Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Does America See Enough Diversity in the Media?

Aired August 15, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's a pattern and a habit of ghettoization of performers of color.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you have a 13.6 percent population, as Latinos are, and the representation in front of cameras is 4.9, that's nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNE-MARIE JOHNSON, SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: We are very concerned about the lack of representation of minority women, and we're very concerned about the lack of representation of people over the age of 40, specifically women.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NINA HENDERSON-MOORE, BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION: The consumers out there want to see images that are reflective of themselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAVIS SMILEY, GUEST HOST: Do the faces on TV reflect the world you live in? Do they have to?

Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Tavis Smiley, in for the vacationing Bobbie Battista. A well-deserved break. A possible boycott by the NAACP got upstaged a bit last week by the Screen Actors' Guild. The Guild released a study showing there are now more minorities on TV than in 1999. Progress, perhaps, yes, but not enough. At least no, says the NAACP. But instead of calling for a boycott today, the nation's oldest civil rights organization has decided to ask for more. I'm pleased now to be joined from Los Angeles by the president and CEO of the NAACP, our friend Kweisi Mfume. Mr. Mfume, how are you sir?

KWEISI MFUME, PRESIDENT & CEO, NAACP: I am fine. Thank you very much for the opportunity, Tavis.

SMILEY: Delighted to have you on the program. Let me start by asking you in short order, what you did say today. We know that you did not call for a boycott of a particular -- or a series of networks, but you did have something important to say today. This report you put forth. What did you say today out there in L.A.?

MFUME: Well, what was said is that we were disappointed. 18 months after signing historic agreements with the four major networks and 18 months of not attacking them or second-guessing them, but waiting for them to live up to the letter of the agreements, has created a great sense of disappointment. Some of the networks understand slightly better than others and are trying, some understand or seem to understand at all.

And so when you reference the Screen Actors' Guild report, which was carried yesterday, I believe, in the "USA Today" about there being a seven percent increase in people of color on television, you know, we look at that but we recognize it has to be defined and dissected. For us, the battle was never about how many black or brown faces got around TV; it was always what was happening in front of the camera and behind the camera, and does it really provide equal opportunity? And so we have to say, are these recurring roles, are these speaking roles, or are these people who are background fillers for television shows?

The real issue is power. There's nobody in this town that we've been able to identify -- black, Latino, Asian, or native American that can greenlight a show, that can make a decision to hire or fire a producer, that really has any real significant weight in helping to shape or form what ultimately gets on the air -- who is unable to create opportunities with respect to employment. And when you look at the news operations, the entertainment divisions, the sports operations, the public affairs operations in network television it suggests that there's a huge problem with opportunity.

And yet Americans of all races know that the only way we've made progress in this town and in this country was when we gave everybody the chance to fail, everybody a chance to compete, and everybody a chance to be treated equally. It's important and Tavis, let me just -- if I might say this. There are a lot of people who might say, why is the NAACP doing this? Why are the Latinos and the Asians dealing with this? Shouldn't you be running around trying to figure out this pathology or that pathology?

We recognize that there are a number of attendant pathologies throughout all of our communities, things that we are working on every day, in social justice and criminal justice and the way we treat each other in race relations. But this is important. This the most powerful medium ever known to mankaindind. It shapes our thinking. It helps to set in place our beliefs, in some respects, and it creates in terms of commerce just billions of dollars in the circular flow of income that is still very much segregated and still very much out of the reach of many Americans.

SMILEY: Somebody asked me earlier, Mr. Mfume, why you spent the greater part of your opening statement today in your press conference talking about the one-year history -- 100 rather, I wish it were one year -- the 100-year struggle of organizations to deal with this issue of diversity or the lack thereof in Hollywood. I think you just answered my question, but let me ask it anyway. Why did you, in fact, spend the opening moments of your press conference today talking about the 100-year history of this struggle, rather than jumping right into your remarks about what you wanted to do today in 2001?

MFUME: For me, Tavis, it's very important. I learned as a child that unless we understand and never forget the past, we will be doomed to repeat it. And in this country, the past is replete with instances -- going back to D.W. Griffith's movie, "Birth of a Nation" in 1915, where the NAACP, working with whites, with the Jews in this country, with other racial minorities -- have sought to argue and to fight against things that posed a discriminatory, long-term effect. That's not what we wanted. That's not where we ought to be as a nation.

And so it was important for me to point out the fact that our history over the last 90 years has been replete with instances where we have sought to negotiate, where we have sought to bring about some sort of sound reasoning, where we have tried over and over again to get people to live up to the basic tenets of the Constitution by creating equal opportunity. We don't want anybody giving anything that's not qualified. We don't want quotas. All we want is a fair treatment and a fair opportunity to fail or succeed on our own merits. And when you consider the amount of money involved in terms of commerce, when you consider the profound impact that television has on the minds of all us, even if we say it doesn't affect us, and when you consider the fact that it says to the rest of the world, "This is who we are, this is how we think, this is how we have fun, this is how we report the news, this is how we take things serious, these are the way we see ourselves.

There has to be, in my opinion at least, something in all of that inherent that says, America understands that it is the sum of its parts, all of its people that make it the great country that it is.

SMILEY: I am delighted you came by. I'm going to lose you in a few moments, but there a few other issues I want to cover right quick if I can, Mr. Mfume. While you were talking, I'm looking on the screen, I saw a quick e-mail that suggested that Hollywood is the most liberal entity in the country. There is already, the writer said, enough diversity on television. Here's the question right quick: If Hollywood is in fact one of the -- if not the most liberal entities in this country, if you can't get Hollywood after 100 years, as liberal as they are, to understand and appreciate the diversity, aren't you really wasting your time?

MFUME: You know, I have lived a half a century and hope I live a little longer. I have learned that time is never wasted when you are doing something to bring about real change, particularly in the country that you love and the communities that you are part of. So I don't consider it a waste of time at all. On the contrary, I think it's a noble mission, it's a mission that didn't begin with me and won't end with me. A lot of people in this town, particularly, black and white and others who have believed that there ought to be equal opportunity. And I take some exception with the fact that Hollywood is quote, as the e-mail said, the most liberal industry or place in America.

Now, Dr. King used to say that 11:00 on Sunday morning was the most segregated hour in America. I'll take it one step further and say that Sunday morning, with respect to public affairs programs on network TV is the most segregated in America. Some of that derives its core here and some of it's in Washington. But there's no denying the fact that opportunity is not provided to all people, and there's no denying the fact that we can do better. We ought to do better.

SMILEY: You mentioned Washington. Let me go from one liberal bastion, if I can put it that way, to one that's not so liberal -- the U.S. Congress, since in fact you mentioned Washington a moment ago. I wonder why we it is that we cannot get -- and maybe it's on your agenda, I don't know, you tell me. Why can't we get Congress to be as anxious, as excited, as interested in talking about the lack of diversity in Hollywood as they seem to be to jump on the issue of violence in television, violence in the movies? If violence is a preoccupation for many members of Congress, why can't diversity get the same hearing that violence does coming out of this industry?

MFUME: I think it's because diversity and equal opportunity is not as sexy an issue as violence. And having been a member of Congress for 10 years, it's not the sort of thing that you can go around and -- and that people tend to want to campaign for. But it's good to say, you know, I am tired of this violence, I am tired of these betrayals and we've got to protect our children. What we have to is to protect our children and also protect the basic concept of equal opportunity under law.

There are a lot of good men on both sides of the aisles who are Republicans and Democrats that I have known a lot of years. I mentioned in my earlier remarks I am going to be seeking them out, both the leadership of the House and Senate, and the ranking and the senior members, chairmen that is, of oversight committees to talk about congressional involvement in this area: either through re- enactment of the Syn Fyn rule or looking at the Children's Programming Act, which was passed by Congress as a precedent for bringing about and creating opportunities for Latinos and Asian-Americans and African-Americans.

I think many times Congress needs the information and then the motivation seems to take place. So we want to at least provide the information, and to whatever extent the NAACP can, in 1,700 communities across this country, also provide the motivation.

SMILEY: I'm going to lose you in literally one minute. Let me see how good I am, and more importantly, how good you are. See if we can do two things, two questions in 60 seconds here. Number one, did you feel in fact upstaged ? Was there something malicious or malign about the SAG report coming out, upstaging your comments today in the eyes of some, two days ahead of time, saying that there was diversity, knowing that you were going to speak and the NAACP would speak about this today -- did you feel upstaged in any way? Right quick.

MFUME: No. We've been meeting with the Screen Actors Guild for some time. You know, their release of the information either quarterly or annually is something they just go ahead and do. We recognized, because our case is so strong, that for the report to suggest that there's been a seven percent increase in the number of black and brown faces on TV really begs further review. And when you review it, you will find that there's been virtually little change, because most of these are not recurring roles and most of these are not speaking roles. So it's really all relative. And there's an old African proverb that says, it's not what you call me, it's what I answer to.

We don't answer to those numbers. We call into question the reality and suggest to people that we've got to look at the numbers and through the numbers and most of all, to look at the heart and soul of this country and ask ourselves, after 52 years of television, are we prepared now to really embrace the changing dynamics and the demographics of the country that we are part of.

SMILEY: We've got a roundtable panel that we're going to get to full of experts in a moment. Standing by. Anne-Marie Johnson of the SAG, Screen Actors' Guild, Cornel West and others. But before you go, this last question. I wonder whether or not some people are looking at this through the wrong prism. That is to say, Kweisi, that we have the wrong standard here. Is not the comparison wrong in that, some folk are looking at black folk in television today compared with us in the industry 100 years ago, when the real standard ought to be black folk today versus other folk in the industry today. Are we not looking at this problem through the wrong prism to start with?

MFUME: Well, it's quite possible. I can tell you that there's such a difference in terms of portrayals -- I shouldn't say portrayals but where we are today and where we were 50 years ago when television began, or even in the 1960s, when we took CBS to court at the NAACP to do away with the sort of images that were being portrayed through the shows "Amos and Andy" and "Beulah."

One thing is very important to understand. Unlike 20 years ago or 30 years ago, nobody can make the argument that they can't find qualified African-Americans, qualified Latinos, qualified Asian- Americans to write, to direct, to greenlight programs, to conceptualize ideas. They just can't make the argument anymore. You can't say anymore, well, we don't know if there are any black PR firms or Latino groups that could help us with our advertising. You can't make the argument anymore that consumers aren't paying attention. Consumers do pay attention, and I think consumers recognize that in many respects we can do more and we ought to do more.

So those arguments have fallen to the wayside, and the argument today is: Well, don't worry, you know, we understand. And we're going to work this out. But for us, it's not a matter of just having come a long, long way after 52 years. It's the matter of the fact that we still have a long, long way to go to ensure equal opportunity for qualified people and to take this medium which affects all of us in ways that we still yet can't discern, and to make it the kind of medium that empowers people and does not encase them in some sort of discriminatory treatment or idea.

SMILEY: Kweisi Mfume, president and CEO of the NAACP. I thank you for coming on. Nice to see you. Coming up next on this program, Cornel West, Armstrong Williams and SAG's Anne-Marie Johnson and our live TALKBACK LIVE studio in Atlanta. We are back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMILEY: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Tavis Smiley, filling in for the vacationing Bobbie Battista. Talking today about diversity, or the lack thereof, in television. Joining us now, Cornel West, the Alfonse Fletcher Jr. university professor of Afro-American studies and philosophy of religion at Harvard University. His latest work, not a book this time. A CD. A spoken-word CD entitled "Sketches of My Culture."

Our friend Armstrong Williams, hot off Talk America radio networks, "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams." You know where he is. His latest book is "Beyond Blame: Moving Beyond Being a Victim." Also our friend Anne-Marie Johnson, the chairman -- chairwoman,excuse me, of the Screen Actors group's ethnic employment opportunity committee. Delighted to have all of our guests with us.

Before we get to them, first, an e-mail from Conor in Laguna Beach, California. Conor writes: You can't force a show to be popular. Putting minority shows or characters on television does not mean people will watch them. If a show, any show, is not popular enough, it is taken off the air. Conor in Laguna Beach. I thank you for your e-mail. Now to the phones. Kate, I believe, is holding in -- is it Oregon? Kate in Oregon. Thanks for holding. You are on the air and I'm glad you called.

KATE: Yes, I agree that there is not the diversity, I agree with Mr. Mfume. But I'm wondering -- I look at like a Bill Cosby or an Oprah, and you wonder, are they just like extra fabulous that they got to where they were, because they're great talents and obviously very powerful, wealthy people.

SMILEY: Good question. Cornel West?

CORNEL WEST, HARVARD PROFESSOR: You've got a good point. In many ways you almost have to be a giant in order to make a breakthrough. The question is, we have to have places in the medium range. And the issue of diversity is not simply an issue of more black, brown, yellow faces. Those are good, but we want more rich humanity on television in all colors. Getting beyond the stereotypes, no matter who they are. And that's a challenge on a number of different levels that we have to come to terms with, you see.

SMILEY: Anne-Marie Johnson, is it fair to use Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey as the standard, or does, with all due respect, Kate in Oregon have it all wrong?

ANNE-MARIE JOHNSON, SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Well, first, let me say I'm the national chair of the ethnic employment opportunity committee for the Screen Actors Guild, as well as being an actress. And secondly, a few misstatements by Mr. Mfume. Our statistics deal with day players, guest stars, recurring characters, series regulars and theatricals performers. These are all speaking roles, not background performers. So our statistics are very current and updated on a regular basis, and I would invite any outside coalition to come to the Guild and ask to see our statistics because we'd like to have a partnership with these coalitions.

To the question from the woman from Oregon, it isn't fair to use Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey as -- an example because they're icons. I -- I agree with Mr. West. We need to deal with the average Joe and Jane, who would like to have a fair share and a fair shake at job opportunities in front of the camera and behind the camera. And that's what we need to concentrate on for all areas, all people of color, all men, all women, all people all over the age of 35. The Guild -- we're not doing backflips about these statistics, I have to tell you. We are cautiously and tentatively pleased with the direction, but we know it can get better and we're going to demand that this pattern continue in the right direction.

SMILEY: Armstrong, speaking of right direction, you're on the right side. The question is: Is the NAACP on the right side of this issue?

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, TALK AMERICA RADIO NETWORK: Well, I can't say whether they are right or whether they are wrong.

SMILEY: Of course you can.

WILLIAMS: I can understand the spirit of what they're doing. I just don't necessarily agree with it. I have had the opportunity to be on both sides of this aisle, as someone on the air and someone who has been in the ownership role, and it's just not that simple. The reality of the economics of this situation is that this industry is not an organization, it's a business. And people are in this business for profit. And if you place shows on the air -- which they have tried in the past -- and people don't like it, they are not going to watch it.

SMILEY: Are you suggesting, though, that shows with black characters cannot make money and therefore, because they can't make money...

WILLIAMS: No, I am not suggesting that at all. I don't think people really go to the movies or watch television and see who is black or who's white or who is Latino. They go to see what they enjoy, whether they can relate to the dialogue, whether it reflects their value system -- I think that becomes less of an issue.

SMILEY: But why can't that include people of color? Why does the choice have to be made to be entertained or empowered through dramatic movies or comedy, or going to see a person of color. Why can't -- why do those things have to be mutually exclusive? That's the question.

WILLIAMS: Well, obviously you and I are not on the same page here, because I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive. I think you should have both. But I think if you put something on TV, I think you should celebrate the diversity of America and what we represent in terms of our value systems and what we bring to this -- to this beautiful tapestry of ours.

I mean, I don't think that you should exclude a Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfrey, or shows that people watch. They don't watch Oprah because she's black. They watch her because they enjoy her program and they relate to it. I think sometimes we just make too much of diversity. I mean, what, you want a black here, a Latino there. I think what you should advocate is good programming and the best actors and then people will watch it.

JOHNSON: But here's -- I have to disagree with Mr. Williams. And here's the point. We would be fools to think that the networks and studios don't give more time and more opportunity for predominantly nonminority shows to make it. They'll change its day, they'll change its time, they'll change its line-up, even recast. We'd like the same opportunity for minority-themed shows to be given the extra episodes, let's change the day, let's change the night. I'd like to see the majority of our shows that are predominantly minority themed off the ghetto nights and into a more integrated line-up. Why do we have to be on ghetto night?

SMILEY: All right. Steve in Long Beach has this to say through his e-mail: The media is a market-driven entity. If people want to see more minority groups on TV, they should vote with Nielsen ratings and their checkbooks. It cannot be done through cajoling the networks." We'll continue in a moment. You are watching TALKBACK LIVE.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMILEY: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We continue our conversation today about diversity, or the lack thereof, in network television -- depending on one's point of view. Cornel West, I wonder whether or not Kweisi Mfume today, in his comments made the statement that this industry still engages in -- these are his words -- systemic discrimination" when it comes to diversity or the lack thereof in the network television. The question is whether or not we see this really as that, in fact, that systemic discrimination which the suggests the malicious, the malignant -- malign, I should say -- neglect to put people of color on the air. Is this systemic discrimination or is this just racial ignorance? They're doing the best they can with what they have, and we have to give them time to get there.

WEST: I think that it's the combination of the both, though, Tavis. On the one hand, we still live in de facto segregated spaces, so you've got a lot of white brothers and sisters with power and resources who suffer from both ignorance and lack of exposure. But on the other hand, there's the issue of power and resources. And people are very reluctant to give up their power, especially when they really don't know what unknown is. You see, the problem with black folk, brown folk and red folk in America is, our high quality has to come into the mainstream in the name of diversity. Whereas that's not true on the other side of the fence. I mean, I think -- just to be very personal about it you are the most outstanding multimedia journalist of your generation. High-quality, but you come in also because of more diversity. The same is true at Harvard, the same is true across the board. It's a very different situation because, like I said, white privilege still lingers even given the breakthroughs that we've had in the 40, 50 years. And we have to look at it in perspective in which that -- when we talk about diversity -- it's not just more faces. There's a history of hierarchy, a history of hatred, bigotry. We don't like to talk about it openly. We know it's there. But the ignorance on the one hand and the systematic on the other, it's a combination of the two.

JOHNSON: I would also like to make a point to that. It's something that we discovered. I was one of the coauthors of the African-American Television Report, along with Dr. Darnell Hunt of USC, here in Southern California. And what we discovered -- and we studied quality of roles, not just quantity of roles. And what we discovered was that many executives in decision-making positions are very young. They don't remember the civil rights movement. They feel that there is no glass ceiling. They feel that the playing field is level. So their mind-set is: Diversity has worked. It's there. Let's move on. And we know that that's not true. And I think it's really a mind-set that we have to deal with. It's a moral integrity. It's a mind-set that's it going to take a long time to some type of understanding.

SMILEY: Armstrong, I got something for you. First to the audience right quick, though. Who have you got over there, Chris?

CHRIS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, I would like to say I don't know why we continue to think that the minority is going to do something for the minority, but the majority is going to do something for the minority when they don't live in that world. If you don't eat, sleep and drink it, you are not going to go somewhere else and get something to make it fit everybody else's, if that's not what you live. Now, we all know that. And I also want to ask the question about, where is the wherewithal that blacks used to have years ago, when we didn't have it and we couldn't get it from somewhere else, we went and created our own. What's going on with that? Aren't there enough Latinos who have money-- and I'm not talking about the Oprahs and the Bill Cosbys. Forget them. There are some people in between. What's happening with that? I may be -- excuse my ignorance on how they get into the industry or whatever, but isn't there enough power in the black community that we say enough is enough. Let's not keep asking them for anything. Let's do it ourselves; the Latinos, the Asians and every body.

SMILEY: Armstrong, let me take his comment. These are not his words. Let me take his comment, though, and twist it up a little bit, as I am wont to do at times. Maybe this is our fault, Armstrong. Maybe if black folk and red folk and brown folk and yellow folk just turn off the television maybe this problem would go away. But how realistic is that, Armstrong?

WILLIAMS: But I don't -- I don't think that's the issue. I think there's something deeper that's going on here. I think there are some people -- let me at first admit that racism and bigotry and all of these things still exist. I don't think they exist nowhere near to the extent that most people try to make them out to exist. I think there's some people who are just so obsessed with racism and bigotry and the white man and it's going to keep me down that they assume everything is black and white. But things are just not that simple. It does not work that way.

Cornel said that Oprah and Bill Cosby are icons, we cannot use them. They were not always icons. How did they go from the grass to the penthouse? There's a process that goes on with that.

And I think what people need to do is get over their obsession with race and realize that there are people on television not because they're black -- I don't think you are there because of diversity. I think you are there because you're the best person.

I think when Cornel makes a statement that they had to squeeze you in -- it's not about squeezing in. Even when we arrive, even when we make it, we want to say it's because of diversity, it's because of the NAACP. There are many in this country who rise and fall on their own merit and people that could care less about race.

JOHNSON: But Mr. Williams...

WILLIAMS: Why is it that there are conservatives...

SMILEY: Cornel...

WILLIAMS: ... like myself whose audience is predominantly white. It's not because I'm black; it's because they embrace my message. If you've got the right message, if you've got the right show, and if you've got the talent, they could care less about your race. Just get on with the show.

SMILEY: Cornel West...

WEST: Well, Armstrong, I -- I...

(APPLAUSE)

I love my dear conservative brother, you know...

(LAUGHTER)

... but I wish that...

WILLIAMS: And I love you, brother.

WEST: I wish that were true, though, brother, but I don't want to live...

WILLIAMS: I know you do. It is true.

WEST: I don't want my feet on the ground and my head in the clouds, too, at the same time. I wish it were true. WILLIAMS: You've seen it.

WEST: I wish it was true...

WILLIAMS: You live it.

WEST: ... that a black man, a brown man, a red sister could be viewed as full-fledged human beings...

WILLIAMS: They are.

WEST: ... solely because of their quality as opposed to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). That's just not true. It's not true.

WILLIAMS: It all depends on how you view yourself.

JOHNSON: And also -- and also...

WILLIAMS: It's how you see you first.

WEST: No, it's how you are viewed. It's how you are viewed.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: ... and what you believe in.

WEST: It's how other folks view you.

WILLIAMS: You give that man too much credit.

JOHNSON: If I may...

(CROSSTALK)

SMILEY: More of this on TALKBACK LIVE, but after the break.

WEST: I wish that all humanity...

(CROSSTALK)

SMILEY: It's getting good. Stay here. We'll be back in just a moment.

(CROSSTALK)

SMILEY (voice-over): In 1960, Harry Belafonte was the first African-American to win an Emmy Award, for the show "Tonight With Belafonte."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMILEY: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Tavis Smiley, filling in for the vacationing Bobbie Battista.

We continue to talk today about the lack of diversity in the minds of some, or is there enough diversity in Hollywood? The NAACP and their president, Kweisi Mfume, releasing a report earlier today very much chagrined about the lack of progress in the last two years -- for that matter, the last 52 years -- in this business called Hollywood.

From your e-mail, Ed in Peachtree City, Georgia: "It is time for us people of color to take more responsibility for resolving our issues. Speaking of entertainment, can we try to take control of the negative rap music that proliferates the airwaves? If we can't control what we already control, who are we kidding?"

And from Bob in Fort Pierce, Florida: "Let's worry more about the quality of TV. Good television, like justice, should be colorblind."

I like that phrase, Anne-Marie: that is should be colorblind. But what do you make of the reality of that?

JOHNSON: Well, I think, first of all, we should, I think, instead of the question "Why Oprah and Why Bill Cosby?" I think the most appropriate question is: Why aren't there more Oprahs and more Bill Cosbys? Why are we just allowed to have one or two?

There's one Halle Berry and there's one Wesley Snipes where there's 10 Meg Ryans and 15 Demi Moores. I mean, we have to think about that. And we also have to take responsibility for our form of entertainment.

Many African-Americans and Latinos and Asian-Americans and Native Americans aren't satisfied with the programming that we ourselves create. There's a whole sector of American culture that's being ignored: the middle-class person of color. And we need to think about that, too. Why is it always the hip-hop entertainment?

So, that's a very -- it is quality. It is about quality regardless of the color.

SMILEY: To the audience. Chris, what do you have over there?

CHRIS: Diane, and she's from Barbados. Diane, go ahead.

DIANE: I'm agreeing with Anne-Marie and with the young brother over there that we should create for ourselves if we want to make a difference and present positive images of ourselves. It's not only about quantity but quality. And too often, even in our own media, our images of ourselves our players and hoochies and comedians, and that's all we have. Why don't we see more African-American doctors, teachers and people who have other values to contribute?

(APPLAUSE)

SMILEY: Armstrong, let me come back to you on this point, Armstrong, and I think that the sister in the audience makes this point that I think is worth probing here. While we should ostensibly want to live in a society that is colorblind, if you don't give people of color the opportunity to portray doctors and lawyers and others, if you don't give them an opportunity, how do we put forth this image out that is more balanced, that does in fact talk about and tell the story of the complexity of black life? If all you have here and there is one Oprah, one Bill -- I'm not playing a hating on them, I love them both. But if you only have one of them here and there, you don't get a chance for average people to play average roles to show the complexity of black life.

How do you ever put forth the kind of image of black folk that you want America at large to have?

WILLIAMS: But see, you make it seem as though -- and I understand what you're saying. You make it seem as though that black people are different from anybody else. We all are human being. I mean, I think this is more of a class issue than a race issue.

SMILEY: No, Armstrong, respectfully, I'm saying -- you've got me all wrong. I'm saying that black folk are just like white folk. We just need the opportunity on television to see the complexity of our life.

WILLIAMS: We're human beings. We're not like white folks. We're like everything that is human. And I think it's on television.

I mean, there is Such a proliferation of shows that are out today. If you look at Lifetime, if you look at shows like "ER," if you look at cable, the shows are out there. At least we have choices now.

I think -- I don't know what we want actually. I don't know what we're after here for today. When will enough be enough? How many blacks and Latinos or Asians do you need to see on TV before you say you're satisfied? I mean...

JOHNSON: When our statistics reflect the population statistics.

WILLIAMS: I don't understand how you're going to judge...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON: When our statistics, when our hiring statistics reflect American -- American scene statistics. That's when I can comfortably sit pack and say, you know what, statistically and qualitywise -- and there's some sense of balance -- things are OK with the four protected groups, so I can sit back and solely concentrate on my career.

SMILEY: I've got -- I've got to break on that note. Cornel -- Cornel West itching to get back in here. And I'm glad you all are booing Armstrong and not me. I love you.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm back in just a moment. Stay where you are.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMILEY: Welcome back TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Tavis Smiley. Glad that you are with us today. As we continue, a most I think, I can say, provocative conversation about diversity or the lack therefore in network televise.

To Michael, holding on the phone in New York. Michael, thanks for calling. You're on the air.

MICHAEL: Yes. Well, you know, I'm Italian-American. I'm an actor, 10 years in New York. I'm still not in the Screen Actors Guild. It's a struggle. It's a struggle for minorities. It's struggle for Italians, caucasians, whatever. It has nothing to do with nationality. It really, really has to do with the talent. It has to do with talent here.

I mean, we're all struggling no matter what color we are. I mean, am I going to go play for the New York Knicks because I'm 6 foot 2 and white? I mean, if I'm not good, I'm not talented, I'm not going to be a basketball player.

SMILEY: But Michael, Michael, let me jump in right quick. You seem to suggest to me -- and I don't think you're saying this -- if you've been struggling for 10 years trying to be a part of SAG and you're not in, are you suggesting you're not in because, excuse my English, you ain't no good?

MICHAEL: No. No, I don't think so. I don't want to hear that clapping, because whoever's in the business knows it's not what you know, sometimes it's who you know. There's a lot of talented people out there.

WEST: Not just merit. Not just merit then, huh?

MICHAEL: But -- but it's also -- for white people also. It's not just for minorities. We're all -- if there is any discrimination, if there is, it's for everyone.

SMILEY: Well, Michael, I've got to hook you up with Anne-Marie Johnson. So she's in SAG and an officer.

MICHAEL: Well, they've got my number...

SMILEY: Maybe she can -- maybe she can give you a hookup, you know.

JOHNSON: Michael, I'll try to help you, but you have to understand, you know, this business really isn't about talent when you think about it, because you see an exceptionally amount of untalented people being paid $20 million a picture.

(APPLAUSE)

So what it is about -- what it is about is, you know, it is exactly who you know. This business is based on nepotism and dynasties and fraternities and sororities. And if people are color aren't in that groove, aren't in that mix, aren't playing on the golf course, it's going to be very, very difficult getting ahead. SMILEY: Cornel, Anne-Marie Johnson makes a -- makes a good point here, which makes me want to come back to this notion -- who did I read? Oh, Bob, in Fort Pierce, Florida, who I read earlier, made the comment that good television, like justice, should be colorblind.

Talk to me, if you can, philosophically about this whole notion -- you teach this at Harvard -- this whole notion, this whole concept, this construct of trying to live in a colorblind society. Ought that really be what our goal is. I kind of like being who I am. I'm not sure I want to be in a society where we try to achieve colorblindness, but that's me. What do you think?

WEST: Well, I think there's a common understanding of colorblind that says, well, we look through color and see the person. But it's very misleading, though. It's misleading, because, on the one hand, you see, color embracing is different. For so long, the black body was associated with degradation, and therefore, when you saw the black body, you saw a nigger. Now the black body has to be eliminated in order to see humanity. So now, you become colorblind.

Well, no, you don't need to eliminate the black body, just embrace that body: the brown body, the white body, the red body, the yellow body whatever. You're not blind, you're just embracing all of it. But it's hard to embrace that body when it's been associated with disgust for so long.

So it's white supremacy still operating even in the construct of colorblindness. Those people want colorblindness to mean humanity.

Now, I think the issue that Brother Armstrong is talking about here is very important in terms of class. When I look on television, I see both some racial diversity, but I don't see too many working- class brothers and sisters of any color.

I look at shows like "Rock": black working class hardly talked about.

People say: "Do you want more doctors? Do you want more lawyers? Do you want more dentists?" That's fine, but my grandfather wasn't a doctor. He had his dignity, he had humanity. He's not on television. He's a working-class brother. Same is true for whites, brown and yellow. There's a system in Hollywood (UNINTELLIGIBLE) tip to the upper middle class. And the vast majority of Americans, who are working-class folks, trying to get through, making it from womb to tomb, they don't even get on television. I mean, what's going on here?

SMILEY: Armstrong -- Armstrong, a lot of folks in the audience want to talk, but before I do that, let me come to you. What about this notion, as you see it, this notion of colorblindness that Bob in Fort Pierce, Florida wants us to try to attain in the industry of Hollywood?

WILLIAMS: I don't think we can ever literally be colorblind. You can't look at someone and tell (UNINTELLIGIBLE), their beauty. And it's like flowers in a garden. I don't think -- I think it's kind -- we're removed from trying to move beyond what someone looks like you're struck by -- it's what you see first.

I think my issue with, as I listen to this discussion and it expands more with this -- and I love to hear Dr. West's perspective on this. What I'm concerned with, as the brother who called in who said he was an Italian actor, even if Hollywood does give in to the NAACP and others on this, what they will do, they will not portray many people that you may consider to be minorities as human beings. They will portray them as categories.

As someone was saying, well, OK, if they come up with more black shows and more Italian shows and more Latino shows, I mean, I don't want to see the angry black man or some Italian who's always some Mob guy or some Muslim who's always a terrorist. I think what we should try to do is portray people as human beings instead of putting them in categories in order to make it work on television.

SMILEY: I think we can agree with that. We can applaud Armstrong on that, I think, can't we?

(APPLAUSE)

Chris, who do you got in the audience there?

CHRIS: Ellen, go ahead. Ellen's from Alabama.

ELLEN: I think we have lost our sense of focus here. I think it should still be on equality. And I think if we can look at each other as people, individuals and embrace the diversity of each culture, because we are made up, a country of many different backgrounds. We need to embrace the diversity of each person. And then I think when each person embraces diversity and comes together as unity, this spreads (UNINTELLIGIBLE) everybody, including Hollywood.

SMILEY: Anne-Marie, while Chris moves through the audience to the next person who wants to comment, let me ask you right quick, since you are there in Hollywood, and not just in it but a part of it, as a actress you are, and a member and an officer in the SAG, Screen Actors Guild organization, I wonder whether or not, given the fact that Mr. Mfume and the NAACP did not call for a boycott today, does that suggest -- or maybe this my own warped thinking -- might that suggest that Hollywood is going to breathe a sigh of relief collectively, suggesting that we dodged a bullet today? None of the four networks got hit with that bullet. We're still standing, no harm done -- they look the other way, return to business as usual.

JOHNSON: No.

SMILEY: The question for -- the question for you is, what happens in Hollywood? Then I want to ask Cornel the question as to how black America is going to interpret this today. Will they say, "Where is the beef?" "Quit talking about it, bring on the boycott"?

First, the Hollywood question to you, Anne-Marie.

JOHNSON: First of all, the Screen Actors Guild, we don't endorse any type of boycott, because that would be a conflict of interest. We want our members to be able to work, to be able to keep their health and pension and retirement programs active. We deal with quantity, unfortunately not quality.

Secondly, I was part of the negotiating team for our 2001 theatrical TV television contract, and we now have some of the strongest affirmative action, nondiscrimination policy, codified agreements in any talent union contract globally. And the networks know that we're keeping a very sharp, proactive, aggressive, and somewhat militant eye on their activity.

So they're not -- they're not sighing -- they're not breathing a sigh of relief. They know that they have a lot of work to do. But they also know that they have a very proactive relationship with the Screen Actors Guild, and we can help to help them faster.

SMILEY: Are you predicting a year from now, when we are talking -- it might not be me. Bobbie is back on Monday. But are you predicting that a year from now, when Bobbie Battista is back on the air and talking about this issue, that these numbers will be much improved a year from now than they are today?

JOHNSON: I am predicting that a year from now I'll be talking to you on your own show on CNN, and I'll not only be an actress, but I'll be a series regular, but I'll also be the first African-American female vice president of the Screen Actors Guild, because I'm running.

SMILEY: I'll vote -- I'll vote for that. I'm a member.

JOHNSON: And that numbers will be better and we will be moving in the right direction, and the Guild takes it very, very seriously.

SMILEY: Cornel, what about this question, the latter part of my question about how black America is going to perceive this. And I know you don't speak for black America. I don't want to put you in that position. But it could be argued that a few times now we've had our leaders come out, chastise, challenge, talk some trash if you will, about the lack of diversity in Hollywood. But nobody has called for a boycott yet. Anne-Marie doesn't like that.

But just from a black perspective, is it going to be said that we're sick and tired of hearing this? We're like Fannie Lou Hamer, sick and tired of being sick and tired. Pardon the old phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the boycott? When are we going to do something about this issue?

WEST: Well, Tavis, that's the $64,000 question.

SMILEY: That's why I asked it to you.

WEST: Yeah. Well, I'm glad you think I'm worthy for the moment here, because I think in the end it has to do with whether we can come through in a substantive way with the kinds of pressures that are successful. You can only cry "Wolf!" so many times and you can only cry wolf in a successful way if your leadership has organic connection with people on the ground who themselves execute the kind of vision that you have. And right now, we've got a leadership that is dangling in a certain sense. We've got a deep crisis of leadership in the country. We've got a crisis of leadership in the black community.

So you can go off and cry, "Wolf, Wolf!" but you may not have the folk behind you, because you haven't organized, coagulated and cooperated with them enough to really put them in motion.

Now, Brother Mfume is a good brother. He's one of the best out there. But even he recognizes what I'm talking about in the midnight hour.

SMILEY: Armstrong?

WILLIAMS: In the end, if I can just rain on this parade, in the end, this is really not about helping the masses of people with better programming. This is about helping the elite who are already elite. I mean, most of the television is trash anyhow. That's why most people are turning it off, because they don't like what they see, and it's not raising their children in the right -- helping raise their children...

SMILEY: Except for "The Right Side With Armstrong Williams."

WILLIAMS: And until we change -- until we change the substance of TV, it's going to go the way a lot of other media outlets of the past anyhow.

SMILEY: They can see good television on your program, though?

WILLIAMS: Well, listen, and that's why we try to do good programming...

SMILEY: Right.

WILLIAMS: ... because that's what people want. People want social, redeeming values, something that they can watch together as a family.

SMILEY: Right.

WILLIAMS: But there's just not much out there with that quality right now.

SMILEY: I am out of time. I wish I had another seven days to talk about this, but we don't. Thanks to Cornel West -- give him a round of applause -- Armstrong Williams, and a round of applause for Anne-Marie Johnson as well. We thank you all for coming on and joining us today. Our studio and our Internet audience, you too make this program work and I thank you for joining us today.

I'm Tavis Smiley in for Bobbie Battista. See you again tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. Eastern right here on TALKBACK LIVE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com