If you haven’t heard, there is a huge lawsuit going on between Billionaire Byron Allen and Comcast. The comedian and producer is currently suing the cable television operator for racial bias because he claims they are discriminating against black-owned channels. Many first heard about the case during Byron’s Breakfast club interview but it’s now being circulated everywhere.
If you wondering how Diddy got into the mix, I was too. According to Revolt, Comcast noted that “Comcast did, in fact, provide carriage opportunities to African-American owned channels, including REVOLT TV owned by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs.” So, basically Comcast can’t discriminate against black-owned channels because they have a black-owned channel. Diddy didn’t seem to agree and released an official statement regarding his name and company being mentioned.
Check out the full statement below.
My name and my network, REVOLT, have been mentioned recently by Comcast in reference to the Comcast/Byron Allen US Supreme Court case as an example of Comcast’s inclusive practices with respect to African American owned cable networks. While it is true that we are in business with Comcast, it is not accurate to use my name or my network as an example of inclusion. I do not want my name to be used inaccurately so I must speak my truth. I also want to make clear that this case is now about much more than cable distribution. It’s about the civil rights of millions of African Americans and other minorities.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM SEAN ‘DIDDY’ COMBS REGARDING THE COMCAST/BYRON ALLEN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE.
First, it’s important that people really understand what’s at stake. In its efforts to get the lawsuit filed by Byron Allen dismissed, Comcast has taken a legal approach that could weaken fundamental civil rights protections. I have a problem with this. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 section 1981 was designed to ensure Black people are able to do business in this country and not be denied because of race. Comcast is arguing that this law only applies if racial discrimination is the only factor that leads to a refusal to do business, which would be extremely hard to prove. If they are successful, it will become much harder for any victim of discrimination to seek justice in court. By taking this stance in the Supreme Court, Comcast has put its legal tactics ahead of the rights of millions of Americans to be heard. This is not OK.
Above anything else, my goal has always been to achieve true economic inclusion for Black people. How can Comcast suggest that it champions diversity and inclusion if it attacks the laws that provide the foundation for economic inclusion? What good are any of their efforts if they are fighting to make it harder for victims of discrimination to be heard in court? Comcast has made this about much more than Byron Allen, and now the civil rights of my children and my community are at stake. To be clear, anything that makes it harder to fight against discrimination is wrong. Comcast is choosing to be on the wrong side of history.
On REVOLT, I can only share the truth of my experience. Starting an independent cable network is incredibly difficult and capital intensive. The start we received from Comcast, which was a condition of the United States government approval for Comcast to acquire NBCUniversal, was important, but it is not the level of support needed to build a successful African American owned network. Not even close. Since that launch, our relationship has not grown, and REVOLT is still not carried by Comcast in the most affordable packages nor is REVOLT available in all of the markets that would enable us to serve our target audience. Comcast spends billions of dollars on content networks every year, but just a few million go to African American owned networks like REVOLT. That is unacceptable.
Supporting diversity and economic inclusion requires a real partnership. The only way Black-owned networks grow and thrive is with meaningful and consistent economic support. Otherwise, they are set up to fail. REVOLT has never been in a position to truly compete on a fair playing field because it has not received the economic and distribution support necessary for real economic inclusion. Our relationship with Comcast is the illusion of economic inclusion.
Rather than using this case to diminish the civil rights protections of millions of Americans, Comcast should use this as an opportunity to listen to a community it relies on and, above all, do better.
SOURCE Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs