Jensen Core Response #3

The articles this week covered the cultural, sociopolitical, and economic role which race plays in the television industry. To start, the Gray reading analyzed how black audiences and images were used by television networks to improve their financial gains. Gray situates this study within the 1980s and relates how black popular culture (music, fashion, etc.) influenced the success of various shows at this time (such as The Cosby Show and The Fresh Prince of Bel Air). The author ultimately concludes that it is important to note that the network’s engagement with blackness was not due to “cultural interest in black matters or some noble aesthetic goals,” but rather was entirely due to the economic successes these shows were bringing in. 

Next, the Han reading discussed the rise and fall of the television network ImaginAsian, a channel which attempted to target Asian-American audiences. Ultimately, Han argues that the network failed due to a misunderstanding of Asian identity, mistakenly used the English language in their programming, and missed the crucial audience of second-generation English-speaking Asian people. I thought Han’s comparison of ImaginAsian to Latinx television was particularly interesting due to the role language played in the failure of the former, with Asian populations speaking a wide variety of languages meanwhile Latinx populations share the common heritage of the Spanish language. 

Of the three articles, I found the Esposito article particularly thought-provoking. The author breaks down a particular episode of the show Ugly Betty and analyzes the complex racial issues present. Esposito describes a “post-racial” society where decisions are not made on account of race, and argues that America is not a post-racial society therefore the issues surrounding meritocracy and affirmative action still need to be discussed. The author goes on to describe how racial categories have been institutionalized and how meritocracy does not take into account privilege/unequal footing. While, personally, I felt the definition of “meritocracy” used was a bit skewed, overall I thought the arguments presented in the piece were well articulated.