At the risk of being labeled "racist", "xenophobic","white supremacist" what is the reason for...

[ptbw forever]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

 

[Montrovant]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Did you read the book or see the study somewhere else? The article from the OP does not indicate which programs the commercials were taken from specifically.

Regardless, you are missing the point. How many commercials featured black actors does not indicate whether blacks are over- or under-represented in proportion to the amount of blacks in the population. This is because one still does not know how many black actors were in each commercial, nor how many total actors there were.

Let me use a hypothetical to spell it out for you:

Assume that you watch 9 commercials. In 3 of those commercials, black actors are featured, or 33%. Now, you might assume that means blacks are being over-represented. However, what if there was only 1 black actor in each of those 3 commercials, but there were 90 actors total? That would make it 3 black actors out of 90, or 3.33%. Based on that, blacks would be under-represented compared to their percentage of the US population, despite being in 1/3 of the commercials.

As I pointed out in a previous post, according to the OP article's stats, white actors appeared in at least 85.7% of commercials, and Asians in 9.1% of commercials. Both of those numbers are greater than the percentage of the population for each race. Are you going to argue that those races are also over-represented?

The percentage of commercials which feature black actors does not tell one enough to make an informed statement regarding their overall representation in those commercials.

What do "billboards and posters and college ads" have to do with commercials?

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

 

[ptbw forever]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

That is literally the mainstay argument for the “white privilege” crowd who justify BET and other all black or black oriented programs.


As an aside, you apparently can’t do math. If 1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black then that isn’t anywhere near 33%.

Go ahead and try to watch any television station and see if you can find even just 5 short commercials without a black person prominently featured. You will literally spend days of your life looking for those 5.

 

[DOTR]

The TV tends to not just push Black faces, but Black beauties, when you look at Blacks in the real World it's sometimes a bit disturbing in comparison to how they appear on TV.

They like light skinned Caucasian looking blacks. Every now and then they get caught.

TMZ

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Did you read the book or see the study somewhere else? The article from the OP does not indicate which programs the commercials were taken from specifically.

Regardless, you are missing the point. How many commercials featured black actors does not indicate whether blacks are over- or under-represented in proportion to the amount of blacks in the population. This is because one still does not know how many black actors were in each commercial, nor how many total actors there were.

Let me use a hypothetical to spell it out for you:

Assume that you watch 9 commercials. In 3 of those commercials, black actors are featured, or 33%. Now, you might assume that means blacks are being over-represented. However, what if there was only 1 black actor in each of those 3 commercials, but there were 90 actors total? That would make it 3 black actors out of 90, or 3.33%. Based on that, blacks would be under-represented compared to their percentage of the US population, despite being in 1/3 of the commercials.

As I pointed out in a previous post, according to the OP article's stats, white actors appeared in at least 85.7% of commercials, and Asians in 9.1% of commercials. Both of those numbers are greater than the percentage of the population for each race. Are you going to argue that those races are also over-represented?

The percentage of commercials which feature black actors does not tell one enough to make an informed statement regarding their overall representation in those commercials.

What do "billboards and posters and college ads" have to do with commercials?

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

I think the point being made here is that blacks are in 30 some percent of the commercials be it one black or ten blacks. I believe it's for politically correct reasons as well. No company wants to be accused of being racist, so they make sure their commercials show the melting pot as they call it.

That is not to say Budweiser has blacks in every commercial, or Asians, or Hispanics. I'm sure some of their commercials are all white as well. But to avoid being accused of anything, they create some of their commercials with different races of people.

 

[Montrovant]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Did you read the book or see the study somewhere else? The article from the OP does not indicate which programs the commercials were taken from specifically.

Regardless, you are missing the point. How many commercials featured black actors does not indicate whether blacks are over- or under-represented in proportion to the amount of blacks in the population. This is because one still does not know how many black actors were in each commercial, nor how many total actors there were.

Let me use a hypothetical to spell it out for you:

Assume that you watch 9 commercials. In 3 of those commercials, black actors are featured, or 33%. Now, you might assume that means blacks are being over-represented. However, what if there was only 1 black actor in each of those 3 commercials, but there were 90 actors total? That would make it 3 black actors out of 90, or 3.33%. Based on that, blacks would be under-represented compared to their percentage of the US population, despite being in 1/3 of the commercials.

As I pointed out in a previous post, according to the OP article's stats, white actors appeared in at least 85.7% of commercials, and Asians in 9.1% of commercials. Both of those numbers are greater than the percentage of the population for each race. Are you going to argue that those races are also over-represented?

The percentage of commercials which feature black actors does not tell one enough to make an informed statement regarding their overall representation in those commercials.

What do "billboards and posters and college ads" have to do with commercials?

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

I think the point being made here is that blacks are in 30 some percent of the commercials be it one black or ten blacks. I believe it's for politically correct reasons as well. No company wants to be accused of being racist, so they make sure their commercials show the melting pot as they call it.

That is not to say Budweiser has blacks in every commercial, or Asians, or Hispanics. I'm sure some of their commercials are all white as well. But to avoid being accused of anything, they create some of their commercials with different races of people.

Every race listed in the stats is in more commercials than their percentage of the US population. Whites are 63% of the population, in at least 86% of commercials; blacks are 12% of the population, in 32% of commercials; Asians are 5% of the population, in 9% of commercials.

The percentage difference between the numbers is highest for blacks, but it seems like a stretch to look too much into it. I hardly ever see commercials, so I might be missing something, but I can't say I've noticed any particular racial trend in those I do see.

Advertisers certainly may go out of the way to try to have racial diversity in commercials, but as has been said before, since they want to reach and appeal to the largest audience, so what?

 

[Montrovant]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

That is literally the mainstay argument for the “white privilege” crowd who justify BET and other all black or black oriented programs.


As an aside, you apparently can’t do math. If 1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black then that isn’t anywhere near 33%.

Go ahead and try to watch any television station and see if you can find even just 5 short commercials without a black person prominently featured. You will literally spend days of your life looking for those 5.

You might want to check your own reading comprehension. There is a difference between how many commercials blacks are in and how many blacks are in commercials.

You also might want to consider your own math skills. If there are blacks in 3 out of 9 commercials, regardless of how many blacks are in those commercials, that is 33% of commercials with blacks. That does not, however, tell what percentage of all the actors in those 9 commercials are black. I gave you a hypothetical in a recent post to explain this, but apparently you have a problem understanding that percentages can represent different things. This thread was started by talking about the percentage of commercials with blacks in them, and it ignored the fact that the actual percentage of black actors in commercials can be a very different number. As I pointed out in my hypothetical, it is entirely possible to have blacks in 33% of commercials but have black actors make up a very different percentage of the total actors.

To take your "1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black" statement, if 1 out of 3 people in 5 commercials are black, and the total sample size is 15 commercials, that would mean that 33% of the commercials have blacks in them; 5 out of 15. If each commercial has 3 people in it, that would be a total of 5 blacks out of 45 people, or about 11%. Blacks in 33% of commercials, blacks making up 11% of the people. Get it?

 

[Hiryuu]

This is a good question, what percent of the people in ads are black, not just how many they are in.

About as many as white dads in ads portrayed as being the most stupid creature to walk the face of the Earth.

 

[IM2]

the results of this study.
Andrew Rojecki, an associate professor of communication at the University of Illinois-Chicago, is co-author of “The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America,” published in 2000.
He and co-author Robert M. Entman found that in their sample of 1,620 ads on ABC, NBC, and Fox,

• African Americans appeared in 32 percent of them.
• Additionally, 3.3 percent of the ads featured only black actors,
• 28.7 percent featured both black and white actors,
• 58.8 percent featured only whites, and
• 9.1 percent had actors of an “East Asian facial cast.”

Too Many African Americans in TV Ads?

Now why then were over 35% of the ads had black actors while blacks make up ONLY 12.6% of the USA total population?

Is it guilt?
Is it suppose to make blacks feel better that they are "pandered" to by advertisers?
Or do advertisers think blacks will buy more because they are more susceptible to this guilt trip?

Someone explain to me why if numbers drive advertisers to spend nearly $70 billion on TV advertising
U.S. TV Ad Spend Drops As Digital Ad Spend Climbs To $107B In 2018 ... of the total $190 billion or almost 36% on TV
https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-spent-on-advertising-in-the-US
(and this is just TV...) over 35% of TV ads have blacks ...EVEN though they are 12.6% of total USA population.

NOW I'M SHOUTING!!!

PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME ANY RESPONSES THAT I'M RACIST, OR XENOPHOBIC OR WHATEVER!

https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
View attachment 212909

You'll get the answers your OP deserves. What is the point of his thread? What is the racial make up of the ownership of the companies buying the ads? How about the racial make up of the ownership of the TV stations that show the ads? How about we look at real stuff? You guys are so adept at telling us our percentage of the population so why do we have13 percent of the population, 11 percent of the businesses and less than 1 percent of the sales receipts? Why do we have a 20 trillion dollar nominal GDP and blacks have a 1 trillion dollar GDP which is 5 percent of the overall GDP, not 13. So why is it so important to point out how many blacks you see in TV ads when we are underrepresented in very important critical areas such as number of businesses, number off businesses that can employ, total amount of business receipts, media income and GDP?

So what really is the point of this thread?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This is a good question, what percent of the people in ads are black, not just how many they are in.

About as many as white dads in ads portrayed as being the most stupid creature to walk the face of the Earth.

That is the current flavor of the day, not just in ads but in TV shows

 

[healthmyths]

This is a good question, what percent of the people in ads are black, not just how many they are in.

About as many as white dads in ads portrayed as being the most stupid creature to walk the face of the Earth.

The true deterioration of the "family" unit in America occurred with "All in The Family" which I honestly laughed at as millions did WITHOUT realizing the destruction of the
"father" figure in America. I was not aware as millions of us the deleterious effect on the "Father" figure and the ripple effect, i.e. lack of respect for authority which leads to the
thumbing of cops by youths and some adults today. The other destructive show that has created further reduction of authority was "MASH".
Again I laughed but didn't realize how destructive these shows were of the male and the authority figure.

 

[Hiryuu]

The true deterioration of the "family" unit in America occurred with "All in The Family" which I honestly laughed at as millions did WITHOUT realizing the destruction of the "father" figure in America. I was not aware as millions of us the deleterious effect on the "Father" figure and the ripple effect, i.e. lack of respect for authority which leads to the thumbing of cops by youths and some adults today. The other destructive show that has created further reduction of authority was "MASH". Again I laughed but didn't realize how destructive these shows were of the male and the authority figure.

The scripts for television and ads are written the way they are for a reason. The basis for that reason can be varied. In some cases, I think the ideas around the script just require someone to be the brunt of the joke, and some people think it is better to make the white father that joke because they feel he has nothing to cry about if offended.

It's easy to manufacture all kinds of conspiracies behind the possible reasoning, when it could simply be the fact white dads already know what they want to buy. Also, if dads are going to buy what their loved ones want, who really gives a damn what the dads think anyway?

 

[Pogo]

This is a good question, what percent of the people in ads are black, not just how many they are in.

About as many as white dads in ads portrayed as being the most stupid creature to walk the face of the Earth.

The true deterioration of the "family" unit in America occurred with "All in The Family" which I honestly laughed at as millions did WITHOUT realizing the destruction of the
"father" figure in America. I was not aware as millions of us the deleterious effect on the "Father" figure and the ripple effect, i.e. lack of respect for authority which leads to the
thumbing of cops by youths and some adults today. The other destructive show that has created further reduction of authority was "MASH".
Again I laughed but didn't realize how destructive these shows were of the male and the authority figure.

I laughed when I read this but didn't realize how clueless you truly are.

Archie Bunker was a lampoon of a figure --- a figure having nothing to do with "fatherhood" or "authority" ---- that was already rotting in the midst of society.

Had that not been the case, i.e. had that rotten figure not existed... there would have been nothing to lampoon and hence no show.

 

[Pogo]

When black people are extremely overrepresented in a field it is fine and even great to typical ignorant Democrats.

When white people are slightly overrepresented in any field it is a tragedy.

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

That is literally the mainstay argument for the “white privilege” crowd who justify BET and other all black or black oriented programs.


As an aside, you apparently can’t do math. If 1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black then that isn’t anywhere near 33%.

Go ahead and try to watch any television station and see if you can find even just 5 short commercials without a black person prominently featured. You will literally spend days of your life looking for those 5.

You might want to check your own reading comprehension. There is a difference between how many commercials blacks are in and how many blacks are in commercials.

You also might want to consider your own math skills. If there are blacks in 3 out of 9 commercials, regardless of how many blacks are in those commercials, that is 33% of commercials with blacks. That does not, however, tell what percentage of all the actors in those 9 commercials are black. I gave you a hypothetical in a recent post to explain this, but apparently you have a problem understanding that percentages can represent different things. This thread was started by talking about the percentage of commercials with blacks in them, and it ignored the fact that the actual percentage of black actors in commercials can be a very different number. As I pointed out in my hypothetical, it is entirely possible to have blacks in 33% of commercials but have black actors make up a very different percentage of the total actors.

To take your "1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black" statement, if 1 out of 3 people in 5 commercials are black, and the total sample size is 15 commercials, that would mean that 33% of the commercials have blacks in them; 5 out of 15. If each commercial has 3 people in it, that would be a total of 5 blacks out of 45 people, or about 11%. Blacks in 33% of commercials, blacks making up 11% of the people. Get it?

That, and again the simple numbers don't permit, nor should they be expected to permit, a proportional representation of the general population as that is in no way the point of a TV commercial. A TV ad is there to sell a product. Typically it might have two or three people pitching that product, maybe just one. It's not going to have ten people pitching, as the message would get lost. Therefore if there's three people and one of them is black to connect with that audience (or Asian, Hispanic, whatever) that works out mathematically to 33%, which is a number completely irrelevant to anything.

If it's two people in the ad, it's 50%. Nobody anywhere on the planet is saying that therefore means or in any way implies "blacks (Asians, Hispanics, whatever) represent 50% of the population". That's a complete non sequitur. You can't get there from there. The OP is chasing a question which literally does not exist.

 

[healthmyths]

Of course, the statistics in the report don't actually show blacks being over-represented. So even if someone believes in the ridiculous sentiment from your post, there's no way to know, from the information in this thread, whether it applies.

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

That is literally the mainstay argument for the “white privilege” crowd who justify BET and other all black or black oriented programs.


As an aside, you apparently can’t do math. If 1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black then that isn’t anywhere near 33%.

Go ahead and try to watch any television station and see if you can find even just 5 short commercials without a black person prominently featured. You will literally spend days of your life looking for those 5.

You might want to check your own reading comprehension. There is a difference between how many commercials blacks are in and how many blacks are in commercials.

You also might want to consider your own math skills. If there are blacks in 3 out of 9 commercials, regardless of how many blacks are in those commercials, that is 33% of commercials with blacks. That does not, however, tell what percentage of all the actors in those 9 commercials are black. I gave you a hypothetical in a recent post to explain this, but apparently you have a problem understanding that percentages can represent different things. This thread was started by talking about the percentage of commercials with blacks in them, and it ignored the fact that the actual percentage of black actors in commercials can be a very different number. As I pointed out in my hypothetical, it is entirely possible to have blacks in 33% of commercials but have black actors make up a very different percentage of the total actors.

To take your "1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black" statement, if 1 out of 3 people in 5 commercials are black, and the total sample size is 15 commercials, that would mean that 33% of the commercials have blacks in them; 5 out of 15. If each commercial has 3 people in it, that would be a total of 5 blacks out of 45 people, or about 11%. Blacks in 33% of commercials, blacks making up 11% of the people. Get it?

That, and again the simple numbers don't permit, nor should they be expected to permit, a proportional representation of the general population as that is in no way the point of a TV commercial. A TV ad is there to sell a product. Typically it might have two or three people pitching that product, maybe just one. It's not going to have ten people pitching, as the message would get lost. Therefore if there's three people and one of them is black to connect with that audience (or Asian, Hispanic, whatever) that works out mathematically to 33%, which is a number completely irrelevant to anything.

If it's two people in the ad, it's 50%. Nobody anywhere on the planet is saying that therefore means or in any way implies "blacks (Asians, Hispanics, whatever) represent 50% of the population". That's a complete non sequitur. You can't get there from there. The OP is chasing a question which literally does not exist.

Where are YOUR facts supporting YOUR opinion?
At least I provide SOME logical basis that substantiates what many White Americans are thinking but won't articulate because idiots like you want to insult anyone who
questions the phony, intellectual effete and ignorant supposedly intelligentsia.
There is a movement to destroy the dominate culture that has brought successes. And it's done out of total ignorance of reality.
It is best illustrated by one photograph of the people these intelligentsia are catering too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Winter is coming.

 

[Pogo]

They actually do.

As I said before, BET was not even listed, these are the “white” channels showing incredible overrepresentation, and that doesn’t even include billboards and posters and college ads where black people are almost shown more than white people.

Are you saying that every channel that isn't BET is a "white" channel?

That is literally the mainstay argument for the “white privilege” crowd who justify BET and other all black or black oriented programs.


As an aside, you apparently can’t do math. If 1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black then that isn’t anywhere near 33%.

Go ahead and try to watch any television station and see if you can find even just 5 short commercials without a black person prominently featured. You will literally spend days of your life looking for those 5.

You might want to check your own reading comprehension. There is a difference between how many commercials blacks are in and how many blacks are in commercials.

You also might want to consider your own math skills. If there are blacks in 3 out of 9 commercials, regardless of how many blacks are in those commercials, that is 33% of commercials with blacks. That does not, however, tell what percentage of all the actors in those 9 commercials are black. I gave you a hypothetical in a recent post to explain this, but apparently you have a problem understanding that percentages can represent different things. This thread was started by talking about the percentage of commercials with blacks in them, and it ignored the fact that the actual percentage of black actors in commercials can be a very different number. As I pointed out in my hypothetical, it is entirely possible to have blacks in 33% of commercials but have black actors make up a very different percentage of the total actors.

To take your "1 out of 3 people in only a few commercials are black" statement, if 1 out of 3 people in 5 commercials are black, and the total sample size is 15 commercials, that would mean that 33% of the commercials have blacks in them; 5 out of 15. If each commercial has 3 people in it, that would be a total of 5 blacks out of 45 people, or about 11%. Blacks in 33% of commercials, blacks making up 11% of the people. Get it?

That, and again the simple numbers don't permit, nor should they be expected to permit, a proportional representation of the general population as that is in no way the point of a TV commercial. A TV ad is there to sell a product. Typically it might have two or three people pitching that product, maybe just one. It's not going to have ten people pitching, as the message would get lost. Therefore if there's three people and one of them is black to connect with that audience (or Asian, Hispanic, whatever) that works out mathematically to 33%, which is a number completely irrelevant to anything.

If it's two people in the ad, it's 50%. Nobody anywhere on the planet is saying that therefore means or in any way implies "blacks (Asians, Hispanics, whatever) represent 50% of the population". That's a complete non sequitur. You can't get there from there. The OP is chasing a question which literally does not exist.

Where are YOUR facts supporting YOUR opinion?
At least I provide SOME logical basis that substantiates what many White Americans are thinking but won't articulate because idiots like you want to insult anyone who
questions the phony, intellectual effete and ignorant supposedly intelligentsia.
There is a movement to destroy the dominate culture that has brought successes. And it's done out of total ignorance of reality.
It is best illustrated by one photograph of the people these intelligentsia are catering too.
View attachment 213268

You actually need help figuring out how much "one in two" is?

Sorry, I'm not trained to teach retards.