Op-Ed

Television has a “wealth porn” addiction. 

While 99% of Americans live outside the elite circles of Succession or The White Lotus, programs (both scripted and reality) often struggle to accurately portray the working- or middle-class experience—if they represent it at all. When the non-elite are illustrated, they are frequently flattened into caricatures to be pitied, loathed, or laughed at. In a concise one-page op-ed, argue how audiences benefit when television moves beyond its wealth fixation. For instance, how does the lack of broader economic representation affect societal views of those at the top? And what do viewers lose when they don’t see their own economic situation sufficiently represented in characters? Finally, what might audiences gain if provided more nuanced and accurate representations of how most Americans live?

Cite at least three of the following articles to support your thesis: 

• “Working Class Heroes: Why Don’t We See Poor People on TV Anymore?” (TV Fanatic)
• “Ten Poorest TV Families, Ranked” (Collider)
• “Maid is a Rare, Unflinching Depiction of Poverty from Hollywood” (The Ringer)
• “The American Dream is More Attainable for TV Characters Than Americans” (UCLA)
• “Why Won’t TV Show People Who Aren’t Rich?” (Politico)
• "Money is Ruining Television' (The Atlantic)

All articles are available in the eR.

Required:

• MLA Style, including works cited
• 250 words (≈1 page)

Due: Fri 3.15 (via Canvas)