My World Talks

ALSTON: A Black Cable Network Won't Broadcast the GOP Convention. Is That 'Reverse Racism'? By Joshua Alston Last Tuesday marked the beginning of this summer's Television Critics Association Press Tour, a biannual confab in which television networks preview their upcoming slates for the country's television critics. First to present was TV One, a four-year-old cable network that caters to African-American viewers, and I doubt anyone went to the presentation in LA's Beverly Hilton expecting any major news to come out of it. Perhaps my news judgment needs tweaking, because I also left the presentation still thinking no major news came out of it.Granted, TV One CEO Johnathan Rodgers announced that the network would be delivering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Democratic National Convention, and when asked by a journalist, conceded that no coverage would be provided of the Republican convention. But to this perfectly valid question, Rodgers gave what I thought was a sound, logical explanation. TV One, he explained, is not a news outlet, but rather a lifestyle and entertainment network catering to African-Americans, who make up 93% of its audience. The decision to cover the Democratic convention is solely based on the fact that the presumptive nominee is Barack Obama, which makes it of importance to TV One's audience. There's no such significance to the Republican convention, Rodgers said, nor would TV One have covered the Democratic convention had Hillary Clinton emerged the presumptive nominee. A follow-up question came as to whether black Republicans would be offended by the decision. Sheryl Underwood, a comedian who will provide color commentary during the proceedings (and not incidentally, an Obamacan) joked that none of the eight black Republicans would take issue with it.I was naïve enough to think the matter was settled. But then it grew legs. The Associated Press picked it up. CNN did a package on it, in which Variety reporter Bill Triplett suggested that TV One's decision could hamper the Obama campaigns effort to project a post-racial image. James Hibberd, a blogger for The Hollywood Reporter posted an item on it, which in just a couple of days racked up hundreds of comments, many of which alleged naked partisanship and "reverse racism."Let's go through these one at a time: 1.) Is anyone seriously concerned that black Republicans would be affected by this decision? This question is based on the premise that blacks watch TV One exclusively, and black Republicans would never get an opportunity to watch the Republican convention if not for TV One's covering it. There will obviously be plenty of opportunities for anyone who wants to watch either convention to do so. 2.) TV One is not the first television network to take notice of the fact that Obama is particularly melanin-rich. The genius of the Obama campaign is not, as Triplett puts it, that its architects have taken "great pains" to be post-racial. It's that they haven't taken pains at all, being shrewd enough to realize that in a 24-hour news cycle, there would be plenty journalists and bloggers willing to meticulously analyze the effect of Obama's race on the election without them lifting a finger. The fact that TV One has chosen to cover Obama does nothing to change this dynamic. 3.) Let's say TV One's decision was partisan. Who cares? There's no such thing as equal time on cable networks as there is with major networks, and for good reason. Anyone with a television gets the major networks whether they want them or not. TV One is not even available to some cable subscribers in certain parts of the country, so there should be no concern that lopsided coverage will somehow skew the election. Many honest people would admit to never even having heard of TV One prior to this announcement, yet suddenly it's a such a major player that its programmers should be concerned about the Fairness Doctrine.These completely meritless arguments merely obfuscate the sentiment behind them, which is that Barack Obama's candidacy is the historic, once-in-a-lifetime, lightening-in-a-bottle ascendancy of a black Presidential candidate that everyone is allowed to be inordinately interested in—except for black people. Imagine how downright moronic it would sound if, at the press tour, a journalist raised his hand to ask the CEO of Lifetime why its viewers get to watch "The Golden Girls," only to then have to flip all the way over to TV Land if they want to watch "Hogan's Heroes." That person would be ignored in public, then ruthlessly mocked in private. Why is this conversation any more valid? The notion has been floated that black America's rapturous enthusiasm for Obama would elicit a fear response in whites that could deliver their votes to John McCain. Pshaw was my initial reaction, but after witnessing the response from "hard-working white Americans" to TV One's totally sensible business decision, I may have to reevaluate my skepticism.