Dear Comcast (re: NBC merger)

Net neutrality, anyone?

They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger. Well, what happens when the messenger and the ones sending the message are one in the same? What happens when the same people making the news become the same people delivering it? What happens when the media outlets and the content providers merge Saiyan-style to destroy every other entity not named Disney? That is my beef today, Comcast. Now, we're not going to get into how much I hate your cable service and it's ridiculous hidden charges or mysterious 'shut-offs'. Today's not that day. I will, however, delve into your recent acquisition of NBC, and how utterly destructive it is not only for me (the end user) and media as a whole.

Comcast, by taking over NBC, you've become the first cable company to own a major broadcast network. Let that sink in... You OWN NBC. That means, anything that NBC puts out as its own, you own. You're held solely responsible, liable and accountable for the NBC imprint and everything that comes under it. By that token, everything coming from NBC has to have your oh-so-shadowy stamp of approval on it, which is scary to say the least.

You guys will be able to control who, what, where and when NBC broadcasts instead of them having their own jurisdiction. No longer will NBC be its own entity in terms of the content it puts out. Everything that you do, they will have to do, which includes broadcasting news and shows that you approve, advertising what you approve and partnering with firms that you approve. NBC essentially won't have its own identity. It may as well just become the Comcast network and end the speculation.

The only reason you guys bought NBC is because you see the way that online movie and television watching has picked up, and you want a piece of that pie (not that you have your own pie factory, or anything). It's really sickening from a consumer's standpoint. It's like watching the Walmart take over your town by taking down every other store that sells everything Walmart doesn't sell. You're buying out the market because you realize you might not be able to compete soon.

Cable companies like yourself are trying to become the online content providers, not by providing content, but by buying the people that do. While that's pretty good business, what part of the ethical or competitive game is that? What happened to innovation and new firms being allowed to supersede corporate money and might? Maybe I'm a purist, but by cornering the market, it only shows how cornered you guys are: that you stretched yourself thin on traditional cable and are trying to buy your way out. NBC probably won't be the last purchase, especially if the FCC continues to let you walk all over them. But hey, who am I kidding? It's not like I watch the Office or 30 Rock on TV, anyway. Shout out to Hulu, Netflix and all those illegal sites that shall not be named...

Dear Tucker Carlson

I always find it sad when political 'pundits' weigh in on certain issues, especially ones dealing with race, crime, the President and facets of culture unfamiliar to them. They speak so freely about such issues, usually with misinformation and hateful dialogue, but blast anyone with a slightly different opinion. They come out saying things, that if the people they were criticizing said, the entire world would grab pitchforks and ready the gallows. Your rhetoric is right up that alley, Tucker. I usually don't like commenting on anything you do, simply because it's as useless picking an intellectual argument with a 1st grader. Even if what you're saying makes little sense, you're still going to pull out the 'But you've got cooties/you're stupid/you're a booger-face' argument. That said, I can't let these comments pass.

Tucker, first of all, where in tarnation do you get off saying that Michael Vick should be executed for his dog-fighting incident? You said you're a Christian, and 'believe fervently in second chances', so what gives? Let the man live! You say he's some 'creepy, rich, overpaid football player'. The last time I checked, you weren't rubbing pennies together to heat your house, were you? Your friends (who usually are just as dumb as you) are right. My reservations and about the severity of his acts aside, Vick paid his debt to society and is constantly reminded of what he did every time he has to show his face at some PETA event to save face. Execution for dog-fighting? Come on, Tucker... You own dress shoes and belts, and eat meat. Do you feel any ill-sentiment about that? Maybe you should be executed for driving a car with leather seats, or wearing wool sweaters. You eat chewing gum or Jello? We should put you in the electric chair, then. Tucker, my point is that we use products from animals every day. That Vick got into it with dogs pales in comparison to the cruelty that livestock and other animals used for production face. We don't execute the guys who kill bears that attack people. Should we really still be vilifying Vick?

Second off, since when is it wrong for the President to have an opinion on things? For God's sakes, if our President can't have a stance on an issue, then who can? Barack is a football fan, so he's got to have something to say about the whole Michael Vick saga. Why are you allowed to have a section on your show completely dedicated to thrashing the name of anyone you disagree with, but President Obama can't laud the efforts of the Philadelphia Eagles to give someone a second chance? If you can spread hate, misinformation and right-wing agenda like they're popsicles, why can't the President spread love and admiration for a man who laid not a finger to another human being?

Thirdly, is it just me, or do political pundits like yourself catch erections from seeing a public figure (most of the time, black) lost in the criminal justice system? Seriously, Tucker. I guarantee if John Doe from Anytown, USA was caught doing the same thing, his punishment would be little, if any compared to Vick's. Americans have a nasty habit of holding celebrities and athletes to higher standards than themselves. We can cheat, lie, steal, fornicate, kill, and do every other crime under the sun, but if a public figure does it, the entire world turns against them. I'm sick of the American media making celebrities of people and then tearing them down when they inevitably make lapses of judgment. Why do a celebrity's illicit acts hold more gravity than that of every other man? Do we really have to invest that much into what someone in the public eye does? I know this is a media-based society, but sheesh! Tucker, it's clear you're the type of personality that thrives on sensationalism when dealing with anything you don't agree with. It's as if you're a controversy-sniffing dog (pun intended). Tell you one thing... I wouldn't mind if Vick had put your fear-mongering behind down. *hides from PETA backlash*

Dear Tyler Perry (re: For Colored Girls)

If you've read Dear Whoever or followed me on Twitter at all (@elektrik788 for those of you not in the loop; SHEESH!!), then you know how I feel about the coonfest that Tyler Perry movies tend to be. That, however, doesn't mean I'm adverse to you, Mr. Perry, switching up his normal methods and perhaps trying your hand at making an accurate cinematic portrayal of black culture. For your newest work, you've decided to take on a subject that has been debated in African-American circles since we knew what an African-American was: Black women. Now, for the past 5 years or so, there's been this current bubbling about the role of Black women in our society and the ills that create the situations they get into. From the trailer for your movie 'For Colored Girls', which is apparently adapted from a critically-renown stage play, I can honestly see a bit more attention to detail in your work. I'm not going to sit here and place a crown on your head, Mr. Perry. Yet, this seems to be a valiant attempt at telling some sort of story sans ridiculously outmoded stereotypes and transparent characters. There seems to be a lot of depth to the characters that can't be seen through the trailer, unlike most of your movies.

Tyler, this might be your last opportunity, in my eyes, to put together something that sheds some type of light. I realize that may be unfair, but when looking at the dire lack of black directors and producers in Hollywood, juxtaposed with your gigantic stake in black cinema, you HAVE to deliver. I say that because you're the only director with the clout to deliver. What is black cinema left with after your legacy? Stomp the Yard 3D? Soul Plane 2? Tyler, I've vilified your work for the longest, yet I'm still willing to give it a chance in the hopes that it will open doors for other blacks in film. It has been so long since there has been a veritable face in African-American cinema. And though I disagree with a lot of your views and portrayals as they take place in film, I can't help but support you. Aaron McGruder made me laugh at your expense, but 'For Colored Girls' may very well bring you up to the standard that you deserve as a director willing to take risks with all-black casts and traditionally 'urban' (the use of that word makes me cringe) plots. Mr. Perry, I will be watching, as will the rest of Black America. Please don't do us dirty and make another dry, predictable movie that will have me wanting my $12.50 and 3 hours back...

Dear Mainstream News Outlets

No, that's not the set of a Jason Statham movie.. That's the Gulf of Mexico getting a 600-mile helping of crude oil

I've never been one to turn to the television for my breaking news. Not only is the TV biased based on a number of factors (what channel, who's sponsoring, what the news is), commercials and fluff news just tend to get into the way of what I think the 'news' should be. Instead, I go online for my news. You can read infinite versions of the same story, get different spins and different understandings of the goings on of our fair planet that way. Also, I get right down to the story rather than having to wait through 20 minutes of shit I don't care about. That said, I've come to a harrowing realization over the past two weeks or so: You guys, the mainstream news outlets, don't show much ACTUAL news nowadays.

No those aren't special effects. That is downtown Nashville, TN under 8 feet of water...


Take, for instance, the ridiculous amount of flooding in Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi this week. Until I saw a press release online, I'd heard not a thing about it! Imagine that! Three states have entire counties under a layer of water, and if I had rested on my own laurels, I probably still wouldn't know about it. Look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (above). Our prices for gas are probably going to skyrocket in the next few months, and people probably won't be able to put two and two together. Maybe that's because rather than, you know, covering the story, you guys talk about celebrity gossip and muckraking politics...

I think I'd much rather hear about the impending darkness over Europe than some fluff story...


Take the volcanic ash clouds that covered half of mainland Europe last month. The ash, from Scandinavia, disrupted airway travel for over a week, essentially shutting down airports from London to Berlin to Paris and back. Thoughts of impending apocalypse (we know it wasn't that serious, now) flooded the minds of those stranded, while we in America playfully went about our Easters. Mainstream news, it's unbelievable that in this day and age people are still uninformed about what is going on around them. You guys downplay the good in the world and drum up drama when you see fit, rather than simply report. What's crazy is that all of these stories are natural disasters, meaning they have some bearing on us attempting to function on Earth. You'd think that you guys would take an active interest in letting people know what is going on. I guess pushing Glenn Beck's idiotic comments for ratings are more important...

The word 'news' isn't even an actual word. It's actually an acronym for North, East, West & South. By that virtue, you as news outlets should be reporting the happenings from all four corners, not putting your (liberal or conservative) spin on it, withholding information, or putting fallacious information out. I suppose that this was a largely undirected and unfocused letter, by my standards. However, I will not stand to answer another question about a news story that happened a few days ago. I understand it's a bit unfair to blame you for the lack of interest in world issues, considering how apathetic Americans have become in my lifetime. However, it has to start somewhere. And it has to start with the people designating what becomes an issue. Maybe this was too much of a rant to be a letter. Even so, it needed to be said, and was heavy on my mind. Hopefully you guys quit grab-assing over spot quotation journalism and report what matters...