MediaChannel:    Do corporations, to some extent, define urban media? And how would such a definition affect the consumer audience — those who are supposed to be having a relationship with makers of media — and the community that surrounds it?

Cristina Verán wrote:    Urban media has attempted to, presenting itself as this less formal, sort of anti-corporate corporate culture, in the way that it's flouting the suit-and-tie ethos. It is but a facade, which, while masking that which is traditionally corporate in substance under the surface (at least in the most successful ventures), must simultaneously project "street credibility" to its audience. Hence, urban media's relationship with the audience is largely based on smoke and mirrors, rather than authenticity and conscientious service of that audience's needs.

To flip the question a bit, I'd say that where this corporate culture of urban media is most flawed and most destructive is in its attempts to orchestrate — and therefore ultimately control — what this "urban culture" is [in order to] to sell its ads, et al.

Those from outside of this culture — and I'm defining this by life experience, not "race," here — [who are] in control of urban media, manipulate the very culture that they would do well to instead really listen to and interact with at the grass-roots level. Frankly, this crosses the line for me, as far as my role as a journalist and cultural historian (and 20-plus-year participant) — as opposed to being a corporate "marketeer" — [goes]. For me, the concern is always: How is this very corporatization affecting the culture? I am not in the business of promoting products (though certainly the fruits of my labors are used by others for that gain), but of educating and informing my readership.

Yes, commercial media entities are largely dependent on ad revenues, but while in pursuit of that, urban media has too often "sold out" the very culture because of which the public has invested its trust in them. I'll make my point using hip-hop, specifically, as the example. With few consistent exceptions, witness the lack of media coverage allotted to the three "other" essential components or elements of hip-hop culture — those being the DJing, the danceforms, and aerosol (graffiti) art, none of which is backed by anything like the billion-dollar music industry. In its failure to address hip-hop culture as a complete entity, [urban media] presents a false and inauthentic reality to an unsuspecting public.

Thus, today, we have a splintered "urban" or "hip-hop" audience, split between those who are "underground," as defined by their actual proximity to [or] grassroots participation in [or] activism supporting the "culture" and the corporate-controlled urban media which promotes corporate interests — i.e. ad sales, record sales, etc. — to the exclusion of those aforementioned qualities and communities.

The experiences of these corporate players have been too often limited to "industry" functions — that is, the music and/or fashion biz — rather than the grassroots venues or even the international events (from the DMC DJ championships, to the B-Boy Summit, to even the recent Graffiti Art auction at the Puck Building) wherein the complete "culture" is actually expressed and lived. The corporations neglect the whole of hip-hop culture because they can't seem to attach it to the profit structure they seek to achieve. By not reporting on major "non-rap" events, artists, etc., they render it invisible to the current urban audience, who gets its cues for "what's hot" in the year 2000 not from "the street," but from glossy magazines, MTV videos and the latest gear sold in Macy's.

In my current focus on and [during] extensive travel undertaken to research and document international youth cultures, most especially the global hip-hop movement, I have witnessed profound cultural achievement, unaided, yet more importantly unhindered, by the level of corporate dictates experienced in the United States. I, however, sustain the belief that less $$$ doesn't have to equal more culture. And by that same token, here in the U.S., more $$$ and the corporate control that bestows this doesn't have to demand less from urban culture. No one can tell me that the "highest common denominator" hasn't worked, because (without denying the achievements and struggles of many socially conscious and talented individuals within their ranks) I've yet to see any corporate urban-media entity shoot that high in the first place.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize, folks. Money pays the bills, but it alone does not feed the soul.

Alain Mariduena wrote:    Of course, corporations define and affect urban media. The way that they affect an audience is by duping them and providing a false sense of truthful reporting and real issues. Today media is show business. This, of course, damages a community's sense of the truth and alters its very existence. As Neil Postman said, "the result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death."

Let's take, for example, The New York Times covering a story on "Race in America and Hip Hop." Their depiction of a white man for the cover can be seen as slanted or perhaps corporately influenced. What does that do for their audience? Well, it gives them the impression that maybe [article subject] Upski is more important in hip hop than, lets say, [subject] Elliot Wilson. Or, if we look at some of the content in the urban media, do you think that all the fashion and consumption editorial that is the brilliant idea of an editor? I assume that we all know that the ad departments and corporate want to make more revenue and push to create new sections and stories that support ad sales and advertisers. Why aren't the real stories of what is happening in urban America at the forefront? I'll tell you why: It ruffles too many feathers.

We have to realize that when media is owned by corporations that there will be a negative impact on an audience. There is a corporate agenda. If media is advertising revenue-driven it is very dangerous and can hardly stay unbiased. Remember that these outlets have to get ratings and an audience. Also remember that the majority of the audience does not know how to decipher the grand scheme of things that they see on TV, read in a magazine, etc.

Crispus Attucks:    Corporations have helped define urban media; after all, ultimately, they are the ones who fund it.

To refer to the New York Times article in question, I actually point to the comment Elliott Wilson, editor of XXL. While editing a writer's work, he says: "I'm adding curse words. Putting in "ain'ts." Making it more hip-hop."

Evidently, it's someone's job to make things more urban by adding curse words. His decision ultimately helps shape people's minds about what falls into the realm of urban or hip-hop. On a personal level, I'm glad this facet stuck in The New York Times reporter's mind. I am extremely disappointed that the editor feels something isn't hip-hop unless it has poor grammar. I can even get past the curses. But, "ain't"? It's insulting, but XXL has made a decision and they will influence others.

It reminds me of the scene in Hollywood Shuffle where the white director is telling the black actor that he isn't being "black" enough. He wants his perception of black people to be portrayed on the screen, even if it is unbalanced, wrong or racist.

I don't want to seem blindly idealistic about business decisions to dumb down content to appeal to a wider base, but there are small things that seem superfluous, that actually insidiously have impacts on how urban media is perceived.

Corporations have an affect on Web sites dedicated to urban media either through direct funding or through guidelines to obtain advertising. They rewrite film scripts for major releases and television episodes on major networks. They edit magazine content and lyrics for songs. They tell artists who want deals to come back when they curse more and look a certain way.

It easily spilled into the consumer base. People see people in movies get shot in the head and say some cool line. People imitate this in real life. They focus on gold teeth looking cool. It influences people who may have avoided it before, to go ahead and ruin their teeth by getting a pair. Media is a power tool, and many people can't separate advertisements from editorial. They often just take everything they see in media as the way to follow. This, of course, is a much deeper argument that carries over to beyond just urban media.

Scoop Jackson:    I agree with a little bit of what everyone said. But I'm one to never give "them" (white folks/corporations/the powers that be, etc.) that much power. Large corporations may help "extend" urban media, but it doesn't define it. We muthafuckas that shape urban America define urban media. We always have and always will. Urban media starts on the block and finds it's way to The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, XXL, etc., by an invader or a sellout. Either way, what becomes urban media by the time it gets out to the general (white) public is not the same as it was when it left the neighborhood. Understand? Now just because someone can come in and take our media and dispense it to the masses, to larger numbers, doesn't mean that they define it.

Rahsaan Harris:    I think there is an important distinction that has to be made between urban media and urban culture. Urban media is the vehicle by which urban culture is broadcast to a large audience. Urban culture is what inner city residents live and create in their everyday lives.

With these definitions in mind, I would say that corporations do define urban media. They are the people who own the newspapers, radio and television stations, and Web sites and get to make the decision of who they are going to put on. But the corporations can't own urban culture because no one can own someone's spirit and way of life.

However, urban media can distort the public's understanding of what urban culture is, and it often serves to reinforce negative stereotypes because that is what sells papers and attracts a larger audience. It also serves to give us an identity crisis because we are led to believe that "keeping it real" or being Black is all about being thugged out, ebonics and misogyny (the "playa" syndrome).

Urban media that has an urban genesis is out there, but it doesn't have the financial backing that corporations infuse. Small and grassroots publications and Web sites like The Amsterdam News and www.harlemlive.org remind us that we can still have a voice in the face of mass media. The question is, how loud is the voice going to be and who is going to strain to hear it?