Qfan, you made a good point regarding me "falling back on a house of card and a sham of logic" (because they can indeed write quality storylines for minority characters). This doesn't excuse my faulty logic, but I was just trying to make a point as to which soap would one rather choose: a good one with zero diversity, or a bad one with lots of diversity?

These are very valid opinions, and I am sure I would feel differently if I was not white and straight. However, it is a fact that some minority groups have more political power than others (as politically incorrect as this is to say), and this plays into the fact that there are far more black, hispanic, and gay characters on soaps than any other minority groups. Minority groups with much less political power--such as the mentally ill, Asians, Muslims, and Indians/Hindus--get virtually zero representation on daytime, and this is no coincidence. (However, rarely do folks who bemoan the lack of diversity in daytime complain about the absence of the minority groups I just listed.) It is just a factual statement that blacks, hispanics, and gays are the most represented minorities on daytime because they created far more powerful political movements than the others groups I mentioned. (However, the only thing that goes against my theory above is the appalling lack of Jews in daytime, despite the fact that Jews--as a group--are very politically active. I honestly have zero explanation why there are so few Jewish characters in daytime.)

Marceline makes a very compelling case as to why there should be diversity in daytime (because, as she stated, it "allows for lots of potential stories that a homogenous canvas just doesn't"). Nevertheless, I just don't believe that diversity should be a primary objective of daytime (although it should be an important secondary objective). IMO, far more important than diversity is getting high quality actors and high quality writers (regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation).

It shouldn't even have to be an objective, it should just be. And in that search for high quality actors and writers, the net should be cast far and wide to include talent of all races, religions, and sexual orientations rather than focusing first and foremost on whites and viewing all others as give-or-take accessories. I am a biracial person raised by soap watchers on both my black and white sides. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't touced to the root of who I am when today for instance I heard the Hubbards saying things like, "Cut your eyes" and "That's your brother". There is something endearing, inclusive, familiar, and appreciated when soaps honor their full audience with diversity and slices of life. So while I agree that excellence in writing and acting is of the utmost importance, I see absolutely no reason wy that can't automatically include folks of all colors, sexualities, what have you, witout looking like a PSA or "favor" to the lowly minority audience.

So while I agree that excellence in writing and acting is of the utmost importance, I see absolutely no reason wy that can't automatically include folks of all colors, sexualities, what have you, witout looking like a PSA or "favor" to the lowly minority audience.

SFK, this is essentially what I was trying to say (although you went about it in a much more polite and sensitive way): diversity (while important) is not as critical as writing or acting. It is interesting that you alluded the occurrence of soaps just creating token minority/gay characters (who are poorly written) in an insulting attempt to placate a portion of the audience; I would think minorities/gays would find this even more offensive than having no diversity at all.

Those groups have "less political power" because they have a substantially smaller presence in our society. Muslims make up less than 1% of the American population, and Hindus are even less than that, but black people make up 12.6%. Asians make up 4.8%, and I've actually seen plenty of people say that there should be more characters of Asian descent in daytime (and television in general). And when we have the usual "Stories that have not been done on soaps" thread, people always bring up various mental illnesses that would be interesting to see on a soap.

The fact remains that it is still appalling that soaps have yet to feature these types of characters (or have featured very few of them) in a meaningful way, and the fact that they are lesser in number (and have less political power) than other groups is no excuse. To too many people, diversity equals blacks, hispanics, and gays, but completely leaves out Jews, Hindus, Muslims, the mentally ill, the autistic, and the mentally retarted. It is the height of hypocrisy for one to complain about the lack of blacks, hispanics, and/or gays in daytime but to then only pay lip service to the lack of members of these other minority groups. (Note that I am not calling specific person here a hypocrite in this regard. Rather, I am just trying to make a point.)

Edited September 19, 201114 yr by Max

Moving AMC from NYC to LA should definately rank among the top three blunders (yet didn't even make the top 25). It was just an idiotic idea by Frons and his bosses that a cross-country move would be the magic bullet for a dying show. (Instead, it only made things worse, because it cost AMC David Canary and led to those endless outdoor park scenes.)

Not to mention all these people uprooted their families for nothing in the long run. Especially if what was reported is true that Frons had planned the cancellation even back when the show was moving

Nora and Matthew on OLTL are Jewish. The Siegels, one of the original core families, were Jewish. Rama and Vimal are Hindu. Lily Montgomery was autistic. I think there should be many more of all of the above, but I don't think an imbalance in certain minorities indicates we should not continue to press for more of all of them - black, Latino, gay, Asian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, you name it.

Nora and Matthew on OLTL are Jewish.

Nora became a shiksa years ago! Has Matthew ever even seen a menorah? GH had a nice moment a couple of years back when their sole Jewish character Bernie, an accountant of course, got his Christmas wish for a match to light his menorah.

Actually, yeah - Nora and Matt celebrated Hanukkah about a thousand years ago (or maybe 2003-2004).

The Siegels, one of the original core families, were Jewish.

I have no idea why OLTL made the blunder of writing out the Siegels and Woleks (a Polish family). This is especially perplexing given that OLTL--unlike most other soaps--made the promotion of diversity one of its primary objectives (as I stated earlier). (I know that OLTL--like all the other soaps that made the 60 minute expansion--felt the need to "clean house" circa 1980, but that doesn't excuse destroying these families.)

And I remember Rachel on one or two occasions playfully referring to herself as "a good Jewish girl."

The fact remains that it is still appalling that soaps have yet to feature these types of characters (or have featured very few of them) in a meaningful way, and the fact that they are lesser in number (and have less political power) than other groups is no excuse.

Okay? I agree with this.

To too many people, diversity equals blacks, hispanics, and gays, but completely leaves out Jews, Hindus, Muslims, the mentally ill, the autistic, and the mentally retarted. It is the height of hypocrisy for one to complain about the lack of blacks, hispanics, and/or gays in daytime but to then only pay lip service to the lack of members of these other minority groups. (Note that I am not calling specific person here a hypocrite in this regard. Rather, I am just trying to make a point.)

Honestly, I don't think that's true. People mention blacks, Hispanics, and gays because they are some of the most visible minority groups in the US (which makes their underrepresentation in daytime all the more unrealistic), but that's doesn't mean they're leaving out other groups or just paying lip service to them. Do you assume that people are leaving those groups out, or do you actually ask "Do you think there should be some representation of *group* in daytime?" to which they respond "no"? That makes all the difference.

Over the years it has become clear that soaps only want to write for most minorities when they are trying to attract a new demographic. The most recent example being the whining from ABC about how they wanted the telenovela audience with the Castillos, so don't say they didn't try to save AMC.

Daytime is enhanced when you have new voices and new lives. Just go look at OLTL clips from 1992-1993 and compare another installment of Asa treating women like whores to the stuff with Hank, Sheila, Rachel, and Nora.

The condescension that most in the industry have is what has taken over and what seeps through. It was obvious that Brad Bell was super proud of himself for his Dayzee story, which would have been laughed off TV in 1975, much less 2010.

There's always this idea that most of the people watching daytime are racist, and therefore minority groups need to be segregated and dehumanized. There is no effort to actually see what viewers want. Remember when Dru first started on Y&R? Viewers did take to her, and Bill Bell wrote for that, until she became one of the show's most popular and complex characters. What do we have now? The "new Dru" having sex with her nephew about ten minutes after she found out he wasn't her nephew, and then leaving town in shame.

Edited September 19, 201114 yr by CarlD2

Well, techincally the Siegels weren't 100% Jewish. Eileen was Catholic. That's why she got so freaked with Timmy marrying former nun Jenny. Julie? I kind of recall that Eileen raised both kids Catholic.

And sorry, but as a gay man, who fought P&G with letters, phone calls, protesting the treatment of Luke and Noah and ATWT I find the logic of the poster stating that only all clean, white, straight storylines can be consumed by the average soap viewer highly insulting. That's the problem with soaps today - the suits in charge never realized their viewers changed, even with all their research and they listened TOO LOUDLY to the people who spout hate and ignorance. Believe me, the ATWT storyline with L & N was never good, but Van Hansis in particular sold me. I hadn't watched what I considered a very stupid show, for years, when I was informed of Luke's coming out. I was hooked. I always hoped it would get better and I counted on it being there. I could not understand why the ONLY storyline ATWT had in years that had any buzz wasn't even airing more than ONCE a week at best. Instead we had endless Carly/Jack crap. I guess they didn't figure the fags would want Crisco for anything other than what the dirty minded would assume they'd want it for.

Came for discussion of daytime mishaps, stayed for Crisco lube.

And sorry, but as a gay man, who fought P&G with letters, phone calls, protesting the treatment of Luke and Noah and ATWT I find the logic of the poster stating that only all clean, white, straight storylines can be consumed by the average soap viewer highly insulting.

Zoe, I never stated that "only clean, white, straight storylines can be consumed by the average soap viewer." What I said was that diversity should be one of the secondary objectives of daytime, while great acting and writing should be the primary objective. As a hypothetical, extreme example, I just stated that I'd much rather watch a lily-white, all-heterosexual soap that has great acting and writing as opposed to a highly diverse soap with poor quality. (But as Qfan pointed out, there is still no excuse for being unable to write for minority characters). This is not the equivalent to saying the words above that you put into my mouth.

There's always this idea that most of the people watching daytime are racist, and therefore minority groups need to be segregated and dehumanized.

Carl, given your rich knowledge of the soap industry, I definately believe you. Do you have any idea how and when this line of thinking arose?

This misguided line of thinking might be somewhat "understandable" if we are talking about CBS (or even NBC soaps), since they tend to be most popular in the South and Middle America (where, sadly, there is more racism than in the "blue" areas). However, ABC soaps (as well as the network itself) are most popular in the big cities of the Northeast and West Coast. Thus, I am perplexed as to why Frons would feel the audience for ABC soaps would be racist or homophobic (even though he has indeed made statements to this effect in the past).

Edited September 20, 201114 yr by Max

Josh the Unabortion as #1, huh? Still makes me breathe fire. It's that storyline that makes a very large part of me feel like AMC deserves exactly what it got.