Preguntada sobre si cree que el presidente sirio dejará finalmente el poder, la secretaria de Estado de EE.UU. se mostró convencida de ello.
Roundtable: Bob Johnson possibly stepping down from BET; gender selection; earlier cancer screenings for blacks; New York Daily News lottery jackpot
NPR Special March 22, 2005 | ED GORDON ED GORDON NPR Special 03-22-2005 Roundtable: Bob Johnson possibly stepping down from BET; gender selection; earlier cancer screenings for blacks; New York Daily News lottery jackpot
Host: ED GORDON Time: 9:00-10:00 AM
ED GORDON, host:
This is NEWS & NOTES. I’m Ed Gordon.
On today’s roundtable, Bob Johnson–Is he stepping down from BET?–gender selection, blacks needing earlier cancer screenings and a printed mistake that led many to believe they’d hit the jackpot.
Joining us from WFDD in North Carolina, Nat Irvin, Wake Forest University professor and columnist for the Winston-Salem Journal; ER Shipp, Pulitzer Prize winner and columnist for the New York Daily News. She’s here in our New York bureau. And on the phone from Los Angeles, Reginald Hudlin, director and screenwriter. I thank you all for joining us.
Let’s look at what may, indeed, be the end of an era. A lot being talked about over the course of the last couple of months of founder and CEO Bob Johnson stepping down from his helm at BET. We should note that a few years ago, Viacom purchased BET, but Bob stayed on in that capacity. He has suggested in a article with Newsweek magazine that he says he does not plan to continue in the capacity as we know it, but has not officially said that he’s going to step down. That being said, Reginald Hudlin, what do you think about what will probably be very soon the end of an era? this web site new york dailys
Mr. REGINALD HUDLIN (Director, Screenwriter): Well, I think it’s an exciting time. I look at–there’s no media company in our landscape with greater growth potential for BET. Bob has created an incredibly profitable company, a company with huge market penetration, and a company that, quite frankly, has been emulated by a lot of other media companies. Now you have other Viacom-related companies, like MTV, like UPN, that are, you know, sort of poaching BET’s same audience. So the challenge going forward is to take all that audience loyalty and, you know, grow it and, you know, to create, you know, new programming that will, you know, keep you current and in competition with a lot of their sister companies, quite frankly.
GORDON: Nat Irvin, a lot of people–and many folks know that I spent many, many years at BET–but a lot of people have been very critical of Bob Johnson’s direction of Black Entertainment Television, particularly the programming. Well, how do you see that in terms of, quote, unquote, “tarnishing” his legacy?
Professor NAT IRVIN (Wake Forest University): Well, I think it’s mixed, Ed. First of all, Bob is an incredible visionary, but it’s always been about the business: a return on investment, return on equity. It’s hard to imagine that at age 34, Johnson actually had the vision of BET before Ted Turner had his vision and actually implemented CNN. So this is a guy with extraordinary vision for the future. And I think when you–and part of his legacy is mixed because I think as it started out, BET was viewed by the black community as being a vehicle that would somehow bring the educational programming, the public service programming, along with the entertainment that BET has, unfortunately, only become known for now, that there would be a sort of healthy mix. I think that the–so his legacy would be mixed as far as the programming of BET.
I think in going into the future, as Reggie pointed out, the competition for what–the landscape that BET will now be faced with I think offers an opportunity for maybe a recalculation, maybe coming back more–BET I hope will come back more toward the more public service programs, more education programs, doing more with a balance that reflects the greater, larger interests not only of the black community, but of the whole community.
Mr. HUDLIN: I think one of the things that’s tough, when you talk about BET, is because, as you said, BET was so ahead of its time, that it was the black network, so people expected all things for all people from that network.
Prof. IRVIN: Right. Right.
Mr. HUDLIN: And that’s a really unrealistic expectation. As you said, he’s one of the great businessmen of our era and has created an incredibly profitable company that has sort of defined youth culture, not just black youth culture. They have a huge white…
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Mr. HUDLIN: …viewing audience as well.
GORDON: ER, we should note here, though, that even if Bob Johnson steps down, in some sense, many people see him now, frankly, as a figurehead for the network based on its ownership now, being under the Viacom umbrella.
Ms. ER SHIPP (New York Daily News): Right. I was going to say that. It almost doesn’t matter right now that he may be making another transition, because since about the year 2000, I believe, BET has been part of the Viacom family. But what he seems to be planning to do is in the great American tradition: one founds a business and makes money, and then moves on perhaps into another field. These are people who are enormously creative, and one would hope that he will take up the challenge of a number of people who, once they make their millions and billions, not just hoard it but do some good things for society. I think there’s a chance here for Johnson to do that.
But I must add one other thing. For years, BET has been criticized because some people ask if it’s black enough or entertaining enough. Now I’m thinking of Aaron McGruder, the cartoonist, and even Chris Rock. It’s got a very mixed message out there, and frankly, I haven’t felt the need to turn to BET in many years.
GORDON: Well, it’s clearly a young network now. I mean, even BET acknowledges that now, but if nothing else, Bob Johnson has made his stake in history with the founding of it, and only time will tell what will happen when he steps away, and we will watch that as we go along.
Moving on to our next subject, this from the medical journal Fertility and Sterility, researchers found, in doing research there in infertility clinics, that 41 percent of the women who came to these clinics said that they would take advantage of a free option to select the sex of their baby. And even if they had to pay, many of those women said that they would, indeed, go that route and want to be able to select what little bundle of joy they brought home, male or female.
Ms. SHIPP: They should just accept the bundle of joy. I’m sorry. And I’m not a baby person, frankly, and I don’t believe they’re really that much joy. My cats are better. But having said that…
Prof. IRVIN: Oh, ER…
GORDON: Well, now, ER, we got to get you a baby in the house. But go ahead.
Ms. SHIPP: …having said that, I think this is moving into a dangerous direction. It’s similar to the issue you just raised in an earlier segment, where we get to play God a little too much.
Unidentified Panelist: Oh.
Ms. SHIPP: Selecting the gender, you know, selecting the hair color, the eye color–you know, I think that’s going too far down the wrong road.
Mr. HUDLIN: Yes.
Prof. IRVIN: Oh, I disagree completely. I disagree. In fact, this survey did not surprise me at all. When I have asked my students, when we’re dealing with bioethical issues of the future, whether or not they’d like the opportunity to be able to select the sex of their children, it almost always turns out about 50 or 60 percent of them say yes. But that’s not really the issue. To me, the real issue is this. We’re about to embark upon a time in the planet’s history where we will not only be able to select the child. That’s kid’s play.
What about being able to know whether or not your child will have a predisposition toward certain kinds of diseases–for example, high blood pressure, stroke, or heart disease or maybe even colon cancer–and then not being able to do anything about it? In other words, we can know what the potential is, the 80 or 90 percent predisposition toward a certain disease, but science is not yet at the point to where it can actually do something about it. So it presents for us in these next 15 to 20 years some really huge dilemmas. And I think that this is just the early stages of us starting to take control of our human destiny, and we’ve got to get used to this, because this technology is here, and we’ve got to have some really fundamental discussions about what our real values are about life. website new york dailys
Mr. HUDLIN: I think it’s actually comparable to plastic surgery. Obviously, you have people who are born with grotesque disfigurements which we can now repair via plastic surgery, and on the other hand, you have Michael Jackson.
Prof. IRVIN: Right. Right.
Mr. HUDLIN: So I think when you talk about self-selecting, I think, you know, suddenly, you have a whole bunch of black people saying, `Make sure she got good hair.’
Prof. IRVIN: Right. Well, you know, Reggie, I asked students that. You know, if you really want to know something, ask students if they could select the eye color…
Mr. HUDLIN: Exactly.
Prof. IRVIN: …or if they could select the hair color…
Mr. HUDLIN: Exactly. It’ll be…
Prof. IRVIN: …or their skin tone. You…
Mr. HUDLIN: …the end of brown eyes.
Prof. IRVIN: Yes, sir. You’d be amazed…
GORDON: But isn’t that the danger of this, to some degree, ER, in that we could clone or assembly line a bunch of Denzel Washingtons or Halle Berrys and then have…
Ms. SHIPP: Or Michael Jacksons.
Prof. IRVIN: Or Michael Jackson. Oh, Lord.
Ms. SHIPP: But I think that’s my point, actually. OK, so people probably are going to prefer boys maybe…
GORDON: Well…
Ms. SHIPP: …because maybe men make more money during their lifetime, or they’d prefer pale-skinned boys or whatever. I just don’t like where this is going. Now I agree with you, that if there’s a way to do screening for health-care matters, that makes a lot of sense. But to pick the gender and the hair and the eye color and all of that is scary.
Prof. IRVIN: Well, but there is a difference between selecting the enhancement characteristics as opposed to just the sex. You know, part of selecting a male or a female…
GORDON: But isn’t part of the problem that where do you draw the line?
Prof. IRVIN: Well, yes.
GORDON: Who’s going to legislate that?
Prof. IRVIN: Well, right now, there is no legislation governing…
Ms. SHIPP: Well, Congress is ready to legislate all kinds of things about life now, so maybe this is time for Congress to get involved.
Prof. IRVIN: Yeah. I’m afraid they won’t be able to do anything about this.
GORDON: All right. Well, again, we shall see as this unfolds and people start to pick their babies like they pick milk at the grocery store.
Ms. SHIPP: Or their kittens.
GORDON: Or their kittens, in your case, ER. US blacks need earlier cancer screen–that from the American College of Gastroenterology. But let’s suggest this as the point: This is just another sign for African-Americans that we are not taking care of ourselves and doing preventative measures in dealing with issues and diseases that afflict our community disproportionately. One of the things that I’m curious about is how often–what has to be the bell that’s rung that the community finally gets it?
Ms. SHIPP: You know…
Prof. IRVIN: Well, Ed, I think you just hit the bell right on the head. My wife and I just celebrated the 11th anniversary of the death of her father, who died from colon cancer. I have a good close friend who’s struggling with colon cancer right now. I just asked a friend before coming on the air had he gotten his colonoscopy. I think it’s going to take word of mouth. I think the mathematics of the realities of us, of people taking care of themselves, one, has to happen, and it’s starting to happen. In other words, the reality, the mathematics, you know, the fact that we have so much in common that it becomes a part of our daily conversations, that we have to watch what we eat, we have to do better in terms of exercises. And in order for us to close this disparity gap, largely the burden rests on education, and people taking care of themselves and urging their family members to take care of themselves.
Mr. HUDLIN: Well, I…
Prof. IRVIN: I think it just–that’s where it is.
Mr. HUDLIN: Yeah. I tell you, I just had a friend of mine, Robert Preston, who just beat cancer, and I think that’s the story that’s the most important one. Everyone knows that black folk get cancer and, you know, black folk has a whole host of health problems. I think there’s a failed acceptance of the inevitability of, you know, dying and dying badly. But the idea that, you know what, you can win, you can beat cancer, if you’re willing to take the bold steps, you know, radically change your diet, radically change your lifestyle, you can live. That’s …(unintelligible).
Ms. SHIPP: I agree with both of you. I agree with both of you, but I think of whenever I go for a physical and the doctor asks you to fill in all kinds of stuff about what your family history of health problems have been, and I just look at them and say, `I’m from poor black people in the South, so you just check it off. They’ve all had it.’ And that’s sometimes our attitude.
But what I wanted to say, though, is that I agree that we have to take more proactive measures, but I’m encouraged now by seeing churches forming health ministries. And so at my church, Abyssinian Baptist in Harlem, there are people who are talking health all the time. They’re teaching how to eat properly. They’re having yoga classes and exercise classes. Because black Americans are likely to find more of their information in a church environment, this is a good thing.
GORDON: All right. Let me move on to our last subject. And, ER, this is from the place you receive that check from, the New York Daily News…
Ms. SHIPP: But not that check.
GORDON: Not that check, right, and that was the problem. New York Daily News, the daily newspaper here in the metropolis of New York, has a scratch and match game, and it’s played on Saturdays. Well, this time, they gave out the numbers, thousands of people lined up thinking they had won, literally thousands. What it was was a misprint in the newspaper. One of the numbers should have been 12. It was 13, and I’m telling you, the folks were upset and wanted their money…
Ms. SHIPP: That is putting it mildly.
GORDON: …and demanded their money. How much do you buy, Reggie Hudlin, that these folks had a legitimate want? Some people already–this is how funny it became–had already spent the money, literally. How much do you believe…
Prof. IRVIN: Down payments on cars and houses.
GORDON: Yeah, truly. How much do you believe they had a legitimate claim?
Mr. HUDLIN: Well, you know, if they spent the money, then they’ve bought a very important lesson, which is don’t spend what you don’t have. Do they have a legitimate claim? Gosh, that’s an interesting lawsuit. I guess they have very little to lose, and I’m sure there’s plenty of folks who advertise their legal services on TV who are glad to take that case.
Ms. SHIPP: But there’s the fine print that said something about, `In case of a mistake, you can’t hold them accountable.’ But…
GORDON: And we should note…
Ms. SHIPP: …the Daily News…
GORDON: That’s right.
Ms. SHIPP: …the Daily News has come up with a million dollars for a special drawing…
GORDON: There’ll be a lottery…
Ms. SHIPP: Yeah.
GORDON: …of people who had those winning numbers.
Ms. SHIPP: And we’re going to find that more thousands are going to claim they had the winning numbers than probably actually did.
GORDON: Now we did a story a few weeks ago, though, not quite as funny that talked about the disproportionate amount of minorities in this country who utilized the lottery as a savings plan, as a retirement plan and the like, and I think this is just another one of those signals that shows that, indeed, many people do see this as their way out of a hole or a way to get a quick fix.
Mr. HUDLIN: Well, I think that they…
Prof. IRVIN: I just think it’s the craziest thing in the world. You know, I’m the son of a Baptist preacher, a deacon in the Baptist church, and, you know, we don’t have gambling in North Carolina, so, you know, I just don’t know what’s going on in North Carolina.
GORDON: You don’t have legal gambling…
Ms. SHIPP: I was going to say, hold on.
GORDON: …in North Carolina.
Ms. SHIPP: You got basketball in North Carolina?
GORDON: There’s a lot of gambling going on this week.
Prof. IRVIN: Hey, my parents said, `Don’t gamble, don’t gamble, don’t gamble’ and I’m telling you what, this is just another good example of why lotteries are a bad idea, if you ask me.
Mr. HUDLIN: Yeah, I think it’s a part of the–as they call–as George Clinton says, the pimping of the pleasure principle. At the end of the day, lottery is a stupid people tax, because if you…
Prof. IRVIN: It’s a bad idea.
Mr. HUDLIN: …if you have any sense of what the odds are that you’re going to win, you’re much better off–I don’t know–burning that money for heat.
Ms. SHIPP: Well–but to bring this back to the newspaper. People didn’t really have to spend any money…
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Ms. SHIPP: …to get the scratch-off ticket.
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Ms. SHIPP: And it’s part of the whole newspaper wars that we’re experiencing here in New York.
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Ms. SHIPP: Most places don’t have but one paper. We have several. That’s a burden and a blessing sometimes.
GORDON: Yeah. This was not the official state lottery, so to speak…
Prof. IRVIN: Right, right, right.
GORDON: …but one would guess that many of those people who were standing in line demanding their money from the New York Daily News also spent some money…
Prof. IRVIN: For sure.
GORDON: …on the state lottery. Nat Irvin, Wake Forest University professor and columnist for the Winston-Salem Journal; ER Shipp, Pulitzer Prize winner and columnist at the New York Daily News; and Reginald Hudlin, director and screenwriter. Thank you all for joining us. Appreciate it.
Ms. SHIPP: Thank you.
Mr. HUDLIN: Thank you.
Prof. IRVIN: Thank you.
GORDON: Coming up, facing up to depression in the black community.
You’re listening to NEWS & NOTES from NPR News.
ED GORDON
