Monthly Archives: February 2019

Diversity in Television

Posted on by

Should TV Programs Feel Obligated To Increase Diversity?

I do not think that the person proposing this topic is talking about obligation in the legal sense. Therefore, I think it is important to evaluate this topic on a moral basis. With regard to whether or not television shows should make progress with diversity, I see a really one-sided issue. I do not know why people would argue against increasing diversity in television. Not only is it clearly beneficial but there are no noticeable harms to doing so.

An article by The Conversation titled “Why it’s so important for kids to see diverse TV and movie characters” argues that diversity is essential because it helps minority kids construct their identity better. The article articulates, “There’s a relationship between low self-esteem and negative media portrayals of racial groups, in addition to an association between poor self-esteem and the paucity of portrayals of a particular group. Others have found that media misrepresentations of ethnic groups can cause confusion about aspects of their identity among children of these groups” (Dobrow). I not only agree with this article but think that the importance of this can be underrated by people who do not really care about the level of diversity in television.

People who disagree with increasing the level of diversity in television often think that television is diverse enough for it to matter. The numbers are irrefutable and no one is arguing that television is representative of the population because it is not. However, people are arguing that with the inclusion of at least one minority character, the issue is solved. However, an article in TIME dispels this by calling it “tokenism” and further explaining that the one non-white mentality is “creating an environment in which lone staffers are expected to speak on behalf of entire racial or ethnic groups” (D’Addario). In order to progress properly, the article encourages at least three non-white characters. I do not know the specific amount but what I do know is that there is still ways to go in constructing an array of non-white characters for minority children to identify with and for minority actors to have opportunity in a discriminatory system.

Two questions I think could be important are: how do children construct their identity? and does the lack of inclusion of minority actors make the television industry racist, sexist, etc.?

Resources:

Dobrow, Julie, et al. “Why It’s so Important for Kids to See Diverse TV and Movie Characters.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 20 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/why-its-so-important-for-kids-to-see-diverse-tv-and-movie-characters-92576.

D’Addario, Daniel. “TV Diversity: Why We’ve Got a Long Way to Go.” Time, Time, 23 Sept. 2016, time.com/4505348/we-need-more-diversity-on-tv/.

Online Deliberation Analysis

Posted on by

Deliberation on Homosexual OCD

Journalist Chadwick Moore wrote an opinion article in Out, a popular magazine, called “Homosexual OCD is a Thing, and Thousands of Americans Suffer From It“. In this article, he tells the story of a 13 year old girl named Olivia Loving and many other individuals who have experienced what is considered Homosexual OCD or HOCD. Moore argues that HOCD exists and that it entails obsessive worrying about whether or not oneself is homosexual. However, he also argues that it does not necessarily make someone homophobic because it is not that the individual who experiences HOCD views homosexuality as bad but rather the individual experiences “unwanted thoughts” about it.

As there is not real scientific literature on HOCD yet, there was a lot of skeptical doubt in the comments. In fact, it got quite intense and argumentative. People completely denounced this article, arguing that it is media produced by discomfort with different types of sexuality. Some even argue that this article makes homosexuality appear as a mental disease. Others retort back, arguing that such an article is not making commentary on whether or not different sexualities should be acknowledged, accepted, or appreciated but rather about the compulsive obsession of checking one’s own sexuality.

The arguments in the comments do not really classify as effective deliberation. Neither personal nor emotional experiences are incorporated (which I encourage). Facts are somewhat included but are not used very properly. However, one can only expect so much from a comments section on a magazine article. Values are somewhat established. People’s emphasis differ between a focus on the societal perception of homosexuality vs. the acceptance of a potentially rare type of OCD. Additionally, some solutions are proposed such as the advocacy to do scientific research before making definitive conclusions on the issue. Some argue to abandon the exploration of HOCD while others argue for readily accepting HOCD as a serious condition. I think I would count these as mini-solutions. While they do not propose societal change, it proposes a perspective.

However, a lot of things are missing in these comments. None of the comments really evaluate the pros and cons of each viewpoint effectively. Also, people do not update their own viewpoint in light of new information. This is probably tied to the lack of respect in these arguments (another important factor for effective deliberation). Mutual comprehension is not really ensured and people do not listen carefully to what each other says. At the very least, there is equality when it comes to speaking opportunities but that is inevitable as it is in a comments section.

Overall, whether or not the arguments are good, the debate over this article is an ineffective deliberation.