To VH1 Executives by way of the Washington Post:

VH1 TV Shows | Music Videos | Celebrity Photos | News & Gossip

This show looks like a load of crap, straight from the gate. There was a saying, which stated, “Do not allow the court system to introduce you to the relationship with your child.” I think that needs to extend to reality television. These men, who to me are social eunuchs, are being rewarded with valuable airtime to do what? I’m missing the boat here and I really want to be on board. I am a father, in the middle of a separation. I had to fight for 50/50 joint custody of my child because I realize the significance of my presence in my son’s life. Admittedly I may be overly educated to watch this show. That said, as a cultural critic, particularly that of media, VH1 and Viacom for that matter, have to me, hit a new low. Programming like this represents negligence and to me borders being socially irresponsible. Who’s fooling whom here? Are these “contestants,” going to truly walk away being model dads after the stimulus of this pseudo baby boot camp? Better yet, will VH1 find their newest reality break out star and build a franchise around them? At the risk of being cliché’ lets get real for a moment. We all remember how VH1 bought The Surreal Life from the WB. From the Surreal Life, came Strange Love, which followed the kooky relationship between Flavor Flav and Bridget Neilson. From there, Flavor Flav got his own show Flavor of Love, which spun off into I Love New York to Charm School to I Love Money. Talk about mileage. As an audience, we are expected to fall for this repackaging of all these other reality shows and a few others I failed to mention. No, what we are being asked to watch, for our consideration as an informed audience mind you is, “Jackass-with a conscious.” Enough already, please. If you really want to create a reality TV show that makes a difference, create a show that works to reduce the unemployment rate. How about this, why not put together a reality show that follows those who need health care but can’t get it? At least that type of reality programming offers the audience some type of constructive water cooler talk.
Just my opinion.

Mad White Men

The TV show Mad Men. Hmmm I have to stop and think about it. Mad Men-- There are two things that stand out in my mind about his show. Its an Emmy winner, there are no Black Folks and its gotten the Oprah Seal of Approval. Is it me or am I just seeing things. Recently there was this clip on youtube-- I have really weened myself away from traditional TV because its become what I like to coin as "network." Network for those who don't know is award winning screenplay by Paddy Chiesky in which it really tells of things to come regarding the shape of television. Murder of the week, kidnapping of the week, terrorist of the week: its really what we have become. I am more inclined to watch YouTube or Daily Motion or even Hulu strictly because with 1000 on HDTV I can't seem to find a damn thing on. Hence YouTube. Anyway while watching my dose of YouTube, I came across this news article discussing the need for male studies. At the cornerstone of the piece was the show MadMen. Looking at the news piece and of course just a glimpse of the show something obviously was missing. Black Folk. Damn... The show is set in 1960s where "real men were men." OK to me that's a wee bit hard to swallow part due to the fact that, that same line was also uttered by Archie Bunker- America's favorite bigot portrayed by one of America's biggest progressive liberals, Carol O'Connor. I guess the reason why I'm not attracted to a show such as Mad Men is because it to me represents a celebration of White ideology. Its almost as though the program operates as form of revisionist history in which people of color have conveniently been placed figuratively back to the back of the bus if only for 60 mins per episode. Now there are professors in the academy who wish to use this program as a model for male studies. As an African American Man, and father this maddens me on a plethora of levels but today I will just choose one, and that would be again how the media functions as an agent of cultural positioning. Again, not having seen the program, I am concerned with the fact that as the program functions as a nostalgic piece of television, is the program really relevant. I think I am not attracted to the show because simply put, I don't see any aspect of me at all in the program. Not that I was alive in the 1960s but the black experience in the 1960s really isn't that damn euphoric. While white folk were sipping scotch, downing martinis listening the rat pack-- Black folk were catching hell on a daily basis. Under employment, families being split apart so that some income would come in rather than no income, human rights, civil rights, asserting one's sense of masculinity in the presence legalized apartheid in the United States--(white folks had Uncle Sam where as blacks had Uncle Jim-Crow); I digress as I write a incoherent sentence. The point I am trying to make here is that as Oprah works to celebrate whiteness in her lauding of MadMen who has the iniative to offer a counter reading of MadMen. It would be so cool if some one were to take the base material from Loraine Hansbery's Raisin In the Sun and develop that into a series (preferably shot in black and white). That play germinated with so many topics that honestly it took African Americans out of the monolithic images of White America. Unfortunately, that would not be profitable in our commercialized economy. Again, I sigh as I sit on the sidelines and watch

Black in America on CNN--SOSDD

Being Black In America on CNN

Same Old Show, Different Day

Maybe that is too hard, then again maybe it's too light. Too Black Too Strong, What do you do, you integrate it with cream what use to be strong now is weak, what used to keep you awake now puts you too sleep. That is what happened with this special documentary. With all the hype about this "ground breaking" documentary, the folks who put the teasers together for this really should be lauded. That said the documentary was just pitiful. Not in the content. Lets face it, we've seen this content before. It's like every 20 years the groundbreaking documentary which places African Americans under the microscope for study must come out. Apparently, its like the Olympics with a 15 year lag. Lets see CBS did this possibly in the 60s, ABC did it in the 80s and now CNN in 2000. So by 2018, it will be NBC's turn. The tragedy that I can see is that what was talked about in 1968 hasn't really changed for the better in 40 years. Its like we are taking the same documentary off the shelf, re-packaging it for a new generation and passing it off as something that is GROUNDBREAKING!!! EARTH SHATTERING!!! For me, in a media sense, Groundbreaking and Earth Shattering is Star Wars 1977 or The Matrix 1999. Why, because those films represent evolutionary change. Something that has never been done before. That said, this discourse on race has been done to death. Please don't get me wrong. The dialogue needs to continue but that said, take the opportunity to do something different. For example, DO SOMETHING!!!! As one who studies media and did very little journalism, the rule of thumb is to be objective, be neutral and allow the story to happen. That said, lets go to the rule of the other four fingers and do something else. In one sequence last night, I saw an underground hip hop artist Obrian (Soledad) was highlighting. He didn't have the major deal, he didn't have all the fame of Curtis Jackson but he was progressive and making a positive contribution to society and incidentally, getting evicted from his house. Why is CNN/Time Warner sitting back on their A (you fill in the blank) and allowing this to happen in front of my very eyes? To me breaking the rule of thumb and becoming socially engaged, making sure this man was not evicted and partnered with an agency to give his program some stability would have been the more socially responsible thing to do. This angers me because as we saw earlier, where their was this brother who showed up 5 hours late to his daughter's birthday party, at the urging of CNN, he's put on blast to see his other child in front of a obviously pissed off sister, who is pregnant with twins from another person. To me that mirrors, the Maury Povitch show and played all into the "Baby Mama Drama" frame. That to me is not necessary. In fact it was a disservice all the way around.

Then I have to talk about sponsorship as well. It was good to see the McDonalds commercial her and therewith the little girl talking about owning a chain of McDonalds as well as the other commercials with the African and African American families in the airport. To me that resonated because the showed some degree of social connectivity to what the program was trying to do. But what about other sponsors like Allstate or Meryl Lynch, Met Life, IBM, Microsoft, Nike. It's this gross lack of corporate sensitivity to the issues that the program attempts to bring light which really says volumes. Though I can't say I agree with Michael Moore 24/7/365, I will say that the man not only talks the talk but he also walks the walk. They may be publicity stunts, going to Cuba for health care, asking the members of congress to enlist their children in the Iraq war, or taking bullets into Wal-Mart Corporate Headquarters, the symbolic gestures at least say force you to see you don't have to stand for the status quo. I'm not saying that CNN/Time Warner has to give out cash to solve everyone's problems but what I am suggesting is that corporate politics need to match their charter for social responsibility. An opportunity was missed to really make a difference and instead what I watched was the further exploitation of people's hard times and misery while bolstering high ratings.

Media Social Currency Index Points

Media Social Currency Index Points

([X]Encoders)([Y]Media) =[XY]Media Representation/[C] Decoder [A] Social Positionality [CD] Decoder Raced (and or) Gendered SES = ones individual social currency as it relates to the media text.

Here is a theory: The politics of media representation and social currency

-- the concept centers around education, media and race. My logic is that African American young boys view education not at the ticket out or the opportunity self liberation. That are a number of factors which contribute to this but what represents the paramount crux is how being intelligent is seen as being emasculating or being white. -- There is no power associated really with being formarlly educated-- the basic package of k-12 and quality secondary education. What is seen as powerful are the mantras "gangsterism." First you get the money-- then you get the power, then you get the respect. How is power personified or symbolized in the underclass communities. What gets one respect. Our culture (the American capitalistic culture that is) sees power as control. Control of money, control of other people, the control of self, the control of the materials. How does one achieve that power?

In many cases people are born into that structure however, if one is of the historically marginalized underclass, it's not meant to be unless they go through creative social capital mining. In some cases folk use their body as their ticket-- be it through athletics or entertainment-- which is ok however the odds are overwhealmingly not in one's favor. That said, others seek the underground economy as a means to an end.

That said, power and respect are media defined. Our society is media saturated and folks use media to a great extent -- so far as a means of informing one's self about the social world..

The media inundate the masses with a plethora of social messages which a non critical audience willingly accept--this plays into the hypodermeic needle theory. I want to extend that theory a bit further by saying as people look to the tube, be it traditional or virtual, that tube informs people's opinions, perceptions of realities et al. So if one is constantly surrounded by various messages saying X then the probality of that person buying into that message are extremely high. Hall counters this notion by suggesting that audience read texts on one of three ways, they accept it, they reject it or they negotiate it. The question I would raise to this notion is awareness. Does one have a choice in how they read the message? Further, does one have a choice as they encode the message? Now this is where the class dynamic comes into play. If one had a choice -- meaning if they were informed about the messages-- on the surface and below the surface would they choose to believe it? Its almost equivalent to knowing what is poison as to what is healthy. Who would knowingly drink battery acid? No one. So who would knowingly watch a program or consume a text that is toxic? (for that matter, how do you define a toxic text) No one. The problem is that the practice has continued, media toxicity, that audiences are desensitized to the linkage of the preformatative nature of media consumption. If you are within the dominant society this notion fits because most of the texts are encoded by the dominant society. So mathematically, positive plus positive equals positive. So messages produced by the dominant other which personify power are consumed by the dominant audience equate to a heightened sense self esteem. -- So if I see an image of a white man flying (self propelled) without strings, as a white boy, I begin to believe this and as a white adult male, the chances are I will create a some way to fly (self propelled). -- the reality is that there was a man who actually pulled this off. Black people watching the same message are more than likely not to accept this. This could possibly address the issue of why many older black people do not buy into the science of space flight. As for sports, people buy into to that because its more relative and obtainable-- it is their reality that they have been saturated into since the time before time. -- Again-- here is where the class aspect comes into it. If one has not had the opportunity for exposure to anything but an environment that is physically based, they encode it.

So in short, power is capital. The image of power represents social currency. Who controls that image of power is key.

A Thinking Television Project-- High on Merit Low on Ratings

I was reading a paper recently discussing the issue of media literacy linking it to a critical pedagogy. The paper centers around a project called, "Thinking Television." In short, we have a professor at a university in Georgia who has taken on the task of fusing media literacy with an emancipator media project as the writer puts it, within the general rubric of "critical media literacy." What does this mean? I interpret critical at this point to fall within the realm of critical race theory. In short, we see many structures in the United States through the lens of race, class, gender and of course power through economic and social means. What I really liked about this paper is that it examined the intersections of media literacy and praxis within a structured setting. What the author attempted to execute really was a serious inquiry into the meaning and myth making process within a post modernistic society. The post modern mythology is informed via electronic means of production and dissemination. The post modern mythology particularly within our 21st century construction espouses tales congruent in some cases with the likes Homer and Voltiare. The stories are constantly driven by the dominate or hegemonic discourse. It is here where we really are able to examine how the interlocking mechanics of this project. The professor provides students with an opportunity to create their own television program treatments under the premise that programs generate revenue and appeal to a mass audience demographic which I believe is 18 to 25. Looking at the paper and the results yielded, the professor seems to be at a crossroads of sorts where he is wondering if he should continue the project. His problem or better yet his question is does his project really make a difference. Some points that he has mentioned is his students are primarily white, they have disassociated themselves from any type of social consciousness, and have divorced themselves from the sensitivity of stereotypes so much to the point where their standpoint blocks them from being critical of the material they create. Again, going back to the theory of this paper, hegemonic discursive control, it really answers a question that I have had for years now as to why network television represents the great white way. As Peggy Macintosh puts it, "Being White means never having to say you are sorry." A life free of impunity represents a fantsy that few classes of people live but many reach for. I looked at this question pretty much since 1982 when I was 12 years old. As a grown up who is more informed of the politics of race and power, it as though we (the other folk) are in a constant state of negotiation. Lets get specific. As a kid, I loved TV. In fact, I would venture to say now that TV was like a narcotic to me. It was always there, it rarely talked back and it numbed me when I needed to escape from the realities of my life. Around that time I was coping with some rather complicated issues for a 12 year old. My mom and dad had split, I was relocating from one place to another. In short there were few constants in my life except television. I was able to be absorbed into the worlds of espionage, high crime, high tech, science fiction, fantasy, you name it. Without thinking, I would watch shows there white men would do some pretty damn interesting heroic things. I mean lets face it, how many people do we know who could get blown up all to bits in as a test pilot and by the end of the next commercial, run sixty miles per hour. Who wouldn't want to live a life of a hobo who had the ability whenever he got angry or nervous could creatively transform himself into a different creature and with brute strength solve their immediate problem regardless free of property damage. But my personal favorite is the man who live the ultimate lone ranger fantasy. He gets an extreme plastic surgery make over after being shot for dead and given all the money and resources of a billionaire to take a bite out of crime. Instead of a horse, he has a trusty black sports car/crime lab/tank/rockeslead. Of course the common denominator is that these are all white men and the masterminds behind these creations are of course white men. At 12 years old, with a complicated living situation (to say the least) this stuff as drastic as it may sound, is like crack for kids. If you are a white person ingesting this stuff, it feeds into the mythos of white male superiority. At the risk of sounding cynical, these urban legends represent a wonderful life. However, if you are not, then the hidden message is that the closest you can ever come to this wonderful life is that of being subordinate, and you better be glad you have that opportunity. Its like Affirmative Action on the terms of Uncle James (Jim) Crow. Imagine the Lone Ranger under these terms... "Tonto, you can ride with me, hell you can even ride beside me but you keep a slight distance. You can feed my white horse but don't ride my white horse. When I ride into this Indian spot, you are my trusty trained savage. Now I have civilized you and you are my shinny representation of how I things aught to be. You are my creation and you are the new representation of the crazy savages. Now, don't let me get scalped either. You speak that language they talk son in short you work for me. Now lets get to stepping." Me personally, I might watch that because it is honest--brutally honest. Needless to say, in my version, when Tonto bent over to shine the hoof of the white horse, a brown wooden arrow pierced the heart the lone ranger, thus liberating Tonto to start his own horse breeding ranch somewhere in the central continental United States.

I think that might be the problem. If the powers that be allow folk to who don't look like them to start controlling some of these post modern myth factories, quite a few of these stories might have a different ending. Can you imagine a Six Million Dollar Man who critically weighs the pros and the cons of his bionic servitude. -- Wait a minute, you want me to do what to whom? Why should I go to Cuba and steal their stuff when they have done nothing to us.

What about an Incredible Hulk who actually takes Zoloft to keep himself keep himself calm and actually does work as Dr. Bruce Banner (or whatever his name would be that week) in an underserved underrepresented community. Would he hulk out when his bills were due? Would he hulk out to stop a gang war.

And then lets not forget the Knight Rider, Michael Knight who is loaded and has a talking car to boot. Could you imagine Michael Knight as a global citizen going to Duarfore. How about Devon Miles who actually had ties to Nelson Mandela who was constantly frustrated by bureaucratic red tape who just finally says to hell with it and sends an uneducated Michael into Johannesburg undercover to bust Mandela out of jail.

To me, that’s some imagination when you become critical within the myth making factories. Why don't we ever see anything like this? Like Macintosh says, "Being White Means Never Having to Say You Are Sorry."