Minorities not represented on TV
Staff Editorial
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Ever since the networks announced their fall lineups last year, the Big Four have been scrambling to deal with accusations of racial bias in their programming.
The NAACP and other minority rights organizations felt that the fall season would be a virtual "white-wash," almost completely void of blacks, Hispanics or other ethnicities beyond the traditional white European.
While the NAACP cited shows like "Friends," "Drew Carey" and the new drama "Once and Again" for their lack of color, networks threw out feeble excuses and lame attempts to prove their devotion to equality in programming — i.e. NBC's attempt to pass off "West Wing's" Martin Sheen as a Hispanic-American. Now that all the backpedaling is over and the fall season has already seen its winners and losers come to the forefront, we can take the time to examine whether all the complaining, threatened boycotts and network cow-towing really made a difference at all.
Here is the black-and-white truth about television: It is a for-profit venture. FOX, CBS and all the others can claim they want to put forth quality programs which will both inspire and entertain people of all backgrounds, but if "quality inspiration" doesn't bring down the needed Nielsons, then it's time to replace quality with "World's Scariest Moments on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," hosted by Jerry Springer and Heather Locklear. 'Cause if we learned anything last fall, it's that money and cute blondes bring in the viewers. So when networks take a look at their viewing audience and notice that a significant portion of them happen to be middle-to-lower class whites aged 18-45, they tend to go after shows these uber-viewers will enjoy.
Is it right? Depends on your vision for television. Are the airwaves there for betterment or profit? If you own stock in ABC, you'll probably go with the latter.
When the problems arose last summer, networks had a few options. They could have ignored the outcry, made promises to change things next year, scrapped the lineups or inserted token minorities into already-created series. Many went with the inserted-character concept. "Wasteland," a short-lived, 20-something drama, gained a black male. Why was his character included? To give the show a sense of reality — or to appease the NAACP?
These token blacks and Hispanics are as much of an insult as the exclusion of minorities altogether. Often they are only peripheral characters whose entire purpose is defined by their race. If you add someone to a series just for their skin color, they have, in essence, become a one-line joke.
The solution? Color-blind casting, for one. Instead of writing shows where parts are defined from the get-go by racial status, create characters who are people, and then see who best fits the part.
(Obviously if you are writing a sitcom about four Jewish friends in New York, you might have to be a little more specific in your casting, but we'll allow that.)
If shows are going to be judged on their color make-up or forced to add characters just to attain a perfect ratio, quality will suffer. And given the sad state of television today, that's something we couldn't have. Minorities deserve proper recognition in next year's lineup. They just shouldn't have to settle for second-rate add-ons and stereotypes as their representation.
This staff editorial first appeared in The Daily Athenaeum at West Virginia University. It is reprinted here courtesy of the U-Wire.
The views expressed in this editorial are those of the staff of The Daily Athenaeum and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, February 7, 2000
