In “Why Won’t TV Show People Who Aren’t Rich?” Joanna Weiss writes,
If there were ever a time to double down on stories of the American middle-class struggle, this is it. We’re in the midst of a new Gilded Age, with soaring inequality and stagnant wages—the phenomena that helped make Donald Trump president. We’re also enjoying a golden age of TV, with more networks and platforms creating more scripted shows than ever. Plenty of smart, acclaimed series have tackled complex social themes with sophistication and sensitivity—think “The Wire” for the urban drug war; “Mad Men” for gender; “Atlanta,” “Black-ish” and “Insecure” for race; “Master of None” for the Muslim-American experience. Even “Game of Thrones” teaches real-world lessons about politics and power. At its best, television holds up a mirror to society and helps us better understand who we are. So the dearth of shows that focus on financial insecurity feels especially glaring.
Regarding social class, Weiss asks, “[W]hy doesn’t television better reflect our reality?” What are your thoughts in response to Weiss’s question?
April 15, 2019 at 11:04 am
In response to Weiss’ question “Why doesn’t television better reflect our reality?”, I believe that Weiss actually understands why it does not reflect our reality. Weiss states that “Maybe they think no viewers want to wallow in a subject so prosaic and depressing.” I believe that this point that this she makes is exactly the reason why we do not see class being depicted. Television is supposed to represent somewhat of an escape for the daily work of life. While placing characters in shows who are constantly going through struggles may be relatable to many people and would in fact depict reality, this does not create very exciting or uplifting television that people may want to view on a nightly or weekly basis.
I do not believe that it is Hollywood producers being in “an affluent bubble of their own.” This is not the reason why class struggle is not being depicted. If the television producers and network executives believed that a show that may depict these struggles or somewhat more normal lives would sell then I’m sure that they would want to create the show. They would happily do so in order to bring more money to their network. The truth of the matter is that people do not necessarily want to see class struggle. They would rather view a show that is exciting and uplifting rather than one that is depressing.
April 15, 2019 at 10:51 am
I believe Weiss is largely right that TV has a bias towards presenting the wealthy rather than the middle-class experience. I argue this is true for three reasons: the middle class uses TV as an escape, TV is funded by consumer culture (ads) and thus incentivized to encourage it, and lastly that the wealthy who may best relate to these shows have the most money to spend on advertised products. While a lot of TV focuses on the poor, it is largely through sensational reality TV. Where sitcoms and major-network TV shows do portray people with middle class employment, money and making ends meet are typically not plot points.
After watching the selected episodes of The Middle and Modern Family, I found The Middle stressful to watch, whereas the problems in Modern Family seemed silly but not consequential. The Middle derives its comedy from the struggles of balancing too many things at once – because they need to. Its humor is about trying to keep things together when seemingly everything goes wrong. Modern Family’s humor comes from awkwardness, as in, “I go to CalTech, am winning an award and am economically secure, but I don’t want to see my dad here – that’s so awkward!.” Television is entertainment and can be an escape. While The Middle may be more relatable to the middle-class, I could also see Modern Family’s more superficial problems being an escape whereas the problems in The Middle remind you of everything you have to do tomorrow. Further, while the socioeconomic situation of Modern Family is unique to maybe the top 5% of American households by income/ wealth (and even these people at least engage with people of lower socioeconomic status unlike the show), their problems are still relatable. Everyone has felt awkward around their parents at some point, so while one might not attend CalTech or be rich, one can relate to the situation. Thus, the growing stresses on the middle-class may drive the demand for depictions of the wealthy rather than of the middle-class.
On the supply side, TV shows make money by ad revenue. Companies that advertise want to encourage consumerism and have their commercials on shows with high-spending demographics. Thus, the depiction of wealthy people normalizes wealth and raises the consumerist expectations of the middle class. This encourages the viewers to spend more which benefits the advertising companies and thus the TV show. Next, because of the growing inequality in America, a greater share of consumer spending comes from the wealthy than before, so TV shows, seeking advertising revenue, are more inclined to try to attract wealthy audiences than middle-class ones.
Overall, I believe increased stress on the middle-class combined with revenue incentives to focus on the wealthy have combined to shift TV portrayals from the middle-class to the wealthy.
April 15, 2019 at 10:35 am
I agree with Mohammed’s point that of all of Weiss’ arguments as to why so many Hollywood produced TV shows inaccurately depict class status is because there is a lack of interest from viewers. After reading the article I started to reflect on what shows I have seen that starkly depict a single social class versus the artificially comfortable ‘middle’ lifestyles of so many shows like Friends and Modern Family. I came to think about reality tv shows, and how in most cases, the ones that are simply about people’s lifestyles, like the Real Housewives, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, and even Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, generally fall on either end of the class spectrum (excluding shows with other themes besides documenting individuals’ and families’ lives, like Say Yes to the Dress, etc.). These shows are interesting to watch because they allow viewers to live out some kind of alternate reality, and virtually experience the lifestyles of people who are outside of the average American life, or ‘the middle’. Without an intentional plot line, witnessing the otherness of either low or high class status serves as the subject matter for these shows. You’ll be hard pressed to find a reality show about a basic American family with not kinks or quirks to spice up the plot. In tying this back to Weiss’ article, I think this observation serves to extend his argument that American viewers aren’t interested in watching the realities of the middle-class class status in sitcoms, as they want to watch something to distract them from it. They can do this in either watching more directed plots about middle class families that overlook common realities and challenges of financial burdens, or by virtually experiencing an alternate class life experience through reality shows focusing on either end of the class spectrum.
April 15, 2019 at 8:24 am
While I agree with Mariel that Weiss contradicts herself some times, I think that she somewhat answers her own question. She suggests that Hollywood producers live in a bubble and are ignorant of eocnomic struggle, that TV shows about economic struggle add unnecessarily layer of complexity, and that viewers don’t want to see the reality of economic struggle.
I do not think Hollywood executives and producers are any ignorant of the economic struggle, because economic struggle does exist in TV, but as a background story and never as the main focus which makes me believe that producers are aware of the issue but they are choosing not to include it as a main focus. What I think Weiss got right is her 3rd suggestion that viewers do not want to see economic struggle. I agree with that. Economic struggle is too real and viewers do not want to see that. This golden age of TV is driven by major players that have dedicated research teams to analyze the demand on their content and viewership. I doubt that they will miss on any opportunity if the demand for these type of shows exist.
Having said that, TV follows trends and I think talking about economic struggle has gotten more “trendy” than before given the rise of both Trump-like-politicians and socialism. Perhaps we will see what Weiss wants in a few years.
April 14, 2019 at 8:13 pm
In response to this question, I very much agree with the points Mariel addressed in the second half of her response about Weiss’ contradictory points about television.
Recently, there has been a large breakthrough for people of color landing key roles in Hollywood television shows. Consider “How to get Away with Murder,” “Scandal,” and “One Day at a Time,” for example. These shows do their due diligence in addressing the intersections of race, class, ethnicity, and gender–something that should very much be appreciated in terms of representation.
I also want to be pragmatic in the sense that there is no such thing as the “perfect” show. In all of the shows I just listed, audience members have drawn various critiques about the representations they see on screen. While I strongly believe these critiques are valid, I believe that these show’s mere existences do more harm than good. Furthermore, there will always be something “missing” from a show because there is always room to make something more inclusive. I just believe that sometimes producers have to work within the constraints they are given, be that budget, time, or even casting.
Overall, I believe changes in Hollywood television can be influenced by a more diverse set of producers and screenwriters. Only then can we see a wider array of narratives come to life.
April 13, 2019 at 1:44 pm
In response to her own question, “why doesn’t television better reflect our reality,” Joanna Weiss suggests that there may be a disconnect between Hollywood producers/ executives and their audiences in terms of the desires, interests, and realities that are exhibited. Weiss continues on to say that this disconnect results in TV shows that are not ‘candid’ enough, despite the fact that there is fulfillment in “watching someone who’s going through struggles that are common and lifelike [or maybe even a little bit worse].”
I personally found Weiss’ article to be contradictory in and of itself, as it points to many examples (in the above excerpt and elsewhere in the article) in contemporary TV that depict different classes and other variations of “our reality.” I don’t think that television is a perfect medium of representing the spectrum of class, but I do think that there are many different profiles and identities that are currently being brought to light because of it – and this is worth recognizing and celebrating! I think that it’s also important to remember that reality TV exists in ways that embody class too and that just because there may not be a popular, scripted show that speaks to every class that is airing right now, doesn’t mean that every show treats class in the same way or as though it’s a non-factor of people’s lives.