Continued from Does a name change make BET and Viacom good guys? Part 1...
While many believe the victory has been won, many more are still cautious and I count myself in that group. My misgivings were not based on the name of the program but it’s content. The description that I found troubling remains. Without the ability to review the program, just as all critics have been denied, I cannot say anything has changed. Almost.
Viacom knows one thing clearly. Black bloggers, and by extension all bloggers don’t play. There were plans for protests of every advertiser of the program, and regardless of the name, there still could be. Several blogs, including my own, featured information concerning the real decision makers at Black Entertainment Television, Viacom. Several detailed questions for the President of Viacom Mr. Philippe Dauman and majority shareholder Mr. Sumner Redstone, and addressed the means by which the rest of the shareholders of the public corporation could be called to task for the programming. The other hand of protests, addressing the shareholders and their profits, came to bear such that Viacom could not ignore the probable outcome.
They should keep that in mind. It can still happen.
I am unconvinced by the platitudes that have come from the corporate public relations machine of Viacom. This has not assuaged my fears. Changing 3 words to 5 does not change the meaning of the content, nor does it provide a new context for that content to be understood internationally. That takes real change, not a new coat of paint. I hope, as I always have, that such change has occurred. But I am leery.
The press release seeks to deflect attention from the real issues. Like the rare comment from Mr. Reginald Hudlin who sought to, in my opinion, poorly compare the stated description of this program to the efforts of Dr. Bill Cosby and others. While that sounds nice, examination of what was presented about this program failed to hold up such a comparison. For Viacom to imply that there were misconceptions on behalf of bloggers and myself is to blame a wall for being flat. You cannot fault a conclusion that is based on information you (VIACOM and BET) have provided the public, and denied all sources further details. When a snake rattles it’s tail you don’t assume it’s not poisonous because you can’t see the venom.
The further attempt by BET to show their open palm while hiding their closed fist are the statements made in the press release about the future programming BET states they will have. A carrot to the stick that Hot Ghetto Mess, or We Got To Do Better if you prefer, is does not change how it may strike you. Public relations statements are great tools of obfuscation at times, but for those skilled at reading them they are not as powerful.
Comncluded in Part 3...
No comments:
Post a Comment