immigration Archives - The Opportunity Agenda

A Core Narrative for Immigration Messaging

America needs a better way of talking about immigration. The dominant narratives we see circulated over and over do not reflect the values many of us share and are eroding public support for the kinds of policies our communities need. All the while, immigration enforcement, detention, and deportation cost taxpayers billions and lines the pockets of corporate interests. To distract and divide us from true solidarity, negative discourse has opened the door for dangerous and divisive proposals that serve no one beyond a narrow set of anti-immigrant activists. And while polls have shown that these groups don’t represent the public’s views, they do tell a consistent, values-based story that has caught on in public discourse, popular culture, and political dialogue. In other words, they exploit fear rather than actually working towards a future where we all prosper.

We need a new story around immigration, infused with solution stories and values that are meant to connect and liberate us all. We need to reclaim this conversation and infuse it with our solutions, our stories, and most importantly, our values.

General Messaging Guidelines

This flexible, values-based framework provides a foundation for more productive conversations about immigration. It is based on public opinion research, insight from media monitoring and analysis, and the experience of a broad range of immigration advocates, activists, and immigrant themselves. By starting from the following principles, we can move past fear and build towards consistent messaging that resonates and builds power for our communities.

Emphasize Workable Solutions: Americans across the political spectrum are beginning to see the true horrors of our broken immigration system and deportation and enforcement industry. Not only are current policies inhumane and unreasonable, but they also don’t actually build towards permanent solutions for immigrant communities. Our communications should promote solutions that enable full economic and civic participation, while helping our communities thrive. Given the difficulty of the national climate, focusing on impactful solutions at the local and regional narrative level is important.

Infuse Messages with Values: Americans are most likely to support policies that welcome immigrants when we connect them to our shared values of opportunity, community, equality, and shared responsibility. “Transactional” arguments about the costs and benefits of immigrants just reinforce the anti-immigrant frame of newcomers as a potential burden.

Stand Together: Anti-immigrant groups are actively working to drive a wedge between immigrants, Black Americans and other communities of color, and low-wage workers. We must rally around the values that we share and our common interests to expand opportunity for everyone—e.g., combining an earned pathway to citizenship with enhanced civil rights enforcement, living wages, and job training for communities experiencing job insecurity. When we unite and embrace immigrants push against the false narratives that blame immigrants for economic inequality and structural problems. Together, our vision of a shared, prosperous future becomes not just possible, but inevitable.

Remind Audiences that Immigrants are a Part of Us: Instead of describing immigrants as outsiders who benefit us, remind audiences that immigrants are and always have been integral to our communities and our nation. (Note that this is different from saying “we’re a nation of immigrants,” which is off-putting for many Black American and Native American audiences).

Understanding the Dominant Narrative

Anti-immigrant spokespeople are consistent in using two dominant themes, regardless of their specific point:

Criminality and Law and Order Narrative

There is an inherent criminality to immigrating to the U.S.
“What part of ‘illegal’ don’t you understand?”
Threat of Terrorism, drugs, and danger
Stealing “our” resources and avoiding contributing

Resource Scarcity Narrative

Job Competition
Health Care Cost and Access
Draining Social Services

Building a Message

While our core narrative should remain the same and its themes should weave throughout all of our communications, we can build effective messages for different issues and audiences using The Opportunity Agenda’s signature VPSA (Value, Problem, Solution, and Action) framework:

Value

History shows that we move forward as a country when we welcome new immigrants and work together to improve our communities.

Problem

Our broken immigration system makes legal immigration nearly impossible for many. This allows unscrupulous employers to exploit workers, undermining rights and wages for everyone while reducing tax revenue. Our current system harms both immigrants and American citizens. For immigrant communities, we’ve created a climate of fear and deep unsafety through our enforcement. For all Americans, it diverts money from needed government services while increasing the wealth of private detention center owners.

Solution

We need sensible immigration policies that recognize reality – immigrants are already contributing members of our communities. They are a crucial part of our economic engine and the social fabric of our society. They are part of the future of our country. The obvious solution – and one that most Americans support – is to fix our immigration system so that everyone who lives here can contribute and participate fully and without fear.

Action

Support policies that help our communities welcome immigrants and solve problems together. Call out those that profit from this immigration enforcement effort.

Key Talking Points

The talking points below show how to bring our shared story to life. We know that immigration advocates speak to different communities with unique regional concerns and challenges. What connects us are our common values. Try weaving these themes into your own words and style. This approach helps create a consistent message that resonates with the public while giving you the flexibility to communicate authentically in ways that work for your audience.

Workable Solutions

We must emphasize that we are proposing reasonable and practical solutions that address our community and our nation’s needs. By focusing on what actually works, we can reveal how anti-immigrant activists push harmful policies that divide us and distract from the real challenges we all face together. We can also build power across issues by showing that many of the villains in our fights for justice are the same or aligned.

Building border walls or treating immigrants so badly that they’ll somehow “go home” have been tried and failed.
Anti-immigrant extremists are preventing a legal immigration system that works and distracting us from addressing our real challenges to education, health care, and employment.

Mutual Aid

Given the attack on people who immigrate or settle in the United States, we will need to see the activation of a robust system of aid and resources to protect these community members.
Engaging in mutual aid support for immigrant justice helps us build new models of social support and justice. Given the difficulties in the immigration climate currently, this model allows us to flip the script on who can support and uplift these communities.

Local Anti-Immigrant Policies

Policies that isolate and divide people fail everyone. We need workable, inclusive policies that serve all residents across our state, even as we continue pushing the federal government to fix our broken immigration system.
Our cities and states are havens for our immigrant communities and are best suited to help them both survive and even thrive in this difficult time.

Due Process

In America, the punishment should fit the crime. Not allowing judges to consider the circumstances of a case violates this principle and fails to resolve the problem of undocumented immigration. Judges need the freedom to look at the circumstances of each individual case and make decisions based on what’s best for that situation. These systems only have integrity when they are applied equitably and fairly.

Immigration Reform

We need a realistic pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Immigrants want to come to America legally, but our current system makes that almost impossible. This system is impossible for a reason – intentionally leaving millions of people in limbo as our government hoards resources and divides communities across the country.
Creating a clear path to citizenship and protecting the rights of all immigrants helps everyone in America, especially working families. When people are forced to live in the shadows without basic rights or opportunities, it drives down wages and jobs for all workers. This goes against what America stands for. By bringing everyone into our shared economy, we can rise together.

Uphold Our Values

Research shows that people react positively to messages that connect with their deeply-held values – especially those they see as fundamental to America. We can tap into this by underscoring that all immigration policies must reflect:

Community

Equality

Shared Responsibility

Opportunity

Justice

Human Rights

Immigrants are part of the fabric of our society—they are our neighbors, coworkers, friends. Reactionary policies that force them into the shadows haven’t worked and contradict our values. Those policies hurt all of us by encouraging exploitation by unscrupulous employers and landlords. We support policies that help immigrants contribute and participate fully in our society.
From its founding to today, America represents a promise of opportunity. We need an immigration system that welcomes those who come here ready to work hard, contribute their fair share, and become part of our shared American story.
Every person deserves dignity and fundamental rights, regardless of where they were born. Standing against exploitation and upholding human rights reflects our deepest values as Americans.

Due Process

Due process, fair hearings, and access to legal representation are cornerstone American values. These principles have guided our justice system since our founding and must remain at the heart of our immigration policies. These systems only have integrity when they are applied equitably and fairly.

Raids

Militarized raids on families and workplaces, brutal detention facilities, and the lack of due process are un-American and a national shame. The United States was founded to reject violence and repression, not repeat it. This enforcement is coming at the expense of American taxpayers – all to help line the pockets of private prison companies and government contractors.

Family Reunification

Some propose that we ignore family ties in our immigration system. But keeping families together resonates deeply across political and cultural divides—it’s a value Americans recognize in ourselves and admire in others. Welcoming newcomers but separating and splitting their families is contrary to who we are as a nation.

Help Us Move Forward Together

Our shared value of community reminds us that America thrives when we recognize our interconnectedness. When discussing people who immigrate, emphasizing our common bonds creates ground for productive conversations, putting others in an open frame of mind to consider immigration policies. Additionally, having trusted messengers share the ways that their immigrant neighbors keep their communities thriving is key.

By highlighting how shared prosperity benefits everyone, we can move beyond divisive rhetoric toward solutions that honor both our diversity and our unity. Remember: focusing on our collective strength doesn’t minimize our differences—it acknowledges that our varied perspectives and experiences create a more resilient and innovative society when we work together.

We are for solutions that benefit communities, strengthen our economy, and create a system that works for everyone.
We need shared solutions to improve health care, education, jobs, and the economy for everyone who lives here. Immigrants have a stake in those systems—we are caregivers and health professionals, teachers and students—and we are a part of the solution.
Generations of immigrants have come to America in search of opportunity and have contributed to our shared prosperity. Preserving that tradition is essential to our future in an increasingly connected world.
Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are a part of our state’s economic engine, and, most importantly, a part of our communities.
Immigrants play a vital role in our communities, our culture, and our economy. We go to church, we volunteer with the PTA, we pay taxes and work at hard jobs that our economy needs.
Our economy and our trade and immigration policies aren’t working for anyone but a select few. Instead of scapegoating immigrants and terrorizing families and communities, we should make America work for all of us.

Mix and Match

To effectively advance a positive narrative about immigrants and immigration, we can determine which elements are the most effective to the point we need to make and then weave them in. It’s the cumulative effect of these messages that will ultimately create the narrative we need to start to put the immigration story back on track.

Crafting effective immigration messaging requires strategic selection from our narrative framework. By identifying which elements resonate most powerfully with specific audiences and contexts, we can tailor communications that advance our broader goals. Each message becomes a building block—contributing to a cohesive story that, through repetition, helps reshape public understanding. This layered approach creates momentum over time. As consistent themes echo across different channels and messengers, they reinforce one another, gradually shifting the immigration conversation toward more productive and humane ground. Remember that narrative change is cumulative—each communication adds another thread to the new tapestry we’re weaving about America’s immigration story.

We need to move from our broken immigration system to one that is orderly, workable, and productive. We can do that by allowing people who are part of our communities and families earn a pathway to citizenship. Along with reforms like increased civil rights enforcement and sanctions for employers that exploit workers will raise wages and expand economic opportunity for everyone.
A pathway to citizenship and human rights for current and future immigrants is crucial to the interests of our country and, especially, to the interests of working Americans. If our government keeps people in the shadows, without rights or a shot at the American Dream, it will depress the wages and job prospects of all workers in this country. And it will continue to violate the values we hold dear. But if we move those people into the economic mainstream, we can rise together.

Quick Tips for Talking Immigration Issues

The immigration experience, one of moving from a familiar home to an uncertain future, takes incredible courage. While attacks on immigrants are dispiriting, to say the least, they can’t defeat that hope and search for opportunity. America has grown stronger because of newcomers who bring fresh ideas, valuable skills, and rich cultural traditions. Our country works best when everyone can participate and contribute, regardless of where they we born. We must continue to connect to these core values and protect them against those seeking to exclude and divide.

Here are five quick tips for talking about immigration in the face of attacks. These approaches will help you tell a hopeful story that looks toward a future over fear and celebrates opportunity for all.

Start with shared values. Talk about the America we all want to live in. Say things like: “This is about treating people with dignity and giving everyone a fair chance—values that make America special.” Before jumping into policy details, connect immigration to values most people share. When we start with what matters to all of us, people are more open to hearing us out and ready to listen to specific ideas. Also, talk about values outside of immigration – this will allow you to explain how the exploitation of people who immigrate is related to a range of issues and values we all care about.
Focus on common sense solutions. Recent executive orders and proposed legislation reflect backwards thinking and won’t serve us in the future. Emphasize that we need practical approaches that work for today’s world, not angry rhetoric that divides us. Try saying: “Instead of harsh policies based on fear, we need smart solutions that strengthen our communities and economy rather than enriching a select few billionaires.”
Show how these issues affect everyone. Immigration isn’t just an issue for immigrants—it impacts all our communities. Explain how unfair policies hurt everyone by saying: “When our neighbors live in fear, it makes our whole community less safe and less prosperous. Standing up for fair treatment benefits us all.”
Tell an affirmative story. Too much focus on correcting wrong information can just reinforce it in audiences’ minds. Instead of spending time correcting myths or misinformation, focus on sharing accurate, positive information. For example: “Immigrants start businesses at higher rates than people born here, creating jobs in our communities.” It also helps to have trusted community members share how they’ve built lives and communities with their immigrant neighbors.
Highlight how everyone’s participation makes us stronger. We all thrive when everyone can fully contribute and participate, gearing up our economic engine and moving us all forward together. Try saying: “When everyone has the chance to work, start businesses, and participate in community life, we all benefit from new ideas and stronger local economies.”

Talking About Immigrants and the Criminal Justice System

When discussing how our criminal justice system treats immigrants, the words we choose and the frameworks we use can make the difference between meaningful dialogue and unproductive debate. In today’s polarized climate, advocates need practical, values-based communication strategies that bridge divides rather than widen them. This guide offers five essential tips for discussing immigration justice issues, along with ready-to-use sample messaging that connects deeply held American values with practical solutions. Whether you’re speaking with policymakers, community members, or the media, these approaches can help you make a compelling case for a system that upholds both accountability and human dignity—one that truly reflects our nation’s highest ideals while creating safer communities for everyone.

Tips

Talk about the values that should guide our criminal justice system. Start by talking about what most Americans believe in: equal treatment under the law, keeping communities safe, and using common sense approaches that match our values. When we begin with these shared beliefs, people are more likely to listen.
Outline how current policies are failing us. Vague criticisms like “the system is broken” can make problems seem insurmountable. Therefore, be specific in which policies need to change and who needs to change them. For example: “When local police are forced to act as immigration agents, it makes immigrant communities afraid to report crimes.”
Avoid myth-busting. Don’t waste time repeating false claims even to correct them. This only makes people remember the myths better! Instead, simply share accurate information: “Immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than people born here.”
Offer clear solutions. Don’t just say what we shouldn’t be doing. Suggest better approaches that will prevent future tragedies. For example: “Providing legal representation to immigrants in detention would ensure fairer outcomes and save taxpayer money in the long run.”
Acknowledge the need for accountability when people make mistakes. While many people are caught up unfairly in the criminal justice system, we need to acknowledge that there still must be a fair and reasonable plan for those who have made mistakes, or even committed serious crimes, to move forward.

Sample Message #1

Value: We all make mistakes. But most Americans believe that people deserve a second chance, and that most mistakes shouldn’t ruin our lives and the lives of our loved ones.

Problem: Yet our criminal justice system does exactly that to many immigrants. Even if you’ve lived here for years, you can be deported if you’ve been accused of a low-level offense like shoplifting. Many immigrants in the system don’t get access to lawyers, and thousands are detained for indefinite amounts of time with no hearing. While there’s no question that we all should be held accountable for our actions, indefinite detention or permanent banishment from the country for minor offenses clearly don’t match the severity of the mistake.

Solution: We need to re-examine how our justice system treats everyone here and align that with the values we hold dear. We need a fair system that makes sure we don’t punish people without a hearing or access to lawyers. Those rights are central to our values.

Action: You can help create meaningful change in our immigration justice system. Start by contacting your congressional representatives today and urging them to support legislation that guarantees legal representation and timely hearings for all immigrants facing deportation. Sign our petition at [website] calling for an end to indefinite detention without due process. Join our community advocacy network to connect with others working for change in your area. Share these stories on social media to raise awareness about how current policies affect real families.

Sample Message #2

Value: America works best when our laws reflect our shared values of equity, fairness, and appropriate accountability.

Problem: But our criminal justice undermines these principles by creating two separate and unequal legal frameworks—one for citizens and another for immigrants. When someone who wasn’t born here faces a completely different legal process with fewer protections, regardless of how minor or serious their offense or how long they’ve contributed to our communities, we’ve abandoned our commitment to equal justice. While everyone should face appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, the stark disparity in treatment creates a troubling double standard that doesn’t just harm immigrants—it weakens the foundation of our legal system for everyone.

Solution: By reforming these policies to ensure consistent standards of justice, due process, and respect for human dignity, we can build a system that truly honors America’s highest ideals and strengthens public safety for all communities.

Action: Contact your representatives and urge them to support immigration justice reform that ensures due process for all. Share these messages with friends and family to expand understanding of how current policies affect real people in your community. Support organizations working on the frontlines of this issue through your time, talents, or contributions.

Narrative Guidance for the Immigrant Justice Movement

Download PDF

Narrative Bootcamp 2024 Report

About the Bootcamp

The movement for immigrant justice is in the midst of a deep narrative battle. As we fight for a world where everyone is treated with respect and dignity, we are up against forces determined to dehumanize and criminalize our communities.

In the fall of 2024, The Opportunity Agenda’s Narrative Research Lab hosted a three-part Narrative Bootcamp series with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. The series provided tools and training to over 400 people across 10 countries, empowering them to shift the narrative on immigrant justice.

The Bootcamp series is part of TOA’s soon-to-be launched Immigrant Narrative Strategy Table, which will coordinate and mobilize narrative strategies around a 50-year vision for the immigrant justice movement.

Lessons for the Movement

One of the project’s goals is to provide tools to tell affirmative stories about the need for immigrant justice and develop a shared narrative vision for advocates, communicators, cultural strategists, and movement artists. In these Bootcamp sessions, we invited members of the Immigrant Narrative Strategy Table to share their ideas for the movement and their organizations’ approach to narrative change.

In Part 1, we introduced narrative and the distinction between narrative change and strategic communications with Rinku Sen, Executive Director of Narrative Initiative.

In Part 2, we explored the importance of audience segmentation and how to utilize audience insights with Sarah Lowe, Director of Narrative Research and Evaluation at Define American.

Finally, in Part 3, we shared successful case studies and creative narrative interventions in the field with Sheridan Aguirre, Culture Change Strategist at United We Dream.

This series was hosted and produced by The Opportunity Agenda’s Charlie Sherman, Manager of Narrative Strategy and Britney Vongdara, Research Coordinator.

INTRODUCTION TO NARRATIVE

Narratives are big stories rooted in shared values and underlying beliefs that help us understand how the world works. Narratives give context to seemingly independent stories, creating larger meaning that explains why an issue exists in its current form. Narratives can be harmful or supportive. While harmful narratives can hinder movements and prevent transformative change, liberatory narratives have the potential to reshape the public’s perception on a certain issue.

Harmful Narrative Example: The Bootstraps Narrative

“Pull yourself up by the bootstraps”: This narrative reiterates the belief that success is determined solely by how hard people work, rooted in the idea that the world is inherently competition-based and an equal playing field. This narrative shows up in our news headlines, our interpersonal conversations, and the current dominant political rhetoric.

Strategic communications refers to the ways that we use communications tactics strategically to achieve our short-term goals. This includes the ways specific messages, messengers, and campaigns are utilized to achieve a specific policy or community win.

This differs from Narrative Change, which is the long-term work of changing narratives to better align with the strategic goals of our movements. The shifting of narratives takes place over long periods of time and requires a diverse set of messengers and storytellers to reshape the narrative ecosystem of your issue. The goal is to normalize values that are key to your movement and uplift underlying beliefs that align audiences with your messaging, culture, and policy campaigns. Once narratives have been changed, they must be maintained and strengthened so they can endure.

Narrative change is a long-term fight

Narrative change takes a long time; years to decades in many cases. To successfully shift narratives, we need a diverse set of messengers and messages that activate people’s deeply held beliefs and values. Narrative change is about normalizing the values that we hold dear and that can advance support for our movements.

Strategic comms and narrative complement each other

Strategic communications are the efforts to use communications to achieve both short- and long-term goals for your movement. Narrative change is focused solely on the long-term narrative arc of an issue – looking to find durable and sustainable shifts in public opinion and dominant narratives. Employing both tactics allows us to address current challenges without losing sight of our long-term vision.

Using culture to your advantage is key

Culture is one of the main ways that we experience and understand narratives. Cultural access points — such as television, music, video games, etc. — can often be a more effective way of reaching audiences to shape their thinking and core values, rather than listing facts or discussing policy.

UNDERSTANDING AUDIENCES

Narrative change requires a diverse set of messengers and storytellers to help shape the narrative ecosystem of your issue and activate people’s deeply held beliefs and values. The better you understand your audience and your audience strategy, the easier you can create cultural strategies and messaging that resonates with them.

Audience Segmentation refers to the segmenting of one’s audiences around certain shared characteristics with the goal of using that insight in your communications strategy.

Traditionally, researchers and communicators have relied on demographic data such as party affiliation to segment their audiences. For a variety of reasons, movements for social justice have begun using more nuanced tactics to segment their audiences, some of which include:

Using a support scale to place potential audience members based on how much they believe and support the narrative you are advancing. This helps you energize your base as well as not trigger your opposition.
Examining people’s values and beliefs about the world to predict how they might react to certain narratives. Here, you might look at what values are important to people, which identities are most salient, and what motivates them to action.
Understanding what media different audiences consume to help understand what might motivate them to adopt your narrative. This method allows you to think about what stories, storytellers, and mediums might be most effective for certain groups.

Audience Segmentation in Practice:

Sarah Lowe from Define American shared research conducted with Harmony Labs to understand the media habits of audiences that could be persuaded towards a pro-immigrant narrative. Looking at the lesser polarized groups in terms of media consumption, Define American explored what TV shows certain groups with specific values and worldviews watch. They also looked at what stories and narratives might resonate best.

Su Patel from the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) discussed the launch of their new Immigrants are New York project, done in collaboration with TOA’s Immigrant Justice research. This project aimed to shape a pro-immigrant narrative in New York by uplifting the cultural contributions of immigrant New Yorkers through high-visibility subway and bus ads as well as public art installations. When creating this project, NYIC had to grapple with changing audience dynamics and political climates. This project affirms the crucial role that culture and narrative change campaigns can play in reaching new and untapped audiences who may not usually see NYIC’s advocacy work.

SUCCESSFUL NARRATIVE INTERVENTIONS

Narrative change is a long-term fight. Changing the big story around an issue, topic, or policy takes time.

Organizations and individuals seeking to change narratives are attempting to move power from current problematic narratives to narratives that liberate our communities and uplift our demands.

There are several core elements in engaging in narrative change:

Understand the harmful narrative around the topic you are advocating for, as well as what the desired narrative would be that would make wins easier for you/your organization.
Think deeply about who you are talking to and what you are saying to them in your communications efforts. Different audiences hold different beliefs, and we have to be strategic about how we use our communications to bring about the narrative changes we want.
Be proactive in using the arts and popular culture to help promote your desired narrative. People across the US are deeply invested in culture, art, and food, and leveraging this investment can be a helpful way to find new pro-immigrant audiences.

Case Studies from United We Dream (UWD):

Multi-year campaign: “No Borders, Just Flavors” is a competitive cooking web show that invites young immigrants to create dishes from their cultural background. The unscripted nature feels authentic to viewers, and the young chefs are able to share their family’s intimate immigration story and parts of their culture.
6-month campaign: UWD collaborated with Native Organizers Alliance to convene a meeting space for Indigenous and immigrant youth to co-create and make art in Tulsa, OK. In these spaces, they visualized what their future could look like and discussed gratitude.
1-month campaign: UWD’s rapid response to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the 5th Circuit Federal Court included bringing artists and folks together virtually to talk about what was happening with DACA. They invited drag queen Isabelle Valenciaga to host the discussion and had a live sketch created by Art Twink to illustrate what people were talking about in that space.

It’s important to have discipline

Not everything will work or work the first time. Changing narratives and culture requires long term, sustained effort and resilience. Do this work in collaboration with other movement leaders and organizations to help sustain the movement.

Don’t be afraid of artistic experimentation

Try working with different artists and cultural workers to see what resonates with your audiences. Allow artists to lead and trust their artistic vision.

Infuse joy in the narratives

So many of the stories we hear about immigration already center trauma and suffering. As we work to advance the immigrant justice movement, we should uplift the joy we want to see!

CONCLUSION

Now more than ever, it is time for progressives and those we care about to win the narrative fight for immigrant justice. Just as immigration policy has been used to spur hatred and division, immigration narratives centered around equity, care, and justice can heal these divisions and spur opportunities to change our flawed systems.

A future where all of us benefit from diversity, opportunity, and true community safety has to be messaged, advertised, and integrated into all of our work. And as we continue to build power across our movements and spheres of organizing, this future will guide our work.

Remember that narrative change is a long-term fight, and we must work hard and collaboratively to create the future that we want to see through our art, our culture, and our narratives.

In order to strengthen the narrative capacity of the movement, it’s important to have the tools and knowledge we need to build collective power.

For a copy of the webinar recordings or to consult about how to best use narrative strategy in your organization’s work, please reach out to [email protected].

Download PDF

What Now?! Talking About the Supreme Court

How to Talk About the Leak & the Purported SCOTUS Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade

As you have no doubt heard by now, a draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and roll back the Constitutional precedent that guarantees a woman’s right to choose has been leaked to the media. Upon initial analysis, if this draft becomes the official majority opinion, it could have alarming impacts well beyond abortion rights.

We must use this moment to pronounce a vision of what full rights look like for all of us, for our children, and for generations to come, while at the same time repudiating this leaked decision. We must uplift the need to protect hard-fought, historic gains in promoting and preserving opportunity, and we must remain both vigilant and strategic in pushing back against legal decisions and legislative policies that undermine these gains.

The Opportunity Agenda believes that this starts with stories, with what we say, and how we say it.

Some Quick, General Tips

1. Remember that this is NOT the SCOTUS decision. It is a draft document – what could be a preview of what a Supreme Court decision might look like.

The draft opinion has no legal effect right now. Women’s, family planning, and abortion clinics are still operating. Don’t spend time discussing this as settled law, because it isn’t and may confuse people who are still struggling to access reproductive care in their communities.

Avoid communicating as though what’s done is done, because it isn’t.

2. If this becomes the Court’s final decision, its impact could extend far beyond the right to access abortions.

The language in the draft opinion suggests that it would pave the way for eliminating a range of rights that most Americans have come to take for granted. It suggests that only those rights from the time of this country’s founding should be protected, thus opening the door for states to criminalize access to contraception, interracial relationships, same-sex marriage and sexual relationships, and parents’ right to educate their children as they see fit. The opinion might even open the door to question the continued relevance of cases like Brown v. Board Education, which held that legalized racial segregation was unconstitutional.

Communicate the potential reach of this draft opinion and its profound consequences, should it be handed down.

3. Pivot to solutions and action.

Despite the anxiety generated by this draft opinion, remember to pivot to solutions. Now is the time to recognize the power of voices coming together. Encourage audiences to take action, whether that’s demanding passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act or the Equal Rights Amendment, demonstrating outside the Supreme Court or at state courts and capitol buildings, or taking to the streets and the voting booth in order to convey and protect our values.

There is much we can do in this moment, and we have a duty to do it right now.

4. Uplift these values

Pragmatism, Common Sense, Innovation, Determination to Do The Right Thing, Shared Responsibility to Fix Flawed Policies, Solidarity, Full Inclusion.

P.S. Click here or here or to find a list of local and state-wide abortion access organizations to support, and here for resources and tools to take action on abortion access as well as an “Adopt-A-Clinic” Program.

Power of Pop: What TV Gets Wrong About Getting By

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In The Opportunity Agenda’s Power of POP research series, we explore the impacts of pop culture vis-à-vis scripted television[1] and influencers[2] on social issues. The subject matter we address is related to our work in economic opportunity, immigration, racial justice, and democracy. By considering the leading social issues of the time within a framework of new, values-based narrative goals, we engage in study that we hope bolsters discourse.

We are currently living through a global reckoning on workers’ rights, corporate greed, and economic justice. Across the headlines, we see examples of workers, from John Deere to the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), who are organizing and striking against exploitative corporate practices that leave them unable to maintain a cost of living or receive adequate health care and workers’ compensation. This developing narrative around what employment should look like in a post-COVID, worker-centered world is also being captured in the scripted works airing on television to mass appeal. In fact, one of the breakout hits of 2021, Squid Game, centers on a character who is traumatized by his experience in a work strike turned violent by company owners and law enforcement—reminiscent of the real-world strike of SsangYong Motor in 2009.[3]

As a continuation of The Opportunity Agenda’s Power of POP series, the focus of this report draws from the cultural moment in its aim to gain a comprehensive understanding of the portrayals of income differences within streamed and broadcasted television shows. We engaged in thorough television content analysis by designing a codebook, examining broadcasted and streamed television programs, and analyzing the data gathered. The research outlined within this report examines the representation and dominant storylines associated with household income, quality of life, and the culture surrounding different income levels within popular television programs during the Fall 2017 to Spring 2018 television season.

With about one in seven Americans projected to have annual family resources below the poverty threshold and the projected poverty rate in 2021 being similar to the one from 2018 (13.7%), understanding the plight of low-income households is as important as ever. Although 4.4% of people live in deep poverty in the United States, 45% of households subsist on resources no more than twice the poverty threshold. This holds true for Black and Hispanic people whose rates of poverty—18.1% and 21.9%, respectively—are nearly twice as high as their white peers. Most of these families are projected to have fallen from above to below the poverty threshold due to job loss—a major occurrence with the onset of COVID-19 in the United States.[4] It is in this economic landscape that people look for representation in the media they consume of the issues people face every day.

The television analysis in this report is based on content analysis of 105 randomly sampled television episodes from popular television shows aired on broadcast, cable, and streaming services divided into 70 episodes reflecting the gamut of shows available during the Fall 2017 to Spring 2018 season, and an additional 35 episodes reflecting low-wage workers from this same period based on online episode descriptions. More than 1,200 codes were analyzed by variables including demographic details such as race/ethnicity, gender, and income, as well as observance of lack of social safety net, use of social services, or other indicators of financial hardship. The codebook dictionary and a sample of the completed codebook are available in the addendum of this report.

This report is intended to offer advocates, activists, entertainment executives and creatives, media commentators, and media literacy promoters a more holistic understanding of the dominant media narratives while adding a strong voice to a growing canon of study on the impacts of media representation on narratives about directly impacted populations. This report also offers guidance and tips for improving the portrayal of working class and lower income families in popular entertainment and best practices for using popular culture to advance a social justice cause and engage new audiences.

KEY FINDINGS

Dominant Storylines and Themes Associated with Income and/or Its Disparity

Entertainment, as exemplified by these episodes, further plays into the comparative nature of finding the affluent aspirational and the poor as unfortunate.

Each television show avoids discussion of the precarious nature of meeting daily expenses—such as the ability to pay for utilities, phones, food, and other essentials—for those working with a low income.

We posit that this absence contributes to the culture of poverty narrative wherein stigma associated with asking for assistance when faced with obstacles to survival leads those impacted to be ashamed for shortcomings associated with the “bootstrap” narrative rather than holding the systems that deny them access to adequate housing or food.

Health care is the leading issue used by shows within the study to garner discussions about how low-wage workers are impacted by their lack of safety net. Regardless of whether white or Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC) characters drive the story, it’s their personal flaws—not societal ones—that land them in financially precarious circumstances.

Working Class and Lower Income Character Representation

Characters from the 2017–2018 season of television in the United States were significantly less likely to represent household incomes lower than $41,000 than any higher income.
Low-wage workers tend to be centered as lead characters in comedic television shows, but not as much in other genres.
There is an overrepresentation of white and upper-middle to high-income characters that leaves a void in representation for BIPOC families of low means.
This is pressing in a nation consistently moving toward greater economic disparity, which is felt most drastically by the most marginalized.

RECOMMENDATIONS

If you are creating messages about economic justice issues in your advocacy work…

Know that many of your audiences are viewing incomplete and unbalanced portrayals of people with low incomes. And there are almost no portrayals of people experiencing poverty. The narratives available to audiences reveal few solutions to economic instability or poverty. At the same time, audiences are seeing that most people’s basic needs are being met with a few scattered examples of true need. It is therefore important to start communications about economic justice with some context and big-picture thinking. Without doing so, we risk our solutions seeming unnecessary or even just strange.

Fill in the gaps by providing a larger vision of what the world could look like if we had real solutions in place. Show how that world would better align with your audience’s core values. They are not seeing much of this type of expansive thinking in current TV, so we can step in and provide this big picture thinking, embracing themes like abundance, community, shared responsibility, and opportunity for all.

Frame the problem systemically. It is important to link personal stories to widespread problems, point to the systemic cause, and then move to the systemic solution. Fictional portrayals of any issue are almost always going to focus on an individual character. Watching those portrayals, as well as typical media coverage, can lead audiences to a very individualistic mindset that assumes if the problem is with the individual, so is the solution. By expanding audience’s understanding of the problem and linking a character’s challenge to the many other people experiencing that challenge, we can move them to understand the systemic solutions better.

Center solutions. None of the shows we sampled portrayed systemic solutions, such as how safety net programs can alleviate economic instability, how unions protect workers, or how paid family and medical leave make it possible for families to provide for their children. Leveraging storylines can help to spotlight problems, but economic justice communicators will need to bring the solutions to the table. When solutions are left out, audiences are likely to fall into the trap of thinking that poverty, income disparities, and other barriers to economic justice are inevitable.

If you want to leverage popular television to highlight economic justice issues…

Use storylines and characters to make a point. While they are few and far between—so much so that many did not show up in our sample—some portrayals of economic injustice and solutions to it do exist. Later seasons of Superstore focused on issues such as paid family and medical leave, healthcare expenses, and labor organizing, for instance. Talking about these issues through the lens of popular TV offers an opportunity to showcase solutions in a more interesting and unexpected way than fact sheets or tweets about legislation can.

It’s also true that centering popular characters’ experiences can help build an emotional understanding and connection to your issue. Research has shown that we develop parasocial relationships with characters we regularly watch on television, identifying them (in our brains) as friends of sorts. So, talking to some audiences about the economic experiences of Amy from Superstore, for instance, could help them see those experiences in a new light and likely with more empathy. As with any individual storytelling, however, doing this needs to be balanced with other kinds of stories that broaden the focus so that audiences aren’t just focused on that individual’s plight, strengths, and weaknesses.

Highlight shows that showcase themes like community care, abundance, and even joy, in addition to those that provide portrayals of economic injustice. While more recent releases such as Netflix’s Maid and Squid Game provide some of the low-income character representation we would like to see more of, audience appreciation for Ted Lasso—a show equally about rich people and being a person who cares for others—shows that audiences are primed for more representation of community care. By building upon the abundance narrative over scarcity, creators can build worlds that show how communities support their own with love, care, and joy, bringing this positive energy into their advocacy for a better life for everyone. ABC’s upcoming television show Abbott Elementary appears to be a potential example of what the integration of community care, Black joy, and advocacy for better financial support can look like on television.

Monitor shows that offer opportunities to spark conversation about income inequality or instability. To keep up with opportunities to leverage relevant plotlines, formally select a few shows that appeal to your target audience and follow them. Watching whole episodes is not even necessary as there are many recaps available online on sites such as Vulture, EW online, and ShowSnob.

Choose your timing carefully. On the one hand, things move quickly online and issues come in and out of focus at a rapid pace. It is typically a good idea to respond within a 48-hour window for simple social media engagement and within a week for more detailed media pieces. On the other hand, social media engagement with television content spikes significantly at certain points within a show’s schedule. For series that consistently engage in narratives about poverty and economic instability, look for opportunities such as premieres and finales. Significant episodes and major award shows also draw significant audiences. Use these moments to live tweet, host a Twitter chat, or host an online watch party.

If you want to influence portrayals of income instability and poverty…

Give positive reinforcement for good portrayals. This could be as simple as encouraging fans to thank show writers and networks for an authentic character or storyline via social media. Or, you could create an award to the networks or individuals using their platforms to tell compelling stories about people with low incomes or that promote a social justice narrative. Positive reinforcement is a good place to start to both encourage good storytelling and lay the foundation for relationships with creators.

Create your own hashtags or memes to draw attention to representations. For example, #StarringJohnCho memes went viral as people photoshopped John Cho into famous movie posters that starred white male actors, creatively criticizing the lack of diversity in Hollywood. The #OscarsSoWhite hashtag was started by April Reign to raise the same issue and sparked a national debate that resulted in changes in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Engage progressive fandoms. Find the online communities of popular shows where fans are already gathering to talk about them. Create toolkits or messaging guides around a particular series to spark fan engagement.

Encourage networks to engage with and hire people who have experienced economic instability. We need more stories centered on low-income characters written by people who have lived through poverty for prolonged periods. This is particularly true for houseless representation and should be a component for any creative work related to this issue, whether it is a television program or advocacy campaign. Directly affected writers can bring their lived experiences to light in a way that helps us move from a voyeuristic, socially distanced interaction to one of better relatability and nuanced understanding. After all, if the producers and writers of Modern Family and Maid can bring their personal issues into scriptwriting, why can the same not become true for character portrayals unseen in other recent television shows?

Build relationships with script writers, producers, and show runners. Introduce script writers, producers, and show runners to stories that not only are personal and compelling but also are diverse and affirmative and more fully depict the experience of people living in economic instability. Note that to be effective, this strategy may require more significant long-term investments in both time and resources.

If you want to add positive portrayals to the mix…

Rewrite shows or plots to show how they could tell a fuller story of economic insecurity and what we can all do about it. You can use social media to spread your ideas about what popular TV could look like in this regard. To do this, put yourself in the shoes of a Hollywood writer who wanted to ethically depict characters experiencing poverty and imagine what they would come up with. You can also engage in a “what if?” exercise online, inviting your audience to help fill in how a show could depict the low-income experience more realistically and compassionately. Or suggest a whole new TV show that would accurately show the causes and solutions to poverty.

Partner with artists and creatives to tell new stories about economic instability and poverty. Artists should be included in strategic conversations early because their perspectives often lead to out-of-the-box innovations. Just like graphic designers, researchers, or anyone else with a specialized skillset you wouldn’t ask to work for free, keep in mind that artists should also be paid. Consider budgeting ahead of time to be able to include their talents.

Produce your own content. Creating your own content is now more accessible than ever. Creatives with limited resources are making use of content-sharing platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and SoundCloud and crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter to launch independent projects and tell otherwise untold stories. Videos, web series, and podcasts are within reach, although we recommend partnering with a creative that is skilled at storytelling in your chosen format to maximize the impact.

If you want to help audiences become educated consumers of entertainment and other media…

Organize watch parties and discussion groups. Assemble around helpful, harmful, and nuanced portrayals.

Provide guides. Develop study guides and curricula that help support young people to become more educated consumers of entertainment and other media.

Make your organization a resource. Offer cultural critiques of select shows on a regular basis. Pitch yourself as a resource to media who cover pop culture and are interested in how portrayals interact with real-life experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Opportunity Agenda wishes to thank and acknowledge the many people who contributed their time, energy, and expertise to the research and writing of this report. The report was researched and written by Porshéa Patterson, Charles Sherman, Wendy Li, and Wesley Huang, with guidance and editing from Adam Luna, Julie Fisher-Rowe, Elizabeth Johnsen, and Lucy Odigie-Turley of The Opportunity Agenda. The illustrations were created by Justin Nguyen of Yellow Panda and the design and layout were completed by Lorissa Shepstone, Being Wicked. Final proofing and copy editing were conducted by Margo Harris. Special thanks to Brian Erickson, Christiaan Perez, and J. Rachel Reyes for outreach and distribution coordination. Additional thanks to Caty Borum-Chattoo of American University and Josh Gwin of Marion Polk Food Share for field knowledge.

This report and the work of The Opportunity Agenda are made possible with funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The JPB Foundation, The Libra Foundation, The Marguerite Casey Foundation, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, NEO Philanthropy, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Tow Foundation, Unbound Philanthropy, and Wellspring Philanthropic Fund and would not be possible without the contributions of time, treasure, and talent from our many supporters.

ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA

The Opportunity Agenda was founded in 2006 with the mission of building the national will to expand opportunity in America. Focused on moving hearts, minds, and policy over time, the organization works with social justice groups, leaders, and movements to advance solutions that expand opportunity for everyone. Through active partnerships, The Opportunity Agenda synthesizes and translates research on barriers to opportunity and corresponding solutions, uses communications and media to understand and influence public opinion, and identifies and advocates for policies that improve people’s lives.

1 https://opportunityagenda.org/messaging_reports/power-of-pop-immigration/

2 https://opportunityagenda.org/insights/more-than-just-a-fad-the-power-of-the-cultural-influencer/

3 https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/squid-game-ssangyong-dragon-motor-strike-south-korea/

4 https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2021-poverty-projections

Power of Pop: Methodology

TELEVISION CONTENT ANALYSIS

For the purpose of this study, popular television shows were defined as shows that attracted a large general audience when originally aired on broadcast and cable networks in the United States and/or shows that were ranked high on Parrot Analytics’—the singular source compiling international demand for streaming plat-forms—The Global Television Demand Report: Full Year 2018.[5] In an effort to better capture these emergent consumer habits, our population of popular television shows was generated using a combination of traditional rating metrics from consumer habits research firm Nielsen[6] and viewership measurements compiled in the Global Television Demand Report.

After compiling a sample reflective of the most in-demand shows, we utilized the Microsoft Excel function RANDBETWEEN to select the first 40 episodes. To remain consistent in the manner of sample selection within the Power of POP series, we made use of Research Randomizer, an online random sampling tool, to generate a random number sequence to the remaining episodes for in-depth content analysis.

SAMPLE

The 105 episodes included in our random sample include 44 comedies, 15 action shows, 16 dramas, 14 crime shows, six comedy-dramas, three science-fiction shows, two mysteries, two horror-dramas, one action drama, one reality television show, and one comedic crime drama. Forty-one shows aired on broadcast television (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CW), two were aired on cable television (AMC and Showtime), and 11 originally aired on streaming services (Amazon Prime, CBS All Access, Hulu, and Netflix).

Part of the overall sample includes 35 episodes selected based on the marketing of certain shows portraying the experiences of low-wage to working-class characters. A brief list of these shows was compiled, and the randomizer tool mentioned above selected episodes from the following programs: Bob’s Burgers, Mom, On My Block, Orange Is the New Black, Roseanne, Shameless, Sneaky Pete, Speechless, Superior Donuts, Superstore, and The Middle.

CODING & TERMINOLOGY

To ensure inter-coder reliability,[7] the coding team created and then trained using a project codebook (see Appendix I), which established guidelines for the specific episodic and character variables to be analyzed. The codebook includes 12 episode variables, including genre, tone, and depiction of low-income lifestyle, and 27 character variables used to identify the likely income of a character. To ensure more accurate character counts per episode, we made use of both coder notes and IMDb databases. In the coding of episodes, a low-income character was defined as any person working in a position whose pay fell within Pew Research Center’s definition for low-wage work (below or at $40,100 per year).[8] Middle-income characters were defined as those who made between $41,000 and $120,400 per year, and high-income characters earned more than $120,400 per year. Using Glassdoor, coders used character job roles and location to define their yearly income expectancy.

In addition to the wage observation, the following qualitative criteria were used to identify characters working for low wages:

An explicit reference was made to a character’s low-income or working-class status in the context of the show or storyline.

Particular social markers were used by show creators to implicitly signify low-income characters. Signifiers identified include poor or insufficient housing, food insecurity or scar-city, lack of social safety net when confronting money insecurity, and dependence on social programs.

LIMITATIONS

The goal of this research is to provide insights into patterns of representation in popular television shows and the potential use of these representations to mobilize audiences. As such, this research makes use of both qualitative and quantitative content analysis methods. However, because of the relatively small sample size compared to the overall population, it is important to note limitations in the generalizability of our research findings. In future studies, we aim to analyze a larger sample size, including a survey of the impact of these representations on the directly impacted.

Because streaming platforms are constantly changing contracts and provision of different TV series, we are only able to document the streaming services utilized in our development of the study. For instance, while Superior Donuts may be available on the Paramount Network in 2021, we notated usage of Amazon Prime to gain access to the episode during the timeline of our study within the codebook.

Episodes included in this study were the result of random selection, which means background information about show premise or characters was not strictly observed. Therefore, some of the information collected may miss de-tails that only long-time consumers of a program would know. Where possible, the coders relied on search engines for each program to clarify details like job titles during the season, utilizing fan encyclopedia websites when necessary. All levels of education not stipulated on the screen were instead determined by minimum job requirements

Dominant Storylines & Themes

This section provides an overview of the dominant genres, storylines, and themes associated with low-income characters and the lifestyles of characters making low wages more broadly. As the graph below attests, character representation among those making this level of income is not widely covered in most genres. One genre does reign supreme, however, dominating representation of low-wage workers and their strife. That genre? Comedy.

As a quote attributed to Mindy Greenstein goes: “Comedy is not the opposite of darkness, but its natural bedfellow. Pain makes laughter necessary; laughter makes pain tolerable.”

This concept seems to generate a great deal of steam within the television industry, as each of the shows focused on characters receiving low income within this study fall under the comedy genre—51 out of the 105 episodes in this sample are some form of comedy. Even the grittier, cross-genre (i.e., critically listed as comedy-dramas) shows like On My Block, Orange Is the New Black, and Shameless make sure to include the absurd and darkly comedic sides of their stories in each episode. For instance, in the Shameless episode “A Gallagher Pedicure,” Debbie Gallagher suffers a foot injury while training as a welder. Because she is a student without healthcare coverage and used to less ethical work-arounds to major issues in her life, she asks her middle school–aged brother to ply off the dead toes as she has no means to afford the surgery the doctor told her she needed.

In fact, most of the examples we found of characters confronting an issue without enough money to cover a direct need centered around medical care. On the “Health Fund” episode of Superstore, the health concerns of various staff members are confronted when Mateo discusses his inability to see a doctor for his ear infection due to a lack of health coverage and his undocumented status. He, too, resorts to using nonmedical means of recovery, despite the mutual aid fund concept that floats around during the episode. The episode ends by touching upon the real-world similarity to Walmart’s infamous canned food drive for its own employees[15] by having Mateo’s co-workers chip in one hundred dollars for a cure. Yet even this show of goodwill is twisted when he announces that he will instead use it to purchase a bag, possibly highlighting the fickleness of capitalistic interest versus self-care, as one hundred dollars is likely to cover more expense for a low-end designer bag than it ever would in the costs of healthcare coverage.

THEME: BROKE CULTURE

Comparative experiences between keeping up appearances and satisfying an actual need is yet another storyline that occurs in many of the episodes that cover low- or low-middle income characters. Episodes “Please Don’t Feed the Hecks” and “Thanksgiving IX” of The Middle show the upwardly mobile Hecks family working through their moments of “brokeness” despite generating enough household income to have sent two of their children to college. In “Please Don’t Feed the Hecks,” Sue, a sophomore in college, and her best friend/roommate Lexie are forced to live in Lexie’s car for a few nights due to the people they’d sublet their apartment to during the summer renting their place out as an Airbnb. They are stymied from booting the Airbnb renter out themselves because Sue is conflicted about getting into the good graces of the professor who is renting their place. By the end of the episode, they are back in their apartment and their brief experience with houselessness is little more than an anecdote.

The Hecks family continues to show that their proximity to being broke is relative in the “Thanksgiving IX” of The Middle. At the beginning of this episode the father, Mike, disputes a charge that he later finds out was his wife treating herself to a coffee. When the company shuts down usage of the card because of the claim, the family trip to a relative’s house for the holiday is put into turmoil. They run out of gas on the drive to the relative’s house and have no cash or other means to pay for or borrow the money they need to return to the road without the credit card they usually rely on. It is by their daughter Sue’s ethically unclear ingenuity to take money from the water fountain of a nearby mall that they are able to get on the road again.

Outside of these circumstances, we ran into no storylines centered around characters struggling for an immediate need. As with the cases exemplified by The Middle, being broke is often related to the level of means available to any character at any given period of time rather than a fear of having actual utilities or other needs cut off. In fact, we found few episodes even mentioned a concern for food or shelter. When adjusting for the household income, we find that each parent—Frankie and Mike—bring in around $65,000 annually, which is later upgraded when Mike receives a promotion toward the end of the series, now making $74,975—an estimate we deduced from Glassdoor averages for this job title in the character’s home location. This is in addition to knowledge that they could afford sending their first child to college and business school and sell ownership in a family business to pay for their second child’s college tuition. Their first child, Axl, is able to depend on the safety net of his family such that while he lives with his parents, he goes from making $41,600 as a bus driver in episode 2 of their final season to $49,463 as an entry-level plumbing supply salesperson in episode 21. Not only does he have the safety net of living with his parents—albeit in cramped circumstances—but he also is able to pursue work in his field of choice within his first 6 months out of school without fear of being houseless or unable to pay for necessities.

The fact that the Hecks family still sees themselves as broke despite showing all indication of maintaining a lifestyle commiserate with their cost of living bears questioning of the concept of “brokeness” and who truly meets it.

THEME: WORTH

As discourse around wages and how people find themselves on the various rungs of the class ladder persist in society, many of the stories in our study that followed characters living within the low to low-middle rungs tend to explain why their pay does or does not reflect their actual “worth” as humans.

For the Gallagher family of Shameless, they are making the best of a hopeless situation as children of a conman and an addict living in a home falling apart in South Side, Chicago. The siblings often endure dehumanizing situations that limit their self-worth, such as an instance in “Gallagher Pedicure” where Debbie Gallagher waits in a dingy basement line with her toddler in tow to pick up a mismatched box of food at a local food pantry. They also resort to crafty means because they have learned not to trust in good from the world yet strive to remain good at heart so that they are at least morally superior to their unscrupulous father. Similar to their real-world counterparts, the Gallaghers hold distaste for the wealthy while also striving to become financially successful themselves—a great irony of morality under a capitalist system.

In Mom, the mother and daughter relationship between the series’ main protagonists, Bonnie and Christy, presents as a narrative around rehabilitation both in health and life with Christy learning to forgive and understand her mother’s transgressions as an addict during her childhood. The mishaps and adventures that the two go on serve to “heal” the rift between them and show that anyone is worthy of a comeback, even if that comeback isn’t under the most ideal of circumstances.

The issue with these sorts of tales is that they frame these primarily white families as falling upon hard times or having drawn a bad lot in life to now depend on low-income options. Comparatively in Superstore, their cast members, with a fairly representative spread of BIPOC characters, don’t get a lot of exposition for how they ended up in low-wage jobs. Even this show provides reasoning for why one of its white characters, Jonah, works at Superstore, buying into this thematic framing that is rooted in the comfort of intrinsically linking race and class.

THEME: OTHERING AND VOYEURISM

While it is the nature of capitalist society to treat engagement or watching of the affluent as stoking ambition within people with lower levels of income, the opposite, the rich having a level of fascination in consuming the experience of people from lower classes, is downright voyeuristic. In season 8 of Shameless, we see Carl Gallagher get entangled in a relationship with a young addict, who we later learn is from a well-to-do family and pulled herself into the Gallagher’s orbit because she is enticed by their lower-class struggle to survive. This character’s journey is reflective of the phenomenon of “slumming drama,” wherein the rich become interested in, and even sexually attracted to, the poor. It is also a blatant usage of the culture of poverty narrative, which insists on presenting issues faced by low-income characters as personal rather than structural developments.

The rich sense that the poor have something they lack—bodily strength, excitement, unrestrained sex, or a simple authentic life—and want to possess it. Presented in a sensationalist mode, slumming dramas elicit a titillating reading or viewing experience.[16]

Not only does the exploitative nature of these relationships harm lower income people, but it also furthers their victimization. Yet, it is a practice that has remained somewhat acceptable in popular society as it plays into the “culture of poverty” narrative that has influenced social scientific research for decades and has informed both politicians’ (predominantly Republicans’) and the public’s understanding of poverty. This concept posits that living in persistent poverty results in the formation of a specific culture that, passed on over generations, produces attitudes and values that yield to dysfunctional behavior.[17]

Ironically, with the people behind the camera of these television programs coming from circumstances completely unlike their low-income characters, they also ask the audience to view these characters in a voyeuristic, judgmental lens—without their consent.

THEME: PERSONAL FAILURE PREVAILS, NOT STRUCTURAL EXPLOITATION

Indeed, prevailing narratives of individualism determining one’s lot in life (i.e., every person having the ability to pull themselves out of abject circumstances into a more favorable lifestyle) lead to findings in the Power of POP study looking much like those of Conrad et al., wherein individual causes of homelessness are attributed to individual or group decisions, actions, or behaviors, including criminal behavior, mental illness, substance use, distability, or failure to meet bills.[18] There were very few instances where characters living within these circumstances ever aligned their issue with a systemic shortcoming or oversight, sparing the sarcastic and inauthentic Frank Gallagher of Shameless or the “Health Fund” episode of Superstore, which relies on the audience to pick up on the dysfunction of the health insurance industry.

This bias stems from the “culture of poverty” frame, which blames the individual for failing to obtain a better life, consequently shifting the blame of addressing the problem of poverty on the individual. This approach furthers a centuries-old binary of “the deserving” and “the undeserving” poor, which is equally rooted within white American racist attitudes that insist Black people are naturally inferior. With a focus on the failings of the individual, this narrative emphasizes personal inadequacies including addiction, laziness, or “making the wrong choices” or “bad decisions.” By instigating a separatist culture, those with influence and power are exonerated from responsibility for discriminatory laws and institutions.[19]

This furthers an argument for the use of charity to maintain the status quo of systemic behavior among the classes. In fact, the television episodes in the Conrad-Perez et al. study found 44% of the resolutions presented to counter homelessness centered on charity—going so far as to present charity as the solution to institutional issues for characters like a disabled veteran and a runaway foster child. The fact that the charitable solutions found for both of these cases were only stopgap measures makes clear that charities are often not organized to change the structural conditions upon which homelessness rest. Nevertheless, this frame went unchallenged, instead opting to pull on the heartstrings of viewers who want to see the main characters as heroes, not perpetrators of bad systemic practices. Centering storytelling directly on houseless characters could instead use their brushes with charity to highlight the many stopgap measures that persist within these systems without providing long-term solutions to eradicating poverty.

15 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/18/walmart-store-holding-thanksgiving-charity-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/?sh=29172af32ee5

16 Gandal, K. (2007). Gandal’s Class Representation in Modern Fiction and Film.

17 Lewis, O. (1959). Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty.

18 Conrad-Pérez, D., Chattoo, C. B., Coskuntuncel, A., & Young, L. (2021). Voiceless Victims and Charity Saviors: How US Entertainment TV Portrays Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in a Time of Crisis. International Journal of Communication, 15, 22.

19 Lemke, S. (2016) The Nation: American Exceptionalism in Our Time. In: Inequality, Poverty and Precarity in Contemporary American Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Breaking Down Portrayed Income

In the 2017–2018 season of television, character representation across race and ethnicity skews overwhelmingly white. This disproportionate sample means that each level of income holds double-digit percentage rates of white representation, whereas their BIPOC peers remain 8% or less in any income representation. The greatest distribution of income representation by race/ethnicity occurs at the middle-income tier—with white characters making up 37%, Black characters 8%, Hispanic 3%, and Asian and Other at 2% each. This is unsurprising, given the wide range of income this designation covers.

The overwhelming whiteness of the 2017–2018 TV season means that all calculations of race and income for this study are more likely to represent white characters and households. White characters out-ratio Black characters such that we see 4 white characters for every 1 Black character, 11 white characters to every Hispanic character, 13 white characters to every 1 Asian character, and 14 white characters to every character included in the “Other” category—which typically identifies persons of mixed ethnicity or race. There is, in fact, no representation at all in the entire sample of Native/Indigenous characters, an extremely excessive oversight on behalf of casting in Hollywood.

Approximately 75% of all characters included in this sample were part of the main cast of their respective shows, while 23% of the sample filled either recurring or guest spots. Much of the same race/ethnicity breakdowns remain the same in this breakdown, with 52% of key characters being white to 15% recurring, 12% key Black characters to 4% recurring, 5% key Hispanic characters to 1% recurring, 4% key Asian characters to 1% recurring, and equal amounts of characters representing key and recurring roles for those categorized as Other at 4% each. Here the overrepresentation of white characters stands without overrepresentation of any other race in either key or recurring roles. As far as income, key characters represent 18% of low-income characters to recurring characters’ 3%, 39% of middle-income characters to 13%, and 17% of low-income characters to 6% of high-income characters. To better encapsulate the circumstances these characters represented, we conducted an analysis of characters representing recurrent or low wage–bearing professions by their local or regional wage representation via Glassdoor. This includes common roles that place characters within the upper-middle income range of pay—such as investigators and detectives—as well as families of three or more living on lower middle to low incomes.

The spread of income presented in the table must be further scrutinized by the number of people in each household who also generate income as well as cost of living per locality. What we overwhelmingly found is that those with higher salaries tended to live in households with partners who generate similar income or on their own, leaving them free to afford cost of living in the cities they inhabit. For example, Rainbow Johnson from Black-ish not only generates high income as a physician, but she also is also married to a senior advertisement executive who helps their family of five children, two retired grandparents, and two working adults to pay for college, private school, and a lifestyle befitting the suburbs of Los Angeles. This representation is in direct juxtaposition to the DiMeo family in Speechless, who get by on the single income of the father, Jimmy DiMeo, and any disability aid that supports one of the three kids, JJ, who has cerebral palsy.

This is significant not only for offering a snapshot of the general spread of income representation and why outliers like the Johnson family influence the sample’s observed income by race, but also because studies indicate that many lower-middle to low-income families are simply one economic emergency away from being impoverished—with 45% of families having resources no more than twice the poverty threshold.[20]

Indeed, observations from hunger experts like Josh Gwin of Marion Polk Food Share shows that people who are only one missed utility bill away from hunger or eviction often depend on social services like food drives,[21] which bears questioning of the ways income have been calculated by scholar and the general public alike given inflation, stagnant wages, and increases to the cost of living throughout the United States. If someone who is considered middle income by current estimates is only one debt away from facing denial of food or shelter, is the income bracket underestimating poverty?

In terms of this report’s sample, while we found the levels of income tied to racial representation as a whole, we would like to note that the only key BIPOC character of The Big Bang Theory, Raj Koothrappali, works in a field that pays significantly less than his fellow scientists, at $60,056 to his peers’ income upwards of $90,000. While he is shown to be supported by his parents, who bring in significant wealth, this was an observance of significant difference by race within one show included in the sample.

While the above observations sum up the report sample, they do not represent the reality or scope of racial disparity in economic opportunities. In a 2021 Urban Institute report, two-thirds of white children were estimated to be born into advantageous circumstances, while only one in five Black children and one in three Hispanic children are born into advantageous circumstances. This study further projected that 50% of all children born into disadvantaged circumstances versus more than 66% of those born into advantaged circumstances are on track toward healthy development and economic security at age 30. This disparity in reaching economic stability by 30 is further stratified by race, where 58% of white children from disadvantaged circumstances are on track but only 37% of Black, non-Hispanic and 50% of Hispanic children from similar circumstances meet this projection.[22] With structural economic and social stakeholders like residential segregation, unequal access to educational opportunities, and unequal treatment by law enforcement contributing to this ongoing disparity, the 2017–2018 season severely misrepresents reality.

Not even in our select sample of shows depicting low-income characters did we find representation of a low-income BIPOC family to help us exemplify the above finding. Thus, there is a void in scripted television for this arena of representation.

20 https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2021-poverty-projections

21 Asian, 2018: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&hidePreview=true&t=012%20-%20Asian%20alone%20%28400-499%29%3A031%20-%20Asian%20 alone%20or%20in%20combination%20with%20one%20or%20more%20other%20races%20%20%28400-499%29%20%26%20%28100-299%29%20or%20%28300,%20A01-Z99%29%20 or%20%28400-999%29
Black, 2018: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&hidePreview=true&t=004%20-%20Black%20or%20African%20American%20alone%3A005%20-%20 Black%20or%20African%20American%20alone%20or%20in%20combination%20with%20one%20or%20more%20other%20races
Hispanic, 2010: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=&t=400%20-%20Hispanic%20or%20Latino%20%28of%20any%20race%29%3AEarnings%20%28Individuals%29%3AIncome%20 %28Households,%20Families,%20Individuals%29%3AIncome%20and%20Earnings%3AIncome%20and%20Poverty%3ASNAP%2FFood%20Stamps&tid=ACSDP5YSPT2010.DP03
Other, 2018: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&hidePreview=true&t=070%20-%20Some%20other%20race%20alone%3A071%20-%20Some%20other%20 race%20alone%20or%20in%20combination%20with%20one%20or%20more%20other%20races
White, 2018: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?tid=ACSSPP1Y2018.S0201&hidePreview=true&t=002%20-%20White%20alone%3A003%20-%20White%20alone%20or%20in%20combi-nation%20with%20one%20or%20more%20other%20races

22 https://www.urban.org/research/publication/identifying-pathways-upward-mobility

Comparative Analysis

The primary aim of this study is to further the in-depth research conducted on this subject and its relation to overall character portrayal and audience impact. It is well documented and researched that media has the capability to wield profound power in altering public perceptions and opinion.[23] These perceptions and opinions, in turn, can lead to policies and actions that can have potentially significant social implications. With the advent of the digital age and the Internet, the role of mass media has become especially important and influential. In light of this fact, identifying and evaluating the media’s portrayal of social issues may be more valuable than ever before. The following analysis incorporates results from similar literature as it relates to this report’s findings.

Even when there is an oversample of television episodes displaying characteristics of lower income lifestyles, television programs do not include these storylines in a meaningful manner:

In a similar study, Conrad-Perez et al. found that only 22% of their sample episodes referred to homelessness or housing insecurity in some way and that, of this already small percentage of representation, a character experiencing homelessness did not contribute a single line of dialogue in one of every three episodes in which they appeared. This furthers the Power of POP report’s inability to identify significant character dependence on social services or any other major indicators of financial instability. With nearly 70% of low-income adults reporting “a great deal” of concern about hunger and homelessness,[24] this is an egregious void in storytelling.

More unsettling, this study uncovered a prevailing depiction of houseless characters as outsiders to the social world of the shows that include them—only gaining contact with members of the main cast through unexpected encounters. Therein, people experiencing houselessness in popular television programs are more frequently “seen” or “spoken for” rather than “heard from.” These incomplete portrayals only further marginalize the houseless in reality.

Societal hierarchy has bearing on the amount of representation devoted to each income range:

Depictions of characters represented within this study illuminated the class divide in who receives quality screen time. We can expect circumstances of low-wage existence, like falling behind on bills or not having adequate housing or food, to be completely absent from a protagonist’s experience. The majority of the episodes in this study reveal a dependence on depicting lifestyles of upper-middle to higher income workers such as police commissioners, pharmaceutical scientists, police investigators, surgeons, and aerospace engineers. This is a capitalist approach of depicting those who do well under a free market economy as aspirational and, therefore, worthy of the most screen time. Lower income consumers further the dominance of this reasoning when they fall into the allure of what could be set in front of them. As noted in their 2016 study,

Likewise, if the poor connect with the non-poor—outside of the workspace or social networks—they do so mainly through representations—circulating on television, online, on billboards, etc. Of course, their interest in the reality of the affluent, like the Kardashian family, is significantly higher than the prosperous class’ interest in the social reality (sic) shows about the dispossessed—such as Here Comes Honey Boo, The Wire, or Shameless. The inequality in media access aside, representations play a pivotal role in our construction and understanding of class matters.[25]

What, then, could be gained by depicting class distinctions in ways that help the audience to better articulate the growing wealth divide? How could a structural lens help viewers deconstruct narratives about their own struggles with financial barriers?

Current depictions of class perpetuate the status quo rather than propose an alternative because those behind the depictions benefit from this system:

Class is about the unequal distribution of wealth and income—stratification—just as it is about the acquisition of prestige and cultural capital. It is ordered hierarchically. The norm in capitalist societies is defined by wealth and prestige, which positions those who lack either one or both at the “bottom” and subjects them to discrimination, stigmatization, and all forms of violence—real, symbolic, and otherwise. The “Other” of class is not only economically and politically excluded, but also socially excluded and silenced just as surely as its Black, female, disabled, or queer counterparts with which it often overlaps.[26]

Bearing this framework in mind, it is of small wonder that poor characters are underrepresented on screen because their middle-class showmakers and writers are often unqualified to portray poverty. The experience and worldview of the poor are never fully intelligible to outsiders; Jones insists: “pauperism … resists representation.” In other words, the economic subaltern cannot speak. Those who speak on behalf of lower income individuals without having shared the lifestyle run the risk of misrepresenting or othering low-income subjects.[27]

It is for these reasons and those featured throughout this study that we recommend adding writers who have had prolonged experience with poverty into the writers’ room, giving them the opportunity to spearhead stories of their own. This would enrich the television-scape with nuanced portrayals of low-income characters in established shows while also offering us stories centered on these characters from their iteration. By adding these multifaceted portrayals to media, the audience will gain additional opportunities to interrogate their misconceptions about how financial strife affects the most marginalized, in addition to an understanding of structural inequality.

The connection that audiences maintain through frequent viewership creates space for narrative shift:

Parasocial relationships are affective bonds audiences foster with media characters and celebrities that last beyond episodic exposure. These relationships mirror real-life social relationships, but are unique in that they lack reciprocity. Much like real-life social relationships, individuals are more likely to report parasocial relationships with characters they perceive to be similar to themselves.[28] Even as early as kindergarten, people become attuned to parasocial relationships between themselves and their favorite characters—namely, those for whom they develop feelings of comfort, safety, trust, and relation in shared real-world circumstances.[29]

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face socialization became heavily restricted, leading to an uptick in the intensity of parasocial closeness for those who experienced a decrease in their face-to-face social engagement. Within one study conducted during this period, even participants with strong ties to their close friends experienced significant growth in their parasocial relationships, suggesting that favorite media personae complemented rather than compensated social relationships.[30]

Hence, the importance of parasocial relationships that audience members sustain with their favorite television characters not only has a bearing in their social lives but also in the impact of changing audience perspectives. For instance, one study conducted in 2020 found that participants who developed an affinity for gay characters in Six Feet Under significantly improved their attitudes toward white gay men after viewing the series over 5 weeks.[31]

In a joint report on frequent television viewers of the 2018–2019 season by Define American and the Norman Lear Center, regular viewers of Superstore who felt a level of friendship with the character of Mateo were more likely to support an increase in immigrants coming to the United States. This association was particularly pronounced among those who had little to no real-life contact with immigrants. Displaying an attachment to regular immigrant characters can compensate for the absence of real-life contact with immigrants. This could reduce support for restrictive immigration policies across the board.[32]

White resentment toward the progress of BIPOC communities is rooted in racism directly tied to perceived racial status in a changing population:

Studies have shown that white resentment toward BIPOC communities gained significant growth after the election of Barack Obama as president and the perceived change in racial hierarchy. In fact, one study found that white people withdraw support for welfare programs—which disproportionately aid white people—when they perceive these programs to primarily benefit people from marginalized backgrounds.[33] Hence, showrunners hoping to influence this particular audience would have had a vested interest in low income characters being portrayed on television, as we found in our sample of the 2017–2018 TV season, remaining majority white for ongoing seasons of television. This may indeed answer why we did not find significant representation of BIPOC families of limited financial means in our study.

23 Happer, C., & Philo, G. (2013). The role of the media in the construction of public belief and social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 321-336.

24 Conrad-Pérez, D., Chattoo, C. B., Coskuntuncel, A., & Young, L. (2021). Voiceless Victims and Charity Saviors: How US Entertainment TV Portrays Homelessness and Housing Insecurity in a Time of Crisis. International Journal of Communication, 15, 22.

25 Lemke, S. (2016) The Nation: American Exceptionalism in Our Time. In: Inequality, Poverty and Precarity in Contemporary American Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

26 Lemke, S. (2016) The Nation: American Exceptionalism in Our Time. In: Inequality, Poverty and Precarity in Contemporary American Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

27 Jones, G. (2009). Hungers: The Problem of Poverty in U.S. Literature, 1840–1945.

28 Bond, B. J. (2021). The development and influence of parasocial relationships with television characters: A longitudinal experimental test of prejudice reduction through parasocial contact. Communication Research, 48(4), 573-593.

29 Brunick, K. L., Putnam, M. M., McGarry, L. E., Richards, M. N., & Calvert, S. L. (2016). Children’s future parasocial relationships with media characters: The age of intelligent characters. Journal of Children and Media, 10(2), 181-190.

30 Bond, B. J. (2021). Social and parasocial relationships during COVID-19 social distancing. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 02654075211019129.

31 Bond, B. J. (2021). The development and influence of parasocial relationships with television characters: A longitudinal experimental test of prejudice reduction through parasocial contact. Communication Research, 48(4), 573-593.

32 https://www.defineamerican.com/hollywood/change-the-narrative-change-the-world-launch

33 Wetts, R., & Willer, R. (2018). Privilege on the precipice: Perceived racial status threats lead White Americans to oppose welfare programs. Social Forces, 97(2), 793-822.

General Messaging Guidelines

Understanding the Dominant Narrative

Building a Message

Key Talking Points

Workable Solutions

Uphold Our Values

Help Us Move Forward Together

Mix and Match

Tips

Sample Message #1

Sample Message #2

Narrative Bootcamp 2024 Report

About the Bootcamp

Lessons for the Movement

INTRODUCTION TO NARRATIVE

UNDERSTANDING AUDIENCES

SUCCESSFUL NARRATIVE INTERVENTIONS

CONCLUSION

How to Talk About the Leak & the Purported SCOTUS Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Some Quick, General Tips

1. Remember that this is NOT the SCOTUS decision. It is a draft document – what could be a preview of what a Supreme Court decision might look like.

2. If this becomes the Court’s final decision, its impact could extend far beyond the right to access abortions.

3. Pivot to solutions and action.

4. Uplift these values

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY FINDINGS

Dominant Storylines and Themes Associated with Income and/or Its Disparity

Working Class and Lower Income Character Representation

RECOMMENDATIONS

If you are creating messages about economic justice issues in your advocacy work…

If you want to leverage popular television to highlight economic justice issues…

If you want to influence portrayals of income instability and poverty…

If you want to add positive portrayals to the mix…

If you want to help audiences become educated consumers of entertainment and other media…

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA

​TELEVISION CONTENT ANALYSIS

SAMPLE

CODING & TERMINOLOGY

LIMITATIONS

THEME: BROKE CULTURE

THEME: WORTH

THEME: OTHERING AND VOYEURISM

THEME: PERSONAL FAILURE PREVAILS, NOT STRUCTURAL EXPLOITATION

YOUR VISION. YOUR FUTURE. YOUR LEGACY.

Hot Topics:

TELEVISION CONTENT ANALYSIS