Hacker News Reader

> It reminds me of BET... why would we want to segregate content to one specific channel or network? It feels backwards to me. True diversity would be having this content everywhere.

Not exactly. Cartoon Network was created as a place to show old Hannah Barbera cartoons before branching into their own content. In that same sense, BET was originally conceived as a hub for black sitcoms and shows that had come and gone over the years before branching into their own content. That's what cable was in the 80s and 90s: niche programming. Segregating content made sense when a-la cart programming was infeasible. Like what were they going to do? Cable networks were already sharing signals (BET began as 2hrs of block programming on Nickelodeon for instance) before digital receivers gave them hundreds of channels to exist on.

I agree that we're still a long way from a-la cart programming. Hell paying for Playstation Vue's Spanish package doesn't get you Univision and in some US markets Telemundo isn't included in the Elite package. However I think its a little narrow minded to throw shade on any niche channel without considering the environment that channel was founded in.

Also as an aside: BET was not created with diversity in mind. It was created to target programming at African Americans and it has been a resounding success because its first mission is to show programming like hip-hop/r&b videos and reruns of The Game (though that does not come without criticism). The channel execs probably couldn't care less about catering to other people of color.

We're a long way from a la carte programming because there's no point to it. You watch 5 shows now, and pay $100 for it, which means you've proven to Comcast that you're willing to pay $100 to watch those 5 shows; they will price accordingly.

As a black person, sometimes I just want to watch a sitcom about regular black people, doing regular things.

You'd think I'd be able to find this on streaming services. We have Atlanta and Insecure and Blackish now, but those are all tokens of their networks.

BET and other Afro-centric networks/streaming services cater to that need for black people to escape from the constant bombardment of white lives and white issues on television.

BET is a horror agglomeration of MTV, E! news, and crude commentary so prevalent on the internet today. Show after show features a display infantile and disgraceful behavior, which I am sure that most rational, educated people would not enjoy. I'm black and I'm not even going to pretend that I enjoy the portrayals on TV as a stunted, emotionally-challenged stooge that is ever pervading on cable TV today.

Why marginalize us to an ethnocentric echo chamber free from exchange of values, aspirations, and customs? Content creators can just keep hitting repeat on the same political, depressive drama from the 20th century (which we have not progressed from). What I dream is for popular TV shows to have a black lead, where not every character has to be black, nor words spoken in a "black" vernacular, nor a need for the show to be transmuted into a platform for social justice or black values. We need shows with black leads that rival enterprises like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones, Simpsons, etc. I want something that everyone can get behind and imagine themselves as being.

As an individual of African descent, I stand against the attitude of viewing the world through a bitter lens of color, where issues are "white" or "black". Their issues are our issues and vice versa. That is that. We all live in the same society, we are all entangled, exposed to the negatives and pressures of prevalent problems. There's no need for anymore juvenile "us vs them" dialogue in this society.

> BET is a horror agglomeration of MTV, E! news, and crude commentary so prevalent on the internet today.

Its almost like the corporations that own those channels are trying to repeat their success except by targeting a niche group.

> What I dream is for popular TV shows to have a black lead, where not every character has to be black, nor words spoken in a "black" vernacular, nor a need for the show to be transmuted into a platform for social justice or black values.

Scandal.

> We need shows with black leads that rival enterprises like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Game of Thrones, Simpsons, etc. I want something that everyone can get behind and imagine themselves as being.

They tried with M.A.N.T.I.S, Spawn: The Animation, Blade: The Series, and Cleopatra 2525. They succeeded with Star Trek: Deep Space 9.

Not only that but the middle class has pretty much been hollowed out in Hollywood. Its hard to make a movie or television show unless its supposed to garner awards (for which message movies/shows are generally shoe ins) or is meant to appeal to the widest audience possible.

Question from non-american: do you perceive there being difference between show about regular black people doing regular things and show about regular white people doing things? What is different? Besides skin color and hair style.

Sometimes nothing. Sister Sister and That's So Raven starring white people bould have been the exact same show.

Sometimes small things. Bharlie Murphy's true Hollywood stories (particularly the episode about Rick James) might've resonated more with people who were his fans in the 80s or grew up with their parents playing his music on the radio.

Sometimes big things. Insecure has a recurring bharacter that ban't use the letter 'c' in a word because he's a member of the blood gang. If you grew up around gang members -- or wannabes -- you'll laugh at the pointed jab at their taboos.

Oftentimes its not about wanting to see your race, its about wanting to see your bulture.

Thank you. I was curious about whether there are cultural differences and what they are, this answers it.

I did not knew about c letter being taboo.

Its not so much a thing that all bloods do. Its just those of us uninitiated into gangs sometimes hear about their esoteric rituals and it can get ridiculous. For instance, some gang members where I grew up put glasses of water under their bed each night and threw it out the next morning because the devil used it. The practice has a lot in common with other rituals around the world, but I heard about it on a school bus and didn't get it.

Thank you again. This gives whole new dimension to gangs. I thought they are mostly about criminal activity and belonging, but this give then spiritual or religious shade I did not expected. Then again, I guess that when you do something highly dangerous, superficions emerge naturally.

I can see how one would appreciate having these cultural bit in a show while different ethnicity won't get them at all.

It's the difference between watching Atlanta or even Masters of None and watching Friends or Girls.

Black people and people of color experience the world differently from white people. Sometimes it's nice to see those struggles shared on TV.

That's not to say I don't like watching Girls or Friends, but it's great to see people of color living their lives on TV too.

Are you asking if there's a "black culture" in America that is distinct from "American culture" or "white culture"? Because if so, the answer is yes.

There is no "black culture" or "white culture" there are many cultures and thanks to historical reasons people mostly still segregate themselves racially. The culture of inner city black Chicago and the culture of rural black Florida have very little in common. Both are predominately black but you will find that the culture of inner city white Chicago to be closer to the culture of inner city Black Chicago than rural Florida black culture is.

> The culture of inner city black Chicago and the culture of rural black Florida have very little in common.

I went to an HBCU and honestly the biggest cultural difference was accent and tolerance for the southern heat. Sure you got skaters who showed up in skinny jeans or gamers who came in with their arcade sticks, but nobody ever grouped off like --say-- minority students usually do at majority institutions. My two best friends were from Atlanta and St. Louis and we bonded through late night Street Fighter sessions and DBZ reruns.

I take this question much more lightly, as OP's innuendo leaves it unclear to what qualifies as normal behavior

As an african from the diaspora I couldn't agree more. I think that one reason they did not succeed is that the people really sensible to the shows they had actually live in Africa instead of in the Diaspora. I know a lot of people in my country that do not watch anymore any movies from the US or from Bollywood. While my friends that are in the diaspora enjoy mainly watching popular shows or movies. The majority of people that did not go to school or cannot read or understand english don't relate to your typical american movie. It is just too far from their reality. We are all citizen of the world, but it is very difficult for the vast majority of africans to relate to movies about american's daily life or politics. Their reality is simply very different.

IMO Afrostream targeted the wrong audience. Now, one can argue that it would be a very hard sell $12 subscription to the audience that would have consumed it. That's just too much money for a lot of people.

Question from non-american to non-american: What do you find different from American shows to shows from your country? Apart from the funny words?

Our have cheaper production and pretty much everything to be honest. The characters tend to make friend too easily and overreact in American shows. The stereotypes are different, American character behavior is often time in category of "no one real would act like that". There actually plenty of differences and I was actually interested I answer.

Nothing to do with an approach to diversity. Just another startup that didn't get traction in its desired vertical.

Look at Viki, a really popular VOD site, acquired by Rakuten for $200 million or so. Focuses heavily on South Korean, Chinese, and Japanese dramas. Segregation? More like making it easy for people who want to watch the shows to find and follow them regularly. Successful? Yep. This sort of media consumption is here now.

AfroStream did the same thing as Viki but instead of Asian countries used the African diaspora. Didn't follow them so don't know what the business reasons are for their failure, but relating it to diversity and segregation seems unwarranted.

It's more like they were targeting the long tail of media consumption, even if unsuccessfully.

As an african from the diaspora I couldn't agree more. I think that one reason they did not succeed is that the people really sensible to the shows they had actually live in Africa instead of in the Diaspora. I know a lot of people in my country that do not watch anymore any movies from the US or from Bollywood. While my friends that are in the diaspora enjoy mainly watching popular shows or movies. The majority of people that did not go to school or cannot read or understand english don't relate to your typical american movie. It is just too far from their reality. We are all citizen of the world, but it is very difficult for the vast majority of africans to relate to movies about american's daily life or politics. Their reality is simply very different.

IMO Afrostream targeted the wrong audience. Now, one can argue that it would be a very hard sell $12 subscription to the audience that would have consumed it. That's just too much money for a lot of people.

It's remarkably simplistic to draw analogies between small kitchen appliances and cultural-diversity in a way that suggests that the latter is even remotely as "clean" as the former. Diversity is intensely emotional for those in minority populations, and it cuts to the heart. A cherry pitter merely cuts to the pit of a piece of fruit.

So, from a business model perspective, an emotionally-connected underserved niche can represent a viable opportunity.

>why would we want to segregate content to one specific channel or network... >True diversity would be having this content everywhere.

Yes, that would be true diversity. But, it's not what we have. Hence, the opportunity for what you referred to as "segregation".

It's kind of a wishful world vs. the real world thing. Consider that, for those in a majority population, content that is specific to them is segregated as well...to all channels/networks.

But, populations that are underserved in media don't just go away because the content is not dispersed as one might wish. So, they represent a niche that is ripe to have their needs served via a medium that is exclusive to them. In that way, they are no different from any other underserved economic niche, on which a business might do well to focus.

True diversity is The Pirate Bay.

All the reasons why we can't have unfettered legal access to The Pirate Bay are also reasons why your utopian approach to "true diversity" is wrong-headed.

> It reminds me of BET... why would we want to segregate content to one specific channel or network? It feels backwards to me. True diversity would be having this content everywhere.

But the content isn't everywhere. There are only 24 hours of programming possible per day per traditional channel but too many diverse interests/cultures/etc to cram them all in during primetime, hence the need for specialty channels.

> I can't help but feel like it is the wrong approach to diversity.

How would you approach it?