In the May 20th 2011 issue of Entertainment Weekly, there was an excellent article by Jennifer Armstrong titled "The Rise and Fall and Rise Again of Black TV". Because I feel it's required reading for anyone who follows pop culture, I wanted to share it with you. Here it is:
Entertainment Weekly — Two years ago broadcast TV officially got out of the African-American sitcom business. The CW canceled the long-running Girlfriends in 2008, and the following year it yanked both Everybody Hates Chris and The Girlfriends spin off, The Game– also known as the last two successful black-eccentric shows on network television. ••►But today something is saving black TV from becoming as outmoded as Bill Cosby’s acrylic sweaters: basic cable, where scripted programming is experiencing explosive growth. In January, BET revived The Game to a record-breaking 7.7 million viewers–which is three times the audience it got on The CW and, in fact, twice the size of anything on the teen-skewing network now. (Sorry Gossip Girl.) The success of The Game and BET’s Queen Latifah produced romantic comedy Let’s Stay Together, which also premiered in January, has spurred the network to develop Reed Between the Lines, a new fall sitcom starring Girlfriends Tracy Ellis Ross and The Cosby’s Show’s Malcolm-Jamal Warner. Meanwhile, VH1 has joined up with Queen Latifah, who will be exec-producing its new dramedy Single Ladies (debuting in May 30), starring Clueless’ Stacy Dash.
In reality, this new generation of African-American-focused scripted TV can be traced to TBS’ success in 2007 when it acquired House of Payne from the proven brand of Tyler Perry. (Some 222 episodes later, the network recently announced it would be ending Payne but staying in the Perry business with For Better or Worse, an adaptation of his film Why Did I Get Married?) The reason for the big ratings and latest development rush is simple: pent-up demand. “I’ve had plenty of people say to me that it’s great to see something on TV that represents them”, says Jacque Edmonds-Cofer, exec producer of Let’s Stay Together”. “It’s also important for people to see that every African American woman is not a Real Housewife”. Adds VH1′s exec VP of original programming, Jeff Olde, “I think our shows should reflect the country we’re living in– go, Barack and Michelle! We’re thrilled that we have a large number of African-American women who watch us, and quite frankly, we’re always looking for new stories to tell.
Both BET and VH1 set their programming in response to direct viewer demands. BET first ran The Game in reruns, which sparked an onslaught of fans begging for the network to revive the show. VH1 initially shot Single Ladies as a TV movie, but market testing on the project garnered a “crazy ridiculous response,” Olde says. “[The marketers] SAID, ‘Not only do they want you to make this a series but the audience will actually be mad at you if they don’t see where these characters go next’.”
The ratings for the black-centric shows that have already premiered bear this out. Let’s Stay Together debuted in January to 4.4 million viewers, and Perry’s shows consistently hover near the 3 million mark. Even the competition has taken notice of The Game’s blockbuster debut: “Those numbers were wildly impressive to everybody,” says Michael Wright, TBS’ head of programming. “We’ve done really, really well with Tyler’s shows, but [The Game] surpassed even Tyler's ratings. That premiere number should've made everyone think, "that's a rating anyone would be happy to have.'"
So far, the broadcast networks have yet to act on the trend. While ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and The CW have made progress the past few seasons when it comes to casting diverse ensembles, the selection of shows in the pipeline for this fall once again lacks series with predominantly African American (or Latino or Asian) casts. “The world on television should look like the world I see when I walk outside my door,” says Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes, developing of the fall season’s strongest contenders with a black lead, ABC’s Damage Control starring Kerry Washington as PR guru. And Queen Latifah, who starred for five seasons on Fox’s Living Single, sees African-American series as a way to represent a point of view sorely missing on television: “People live in bubbles and they perpetuate racism and classism. There’s still plenty of places they can go [on TV] that are as un-diverse as they could possibly be,” says the Ladies producer. “It’s just something that’s going to be a continuing fight, to try to keep making these things happen.”
Regardless of why the networks program for black audiences, viewers are clearly hungry for these shows: Not only are the few shoes doing well, reruns of long-cancelled series like My Wife and Kids and Everybody Hates Chris still top cable charts among African-American viewers. Says Charlie Jordan Brookins, senior vice president of programming for BET: “We’re not necessarily trying to say this is the new frontier. We’[re trying to super-serve an audience who has been underserved." Adds Malcolm-Jamal Warner, "The black viewership is important. Black shows do make money. It seems like a no brainer.
[Entertainment Weekly Columnist: Jennifer Armstrong; Additional reporting by Archana Ram and Tim Stack]
What are your thoughts on the article and the current state of diversity (or lack of it) in regards to scripted TV? Also, Jennifer Armstrong is also one of the co-founders of the site The Sexy Feminist.
15 comments:
I think there is a strong need for diversity on TV. I was just thinking after seeing yet another series premire with a white, long blond haired woman lead, what is the deal here? I like that in some areas they are trying (adding a black woman to the new Charles Angels series) but its still too much of a struggle. What is hollywood's hangup with diversity?
CC: I totally agree with you about the need for more diversity on TV. Thank goodness for cable because things would be much worse.
As for your question about Hollywood's hangup with diversity, I think it comes down to two things:
1. People generally write about what they know. If a screenwriter doesn't have a lot of cultural diversity in their personal life, the scripts they write will likely reflect this. With more minorities such as Tyler Perry and Shonda Rhimes getting the opportunity to write, direct and produce their own projects, diversity on TV will hopefully increase.
2. Networks fear they can't draw solid ratings with shows starring black performers. They'll likely point to the failure of shows such as "City of Angels" and "Undercovers", but overlook the success of "The Cosby Show", "Soul Food: The TV Series", etc.
If the networks use the "Field of Dreams" approach ("If you build it, they will come), they'd have success. In this case, the "it" is well-executed programming and the "they" are viewers.
By the way, which new show are you referring to which stars a white woman with long blond hair?
If the vast ocean of dust-collecting musings from wannabe writers in any way reflects our culture at large, then it's safe to assume that around 70% of all ideas are coming from white writers.
My theory, and I'm sure many disagree with it, is that the mainstream's overwhelming liberalism is why we lack diversity in entertainment now.
I'll use Avatar as an example. Cameron's sweeping saga about how cruel people are to what they don't understand and how greed for money and resources will destroy the world.
Now, the victims in this story didn't rise up and do anything for themselves. It took a strapping young white man to save the day - an imagined version of Cameron himself, no doubt.
White folks saving the day is the sexier storyline than allowing anyone else to be empowered on the screen.
I don't think they mean to pass minorities over. It's just the soft bigotry of believing they can better decide what's best for minority viewers. Better to make a minority-friendly PC series than to pick up a script written by one.
But that's only part of it. The entertainment industry is fickle. Hollywood in particular doesn't allow the rednecks in either. It's usually someone putting on the accent.
It's not looked at as closely because it's not skin color, but it's certainly obvious to me.
They live in a very closed circle, these people. And while they might feign as if they have big, open, caring hearts, I think the majority of TV execs and movie studio heads are amongst the worst types of bigots we have.
Josh: Can you cite any examples of TV series where you feel the writers believe they can better decide what's best for minority viewers? Also, how can you be sure these examples are the work of liberals?
You're taking me the wrong way, I think. Or maybe I didn't explain it thoroughly enough. I like to rant, but I do try to keep it under 1000 words; I'm no spammer.
I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about liberalism. That's more than any one or any few directors, producers, execs, etc. That's an atmosphere of what's produced by the mainstream entertainment industry.
Agree or don't. But I don't think I'm creepin' up the grassy knoll by citing that America's film and television industries have evolved into an activist role of sorts - a message within the entertainment, as we see with series like Law & Order and The Wire and on and on.
The way the industry has evolved, TV and movie people seem to take an elitist approach to what they deliver.
I say they "decide what's best for minority viewers," not speaking about some round table of execs deciding what minorities in particular want to see. Although, that certainly doesn't seem outlandish.
In the context of this topic and the tone of wanting minority-specific television, what I mean is that the entertainment industry is deciding what's best--feeling they know what's best--for everyone. My comment was minority-specific because this is minority-specific. (I think minority-specific is BS in the first place. But that's another topic.)
As a business, film is unique. As long as you have the money to promote, the biggest players in pop culture and some cutting-edge effects, studios and production companies can survive without having to tap into what people want. It's not like a restaurant or a heating/AC business.
Obviously there are exceptions, like with action movies and comedies and things you know are all about the blockbuster season and cleaning up. But as an industry willing to cater to any audience, these hubris-stuffed schmos in their big chairs instead dictate as to what's best for people.
They would rather sit on high and dictate to people what to watch, placating segments of viewing audiences by tweaking a few odds and ends, and ultimately ignoring fresh ideas and potential stars if they're not what fit the industry standard idea of acceptable.
And not acceptable for audiences. Shows do well for a variety of reasons. History has proven that. But they do what is acceptable for their outlook - how they feel the world should be.
They're storytellers with far too much pride to let anyone else tell the story.
Some people flock to independent cinema and TV because it seems a little more legitimate at times. Well, that's the difference between art and a vessel to effect change or to spread messages.
But that's just the overtone. The bottom line will always be the bottom line. So if it's not some twisted version of the world being pushed, it's another condescending piece of garbage that gets cheap thrills and big ratings.
However, don't get Hollywood confused with Wall Street. Money may be a motivator, but we're talking 180 degrees in difference.
And if not, why else aren't minorities in television as much as some would like? Brutal racism? "The Jews" bit? White people are evil?
It doesn't take long to see who's behind the biggest production studios and TV networks out there. They're not white robe-wearing, whites-only, right wing-dwelling people.
They're friends of Fonda.
So what IS the deal? I think it's a legitimate question, and I'm open to all answers.
Josh: The activism within our film and TV industries on both sides of the political fence has been around for years. You can see it in the work of people like D.W. Griffith, Elia Kazan, John Wayne, Rod Serling and Jack Webb.
To say that the lack of diversity on broadcast TV is the fault of "the friends of Fonda" is pure speculation on your part. Some of the people calling the shots may be, but we don't know for sure unless they come out and tell us. In answer to your question (So what IS the deal?), if you are asking why there is a lack of diversity on broadcast TV, I gave my theory when I responded to CC.
Its great to see that black people haven't been wiped off the TV, but these shows are very audience specific. Meaning the target audience are black women. Nothing wrong with that but these shows don't do it for me and a lot of black men. Hopefully that will change.
It's all pure speculation. Buy it or don't.
As far as I know, John Wayne has been dead for quite a while. The entertainment industry isn't anything even remotely close to what it was.
The business standpoint of it all is the logical--more immediate, rather--route, because catering to 66% as opposed to 12% or 15% or even 34% is smart business. (Since when have you ever gone with the sound logic over emotion in any issue? lmao)
That's also my immediate answer to the "why." It's my answer to a lot of the questions we have in America - 66% trumping smaller percentages but appearing as something more sinister when it's not.
But in this particular instance, it just doesn't add up.
There's an extremely large contradiction here, something that's strong enough to make them pass over money.
Shows have done well in the past with minority actors and storylines that cater more to a minority audience. We all know that.
And like we see with one pawn show or auction show turning into a dozen in one season, parity is huge in the entertainment industry.
So it doesn't rightly make sense that they wouldn't double-down on working formulas. (Risks? They wouldn't be there without them.)
So it has to be something else.
What I believe may be speculation, but the answer surely isn't as logical as the numbers.
In what walk of life would you personally ever assert that things are as logical as the numbers? I've never seen it from you before.
In this instance, there is something going on besides the numbers. There just is. Now, what it may be is anyone's guess - and it will most likely always be a guess.
But to anyone who doesn't believe that the entertainment industry is smothered in a cloud of liberalism, well, I hope that sand has an air pocket. And that's all I can say about that.
Clnmike: It's great to hear from you again. You make an interesting point about the target audience for these shows. Hopefully, someone will create projects that are geared towards males. This could be a golden opportunity for someone like Malcolm-Jamal Warner.
@ Josh (his comments in quotes):
“As far as I know, John Wayne has been dead for quite a while. The entertainment industry isn't anything even remotely close to what it was.”
I never said it was. The reason I mentioned John Wayne and the others is because you said activism in movies/TV is a fairly recent trend. Anyone who studies the history of Hollywood knows that isn’t true. However, that’s a debate for another time and place. You seem to feel that liberalism is the reason there is a lack of diversity on broadcast TV. If that’s how you feel, give some evidence to support your theory.
“The business standpoint of it all is the logical--more immediate, rather--route, because catering to 66% as opposed to 12% or 15% or even 34% is smart business.”
Catering to the majority is smart business. However, it’s wrong to assume the “66%” don’t want diversity in their programming. After all, “The Cosby Show” wouldn’t have been the #1 program on TV for 5 straight seasons if only blacks were watching it.
“(Since when have you ever gone with the sound logic over emotion in any issue? lmao)”
Not only is your question silly and unnecessary, it’s also laughable. Anyone who supports Fox “News” the way you do should never question whether someone chooses emotion over logic. If you want to engage in back and forth cheap shots, that’s not gonna happen. However, if you have something worthwhile to add that pertains to the post, let’s hear it. Otherwise, we’re done in this thread.
“In what walk of life would you personally ever assert that things are as logical as the numbers? I've never seen it from you before.”
I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about. Your question is so baseless, it doesn’t deserve a response.
“But to anyone who doesn't believe that the entertainment industry is smothered in a cloud of liberalism, well, I hope that sand has an air pocket. And that's all I can say about that.”
Since whether or not liberalism dominates Hollywood isn’t the topic of this post, here is a link that does discuss it:
http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/ultimate-undercover-operation-ben.html
At least you didn't delete the comment. I'm truly shocked.
This is how you smack people down, I reckon. LMAO
Even though you quoted me, you still missed my point completely. Perhaps it is intentional.
Most people seem not to care about diversity. People watch TV and movies because it's entertainment.
Shows with minority actors do well. That's something we can all agree on. That's something I said.
I never said the 66% did not want diversity. They don't rightly care. And I am not asserting that network heads believe that either.
Hence my theory that the overwhelming air of liberalism in entertainment is why activists choose to tell stories themselves instead of giving anyone--minority of otherwise--outside of their circle an opportunity.
If you think it's not relevant to the topic, delete it. (I'm not sure how it isn't. Just because you don't agree with it? But, whatever - delete it!)
It's confusing to go back and forth with you. It always has been. Very strange way you go about "debating" (I need a better term).
And asking when you have ever approached a topic logically instead of emotionally is very pertinent. The vast majority of posts on this blog deal with opinions and emotions. There are rarely clear cut examples of racism. It's usually opinion and emotion; the "logical" conclusion is often pooh-poohed and considered backwards thinking.
If you think it's a shot at you, again, delete the comment.
It's your world. I'm just typing in it.
Josh: Although I missed your point, it's silly to think it was intentional. I don't have time for those types of games. Maybe I wouldn't miss your points if you were more clear and concise. More often than not, your comments are pseudo-intellectual, long-winded, and vague. Sometimes I'll ask what the hell you're talking about, other times I do my best to decipher what you said.
As for the amount of people who care or don't care about diversity, neither one of us know whether most do or don't. Just so I’m clear, it’s not something I dwell on either. For example, when I watch “Seinfeld”, I’m not thinking to myself, “Why didn’t they cast a sistah in the role of Elaine ?!”
While you see emotion trumping logic on my part, I see it as simply viewing an issue from a different angle. If it was true that I let emotion determine how I view race issues, I would have:
1. Attributed unverified racist comments to Rush Limbaugh (a man I despise)
2. Sided with Jesse Jackson when he used a slave/master analogy in regards to LeBron James leaving the Cavs
3. Opposed the white students who wore American flags to school on Cinco de Mayo
4. Agreed with those who thought a 2010 Doritos Super Bowl ad was racist
These are just a few examples of why your accusation is baseless.
For you to bring politics into this topic is why I think it’s laughable for you to accuse me of choosing emotion over logic. You’ve made it clear how you feel about liberalism. You come off as an axe grinder when you cite liberalism as a reason for the lack of diversity on TV, yet provide zero evidence. Just like when you accused Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow of hate speech, but couldn’t back it up. If “Law and Order” and “The Wire” were your examples of liberalism having a negative effect on diversity on TV, they were poor ones.
And no, I wouldn’t call my previous response to you a smack down. Just a slight thump upside the head.
I didn't bring politics into this topic.
I was wondering why you did.
So I guess there's a miscommunication here.
"Liberalism" is not in the political sense. It's in the social sense. I'm not speaking about Democrat V Republican at all.
The big-wigs wish to do it their way and only their way. If there's a minority-specific story to be told, they'd rather tell it than to let anyone else tell it.
What's worse, at least to me, is they believe they can tell it better than anyone.
The reason I believe it to be the liberalism (call it something else if that sounds too political) behind it: The message comes through in the material as to how the writers and directors see the world - and definitely comes through in which movies and shows make it past production.
But the lack of diversity on the whole speaks to an unwillingness to let anyone else--blacks, Latinos, even southern, out-of-the-mainstream whites--TELL a story. (I'm not talking about just acting.)
As to any "negative" to diversity in TV - I'm not sure I'd really call it a negative. And I didn't say The Wire and Law & Order were negatively effecting diversity. I cited those as two shows with a decidedly liberal message. Activist TV.
(How many blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc, actually get to write or direct those cops 'n' robbers shows? We know they get cast in those shows. And that is a step forward. But who's telling the story...)
Evidence of my particular theory?
I believe the general lack of diversity--in every sense of the word diversity--bears it out.
As I said: I'm open to all answers, but the business bit isn't holding water.
And what's going on behind the camera is something no one seems to be paying attention to, but I'm trying.
I understand if you were expecting more, but how do you pinpoint something like that? If it could be pinpointed, this post wouldn't need to exist in the first place. Knowing the real problem enables real solutions. (No wonder America is still FUBAR, I guess.)
To the rehashing of the prior "evidence" bit, I'm not touching that. We talked about it at length via email. So if you want to star here and appear to be handing out speed-knots, have at it. You can shine on me. I'll sleep well enough.
No evidence is ever quite good enough when you decide before receiving it that it isn't good enough.
I see jury duty in your future, young Malcolm-san.
Josh: Now we‘re getting somewhere. If you'd been more clear from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of confusion.
The reluctance by some to let others tell a story (whether it’s minority specific or not) isn’t liberalism in my opinion. Calling it liberalism just confuses the issue. This reluctance is a trait which I think crosses socio-political boundaries. As to whether someone thinks they can tell another group’s story better, that’s an accusation which is awfully hard to prove and is therefore based on emotion. I think it’s praiseworthy if a white writer/director wants to tell a story with a predominately minority cast. That shows me they think the story is worth telling.
On the one hand you say you're not bringing politics into the discussion, yet you bring up "Law and Order" and "The Wire" as examples of shows with a liberal message. That's the Internet equivalent of talking out of both sides of your mouth. Again, liberal activism on scripted TV is a discussion for another post. As for your question regarding the ethnicity of the behind the scenes people working on TV crime dramas, Mario Van Peebles, Darnell Martin (a female), Marisol Torres, Ernest Dickerson, Clark Johnson, and Rafael Alvarez are among the minorities who have served as writers or directors.
The lack of minorities behind the scenes is a problem that has been addressed in several articles, interviews, etc. So it’s not a matter of figuring out the problem, it comes down to what people are willing to do to fix the problem.
I am more than willing to view all sides of an issue. I have even been swayed to change my opinion if someone presents a solid argument. However, if you give me half-baked theories with no evidence, you’re letting your emotions take over. I have a sudden urge to listen to some Alanis because it’s highly ironic for you to question me about emotion vs. logic.
It certainly doesn't have to be called "liberalism."
For the sake of argument, I'll settle on "activism."
This type of situation doesn't provide evidence like most would like to view it. So you do have to step back, look at the entire picture, and go with your gut.
Law % Order, sure, but this isn't an actual crime scene. There's no DNA or a junkie turning stoolie.
I do agree on the irony. As I typed my initial post, I thought about how odd it was that I was seeing a form of soft bigotry here. But I see it nevertheless. I'm not out to convince anyone. I just like to type.
There aren't any examples of blatant racism or of slamming the door in anyone's face. It's more subtle; the roles those in charge choose to take by allowing the same circle of individuals to produce the same material with the same messages.
But, again, I say the liberalism-equals-fewer-minorities is very pertinent to this discussion. And I'm honestly not decrying liberalism here or trying to be political. As I said, "activism," if it's smoother.
The message angle I cite is part of why there isn't more diversity in entertainment in general (not on one particular show with a black cast per se), because the few change agents are reluctant to give up their platform.
(I said it wasn't a negative, because I don't care about "specific" programming.)
Call it half-baked all you'd like. Evidence? Again, I believe the way the industry operates bears it out.
Here's my thinking on it, in short...
Problem: Still a lack of minority programming.
Funny, minority shows do quite well, many with a very positive impact on popular culture.
Could it be folks are scared to take risks? No. Every movie or TV show is a risk.
Could it truly be a racial thing, with white execs wanting to keep minorities out? Well, that doesn't make much sense either. White people have been using minorities to pad their wallets for hundreds and hundreds of years.
My conclusion: The industry seems as if it isn't comfortable allowing anyone else to tell the story. And since we as a country focus so intently on skin color, we notice a lack of racial diversity, when if we truly looked at it, we'd notice incredible diversity across the entire entertainment board, with the same schmos running the show.
(Not many shows cater to folks where I live either, at least not that I see. But white folks would look silly citing that they're not represented, but which white folks?)
Call it what you will. I say "liberalism," you say potato. Fine by me.
But the evidence--at least of the same people putting out the same things with different actors only--is all over TV and in movies.
You don't agree. That's fine. But I believe it's far from an outlandish theory, and I feel it's anything but bereft of evidence. It's not the hair in the sink; it's more of the digging through and finding out the same guy has been on the guest list at every party where someone's been murdered.
Circumstantial. But evidence nonetheless.
And for the "How the leap?" question, I say, again, the lack of diversity--not just minority diversity--bears it out.
One thing that doesn't get denied is tremendous talent. I think we can all be thankful for that. In my opinion, it's only entertainment, and I don't rightly care what they do. But I, like many, notice the lack of diversity.
I have my feelings on it, because I notice it's a lot more than minorities excluded. Everything I see seems to be the same. I'm happy reality TV is around.
"I'm happy reality TV is around."
Now you've done it Josh, defending reality TV... it's on now!
Post a Comment