Also known as Black Exploitation Television. A poor representation of Black people in society; a glorification of big booties, gold teeth, tha projects and crack heads, pimps and hoes, and relentless violence. An utter disgrace, but it sells.
by Miss Blake February 26, 2005
A conservative organization that monitors the content of television shows in order to determine which ones are okay to let their children watch. While many complain that they are trying to infringe upon free speech, they are actually performing a very valuable service. You can figure out how good any given show is by how low they rate it.
I learned that 'Family Guy' is a really good show based on the very low rating that the parent's television council gave it.
by rustyshackleford August 8, 2007
Media Watchdog group which claims to be non-partisan composed of bored housewives who drink their daily glass of wine a day who believe that they themselves should not parent their children, but in fact, the major networks should. L. Brent Bozell III, the founder, also heads up a similarly non-partisan organization which watches the news networks looking to prove a liberal bias trying to destroy this country, and is against all gay rights.
We, the Parents Television Council are highly opposed to the nudity contained within Grand Theft Auto. Before we thought it was simply a tool to teach the children about Black culture, but now we've learned it's just filth.
by Talvin July 20, 2005
From observation, recognising that the general standard of television in my opinion has deteriorated and continues to do so year by year, so much so I now watch very little, I’ve found as far as the programme quality and content on all television channels, the following Doghouse's Laws of Television often apply.
I started compiling this list several years ago and some of these "laws" are now occasionally mentioned by contributors to a specific TV network message board, though of course they can apply to any channel.
I'm sure other contributors may relate to some of them and can think of other examples of practices which could be added to the list.
With a new programme, if your impression of it after ten minutes is that it's going to be rubbish, you’ll only be right 95% of the time.
The number of advance programme trails screened, will be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme. The ”best bits” of any programme will be included in the trail.
The volume of background music will often be in inverse proportion to the amount of watchable activity on the screen at that time.
Any TV audience gets the standard of programmes it deserves. It’s no good complaining about the quality of a programme if you continue to watch it.
If an idea for a programme suggested to a TV network commissioning department isn’t another soap in one form or another, or requires an "in your face" presenter/auto-cutie, celebrities, judges, phone votes, or the inclusion of dysfunctional members of the public, it is unlikely to be made.
The number of programme presenters appearing at any one time, will usually be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme.
The number and variety of similar programmes on TV, are likely to be in inverse proportion to their cost to present.
To reach the widest audience, in a programme where the subject is of a specific nature, it may include totally unrelated elements in an attempt to also “engage” viewers who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the actual topic, in a futile attempt to increase the ratings.
Some programmes, even a few news bulletins, given the level at which the programme makers pitch their production, should have the words; "for Dummies" added to the title.
If you've any doubts about watching a programme, from the trails or advertising you've seen, take a chance, give it a miss.
I started compiling this list several years ago and some of these "laws" are now occasionally mentioned by contributors to a specific TV network message board, though of course they can apply to any channel.
I'm sure other contributors may relate to some of them and can think of other examples of practices which could be added to the list.
With a new programme, if your impression of it after ten minutes is that it's going to be rubbish, you’ll only be right 95% of the time.
The number of advance programme trails screened, will be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme. The ”best bits” of any programme will be included in the trail.
The volume of background music will often be in inverse proportion to the amount of watchable activity on the screen at that time.
Any TV audience gets the standard of programmes it deserves. It’s no good complaining about the quality of a programme if you continue to watch it.
If an idea for a programme suggested to a TV network commissioning department isn’t another soap in one form or another, or requires an "in your face" presenter/auto-cutie, celebrities, judges, phone votes, or the inclusion of dysfunctional members of the public, it is unlikely to be made.
The number of programme presenters appearing at any one time, will usually be in inverse proportion to the quality of the programme.
The number and variety of similar programmes on TV, are likely to be in inverse proportion to their cost to present.
To reach the widest audience, in a programme where the subject is of a specific nature, it may include totally unrelated elements in an attempt to also “engage” viewers who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the actual topic, in a futile attempt to increase the ratings.
Some programmes, even a few news bulletins, given the level at which the programme makers pitch their production, should have the words; "for Dummies" added to the title.
If you've any doubts about watching a programme, from the trails or advertising you've seen, take a chance, give it a miss.
by Doghouse Riley September 19, 2008
Lazy parents that are unable to parent their children, due to severe brain damage. They feel that they shouldn't have to parent their children, and when they give their children access to anything they don't want their kids to see, they feel that it is not their own fault for enabling the child to see the questionable content, but the entertainment industry for "corrupting" their "innocent" children's minds. They are also very naive, thinking that because they don't want their kids to see it, nobody should be allowed to. They are typically too busy bathing in their own stupidity, or arguing about something else that "corrupts" their children at a PTA meeting, to actually monitor what their kids do, so they try to force others to do it for them, by stripping the rights of everyone else.
Typical Parents Television Council supporter
"It's not MY job to parent my kids, that's the entertainment industry and the governments job!"
"How dare those evil corporations show something I don't want my kids to watch!"
"What? Did you just say parent your children? That's absurd! Why would I take care of my kids anyways? That's what the TV's for, right?"
"It's not MY job to parent my kids, that's the entertainment industry and the governments job!"
"How dare those evil corporations show something I don't want my kids to watch!"
"What? Did you just say parent your children? That's absurd! Why would I take care of my kids anyways? That's what the TV's for, right?"
by Da Cawtz March 6, 2014
Hey I was watching R. Kelly's new video on Black Entertainment Television while he was being arraigned on Court TV for pissing on chicks.
by Brodie Bruce January 19, 2005
"Hey, let's watch BET!"
"I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have to murder you for suggesting such a thing."
"I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have to murder you for suggesting such a thing."
by Anonymous May 10, 2003