I was recently on a business trip, between meetings, shuffling through channels in a Hilton. This is basically the only time when I’m still seeing a DirecTV-style TV guide anymore. Maybe on a Delta flight, but I don’t fly them very often. There was a Law & Order: Special Victims Unit event happening on USA which made me smile because I have been re-watching SVU episodes on business trips since the early 2000s. This is a long-lived show. In the last few years, I’ve also listened to a few episodes of the SVU-related podcast That’s Messed Up, in which the hosts interview someone who was featured in an episode of the show, then share the actual case that the show was based on, then give some resources for people who have experienced similar issues. My daughter and I have also joked that Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitay) is her second mother.
There is also criticism of the show that says it’s “cop-aganda,” designed to make the police look better than they really are, to foster trust in a system that fails people over and over, and to lull victims into a false sense of security when in reality, they are more likely to be retraumatized by encounters with the “justice” system. Most cops don’t behave this way, these critics say. There are not many Olivia Bensons out there, they caution. They are most certainly right. The fact that the #metoo movement went viral only after an admitted sexual assaulter was elected (grab ’em by the p*ssy = sexual assault), nearly two decades after SVU debuted in 1999, points to the validity of this criticism. The show, along with some other cop shows (including the mostly silly comedy Brooklyn 99) addressed this problem of valorizing the police post-George Floyd, including a scene in which a black man who is birdwatching is accused by a white woman, and the detectives immediately assume she’s telling the truth, which she is not. Their error leads them into problematic policing that delays justice, and it shows that our “heroes” are maybe not always heroes after all. They have to reckon with the possibility that their biases are causing them to victimize innocent people.
I have noticed over time that Law & Order (all the franchises) have changed with the times. Things that cops used to think were a gray area, such as so-called date rape or acquaintance rape, are now considered pretty mainstream. Questions about whether sexual images shared between minors make someone a sex offender and what penalties are appropriate have arisen in response to real-life cases of kids having access to ever-changing social media platforms. The rights of LGBTQ victims and whether hate crime statutes apply, all of these are addressed over three decades. If you watch an earlier episode, you can actually see the change in how we understand these types of crimes and how victims are supported (or not) by the legal system.
Some of these changes are legal, but shows like Law & Order (which are all based on real-life cases) reflect the existing laws and policies. They don’t directly create or advocate legal changes. They don’t submit policy briefs. They influence our understanding of these types of crimes and how the legal system either supports or fails victims, but they often present an idealized version of how the law “should” work, with well-trained, well-meaning detectives who put the victim first. That part is certainly aspirational. This type of show models what is possible in the current framework. It shows us the best case scenario in terms of how the police interact with the public. It is an idealized version of the current system. That’s a very conservative approach to effecting change through media depictions: tell the best case version of how it might work today. If it doesn’t work that way, well, those were bad apples or exceptions.
SVU has actually influenced culture in some pretty substantial ways that become very apparent if you watch early episodes and then watch later ones. Viewers of the show:
- tend to have a better understanding of sexual consent
- are less likely to accept rape myths
- are more likely to take sexual assault seriously
- connect harmful behaviors with consequences, creating an expectation of justice
In addition, the show has directly tackled some important gaps in the system. Mariska Hargitay founded the Joyful Heart Foundation to support survivors of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse. She also raised funds to process over 11,000 untested rape kits which led to dozens of serial rapists being identified as well as thousands of cases being solved. This led to other ripple effects in police departments in how they handle evidence in rape cases.
Another show that presents an idealized version of how things could work is Star Trek. In a Star Trek future, planets create alliances and learn to work together. The society is post-capitalist. Science is done for the sake of improving lives, not for profit. Racial conflicts that occur are presented conceptually without delving too deeply into the true horrors that can occur. It’s a hopeful vision of what we could create if we listen to our better angels.
That’s one way to drive toward a better culture, but there are other methods. A great example of a show that is a gritty, realistic reckoning of how the police system cannot achieve justice is The Wire. Each season is an essay that shows the failure of the system. No matter the intentions of those involved, the outcomes can never overcome the various ways in which the system is utterly broken. This type of show is more of a wake-up call, forcing a moral confrontation with the failures of the system. It creates more pressure and urgency to address the injustices of the system. You can’t just have slightly better behavior of those in the system–the system still doesn’t work. It’s not designed to create justice. It’s designed to fail. The downside to this approach is that it can create a sense of despair and cynicism. People feel too burned out to even try to fix issues. It feels exhausting. The show doesn’t tell you how to fix anything. It explains clearly and deeply why nothing works.
Which brings us to a third type of show: dystopian. Handmaid’s Tale provides this type of cautionary storytelling, showing that if unchecked, the forces that want to oppress others are just below the surface, waiting to come into power. Author Margaret Atwood wrote the novel this series is based on during the Reagan administration when she was alarmed at the desires of the religious right to compel women back into a role of servitude, reducing them to their reproductive and caretaking abilities, and stripping them of fundamental rights like holding a job, being paid for work, the right to divorce, and the right to say no to sex. The show illustrates a vision of the future that is based on the vision of the religious right if left unchecked (in her story, they obtain control over the nukes and take over the majority of the country). They immediately undo social progress and reinstate a patriarchal vision that enslaves all women and girls, and privileges a handful of religious elders over everyone else. The men also have to operate in this militant hierarchy if they want to succeed and be allowed to marry and have a handmaid to impregnate. Those in power live in the houses of those they conquered, living off the wealth of the previous society.
These three approaches are probably all necessary on some level in order to create cultural change.
| Show | Emotional Effect | Cultural Role | Best At | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVU | Reassuring, empathetic | Norm modeling | Teaching how it should work | False comfort |
| The Wire | Sobering, bleak | Structural diagnosis | Explaining why it doesn’t work | Paralysis |
| Handmaid’s Tale | Fearful, urgent | Moral alarm | Showing where this leads | Despair / shutdown |
I thought it would be interesting to see which approach works best psychologically depending on where you are politically. Conservatives who are persuadable or moderate do best with a show like SVU. The show reinforces some ideas that are important to conservatives:
- Good cops exist
- Rules matter
- Justice is possible when good people act honorably
This allows conservatives to accept the critique without feeling attacked, and to absorb better knowledge (consent, trauma, accountability) without having to swallow the word “progressive.” They can imagine that the idealized version is reality, and over time, reality can come closer to this version through modeling. Shows like The Wire and Handmaid’s Tale often backfire. The Wire’s implication that institutions are fundamentally broken is hard for conservatives to accept. Shows like Handmaid’s Tale are hard for conservatives to accept in that they pretty openly state “people like YOU enable this kind of tyranny.” Liberals tend to be more comfortable with systemic explanations offered by shows like The Wire and Handmaid’s Tale.
This reminds me of the age-old argument about people staying in the church to be a force for good, or choosing to leave in order to vote with their feet (or tithing dollars). Are LGBTQ youth better off because there are adults in the church who are allies, even if the teachings are harmful to them? Personally I think so, but I also think the church is ultimately going to fail them in the same ways the pre-1978 church failed black people (not that it’s been great for black people post-1978). Conservatives will mostly not accept the critique and will feel attacked if the systems and institutions are being criticized.Being an example of acceptance is probably better than arguing or calling out bad behavior.
But then again, everyone’s only got one life to live. There are congregations out there that are even worse for women, minorities and LGBTQ youth, and there are only so many hours in a Sunday. Maybe it’s not your job, and maybe it ultimately doesn’t matter what you do.
- Have you noticed these three types of approaches in TV shows? Which do you like best? Are there some you dislike?
- Do you think it’s important that allies remain in the church to protect kids and create more acceptance?
- Have you noticed the influence a TV series has had on culture over time?
- Have you seen a change in how cop shows portray policing in the years since George Floyd’s murder?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve watched a bit of SVU, but not the other shows. We tend to watch more British detective shows than American ones. I’m not sure why they appeal to me more. Lately we have watched most of the series Shetland. One season features a storyline where one of the police detectives is sexually assaulted. How the aftermath is dealt with by her supervisor and co-workers feels very aspirational and intentionally so, a model of how we all should be if such a thing happened to someone close to us. For dealing with such a difficult subject I found it somewhat hopeful and inspiring, while also feeling it felt a little too good to be true. How many workplaces would really be so supportive? When well written and not too heavy-handed, I like that such shows exist. Do they change the culture for the better? I hope so, but I don’t know that I have a good way of knowing. Most cultural shifts are barely perceptible in the moment. It may be that I only can tell things have changed when I see my kids thinking differently about the world than I have.
On your question about allies staying in the church, as someone who is still active there could be self-affirming biases at work, but I do think it’s important. I believe strongly in the principle of “lift where you stand” articulated in that talk by Dieter Uchtdorf. All who are in a position to lift should do so, whether they stand in or out of the church, because there will surely be those who can benefit from it wherever we are.
I worked very closely with rape and sexual assault victims, trying to help the victim through the system if they chose to report. My job was to keep the system from retraumatizing them … um, any more than necessary. There were things like gathering evidence where the victim’s body was treated as nothing but a crime scene. That is going to be traumatic for anyone, but is especially traumatic just after having their body victimized. (I am keeping it gender neutral because I did have male victims) Then there is the slow slog through the court system, where convictions of the criminal are as rare as chicken teeth. In court, the victim’s reputation can still be attacked even though that is supposed to be illegal. It is the defense attorney’s job to say she gave consent, so he undermines her credibility anyway he can. When it is her word against his, the only way to get him off is to imply she is lying. So, even though supposedly the lawyer cannot bring in her past sexual history, there are exceptions to this law that get …um, bent to fit the defense’s needs. So, most of the time, from the police to the defense, it felt like “the system” was the enemy. I wore out the idea that going through the court system was worth it if it took a rapist off the street. Only it never did. The victim went through hell, and incompetence just never bothered to process her rape kit, the list the rape kit, they never bothered to find the perp, the police wrote it off as “unfounded” not that there was no evidence of a crime, just that the police didn’t want to believe her or be bothered by it. There was an attitude from many of the police that rape was just not worth bothering with when there were “bigger” crimes to deal with. They brushed it off as no big deal.
So, shows like SVU felt like a fairy tale. Just utterly unbelievable. On the other hand, I liked that it was teaching empathy for the victim and felt like it is the (swear word) cops that needed to watch it. It should be mandatory training for all cops.
As far as church went, yes, I might be nice to stay and help others, but not while attending church was destroying my own mental health. My counseling, when I was supposed to be healing from my childhood abuse was spent talking about how church constantly rubbed salt into the abuse wounds and would not allow the injuries to heal because it was in many ways emotionally repeating the rape trauma. Stuff like purity culture, forced forgiveness instead of healing, the value of women, the sexually irresistible shameful female body, how it is ALWAYS your own fault, the way the church outright blamed victims even when they were children (Scott 1992)
So, my recommendation is that if you are female, or LGBTQ+XYZ as in anything, you really should just get out. It isn’t good for you. If you are white, straight, cis, male, wealthy, outgoing, and not intellectual, yeah stay in if you want.
I’ve never seen The Wire but have watched SVU and read Handmaid’s Tale. I think each show is important in that we all get influenced differently toward greater good.
I’ve been watching Shrinking and am excited for Season 3. I think this fits the first category (similar to SVU) and I’m genuinely torn. The show is great and the characters are real. But the way they portray therapy is crazy. Of course I can see that no therapist-client relationship should ever function this way but I worry that others may not understand that being BFF with your therapist should never be the goal. So I guess I would say yes keep the show but perhaps there should be a disclaimer.
I used to think I was staying to be the ally for others but like Anna says it was fruitless and exhausting so I had to relinquish that self appointment. Samantha Shelley once said something to the effect that even when the church makes improvements for women like a slightly less-worse garment or the ability to witness a baptism similar to any 8 year-old boy, it still pales to what women can get basically anywhere else. That’s really stuck with me. While it’s not at all my job to tell other people to stay or leave, I sometimes wonder if staying is just delaying the healing process and can be giving the marginalized false hope. Then again, maybe staying is a way to move more slowly which can also be good. Individual ward families have a huge impact on how this works and since mine was not great it’s definitely impacted my view.
tl;dr, it’s complicated.
Consider the parallels with the mentioned TV shows and Trump’s failed DOJ pursuit of charges against six Democratic lawmakers for recommending service members refuse unlawful orders. Thank God the grand jury acted correctly and provided a check on the administration’s blatant institutional overreach.
Law & Order SUV leads audiences to believe prosecutions typically result in arrests and convictions. In real life, grand juries are independent and free to reject politically charged cases – as evidenced by today’s results.
Both the TV shows and the current administration’s actions reflect how retaliatory leadership leads to institutional dysfunction. Handmaid’s Tale emphasizes how the slow erosion of civil liberties leads to political power applied without restraints. The misguided attempt to indict the six lawmakers is an example of a dystopian exercise in authoritarianism.
Giving credit where due, LDS scripture (D&C 121) teaches that authority must operate through persuasion, long-suffering, and gentleness. Exercise of unrighteous dominion eventually causes authority to break down and fail. In other words, power is legitimate only when exercised righteously. In theory, this teaching applies equally to government officials, parents, and Church leaders.
Under this standard, any leadership style perceived as coercive, retaliatory, or self-exalting would raise theological questions — regardless of political party or religious belief.
Unfortunately, my experience as a bishop revealed how, all too often, Mormon leaders become intoxicated with their own power. In today’s politically charged environment, I would hope that more of us could understand that LDS theology teaches gratitude for constitutional government – not blind allegiance to any administration.
DeNovo: “my experience as a bishop revealed how, all too often, Mormon leaders become intoxicated with their own power” I’m actually ruminating on a post for next week about this problem in leadership. At Amex we used to call it “sniffing your own fragrance.” Suddenly you have a little success, and you think every idea you have is gold. This attitude of superiority and “being right” while in leadership can really create some downstream problems. It’s a short distance from that to the idea that everyone who disagrees is “wrong” and should be stopped, even by extreme measures.
Hawkgrrrl: Your gently worded ‘fragrance’ reference is spot on. I served under a SP who, after being released, insisted on his former minions addressing him as President. It is difficult for some to give up their supposed power.
I remember being called on the carpet by this particular SP after speaking at a Stake Conference Leadership meeting. My remarks focused on leading with gentleness, meekness, long suffering, etc. and using our agency to disregard the abuse of power/unrighteous dominion. He accused me of teaching disobedience and used the 12th Article of Faith as an example (you know the one – being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law). I argued blind obedience to unrighteous leaders (secular and religious) is neither implied nor expected.
My response provided a tender mercy – I was never asked again to speak in any Stake meetings.
Interesting post and classifications of TV shows, Hawkgrrrl. Sorry this is a little bit of a tangent, but I’ve been watching the show Ghosts (the US version) with my wife, and one thing that’s struck me is how much I like how the couple at the center of the show, Samantha and Jay, are always so kind and understanding to each other. Samantha can see the ghosts living in their B&B and Jay can’t, but after his initial incredulity, he’s always super supportive of her when she wants to do something the ghosts have asked her to do. This is a pretty relaxed, low-key, just-for-fun show, but even not being in a position where it’s likely pushing any kind of cultural change, I find it encouraging that it’s had several seasons made with this approach to portraying a marriage relationship. It’s probably more a trailing indicator of cultural change (people accept this kind of egalitarian relationship where viewers from past decades might have found it strange) than a driver of cultural change like you talked about.
Wowzers. I think you’ve just got way too much time on your hands. Dissecting television police dramas? Really? Being a Culture Warrior must be absolutely exhausting! It wearies me – just to read about it! We love BBC Crime (Murder) Series….but, I couldn’t care less about the looking for the “woke” elements contained (or not) there in.
grizzerbear – I shouldn’t engage in this but I’m curious as to why you feel the need to come here and disparage instead of participating. I have read many comments by you recently, all of which have a deeply angry tone. If you are hoping to persuade people to change and see the light you have awoken to, I think engaging in a dialogue of reciprocity goes much further.
grizzerbear – With your comments here, are you purposefully trying to represent the stereotypical MAGA voice, i.e., uneducated, anti-intellectual, unthoughtful, incapable of self-reflection, arrogant, and insulting? If so, you’re doing a great job.
grizzerbear, just one more point about your complaint. Even if this post isn’t your cup of tea, consider that hawkgrrrl has written roughly a post a week for years, and she consistently brings up interesting new takes on things in Mormonism or out in the world in general. That’s a ton of writing, and she always has good stuff to say. If you don’t like a particular post, maybe you could just ignore it rather than whining that someone else is more self-reflective than you are.
I attended a work training a few years ago, and the trainer asked us whether we were “Star Trek” or “Star Wars” types. I liked both TV/Film programs, but eventually said I was a Trekkie. Today, after many new TV shows and movies added to the franchises, I’d still say I was a Trekkie.
First, let me answer some of your questions. I’ve seen all three types of shows. I’ve also seen how they’ve changed over time and become more realistic, or at least tied closer to the times they were broadcast. As for LGBTQ kids, we need to be allies wherever we can and maybe particularly with those who suffer under religious systems, but I’ve found it too painful to me also to be a part of that system.
Back to Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Trek seems to be more open to new ideas and ways of looking at things. While there might be good vs. bad in the stories, there are also many shades of grey. They also take the issues of today that we face and recast them in a new light through a space story. The Original Series, while I watch it today, looks dated. It showed the first interracial kiss on television and confronted racism in other shows. It was a society without money, had ideals, and also had good people who struggled. Star Wars was more good vs. evil and much more black and white in how it approached conflict. It also relied on the mystical to solve the big problems, whereas Star Trek relied on science most of the time.
Granted, these are generalities for those two programs. I think overall, the programs we watch in our lives say a lot about who we are, and they have a bigger influence on us than we may think. Are we afraid of today’s politics after watching “The Handmaid’s Tale” or worried about crime because we see it every week, maybe even multiple times, because we’ve been hooked on the Law and Order series? Yes, there’s crime, but at the evels we imagine because of TV and the news.
“The Wire” *and* SVU? Hawkgrrrl, someday you *have* do admit something that makes me disappointed in you. This is not that day. I continue to be your biggest fan/stalker. You have excellent taste.
My favorite TV show for a while has been Black Mirror. It is bleak, urgent, and often without warmth or hope for redemption. It explores the vast capacity for human cruelty without itself being cruel, if that makes sense. As the title says, it’s a mirror: it only shows us our own image, in the end. And in that sense, in a funny way it acts to show a path forward for humanity. “Choose kindness, intimacy, patience, and mercy, because you have seen where viciousness, indulgence, intemperance, and vengeance lead. There is more to growth than economic or technological advances.”
A distant but loved second is The Good Place. Reassuring and comforting, I suppose? Starting off as a comedy, it bursts through existential dread and what could’ve been a tiring critique of religion to instead celebrate joy and humanity. A lovely, thoughtful show. Also, D’Arcy Carden (Janet) is gorgeous and wonderful.
As for allies: this ally is very, very tired. I support whom I can where I can, but for the foreseeable future my Sundays are my own. They are frequently bleak, urgent, and without warmth or hope for redemption. Maybe that’ll change some day.
Bro. Jones I’m sorry to inform you that the role of hHawkgrrrl’s biggest fan is already taken. By me. Although I only beat you by a hair.
My current fave Netflix show is The Lincoln Lawyer. Just renewed for season 5!! It’s about a defense attorney in Los Angeles and it is the opposite of copaganda. It’s actually refreshing to see a show that presents the criminal defense lawyer as the good guy, fighting back against government prosecutor overreach. Even guilty people deserve to be treated with respect and have someone make sure their rights are protected. His law office is a very loving, hard-working bunch. The lead is Hispanic and speaks English with an accent. It’s woke in all the best ways (I say that to annoy grizz) and the writing and pacing is excellent.
The way women are portrayed in shows has changed tons over the decades. You brought up Star Trek. The Original Series was groundbreaking because it had professional women who were treated with the respect given to any crew member — Nyota Uhura, Christine Chapel, and Janice Rand. But every other woman who appeared on Star Trek was dressed sexy and wanted to be seen as sexually appealing, especially to Kirk. The music would be romantic; she would give a sultry smile; Kirk would look at her appreciatively. Women wanted men to find them sexually desirable.
I watched a Doris Day movie that was made in the 60s. I can’t remember the title, but I sure remember the way that movie treated a divorced woman. Every man in the show made off-color remarks about her and obviously thought she would hop into bed with any of them. Divorced women were sexually available and every man was on the prowl. Even though in the 60s, divorce was so heavily stigmatized and a divorced woman would be traumatized. The movie wrote her divorced status to be an invitation to pressure her for sex.
Yes, there is still sexism in movies and shows today. Women get fridged. Women get written as sexy lamps. Shows fail the Bechdel test. BUT. There are also loads of movies and shows with fully written female characters. The Lincoln Lawyer has a male lead, but the women have their own character arcs and subplots. I appreciate all the shows that take the time to write women as full characters rather than just being a love interest or a sex object. Wheel of Time, with all those middle-aged female leads (I would be Blue Ajah, or Brown, possibly White, and Green too), was so great and I wish Amazon had renewed it for another dozen seasons.
Janey
Concerning Stat Trek. I watched the original series as a kid, and was delighted with the woman characters. Then when I retired, I rewatched all of Star Trek and was surprised at the sexism and racism. Geez, take a look at 1964’s pilot “The Cage” and then the current follow up “Strange New Worlds”
And there’s Next Gen. It took until 2023 season 3 of Picard for Troi to get a good story line (and Doctor Crusher featured prominently.)
I wonder what viewers 50 years into the future will make of it.
I usually only watch shows with Spaceships. But I have seen a few(very few) detective and police procedure shows.(shout out to Happy Valley) What will future academic’s make of the 1990’s New York Cagney and Lacey and 20teens Manchestes Scott and Bailey. An Ocean apart or no ocean at all.
Or 1968-early 70’s generalized, generic LA’s Adam-12 and 2020’s very specific Belfast’s Blue Lights.( and yes, to varied woman characters) Are there any commonalities besides officers riding in police cars?
Are there any through lines? Perhaps Good cops exist, Rules matter(for better or worse), Justice is(can be) possible when good people act honorably. But does that make these shows conservative? I dunno.