Core Response #3 Alexandra Lavin

When reading Gray and Warner’s articles, I became interested in the concept of “risk” when it comes to creating racially diverse programming. 

Gray’s article made it clear that the “big three” network’s decision to create more black focused television was a purely economic decision, based on statistics of viewership and the necessity to “narrowcast” their programming. That being said, Gray does point out the seeming contradiction between this spike in black programming and the larger cultural zeitgeist of the 80’s. Just as these programs were rising in popularity, neoconservatism was actively demonizing black culture, forcing these shows to occupy politically neutral territory — Gray notes that the majority of these black-centered programs were situational comedies, emphasizing values of individualism and responsibility. So while the big three networks may have been taking a risk when they shifted their focuses to more diverse audiences, they did everything they could to minimize this risk and make the shows as palatable to the larger cultural zeitgeist as possible. 

HBO has historically reaped the rewards of being the risky network, gaining attention and admiration for being at the forefront of the cultural conversation. But once again, the article details how Insecure was marketed from its inception as a universal show, forced to walk the “high-wire act” of being appealing to all demographics while also portraying a culturally-specific experience. It should also be noted that the show premiered in 2016, just a month before Trump was elected into office. Like the black-centered programming of the 1980s, Insecure existed in a time of ramped up political conservatism. HBO took a risk by creating a black-centered show, but minimized that risk by emphasizing universality. 

This lean towards universality obviously has continued to the present day — while television is seemingly becoming more diverse, again and again networks foreground culturally specific experiences in favor of the “universal,” always making sure white audiences can feel included. We saw this clearly with Warner’s article about Scandal last week. The streaming wars have only exacerbated this issue. As countless streamers fight for the attention of viewers, it is very common for programmers to tout their diverse representation and progressive storylines, hoping for the attention and praise associated with being at the forefront of the cultural conversation, while ultimately failing to deliver complex, meaningful representation. Specificity is  sidelined in favor of universality, and when these programs do decide acknowledge non-universal experiences, those storylines are often shallow -- how many times have you seen a POC character exist only to suffer racism and teach the white characters not to be racist, or a trans characters exist only to suffer transphobia and teach the cis characters not to be transphobic? While of course there are exceptions and there have been major strides in representation in the last few years, it seems to me that Hollywood's interest is mainly in looking progressive, rather than actually being progressive. In an age of "wokeness" and social media where programmers see good representation being rewarded and celebrated more than ever, the incentive to engage in this risk-but-not-really-risk behavior has only increased.