Ethnicity and Representation

I am strongly in favor of each ethnic group having strong and appropriate representation. Differing voices should be heard and the needs of a disparate group of people can help strengthen the whole of society.

When I watch TV (which I do way too much of) I see a current trend: every single show I watch, whether drama, sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, long or short, high-end or low-brow has at least one relatively major character who is LGBT on it these days. They are getting their voices heard and those who are LGBT have people to look up to in mainstream media.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that approximately 4.5% of the US population is LGBT. So, having so many LGBT characters (and, hopefully, the actors who play them) is actually a huge amplification of the voice of this one minority.

Most shows these days have at least one but usually two or three people of color on them. This is great! Blacks and Latinx people deserve to see people like them on TV and in the movies (Will Smith, Kerry Washington, Oscar Isaac, America Ferrera, et al). More importantly, enough PoC have been successful behind the scenes making TV shows and movies that more productions headed by PoC are coming out and in the works (Jordan Peel, Les Daniels, Alfonse Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, et al). Even the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has opened its doors to more representation, allowing for a new diversity in films during the Oscars presentation. This is all a fabulous turn of events and PoC voices are strong and should be heard.

The most recent stats I can find indicate that just over 13% of the US population is Black and about 18% is Latinx, while about 76% of the population is White. If most shows have such a strong Black and Latinx showing, then their voices are similarly amplified beyond what their population percentage indicates.

(Note: Since "Hispanic" refers to the language spoken and not ethnicity, but is grouped together by the US Census with "Latinx," the statistics for the ethnicities of White and Latinx have some overlap, which often results in numbers above 100% for the population.)

While I do see more Asians on shows in general, it is not to the degree of other ethnicities. However, strides have been made with the successes of some TV stars (Lucy Liu, John Cho, Ken Jeong, et al) and movies (Crazy Rich Asians, To All the Boys I've Loved Before, et al) -- although with a caveat: many successful Asian properties get re-made by Hollywood with White actors rather than simply released in America with English subtitles or language tracks. Strangely, this is not often the case with other PoC's TV and film contribution (but does happen on occasion).

Asians make up around 6% if the US population.

Every ethnicity's voice should be heard. The diversity of voices is one of the strengths that has made America great throughout its history. A constant influx of new people with new ideas and strong work ethics has helped build America into the leading nation in the world. However, I wonder if the current path of amplifying voices that haven't been strongly heard in the past is the best way of ensuring that those voices are not only heard but really listened to.

I am also concerned; the violence I see in speech and action from some within the White majority cannot be discounted. A certain segment of that population is angry and feels, rightly or wrongly, that PoC are "taking over" or, more importantly, "taking away" from them in some fashion: jobs, houses, money, culture, identity. These voices rise up as Neo-Nazis, Incels, the angry white male, the current leadership in the GOP, and, too frequently these days, the gunman with a manifesto.

Historically, the most social change has occurred when women of color, specifically Black women, have led the charge. Whether it was ending slavery, giving women suffrage, protecting the environment, advocating for social security nets, or, more recently, denouncing violence against PoC, economic disparity, and other social injustices, Black women have been at the forefront each time. It seems that the country needs to hear from these people and their voices should be amplified.

So, how do we balance the need to allow the under-represented voices of PoC and other minorities to be heard against the fear and potential violence of a certain segment of the White majority? Should we balance that need? Is amplification the best way to show the majority how vital and valuable these other voices are? How can we get the biases that are inherent in society to allow these voices to be heard without using amplification? Should we care that some of the majority are made uncomfortable, feel threatened, and otherwise lash out when these voices are heard?

Maybe we should trust that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward moral justice? Maybe if we amplify PoC voices now, and ride out the hatred and terror that doing so causes in some, we can find the balance later as the society is bent toward moral justice? I simply don't know what the right answer is -- are the small numbers of the White majority who fear change unimportant enough to ignore? Or should we listen and try to find a common ground that both makes them feel secure AND allows PoC to voice their own concerns and be represented?

Just the Facts, Ma'am

I'm wondering how we can restore journalism to the position it once held in the US. At one time, newsmen were the lifeblood of democracy, holding the powerful in business and government accountable to the people. People trusted journalists and when Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, and so many others wrote about it or spoke about it, the people listened, trusted, and rallied.

And then CNN and other 24-hour news networks were born. While that, by itself, didn't spell the death knell of journalism, it started a slide toward the sensational and lurid which Fox News turned into an avalanche. Soon, journalism became all about "if it bleeds, it leads" and profitability. And, once news channels became profitable, the desire to keep them profitable started to inject itself into every decision that newsrooms made. What was once a loss-leader for whatever production company owned the channel became a cash cow. And the decisions made slanted toward whatever would keep them in the black.

The internet exploded. Now, anyone could report the news. People with no understanding of bias, sourcing, context, and accuracy were presenting news. With these pseudo-reporters scooping real journalists, papers and news programs started to pay for video or eye-witness accounts and letting their actual reporters go. Profitability increased.

Soon, we entered the era of the mega-rich, superstar on-air personalities. And the people paid attention. The more outrageous the personality, the more people glued themselves to their TVs and radios. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum the viewers leaned toward, there was a personality to cater to them. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on one side, Rachel Maddow and Howard Stern on the other and every personality in-between.

The money rolled in. Rather than presenting real news, they became opinionated. Without clearly labeling what they were saying as opinion, many of these personalities claimed to be real journalists even though what they presented couldn't be sourced, wasn't accurate, and was, in fact, either their own or their corporate leadership's opinions. They became little more than talking heads spouting a single party's or corporation's agenda.

These days, you have a President who claims that all news that doesn't cater to his whims is "fake." People are turning away from traditional news sources and listen more and more to an echo chamber of like-minded talk show hosts and news presenters that only present opinions those people already agree with. It makes them feel safe and understood in a world that is changing rapidly and, possibly, leaving them behind. You have people working for the President whose job it is to tell the truth who are instead lying every day, all day long. You have corporations funding biased research and presenting it as fact and not being held accountable. You have corporate lobbyists who take advantage of people's ignorance and shill what the corporation wants. You have people who feel they have become experts via the Internet who then preach to the masses ignorant views and semi-literate beliefs that find an audience.

In the end, the next leadership in America needs to somehow stop the division and bring journalism back to prominence and trustworthiness. They need to pass legislation that forces written and viewed commentary pieces to be labeled as such, so people know when they are being told real, hard news and when they are listening to someone's opinion. We need to make sure that the people know who has funded a particular news piece in question clearly and simply.

Lastly, we need all journalists to take a look at the four main tenents of journalism and rededicate themselves to upholding them:

1. Seek Truth and Report It
2. Minimize Harm
3. Act Independently
4. Be Accountable and Transparent

For more information on what a real journalist should do, see the Society of Professional Journalists site.