Television Sitcom World Needs to Reflect the Real World

In Greg Braxton’s article “NBC’s Loss of Minority Roles a Gain to Independents” (Calendar, May 16), Doug Alligood, senior vice president for BBDO Worldwide Inc. (advertising), discusses the move of minority programs to independent networks and says, “Many of the black-oriented shows do not do well with the general population.”

What “general population” is he talking about and what does he base it on? Although advertisers still rely on Nielsen ratings to determine the best place to spend their money, the networks themselves admit the Nielsens don’t reflect the current American landscape and have called for the creation of a new system. This change is long overdue, for many important decisions have been made based on the Nielsen ratings--a system that places “Seinfeld,” an all-white show, high on the ratings chart and “New York Undercover,” a racially integrated series, somewhere in the middle. Yet when only minority viewers were asked in another poll, “New York Undercover” topped the list.

But do we really know what criteria are used to determine which homes are chosen as Nielsen families--and are those families truly representative of this country’s population?

In the past, NBC has shown its willingness to develop and acquire series focusing on minorities, so it’s not fair to accuse that network of racism simply because its upcoming fall schedule includes no minority shows. But for networks and their advertisers to support a system that results in the segregation of “black-oriented” programs on smaller networks like UPN and WB is not only divisive and foolish--it’s just plain wrong.

“Friends” should not be deemed a “white” show, just as “Living Single” should not be pigeonholed a “black” one. It’s not unusual for friends to evolve from only one racial peer group. But because both sitcoms examine the lives of young singles in major cities, each could benefit from more integration of their casts.

By separating minority and white characters, the networks and advertisers are encouraging a new generation of American children to grow up distrustful and afraid of any culture that isn’t their own. Our country has witnessed too many examples of the consequences that result from ignorance when it comes to race relations; to perpetuate this practice of segregation on TV is irresponsible and dangerous. And for the networks and advertisers to justify their action by calling it a “winning strategy” indicates just how little they understand the importance of this issue.

*

It is this type of thinking that sounded a death knell for such fine shows as “I’ll Fly Away” (NBC) and “Under One Roof” (CBS), programs that integrated the American experience but preserved the distinct family culture of the characters. These series were distinguished by fine writing and superior acting--but neither show was really given a chance because television is a business that revolves around ratings, and those ratings indicated it was more profitable to broadcast segregated, and sometimes cartoonishly stereotypical, half-hour sitcoms.

No one expects the television industry to suddenly become a nonprofit organization dedicated to the public good. But this country has grown to regard television as a mirror of our society. The networks--and the advertisers who finance them--must recognize that responsibility. More variety in programming--and patience in allowing those shows to develop a viewership--could make a big difference in the way Americans see themselves.

It’s not enough for the networks to point to the minority actors on such programs as “Homicide,” “ER” and “NYPD Blue” as evidence of a racially integrated lineup. These dramas, though symbols of quality television, are clearly the exception. Instead, more effort should be focused on developing comedies like the upcoming Fox offering “Lush Life,” a series that integrates members of different races without making that the sole point of the show--kind of like the way many of us choose to live. What a refreshing concept.