Breakfast Club interview: https://youtu.be/gEsMFlh1MLk

It's over an hour long, clips have been released but it really needs to be watched in it's entirety to hear his full story and see the holes in it

Poll result (7 votes) genius (5 votes) Vote snake oil salesman (2 votes) Vote I'm white (0 votes) Vote

Maybe a little smarter.

Making big money through low quality output.

----------------------------------
I have a webcomic: www.watchthecomic.com

My webcomic has a page: www.facebook.com/watchyourheadcomic

control content that would shape his black(biracial) children the when asked about the black shows produced by his networks all he could come up with was Meet the Blacks which was pretty funny but not exactly a piece to shape the black community.

Then at the end when asked what he and his companies specifically were doing for the black community he said “hey I’m here talking to you!” then started preaching lol

by the Supreme Court because Comcast and 45s DOJ want to make an example of him is a far scarier takeaway from that interview. It's excellent and should be required watching for any minority in the US right now. And watch/listen all the way through bc he doesn't get to the case until towards the end.

I can't believe more people aren't talking about the case tbh... doesn't it have implications for not only racial discrimination claims, but even reparations??

Like, it's crazy that there's SO MUCH OTHER fuckshit going on that a repeal of literally the first civil rights statute enacted to protect black people in America doesn't even make news. 45 literally trying to pick up where Andrew Johnson left off in 2019.

A summary of the reconstruction-era law that's at stake:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

SCOTUS hearing is Nov. 13

to support this man:

https://thegrio.com/2019/10/30/which-members-of-the-cbc-have-spoken-up-about-the-attack-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1866/


Like damn. The CBC can't even summon enough party discipline to stand up against a clear attempt to roll back the law underpinning the 13th Amendment? If not them, then who??

Shameful.

peace

J305
___________________

People of color are NOT a minority. Think Global.

Don't Let Hollywood fool you.

http://www.twitter.com/Jtronic
http://www.last.fm/user/Jtronic

he flip-flopped on Obama a couple of times in this interview he’s a salesman and an opportunist

interview re: campaign donations and other unsavoury tactics to quell their advocacy

But it's still very disappointing. Like if the SCOTUS rules to roll back this statute's protections, the CBC is gonna look mad weak in the history books.

If the caucus can't even voltron against an attempt to defang the 13th amendment, what are they doing? Like if there's any fight they should be united on, it's something like this.

Starting to look like a damn coffee club up in there.

piece of paper

about Byron Allen, but come on lol an amicus brief serves a bit more purpose than as "a piece of paper" in legal proceedings.

I mean, one could argue what good congressional advocacy would even do given what the right wing has done to the judiciary, incl. the Supreme Court. But for the vast majority of the caucus to be silent on this? Wack.

You don't find it even a little bothersome that the current admin's DOJ filed an amicus brief in "support" of undermining this statute?? Comcast's literally giving them some of its time that day to argue with in front of the Court. Admin's super pressed to insert themselves in this case and it's slightly fucked up.

which isnt true (gw bush did).

its like when people say obama withdrew the troops from iraq too early (when gw bush signed the status of forces agreement before obama was inaugurated).

his 'access to capital' demand sounds like some abstract ballroom seminar talk to persuade casuals. obama had some pretty wide ranging policies that directly addressed racial disparities (particularly black) in banking, auto loans, education, etc.

multiple grains of salt

warrants a "both sides" take at this point. The statute at stake underpins the 13th amendment. Supreme Court is a big deal. The case is real. The statute is real. And it'll be on record which members of congress did or did not speak out about this clear attack on a fundamental civil rights statute that a Congress over 100 years ago passed to advance reconstruction.

I don't think a complicated opinion on Obama matters a whole lot in this context (besides, Byron can join the club. a lot of people have lobbed criticisms since Ob's sheen wore off).

And I would argue "Thank God" Byron owns The Grio; at least there's one platform regularly reporting about the case lol. Most of the only articles you can find talking about it are Grio articles, very little MSM. Which is disappointing (although perhaps not surprising) given the serious implications of the Supreme Court's ruling.

It's almost as though Byron's case is being used to levy a quiet but highly coordinated effort (by the private sector and gov) to dismantle statutory support for claims of discrimination or reparations... hmmm I wonder why...

https://twitter.com/HuffPost/status/1141378858731487232

It will set a precedence to make it easier to discriminate...

>I don't think a complicated opinion on Obama matters a whole
>lot in this context (besides, Byron can join the club. a lot
>of people have lobbed criticisms since Ob's sheen wore off).

he tries to play the “Obama legalized gay marriage but didn’t do shit for black folks” angle, for one the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and then towards the end talks about he we need to “partner” with our gay brothers and sisters after trying to separate the agendas for most of his interview.

>And I would argue "Thank God" Byron owns The Grio; at least
>there's one platform regularly reporting about the case lol.
>Most of the only articles you can find talking about it are
>Grio articles, very little MSM. Which is disappointing
>(although perhaps not surprising) given the serious
>implications of the Supreme Court's ruling.
>
>It's almost as though Byron's case is being used to levy a
>quiet but highly coordinated effort (by the private sector and
>gov) to dismantle statutory support for claims of
>discrimination or reparations... hmmm I wonder why...
>

and when he does lose he’s going to go back home to his blonde haired blue eyed wife and continue to make trash tv and not giving a rats ass about black people.

Allen is an afterthought.
But since Black politics post clinton is such a massive fucking collection of failure
Indie Black Media been on this story for a couple of years now

He's gonna be printing money

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

The movie opened in 2,844 theaters, Early estimates show Arctic Dogs only made $3.1 million.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

He mentions the cable companies originally wanted to settle this issue AFTER he gave up his suit, which would put him in a weak position in negotiations.

I think him going public now is trying to shame them into talking numbers NOW.

I think his rhetoric is generally positive and uplifting but the fact he usually moves rather quietly made me take a step back and wonder why he's going public NOW?

The only thing I can think of is that he wants to tie this albatross around the cable company's necks. It's not like public opinion will sway the Surpreme Court... or black public opinion will sway this administration.

No, he's got to threaten their dollars by making it look like they're trying to take racial progress back 200 years.

Again, I really don't have a problem with the ideas he mentioned on that interview but he is being a little indirect about his ultimate goals. He wants that check.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

in negotiations. The only downside I see is if it reaches the Supreme Court and they end up striking down the Civil Rights Act or other civil rights in this case that, from what I have read, seems weak.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

of just going to him to settle the $20B he originally sued for, or whatever they could negotiate...

Not to mention then partnering with the DOJ on it. Seems like "they" are the ones trying to manipulate the situation against him. The DOJ getting involved is a whole other layer of shadiness, no?

I don’t see much value in appealing to the public right now unless he’s trying to use it as leverage to get them to drop their case and just cut him a check.

On the other hand, It’s really late in the game to be doing this so maybe it’s just a way for him to steer the narrative a little bit before the oral arguments.

This all certainly isn’t altruistic. He made it clear he was insulted they didn’t try to settle with him the normal way so he’d go back to building his empire privately if they cut him a big enough check.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

of overturning the precedent (supreme court picked it up from appeals court for a reason). and thats exactly with the doj signed on to it.

anyone keeping track of the john roberts court for the last few years (and the barr doj) knows the program by now.

I agree they want to address that precedent but I’ll admit that I’m not the most sophisticated Supreme Court follower but the Court consistently surprises me with its decisions.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://www.Tupreme.com

money mangers to manage a percentage of the federal employee pension fund, back when he was just a Senator.
& the catalyst for the Comcast lawsuit is not based on the slights against him and his companies, but specifically what they did to Curtis Symonds during his initiation of that HBCU sports Network.

and hes also teamed up with sinclair recently on their regional sports deal.

hes a black capitalist and views black 'freedom' largely through that lens (wealth, buying/spending power, market/capital access, etc).

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He's seemingly anti-labor, as far as creative productions.
Or at least values the quantity over quality.
He explained that he finds there to be enormous waste among production crews, 'who all just want to work 2 hours and be paid for 12'and has changed his production model into one that more resembles a GM factory line, so that if he sends a crew out to shoot a formula series race on location in Monaco, he'll also have them use the time there to also shoot content for his other channels, like the chefs and restaurants for a cooking channel, homes and resorts for a luxury lifestyle channel and pets for a pet channel.
He has one of the most expansive libraries of original television content, but has won only one a single Emmy.

I'd never want to work for him, but I do like what he has to say about solutions to combat the racial wealth gap.

>hes a black capitalist and views black 'freedom' largely
>through that lens (wealth, buying/spending power,
>market/capital access, etc).
>


I fucks with him now.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://www.Tupreme.com

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He's doing what the cable companies are doing, fighting with the tools available.

---------------------------
Signature

What’s at Stake in Byron Allen’s Supreme Court Showdown with Comcast
By Maurita Coley

First Published in Morning Consult on November 13, 2019

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a suit between Comcast and Byron Allen, a prominent African American programming executive. What began as a fairly routine television carriage dispute has turned into risky gambit that may give the Court’s conservative majority an opportunity to roll back fundamental civil rights protections.

The lawsuit arose out of Comcast’s decision several years ago not to carry several Allen-owned television channels, such as Pets.TV and Recipe.TV. Comcast has argued its rejection of Allen’s channels was purely a business decision, reflecting what it viewed as the channels’ limited audience appeal. Allen then promptly filed a $20 billion lawsuit against Comcast, alleging that the company’s refusal to contract with Allen’s company was racially motivated, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

District Court Judge Terry Hatter – a well-respected African American judge with a strong record on civil rights – dismissed the case three times, finding that Allen had not established a plausible argument that Comcast would have contracted with his company “but for” Allen’s race.

Allen appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which remanded Judge Hatter’s dismissal with a new guideline to the lower court that a plaintiff can state a viable claim under Section 1981 if discriminatory intent plays any role in a defendant’s decision not to contract, regardless of whether race discrimination was a “but for” cause of that decision. Comcast petitioned the Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s decision, and the Supreme Court agreed; oral argument is scheduled for November 13, 2019.

Carriage disputes between cable operators like Comcast, and programming content providers like Byron Allen, are exceedingly common. In my more than 30 years in the industry, I’ve represented both sides – networks seeking distribution and distributors seeking content – and in the early days of cable, I even represented minority - owned distributors such as Barden Cablevision of Detroit, and minority - owned programmers such as Black Entertainment Television.

In my experience, this Comcast - Allen case doesn’t fit the usual framework for a race discrimination case. As best I can surmise, Allen’s channels are not ethnically or culturally diverse; instead, he chose to press his case on racial grounds by asserting that Comcast was already carrying white-owned
food and pet channels but chose not to carry his particular food and pet channels. His suit rejects Comcast’s defense that it prefers the other channels because of better ratings, higher - quality programming, or other business considerations; rather, Allen alleges that Comcast’s decision was racially motivated.

This case, which started as a private contract dispute, now puts at risk the civil rights enjoyed by all Americans, because a conservative Supreme Court majority hostile to civil rights has a chance to fundamentally re-examine Section 1981. The Court will get to decide – not just for this case, but in a precedent that will impact all future discrimination cases – whether
a plaintiff must prove that intentional race discrimination was the decisive factor in a decision (the “but for” standard of proof), or whether race just needs to be one factor in the decision (the 9th Circuit’s “mixed motive” standard, which civil rights leaders strongly support).

If the Supreme Court gets to decide this case, it seems very likely that – at a minimum – the court will choose the “but for” standard that is currently used in most jurisdictions outside the 9th Circuit. That would be a major setback to the civil rights community’s advocacy for establishing nationwide the 9th Circuit’s broader “motivating factor” standard. It’s even conceivable that this conservative Supreme Court could go even farther, exploiting the facts of Mr. Allen’s private contract claim to justify an even more regressive outcome by applying the “but for” standard in EEO retaliation, fair housing, voting rights, or other claims.

Civil rights groups such as NAACP have jumped into this case, filing amicus briefs that seek to convince the court not to embrace the “but for” standard. What I suggest now is that the civil rights groups try to persuade both parties to help get us out of this precarious place in history. To do that, it’s essential that Allen withdraw his $20 billion lawsuit, and that Comcast withdraw its petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, preferably before the November 13, 2019 oral argument.

Given Allen’s success as an African American businessman, these channels cannot be so important to him that it’s worth placing all of our civil rights at risk. Likewise, Comcast, which ranks #2 on Fortune’s Global 500 for workplace diversity and has one of the strongest records of programming diversity in the industry, should demonstrate those values by
withdrawing its petition for Supreme Court review if Allen also agrees to step back from the ledge.

Both parties should close their eyes, take a leap -- and hold their noses if they must -- but do their part to take this case off the docket of a deeply conservative court. Otherwise we might all find ourselves facing an uncertain future, stripped of key civil rights protections.

No contract or channel is worth the risk.
America has imported more warlord theocracy from Afghanistan than it has exported democracy.

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/byron-allen-comcast-deal-lawsuit-racial-discrimination-1234631400/

Byron Allen and Comcast have settled the long-running racial discrimination lawsuit over Allen’s cable channels that went all the way to the Supreme Court last November.

Comcast has reached a deal with Allen’s Entertainment Studios to pick up three of his cable channels — Comedy.TV, Recipe.TV and JusticeCentral.TV. The pact also amend the terms of Comcast’s existing deal to carry Weather Channel, which Allen’s company acquired in 2018. It also covers the retransmission consent rights to 14 local TV stations that Allen Media Group has acquired during the past few months.

Allen filed a $20 billion lawsuit against the media giant in 2015, asserting that the media giant violated civil rights law by refusing to carry his portfolio of seven niche cable channels. Comcast vehemently denied that race played any role in its decision.

“We’re excited to begin a new phase of partnership with Comcast and Xfinity, including the distribution of our cable channels for the first time on Xfinity platforms,” said Byron Allen, founder, chairman and CEO of Entertainment Studios/Allen Media Group.

Allen declined to elaborate on the matter. It’s likely that the settlement included a confidentiality agreement.

“We are pleased to have reached this multifaceted agreement that continues our long relationship with The Weather Channel while bringing Xfinity customers additional content. We look forward to an ongoing partnership,” said Bec Heap, senior VP of video and entertainment for Comcast Cable.

The carriage pact also calls for Comcast to launch the free Weather Channel app Local Now on its Xfinity and Flex platforms and the WeLoveWeather.TV website on an authenticated basis. Comcast will also have VOD rights to the three new channels.

Allen’s suit maintained that Comcast had violated a federal civil rights law from 1866 designed to ensure that Black people had the same right to make and enforce contracts as white people. The suit asserted that because race was involved in Comcast’s decision making, the cable giant had violated the law known as Section 1981.

Last November, attorneys for Allen and Comcast squared off in the nation’s high court to argue over a narrow issue in the case involving the whether race was the sole factor in Comcast’s rejection of Allen or whether it was a “motivating factor.” Allen’s team argued for the “motivating factor” standard. The significance applied to the burden of proof in the case, which would have been lighter on Allen’s team had the justices agreed that the probing the “motivating factor” standard was right test for the case.

In March, the court ruled 9-0 in favor of Comcast’s argument on the interpretation question and sent the lawsuit back to a lower court to be refiled. It’s understood that settlement discussions between Comcast and Allen had picked up steam even before the Supreme Court decision was issued.

Allen also has a $10 billion lawsuit pending against cable giant Charter Communications. The litigation against a prominent Black media entrepreneur has become a PR nightmare for Comcast and Charter, particularly at a time of heightened sensitivity to racial justice concerns.

Allen previously settled litigation against DirecTV that also led to the Entertainment Studios’ channels being picked up by the satcaster.

he got wiped in court on the decision, but still managed to cut a deal, still had enough money before this to make a deal to buy the weather channel.

then just as the contract with comcast is announced, he lays off a bunch of people at the weather channel.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

...without being bothered by Blackness

I have a 400 year old chip on my shoulder.

that opened doors for Oprah.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com