E-mail
Print
Letters to the Editor
By Our Readers
Inaccuracies, sweeping claims highlight soaps story
I am writing in response to the Feb. 8 article by Mark Maier, “Whitewashing Soaps.” I am concerned about several historical inaccuracies in Maier’s article, as well as some of his all-too-sweeping claims.
First, Maier bases his argument about contemporary soap operas on two examples from the 1960s, both of which contain inaccuracies in addition to being sorely outdated in relation to contemporary daytime dramas.
Maier claims that the 1960s storyline on “One Life to Live” about a black woman passing as white was “irrelevant.” In fact, the soap dealing with issues of race by grappling with the question of “passing” — why someone elects to pass as a another race and what the implications of that act may be — was groundbreaking in its day.
It was one of the storylines that set “One Life to Live” apart from other shows as a new kind of social issue-conscious soap). The character’s passing as white was not condoned or celebrated, it was questioned and examined.
Maier also claims that “Love is a Many Splendored Thing” was canceled after only a few months due to audience disapproval of an interracial romance. This is not true. This storyline was indeed short-lived, but the serial itself was a success for several years, airing from 1967 to 1973.
Although I am concerned that the Post would so readily publish historical inaccuracies, of even greater concern to me are the sweeping claims Maier makes about the functioning of the American commercial media system and the responses of television audiences.
First, he argues that “do not upset the consumer” is the fundamental rule for a corporate media system. Commercial media are primarily concerned with pleasing — and not upsetting — their advertisers (who are the ones concerned about consumers).
There are also several levels of decision-making that go into the creation of a soap opera (or any other television program) that make blaming “the producers” short-sighted. What about the networks that air the programs? The advertisers who fund them? Maier also assumes that there are no interracial couples on contemporary soaps, a statement not rooted in any research or reality.
Ultimately, Maier blames the American public (which he conflates with the soap opera audience — I’m sure soap producers and networks facing declining audience numbers for their shows would be pleased to discover that everyone in American watches soaps) for the problematic state of racial and interracial representations in our media.
I find this especially disturbing, not only for its ignorance about what actually appears on U.S. soaps today, but also for its narrowness of vision in placing blame. If there is anything to criticize about today’s soaps — and certainly there is much to question — it is how the commercial media system shapes its products, not how audiences respond to the limited media options they are offered.
I’m happy to see the Post taking a critical perspective on contemporary media. I only hope that future stories along these lines will be more accurate, more careful in their logic and more thoughtful about the relationship between media and society.
Elana Levine
Assistant Professor
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
BOSS’ finances questioned
I enjoyed Victoria Lindsay's column in the Feb. 8 issue about the impact BOSS's limited financial resources have on students (“BOSS needs money; I need a ride”).
I, too, have had to wait over 45 minutes for a ride on more than one occasion because of the shortage of vans. The UPass is certainly a valuable resource, but Milwaukee buses usually stop running at about 1 a.m.; plus in certain neighborhoods it isn't exactly safe to wait at bus stops late at night.
It amazes me how the university can somehow come up with the money for a new coffee shop in the dorms, new bathrooms and a new fountain, but when it comes to a service that enhances students' safety, it falls short.
Catherine Jozwik
> Comments