Laurence Fishburne On 'CSI' Ain't No Small Thing

Laurence Fishburne will star on CSI this fall. Is CBS taking bets on November?

Mark Mainz/Getty Images for CineVegas

This week it was announced that actor Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus of the Matrix films) will be joining the cast of the long-running CBS franchise pillar CSI.

Actors rotating in and out of series aren't exactly a big deal. NBC's Law & Order(s) have made bank on that.

However, a black actor taking the titular lead of a hit drama? That is a big deal.

There was a time when blacks were making serious strides in broadcast television. Led by the uber-hit The Cosby Show and the just regular hit Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, there was a wave of black — or in the vernacular of Hollywood exec speak, "urban" — programing on the air. The Martin Show, the Jamie Foxx show, Living Single, The Wayans Brothers, Hanging with Mr. Cooper... Some of these shows were good, some were typical television, but they facilitated a lot of work for blacks in front of as well as behind the camera. A lot of us in Hollywood thought it was the beginning of a real racial breakthrough.

We were wrong.

A couple of things happened.

As a format, sitcoms after Seinfeld and Friends began to fail. That meant fewer of them made it onto the networks' schedules. And black sitcoms tended to be relegated to the Weblets — Fox, UPN and the WB. Fox moved away from urban programming; UPN and the WB merged into the CW, which — like Fox — pretty much abandoned urban programs.

As an aside, the idea that black programming had to play to an urban audience exclusively or even primarily was faulty logic to begin with.

Regardless...

When sitcoms faded, drama took over as the scripted fare the networks leaned on. Dramas have always been the restricted country clubs of broadcast TV. The last time there was a "black" drama on TV it was City of Angels, which aired briefly back in 2000. Beyond that, sure, you'll see blacks sprinkled in with a supporting cast — you might even get Dennis Haysbert (24) as president, which ain't a bad thing — but you won't regularly see blacks or other minorities as leads in straight dramas. And before you get your little blog-back fingers typing, Ugly Betty — terrific show that it is — is a dramedy, not a drama. It don't count.

But CSI is a drama, and it's got a new lead investigator in Fishburne. Better than that, it's not even a black or "urban" show. It's a show that will feature a qualified man in the lead who happens to be black.

Is CBS taking bets on November?

And is Hollywood actually setting down its collective morning mimosas and taking a look at the demographics of the rest of the country? Well, I hardly think one casting move is the beginning of more color to go with our HDTVs. But every little bit makes for great viewing pleasure.

Good luck to you, Mr. Fishburne. Good luck to all of us.

5:06 PM ET | 08-19-2008 | permalink | comments (6) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Black Is The New Black

It started about two years ago at the corner of Progress and Peril. Not an actual intersection, but instead the first in a series of in depth articles by The Washington Post on "being a black man." The series published long enough ago that Barack Obama was still merely "the American Idol of national politics," rather than the international superstar he is today.

I remember thinking at the time: Wow, are we really still that alien to the "mainstream" a series like this is needed? I mean, look, when I go to business meetings I'm still told way too often by some receptionist "the mail room is downstairs" to believe that racial perceptions don't still exist. But I figure there are always going to be knuckleheads no matter how many of their herd get stuck in the tar pits of progress. At the same time, I can't help but think that the very idea of figuring out what it means to be black is bigoted since there is no single standard of blackness.

But whether or not a series like the Post's was actually required, it was turned out to be the first in a flood of "in depth" coverage of that odd animal known as black people.

CNN recently ran its Black In America specials to gangbuster ratings. And the program wasn't without its "smack in the head" revelations: Having the fact that you're black on a job application weights similarly to having a conviction.

This weekend, the The New York Times Magazine runs a piece on generational black politics. It may well have been in the works before the Jackson/Obama tiff, but that exchange only makes the piece more potent.

Obviously much of this focus on blackness is in response to Obama's historic run for the White House. Ironic, since Obama is biracial.

Ironic, too, since blacks are no longer the largest minority in America, having been supplanted by Hispanics.

The attention is also ironic since most of these liberal institutions which are working so hard to understand people of color have been pretty God-awful when it comes to self-integrating. Maybe if they did a better job of seeking out blacks, they wouldn't be so curious as to what blackness is.

But no matter. For the minute -- in the chattering classes at least -- it's hip to be black. I guess we should just enjoy it until the fall brings some new fashions.

6:44 PM ET | 08- 8-2008 | permalink | comments (17) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

The New Invisible Man?

In the category of Things We Already Know, a new USA Today/Gallup Poll finds that most Americans believe "racism is widespread against blacks in the United States." As is to be expected, the degree that people hold this belief is dependent on their own race -- black, white or Hispanic. The survey in and of itself is worth taking a look at but, like I said, doesn't exactly stun with unexpectedness.

Except for one thing...

What was interesting to me was that a survey about how "most Americans" feel about racism and minorities didn't include responses from Asian-Americans.

They're not minorities? They don't have views on racism?

Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders make up only about 5 percent of the population, so by default maybe they lie outside the strict definition of "most Americans." But the poll was culling a variety of racial attitudes, and it managed to include views of racism against whites. You'd think if the survey had room to include views on the pervasive systemic oppression whites suffer through (now go back and read that sentence sarcastically), they'd take the time to chat up an Asian or two.

But why didn't they? And why don't we hear more about and from Asians when it comes to race in America? Are Asians the new Invisible Man -- there but not there? In some ways, yeah. Blacks and whites are always carping about the metrics of racism. And any conversation about immigration reform is immediately flipped into a referendum on Hispanics.

But Asians rarely seem to weigh in on, or have their rallying cause, with regard to race in America.

I haven't had the time to do a full scientific study, but the couple of Asian-Americans I talked with -- I know how that sounds, but, hey, that's a couple more than USA Today/Gallup bothered to talk with -- said that mostly they don't care to talk about race. Instead, they tend to have a "go along to get along" attitude.

This propensity to be cool is often misconstrued as the "Asian as the model minority" stereotype. And it is, in fact, just that -- a stereotype. That's not to imply that Asians are somehow bad folks, but that -- just as is every other minority -- they are regular folks. But we can't know that if every time opinions are sought out, they are passed over.

Clearly, not all Asians are comfortable just "being cool" about issues. And Asian-centric political action may be a more recognizable movement in coming elections.

Their opinions getting left out of one of any number of surveys on race may seem like a small thing. Maybe it is. But I think if we're really going to have an Obamaian dialogue on race in America, then we've got to have the widest dialogue possible and not just hear from the traditional "big three."

Now, that would be a poll that might fall outside of the Things We Already Know category.

5:13 PM ET | 08- 5-2008 | permalink | comments (8) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Damn That Obama For Being So Cool!

Oh, for the halcyon, eschaton-invoking days of the "Daisy Girl" ad. Give me, please, the salacious insidiousness of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Give me any of that over John McCain's low: the Britney/Paris/Obama ad. And I don't mean low as in low-class, cheap shot and underhanded. I mean low as in: "I pay you guys all that money, and this is the best you can come up with?"

The best political ads have always had text and subtext; the obvious and the arcane. The obvious text of B/P/O is: Would you all stop loving this guy so much, please?! The whole ad seems like an open admission by Camp McCain that, yes, Barack Obama is young and hip and cool, and our guy has trouble ripping songs onto his iPod unless his grandkids are around to help him.

But the subtext is where the ad doesn't even get going. Contrast it with the infamous Willie Horton ads. The subtext there was: Watch out! Mike Dukakis is gonna let dark-skinned people break into your houses and deflower your ivory wives and daughters.

But the most fear the B/P/O ad can monger is: Watch out! These guys are going to get all the good tables at Le Bernardin, and you know I got knocked down five spots on the list to get my new Ferrari California because of one of them.

The ad openly admits what we already know: that Obama is a superstar. And no matter what other racial difficulties America may have, it's got no problem with its superstars of color: Tiger or Denzel or Will Smith or Michael Jordan, for whom the phrase "I want to have his baby" was created. It's like a teenage girl Camp McCain has basically taped a Tiger Beat poster of Obama to the wall of America's bedroom so that we may now all sit, stare and coo, "Isn't he dreamy?"

But this lameness is not limited to McCain. To this day, the only argument against Obama that critics can seem to come up with involves admitting he's better than them -- though they certainly season it with some racism. You know, he's that lucky black man who actually appeals to the populace. He's that elitist who got himself off food stamps and into Harvard. He's the arrogant guy who would hang out at country clubs ... if he wasn't so busy playing pickup games of basketball.

McCain's ad comes off as if he were saying, "He's like a wealthy heiress, and I know 'cause I got me one!"

While some take offense to the ad, not me, baby. Oh, happy day when the enemies of ascendancy have got to confess that people of color rock. The only thing that's going to make me happier is when Camp McCain runs the Bea Arthur/Jack Klugman ad announcing that uncool is the new cool.

4:45 PM ET | 08- 1-2008 | permalink | comments (26) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

White And White And Read All Over

Mark Whitaker will replace the late Tim Russert as Washington bureau chief for NBC News.

Courtesy NBC Universal

What an odd, (slightly) happy confluence of events. On Monday, an Arizona State University study was released that found only "about 13 percent of the Washington daily newspaper press corps are journalists of color."

That means the majority of what you read coming out of Washington is filtered through the perceptions of white males. In these days when no one really believes that news organizations are truly "fair and balanced" with regard to their political bias, why should we believe that they are any more fair and balanced with regard to their perspective when journalists of color are essentially segregated out of the newsroom? If you don't believe me, take a look at a Web site devoted to news of minority interest. How many of these stories were given prominence in your paper?

Bias. And believe it; bias is at play every time someone decides what goes above the fold, or below it. What goes on Page One and what gets play after the jump. I have written elsewhere on the long, ugly history of segregation in the supposedly liberal newsrooms.

I can tell you from personal experience it gets a little tiring having to make the rounds on cable shows to explain "what's up with black folks."

On the upside, on the same day the ASU report was released, it was announced that Mark Whitaker would replace the late and, I can say from personal experience, gentlemanly Tim Russert as Washington bureau chief for NBC News. Whitaker, who is biracial, comes to the job with a hot resume.

According to a 2005 article by Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post, "Whitaker joined Newsweek as an intern in 1977 with impeccable credentials. Harvard graduate. Oxford student. Next came the globe-trotting: Stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris. Then he began his climb up the corporate ladder, from business editor to assistant managing editor to managing editor to the top job." After eight years as editor at Newsweek, Whitaker joined NBC News as their No. 2 executive last year.

Hiring one guy, or in this case moving one guy a little further up the ladder, doesn't make for a sea change. But if we've learned anything this past political season, with such a diverse field of individuals running for the highest office in the land, it's a bit sad there isn't a similarly diverse group of journalists who are reporting on them.

1:55 PM ET | 07-31-2008 | permalink | comments (7) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Are Things Going Rotten at Apple?

Thousands of iPhone enthusiasts stood in line for hours to purchase the new Apple iPhone 3G in July. Above, customers wait at an Apple Store in midtown Manhattan.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Got your new Apple 3G iPhone? If you've tried to get one, you've shared the collective pain of a lot of Apple customers. Having been an early adopter of the iPhone v. 1, I wasn't planning on getting a new phone until, in a Freudian slip, I lost my old phone just five days before the iPhone 3G launch.

Five long, lonely days that I had to live without a iPhone and the world learned to try — TRY — and live without me. Surprisingly, we did well apart from one another.

But absence and fondness and all that ...

So then Friday, July 11, arrives. iPhone 3G launch day. Lots of lines and few phones. No phones, really. Remember just a year ago when you could walk into an Apple store, buy a phone, go home and activate it on your own? Apparently that was too easy and non-time-consuming for Apple.

This go 'round Apple's having you do ALL the set-up in store, which means actually getting the phone in your hand takes forever. Forever and a day when you take into account Apple launched millions of phones for tens of thousands of customers to buy at hundreds of stores around the world.

What were the odds that Apple's server would crash harder than (insert coked-up teen pop culture celebrity here)? So, thousands stood in line for hours and got no phone. Or, if they did get a phone, it was temporarily useless. Add to that a buggy iPhone app store that was early on prone to crashing, a buggy MobileMe Exchange-like system that was early on prone to crashing, iPhones sold out everywhere, people still standing in lines going into the third week of the iPhone invasion ... (Personally, I got my phone with no waiting in line thanks to a level of chicanery I have not employed since graduating with honors from NYU.)

You've gotta wonder if Apple is losing some of its user-friendly charm.

Hardly.

When it comes to the full digital media experience, still nobody can compete with Apple. Anybody own a Zune? Any digital stores ready to take a run at the iTunes mountain? And that AppleTV "hobby" is about the best one going since the Sultan of Brunei started collecting Ferraris. Bottom line, it's still real good in MacVille.

Good...

But better if they could get back to the days when their end-to-end experience really worked end-to-end.

2:46 PM ET | 07-25-2008 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Closing The Books On Janet's 'Wardrobe Malfunction'

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, before things went wrong at the Super Bowl, Feb. 1, 2004.

Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images

So, a Philly appeals court has tossed out the $550,000 indecency fine the FCC hit up CBS with after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl.

Good.

I never thought the affair was indecent as much as it was unfortunate.

Unfortunate as in: "Unfortunately I wasn't actually watching when Ms. Jackson flashed her headlights."

Honestly, I never quite understood the outrage. Mostly because there wasn't any actual outrage as much as there was some manufactured outrage from -- according to CBS -- "form letters generated by well-organized single-interest groups."

Seriously, in the middle of a bunch of homo-erotic male on male violence garnished with barely-clad cheerleaders and accessorized with ads to aid both erectile dysfunction and frequent urination, it's hard to get bent out of shape over a little flesh.

And Janet Jackson flesh no less.

JANET JACKSON!

But the way I see it, when a woman -- literally -- takes her sexuality in her hands, men tend to get offended by it. "How dare you exploit yourself! We were gonna do that!"

Personally, I don't care who does the exploiting as long as it gets done.

More importantly, this is a real victory for CBS. Yeah, they broadcast the halftime show, but they can't control what happens and shouldn't be punished when what happens doesn't happen according to script. If one of the ballplayers had gotten his pants ripped off in the middle of a play, is that CBS's fault? It should not have taken years for this matter to be resolved, but then the fine should not have been levied in the first place. The whole mess is one of the remaining fiascoes of the Michael Powell Chairmanship, which will go down, even among conservatives, as the worst in FCC history.

So, cheers CBS and Janet Jackson. Now that this is all behind us, let's do it again sometime.

4:45 PM ET | 07-23-2008 | permalink | comments (2) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

So, What Kind Of Person Am I?

If there are two kinds of people in the world -- DC Comics people and Marvel Comics people -- what kind am I?

Well, to be honest... I'm a Wildstorm kinda guy.

In the interest of full and fair disclosure, I write for Wildstorm. But even if I didn't, I'd love what they do.

No, seriously, I'd love their stuff.

Wildstorm is what you'd call a boutique publisher, a relatively small operation that puts out just a handful of titles. Their marquee hero group is called The Authority -- "good-guy" superhumans who take the job of saving the planet literally and set themselves up as benevolent dictators: "Hey, rouge nation, you want to start a war? Get set for an invasion from The Authority." I can't say the allegory to any current political situation is direct, but it does the job of answering the question: What would happen if superheroes became more proactive rather than reactive, and does might really make right?

The other Wildstorm title you have to check out is Planetary. The best, most simple way to describe this amazingly written Warren Ellis/John Cassaday series is calling it a super-powered X-Files -- heroes taking on myths and legends of the world. Except that the series takes some kind of turn and something happens and to this day I'm not exactly sure what except that it's brilliant. Planetary only ran for about 26 issues with a few specials, but ask your local comic shop dealer about it. They can hook you up.

Throw in other titles like Astro City and Stormwatch, and bottom line, Wildstorm's got some of the most creative talent and best editors working today.

By the way, a few years back Wildstorm was bought by DC Comics, though DC seems, for the most part, to have done an admirable job of leaving editorial control to the Wildstorm folks. So, truth be told, maybe that does make me a DC person at heart.

12:58 PM ET | 07-16-2008 | permalink | comments (1) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

Belgians Buy Bud. Things Could Be Worse.

The Belgians own Bud. What's next?

Jeff Roberson/AP

As a native of Milwaukee, Wis. -- the beer capital of America -- and as a former employee of the Miller Brewing Co., I think I can unilaterally declare I have a unique perspective on InBev (could it sound more Belgian?) buying up Anheuser-Busch (could it sound more American? I mean, really, for this piece I wish it sounded more American).
Satirical, hyperbolic headlines aside -- and apart from my belief that guys named some variation of Bush always end up smelling like a rose -- the $52 billion InBev/AB deal, while massive, is about the least consequential thing going on in the world that doesn't involve the Jonas Brothers.

Seriously, does it matter who's "controlling" -- the media's throwing around that word a lot -- the beer Bubba chugs while he's getting sloshed at the infield of a NASCAR ... race, meet, game ... whatever it's called while screaming, "I love you, Travis Kvapil! I loooove you!" And, no, I'm not an arrogant elitist.

Still, the mortgage crisis continues. The war in Afghanistan is heating up. Favre may come back to the Pack. But with all that going on how much you wanna bet the day won't pass before some junior representative from Missouri introduces a non-binding resolution condemning the sale of our good American beer to those Belgians. Were they even in the Coalition of the Willing, or did they just let us go off and fight the War on Terror(ism) while they plotted to make an international beer run.

Again, satire.

Except for that non-binding resolution part.

I swear by my flag lapel pin somebody's gonna make this deal into a populist war cry, mount up some Clydesdale and ride to economic war to protect "the little guy" from having his brew stolen. I can imagine Lou Dobbs slipping into his chain mail now.

It ain't pretty.

Now, AB isn't the first major American brewery to get snatched up by "foreigners." Over the years Miller's been swapped around like an empty can among South African Breweries before finally teaming up with some Canadians to form a joint venture called MillerCoors. Now, recall ... this past July 4th, was your patriotic binging at all affected by this multinational distribution of booze power, or did you just come around to an all-American Mother of all Hangovers?

So, go on Mr. Small District government representative. Go on and get your 15 minutes of C-SPAN fame blustering on this one. But save your truly righteous indignation for something worthy of ... getting indignant about.

One day they will come for our Lunesta. That is when we will have to stand and fight.

6:10 PM ET | 07-14-2008 | permalink | comments (12) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)

(Liberal) Fear Of A Black President

Sen. Barack Obama (left) and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in happier times, attend an event in Chicago on Jan. 15, 2007.

Charles Rex Arbogast/AP

Jesse Jackson's ridiculous comments about Barack Obama "talking down" to black people -- as opposed to Jackson's totally reprehensible comments insinuating violence being committed against Obama (click here to see the video) -- are only the latest in a litany of derisive remarks directed at Obama from stalwarts of the left.

Ralph Nader and Geraldine Ferraro and Al Sharpton and Bob Johnson and Stanley Crouch and South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford have all maligned Obama as being everything from a "lucky" black man to not being black enough. While it's never a shock when operatives of the far, far right have trouble with a person of color achieving stature (though I do believe they play ball better with those in the fold), what a long, strange trip this campaign season has been watching so-called liberals fumble the hot potato that is Barack Obama.

Why? Why is Obama of such consternation to the Old Schoolers?

For one, Obama and his candidacy challenge the liberal establishment. By not miring himself in the politics of handouts, Obama elevates blacks above and beyond a herd that was fed the grain of entitlements in exchange for votes. In addition to extolling blacks to take more personal responsibility (a position a Pew research study finds the majority of black Americans hold), Obama has also questioned race-based affirmative action and understands -- again, as the majority of black Americans do -- that what's good for the country is good for all of us. To Jackson, that's "talking down" to blacks. To Nader, that's "talking white." But to the tens of millions of Americans who helped Obama clinch the nomination (as opposed to Jackson and Nader, who have yet to win an election), Obama is simply talking to America.

Moreover, what scares the Old Schoolers is that Obama's potential election takes away the victim stick they use to flog their diminishing relevance. Obama as president would be empirical evidence that while there are and probably always will be racists in America, America is no longer a racist nation. There are a lot of liberals who've made good bank stretching out the "you done me wrong, now gimme something" politics of the '60s well into the new millennium.

Obama wants change.

And change for the Old Schoolers ain't a good thing.

1:40 PM ET | 07-11-2008 | permalink | comments (25) | e-mail post | trackbacks (0)