ‘reality TV’. Law & Order is a constant comfort, and a safe bet.

So this is my suggestion overall. Stop watching so much television. If 5 or 6 days out of the week you are watching broadcast TV you are in trouble. But if you have to watch something try this.

Monday – football of course.
Tuesday – Eureka
Wednesday – Mythbusters
Thursday – read a book, go out, or catch up on politics until time for CSI
Friday – Just go out
Saturday – enjoy real life, maybe have friends over for football and poker
Sunday – football and get some sleep.

Now this is not the perfect schedule. There is too much football. But it’s about as much television as anyone really needs. If you want to round out the missing or in-between hours I suggest the news.

Grey's Anatomy helps enrich HIV awareness

Score one for broadcast television. With the advent of cable television, and now with the potential for the public to view 500 channels, broadcast TV has lost most of its power to influence. Once there was a time when a hit show could capture 30 or 40% of the population, today they are lucky to grab 5%.

Because of that loss of viewership broadcast television has essentially given up on presenting important issues. The focus has increasingly become mindless fodder that kills as many brain cells as it entertains. The original intention of television to help inform the public has gone the way of vacuum tubes and Black and White sets.

Yet occasionally there are issues important enough that the Hollywood executives break from their constant pursuit of eyeballs. For Grey’s Anatomy the issue at hand was HIV.

Now I bet that most of my readers are aware that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another via fluid exchanges. That means saliva, blood, mucus and so on. Obviously that also means that a mother with HIV can transmit the disease to her unborn child. But did you know that if given proper treatment the baby could have a 98% chance of NOT getting HIV.

Yes, it is true and not a television plot device.

The episode was written with the help of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The goal was to inform the public and to see if that information was absorbed by the public.

“One week before the show, 15% of the viewers surveyed said that they were aware of the mother-to-child HIV transmission risk. One week after the show, 61% of viewers of the episode were aware of the risk. Six weeks after the show, 45% of viewers remembered the information correctly (Childs, ABC News, 9/17)”

Now I am sure that my readers are far beyond the mere 15% that realized HIV could be transferred from mother to child. But I’m not as sure how many knew that proper treatment could lower the risk of the child, nor how low that risk could be made to be.

Still it’s amazing that so many failed to realize the positive power of television. In all the formats, cable or broadcast, this is one medium that can reach people of all ages, across the world, 24 hours a day. When television was first created the intention was to inform and entertain.

With those 25 and under the most at risk, with the continuing growth of HIV and AIDS, with no cure any closer than the first day the disease was learned of information is vital. We need to disseminate the truth about this disease, the transmission the risk factors the treatment.

I commend the Kaiser Foundation and Grey’s Anatomy for taking this risk. I commend the Hollywood executives that for a moment forgot that viewers are the only goal. I commend the actors for taking a moment to promote a good for the public over their career.

Television should not be the same as going to a college lecture. But it can be a tool that can enrich lives, maybe even save them. As long as threats such as HIV and AIDS exists we need to use our best tool to keep us informed and remembering how to live long healthy lives.

New Olympic sport - Pool

On Monday I was out with a friend after my pool league tournament to get something to eat, and noticed the Olympics on the television. At the time the trampoline competition was on. And it got me wondering. The question was why is pool not part of the Olympic Games?

Now for a bit of disclosure I should mention that I am in 2 pool leagues. I play 8-ball and 9-ball in the APA (American Poolplayers Association) for the Central New York area. I have been playing pool for over 3 decades on and off; and if I must say so myself, I’m quite good. So I have a somewhat biased opinion.

But the question is valid I think. I mean the Olympics have international competitions, as does pool. There are amateur and professional versions of the game. It requires skill, discipline, and the ability to handle pressure. It is a game that millions watch via television and in person. Even better is the fact that the game is incredibly old. While its origin is unknown it is known that it entered America about 1565 via Spain.

Now the Olympics has competitions as fun and interesting as cycling – where competitors race around in a oval, fencing – which just everyone is involved in, Greco wrestling – which outside of high school ahs been completely replaced by the WWE, cross country skiing – which is drama itself to watch, volleyball – which draws viewers for the people in skimpy clothes no doubt and is as widely played as Greco wrestling, and the aforementioned trampoline gymnastics – which virtually anyone can do in their backyard. I won’t even get into synchronized swimming.

The fact is that the Olympics are mostly boring. While a race like event is interesting, most of the other events are boring as hell. Just be thankful that Cricket – a game that can take days to play one match – was discontinued. There are multiple events that people watch just because of the skimpy clothes of the athletes. And there are far more no one watches at all. Then there are the competitions that are based on judges’ opinions, which every Olympics caused cries of bias and cheating.

Pool is very simple to understand. It’s obvious who wins. The rules are simple to understand. And there is no lack of people or countries that play the game. Look in your town or city right now. I virtually guarantee that you are no more than 30 minutes from a pool hall in over 50% of the world. No other Olympic sport can boast such popularity or familiarity by the world populace. A kid in England plays the same game as a kid in Tampa, as in Taiwan, as Minsk. Heck, multiple movies have been made about the sport or involving it, I think the Olympics have 1 maybe 2.

But what are the Olympics thinking of adding instead of pool? Rugby. Now that is popular, in nations that England once ruled, but it has nowhere near the fan-base. And the rules are not known or understood just by watching a game.

How about Squash? I bet if I went down the street in 100 cities around the world I might find 10 random people that either know the rules and/or have watched a game. I doubt that I can find better than 5 people in those same cities combined that have watched the game.

Are they kidding? There over 5 million people that play pool in the Philippines alone. Just this past weekend a friend of mine went to the APA Las Vegas national competition (his team barely succeeded in beating mine for the trip) where the first Japanese APA team was invited to play as well. And from what I was told they were good.

Honestly, I am unaware of a single reason why pool is not an Olympic sport. There is nothing that compares to it in the list of sports being considered currently. It is more popular than ½ the current events. It’s honest. It’s fast. It’s just about the only competition that men and women can compete in together (actually is there an Olympic sport where they compete together?). And it can be played indoors or outside, summer or winter, day or night.

But if it would make a difference, I bet that any pool player in the world would be willing to wear a skimpy skin-tight outfit if it meant that they could win an Olympic gold medal.

The new 90210 - is it cancelled yet?

Ok. Please stop. I’m speaking to the CW network.

The CW network is the channel that has brought us such hits as Hidden Palms, Aliens in America, and Online Nation. If you don’t recall those television shows don’t worry, no one else did either – even when they were on the air. This network was the reheated remains of the corpses of the WB and UPN networks (birthplace of Homeboys in Space - thank god they went bankrupt). It’s only successes to date being Smallville, Supernatural, Everybody Hates Chris, and America’s Top Model each from the old networks that went out of business.

So in search of new ideas that might sustain this still miserable network there has been an nearly unending hype about the new 90210. Yes sheer joy will fall from the heavens and ratings records will be set anew when the sequel to the original 1990’s television show hits the airwaves. Or so the CW keeps using all kinds of media to let us know.

Honestly, do they think that the return of Jennie Garth, and Shannen Doherty will cause some kind of uproar? Neither of these women have had a success in years. Unless you count the short stint Doherty had on Charmed (before she reportedly was fired and the series really took off) or her season of work on “Sci-Fi” Channel’s Scare Tactics [which has nothing to do with scifi and does not deserve to be on the channel]. That says nothing of the fact that the fan base left their teens over a decade ago.

But let’s look at what the show has to offer the youth of today.

The most notable change to the show is that suddenly the Beverly Hills area has a touch of color. And I do mean A touch. Tristan Wilds will play the adopted brother of Shenae Grimes – essentially the Brendan and Brenda of the old show.

So the only way that a Black kid can get into Beverly Hills is via an adoption, or so the show seems to present. Because the original certainly had as many Blacks as were to be found on Happy Days, The Brady Bunch, Friends, Seinfeld, and E.R. combined. Oh wait, that’s not true because there was 1 African American on E.R. at it’s start. Well at least the new show follows the far more enlightened and standardized format of 1 Black, 1 Latino, and at least one woman. (Well at least one of the women in the show looks sortof Latino so that counts right? And Asians? They don’t exist in America)

Well it won’t matter. The show has good looking rich people (everyone can relate to that right?), and they have Youtube in the show too (they are just like you, just in a Ferrari - if you are also White). It must be cool. And just for added effect they threw in an alcoholic/addict grandmother (because who doesn't have one). It's just a good wholesome television show, with drugs, and drinking, and sex, and paparazzi, and clothes that cost more than what most parents make in a year.

I think Brian Austin Green, who is among virtually all the old cast that refused to be on this program – except for Tori Spelling who dropped out because she thought she was worth more money like she has an acting career now that nepotism is not an option – stated it best

“The new ['90210'] could be good. Or it will suck terribly."

The odds stack up that it will suck. But in a world engorged with American Idol and ‘reality’ television shows, drivel might just pass for drama and entertainment. Unrealistic views of American population or success, a deep need to exploit real issues, and a drive to suplant style for substance. No wonder why I avoid broadcast television.

Janet Jackson: Intelligence, success, and fame are not enough

Over the weekend I noticed something and I doubt many have spoken on it. Janet Jackson was in the news again about her Super Bowl costume issue. It seems that after years of comments and threats by the FCC, the whole thing is now passed over as if it never happened.

Isn’t that interesting. CBS will receive no fine

“This is an important win for the entire broadcasting industry because it recognizes that there are rare instances, particularly during live programming, when it may not be possible to block unfortunate fleeting material, despite best efforts," the CBS Network, which had the misfortune of unwittingly broadcasting the Super Bowl debacle, issued in a statement.”

Justin Timberlake, who committed the act of infamy, has walked away from this scandal without ever being touched by it. The fact that he may have caused the problem in the manner he removed the cloth was never his fault. His career, whatever you may think of it, has continued unabated.

But Janet Jackson has been mired with this scandal. She has effectively become blackballed by the media and entertainment industries. Did anyone notice that she had an album out recently? Now Janet Jackson has had so-so albums, and mega-hits, but in her entire career I have never known her to release an album and not hear any of the songs, nor see/read commentary about it. Her worst album (before the latest) sold more records than most entertainers on a good day.

The media just can’t let go of less than 15 seconds of footage. The mostly bare single breast of this Black woman is just that powerful I suppose. I have to imagine that were both breasts to have been bared, half the population of America would have died. I mean that’s the way the media and a few fringe fanatical groups seem to act.

But is that fair?

Hmmm, CBS promotes the UFC – which is a violent sport. Unlike boxing it has no elegance, it’s just about raw power. That has to be good for the kids. I'm sure the soap operas that were the staple of CBS and broadcast television, with more breasts and ass appearing than some soft-core porn, really has to be good for kids in the afternoon.

And the entertainment media loves women. I mean look at the attention poured all over Britney Spears as she has desperately tried to implode. She went to rehab for as long as it take me to piss, then cuts off her hair. Mega-news story. I’m sure it inspired many drug addicts, and more than a few young girls, to try a new fashion design. That’s positive.


There is the insanely untalented Paris Hilton. Bad porno tape, can’t act, can’t sing, can’t even open her glove box to see the letter telling her she can’t drive. But she is insanely rich. So rich that she almost pulled off a get out of jail card. If she has a positive to impart on the American public I am still unaware of it.


Anna Nicole Smith, drug addict (possibly while pregnant), promiscuous, arguably lecherous, with a sole talent being she had a great body. Months were devoted to her death at the near exclusion of all other news and facts at the time. Literally I do not recall another story that has been on the news that much – hours of news hours dedicated to a woman that was about as important as wet paper. Seriously, even Britney Spears has more talent. Message to kids – if you have the right curves you can get money and no one will care how many drugs you take. If you are a guy, either make a lot of money for this kind of girl to take, or be sleazy enough to leech money from her drug-addled ass.


Lindsey Lohan, the drunken party girl that was desperately trying to end her movie career. After years of building up a host of fans that were not old enough to appreciate talent, Lohan was more than happy to drink herself into oblivion. Her quick trips to rehab were only slightly longer than Spears, but thankfully she had her mom to lean on while she drank and did drugs.

Amy Winehouse, the reported crack addict with a voice. So deep into drugs and alcoholism that she couldn’t perform and has been arrested multiple times. And she doesn’t care what anyone thinks because she told us that. At least her man is just as deranged and besodden as her, so it’s a match set in love and not money.

I could go on, but what are the similarities of these women?

They are all White, they all are being promoted and covered by the media (thus making them all money), and they all have been filmed, photographed and discussed ad nausea since Janet Jackson was at the Super Bowl.

So was the outrage that Janet Jackson’s accidental exposure occurred, or was it something else. None of the women I mentioned have half her talent or longevity in entertainment. Janet is not on drugs, does not cover magazines drunk or in scandals (other than the one event). She has never been linked to anything negative that I can recall. And no one questions her ability to think and do business – she broke all records for an artist contract that even her brother did not match at one time.

In fact she should be a role model for young women, proving that women (especially Black women) beside Oprah and Maya Angelou can succeed on their own doing what they are best at. Yet she his blacklisted and blackout by the media in favor of women who are such messes I can’t imagine most of them surviving to be 35.

So what’s wrong with the major media? What’s going on in the entertainment industry? What the hell are Hollywood and music execs thinking?

I tell you what, if I had a daughter – or were it one of my nieces – and the worst moment in a career she made that garnered her tens of millions of dollars, fame, and comfort over decades was the momentary equivalent of her dress slipping I’d be happy for her. No drugs, no scandals, no court taking away her children because she is unfit as a mother, no drunken binges and car accidents that could kill innocents, no crimes, no whispers of anorexia, never selling her body for money.

Seriously ask yourself this question, which woman would you want your daughter, sister, niece, or mother to emulate? Then ask why being Black, successful, talented, and intelligent is worthy of a media excommunication?

Why OJ Simpson won't talk about Paris Hilton Part 3 - 6.12.2007.3

Continued from Why OJ Simpson won't talk about Paris Hilton Part 2...

The media may be afraid of taking on an accurate representation of the Paris Hilton saga. The media may wish to minimize other newsworthy facts of the day. They are reducing the importance of news and leaving the public little to consider on matters of national importance, from the up coming Presidential election to our justice sytem. I mentioned how off-balance the media can be,

“… I want to see the media put this kind of pressure and influence behind a Black defendant the next time there is a questionable case. I want to hear the media declarations of innocence for a poor black kid. ...

And I’d love to see the outrage when, let just say as an example, 2 teenage white girls rob a bank in the south … and the charges are dropped from a felony charge to misdemeanors even though they were caught on tape…

… Fox News is going to reveal the name of the accusing rape victim?? Even without the charges, this is a wrong thing. … And her PHOTO!!! So this is fair? What a nice first. And her age and family background. Might as well give away her address. And her past history!!! This is so wrong.”

Don’t think this is only Fox News doing this. I’ve seen similar actions on national broadcast news, cable e-zine channels, and local news stations. It happens across the nation.

But I won’t accept this at face value. Entertainers and celebrities need to be treated no different than everyone else. Justice, especially, must work from the top down to work at all. News agencies need to report the facts and not slanted biases who’s purpose is to confuse the issues at hand. When the media allow political candidates to respond to questions of national importance in soundbites, or they bring entertainers and celebrities into matters of law we the public lose.


Am I a nuetral voice of the nation? No, I’m an opinionated African American Puerto Rican man, that owns and writes blogs. I don’t pretend to be more than that. In that I am honest and direct. In reading this blog you get to see where I stand, and you can comment in ascent or descent. The media does not allow this. It’s not their job.

So I say to the media, stop using Black entertainers and celebrities to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Stop using the OJ Simpson case as a reference to every trial and criminal case you disagree with. Stop injecting racial overtones to issues that do not have them. Most of all stop insulting my intelligence and my race. I am not amused, entertained, nor informed when you do.

This is what I think, what do you think?

The Wicked Witch is Dead - 5.26.2007.1

How could I not comment on the joyous news of the day? You may wonder what the news is, what could please me so? It's no less than the news that Ms. Rosie O'Donnell will no longer be on television. She has officially run away from The View after her self-destructive fight with one of her co-hosts.

Now the fact that there was a mere 3 weeks left in Ms. O'Donnell's contract seems to indicate that the arguement was a critical factor in her departure. If this is all it took, I wish her co-hosts would have gotten angry some time ago. Anything that keeps Ms. O'Donnell's presence off th airwaves. Don't misunderstand, this is not about censorship. Ms. O'Donnell has every right to spew whatever ill-conceived thought she wishes, so long as it's not racially inflamatory or explicative laden.

The fact that Ms. O'Donnell has used the View as a format to expouse extreme left-wing propoganda, and has diminished the United States to the world, is fine as that is free speech. The very military that Ms. O'Donnell likens to terrorists, are the ones that ensure her ability to do this. If no one else were to shout from the rafters their respect of the American solider, she absolutely should; and among others proclaiming their admiration she should be one of the loudest.

Let me clarify, stating that '652,000 Iraqi people are dead, and who's the terrorist' or '[building 7] was the first time in history that fire melted steel' is anti-American in my view. It shows no support for our troops, no love of country, no respect on any level - to me. I support her ability to state as fact obvious contradictions to science that any 8th grader should understand better. I believe, and have previously volunteered to, defending her right to accuse her homeland of acts that are being engaged against us is absolute. But I in NO WAY agree, nor have I wished her continued success in making further statements.

If she were never to be on any televised, filmed, recorded device that is available to the public again, I would lose no sleep. Further I will suggest that if Ms. O'Donnell truely feels America has acted in a manner so dispicable, and is led by individuals so despotic, then perhaps she should give up her birthright and go to a more free, open, and fair nation in the world. Perhaps Ms. O'Donnell would find more joy and liberal freedom in another land, one where there is no persecution of gays, and where women are the equal to any person, where the color of skin determines nothing more than a good suntan.

Since such a nation does not exist, I suggest she give up her birthright and live in a nation that comes as close to those ideals as possible. Wait, THIS IS THAT NATION.

Disney, via ABC, should have removed this woman long ago. Ratings are not worth the damage and insult inflicted by this woman, in my opinion. Just because people are drawn to painful events, like trainwrecks - whether personal or not, this is not a reason to televise them. Judas gained 30 pieces of silver, and a Greek shepard gained a place in the Persian kingdom, each at the cost of their souls. Somethings are just not worth the price, somethings should never be sold.

Liberals and consrvatives are good, Left- and Right-wings are needed, questions must be asked. These things balance America, and we hope they lead us to a greater nation. Yet all rights are tempered, all freedoms come with responsibility. Power corrupts and abuse is the visual expression of that corruption.

Ms. Rosie O'Donnell is gone from the View, her choice or not it doesn't matter. This is a gift to our servicemen, those that have sacrificed everything and those that have volunteered to fight for us to that ultimate price today. If only it can stay that way.

This is what I think, what do you think?

What you don't see on television - 3.14.2007.3

I have spoken in dozens of posts about the ability of many actors, and entertainers of all races and nationalities. There are those that are good, avereage and the very few that excel. That is not dependant on race, or religion, or any limiting factor beyond the ability they honed and were born with. To say that 70% of the American population is incapable of recognizing this fact, and unwilling, is at once both ignorant and racist. Ms. Andreeva could have stated in her article all the points I have, but did not. Ms. Andreeva could have posed the questions I have, and chose not to. Perhaps there was more and it was edited out. If so I am sorry that better content was not allowed. Perhaps this was the only way that the article could have been published, as a tone more like my own is too harsh for the seemingly fragile nature of some executives in dealing with reality. If so I would have chosen to not have it published. Maybe this is why the growth of my blogs (while exceptional) is less than some of my peers. If that is the case then I am glad for the niche I am building. But I will not sit back and read what sounds like an apology for trying to promote African American, Latino/Hispanic and other minorities on broadcast television.

Nor will I quietly accept the latest trend of including a mandatory single Black American, Latino/Hispanic, and at least one woman (often combining two of these in one person) in a supportive or ensemble role, as some fulfillment of an implied quota proving that television has broken down the unspeakable iron grip on a vision of America that existed at least half a century ago. As I have stated in previous posts, by my calculations there are about 2% of all characters in a co-lead or support role that are a minority in broadcast television. That is abysmal when the reality walking out the door is that of 27% or 1 in 4.

Perhaps in an America that segregated it’s schools, and denied the rights of millions of its citizens such a view was acceptable. Thankfully that time has long passed. In a world where Secretaries of State, Heads of the Joint Chiefs, Congressmen and women, and potentially the President of the United States are African American, Latino/Hispanic and every minority found in America, to say that 70% of the popularion is incapable of accepting a leading actor not exactly the same color as themselves is both unacceptable and in my eyes a blatant lie.

This is what I think, what do you think?