I want to start by saying I love
this article. I’ve read it before, and I was happy to read it again. I love
that it highlights third-wave tensions in Nickelodeon’s marketing and
television programming. However, I have one huge problem with the article: With
the exception of Clarissa Explains It All,
which was and still is awesome, no one cared about the other series
Banet-Weiser examines. I was a preteen when As
Told By Ginger began airing, and I remember that it was part of Nickelodeon’s
new TeenNick lineup to attract older viewers, but my friends and I could not
care less about the show. I watched it, but only out of loyalty to Nickelodeon.
Nick News was a totally different
case—no children I knew watched Nick News
unless their parents made them. No one thought it was a fun, cool thing to
watch.
For
my thesis, I briefly considered writing an updated version of this article. I wanted
to look at the shows my age group actually cared about when I was a child—Clarissa could stay, but The Amanda Show and The Secret World of Alex Mack were much more popular and meaningful
to my friends and me. While I did not love The
Wild Thornberries (because of my hatred of the outdoors), I know that I was
an outlier; my friends all loved the show, and I still had Wild Thornberries merchandise. I also think looking at iCarly, the newest wildly successful
female-centric Nickelodeon series, would be much more fruitful than As Told By Ginger and Nick News. I argue that Banet-Weisler’s
article highlights an easy trap for media critics to fall into: She picks the
series that best illustrate her article rather than the shows that had the most
impact on young girls. I understand that Ginger
and Nick News were
award-nominated programs and that they exemplify third-wave tensions, but does
that matter if no one was watching?
No comments:
Post a Comment