I watched an episode of 'Coronation Street' which was shown on the 27/06/2011. During this episode thirty three characters had dialogue. Nineteen were male and fourteen female, a reasonable ratio. Six characters were youths, eleven young adults, seven middle aged adults, seven elderly adults and two seniors. These results suggest that the show may be targeting a younger audience to ensure success for the next generation.
The episode has seventeen scenes which played host to five locations. A pub which featured seven times; living rooms in homes which appeared three times; the exterior location of the set which was shown three times; a fashion company which was only shown once and a shop which also appeared just once. These locations set the scene for many storylines, the most dramatic including family feuds, a pub ownership arguments, a capture of a criminal, adoption, a charity pitch, a delayed delivery argument, and a pub party which led to a complaint of sound and finally a pub fight.
What really shocked me with the episode was the unfair representation of ethnicity. Only one black person featured in the episode with a tokenistic role. This one character was seen as a stripper’s assistant and started a pub fight. This could be interpreted as racism from the Soap's behalf; in return to this it paints an unfair stereotype on British black people. After researching I found no complaints of the episode but is this a one off incident or can television soap operas push the boundaries of racism? In defence of the show, 'Coronation Street' is set in the north in a rural area which may have a small percentage of black people compared to the rest of their population. 'EastEnders', set in London, would be expected to show equal ratios of ethnicity as this is true to reality. However, is it better to be true with verisimilitude (such as the episode which could be interpreted as racism) or is it better to twist the truth in order to create a fair and equal representation?
No comments:
Post a Comment