>when you say "job" are you
>implying that you're an employee/contractor/benefiter
>of BET?

I did not say that.

>This is a very big leap.
>I said nothing of the
>sort. I said that if
>NBC can find a way
>to bend/bypass FCC regulations then
>so can BET. Period. i
>didn't say it would be
>easy or cheap. I simply
>said they could do it
>if they wanted too. All
>that putting words in my
>keyboard. K you know better.

NBC didnt "bend" any rules they made a request of the FCC that found substative merit in the entirety of Schindler's list. In sharp contrast Schindler's list does not contain profanity, depiction of driug sales, violence, prison situations. Furthermore BET is not network - totally different rules. If you arent talkin about the finances of it then you're comparing yankees to the lakers- nbc and bet arent in the same ballpark.

>>two totally different entities.

>if you say so. i disagree.
>all the money goes into
>one pocket. it's a privately
>held company so again he
>can do whatever he pleases.

Thats not how companies work in general- and ill tell you from first hand experience that thats not how BET works. Think about it- as they are separate companies they dont all go to Bob Johnson for approval. If I head BET.com and you head BET network Id throw a fit if Bob gave you 2 million to show slam while my company is struggling. He can do whatever he pleases- sure - but this would be a bad move for many reasons.

>Yeah I did. You just ignored
>it. Again I say, if
>BET wanted to show WHATEVER
>they had the rights to,
>they would find a way
>to do it. Disagree (which
>I'm sure you will)? Unless
>you show me why not
>then I won't change my
>opinion.

But Ive already demonstrated that BET doesnt have the rights to it- nor would it comply readily to FCC regulations. So there it is- BET couldnt show this film even IF they wanted to- they cant afford it.

>You're missing my point about "the
>Corner". BET could have done
>a program of this quality,
>if they chose to. Could
>they cut out the injection
>scenes and some of the
>cursing? If they wanted too.
>Hill Street Blues was gritty
>and very real and they
>never said cursewords. Roots was
>powerful without cursewords. It's all
>in the presentation.

Thats all network- you're back in forth but you cant drag television media over those lines so easily. They are different beasts. Network for a long time served as people's only television media so as such it had to allow certain blue material (like david carusso's ass). Basic cable emerged as an opportunity for family values to have media that would not engage in such material unless the subscriber made a specific request to have that material in their home. Case in point- you have yet to see a bared ass on basic cable.

BET could not do a program of this quality- they would need a healthy budget and they would need sponsorship- they would get neither.

>
>Did you see the part about
>2 BILLION? Tell me again
>how they ain't be gotten
>no money?

You just said it yourself- 2 billion split between 14 companies- how much is left? Slam would warrant at least a million dollar liscensing fee- not to mention what it would cost if you wanted to show it more than once. Now figure in how much money theyd make for this film- where is the corporate sponsorship? Coke aint gonna do it- the only people whod be down is the record industry and their not gonna pay much cuz there's no competitive pricing (no other sponsors). So now youve got a highly priced- undersponsored event that takes up 2 hours of BET time; time that could be spent on less expensive programming with more financial support.

This is not a good idea no mater how you slice- BET would get more out of it by giving me the million.

They have enough
>money to get a place,
>hire all the performers/set designers/makup/camera
>folk/etc for their 20th anniversary
>special (I hope you saw
>it) but they can't find
>the time nor money to
>get the rights to show
>say "Roots"? Get outta here
>K.

In the first instance- thats all in house expense- whatever they spend their company gets at least half back- they can write another quarter of it off. If you purchase the rights for roots all that money leaves the company and you sacrifice at least a week to broadcast (as opposed to one night)- whoever doesnt like roots is alienated and so are the sponsors. Furthermore for all the money you just paid- a broadcast this magnitude can only be shown once, the 20th anniversary special can be repeated til people get sick of it- all profit from that point on. Now let's tally that up...

Roots- hefty liscencing fee, sacrifice an entire week of primetime programming, mitigates discount sponsorship (Coke aint payin a premium for ads that will run across an entire week- they'll typically even the run out with one of those- Coke loves Black people promos), You can only show it once.

20th anniversary special- production is covered by ticket sales and sponsorship before the program even airs, sacrifice only 1 night of primetime programming and any desirable block subsequently, mitigates sponsorship according to viewership- supposedly high due to the various celebrities and perforances (sponsors love celebrities- sponsors do not love slaves), You can show this as many times as you want...and if people like it- you get all the credit and can do the same thing next year.

now which is a more reasonable business decision? The answer is obvious but if you still dont believe- imagine the programming director of BET network calling Bob Johnson to make such a request. Bob Johnson also owns the company that has the rights to movies like Roots and has a business of selling those films to people on a pay per view basis.

Bob: So you're asking me to give you a million to liscense a movie that we have the ability to show and be paid for by subscribers - for the chance for BET to show it on basic cable for free and at a heavy cost to us...let me think.

>As for the rest of your
>post, I with some of
>it (can you tell I
>don't feel like pickin those
>parts out). But regardless, for
>some reason your arguements seem
>to be slipping of late.
>You OK buddy? Seriously. You're
>the resident eloquator, I'd hate
>for folk to not recognize
>the power of the mighty
>K. I think the Lesson
>may have softened you up
>a bit. :-)


The only weakness in my argument is that you continue to fail to see the facts of the matter youve raised. You percieve BET holdings as this monolith of financial power and thats just not how it is in the real world. Just because its privately owned doesnt mean everybody has rights or access to the primary funds. What holding company allows all its entities to draw from one pocket? Thats foolish. My argument lags because Ive got nothing substantial to argue- you're just wrong.

K