White Actors Only Given 57% Of Roles ( = Below Their Population Proportion)

[Mister M]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Doesn't really answer my post which you quote above, although I THINK I can see your point. My point was that the vast majority of  people are 'straight' - if that term is allowed these days - and trying to portray 'alternatives' as the majority is deception.

Aren't all adverts built on deception?

[hackey lad]

8 minutes ago, Mister M said:

 

There was a thread on here, I can't remember when, but basically someone was getting their knickers in a twist because they thought there were more black people in adverts than in society - or the proportion of black people on our screens was greater than the proportion in wider society. Well so what? - What does it matter? Unless someone has a problem with gay people or people from different ethnic minorities existing, then why should it be a problem?

I'm not a big advert fan myself, simply because I find them annoying. I've got the gumption to switch over or switch off.

On a related point, I think so many people take for granted things in life which matter a great deal to other people. 

I've said on this forum before that when I was growing up in the late 1970s and 1980s, the only gay characters were tragic figures of fun. Actually having a normal looking person who isn't camp, who isn't a figure of fun was really important in my own development. Now of course, these weren't from adverts, but interviews on TV or people in the entertainment and acting industry. But you get my drift.

I'm not having a go but people who call 'cringe virtue signalling', do so from a position of relative comfort. I'm sure if you were in my shoes in the 1980s, you'd have plenty to complain about.

 

On a similar note , during my 5 years at Senior school , never knew a black kid there  . My lad was astounded when I told him this , as a teenager out of his 6 best friends , 4 were black 

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Aren't all adverts built on deception?

I thought you were more intelligent than that - it appears you do not want to actually debate my point.

[Mister M]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

I thought you were more intelligent than that - it appears you do not want to actually debate my point.

I am debating your point, precisely and honestly.

The latter part of the conversation steered into advertising, I simply pointed out that advertising is about selling a lifestyle which often reflects how people would like to live, not how they actually live. An ideal life, in a lovely house, lovely partner, nice neighbours etc etc.

Depending on which study you look at, anywhere between 1% and 10% of the population is gay/ lesbian/bisexual (not sure about other minority groups). Aren't they entitled to fair representation? In commercials, in dramas, on current affairs programmes etc.

Adverts, dramas, and other shows on telly don't have to show exactly how the country is, that's the beauty of it. News and current affairs shows are different - by law I think they have to be impartial and honest.

 

[altus]

9 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Doesn't really answer my post which you quote above, although I THINK I can see your point. My point was that the vast majority of  people are 'straight' - if that term is allowed these days - and trying to portray 'alternatives' as the majority is deception.

You need to think of it from an raw economics point of view. They can't afford a long advert that has a proportional sample covering all combinations so they select a few to cover as many a possible. The three pairs chosen cover heterosexual couples, mixed race couples, same race couples, lesbian couples and gay couples.

[Mister M]

16 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

On a similar note , during my 5 years at Senior school , never knew a black kid there  . My lad was astounded when I told him this , as a teenager out of his 6 best friends , 4 were black 

Yes I think you're round about the same age as me (early 50s). When I was at secondary school it was largely based on catchment area, and as such, I think Hackenthorpe is quite a white area? Whereas now, I think parents apply for their children to go to the school of their choice based on subject specialisms as well as religious background.

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I am debating your point, precisely and honestly.

The latter part of the conversation steered into advertising, I simply pointed out that advertising is about selling a lifestyle which often reflects how people would like to live, not how they actually live. An ideal life, in a lovely house, lovely partner, nice neighbours etc etc.

Depending on which study you look at, anywhere between 1% and 10% of the population is gay/ lesbian/bisexual (not sure about other minority groups). Aren't they entitled to fair representation? In commercials, in dramas, on current affairs programmes etc.

Adverts, dramas, and other shows on telly don't have to show exactly how the country is, that's the beauty of it. News and current affairs shows are different - by law I think they have to be impartial and honest.

 

OK, I see what you mean, but think we are, understandably, looking at this from different viewpoints. Without getting into a long post, because I don't have the time tonight, I will just say this: I may be in a minority around here, but I don't see a person by the colour of their skin, but their 'soul', if that makes sense. I have friends/acquaintances of many 'ethnic' backgrounds and 'membership' of the LGBT (never worked out what Q+ is) community, but I don't treat any of them any differently - they are all individuals in their own right, not items to be pigeon-holed.

 

Sorry if I am going off at a tangent, but this whole 'inclusiveness' business is, IMHO, achieving the exact opposite and creating greater divisiveness.

 

If you want to debate it further, do so, and I will try and reply tomorrow, although that may be a bit optimistic.

[The_DADDY]

26 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

OK, I see what you mean, but think we are, understandably, looking at this from different viewpoints. Without getting into a long post, because I don't have the time tonight, I will just say this: I may be in a minority around here, but I don't see a person by the colour of their skin, but their 'soul', if that makes sense. I have friends/acquaintances of many 'ethnic' backgrounds and 'membership' of the LGBT (never worked out what Q+ is) community, but I don't treat any of them any differently - they are all individuals in their own right, not items to be pigeon-holed.

 

Sorry if I am going off at a tangent, but this whole 'inclusiveness' business is, IMHO, achieving the exact opposite and creating greater divisiveness.

 

If you want to debate it further, do so, and I will try and reply tomorrow, although that may be a bit optimistic.

My bold

We disagree on much that that makes perfect sense 👍

 

Underlined

I agree with that too 👍

[RollingJ]

@The_DADDYI agree we disagree on many topics/points, but we usually do it without reverting to insults/aggravation -  thank you.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

OK, I see what you mean, but think we are, understandably, looking at this from different viewpoints. Without getting into a long post, because I don't have the time tonight, I will just say this: I may be in a minority around here, but I don't see a person by the colour of their skin, but their 'soul', if that makes sense. I have friends/acquaintances of many 'ethnic' backgrounds and 'membership' of the LGBT (never worked out what Q+ is) community, but I don't treat any of them any differently - they are all individuals in their own right, not items to be pigeon-holed.

 

Sorry if I am going off at a tangent, but this whole 'inclusiveness' business is, IMHO, achieving the exact opposite and creating greater divisiveness.

 

If you want to debate it further, do so, and I will try and reply tomorrow, although that may be a bit optimistic.

 

32 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

My bold

We disagree on much that that makes perfect sense 👍

 

Underlined

I agree with that too 👍

Of course on an interpersonal level on which all of us individually operate, seeing the person for who they are is what most of us do.

 

However, if your experience of the world is being excluded, or discriminated against at work, or being hassled by the police endlessly simply because your identity is different - that difference is going to be magnified many times over.

We all define ourselves differently, simply because we are different - in our economic circumstances, our backgrounds, our heritage, our abilities etc. It's part of who we are. And if who we are causes conflict for other people, not because we have chips on our shoulders, or are 'behaving outrageously' what do we do? Pretend we don't exist. Not aiming this at you RJ, but more widely for you to understand where I'm coming from.

Television and the media in general are powerful tools, it has been used against us as a means of stigmatising and marginalising us. I can only speak for the gay experience, and not any other marginalised group, but by organising, campaigning, and sometimes getting on the inside of media organisations has any change come about. 

 

I think earlier in this thread Chekov said that in his opinion 'there was no cynicism, divisiveness or racism before BLM' existed. Sorry but that's laughable. BLM or other organisations have been set up precisely because there has been divisiveness and racism. 

To someone like you and me who is white (I'm making the assumption that you are white), we don't experience it first hand. We see it on the television and on the streets and in the newspapers. To say that there was no racism in this country before 2013 is just mind blowing.

8 hours ago, Chekhov said:

TBH I do not think anything positive has come out of BLM.

If anything is is stirring up cynicism, division and racism where there was none before. 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Mister M