I can’t wait for the day when marginalised creators and media representing marginalised, diverse characters can fail publicly without the inherent diversity in the media being labelled as bad or as the sole reason it failed.
The downfall of any piece of media should be the actual plot and structural flaws.
The purpose of representation in media is to normalise diversity.
And it’s essential to recognise that true progress lies, not in shielding diverse media from criticism, but in allowing it to fail based on its merits or lack thereof.
There’s a real danger in setting unrealistic expectations on marginalised creators.
Imposing impossibly high standards solely on marginalised creators perpetuates a harmful cycle where they are subjected to incessant scrutiny and backlash that has little to do with the quality of their work.
Queer people, women, and people of colour should be allowed to make mediocre work that is simply accepted as being mediocre work without dog-piling on the creator for being who they are.
Requiring marginalised creators to make perfect work simply to avoid harassment campaigns stifles creativity. It discourages those creators from sharing their unique stories and perspectives.
The sad truth is that it’s precisely the mediocre work where the bigots find purchase for their smear campaigns.
Someone’s always got an agenda. Someone’s always making a buck.
Like, for the most part, straight white dudes are allowed to make mediocre art and just have it be mediocre art; when someone like Leslie Jones or Elizabeth Banks does it, however, it trends on Twitter for weeks and some fucking YouTuber named ‘TheLastRealJedi’ making $80,000 a year by never shutting up about it.
– “Sacrificial Trash”, Sarah Z
In the age of social media, online criticism is a powerful tool for expressing opinions.
And using these platforms by those with intolerant and bigoted agendas is easy.
Orchestrated backlash against media by marginalised creators and including diverse representation, which is fuelled by disguised bigotry, not only undermines the marginalised creators but also creates a chilling effect on future creative endeavours.
It’s important to distinguish between genuine critique and malicious attacks that thrive on the manipulation of online criticism.
These campaigns often target diverse media productions, aiming to direct negative attention towards marginalised creators and create larger backlashes against the concept of diversity itself.
The perpetrators of these campaigns do not care about the quality of the works in question.
They simply exploit any perceived flaws as convenient excuses to promote their prejudiced ideologies.
The success of these orchestrated backlashes lies in their ability to weaponise the average viewer (you and me), drawing us into the negativity surrounding diverse media without us initially being aware of the underlying bigotry.
The casual viewer, driven by curiosity or the desire to watch someone critique a supposedly flawed production for entertainment, inadvertently becomes a participant in a harmful campaign.
As these viewers engage with the content, they contribute to the increased metrics and profits of the creators behind the backlash, perpetuating a cycle that fuels further attacks.
The root cause of these backlashes is not the quality of the media in question.
But rather a deep-seated animosity towards marginalised groups.
The ringleaders orchestrating these campaigns harbour a dislike for women, queer people, and people of colour, and seek to suppress their ability to create without fear.
The ringleaders employ any excuse, be it claims of cis-phobia or accusations of promoting a “woke” agenda, to undermine diverse media.
Their true aim is to negate the existence and influence of marginalised voices in creative spaces.
While we should strive to express and listen to genuine opinions about media that is lacking in quality, it’s crucial to be mindful of the motives behind the criticism.
Things like tokenism and lacking or harmful representation should be subject to critique from a progressive standpoint.
We want to promote a nuanced approach to media analysis in order to avoid unintentionally perpetuating harmful narratives and damaging the creative efforts of marginalised creators.
By adopting a more discerning and thoughtful approach to media criticism, we can all promote a culture of constructive engagement that uplifts marginalised voices and encourages growth and improvement within the creative industry as a whole. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Understanding the context in which negative narratives are perpetuated, and ensuring that our critiques are founded on genuine concerns about artistic merit, representation and storytelling, is how we foster a culture of constructive engagement that is based on meaningful discussions addressing the complexities of representation in media.
Actively seeking out diverse perspectives and voices, supporting marginalised creators, and providing constructive feedback facilitates growth and improvement. And engaging in thoughtful conversations about media allows us to hold creators accountable while avoiding the harmful effects of dog-piling and unwarranted backlash.
However, I do recognise that it’s challenging to participate without jumping on the dog-pile.
Because often participating in the discourse only fuels the negative aspects of it – even if you’re simply a passive spectator, consuming the content drives views and traffic to fuel the profits of those who thrive off the controversy.
And the problem with admitting that you think a piece of media is bad, you’re inadvertently jumping on the same bandwagon of hostility already directed at the creators.
But what do we do when we can’t engage with content without also becoming a part of the culture war content has become immersed in?
Because, as an average viewer, you can easily get swept up in the frenzy by consuming a bunch of bashing posts and videos about a book or movie you’ve heard about and are considering to read or watch yourself.
Even when the overt bigotry isn’t necessarily well-hidden, it may still take a little while before it reveals itself – you can’t know what it’s about until you consume it – and by then it’s already too late and the creator of that content can add another tally to their views, which increases both their profits and reach.
One sign of this kind of backlash happening is when we start to have the same conversations on a loop.
A piece of media will get a lot of hate, essentially for not being very good, and someone will point out, “Kinda sus that this show has gay people in it, right?”, then someone else will get offended for being “called a bigot” and an argument ensues, causing everyone to dig in deeper into their respective trenches.
Being able to identify that this kind of backlash is being engineered — and that mediocre works are chosen strategically because they are vulnerable — is a start to identifying the problem.
While these orchestrated campaigns can initially gain traction, their impact diminishes and their attempts at manipulating public opinion lose effectiveness when faced with well-executed and inclusive productions.
As the quality of the work speaks for itself, the opinions of average viewers, who appreciate the content and recognise its value, begin to overshadow the attempts at igniting hatred and backlash.
Take Netflix’s She-Ra for example.
As soon as the show was announced, there was an outpouring of posts and videos focused on complaining about character design. But it quickly became evident that the actual complaint was about the show having different body types and a more diverse cast.
The show experienced review-bombing and accusations of being “woke sjw” garbage in the beginning, but later seasons were released to huge acclaim because the show was able to prove over time that it was a good show. The kind of people who hated it simply for being gay were no longer able to weaponise backlash against the show, as it had gained enough critical acclaim among regular viewers.
But not everyone has a backer like Netflix to help them bide their time.
The problem is that people don’t look twice.
Remember those pictures of Pope Francis in a white puffy jacket? They went viral on Reddit and Twitter despite being completely fake.
It isn’t even hard to spot the tell-tale signs of generative AI being the creator of these images. If you only look a little closer, the inconsistencies become glaring:
As word spread across the internet that the image was indeed generated by one MidJourney user just trying to create something funny (no surprise that being high, bored or both was involved), many people expressed their shock at the images not being real.
Large numbers of us accepted the images at face value and didn’t even question their veracity.
But te real question this poses, isn’t whether you can spot the fake nature of these photographs or not, it’s why most people don’t look in the first place.
The rapid pace of information dissemination on social media platforms fosters an environment where immediate reactions take precedence over critical analysis. Scrolling through an endless stream of content leaves little time or inclination for careful scrutiny.
The human tendency to seek confirmation bias also plays a significant role. People are more likely to believe and share information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs or opinions. And when a piece of content conforms to our expectations or reinforces our world-view, we may be less inclined to question its authenticity.
This cognitive bias is exploited by those seeking to spread misinformation or manipulate public opinion.
Then there’s also the fac that the vast amount of information available online is overwhelming.
The sheer volume of images, videos, and news articles makes it impractical for anyone to thoroughly fact-check everything they come across. This overload of information can lead to a sense of complacency, where you simply assume that what you encounter is true without subjecting it to closer scrutiny.
Addressing this issue requires a collective effort.
Educating ourselves in media literacy and critical thinking skills is crucial in navigating the digital landscape.
Knowing how to evaluate the reliability of sources, fact-check information, and recognise the signs of manipulated or fake content empowers us to make more informed decisions.
Simply stopping for a moment and checking in with how something sits with you can help you spot agendas (which, most content online has anyway).
When diverse voices are discouraged, the media landscape is affected.
And usually for the worse as it becomes more sanitised for the sake of being easily consumable.
This takes complex cultures, identities and experiences, and reduces them to mere shadows of their true selves.
Recognising who a given criticism might come from and who it might benefit is important.
We don’t need a feed full of people all looking exactly the same, saying the exact same thing.
Achieving true representation in media necessitates a mindset shift. A shift that moves beyond merely celebrating diversity to embracing the notion that diverse media, like any other form of entertainment, can have flaws.
The day when “good representation” means recognising and addressing the flaws in structure, narrative, character development, rather than blaming the issues solely on diversity, is a crucial milestone on our journey towards an inclusive media landscape.
By allowing diverse creators to fail and learn from their failures, we foster an environment that allows everyone’s talents to shine while promoting meaningful and authentic storytelling for all.
Want to get more out of reading books?
Grab this FREE guide on how to start a reading journal, complete with review templates, reading trackers and bingo sheets.
Understand yourself better as a reader, engage more with the books you read & make space for creative self-expression. Get it now!
“When Sasha Barrett gets bitten by a snake on a mission, her squad captain’s quick actions not only save her life, but also make her realise something she may have known all along…“
