3 ms·

Can you elaborate what you mean by political? I've seen this term used as a criticism in media when the focus is put on a non-white, non-male or somehow "othere

Can you elaborate what you mean by political? I've seen this term used as a criticism in media when the focus is put on a non-white, non-male or somehow "othered" person. To me, I read this as people seeing the accomplishments of white men as legitimate and anything else purely as optics. I do think there is probably an element of pandering to an audience that goes on, but I'd love to see some evidence or just hear some more of your thoughts on this one.

sol_invictus 5y ago
If you have a sizable populace willing to garrote you if your award nominations do not include a large enough representation of minority populaces, regardless of how movies, actors, directors, screenwriters, and anyone else actually performs in any given category (which, I believe, is the main point of an award), the incentive for including an equalized representation across all award categories far outweighs the benefit of awarding based on merit. That is the evidence you asked for, you're welcome. It's not a white / non-white question at all, as you can see.
- busterarm 5y ago
  Many awards since last year, Oscars included, actually require this kind of representation now to be nominated.
  - sol_invictus 5y ago
    Then the equation is even more simple.
- lewisflude 5y ago
  I wouldn't call that evidence, but I can see how the pressure of political activism could challenge the idea that awards are merit based. But I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence that the merits of non-white, non-male people are any less than their counterparts. Most responses I see are talking more broadly about "PC culture". I think this could also be a case of a) More non-white, non-male, "othered" people working in media b) More of an audience for that content than ever, enabling people that fit different profiles to make movies
  - sol_invictus 5y ago
    Tthe opposite of not wanting selection via cowardice isn't "select more white people", as many seem to misunderstand. It's simply wanting selection based on the criteria at hand. As long as a mob force exists that alters that equation, you'll have at least minor distortion. It could well be that without the mob the award candidates would've been exactly the same, but we won't know.
    - lewisflude 5y ago
      It sort of sucks how opaque awards/speaker nominations/prize selection can be at times. It does create an environment where things can not be 100% "fair" and there's no way of knowing. It would be interesting to see what a truly fair process would look like! I think with something like The Oscars, the fact that the film/TV industry take it seriously is merit enough to pay attention to who wins awards.
TedShiller 5y ago
Interest in the Oscars is at an all-time low. The statistics are inconvenient, but there they are. This is probably a good thing.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Does that mean lack of interest because of politics, or the same problem the Oscars have had since perhaps back when Jaws/Star Wars invented blockbuster movies: the Academy Awards aren't going to award the big budget crowd-pleasers (like superhero films), so most audiences are uninterested. That's a high art vs. low art issue, not a political one.

sol_invictus 5y ago

If you have a sizable populace willing to garrote you if your award nominations do not include a large enough representation of minority populaces, regardless of how movies, actors, directors, screenwriters, and anyone else actually performs in any given category (which, I believe, is the main point of an award), the incentive for including an equalized representation across all award categories far outweighs the benefit of awarding based on merit. That is the evidence you asked for, you're welcome. It's not a white / non-white question at all, as you can see.

busterarm 5y ago
Many awards since last year, Oscars included, actually require this kind of representation now to be nominated.
- sol_invictus 5y ago
  Then the equation is even more simple.
lewisflude 5y ago
I wouldn't call that evidence, but I can see how the pressure of political activism could challenge the idea that awards are merit based. But I don't think I've ever seen any actual evidence that the merits of non-white, non-male people are any less than their counterparts. Most responses I see are talking more broadly about "PC culture". I think this could also be a case of a) More non-white, non-male, "othered" people working in media b) More of an audience for that content than ever, enabling people that fit different profiles to make movies
- sol_invictus 5y ago
  Tthe opposite of not wanting selection via cowardice isn't "select more white people", as many seem to misunderstand. It's simply wanting selection based on the criteria at hand. As long as a mob force exists that alters that equation, you'll have at least minor distortion. It could well be that without the mob the award candidates would've been exactly the same, but we won't know.
  - lewisflude 5y ago
    It sort of sucks how opaque awards/speaker nominations/prize selection can be at times. It does create an environment where things can not be 100% "fair" and there's no way of knowing. It would be interesting to see what a truly fair process would look like! I think with something like The Oscars, the fact that the film/TV industry take it seriously is merit enough to pay attention to who wins awards.

TedShiller 5y ago

Interest in the Oscars is at an all-time low. The statistics are inconvenient, but there they are. This is probably a good thing.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Does that mean lack of interest because of politics, or the same problem the Oscars have had since perhaps back when Jaws/Star Wars invented blockbuster movies: the Academy Awards aren't going to award the big budget crowd-pleasers (like superhero films), so most audiences are uninterested. That's a high art vs. low art issue, not a political one.