TELEVISION: TO BUILD A BLACK IMAGE

urban Black, then and now, was derived from such misleading portrayals. Black militants were synonymous with hoodlums. Before long, the image overshadowed the reality.

Television is the most popular and powerful medium of communication in America. Its effects on the attitudes and opinions of viewers are far-reaching.

For this reason, various special interest groups (i.e. feminists, educators, minority groups) have persisted in trying to eliminate sexism, violence, and racism from the homescreen. In light of the distorted images of Black life that have dominated our history in this country, it is of paramount importance to monitor those images that are presented over the airwaves.

The history of Black Americans is rich with drama and comedy that covers the wide spectrum of Black social, political, and cultural involvement in this country.

It would be a welcome change to see prime-time documentaries or regularly-scheduled programs that depict events such as the Attica uprising, the life of the controversial Aqam Clayton Powell, Jr., the Amistad slave ship mutiny, the saga of Marcus Garvey, the exploits of the famous all-Black 369th Infantry Division, and many other important subjects.

the relationship between community and land.

The strength of “The People’s Garden” lies in its creative plot development, world building, and, above all, dynamic characterization of our favorite trio. The show’s environment feels incredibly lived in—so much so that viewers can’t help but see themselves in Ade, Jaja, and Ibrahim. Without feeling like a stagnant tutorial on how to develop and maintain a garden in an urban environment, every week, viewers are indeed getting an engaging crash course on how to replicate a gardening model in their own homes and neighborhood, which is the ultimate goal of the show’s

By Wista Johnson Amsterdam News Staff

April 21, 1979

During the sixties , one of my pet peeves was television's portrayal of the Black "militant."

Most often, they were depicted as scowling, rhetoric-spouting buffoons who wore black berets and black turtlenecks.

Their sole political activity seemed to be to bad-mouth "whitey." Seldom, if ever, were the reasons for their militancy explained. They seemed intent on anarchy and violence rather than serious social change, although real-life circumstances indicated change was necessary.

It's possible that much of the nation's image of the young,

Black ownership or control of any media is limited at best. (At present there is only one Black-owned television station in the country. Application for another is pending.) Consequently, we must rely on white network programmers to decide the kind, number, and content of those Black programs that are shown.

It seems naive to expect that a medium whose most popular television shows are sit-coms (situation comedies) would or should be sensitive to or willing to develop more diverse Black programs.

The primary objective of television producers is to generate revenue. Television is big business. And in any big business, the idea is to make money, and sometimes, friends.

But, this will remain a pipe dream until more Black producers, writers, or executives are brought into the television hierarchy or white producers, writers, and executives recognize the wealth of material available from the experiences of all ethnic groups in America.

Perhaps, the day will come when there will be more interesting, dramatic (or comedic), and solidly-researched programs or documentaries to follow in the pioneering footsteps of "Roots."

But the responsibility for nudging programmers and advertisers lies with the Black television viewer. We must care enough about our collective image to diligently monitor the kind of daily television fare that the networks feed us and our children.

Television is a powerful weapon for social change. We should be aware of its potential and harness it for our cause.