Assigment Questions - Need Opinions Please

[Phantom Paragrapher]

Hi All , Im doing an assignment for my Bachelor of Communications and was wanting opinions as we need to gather data from outsiders . So what better than the forum on Literature.
Q.1 - Do you think the Mass Media in context of Romance Novels - talking about the ones which show woman as helpless and fall into the arms of their Knight in Shining armour as damaging to woman nowadays and those who read them ? E.g in terms of todays life -Love expectations etc. Examples would be good as well - Can just write book titles/authors .
Q.2- Media Stereotypes - Are we really affected by the people portrayed on TV ? E.g Crime-Black People , Big Strong People -Action men , Woman - Damsel in Distress ? Or is it affected by who we are as a person ? .

If anyone can put forward their opinions etc , I would be grateful.

[Winifred]

Q-1: The last book I read really chock full of stereotypes was The Virginian by Owen Wister, understandable because written in 1902. Still, there was this really strange section of the book where the Virginian is reflecting about how important it is to him to know that women are innocent of all the evils of life. This, despite the women in the book being miles ahead of him when it comes to interpersonal relationships, understanding, etc. The book does barely qualify as a romance novel in the sense of 1) the Virginian courts his love for years before winning her 2) once he's won her, love conquers all her qualms - she is ruled by her overwhelming emotion for him, overcoming her principles to stand by her man (although the author clearly felt her principles were skewed). Dangerous for modern young female or male minds? No, more thought provoking. But then again, this book is probably read by young men and women, so doesn't quite qualify as purely a romance novel. You can ignore my response for your study, most likely - I really avoid poufy "romance" novels.

Q2: Yes, I think we are both influenced by and show our cultural prejudices on TV programs. At the moment, I'm a lot more worried about the casual level of violence on TV. In case you don't think that there is still prejudice, we discussed on another forum how Russians are portrayed on American TV. When's the last time you saw a Russian who wasn't a spy or dastardly person? Blacks, gays and disabled folk are treated better than some ethnic groups. Also, so much rudeness is tolerated nowadays - House comes to mind. The doctors, being considered brilliant, are expected to be mean to each other as well as rude, and the poor patients are nothing but experimental pieces of meat. That I find this program funny (in increasingly smaller doses) worries me. Another example, which I love, is Malcolm in the Middle. Here we have another family (hilarious, mostly) where rudeness and dirty tricks abound, but the effect is traditional, following in the steps of Leave It to Beaver, and the book Tom Sawyer before that. Looking at the stereotypes in those 3 might make an interesting study...

[margaine]

Like Winifred, I'm not sure I can comment much on Question 1. I'm just not familiar enough with contemporary romance-type novels to be able to say what kinds of roles they portray and how people might be affected by those roles. I have read a handful of chick-lit books (Bridget Jones' Diary, a few others whose titles I can't remember). The thing about the chick-lit books that I've read that strikes me, however, is that they don't really provide compelling models that anyone would want to follow. The main characters in the books I have read are always charmingly flawed - it makes it easier to relate to the characters and makes the books funny, but I'd be disturbed if someone's idea of romance was driven by wanting to be like those women - who always go for the wrong guy or say something stupid in a critical situation, or whatever. But I guess the problem with such a portrayal could be what I see as a kind of unrealistic portrayal of dating, and maybe in some cases an unfair portrayal of men. In these books, there is always some kind of game going on, some kind of trick or farce related to the dating/romance situation. Maybe people doing the real all-out dating thing in big cities really do experience things that are portrayed in these novels and the films that are based on them. But that has never been anything close to my experience - dating and romance isn't only a game but can actually be based on honesty and compassion and no tricks. I can't speak to real romance novels though, as I've never read them. It's also been a long time since I've read any chick-lit, including the above-mentioned book. So I apologize if my impressions aren't entirely accurate.

I have lots to say about question 2, but I don't have time to write it at the moment. So I will get back to you.

These are interesting questions to respond to, although I don't know how representative we are of the general public.

[margaine]

Here are my thoughts on Question 2:

I suppose people could be affected by what is seen on tv. But maybe it's partly a feedback loop, so it's hard to say where it starts. The TV shows don't invent the stereotypes they portray, they perpetuate existing stereotypes. So it kind-of loops around - where does it start? I don't think getting rid of negative stereotypes on TV would eliminate negative prejudice in real life - after all racism existed way before television! I'd certainly like to see more balanced racial portrayals on TV, but I wonder how much difference it really makes.

On the other hand, people are also entirely capable of reading media critically and taking what they want out of TV shows or other forms of media. Sometimes, not enough credit is given to the general public. I am thinking about this because I just read about an interesting study that was done among a group of young women in New York of West Indian descent or origin. It was about their responses to the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The researcher doing the study found that while the West Indian women were frustrated by the portrayal of African things on the show (because African objects/people are heavily associated with magic, whether good or bad. Granted much of what happens in the show involves magic and the supernatural, but the point here is not about Buffy itself but about the women's response to it), they still enjoyed the show and were able to identify with the character of Buffy as a person who had trouble fitting in to the society around her. So in the end they were able to critically engage the show and find something useful for themselves in it. This is just one study of what I imagine was a fairly limited population, but I liked reading about it because it shows that you can interact with a TV show on many levels and the show isn't always about just one thing. I think most people have the capability to critically interact with media if they are taught to do so. We need not all be passive receivers. Maybe there should be TV-watching class in school. ;)

The same of course goes for books.

If you have ever watched Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, do you know the character Dr. George Huang (played by B.D. Wong), who is the department's psychiatrist? My friend and I used to refer to the character as "the Asian sage." I haven't watched the show since then (like 2004), so maybe the character has shifted by now. But we called him that because he always had these concise and intelligent things to say, and those things were the only things he ever said. Whenever there is discussion of stereotypes on TV, I think of that. It could be worse, but it's just funny. I saw B.D. Wong talk about Asians in the media, actually, and he was really cool and interesting.

[Jez]

When's the last time you saw a Russian who wasn't a spy or dastardly person?

Off the top of my head:

Pavel Chekov from Star Trek
Victor from Dollhouse (he was a spy briefly, for the good guys, as were non-Russians)
All of the main characters from the 1997 cartoon Anastasia
Vasily in Enemy at the Gates

[Jez]

I'd certainly like to see more balanced racial portrayals on TV, but I wonder how much difference it really makes.

What do you mean by more balanced racial portrayals on TV? Compared to population percentages, most racial minorities are actually more often overrepresented than underrepresented.

[margaine]

What do you mean by more balanced racial portrayals on TV? Compared to population percentages, most racial minorities are actually more often overrepresented than underrepresented.

I am not referring to numbers. After all the US census is currently being conducted, so I don't have updated numbers. Nor do I have a set of racial ratios for all TV shows. By "balanced" I mean things of the "asian sage" variety as described above. And that is not to say that all non-white characters on tv fall into stereotypes or anything of that sort. There are many exceptions, or maybe the exception is in fact the rule. But it seems that options are limited in a certain way for actors of some racial backgrounds, as they are for people that are overweight, or very short, or exceedingly tall. But there are real limitations on what people will watch or what people want to see (we like watching beautiful people, for example) or what is reasonable to portray (a blind cab driver, for example, would not work very well). It's just the way it is, and nothing is worse than unrealistic additions of non-white figures for nothing other than so-called balance or political correctness!

[Jez]

Q.1 - Do you think the Mass Media in context of Romance Novels - talking about the ones which show woman as helpless and fall into the arms of their Knight in Shining armour as damaging to woman nowadays and those who read them ? E.g in terms of todays life -Love expectations etc. Examples would be good as well - Can just write book titles/authors .
No, I don't think they are damaging, for three main reasons.

First off, why are those types of stories necessarily bad? Sometimes a woman is in a situation where she is effectively helpless, and sometimes the man in the situation is the one in the position to save her. That's just reality sometimes. Men are just better equipped for some things, just as women are better equipped for some things, and it's about time we start recognizing that again. Biologically, historically, and socially men are protectors and women are the ones they are protecting. I'd be an idiot to think that I'm better able to protect myself in a physical fight than Evan would be able to protect me.

We as humans have evolved this way and centuries of evolution don't just disappear the minute a bra is burned. It is natural and healthy for women to desire to be protected by a man capable of protecting her, and it is natural for this to arouse her (a man best able to protect a woman is, biologically, the best mate and therefore the man she will be most instinctively attracted to).

If the specific situation presented seems unrealistic given the parameters of the particular plot, then the book is probably not a very good book because the plot is unrealistic, not because it is prejudicial. Think about any other plot line that is unrealistically described--most readers will dislike it for that reason.

Second, even if the situation is unrealistic, what's the problem if the person reading it likes it that way? If a person is reading those books and liking them, then what's the problem? Is the problem the book, or the person? I'm much more inclined to say the person, especially considering most people reading those books aren't impressionable seven year olds, but adult women who have already developed their personalities and preferences. If they're adults and they're still that susceptible to the media forming their beliefs, thoughts, and personality, then I think there are bigger problems to worry about than recreational reading of bodice rippers. At this point in time, there's a wealth of alternatives for them to read, and if they're being drawn to this type of story only (and for the wrong reasons), then that's on them, not the media.

Third, if the person reading those stories is completely healthy and just happens to like those kinds of stories, then what's the problem? Who cares? Isn't it kind of anti-women's choice and all that to deride these women for exercising their ability to think for themselves and choose what they like? Like I said earlier, there are perfectly healthy and natural reasons for adult women to like books like this. If a woman is reading and enjoying the books for those healthy natural reasons, then there is nothing wrong or damaging about that at all. It's actually a healthy expression of natural evolutionary roles (just like "maternal responses").


Q.2- Media Stereotypes - Are we really affected by the people portrayed on TV ? E.g Crime-Black People , Big Strong People -Action men , Woman - Damsel in Distress ? Or is it affected by who we are as a person ?
If a person is a mindless hole that just takes in everything they see, then yes, they are very affected by the media. What they see they will often take as truth.

Same goes for things like body image: if you're a person who is uncertain about your own body image, then you're more likely to be swayed and influenced by the media's preferences. If, on the other hand, you're certain about the way you view yourself, then media presentations will not influence you very much.

This also applies to things like stereotypes. If you know a bunch of black men and most of them are criminals, then it doesn't matter whether the media tends to portray black men as criminals or saints--you'll probably still think of them as criminals. Likewise, if all the black men you know are stand up citizens, then it also doesn't much matter how the media presents black men. If you don't know any black men, however, then the media's presentation is more likely to affect your perceptions. If you're an intelligent person, though, then you'll be aware that the media is the media and isn't necessarily presenting reality. You'd know to reserve judgment until you have more information.

Most people aren't all that intelligent, so, yes, the media often shapes their perceptions. Maybe media presentations in NZ are different from the US, but the stereotype examples you use are not the messages our media sends. Women, for example, are rarely presented as damsels. They are generally sassy, kick butt, intelligent women who are constantly surrounded by men who are inferior to them. This is especially common on sitcoms and commercials. Still, even the media courses I took seem to overlook the realities of modern media and still harp on stereotypes that are no longer really presented.

There is nothing wrong with watching and enjoying any of the media stereotypes if the person watching is a healthy individual. If a person recognizes that someone like Kiera Knightly has had a ton of plastic surgery and she wasn't actually born looking like that still enjoys watching her because they like her and thinks she's pretty, then there's nothing wrong with that. They recognize reality and can still enjoy fantasy. Just like a person thinking Gandalf is awesome, but also recognizing that he isn't and never will be real (and they can never be like him).

Ditto for things like violence or risky sexual behaviors or other socially taboo actions. Simply watching--and even enjoying--such things does not mean we will succumb to them. We like them because we are human and they resonate with us. Humans are violent. Humans are sexually promiscuous. Humans are often mean. These are all expressions of power and ability. They are things that make us attractive to one another on a basic evolutionary level. They aren't things to be ashamed of or afraid of. As long as a person is properly socialized and adapted to the realities of their modern society, then there's no reason they should fear they will turn into what they are watching. Studies have proved what common sense already answered: properly adapted and socialized people will not turn violent if they play violent video/sexual/cruel/etc games or watch violent/sexual/cruel/etc movies. Again, two year olds learning how to be human aren't watching House or playing Grand Theft Auto. The ones that are and are being influenced by them probably aren't being socialized properly anyway, and then the games and movies are the least of their problems.

Again, the media isn't the one to blame here. No matter how much we "improve" what the media shows, the root problem still remains: A large segment of the population are passively accepting whatever they see instead of thinking for themselves. Changing the media messages only serves to manipulate those people in a different direction. They're still allowing themselves to be manipulated.

[Jez]

I am not referring to numbers. After all the US census is currently being conducted, so I don't have updated numbers. Nor do I have a set of racial ratios for all TV shows. By "balanced" I mean things of the "asian sage" variety as described above. And that is not to say that all non-white characters on tv fall into stereotypes or anything of that sort. There are many exceptions, or maybe the exception is in fact the rule. But it seems that options are limited in a certain way for actors of some racial backgrounds, as they are for people that are overweight, or very short, or exceedingly tall. But there are real limitations on what people will watch or what people want to see (we like watching beautiful people, for example) or what is reasonable to portray (a blind cab driver, for example, would not work very well). It's just the way it is, and nothing is worse than unrealistic additions of non-white figures for nothing other than so-called balance or political correctness! Ah, ok, I get more what you're saying now. What would you want to see as a solution to that?

[margaine]

Most people aren't all that intelligent, so, yes, the media often shapes their perceptions. Maybe media presentations in NZ are different from the US, but the stereotype examples you use are not the messages our media sends. Women, for example, are rarely presented as damsels. They are generally sassy, kick butt, intelligent women who are constantly surrounded by men who are inferior to them. This is especially common on sitcoms and commercials. Still, even the media courses I took seem to overlook the realities of modern media and still harp on stereotypes that are no longer really presented.

Ha! It's so true. Actually the prevalence of this "type" of female character is beginning to get on my nerves because it starts to seem like the female characters are all copies of each other. The other day, _object mixed up Olivia on Fringe with Diana on The 4400 (or, more specifically, while reading about Diana in the 4400 book, he pictured Olivia). Other examples are Olivia on SVU and Sarah Connor in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (I don't know the original Terminator movies) - all the same type of tough female character who is really smart and strong and active but sometimes has issues with personal relationships or otherwise connecting to people . . .(the male characters are not always weak alongside her). These are really good shows that I like a lot, but this type starts to be overpowering.

[Jez]

Yup. It's really annoying. We haven't been given anymore choice, we've just been given a new "ideal" to have shoved down our throats. That she's tough and sassy, but also damaged emotionally is really annoying, because one often undermines the other making the character especially unappealing (we're being told she's so great and strong, yet she's empowered because she's damaged? She often flies off the handle because of her issues? Not appealing). They're also usually so smug and "right", but they're wrong! Sarah from CSI made me want to throw something at the tv.

[margaine]

Ah, ok, I get more what you're saying now. What would you want to see as a solution to that?

I don't think I have a solution . . . But I think it would be interesting, just from a personal perspective, to see more shows that focus on non-white communities as a whole - a family of Indians in New Jersey, or a group of Latino friends in Southern California (stereotypes in and of themselves, maybe, but some stereotypes are in fact based in reality!). If you have a show that focuses on a group of people, then within that group you can have varieties of personality types and career choices, which are all types in and of themselves (the smart friend, the annoying younger sibling, whatever), but you would see people of one racial or ethnic group acting in many different ways. The problem with this kind of show is that it always turns into niche programming, as many shows that focus on black communities have. And people who aren't in that niche probably wouldn't want to watch the show. And in that it could suggest a kind of racially segregated existence, but in reality people do live in fairly separated communities. Here in Santa Barbara, there are whites and latinos and they pass each other on the street and eat in the same food places, but they do not spend time mixing socially, that I have ever seen. Having a show that focuses on a single group leaves room to experiment with all different types of people and within that, there could be room to shift stereotypical images.

I don't really watch TV regularly, I just pick and choose a limited set of shows that I like, so I really don't know what's going on. And I do know that in current TV, it's easy for a show about "a community" to become problematic - look at all the uproar about Jersey Shore!

Edit: A good example of a reality TV show that is more fair about a group that doesn't get much airtime usually is Little People, Big World on TLC in which there is a family where several members have dwarfism. They just become people. I don't put much stock in Reality TV in general, but the show does have that effect.

[Jez]

I don't think I have a solution . . . But I think it would be interesting, just from a personal perspective, to see more shows that focus on non-white communities as a whole - a family of Indians in New Jersey, or a group of Latino friends in Southern California (stereotypes in and of themselves, maybe, but some stereotypes are in fact based in reality!). What do you mean "From a personal perspective"? Do you mean you're interested in watching these types of shows and you wish they existed for your own enjoyment? Or do you wish they existed for some other reason? If they were on, would you watch them? If there were two shows that were pretty similar, but one was an all white cast and one was an all Asian cast or other minority, do you think race would factor into your choice for watching one or the other, or both?


If you have a show that focuses on a group of people, then within that group you can have varieties of personality types and career choices, which are all types in and of themselves (the smart friend, the annoying younger sibling, whatever), but you would see people of one racial or ethnic group acting in many different ways. Wouldn't they be the same shows as the all white casts then? Would you prefer if the all-minority casts acted in the same way and fell into the same stereotypes shown on the alll-white casts, or would you prefer they behaved in more culture-specific ways? Do you have different preferences for what you would personally watch and what you would like to see on tv for balance (but wouldn't necessarily watch yourself)?


The problem with this kind of show is that it always turns into niche programming, as many shows that focus on black communities have. And people who aren't in that niche probably wouldn't want to watch the show. And in that it could suggest a kind of racially segregated existence, but in reality people do live in fairly separated communities.
Do you think that happens because people simply prefer to watch shows that reflect their own race, or because they prefer to watch shows that reflect their own culture? Can two be separated and still provide balance on tv? Take The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, for example. While an all-black cast, the culture of the characters was very different from the culture portrayed on the show Moesha, another all-black cast. For those who aren't familiar with either show, The Fresh Prince had a more mainstream broadcast, whereas Moesha was aired on a significantly more niche channel.


Here in Santa Barbara, there are whites and latinos and they pass each other on the street and eat in the same food places, but they do not spend time mixing socially, that I have ever seen. Having a show that focuses on a single group leaves room to experiment with all different types of people and within that, there could be room to shift stereotypical images. If the all-minority cast shows are watched primarily by the matching minority, is there room to shift stereotyped images across races? If a show of all-minority actors removes all culture-specific aspects, and is then watched by more white viewers, is there much opportunity to shift stereotyped images? Would the new stereotypes or images be accurate?

Should the responsibility of shifting stereotypes be one of the responsibilities of a medium that's primary purpose is entertainment and profit?


I don't really watch TV regularly, I just pick and choose a limited set of shows that I like, so I really don't know what's going on. And I do know that in current TV, it's easy for a show about "a community" to become problematic - look at all the uproar about Jersey Shore! I have no idea! I'm almost completely out of the loop now when it comes to current tv shows and surrounding drama. What was the uproar about? Was is justified? Aren't most shows about a community of some sort. Gossip Girl is about the wealthy NY teens, Full House was about an upper middle class white family in SF, Gilmore Girls was about a white single mother, Malcolm in the Middle is about a blue-collar white family, NYPD Blue was about law enforcement agents, NCIS is about the Navy, Criminal Minds is about the FBI, etc. What makes some groups' community status more of a focus than other groups? What makes one group's TV portrayal more controversial than another group's portrayal?


Edit: A good example of a reality TV show that is more fair about a group that doesn't get much airtime usually is Little People, Big World on TLC in which there is a family where several members have dwarfism. They just become people. I don't put much stock in Reality TV in general, but the show does have that effect.
What makes this show more "fair"?

I hope you don't mind that I'm asking so many questions. You're just raising a lot of points that are making me think. :)

[Phantom Paragrapher]

This is interesting as I know coming from New Zealand. Where though we have alot of different cultures now inhabitating it . The Main two cultures are New Zealand Europeans which are white and Maoris-Which are brown skinned , not dark like African-Americans . On TV we have a few NZ shows played like Shortland Street which is a majority white but also contains other NZ nationality's. In NZ Music though we have alot of maori singers rather than White . So alot of NZ Music is Rap /Hip Hop rather than Pop/Emo type. Though in alot of aspects, the NZE way of life is becoming more the norm , the majority of things in NZ are leaning towards reaching the Maori culture. Though with the stereotype of Black= Crime etc. In NZ the majority of crime , teen pregnancy , drugs is the Maoris rather than European but in saying that the lower income falls into the Maori culture more than NZE . Though in other ways the NZE do fall into the category but they are not out there protesting their income values etc.

[Jez]

Though in alot of aspects, the NZE way of life is becoming more the norm , the majority of things in NZ are leaning towards reaching the Maori culture. Though with the stereotype of Black= Crime etc.
That's very interesting, PP. I was a little confused about these two sentences though. It seems like you're saying they're both the majority? Also, why is the stereotype of black=crime so strong if there aren't many black people in NZ?

I was also wondering how our responses will be used in your assignment? I don't mind, I'm just curious. :)

[Star_Anise]

In NZ the majority of crime , teen pregnancy , drugs is the Maoris rather than European but in saying that the lower income falls into the Maori culture more than NZE .

I'm also confused by this - if the Maori population is low, how can the majority of these things be assigned to them?

[Jez]

I'm also confused by this - if the Maori population is low, how can the majority of these things be assigned to them?

Easily. If there are 100 crimes committed a year and 98 of them were committed by Maori, then the Maori population are responsible for the majority of crimes, regardless of whether the Maoris make up the majority or minority of the overall NZ population.

Did I not understand you properly? :confused:

[Star_Anise]

Easily. If there are 100 crimes committed a year and 98 of them were committed by Maori, then the Maori population are responsible for the majority of crimes, regardless of whether the Maoris make up the majority or minority of the overall NZ population.

Did I not understand you properly? :confused:

Yes, I understand this can be so, but was wondering if that's what Paula meant.

[Phantom Paragrapher]

Sorry , Yep Your right Jez . After World War 2 in New Zealand Maori were started to phase out of their normal culture and taught the ways of the Pakeha . Slowly more and more years went by and the New Zealand European became a Majority race in everything , but in 1970's the Maoris started to reclaim their culture and what was thought to be theres rightfully in more ways than one. If you looked at statistics in New Zealand -the majority of crimes , teen pregnancies , school dropouts etc occur more than often between Maoris than Pakehas . Therefore the Maoris becoming the majority rather than minority- Its getting a little off topic of my assignment but thats ok . But I did mean what Jez was saying.

My assignments an Interesting one as I have to talk about the Tension between analysing meaning in media texts and audience reception. The main point of the assigment is whether the texts themselves or the audiences determine their meanings using Media models of Media Effects Model , content Analysis and Ethnographic Studies. Whats been brought up is excellent as its opened my eyes up to more detail and thoughts than I had to start off with. The discussion has been very knowledgable for me .

[margaine]

Jez, first of all, let me say that I don't think I can answer all of your questions fully. I'm not a TV producer or screen writer and have no interest in being one. So I don't really have an "ideal show" envisioned or anything like that, and I don't really have the energy to envision one. All I can do is try to clarify some of what I said, which I think may not have been entirely clear.


What do you mean "From a personal perspective"? Do you mean you're interested in watching these types of shows and you wish they existed for your own enjoyment? Or do you wish they existed for some other reason? If they were on, would you watch them? If there were two shows that were pretty similar, but one was an all white cast and one was an all Asian cast or other minority, do you think race would factor into your choice for watching one or the other, or both?

Yeah, I mean exactly that - I would personally be interested in shows of that sort. I think they would be interesting to watch and to think about. But if they were reasonable portrayals of those communities, they would also demonstrate some cultural specificity and that would interest me (they wouldn't just be acting precisely the same way as a typical white anglo-american group, or whatever). Some of those portrayals and cultural uniquenesses might start to look like stereotypes, and the line is often very narrow between the two. That is why I don't have a "perfect show" in mind.


Wouldn't they be the same shows as the all white casts then? Would you prefer if the all-minority casts acted in the same way and fell into the same stereotypes shown on the alll-white casts, or would you prefer they behaved in more culture-specific ways? Do you have different preferences for what you would personally watch and what you would like to see on tv for balance (but wouldn't necessarily watch yourself)?

So, yeah, what I'm trying to say is that there could be shows that maybe have some similar personality types to all-white TV shows (in some ways, people are just people, and TV is always just TV) but that are also culturally specific at the same time. Like if you were suddenly having dinner with a family with another cultural background, you would see a lot of differences, but there would also be similarities. Does that make sense? I didn't mean to suggest that the shows would be exactly like current shows with all-white anglo-american casts, simply replaced by people of another racial and cultural background.


Do you think that happens because people simply prefer to watch shows that reflect their own race, or because they prefer to watch shows that reflect their own culture? Can two be separated and still provide balance on tv? Take The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, for example. While an all-black cast, the culture of the characters was very different from the culture portrayed on the show Moesha, another all-black cast. For those who aren't familiar with either show, The Fresh Prince had a more mainstream broadcast, whereas Moesha was aired on a significantly more niche channel.

Maybe it's mostly marketing. And I was mostly pointing that niche issue out to indicate that there isn't an easy answer. As I've said, I didn't intend to separate culture and race so much in my version of "what might work as a solution," so I hope that's clear now. Ideally, the shows would be watched by all different people. They would maintain a certain "truth" in terms of cultural realities but still be watched by people beyond that cultural group. Is that possible? I have no idea. Perhaps not. Maybe I'm just a cultural voyeur that I think it would be cool to see such shows.


Should the responsibility of shifting stereotypes be one of the responsibilities of a medium that's primary purpose is entertainment and profit?

No, it's not their responsibility. But I'd like to think that there are also people in the TV industry who are artists and creators and who might like to play with and work with culture and race in unique ways that move out of the boxes to which some groups of people are often relegated in TV. It would be nice if they had the chance to do that, and if their shows give people some new ideas, so much the better. But because the primary purpose is profit (by way of entertainment), that is not always possible, which is evidenced by the numerous really excellent shows (of any sort) that have gotten canceled.


I have no idea! I'm almost completely out of the loop now when it comes to current tv shows and surrounding drama. What was the uproar about? Was is justified? Aren't most shows about a community of some sort. Gossip Girl is about the wealthy NY teens, Full House was about an upper middle class white family in SF, Gilmore Girls was about a white single mother, Malcolm in the Middle is about a blue-collar white family, NYPD Blue was about law enforcement agents, NCIS is about the Navy, Criminal Minds is about the FBI, etc. What makes some groups' community status more of a focus than other groups? What makes one group's TV portrayal more controversial than another group's portrayal?

I haven't actually seen Jersey Shore, so I can't speak to whether the uproar is justified or not. But the deal is that the show portrays a bunch of Italian-American kids in New Jersey, and the allegation is that they act in ways that are not positive portrayals of Italian-Americans more broadly, or something like that. I guess the controversy emerged because there are negative things that appear in the show? Since I haven't seen the show, I don't have opinion about it, I just know that the choice to make a show about this particular group of people (Italian-American kids that act kinda wild and have what I imagine are heavy Jersey accents?) has made some people angry. Although, one wonders why the upper-echelons of NY society aren't mad about their portrayal in Gossip Girl. :p


What makes this show more "fair"?

I find Little People, Big World to be successful because of what I've said, all of the characters come across as just people going about their lives. Some of those people have dwarfism and thus must interact with the world differently than their taller family members. So their difference isn't ignored, but it is normalized - it's just another part of life. And because there are several characters, there are also several options to see how the people live in the world. This type of thing probably wouldn't work as easily for cultural or racial differences, where being normalized away could be a problem too. I have no idea how people with dwarfism broadly have thought of the show, though, maybe they find it totally appalling.

Edit: I realize all of this speaks to the question of where the boundaries between race and culture are. What is race, what is culture, are they the same or different, etc . . . I don't have those answers. There are of course many cultural differences within races, but at the same time, people seem to make identifications and mark differences based on race, so it's hard to fully separate race from culture.

[Jez]

Yes, I understand this can be so, but was wondering if that's what Paula meant.

Oh ok, I never would have gotten that from what you wrote.

[Jez]

Sorry , Yep Your right Jez . After World War 2 in New Zealand Maori were started to phase out of their normal culture and taught the ways of the Pakeha . Slowly more and more years went by and the New Zealand European became a Majority race in everything , but in 1970's the Maoris started to reclaim their culture and what was thought to be theres rightfully in more ways than one. If you looked at statistics in New Zealand -the majority of crimes , teen pregnancies , school dropouts etc occur more than often between Maoris than Pakehas . Therefore the Maoris becoming the majority rather than minority- Its getting a little off topic of my assignment but thats ok . But I did mean what Jez was saying. Yes, I'm sorry I've derailed your thread! Who are the Pakehas? This is all very interesting.


My assignments an Interesting one as I have to talk about the Tension between analysing meaning in media texts and audience reception. The main point of the assigment is whether the texts themselves or the audiences determine their meanings using Media models of Media Effects Model , content Analysis and Ethnographic Studies. Whats been brought up is excellent as its opened my eyes up to more detail and thoughts than I had to start off with. The discussion has been very knowledgable for me .
Sounds interesting. This reminds me of a book controversy we were talking about at the library the other day. The book came out in the 1950s or 1960s, I think, and was a children's book about rabbits. One rabbit was white and the other rabbit was black and they got married. There was a big uproar about the book and it was banned for supposedly promoting interracial marriage. We, at the library, all thought it was ridiculous because other than one rabbit happening to be black and the other rabbit happening to be white (in a book illustrated with mostly black and white and washed out colors), to my memory there was no indication that the book was supposed to push any message. The rabbits didn't have any problem because of their fur colors, there was actually no mention of their fur colors at all if I remember correctly. I never would have interpreted the book as promoting anything racial, especially not as a child reading the book. I don't know what the intention of the authors was.

Oh, here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060264950/associationofmul

[Jez]

Jez, first of all, let me say that I don't think I can answer all of your questions fully. I'm not a TV producer or screen writer and have no interest in being one. So I don't really have an "ideal show" envisioned or anything like that, and I don't really have the energy to envision one. All I can do is try to clarify some of what I said, which I think may not have been entirely clear. That's ok. You just made some points and brought up some things that got me to thinking. I hope my questions didn't annoy you.



Yeah, I mean exactly that - I would personally be interested in shows of that sort. I think they would be interesting to watch and to think about. But if they were reasonable portrayals of those communities, they would also demonstrate some cultural specificity and that would interest me (they wouldn't just be acting precisely the same way as a typical white anglo-american group, or whatever). Some of those portrayals and cultural uniquenesses might start to look like stereotypes, and the line is often very narrow between the two. That is why I don't have a "perfect show" in mind.

So, yeah, what I'm trying to say is that there could be shows that maybe have some similar personality types to all-white TV shows (in some ways, people are just people, and TV is always just TV) but that are also culturally specific at the same time. Like if you were suddenly having dinner with a family with another cultural background, you would see a lot of differences, but there would also be similarities. Does that make sense? I didn't mean to suggest that the shows would be exactly like current shows with all-white anglo-american casts, simply replaced by people of another racial and cultural background. That makes perfect sense. Your example of dinner especially. I can see how that type of show would be much better than the "token minority" approach taken now. The type of show you describe would seem to show cultural differences rather than push cultural differences. A family would just happen to be eating and doing certain things, rather than having a spotlight "teaching moment" of those cultural aspects as often happens now. If that's what you mean, I can see something like that being a lot more successful and effective in affecting stereotypes.


Maybe it's mostly marketing. And I was mostly pointing that niche issue out to indicate that there isn't an easy answer. As I've said, I didn't intend to separate culture and race so much in my version of "what might work as a solution," so I hope that's clear now. Ideally, the shows would be watched by all different people. They would maintain a certain "truth" in terms of cultural realities but still be watched by people beyond that cultural group. Is that possible? I have no idea. Perhaps not. Maybe I'm just a cultural voyeur that I think it would be cool to see such shows. Yes, it is clearer. I also wasn't necessarily talking about just what you were saying, but I was thinking about what you said and thinking from there.


No, it's not their responsibility. But I'd like to think that there are also people in the TV industry who are artists and creators and who might like to play with and work with culture and race in unique ways that move out of the boxes to which some groups of people are often relegated in TV. It would be nice if they had the chance to do that, and if their shows give people some new ideas, so much the better. But because the primary purpose is profit (by way of entertainment), that is not always possible, which is evidenced by the numerous really excellent shows (of any sort) that have gotten canceled. I agree.


I haven't actually seen Jersey Shore, so I can't speak to whether the uproar is justified or not. But the deal is that the show portrays a bunch of Italian-American kids in New Jersey, and the allegation is that they act in ways that are not positive portrayals of Italian-Americans more broadly, or something like that. I guess the controversy emerged because there are negative things that appear in the show? Since I haven't seen the show, I don't have opinion about it, I just know that the choice to make a show about this particular group of people (Italian-American kids that act kinda wild and have what I imagine are heavy Jersey accents?) has made some people angry. Although, one wonders why the upper-echelons of NY society aren't mad about their portrayal in Gossip Girl. :p Oh, ok, I think I know the stereotype they were probably portraying.




I find Little People, Big World to be successful because of what I've said, all of the characters come across as just people going about their lives. Some of those people have dwarfism and thus must interact with the world differently than their taller family members. So their difference isn't ignored, but it is normalized - it's just another part of life. And because there are several characters, there are also several options to see how the people live in the world. This type of thing probably wouldn't work as easily for cultural or racial differences, where being normalized away could be a problem too. I have no idea how people with dwarfism broadly have thought of the show, though, maybe they find it totally appalling. Gotcha.


Edit: I realize all of this speaks to the question of where the boundaries between race and culture are. What is race, what is culture, are they the same or different, etc . . . I don't have those answers. There are of course many cultural differences within races, but at the same time, people seem to make identifications and mark differences based on race, so it's hard to fully separate race from culture. It is an interesting question.

[margaine]

That's ok. You just made some points and brought up some things that got me to thinking. I hope my questions didn't annoy you.

No, the questions didn't annoy me, and I'm glad for the chance to clarify. I don't think I could do another long post like that though, so I'm glad you didn't ask any more. ;)

[Jez]

No, the questions didn't annoy me, and I'm glad for the chance to clarify. I don't think I could do another long post like that though, so I'm glad you didn't ask any more. ;)

Ok. Do you not have time now, or is there another reason you'd rather not get involved in a longer conversation? I just don't want to present a situation where you feel burdened and I'm a little confused as to what that would be.

[Phantom Paragrapher]

No Worries Jez , Its been quite fascinating.
In Response to Your Question Jez : Who are the Pakehas? This is all very interesting.

The Pakehas is what New Zealand call their White People . As the original name and PC Name is New Zealand European , but in NZ we are now not really connected with Europe and Britian etc so if you are white and born in New Zealand , you are called a Pakeha which is what I am. In NZ , you have Pakehas , Maoris , Brits/Poms - English , Asian/Indians , Pacific Islanders though this is another one where it can get confusing as if you are a Pacific Islander born in NZ then you are called un-PC a Palangi etc. Though to me personally a PI is a PI whether born in NZ or Not.

[Jez]

Huh, very interesting! I've never heard these distinctions and names before. What does the "Poms" in Brits/Poms-English stand for? Do you know the root of the name Pakeha or Palangi? They don't sound like english words.

[margaine]

Ok. Do you not have time now, or is there another reason you'd rather not get involved in a longer conversation? I just don't want to present a situation where you feel burdened and I'm a little confused as to what that would be.

Mostly I just don't want to spend as much time online as I did yesterday. It was definitely fun, but I don't want to devote that kind of time to writing in-depth posts (that I spend a lot of time thinking about and re-writing) except every once in a while. I was online practically all day yesterday doing non-work things! And although I'm done with my dissertation, there are still other things I ought to be doing, so I can't spend all day online every day like I did yesterday. But no worries, you can always ask me questions if you want - I just might not answer right away. This topic is something that interests me a lot, so I'm more apt to spend lots of time thinking about my responses, and it's particularly hard to resist replying right away. So I just needed a break so as not to spend too much time on it again.

[Jez]

Oh ok. It's so easy to spend hours online without even realizing it. :) Don't ever feel like you have to reply right away. :)

[Phantom Paragrapher]

Im not to sure of the origin of the words : Went on to Wikipedia Dictionary and this is what I found :
Pākehā are New Zealanders who are not of Māori blood lines.[citation needed] They are mostly descended from British and to a lesser extent Irish settlers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, although some Pākehā have Dutch, Scandinavian, German, Yugoslav or other ancestry. There is significant overlap with the Māori population, since the term Pākehā is based on predominant ancestry, while the term Māori is based on cultural self-identification The word Pākehā is also sometimes used to refer to any person of predominantly European ancestry, including those that are not New Zealanders. It is also used in a wider scope to refer to any non-Māori.
Pākehā is a Māori term, the origins of which are unclear, but which was in use by the late 18th century.[Opinions of the term vary amongst those it describes. Some find it highly offensive, others are indifferent, while some happily use the term and find the main alternative, New Zealand European, inappropriate.

Palagi (pronounced paalangi) or papaalagi is a pan-Polynesian term for a white person or Caucasian, a cognate of the Tongan "palangi" and Niuean "palagi." The term has gained widespread use throughout much of western Polynesia including Tokelau, Tuvalu, 'Uvea and Futuna, etc.

[Jez]

Thanks!

[Winifred]

Jez, thanks for this, I can use it elsewhere! Also, Gizmo says there is a good character in Half-Life 2 who's Russian: Father Grigory.
Questions: What are Dollhouse and Enemy at the Gates? I've never even heard of them!

I could quibble about Chekov, he was pretty exaggerated, but then, so were all of them!



Off the top of my head:

Pavel Chekov from Star Trek
Victor from Dollhouse (he was a spy briefly, for the good guys, as were non-Russians)
All of the main characters from the 1997 cartoon Anastasia
Vasily in Enemy at the Gates

[Phantom Paragrapher]

Dollhouse is an american tv-show Winifred

[Jez]

Jez, thanks for this, I can use it elsewhere! Also, Gizmo says there is a good character in Half-Life 2 who's Russian: Father Grigory.
Questions: What are Dollhouse and Enemy at the Gates? I've never even heard of them!

I could quibble about Chekov, he was pretty exaggerated, but then, so were all of them!

You're welcome. Exaggerated, yes, but not a spy or dastardly, which was what you asked. Dollhouse is a (was a? I think it was canceled) Joss Whedon television show. The basic premise was that a company had harnessed technology to effectively wipe a person's personality and imprint a new personality on them. The company rented out "actives" (people who agreed to have their personalties wiped and replaced) to people who requested a specific personality. The show explored the morality of this while also following the actives in their various assignments and a police officer who is trying to discover the company (it is underground).

Enemy at the Gates is a WWII movie told from the Soviet perspective and following the real Soviet sniper Vasily Zaitsev and the German sniper Major König as they fought for their respective sides and stalked one another. It's based on true events and people, but only very, very loosely.

[Winifred]

Thanks! This really is an interesting thread - don't you just wish we all had more time!

[Jez]

You're welcome, and yes I do. :) This thread is going in many different directions and all of them are very interesting and thought-provoking.

[Phantom Paragrapher]

Shows what a few questions can turn into - Im glad I posted for thoughts have enjoyed reading :)