The Disney Empire - The teen industry and diversity in Disney

Disney is a multi-million dollar company. Since the company was created in 1923, they have been a enormous force in programming for people of all ages and walks of life. However, society tends to be whitewashed. Being whitewashed is simply the removal of anything ethnic centered and making it more palatable to a white audience. Media also is lacking in diversity in gender, sexuality, religion and more. Disney is not excluded from this group of media. Growing up in the 2010s, the media was starting to make strides towards becoming more diverse on all bases. Growing up in 2018, one would hope that all media, Disney included would produce bigger strides to become more inclusive. The world is not strictly made up of straight, upper-middle class, White, Anglo-Saxon Christians. In the span of almost 20 years, one would hope that Disney has made the necessary strides towards being more inclusive. From the buzz surrounding their programming, it seems that Disney has become even more diverse and inclusive. This literature will explore what is diversity in television, the changes in children’s programming and Disney as the ‘tween machine’.

When it comes to diversity, one’s mind usually goes to the definition of secular concepts, such as: religion, race, gender, social class, sexuality etc. While all of these produce diversity, the diversity spectrum is wider than those items. For media, diversity includes diversity in programming options. In a 1994 article written by August E. Grant it is stated, “One of the most profound changes in the industry during the past 20 years has been the increase in the number of simultaneous choices available to the viewer.” Before, television viewers were limited to programming types. In the 60s, viewing options were limited to about 4 options: 3 commercial broadcast channels and an ‘educational’ station (Grant). The 90s, even introduced a “cornucopia of viewing options” (Grant). People were exposed to such much more diversity. They could watch cartoons, scripted television, news, sports, educational programming and even reality tv. Media diversified itself in an unconventional way. On the other hand, the more common idea of diversity was still lacking in programming. Media contributes to diversity in three ways, “by reflecting differences in society; by giving access to different points of view and by offering a wide range of choice” (Brants). It seems as if television networks focus on pushing the program diversity and glossing over societal diversity. “Amongst researchers, there seems to be an agreement that by the extension of the number of channels broadcasting time also extended, but this has not been a stimulus for more diversity. On the contrary, due to competition for new commercial stations we see a convergence of programs between commercial and public channels, especially at prime time” (Brants). With a high demand for diversity, television programmers are being creative in hiding under the guise of being more diverse. They play the same types of programming and the same shows on different platforms and still claim diversity. Programming has become more diverse in program types. However, when it comes to societal diversity, it has improved, but there is so much more programmers can do. Instead of playing the same types of diverse programs, they can look for new and fresh stories that the public has not seen before. As for Disney, they are a powerhouse when it comes to children’s programming, That being said, that does not necessarily mean all of their programming is inclusive.

In a journal by Amy C, Janice C, Muh Bi Lin and Frank S, they cover the critical race theory and how it relates to Disney. The critical race theory is a formation was an attempt to refocus society on race relations during a time that progress had stagnated. One would think that Disney would be above these issues, but when you look a little closer, you see that is not the case. “Disney often slid indirect social slurs (as well as racial and ethnic slights) into scenes that were so fast -paced the audience had little time to notice them”(Cappiccie). Disney developed a formula to use their platform to push their own agenda . They influence whole generations unbeknownst to them or their parents/guardians. The group studied a few Disney movies, however, The Lion King[‘s] story hits home a little more. The Lion King is arguably one of Disney’s most popular movies. Nonetheless, it is riddled with propaganda that separates the population has negative effects on inclusion and diversity. During The Lion King 1 hour and 29 minute run time, the audience unknowingly is hit with: the attempt to “‘naturalize’ the ideology of a social hierarchy by making it seem as if that is how animals behave in real life; Mufasa referencing ‘where the light touches’ as the well-to-do area and the desolate dark area, the elephant graveyard-dead zone- where social outcasts live ( this can also be seen as an allegory of the decaying inner-city population by American citizens who are labeled an underclass); the hyenas representing Blacks and Latinos; and Scar ruling an underclass world and is riddled with many gay stereotypical gay character traits” (Cappiccie). Disney subconsciously pushed the agenda that minorities were less than upper-class, heterosexual men. If one of Disney’s most famous movies is that riddled with negative stereotypes and propaganda and they do not get shamed for it, why would they stop? Disney could very well still be pushing this agenda and because the public sees Disney as an inclusive channel, they turn a blind eye to what their children are actually being taught.

As one can see, Disney has not been the best in showing diversity in a positive light. That being said, it has been 20 years since their most problematic movies were released and there have been plenty of changes in children’s programming since then. Children have access to the world wide web, and that has led to children being raised by YouTube and social media. In an article posted in The Atlantic, it is recognized that the majority of children watch their programming behind a tablet or phone rather than the television. YouTube is a way for parents to get free children’s programming. ChuChu Tv is the new front-runner in young children’s programming. ChuChu is currently 5 years old and is growing rapidly. It is a immense threat to traditional competitors, from Sesame Street to Disney Channel. When one thinks of traditional children’s programming, Sesame Street usually comes to mind. Well, that what would come to mind for most generations. Now, with YouTube, ChuChu Tv may be the first “channel” that comes to mind. On YouTube, Sesame Street has more than 5 billion views and their main feed has more than 4 million subscribers. This would be impressive, but ChuChu TV has more than 19 billion views and over 19 million subscribers. This places ChuChu Tv amongst the top 25 most watched YouTube channels in the world (Madrigal). They even said that they want to be the next Disney Channel. It is amazing to see the shift from traditional television to a YouTube based version, but it comes with an amazing upside. With everyday people getting the chance to create content, the content is becoming more diverse than ever before. Madrigal points out, “Disney has long mined cultures across the world for legends and myths- dropping them into consumerist, family friendly American formats, ChuChu’s videos are a different kind of hybrid. The company ingests Anglo-American nursery rhymes and holiday’s, and produces new versions with subcontinental flair.” With platforms like ChuChu giving Disney a run for its money, it only pushes Disney to become more diverse and inclusive.

Going hand and hand with diversity is gender and emotion stereotypes in children’s programming. With the sexuality spectrum being openly explored more than ever before, it is important to represent that for the youth. Rebecca Martin did a study on gender and emotion in television programming and all of the results were very interesting. Preschoolers spend about an hour of the day watching television, which, is where they will probably become indoctrinated to gender stereotypes. As far as gender in children’s programming, males usually outnumber females in children’s cartoons. In the 1930s until the mid 90s, females represented about 16.4% of the population. Interestingly, a 2005 study found that male characters were more common than female characters across programs, but particularly so in programs rated TV-Y or TV-Y7. To add to this male dominated society, in the summer of 1997, all programs had male leads an included a male character’s name in the title. This leads to emotion in programming, because as the few women portrayed on television became more “masculine” and assertive, so did the men. This created a dynamic of women living in a man’s world and creating the gender norm of men always having to be assertive, aggressive and angry. There has to be a bigger push for more diversity in gender norms.

As for Disney as whole, it can be best described as a “tween machine”. In an article in Fortune, Disney is described as trying to “recreate the old Hollywood star system with its ‘tween’ actors and actresses.” Disney is known to produce child stars assembly line style. The problem arises when all their flagship stars all look like they could be related. This only works if they produce stars from all walks of life so that every little boy and girl can see themselves reflected in a Disney star.

The best example of a tween Disney star is the story of Hilary Duff: In 2000 the Disney Channel cast the then-obscure 12-year-old in the title role of a new weekly series, Lizzie McGuire. The sitcom about an everyday middle-schooler became a colossal hit. In September 2001, it also began running on Saturday mornings on ABC, another Disney property. In May 2002, Disney Press began publishing Lizzie books; there are seven so far and five more in the works. In August 2002, Disney's Buena Vista Music Group released a soundtrack for the series--Duff does some of the singing--which went platinum the following July. In September 2002, Lizzie began airing every single day on the Disney Channel. Also in 2002, Disney's consumer products division began marketing everything from Lizzie dolls and sleeping bags to Lizzie pencils and notebooks. Last February it licensed the Lizzie name to retailer Kohl's for a line of apparel that is already a top seller in Kohl's 450 stores. Last May, Walt Disney Pictures released The Lizzie McGuire Movie (Duff's reported pay: $1 million), which debuted as the No. 2 film in the country and grossed nearly $50 million at the U.S. box office. Buena Vista released the movie soundtrack, of course; it went platinum too. It's hard to quantify how much the Lizzie franchise has earned for Disney altogether, but it's reasonable to assume that the amount is nearing $100 million( Boorstin).

Ten years prior to Hilary Duff and Lizzie McGuire, Disney did none of this. They produced pop sensations Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Justin Timberlake, but they failed to capitalize off of their impending success. With the new leadership of Anne Sweeney, Disney learned from this “mistake” and changed their approach. They became a MTV for the kids. They produced megastars with personalities larger than life and they began to capitalize off not just the show, but the actor themselves. In a 2006 interview with Disney’s president of entertainment, Gary Marsh, he was asked what they key elements for series that hit with younger viewers was. He responded, “The core of all of our successful series are 3 things: relatable characters; honest, age-appropriate emotional portrayals; and great comedy.” Great comedy may be subjective, but Disney has the formula for tween tv success down-pat.

Overall, when it comes to Disney, its tween machine and children’s media, the outlook is the glass half full. There have been a multitude of issue with covert propaganda popping up in the programming. There has been a multitude of issues when it comes to proper portrayals of gender and emotion. The literature fails to look to the future and what could be. Therefore, the reader sees the mistakes of the past and is up to their own speculations of the future for each subject. For the future, it is strongly encouraged to look at children’s programming now and not just the “Golden Age” of children’s programming. There is so much more to be done and the 1990s- mid 200s is not the standard bearer for children’s media. There should also be a thorough analysis of where children’s media has gone wrong and then a look at what is going right in children’s media currently. There should be more implementation of diversity like ChuChu Tv. On a final note, in his interview, Gary Marsh stated, “Multiculturalism is part of Disney Channel’s DNA.” If this is true, there would not be instances of homophobia, internalized racism, hierarchicism, anti-feminism, and more covertly laced throughout their programming.

Works Cited

Brants, K., Hermes, J., & Zoonen, L. V. (1998). The media in question: Popular cultures and public interests.

Boorstin, Julia, and Alynda Wheat. “Disney’s ’tween Machine.” Fortune, vol. 148, no. 6, Sept. 2003, pp. 110–114.

Cappiccie, A., Chadha, J., Lin, M. B., & Snyder, F. (2012). Using Critical Race Theory to Analyze How Disney Constructs Diversity: A Construct for the Baccalaureate Human Behavior in the Social Environment Curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,32(1), 46-61.

“Disney’s Marsh Takes It One ‘Cheetah’ at a Time.” Multichannel News, vol. 27, no. 34, Aug. 2006, pp. 22–24.

Grant, A. (1994). The Promise Fulfilled? An Empirical Analysis of Program Diversity on Television. Journal of Media Economics,7(1), 51-64.

Madrigal, A. C. (2018, November 1). Raise by YouTube. The Atlantic, 72-81.

Martin, Rebecca. “Gender and Emotion Stereotypes in Children’s Television.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, vol. 61, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 499–517.