Blog Reflection: 4th Quarter

After completing this past fourth quarter of blogging I have made various adjustments to my blogging style. Most importantly, I have much more frequently began blogging posts that often analyze and present my critical thinking. One of my latest posts, "T.V. Segregation?", exemplifies a post that presents my beliefs on what 'segregated' T.V. networks' effect on society would be. Last quarter, when asked to do a similar reflection, I chose "Super Bowl Ads: Are They Worth it?" because that post related to class discussions of advertisement's development in America. While the post did relate to class discussion, it displayed little analyzation. This past quarter I developed more thorough analyzations in my posts, and will continue to do so in blog posts that will follow. I also maintained the principle of relating blog posts to class discussion by re-capping some of Mr. Bolos' "T.V. Tokenism" presentation and referring to it in my post.

T.V. Segregation?

Recently in American Studies class Mr. Bolos presented his views of "TV Tokenism". He led a discussion in which we discussed the limited appearance of minority groups, and also the symbolic inclusion of minorities in some network dramas solely to appear as if the shows have a diverse cast. One key point raised was that African-Americans rarely play leading roles, if ever, in network dramas. The validity of this prompted me to hypothesize why that is. Surely, there are African-Americans on television, but compared to whites, and particularly on network dramas of mainstream channels (NBC ABC and CBS) there are none playing a leading role. Take a look at the Office's cast to the left, and notice the two people of color have very minimal roles, and the third person of color plays the role of a custodian.

At the same time, channels such as BET feature all African-American casts without the inclusion of a single white. However, this is a cable channel and is not viewed nearly as much as a show on any mainstream channel, and consequently does not attract a significant white audience. Strangely enough, white audiences do seem to be attracted to shows that portray people of color as foolish or ignorant. Unfortunately, many black sitcoms portray the "silly African-American " stereotype, for instance, the Amos 'n Andy Show -- which was widely popular among whites and blacks. (That show was finally taken off the air after protests from the NAACP). The following are a few lines of script from the an episode of the show:

"Amos: We is supposed to call dis man at nine o'clock tonight. His wife say dat he wouldn't be home till 9 o'clock.
Andy: Well, yesterday when it was nine o'clock, my watch was eight o'clock an' I didn’t change de time on it. Now today dey stahted dis daylight savin' bizness so dat make my watch two hours off.
Amos: Well, den, it's ten o'clock den, aint it?
Andy: We was supposed to call de man at nine o'clock.
Amos: Den we is a hour late, aint we?
Andy: Not if de man's watch is wrong, we aint.
Amos: Dis heah's de biggest mess I done ever got in."

Andy and Amos are unable to figure out a time issue related to daylight savings. This show was characterized by such silliness, that essentially was an attempt to appeal to a larger white audience. The producers of this show knew many whites would find it humorous to portray African-Americans as ignorant and simple-minded.

We must consider as a society the effects of this television segregation. Some whites could develop a biased and racist view of minority inclusion in network dramas. These people could possibly perceive blacks as they are presented in such sitcoms and could easily be disinclined to, for example, live in an African-American community. Some whites would avoid socializing with these groups in everyday life. Because of this segregation, over time, white audiences have become comfortable seeing blacks in all-black sitcoms but not in all-black dramas, as these do not reinforce common stereotypes. By choosing to the limit the appearance of African-Americans in dramas, and include them often times in sitcoms, are these networks deliberately supporting racist beliefs? What end result do these network's actions have on our society?

Future News

Last Wednesday, many of us American Studies students attended James Fallows talk "Media and Democracy". Fallows discussed the evolution of newspapers, as companies are moving away from print and beginning to publish their news online. Fallows quoted a colleague of his that said he liked printed compared to online news because flipping through a newspaper can yield a sense of doneness. More importantly, after the evolution to online news is complete and the printed news is extinct some will have difficulty receiving news. There are many people without a computer or internet access that would be potentially unable to receive their news from an online subscription. Essentially, I believe that because not everyone can afford the most current technology they should not be unable to keep up to date with current events in our nation. However, printing companies will only work in their own best interest. Unfortunately, if they believe they have a stable amount of subscribers they will undoubtedly begin to publish online and eliminate print. This is because "for a paper the size of The Washington Post, which prints about 700,000 papers a day and 1 million on Sundays, that could be an annual savings of more than $110 million, with newsprint at $625 per metric ton and rising." Fallows also stated that in terms of costs, printing newspapers is more expensive than paying the salaries of all the newspaper's writers. Eventually companies will cut the costs of printing by eliminating printed newspapers all together, and profits would be made through the sales of subscriptions to online publications. Could this leave less fortunate people without access to news? Do these people unable to afford online publications still have a right to access some sort of "news"?

What's Over?

Having completed Junior Theme, I have realized many things about the research process and writing process as a whole. In a five to seven page paper like our junior theme, there is simply not enough room to include everything and everything about a given subject matter. I would have liked to expand upon the effects a pregnant mother has on their child before the child is even born. However, smaller unestablished paragraphs would have distracted the reader from more important points that over arched numerous subtopics. The research process could have continued for months if not years, and the short period of time we were given to research was nowhere near the time we could have spent researching our topics. Pediatricians dedicate their lives to answering a question that I attempted to answer in a seven page essay. The process could continue, researching and generating new body paragraphs or reasons for the rise in childhood obesity in America, however, this would be a book not an essay. I can appreciate the depth and significance of this problem in America, and while I have created what I believe to be good explanations, there are an unlimited number of alternative ways I could have went about answering my why question.