Somewhere Over the Rainbow: Finding the Cure for Oscars-So-White Color- Blindness

The Oscars® are synonymous with the aspirational best in the film industry, however, racial dominance and the consistent underrepresentation of ethnic and minority groups continues to prevail. The lack of diverse representation in Hollywood is not only a massive barrier to the projection of a better tomorrow for a generation of Americans, it is a lost opportunity for the U.S. to take a lead as a model global force for equality. A recent report produced by the Media, Diversity and Social Change Initiative at USC Annenberg confirms that only 1.3% of leading roles in Hollywood productions have Asian actors and over 50% of productions fail to include any Asian characters. The author, Dr. Stacy Smith states, “This is no mere diversity problem… this is an inclusion crisis.”

If Hollywood were desegregated, the representation of a diverse society could be a powerful force to rapidly break down stereotypes and properly represent the true mosaic of U.S. society. The implications of such equal portrayal would cut across all aspects of society from pay equity for hourly work to representation across professional vocations.

1. Top Academic Sources On the Current State of Diversity in the Media:

• Inclusion or Invisibility? Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti & Dr. Katherine Pieper http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/CARDReport%20FINAL%2022 216.ashx

• Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content held in the Hand of the Black Director? Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper http://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2015/04/28/Race%3AEthnicity%20in %20500%20Popular%20Films%20Stacy%20Smith.pdf

• Toward a Third Wave: Why Media Matters in Asian American Studies Renee Tajima-Peña https://muse.jhu.edu/article/537418/pdf

• 2016 Hollywood Diversity Report UCLA Faculty http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-Hollywood- Diversity-Report-2-25-16.pdf

• The Latino Media Gap: A Report on the State of Latinos in U.S. Media Frances Negrón-Muntaner with Chelsea Abbas, Luis Figueroa, and Samuel Robson Abbas, Luis Figueroa, and Samuel Robson http://media.wix.com/ugd/73fa65_e8b1b4ec675c41b3a06f351926129cea.pdf

• Portrayal of African Americans in the Media: An Examination of Law and Order Shannon T. Isaacs http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversity/mcnair/mcnair_jrnl2010/files/Isaacs.pdf

• Hollywood’s Race/Ethnicity and Gender-Based Casting: Prospects for A Title VII Lawsuit Russell Robinson http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/files/LPIB_14December2006_001.pdf

2. Lawsuits Related to Diversity in the Media:

• Lenhoff Enterprises vs United Talent Agency and International Creative Management Partners https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2806243-Lenhoff-Dismissal.html

• Entertainment Studios and NAAAOM Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Against FCC, Charter Communications Claiming Racial Discrimination http://www.naaaom.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Charter-FCC- Complaint.pdf.pdf

• Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg

3. Academy Awards Initiatives To Increase Diversity

• Amid widening outcry, Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-academy-diversity- changes-20160122-story.html

• Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/film-academy-under-fire-is- expected-to-take-steps-to-improve-oscar-diversity.html

• Oscars organizers invite new members in diversity push http://www.reuters.com/article/us-film-oscars-diversity-idUSKCN0ZF2RG

INCLUSION or INVISIBILITY? Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment (%)* !"#$$*+&,#,*- STACY L. SMITH, PhD, MARC CHOUEITI, %$&'$! KATHERINE PIEPER, PhD with assistance from ARIANA CASE and ARTUR TOFAN

MEDIA, DIVERSITY, & SOCIAL CHANGE INITIATIVE

Institute for Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA) February 22, 2016 Dear Friends, Colleagues, Industry Employees, and Activists,

We are proud to reveal the ﬁrst Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity in Entertainment (CARD). This report is the result of over a year of data collection and analysis by the scholars and students at the Media, Di- versity, & Social Change Initiative (MDSC) at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. With over 100 research assistants working in our lab per year, we engage in and tackle issues surrounding inclusion in entertainment.

As academics, we are set apart by our solution-oriented approach - we seek out previous research and theory to discover empirical answers to complex social problems. Ultimately, our goal is to accelerate the advancement of a media environment that represents the world we inhabit-- where the voices and visions of a diverse population are valued and visible. The ﬁnancial support of the Institute for Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA) has allowed us to take a bold new step in pursuit of this goal. CARD: An Industry First

For the past 10 years, we have quantiﬁed disturbing patterns around the lack of media representation concerning females and people of color in ﬁlm. Despite elevated awareness around this issue, the numbers have not budged.

We are often asked two questions following the release of our film studies: “but aren’t things better in television?” and “how are different companies performing?” This report is our public answer to both of these questions. And, for the first time, we have ranked companies on their level of inclusivity on screen and behind the camera. This is also the first time our research team has looked from CEO to every speaking character across film, television, and digital content.

We believe that evaluating company output is a crucial aspect of pushing the conversation on media inclusion forward to create real change. Accountability and awareness can only take us so far, though. This report is not about shame or punishment. Rather, our aim is to help companies align their products with the values they hold.

Our location on a University campus means we are no strangers to evaluation. It is a hallmark of the academy and one of our most important undertakings. The Inclusion Indices in this report are designed to serve as an evaluation tool for organizations. The Indices oﬀer companies a metric to understand their scores in two speciﬁc ways. First, their performance relative to entertainment industry norms. Second, their performance relative to proportional representation in the U.S. population. Armed with information, media businesses can take steps to improve casting and hiring practices in the months and years to come.

Shifting from invisibility to inclusion is no easy task. Companies have the opportunity to dismantle the structures and systems that have guided decades of exclusionary decision-making. Yet, these organizations do not face this task alone. We at the MDSC Initiative are available to develop and implement concrete solutions, monitor progress, and celebrate success with you.

There is more to do, and we look forward to continuing the conversation. Our work to foster inclusion in storytelling will continue until the landscape of media characters and creators is as varied as the audience it serves.

Onward, Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Comprehensive Annenberg Report on Diversity (CARD) assesses inclusion on screen and behind the camera in fictional films, TV shows, and digital series distributed by 10 major media companies (21st Century Fox, CBS, Comcast NBC Universal, Sony, The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, Viacom, Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix).

Movies theatrically released in 2014 by the major studios or their art house divisions were included in the sample, provided they met a certain threshold of domestic box office performance (see Appendix A).¹ Prime-time first run scripted series as well as digital offerings airing from September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015 were sampled on broadcast, popular basic cable, premium channels or streaming services associated with the companies listed above (see Appendix B).² In total, the sample included 414 stories or 109 motion pictures and 305 broadcast, cable, and digital series.

The major unit of analysis was the speaking or named character.³ Each speaking character was assessed for role, demographics, domesticity, and hypersexualization.⁴ Behind the camera, the gender of directors and writers of each ﬁlm and every episode within a sampled series was evaluated.⁵ Race/ethnicity was assessed for directors of movies as well as those helming the season premiere episode of television/digital programs.⁶ Finally, the gender composition of CEOs, members of executive suites, boards of directors, and employees at the Executive Vice President or Senior Vice President level or above in ﬁlm, TV, or streaming divisions was scrutinized.⁷

Below, we present an overview of our key ﬁndings within four major areas. For a detailed overview of the study, see the Executive Report online at the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative site.

GENDER

Prevalence On Screen

Across the 11,306 speaking characters evaluated, 66.5% were male and 33.5% were female. This calculated into a sample wide gender ratio of seeing 2 males to every 1 female on screen, which varied by media platform.⁸ Fe- male characters ﬁll only 28.7% of all speaking roles in ﬁlm. For scripted series, less than 40% of all speaking characters were girls and women (broadcast=36.4%, cable=37.3%, streaming=38.1%).

The percentage of ﬁlms and TV/digital series with “balanced casts” was also assessed, or those stories with girls and women in 45-54.9% of all speaking roles. Only 18% of stories evaluated were gender balanced, with ﬁlm (8%) the least likely to depict balance and cable the most likely (23%).

Turning to leading characters by media platform, almost three-quarters of the leads, co leads or actors carrying an ensemble cast in film were male (73.5%) and 26.5% (n=41) were female. This is in stark contrast to TV/digital series. A full 42% of series regulars⁹ were girls/women.10 Streaming featured the most females in the principal cast (44.2%), followed by broadcast (41.6%) and cable (41%).11 Given the findings in Table 1, it is clear that females are still underrepresented on screen across the ecosystem of popular fictional content.

1 Table 1 Gender of Speaking Characters by Media Platform

Total percentage %!% %'*- %,*% %(*# of gender %%*+ balanced casts $! !(*, #()

"! Total ratio of males to females ! FILM BROADCAST CABLE STREAMING TOTAL !"# RATIO 2.5 to 1 1.7 to 1 1.7 to 1 1.6 to 1 2 to 1 Total number of % OF FEMALE SPEAKING CHARACTERS speaking characters ##$%&' Portrayal On Screen

One of the most politicized areas in Hollywood pertains to casting women 40 years of age or older. Our findings show that 35% of all characters evaluated on this measure were in this age bracket. The vast majority of these parts go to males, however. Men fill 74.3% of these roles and women 25.7%. Film was less likely than broadcast or cable to show women 40 years of age or older.12 Streaming was the most likely, with females filling 33.1% of roles for middle age and elderly characters.

Table 2 Characters 40 Years of Age and Older by Gender within Media Platform

CHARACTERS !"# YRS OF AGE Film Broadcast Cable Streaming Total % of males 78.6% 73.1% 70.6% 66.9% 74.3% % of females 21.4% 26.9% 29.4% 33.1% 25.7%

The sexualization of characters on screen also was assessed (see Figure 1). Females were more likely than males to be shown in sexy attire (Females=34.3% vs. Males=7.6%), with some nudity (Females=33.4% vs. Males=10.8%) and physically attractive (Females=11.6% vs. Males=3.5%).13 Female sexualization diﬀered by media platform (see Table 3). Female characters were more likely to be shown scantily clad and partially naked in broadcast, cable, and streaming content than female characters in ﬁlms.14

2 Figure 1 Character Sexualization by Gender

&!% MALES FEMALES %! !"#! !!#" $!

$%#& $$#( "! )#( !#' ! SEXY CLOTHING NUDITY ATTRACTIVENESS

Table 3 Female Character Sexualization by Media Platform

SEXUALIZATION MEASURES Film Broadcast Cable Streaming % shown in sexually revealing clothing 28.6% 36.4% 39.6% 34.7% % shown w/partial or full nudity 27.5% 35.3% 39.6% 32.5% % referenced as physically attractive 13.9% 10.2% 10.8% 9.6%

These sexualization findings are troubling for two reasons. Theory suggests and research supports that exposure to objectifying content may contribute to and/or reinforce negative effects such as self objectification, body shame, and/or appearance anxiety among some female viewers.15 The results also suggest that with a higher prevalence of females on screen a higher incidence of sexualization follows.

Behind the Camera

Gender composition was examined in two key behind the camera positions in ﬁlm and scripted series: director and writer. A total of 4,284 directors were assessed for gender across all episodes of 305 scripted series and 109 motion pictures. A full 84.8% of directors were male (n=3,632) and 15.2% were female (n=652). This translates into a gender ratio of 5.6 males to every one female behind the camera in popular media.

Director gender and media platform were related.16 As shown in Table 4, only 3.4% of all ﬁlm directors were female (n=4). Among TV and digital series, broadcast had the highest percentage of directors (17.1%) and streaming the lowest (11.8%).

3 Table 4 Director Gender by Media Platform

TOTAL &!!% -#"# ++"* +*"- +("- %!

$! '!"*,

"! '."' '!"' ''"+ Total ratio of male to female directors: /"( ! FILM BROADCAST CABLE STREAMING !"#$%&$' RATIO 28.5 to 1 4.8 to 1 5.6 to 1 7.5 to 1 Total number of directors: ()*+( % OF MALE DIRECTORS % FEMALE DIRECTORS

A similar analysis was conducted for writer gender.17 Across 6,421 writers, a full 71.1% were male and 28.9% were female. This means that for every one female screenwriter there were 2.5 male screenwriters. Writer gender varied by media platform (see Table 5).18 When compared to streaming (25.2%), females were the least likely to have screenwriting credits in ﬁlm (10.8%) and the most likely in broadcast (31.6%).

Table 5 Writer Gender by Media Platform

TOTAL &!!% &('$

%! 0#'& !&'# 0%'*

$! $&'()

#! /%'! $&'* $*'$ "! Total ratio of male to female %.'& writers: ! $'*+,-+% FILM BROADCAST CABLE STREAMING Total number of RATIO 8.3 to 1 2.2 to 1 2.5 to 1 3 to 1 writers: !"#$% % OF MALE WRITERS % FEMALE WRITERS 4 In addition to writing and directing, the gender of series creators was assessed. A total of 487 creators were credited. Almost a quarter of these creators were women (22.6%) and 77.4% were men. Show creator gender did not vary by platform.19 Of show creators, 22% were female on the broadcast networks, 22.3% on cable channels, and 25% on streaming series.

Table 6 Show Creator Gender by Media Platform

SHOW CREATOR GENDER Broadcast Cable Streaming Total % of males 78% 77.7% 75% 77.4% % of females 22% 22.3% 25% 22.6% Gender Ratio 3.5 to 1 3.5 to 1 3 to 1 3.4 to 1 Total Number 186 229 72 487

Note: This analysis only applies to television and digital series. Creator or developed by credit determined “show creator.” Creators of source material predating the development of the television or digital series were not included (e.g., characters created for a movie, novels turned into scripted shows).

Is having a female behind the camera as- Figure 2 sociated with on screen patterns of repre- Percentage of Female Characters On Screen by Gender sentation in ﬁlm, TV, and digital series? As of Content Creator shown in Figure 2, the relationship between director gender and character gender was signiﬁcant.20 Stories with a female director !!"# CREATORS attached had 5.4% more girls/women on DIRECTORS NO BTS WRITERS screen than those stories without female FEMALE !!"$ direction (38.5% vs. 33.1%). For writers21 !%"& and creators,22 the relationship was more pronounced (10.7% and 12.6% increase, respectively). &'"$

These ﬁndings suggest that one solution to BTS FEMALE !("# on screen diversity is to hire more women behind the camera. It may also be the case, &$"$ however, that executives feel more comfortable hiring women directors and screenwrit- ! "! #! $! %! &!% ers when the story pulls female. This latter explanation is problematic and limits the frequency and types of open directing/writing jobs available to women.

Summing up, the prevalence and portrayal of women in media has been a topic of much interest to the press and the public recently. Females are underrepresented both on screen and in key behind the camera roles. Including women behind the camera may be one antidote to the problem, though more research is needed on the eﬀects of hiring women directors and writers for on screen depictions.

5 Executive Suite

For the first time, the MDSC Initiative examined the gender of executives at media companies (n=1,558).23 This analysis catalogued the leadership profile at the parent companies and corporate divisions of film studios, television networks, and digital content organizations in our sample.

Table 7 Top Corporate Executives by Gender and Position POSITION Males Females Board of Directors 81% 19% C-Suite 79% 21% Executive Management Team (if applicable) 81% 19%

Note: Three companies had executive management teams that oversaw their media divisions: Comcast NBC Universal, Sony and Amazon. In these cases, the C-suite designation includes the parent company and an additional line was created for individuals with governance over the media divisions of these corporations.

As shown in Table 7, women represent roughly 20% of corporate boards, chief executives, and executive management teams.24 Corporate boards consist of elected or appointed officials, while chief executives oversee operations at the corporate level and have responsibility for all aspects of a media company, not solely film or television. In some cases, an intermediate team of executives (i.e., Amazon, Comcast NBC Universal, Sony) had responsibility for the media divisions of interest. Those were classified as the executive management team. At the pinnacle of some of the largest and most important media companies in the world, women are still roughly one- fifth of the decision-makers.

Females represent 39.1% of executives across the media divisions of companies evaluated. As shown in Table 8, roughly one-quarter or less of the top executives on all three platforms are female.25 In television, near gender parity has been reached at the EVP level. Looking at the lower leadership tier of all media companies, a sizeable contingent of women are working in SVP-equivalent positions. Thus, as power increases, the participation or representation of women in executive ranks decreases.

Table 8 Female Corporate Executives by Media Platform

POSITION Film TV Streaming Total % of Female Top Executives 25.6% 21.5% 20% 23.7% % of Female EVPs or equivalent 29% 45.3% 18.7% 35.9% % of Female SVPs or equivalent 40.4% 50.4% 51.4% 46.7% Total 33.1% 45.1% 32.9% 39.1%

Note: Top executives consisted of individuals at the head of movie studios or ﬁlm groups (Chairs, Presidents). When titles at the EVP or SVP level co-occurred with “Chief Oﬃcer” titles, they were held to the EVP/SVP level.

6 Examining the executive ranks of major ﬁlm and television companies reveals that women are not represented in positions of senior leadership in equal numbers to their male counterparts. Where women are well-represented is at the SVP level and in EVP positions in television. These ﬁndings demonstrate that while the highest level of the corporate ladder remains somewhat closed to women, at lower levels females are waiting to ascend.

RACE%ETHNICITY

Prevalence On Screen

We also assessed characters’ racial/ethnic identity. Of those speaking or named characters with enough cues to ascertain race/ethnicity (n=10,444), 71.7% were White, 12.2% Black, 5.8% Hispanic/Latino, 5.1% Asian, 2.3% Middle Eastern and 3.1% Other. Thus, 28.3% of all speaking characters were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, which is below (-9.6%) the proportion in the U.S. population (37.9%).26 The percentage of underrepresented speaking characters did not meaningfully vary by media platform (see Table 9).27

The number of shows featuring “racial/ethnic balance” was evaluated. If a show featured any underrepresented characters within 10% of the U.S. Census statistic, it was considered balanced. Only 22 stories depicted racial/ ethnic balance on the broadcast networks (19%), 18 on cable (13%), 1 on streaming (2%), and 8 in ﬁlm (7%). Clearly, most stories fail to reﬂect or match the demographic composition of the U.S.

Table 9 Underrepresented Speaking Characters, Series Regulars & Leads by Media Platform

)%*! )$*! TOTAL ! "$ )'*& "#$ ""% ") FILM BROADCAST +"+ )$*) )$*+ "& ) "&' (" % OF UR SPEAKING CHARACTERS % OF SHOWS WITH UR BALANCED CAST CABLE STREAMING TOTAL ! OF STORIES EVALUATED

The level of invisibility in storytelling was assessed via the number of shows and ﬁlms that did not depict any speaking characters from two speciﬁc racial groups: Black/African American and Asian. Two trends are immediately apparent in Table 10. First, streaming stories were more exclusionary of actors from both groups than the other media platforms. Second, at least half or more of all cinematic, television, or streaming stories fail to portray one speaking or named Asian or Asian American on screen. Undoubtedly, there is a vast underrepresentation of racial/ethnic minority groups that still plagues entertainment content. 7 Table 10 Number of Shows Without Any Black or Asian Speaking Characters by Media Platform

FILM: Out of 109 stories BROADCAST: Out of 116 stories 20 (18%) have no Black characters 19 (16%)

55 (50%) have no Asian characters 59 (51%)

CABLE: Out of 138 stories STREAMING: Out of 51 stories 32 (23%) 19 (37%)

Have no Black speaking characters Have no Asian speaking characters

70 (51%) 32 (63%)

Pivoting to leading characters in ﬁlm, 21.8% were coded as underrepresented, which is 16.1% below U.S. Census. The distribution of characters was gendered, with 65.6% of underrepresented characters male and 34.4% female. Focusing only on leads, the vast majority were Black (65.6%). Only 12.5% of underrepresented leads were Latino and 6.3% were Asian. Roughly a sixth (15.6%) of all underrepresented leads were from “other” races or ethnicities.

Looking to television and digital content, only 26.6% of series regulars were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups (see Table 11). Underrepresented series regulars were slightly more likely to occur in broadcast (27.6%) and streaming stories (29.6%) than in cable stories (24.6%).28

Table 11 Underrepresented Main Characters by Media Platform

!"#$ !%#$ !&#$ ''$ '() *'

BROADCAST CABLE STREAMING

% OF UR SERIES REGULARS TOTAL ! OF STORIES EVALUATED 8 Portrayal On Screen

In terms of demographics, the gender distribution within diﬀerent racial/ethnic groups was assessed. As shown in Table 12, Latinas and females from “other” racial/ethnic groups tended to be shown more frequently than White or Black females.29 Table 12 Character Gender within Racial/Ethnic Groups

CHARACTER GENDER White Latino Black Asian Other Male 65.7% 62.1% 66.1% 63.4% 62.3% Female 34.3% 37.9% 33.9% 36.6% 37.7%

Focusing on age, only 25.7% of all middle age and elderly characters were female across the sample. Of these, over three-quarters were White (77.8%). Only 20.9% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. 1.3% of female characters did not have a discernible race/ethnicity. Looking at the raw numbers, only 203 underrepresented females 40 and over were coded across the entire sample. This is less than 2% of all speaking characters. Surely, these ﬁndings reveal that underrepresented females are largely invisible from 40 years of age forward in ﬁlm, television, and digital series.

Related to sexualization, we only report on female characters given the pronounced gender diﬀerences observed earlier in the report. For simplicity purposes we are only going to focus on the highs and lows in this analysis. Female characters from “other” racial/ethnic groups were more likely to be shown in sexualized attire, with exposed skin, and referenced as attractive than were Black or Asian female characters (see Table 13 for complete distribution by race/ethnicity).30

Table 13 Female Character Sexualization by Race/Ethnicity

SEXUALIZATION MEASURES White Latina Black Asian Other % in sexualized attire 34.8% 39.5% 29.5% 28.9% 41.6% % with some nudity 34.2% 35.5% 28.6% 27.7% 39.7% % referenced attractive 12.6% 11.4% 7.9% 7.7% 15.3%

Overall, the landscape of media content is still largely whitewashed. Relative to the U.S. population, the industry is underperforming on racial/ethnic diversity of leads (ﬁlm), series regulars (TV/digital), and all speaking characters. The number of shows missing two racial groups entirely is particularly problematic. The hashtag #Oscars- SoWhite should be changed to #HollywoodSoWhite, as our ﬁndings show that an epidemic of invisibility runs throughout popular storytelling.

9 Behind the Camera

The race/ethnicity of every film director as well as those helming the first episode of every live action television show and scripted series was assessed. Out of the 407 directors evaluated (see Table 14), 87% were White and 13% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Only two of the 53 underrepresented directors in film and television/digital series were Black women: Amma Asante (Belle) and Ava DuVernay (Selma).

Table 14 Underrepresented Directors by Media Platform

UR DIRECTOR STATUS Film Broadcast Cable Streaming % of White Directors 87.3% 90.4% 83.2% 88.6% % of Underrepresented Directors 12.7% 9.6% 16.8% 11.4% Ratio 6.9 to 1 9.4 to 1 4.9 to 1 7.8 to 1

Note: This analysis only applies to the ﬁrst episode of live action series (n=280) and all ﬁlms (n=109; live action or animated) in the sample.

Underrepresented directors do not signiﬁcantly vary by media platform. Cable shows (16.8% of directors) tended to attach an underrepresented director to their season premiere episodes more than broadcast (9.6% of directors) or streaming (11.4% of directors) shows. Film held an intermediate position across media, with 12.7% of all directors across 109 motion pictures from underrepresented groups. All percentages under index relative to the U.S. population norm of 37.9%.

Figure 3 The relationship between the presence/ab- Underrepresented Characters by Director Race/Ethnicity sence of an underrepresented director and underrepresented characters on screen was evaluated.31 As shown in Figure 3, the per- % OF !"#$ centage of on screen underrepresented char- UNDER! acters increases 17.5% when an underrepre- REPRESENTED CHARACTERS sented director is at the helm of a scripted %&#% episode or ﬁlm. Only 26.2% of characters were underrepresented when directors were White whereas 43.7% were underrepresent- ! "! #! $! %! &!% ed when directors were from racial/ethnic UR DIRECTOR NOT UR DIRECTOR minority groups.

As with gender, the race/ethnicity of the director seems to matter. However, the direction of influence is not entirely clear. Having an underrepresented director may have facilitated more underrepresented characters being cast on screen in film, television, and digital series. It may also be the case that underrepresented directors were more likely to be hired on to projects with more diversity on screen. Again, this latter explanation is problematic and suggests that hiring practices are affected by who is on screen rather than the talent of the storyteller.

10 LGBT

Prevalence On Screen

Of the 11,194 characters that could be evaluated for apparent sexuality, a total of 224 were coded as Lesbian (n=49), Gay (n=158), or Bisexual (n=17). Put diﬀerently, only 2% of all speaking characters across the 414 movies, television shows, and digital series evaluated were coded LGB. This point statistic is below the 3.5% of the U.S. population that identiﬁes as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual, as reported by the Williams Institute at UCLA.32

A separate measure assessed whether characters were transgender. Only seven speaking or named characters identiﬁed as transgender sample wide, which calculates to <1%. Four of the seven transgender characters appeared in one digital show. All but one of the transgender characters appeared on streaming series.

The LGB and transgender measures were summed for the remaining analyses. The total of LGBT characters sample wide was 229. Almost a third of the 229 LGBT characters appeared in cable shows (31.4%, n=72), 28.8% (n=66) in ﬁlm, 24% (n=55) in broadcast, and 15.7% (n=36) in streaming. Over half of the portrayals (58%) in movies were accounted for by two ﬁlms: Pride and Love is Strange.

Table 15 Prevalence and Portrayal of LGBT Characters

$*( GAY $! BISEXUAL OF $$+$') SPEAKING CHARACTERS ONLY... )' LESBIAN ! TRANSGENDER OF THE !!" LGBT SPEAKING CHARACTERS... !(#'%& !"#$%&

"!#'%& "$#$%&

MALE FEMALE WHITE UNDERREPRESENTED

Portrayal On Screen

Of all LGBT characters, nearly three quarters (72.1%) were male and 27.9% were female. The vast majority of LGBT characters were White (78.9%) and only 21.1% were from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Few characters were shown as parents or caregivers, with females (24%) slightly more likely to be shown in this light than males (16.4%). These percentages are much lower than what was observed sample wide, however. Of those characters with enough cues to evaluate relationship status, a majority of LGBT males (55.6%) and females (59.3%) were shown in committed romantic partnerships.

LGBT individuals are still underrepresented when it comes to film, television, and digital series. Beyond this invis- 11 ibility, intersectionality is also a problem. The majority of LGBT characters are White males, excluding women and people of color who are part of the LGBT community. A contradictory story emerged with regard to parental and relational standing. LGBT characters can be shown in domestic partnerships or marriage but depicting this community raising children on screen is largely avoided in media storytelling. These findings tell the story of a group still fighting for inclusion in media.

COMPANY INCLUSION

Each company was scored with regard to multiple inclusion metrics. As with any report card, specific criteria were used to measure progress and draw attention to deficits. These indicators compare five aspects of on screen and behind the camera prevalence to a particular standard. Combining all five scores establishes an overall inclusion rating per company for both film and television/digital offerings.

On screen, two indicators focused on female and underrepresented characters. Companies were scored on the percentage of all speaking characters as well as series regulars (TV/digital) and leading characters (film) that were females or underrepresented. These percentages were combined and standardized to form on screen scores for gender and for underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. The results were judged against the proportion of each group in the U.S. population. For females, this was set to 50%.33 For underrepresented characters, the population standard for comparison was set at 35% rather than 37.9%. This allowed for a margin of difference to account for actors cast in roles in which the racial/ethnic background of the character and actor differ. It also allows for differences between coding judgments and real-life race/ethnicity.

In ﬁlm only, the percentage of LGBT characters on screen was used to set a LGBT inclusion score. As television/ digital characters reveal information across a season, a single episode may be insuﬃcient to reveal a character’s sexuality. For this reason, LGBT inclusion scores were not used in the ratings for television/digital companies.34 The population standard for LGBT characters was set at 3.5%.35

Behind the camera, inclusion scores were computed for the percentage of female directors and writers hired to helm and craft ﬁlms and every episode of television/digital series in our sample. Additionally, the percentage of female show creators was calculated for television/digital series only. Using data from one of our previous studies,36 the norm for directors was 30%. Guided by the prevalence of writers and show creators across the sample, the standard for these categories was 50%. Table 16 Grading Scale for Company Scorecard

GRADE CATEGORY SCORE PROXIMITY TO STANDARD FINAL POINTS Fully Inclusive 90% or higher within 10% 4 Largely Inclusive 80-89% within 20% 3

Partially Inclusive 70-79% within 30% 2

Barely Inclusive 60-69% within 40% 1

Not Inclusive 59% or lower 50% or less 0

12 Similar to an academic scale, scores in each category were assigned a grade at intervals of 10% based on their proximity to the norm. Grades were awarded consistent with the scale outlined in Table 15. Each “grade” was further assigned points between 0 (Not Inclusive) and 4 (Fully Inclusive) and summed to establish an overall rating, calculated as a percentage out of 20 points possible. Results are discussed below, ﬁrst for ﬁlm and then for television/digital. Table 17 Film Distributor Inclusion Index

ON SCREEN PORTRAYAL BEHIND THE CAMERA

% OF FEMALE % OF UR % OF LGBT % OF % OF TOTAL CHARACTER CHARACTER CHARACTER FEMALE FEMALE COMPANY COMPANIES INCLUSION INCLUSION INCLUSION DIRECTORS WRITERS NORM

26% 21% <1% 4% 13% 21st Century Fox NOT INCLUSIVE BARELY INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 5% !"# !$# !"# !"# !"#

30% 23% <1% 9% 9% NBC Universal BARELY INCLUSIVE BARELY INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 10% !$# !$# !"# !"# !"#

29% 35% 1.3% 0% 13% Sony NOT INCLUSIVE FULLY INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 20% !"# !%# !"# !"# !"#

The Walt Disney 25% 22% <1% 0% 10% NOT INCLUSIVE BARELY INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 5% Company !"# !$# !"# !"# !"#

28% 9% 1.4% 0% 13% Time Warner NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 0% !"# !"# !"# !"# !"#

23% 36% <1% 9% 0% Viacom NOT INCLUSIVE FULLY INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 20% !"# !%# !"# !"# !"#

Note: A total of 109 movies were evaluated based on theatrical releases in 2014. Smaller divisions (e.g., art house, niche) were included from the following companies: 21st Century Fox (Fox Searchlight), NBC Universal (Focus Features), Sony (TriStar, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Classics), Time Warner (New Line Cinema).

For film, six companies were evaluated across all five indicators. CBS was not included because it released only two movies in 2014 that met the sampling criteria (Pride, What If). Every film company earned a Failing score on inclusivity. No film distributor earned a final inclusion score above 25% across all tests. Of the 30 tests conducted, 24 or 80% yielded a Not Inclusive ranking. Across all 30 tests, only two merited a Fully Inclusive designation.

Sony and Viacom both achieved a Fully Inclusive score when it comes to underrepresented characters and leads. These companies took steps to match audience demographics for their movies. Ensemble ﬁlms such as About Last Night and Think Like a Man Too contributed to Sony’s score. Similarly, Paramount’s movies Selma and Top Five were part of their 2014 slate. These ﬁlms included underrepresented characters at the center and should

13 be celebrated for increasing the overall inclusion scores at these companies. However, true inclusion not only involves films about a specific racial/ethnic group. Inclusion also requires integrating characters from multiple underrepresented backgrounds across an entire slate of films.

Table 18 Television & Digital Distributor Inclusion Index

ON SCREEN PORTRAYAL BEHIND THE CAMERA

% OF FEMALE % OF UR % OF % OF % OF CHARACTER CHARACTER FEMALE FEMALE FEMALE COMPANIES INCLUSION INCLUSION CREATORS WRITERS DIRECTORS NORM

36% 26% 7% 25% 13% 21st Century Fox PARTIALLY PARTIALLY NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 20% INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !"# !$# !$# !$#

38% 25% 22% 26% 15% CBS / Showtime PARTIALLY PARTIALLY NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 20% INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !"# !$# !$# !$#

39% 28% 14% 29% 13% NBC Universal PARTIALLY LARGELY NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 25% INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !"# !$# !$# !$# 40% 26% 43% 45% 21% The CW LARGELY PARTIALLY LARGELY FULLY INCLUSIVE PARTIALLY 70% INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !&# !'# INCLUSIVE !"#

The Walt Disney 47% 30% 40% 40% 19% FULLY INCLUSIVE LARGELY LARGELY LARGELY BARELY 70% Company !$# INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !&# INCLUSIVE !&# INCLUSIVE !%#

33% 25% 6% 17% 13% Time Warner BARELY PARTIALLY NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 15% INCLUSIVE !%# INCLUSIVE !"# !$# !$# !$#

40% 35% 32% 32% 18% Viacom LARGELY FULLY INCLUSIVE BARELY BARELY BARELY 50% INCLUSIVE !"# !$# INCLUSIVE !%# INCLUSIVE !%# INCLUSIVE !%#

47% 27% 31% 38% 28% Amazon FULLY INCLUSIVE PARTIALLY BARELY PARTIALLY FULLY INCLUSIVE 65% !$# INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !%# INCLUSIVE !"# !'#

50% 34% 39% 44% 5% Hulu FULLY INCLUSIVE FULLY INCLUSIVE PARTIALLY LARGELY NOT INCLUSIVE 65% !$# !$# INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !&# !$#

37% 28% 17% 18% 10% Netﬂix PARTIALLY LARGELY NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE NOT INCLUSIVE 25% INCLUSIVE !"# INCLUSIVE !"# !$# !$# !$#

Note: The networks included per company are as follows: 21st Century Fox (Fox, FX, FXX); CBS (CBS, Showtime); NBC Universal (NBC, USA, Bravo, Syfy, E!); The CW; The Walt Disney Company (ABC, Freeform, Disney, Disney Jr.); Time Warner (HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT, Adult Swim); Viacom (BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, Teen Nick, TV Land, Spike, VH-1), Amazon, Hulu, and Net- flix. Across these channels and platforms, 305 prime time and digital shows were evaluated. 14 As Universal learned in 2015, investing in an inclusive slate can prove to be a lucrative endeavor for a film distributor. It also bolsters the awards pipeline for actors from underrepresented groups. While not on the chart, CBS was Fully Inclusive of LGBT characters. This was due mainly to one of their two films, Pride, which focuses on the LGBT movement in the U.K. during the 1980s.

While there is some inclusivity across race/ethnicity and LGBT indicators, film offers women little access to creative roles on screen or behind the camera. All conglomerates fail with regard to inclusivity of girls and women. On screen, no company earns more than Barely Inclusive when it comes to representing females. Behind the camera, scores are far below standards set in this study. Improving the percentage of females in directing and writing positions may influence the representation of girls and women on screen as well. This would require ad- dressing exclusionary hiring practices for female directors in particular. These practices are related to gendered perceptions about the marketplace for film, beliefs about the number of qualified female directors, and even stereotypes about the masculine nature of the directing role.37

While companies failed on their ﬁlm scores, the television/digital scorecard paints an entirely diﬀerent picture. Ten organizations were rated on television/digital inclusivity. Of the 50 tests conducted, seven Fully Inclusive and nine Largely Inclusive scores were awarded. Companies earned 16 Not Inclusive scores across all tests. Although these overall grades reveal that there is still room for improvement across these indicators, there are a few very bright spots.

The Walt Disney Company and The CW Network are the top performers (70%) when it comes to inclusion in television. Disney succeeds in representing women and underrepresented characters on screen. Both companies evidence hiring practices behind the camera for writers and show creators that approach balance. Given that women ﬁll a greater share of the writing roles on programs distributed by these companies, it is not surprising that more females appear on screen. For instance, creators such as Lizzy Weiss (Switched at Birth), Susanna Fo- gel and Joni Le,owitz (Chasing Life), Jennie Snyder Urman (Jane the Virgin), or Leila Gerstein (Hart of Dixie) may be one reason these networks feature more girls and women. Additionally, notable show creators like Shonda Rhimes (Grey’s Anatomy), Kenya Barris (Blackish), and Nahnatchka Khan (Fresh Oﬀ the Boat) on ABC may contribute to the percentage of characters from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and Disney’s Largely Inclusive rating on this indicator.

Hulu and Amazon performed strongly (65%) due to their inclusivity of women. Amazon was the only company rated Fully Inclusive for hiring female directors. Here, the inﬂuence of Jill Soloway (creator and director on Trans- parent) is not the sole explanation for this score. The animated series Wishenpoof! hired a female director across multiple episodes, and other series featured female directors as well. Hulu was Largely Inclusive of female writers and Fully Inclusive of underrepresented characters. Clearly these streaming services understand the diversity of their audiences.

Viacom earned high marks for inclusion of female and underrepresented characters. This is due to more than just Viacom’s ownership of BET. Other networks across the Viacom family (i.e., Comedy Central, TV Land, MTV, VH-1, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite) also feature women (Another Period, Barely Famous, Finding Carter, Review) and people of color (Bella and the Bulldogs, Broad City, Instant Mom, Soul Man) prominently across their programming. Having a network focused on particular underrepresented audiences is important, but not solely responsible for all gains in inclusion for this company.

15 Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, and CBS all failed to receive a Largely Inclusive or Fully Inclusive grade on any of the ﬁve indicators, resulting in total scores that fell at 25% or below. Across these companies, it is clear that while a single salient example of an inclusive series (Girls, Empire) is important, it may create a misperception that representation is better than the data reveal. For these companies, inclusivity must be implemented across all properties as series and programs are developed, cast, and aired.

Evaluating inclusivity by company offers a unique perspective on where the entertainment industry is succeeding and failing. This analysis provides consumers with the ability to ascertain which organizations need to improve. Comparing film scores to television/digital yields a clear picture of where the industry as a whole has fallen behind. What this also reveals is that film is not beyond hope. While each film distributor failed on inclusion, several corresponding television/digital divisions reveal that improved performance is possible. These companies must be challenged to focus their efforts on film as well as television/digital, utilizing similar strategies—where appropriate—to boost their level of inclusivity across all divisions.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of the CARD study was to assess the landscape of media content distributed by major entertainment companies in 2014-15. We evaluated 414 stories distributed by 10 companies across ﬁlm, television, and digital platforms. In excess of 11,000 characters and over 10,000 individuals working behind the scenes were included. More than 1,500 employees were analyzed. Across each of these indicators, the evidence points to the reality that has drawn public notice and vocal response: Hollywood has a diversity problem.

Major Findings

The ﬁlm industry still functions as a straight, White, boy’s club. Girls and women are less than one-third of all speaking characters, and comprise a small percentage of directors and writers of the major studio and art house releases of 2014. Television/digital series are more balanced. Girls and women comprise 37.1% of characters and 42% of series regulars. Females also work more frequently behind the camera as directors and writers. Few women ﬁll top leadership roles in media companies, though they are more prevalent in EVP and SVP positions. Thus, as power increases, female presence decreases.

Characters from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups are also excluded or erased from mediated storytelling. No platform presents a proﬁle of race/ethnicity that matches proportional representation in the U.S. Over 50% of stories featured no Asian speaking characters, and 22% featured no Black or African American characters. The complete absence of individuals from these backgrounds is a symptom of a diversity strategy that relies on tokenistic inclusion rather than integration.

Just 2% of speaking characters were LGBT-identiﬁed and a mere seven transgender characters appeared in the sample of content—four of whom were in the same series. Moreover, LGBT characters were predominantly White and male. While over half of LGBT characters were depicted in committed romantic partnerships, less than one-quarter were shown as parents or caregivers. This latter ﬁnding is problematic given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and the gains made for LGBT families in the U.S.

16 Company Findings

The company scorecard illustrates that ﬁlm distributors are failing when it comes to representing their audience on screen and in their behind the camera hires. In ﬁlm, only two companies (Sony, Paramount) managed Full Inclusivity on any indicators—both due to their portrayal of underrepresented characters. Behind the camera, the conglomerates are sending a strong message to females, especially women of color. That message is, “Your talents are uninvited.”

Four companies (The CW, The Walt Disney Company, Amazon, Hulu) demonstrated strong performances across television and digital programming. While there are still places each organization can improve, representing females on screen is one arena where these companies are Largely or Fully Inclusive. Behind the camera, women are included as writers and/or creators (The CW, The Walt Disney Company, Hulu) or directors (Amazon). Clearly, the contributions and presence of women are valued at each of these companies.

Solutions for Change

To achieve inclusion, companies need to embrace new approaches. These strategies must involve more than simply “checking a box” when casting a film, series, or episode, or go beyond making a “diversity hire” behind the camera or in the executive suite. We have identified specific actions for film, television, and streaming companies to counter implicit and explicit biases.

Decide on target inclusion goals. Make these public and transparent to allow for external accountability. Recognize and alter stereotypical thinking and imagine counter-stereotypical examples before making a hiring decision or finalizing a script. Create checks and balances in the review of qualifications and storytelling decisions by implementing a system that requires careful processing to override cognitive biases. Build inclusive consideration lists for writers and directors by ensuring they contain 50% women and 38% people of color. Counter mythologizing in decision-making with evidence, especially related to the financial performance of films with female or underrepresented leads and/or directors. Continue to monitor progress. As with the CARD study, evaluation not only demonstrates where improvement is still needed, but where achievement has occurred.

The current state of media inequality requires multiple strategies, as different problems merit different solutions. On the whole, inclusivity requires creating an ecosystem in which different perspectives hold value and stories represent the world in which we live.

17 Finally, we would be remiss not to point out a few limitations with the CARD study. First, we did not examine genres of programming such as reality or talk shows. Second, content and director race/ethnicity were only evaluated for the ﬁrst episode of the series. Third, we did not include an analysis of producers. Lastly, the CARD study focuses on distributors of content, but production companies may arguably play a more important role in hiring and casting. While the network level in television and distributor-focused look at ﬁlm provide one way to think about diversity, examining the production of content may illuminate other pitfalls or pockets of progress for underrepresented groups.

Ultimately, the CARD study serves a crucial purpose in the midst of ongoing controversy surrounding diversity in Hollywood. Focusing on specific distributors, inclusion of cross-platform content, and examination of several different identity groups, the CARD study provides breadth and depth regarding the state of the industry in 2014-15. The findings reveal that while Hollywood still struggles to create inclusive content, there are companies leading the charge. Continued evaluation, increased advocacy, and greater transparency are necessary to transform an industry that has profited from invisibility into one that can celebrate inclusivity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to many individuals that helped us carry this project through to completion. First, a heartfelt thanks to Dr. Sarah Banet-Weiser for funding this investigation as the first large-scale signature study of the Insti- tute for Diversity and Empowerment at Annenberg (IDEA). Such an enormous study could not have been tackled without the financial support of IDEA. Dr. Carmen Lee was an incredible asset to our team during this process, and sacrificed her time to serve as a checking buddy—thank you, Carmen!

Thanks are also extended to the public aﬀairs team at USC Annenberg, with a particular nod toward Gretchen McCartney, Patricia Lapadula, and Jeremy Rosenberg. We consider you a part of our team and the release of this report would not have been the same without you. Many thanks to our development champions, Diana O'Leary and Tracy Mendoza, for their support and friendship. ASC Tech and the amazing student advisors at ASCJ support every project we complete. The information supplied by Geoﬀ Elsner at Variety Insight, Alanna De Castro at the WGA-West, Michael Kinter at SAG-AFTRA, and Lily Bedrossian at the DGA was enormously helpful.

We also want to acknowledge our MDSC Initiative supporters. In particular, The Harnisch Foundation, Jacquelyn & Gregory Zehner Foundation, Julie Parker Benello, Mari and Manuel Alba, and Anne Erickson and Richard Pellett provide the resources for our yearly research efforts and their commitment to us is invaluable. Our gratitude also extends to our strategic consultant, Leah Fischman, who has helped us steer the MDSC ship into uncharted waters for social change. Finally, we are completely thankful for our amazing team of undergraduate research assistants. Special mention goes to Angel Choi and Kevin Yao for their tireless efforts. Thanks also to our veteran research assistants who sacrificed nights and weekends to the project. We could never do this without you! And, a special thanks to Meryl at VI.

18 RESEARCH TEAM

Christopher Allison Samantha Cioppa Monica Hamilton Julia Neisloss Madeleine Sundberg McKenzie Amento Haley Coleman Miranda Hearst Alexa Nicoleyson Ella Tabares Alessandra Anderson Briana Cooper Alysia Hendry Taryn O’Grady Kayla Takemoto Kayla Ardebilchi Dylan DeLuca Peyton Herzog Joy Ofodu Danielle Toda Keana Asgari Anne-Marie DePauw Kamali Houston Ozodi Onyeabor Artur Tofan Sharon Bako Jessie DiRuggiero Koo Woun “Connie” Hur Alexa Patterson Rachel Toffler Christine Bancroft Emerald Douglas Jennifer Joh Laura Phillips Allison Toh Carson Beck Robert Duran Audrey Joung Mariafe Ponce Karina Tsang Sara Binder Mahima Dutt Maeve Kennard Lily Puglisi Amy Tseng Tara Bitran Jaime Edge Rachel Krusenoski Sophia Rendon Chasen Washington David Bloch Michael Edge Edward Lau Gabriel Rocha Elizabeth Weir Amanda Booker Sofia Elias Mikayla Lee Alekxa Rollins Dennis Woo Christian Bradley Jacob Ellenhorn Melody Scarlett Lee Leah E. Rubin Jennica Wragg Xiangyi Cai Megan Eme Derek Lin Jaeyoung Andy Ryu Zhiheng Xu Gabriella Caliendo Lauren Ferraco Kailin Luo Sabine Saldanha Kevin Yao Christina Canady Breanne Nicole Flores Wenting Mao Teryn Sampaga Zoe Young Celine Carrasco Tiffany Angela Fong Austi Marincovich Alexandra Schwartz Rachel Zacuto Daffany Chan Maya Getter Justin Marsden Yujin Seo Zacharie Star Zee Jason Cheng Tucker Gibson Avae Masaniai Leah Shamouni Zhiliang Leo Zhao Kelly Ching Alayna Glasthal Oriana Mejia Julia Shapiro Xin Zheng So Yoon Cho Emani Glee Kate Menne Ariel Smotrich Madison Zlotolow Angel Choi Briana Grubb Annabella Mineghino Michelle Spera Eun Seo “Ellen” Choi Xinjia Gu Daniella Mohazabab Sophia Stallone Isabelle Chua Jing Jia “Lucy” Guo Janae Monfort Jaide Stepter Anna Cieslukowski Howard Stephen Guy Amy Muramoto Claire Summers

APPENDIX A: LIST OF FILMS BY TITLE

22 Jump Street Devil’s Due Inherent Vice Non-Stop Transcendence 300: Rise of An Empire Dolphin Tale 2 Interstellar Only Lovers Left Alive Transformers: Age of A Million Ways to Die in Dracula Untold Into The Storm Other Woman, The Extinction the West Drop, The Into the Woods Ouija Unbroken A Walk Among the Dumb and Dumber To Jack Ryan: Shadow Paranormal Activity: The What If Tombstones Edge of Tomorrow Recruit Marked Ones When the Game Stands About Last Night Endless Love Jersey Boys Penguins of Madagascar Tall Alexander and the Terri- Equalizer, The Judge, The Planes: Fire & Rescue Whiplash ble, Horrible, No Good, Exodus: Gods and Kings Kill the Messenger Pompeii Wild Very Bad Day Fault in our Stars, The Labor Day Pride Winter’s Tale Amazing Spider-Man 2, Foxcatcher LEGO Movie, The Purge: Anarchy, The Wish I Was Here The Fury Let’s Be Cops Raid 2, The X-Men: Days of Future American Sniper Gambler, The Love is Strange Ride Along Past Annabelle Get On Up Lucy Rio 2 Annie Godzilla Magic in the Moonlight RoboCop As Above, So Below Gone Girl Maleﬁcent Selma Bad Words Grand Budapest Hotel, Maze Runner, The Sex Tape Belle The Million Dollar Arm Son of God Big Hero 6 Guardians of the Galaxy Mom’s Night Out Tammy Birdman Heaven is for Real Monuments Men, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Blended Hercules Mr. Peabody & Sherman Turtles Book of Life, The Hobbit: Battle of Five Mr. Turner That Awkward Moment Boxtrolls, The Armies Muppets Most Wanted Theory of Everything, Calvary Horrible Bosses 2 Need for Speed The Captain America: The How to Train Your Drag- Neighbors Think Like a Man Too Winter Soldier on 2 Night at the Museum: Third Person Dawn of the Planet of Hundred-Foot Journey, Secret of the Tomb This is Where I Leave the Apes The No Good Deed You Deliver Us From Evil If I Stay Noah Top Five 19 APPENDIX B: LIST OF CHANNELS BY COMPANY

21st Century Fox Warner Bros. & CBS Viacom FOX The CW BET FX Comedy Central FXX The Walt Disney Company MTV ABC Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite CBS Corporation Disney Channel Spike CBS Disney Junior Teen Nick Showtime Freeform TV Land VH-1 NBC Universal Time Warner Bravo Adult Swim Amazon E! Cinemax NBC HBO Hulu Syfy TBS USA TNT Netﬂix

FOOTNOTES Also, the aim of the study was to focus on distribution not produc- 1. Film distribution was determined via Box Office Mojo and con- tion. As a result, it did not matter whether a company produced or firmed via Studio System and/or IMDbPro.com. We stipulated, acquired first run television, digital, or feature film content. The however, that movies had to make at least $7.5 million theatrically goal was to assess what appeared on screen and behind the cam- if distributed by a major studio or $1 million if released by an art era when these companies distributed stories. Future research house division at the same company. should explore the relationship between production companies and matters of on screen and behind the camera inclusion. Eighty-three of the 2014 films in our sample were included in our 100 top grossing analysis released in August of 2015. A total of A few additional notes on sampling procedures are important. 26 new motion pictures were evaluated in this investigation. We First, we only sampled one show per season within every network did not assess 2015 films as the box office has not yet closed and in our sample time frame. If a television or digital series aired some of the movies (e.g., Star Wars, The Revenant) were not le- two or more seasons (e.g., The Real Husbands of Hollywood, The gally available to stream or purchase on DVD as of January 2016. Game) on the same network, we randomly selected one season to analyze. Second, one show ended a season on one network and 2. Scripted series were determined by the platform. For ad-sup- started a new season on another (i.e., American Dad!). Because ported content, all broadcast networks and “popular” basic both seasons were separate on two different networks, two epi- channels were selected. A channel appearing on Nielsen’s top 60 sodes of the series were included in the study. Third, some shows ranking of prime-time channels of 2014 (12/30/2013 to 12/23/2014) break seasons into halves or thirds (a, b, c). In these instances, or 2015 (12/29/2014-12/27/2015) determined popularity (see we only sampled the first episode of the entire season. Fourth, if rankers: http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cable-network-rank- an episode(s) of a series extended beyond December 31st, 2015, it er-2014/251092; http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cable-net- was not included in our behind the scenes analysis. work-ranker-2015/280768). A traditional definition of prime time was used, with content airing between 8:00 pm and 11:00 pm All scripted fictional shows streaming on Netflix, Amazon, and Monday through Saturday and 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm on Sunday. Hulu were assessed provided that the entire series (not just the Only two non ad supported basic channels were included in the pilot) was made available during the study’s sampling time frame sample: Disney Channel and Disney Jr. Premium cable included on the U.S. version of the streaming service. HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax. Only first run series on the flagship channels were included. Across all content, only shows airing Here is a breakdown of the total number of shows and channels from September 1st 2014 to August 31st 2015 in the U.S. were per company: Time Warner (n=34; HBO, Cinemax, TNT, TBS, Adult included in the sample. Swim); Walt Disney Company (n=47; ABC, Freeform, Disney, 20 Disney Jr.); NBC Universal (n=51; NBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, E!); CBS ed from Downs & Smith (2010, p. 725), sexually revealing clothing (n=38; CBS, Showtime); 21st Century Fox (n=35; Fox, FX, FXX); assesses whether the character was shown in tight and/or alluring Viacom (n=35; BET, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at apparel (no, yes). Nudity captured the degree to which exposed Nite, Spike, TeenNick, TV Land, VH-1); The CW (n=14); Netflix skin on a character’s body was shown (also adapted from Downs (n=32); Amazon (n=8); Hulu (n=11). A list of shows in the sample is & Smith, 2010, p. 725). There were three values: none, some (i.e., available upon request. exposed skin in breast, midriff, or high upper thigh region) or full (i.e., females=exposure of breasts or genital region; males=ex- 3. As noted earlier, an independent speaking character utters posure of genital region only). Exposure of the buttocks con- one or more discernible and overt words (of any language) on stituted partial nudity. For both sexually revealing clothing and screen. Non verbal utterances are not considered words. Char- nudity, the character had to posses a human or human-like body acters that are named are also considered speaking characters. to be applicable for these measures. Finally, a character’s level Under rare circumstances, a group of nearly identical characters of attractiveness was assessed. Attractiveness captures whether might speak at the exact same time or sequentially. Given their a character is verbally or nonverbally referenced as physically extreme homogeneous appearance, it is impossible to distinguish desirous by another character in the story. Each character was these characters from another. When this occurs, the coders are coded as receiving no references, one reference, or two or more instructed to “group” the identical characters and code them as references. All speaking characters were evaluated for their level one unit. Only 7 groups appeared across the sample of cinematic, of attractiveness. television, and digital stories evaluated. All groups were excluded prior to analysis. Every speaking character was also assessed for apparent sexuality. Apparent sexuality captured characters’ enduring physical at- One other caveat about speaking characters is important. There traction to other characters. Each character was coded as lesbian, are times when characters change demographics over the course gay, bisexual, or not. Characters were also assessed for whether of the plot. This may occur because a story features a flashback or not they were transgender. Transgender characters are those (Game of Thrones), a character transformation (e.g., Genie in who identify as the gender opposite of their biological sex. Aladdin), or because a character is shown substantially aging (e.g., Benjamin Button) across a storyline. If a character changed All research assistants were trained in a classroom type envi- type, sex, age grouping, or ethnicity, a new line was created. Only ronment prior to evaluating the sample of movies and scripted 366 characters were coded for a demographic change (3.2%). episodes. They received roughly 6 weeks of training and complet- Removing the demographic changes does not affect the overall ed multiple reliability diagnostics on unitizing and variable coding. distribution of gender across speaking characters (33.5% female Once this training period was completed, the research assistants without demographic changes; 33.5% female with demographic independently evaluated the sample. Because 83 movies in the changes). These results illuminate that the gender distribution of sample are part of our yearly top-grossing film report, we do demographic changes (n=366, 33.6% female, 66.4% male) mirror not include them in the reliability assessment below. Rather, the the overall pattern of character gender sample wide. It must be information on those top-grossing films can be found in Smith et noted that no demographic changes are included in analyses al.’s (2015) Inequality in 700 Popular Films: Examining Portrayals involving lead characters. of Gender, Race, and LGBT Status from 2007 to 2014. The entire approach used in this report is similar to what is found in Smith et 4. Each speaking character was assessed for form (i.e., single, al. (2015), save one difference. In the inequality report, the LGBT group), type (i.e., human, animal, supernatural creature, anthro- measures were assessed qualitatively whereas in this study they pomorphized supernatural creature, anthropomorphized animal), were quantitative in nature. sex (i.e., male, female), age (i.e., young child, elementary school aged child, teen, young adult, middle age, elderly), race/ethnic- Reliability was assessed on 305 episodes as well as 26 films. Two ity (i.e., White, Hispanic/Latino, Black, American Indian/Alaskan types of reliability were calculated for each movie and scripted Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Middle Eastern, show: unitizing and variable. Unitizing reliability was defined as Other/Mixed Race), and role (i.e., leading, supporting, inconse- the number of characters seen by 2 out of 3 coders. As with all quential). Characters’ parental status (i.e., non parent, single par- our reports, we delineate unitizing agreement by quartiles: Q1 (84 ent, co-parent, parent relational status unknown) and relational stories, 100% unitizing agreement); Q2 (85 stories, 100-94.1% standing (i.e., single, married, committed unmarried, committed unitizing agreement); Q3 (85 stories, 93.9%-88.6%); and Q4 (84 marital status unknown, divorced, widowed) was assessed. How- stories, 88.5%-61.5%). Only one story (Labor Day, film) fell below ever, these latter two measures were only applicable when enough 70%. A total of 16 stories had unitizing agreement less than 80% information was presented across the plot to render a judgment. (79.2%-61.5%). Clearly, unitizing agreement was very high across For all measures, two additional levels were available for coding: the sample. can’t tell and not applicable. In terms of variable reliability, the Potter & Levine-Donnerstein In terms of sexualization, three measures were evaluated. Adapt- (1999) calculation is used. For each variable, the sample wide 21 median coefficient is reported as well as the mean and range: and general web searches were utilized. Individuals were coded form=1.0 (M=1.0, range=1.0), type=1.0 (M=.99, range=.64-1.0), as male or female based on pronoun use (he, she), photographs, sex=1.0 (M=1.0, range=1.0), age=1.0 (M=.94, range=.65-1.0), or gender label (male, female). Two individuals were contacted race/ethnicity=1.0 (M=.99, range=.66-1.0), role=1.0 (M=.95, directly or their representatives queried to identify their biological range=.63-1.0), parental status=1.0 (M=.96, range=.43-1.0), sex. Two individuals could not be publicly identified. In these cas- relational standing= 1.0 (M=.95, range=.65-1.0), sexually re- es, we utilized babynames.com to determine biological sex. When vealing clothing=1.0 (M=.99, range=.61-1.0), nudity=1.0 (M=.99, organizations or companies were listed in any credits, the gender range=.63-1.0), attractiveness=1.0 (M=1.0, range=.63-1.0), ap- was coded as “not applicable.” parent sexuality=1.0 (M=1.0, range=.82-1.0), and transgender=1.0 (M=1.0, range=.81-1.0). 6. To categorize race/ethnicity, several sources of information were consulted: 1) Variety Insight’s designation of race/ethnicity; 5. The behind the scenes analysis was conducted separately for 2) Studio System’s designation of race/ethnicity; 3) other pub- film and television. Information on directors and writers across lic sources of information (e.g., news articles); 4) phone/email the sampled films was pulled from IMDbPro in January 2016. All contact with directors or their representatives; 5) Directors Guild credited directors and writers were assessed for biological sex. of America directory search for minority members. After each of these sources was utilized, the race/ethnicity of 9 directors of For television and digital content, information for each sampled live action television programs and 2 directors of animated films series was obtained from IMDbPro.com in Fall of 2015. This infor- could not be ascertained. In these cases, researchers utilized mation was updated in January 2016. When seasons were split photographs as well as historical information about families and throughout the year, only the first half (or first portion) of the sea- background to render a judgment of race/ethnicity. son was included. When series were cancelled, only the episodes that aired on television or cable networks (not online platforms) 7. A list of executives for each company included in the sample were analyzed. was obtained in late fall 2015 and updated in January 2016. The names of each member of the Board of Directors at 21st Century Research assistants identified all credited directors and writ- Fox, Amazon, CBS Corporation, Comcast NBC Universal, Netflix, ers from IMDbPro.com for each episode of the sampled series, Sony, Time Warner, Viacom, and The Walt Disney Company was according to the season sampled. When IMDbPro.com failed to obtained from each organization’s corporate website. Neither credit a writer or director for an episode, Studio System/inBase- Hulu nor The CW have a Board of Directors. Following this, the line was used. This could occur when there were no individuals names and titles of the executive officers at each parent company listed as writer or director or when no individual was given the were gathered from each organization’s corporate website. For solo “Writer” credit, or “Story/Story by” and “Teleplay” credits. three companies (Comcast NBC Universal, Sony, and Amazon) the Based on information from the Writers Guild of America West, the corporate suites included officers for non-entertainment busi- “Creator” or “Created by” credit was not sufficient to designate nesses owned by each company. The executive teams in charge an individual as the writer of an episode. Occasionally, the Studio of the entertainment divisions of those companies were included System database did not provide a reliable indication of writing and are the Executive Management Team. At the film and televi- or directing credits (e.g., crediting the same individuals across sion level, we only examined those companies or divisions tied the entire season; missing information). In these cases, research to the distribution businesses in our sample. Thus, no produc- assistants used screen shots from the episodes to determine who tion companies (even those held by the parent company) were was awarded directing and writing credit. Screen shots were used included in this process. However some businesses were com- for every episode of a series when information across IMDbPro. pletely intertwined with and unable to be divorced from the larger com and Studio System was not available or not reliable. distribution company (i.e., film studio production; some cable network production). Television studios (e.g., ABC Studios, NBC Creator judgments were made by examining listings in Variety Studios, Universal Cable Productions) were not included. Individu- Insight, IMDbPro.com, and Studio System for individuals desig- als working in production were found within these businesses and nated as “Creator” or “Developed by.” When sources disagreed, included in the overall analysis. information was sought to confirm the creator of the series. This included watching opening or closing credits of a show. Individu- Information from each company’s webpage and/or press site was als who were credited with the creation of source material (e.g., used to identify the executive leadership. Additionally, information novels, comics, characters, ideas, inspiration) were not consid- from Variety Insight was used to supplement information for each ered creators. company/division. Organizational charts were printed from Variety Insight and lists of employees used when organizational charts After directors, writers, and creators were identified, research as- were not available. For most companies/businesses we were sistants obtained information about the biological sex of all 10,705 able to gather the executives for film and television separately. credited indivduals. Industry databases (IMDbPro, Variety Insight, Two companies (Warner Bros. Entertainment and Sony Pictures Studio System), online networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), Entertainment) oversee both the film and television businesses. 22 Executives involved in television divisions at those companies and other sources) if they were credited on at least one episode were excluded. of the season. We used IMDbPro to ensure that a series regular listed on Variety Insight actually appeared during the season. For The unit of analysis was the executive and only individuals with voice talent, characters that were specifically mentioned and/or specific titles at each company were included in the evaluation. appeared in the 50% or more of season’s episodes (as determined Across the majority of companies’ websites, the lowest title by IMDbPro) were included as series regulars. Prior to the series included in senior leadership was Senior Vice President. There- regular analysis, all demographic changes were removed. fore, executives were only included in the analysis if they were ranked as Senior Vice President or higher (EVP, President, and 11. Chi-square analysis for series regular gender (male, female) by synonymous titles) within each organization. Head/Co-Head was platform (broadcast, cable, streaming) was not significant, X²(2, determined to be synonymous with SVP (based on co-occurrence 2,239)=1.25, p=.53, V*=.02. and positioning within each organization). These individuals were included as well. 12. The relationship between gender (male, female) and platform (broadcast, cable, streaming, film) for characters 40 years of age Biological sex was coded for each individual, using photos or or older was significant, X²(3, 3,789)=34.10, p<.01, V*=.09. online sources. For 8 individuals, information could not be obtained to determine biological sex. In these cases, babynames. 13. Chi-squares were significant for gender (male, female) and com was used to assign a biological sex based on the individual’s sexy attire (no, yes), X²(1, 10,760)=1,236.32, p<.01, phi=.34; nudity first name. Additionally, LinkedIn and Studio System/inBaseline (no, yes), X²(1, 10,759)=821.37, p<.01, phi=.28; and attractiveness were used to determine if executives had been promoted or left (no, yes), X²(1, 11,306)=290.06, p<.01, phi=.16. Prior to analy- their position. If it was possible to confirm that individuals had sis, the nudity variable was collapsed into two levels: no nudity, left or changed their position prior to February 1, 2016, they were some nudity (some, full). Similarly, physical attractiveness was removed from analysis. collapsed into a dichotomous measure at analysis: not attractive, attractive (one or more comments). 8. A chi-square revealed a significant relationship between character sex (male, female) and platform (broadcast, cable, stream- 14. For females, the relationship between platform (broadcast, ing, film), X²(3, 11,306)=89.74, p<.01, V*=.09. It must be noted cable, streaming, film) and sexually revealing clothing (no, yes) that 12 characters across the entire sample were coded as “can’t was significant: X²(3, 3,676)=34.09, p<.01, V*=.10. The associ- tell” for biological sex. These characters were not included in the ation between media platform and nudity was also significant, analysis. X²(3, 3,675)=40.26, p<.01, V*=.11. While the relationship between physical attractiveness and platform was significant (p <.05), the 9. Series regulars were obtained for each show based on the difference failed to reach 5%. season included in the sample. Variety Insight provides a list of actors who appear as series regulars for that season. All individ- 15. Fredrickson, B.L., & Roberts, T.A. (1997). Objectification theo- uals listed were coded as series regulars. According to a rep- ry: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental resentative for Variety Insight, “Series regulars are actors who health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,173-206. Roberts, are main cast or have an ongoing or “regular” role on the show” T.A., & Gettman, J.Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences (personal communication, 1/15/2016). Additionally, a representa- in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. tive from SAG-AFTRA indicated that series regulars were contract Sex Roles, 51(1/2), 17-27. Aubrey, J.S. (2006). Effects of sexually performers who were guaranteed a certain number of episodes objectifying media on self-objectification and body surveillance in throughout a season (personal communication, 1/15/2016). Fur- undergraduates: Results of a 2-year panel study. Journal of Com- ther confirmation was sought from Variety Insight that individuals munication, 56, 366-386. designated as “voice talent” were considered series regulars for animated programs. 16. An analysis revealed a relationship between director gender (male, female) and platform (broadcast, cable, streaming, film), 10. Variety Insight did not list series regulars or voice talent for X²(3, 4,284)=23.67, p<.01, V*=.07. 3.3% (n=10) of shows in our sample. In these instances, we turned to the following sources: Studio System (n=4), opening 17. Several sources from the Writers Guild of America West pro- credits of the show (n=3), IMDbPro episode credits (n=2), and vided insight on writing credits for film and episodic television. lastly, a series bible (n=1). We scrutinized every series regular These included the “Writing for Episodic TV” booklet (http://www. listed for the particular season of each series we analyzed. Actors wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx?id=156), screen credits noted as guest stars or with recurring, not regular, roles were not manual (http://www.wga.org/subpage_writersresources.aspx- included as series regulars in any analyses. If a series regular was ?id=167), and conversations with a credits representative (person- not coded using our methodology above, they were added to our al communication, 1/26/2015). This guidance revealed that only analyses (for actor gender and race/ethnicity using Variety Insight individuals designated as “Writer/Written by,” “Story/Story by,” 23 and “Teleplay/Teleplay by” should be credited as the writers for 25. Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix were not directly comparable to the episode. the rest of the sample with regard to assigned executive titles. For these companies a strata specific to each organization was 18. The analysis revealed writer gender (male, female) and plat- employed to separate those at highest level, second tier exec- form (broadcast, cable, streaming, film) were associated, X²(3, utives, and third tier employees. Top executives consisted of 6,421)=52.44, p<.01, V*=.09. Presidents, Chief Officers, and Chief Counsel (similar to the rest of the sample). At Amazon, VPs and Heads were placed on the EVP 19. Chi-square analysis revealed that show creator gender (male, level; Executives were placed on the SVP level. At Hulu, SVPs and female) and platform (broadcast, cable, streaming) were not Heads were placed on the EVP level; VPs and Senior Managers related: X²(2, 487)=.28, p=.87, V*=.02. were placed on the SVP level. At Netflix, VPs were placed on the EVP level; Directors were placed on the SVP level. This brought the 20. The relationship between director gender (female attached, three companies in line with the rest of the companies sampled. no female attached) and character gender (male, female) was sta- tistically significant, X²(1, 11,306)=9.91, p<.01, phi=.03. 26. U.S. Census Bureau (2015, June 25). https://www.census.gov/ newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html 21. Chi-square analysis revealed a significant association for character gender (male, female) by writer gender (female attached, no 27. The chi-square relationship between underrepresented charac- female attached), X²(1, 11,306)=121.50, p<.01, phi=.10. ter (no, yes) and media platform (film, broadcast, cable, streaming) was significant, X²(3, 10,444)=9.23, p<.05, V*=.03. 22. The association between show creator gender (male, female) and character gender (male, female) was significant, X²(1, 28. The relationship between series regular gender (male, female) 6,453)=91.33, p<.01, phi=.12. and platform (broadcast, cable, streaming) was not significant, X²(2, 2,175)=4.12, p=.13, V*=.04. 23. Executives at the following companies were included in this analysis: 21st Century Fox (20th Century Fox Studios—Fox 2000 29. Chi-square analysis for gender (male, female) by race/ethnicity Pictures, Fox Searchlight; Fox Networks Group—20th Century (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Other) was not significant, X²(4, Fox Television Group, Fox Broadcasting Company, FX, FXX), CBS 10,443)=6.61, p=.16, V*=.03. Corporation (CBS Films, CBS Entertainment, Showtime Networks), Comcast NBC Universal (Universal Filmed Entertainment—Uni- 30. For female characters, the chi-square analyses for race/ versal Pictures, Focus Features; NBC Entertainment; Bravo, E!, ethnicity (White, Black, Latino, Asian, Other) by sexually re- Syfy, USA Networks), Sony Pictures Entertainment (Sony Pictures vealing clothing [X²(4, 3,624)=14.70, p<.01, V*=.06]; nudity Motion Picture Group—Columbia Pictures, Screen Gems, Sony [X²(4, 3,622)=12.18, p<.05, V*=.06], and attractiveness [X²(4, Pictures Classics, TriStar Pictures), Time Warner (Warner Bros. En- 3,627)=13.30, p<.05, V*=.06] were all significant. tertainment—Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema; Home Box Office; Turner Broadcasting Systems--TBS, TNT, Adult Swim), Via- 31. The chi square analysis was significant between director race/ com (Paramount Pictures; Viacom Media Networks—BET, Comedy ethnicity (underrepresented vs. not underrepresented) and char- Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Spike, Teen Nick, TVLand, VH-1), and acter race/ethnicity (underrepresented vs. not underrepresented), The Walt Disney Company (Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; X²(1, 10,035)=185.34, p<.01, phi=.14. Disney-ABC Television Group--ABC Entertainment, Freeform, Disney Channels Worldwide), The CW Network, Amazon, Hulu, 32. Gates, G.J. (2011). How many people are Lesbian, Gay, Netflix. Bisexual, and Transgender? Report by The Williams Institute. Retrieved online: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/ 24. Top film executives are Chairs, Chief Executive Officers, and census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbi- Presidents at their respective film studios, of the film group, or the an-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/ subsidiary company of which the film studio is part. For television, top executives consist of Chairs, Chief Executive Officers, 33. While the U.S. Census indicates that females comprised 50.8% and Presidents of television groups, networks, or the subsidiary of the population in 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ company of which the television company is part. Executive Vice states/00000.html), for simplicity and data analytic purposes, we Presidents or Senior Vice Presidents whose titles also contained set the standard to an even 50%. “Chief Officer” were constrained to the EVP or SVP level when these titles co-occurred. Individuals were not allowed to duplicate 34. In general, a character’s sexuality may be revealed over the if they maintained their position across multiple companies in the course of the story’s plot. In films, the entire plot was captured in analysis in television or film (e.g., A President of multiple cable the sampled content. In television/digital series, the plot unfolds networks was only counted once). across a season rather than in a single episode. Thus, additional information revealed in episodes aired after the season premiere 24 might alter the coding of characters’ sexuality. As this information was not available in the episode sampled, the measure is not reported to allow for flexibility in scoring for television and streaming companies.

35. Gates, G.J. (2011).

36. Smith, S.L., Pieper, K., & Choueiti, M. (2015). Gender & Short Films: Emerging Female Filmmakers and the Barriers Surrounding Their Careers. Report prepared for LUNAFEST.

37. Smith, S.L., Pieper, K., & Choueiti, M. (2015). Exploring the Ca- reers of Female Directors: Phase III. Report prepared for Sundance Institute and Women in Film Los Angeles Female Filmmakers Initiative. Los Angeles, CA.

25 MDSC Initiative - 1! ! *Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content held in the Hand of the Black Director?

Dr. Stacy L. Smith, Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper

Media Diversity & Social Change Initiative University of Southern California twitter: @MDSCInitiative

This analysis examines race/ethnicity on screen and behind the camera across 500 popular films theatrically released in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012. In terms of on screen depictions, we evaluate every independent speaking character. Over 20,000 speaking characters are coded for apparent race/ ethnicity as well as demographic traits and hypersexuality indicators. We also appraise whether each film has a black director. We highlight 2012 findings in the report and reference over time trends.

Key Findings

Prevalence. Across 100 top-grossing films of 2012, only 10.8% of speaking characters are Black, 4.2% are Hispanic, 5% are Asian, and 3.6% are from other (or mixed race) ethnicities. Just over three-quarters of all speaking characters are White (76.3%). These trends are relatively stable, as little deviation is observed across the 5-year sample.

We also look at the total percentage of Black speaking characters per film in 2012. Almost 40% of all 2012 movies portray Black characters as less than 5% of the speaking cast. Only 9% of films show Black characters as 12-14.9% of the cast, which dovetails the 2012 US Census percentage (13.1%). A full 70% of the 2012 films feature Black characters in a percentage below that of the US Census.

The percentages of female speaking characters who are Hispanic (33.9%), Black (34.6%), and Asian (34.8%) are greater than the percentages of White females (28.8%) and females from other ethnicities (16.1%). Although we see more women from certain racial/ethnic categories, compared to their male counterparts, females in every group are still under represented.

Portrayal. Hispanic females (41.1%, 39.3%) are more likely to be depicted in sexy attire and partially naked than Black (31.8%, 30.5%) or White females (32.8%, 32.3%). Asian females (15.7%, 15.7%) are far less likely to be sexualized. Domestic roles did not vary for females by race/ethnicity, but differences emerged for males. Hispanic males are more likely to be depicted as fathers and relational partners than males in all other racial/ethnic groups. Black males, on the other hand, are the least likely to be depicted in these roles.

Behind the Camera. Across 565 directors of the top-grossing films from 2007-2012, only 33 (5.8%) are Black. This translates into a ratio of over 16 non Black directors working to every 1 Black director. There are only 2 Black females who directed a film across the 500 movies in the sample. Some of the sample films are helmed by the same individual. Counting directors only once, 22 unique Black directors appear across the 500-film sample.

When a non Black director helms a picture, only 9.9% of the on screen speaking characters are Black. When a Black director is in this leadership role, 52.6% of all speaking characters on screen are Black. This represents a 42.7% increase.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 2! ! *Race/Ethnicity in 500 Popular Films: Is the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content held in the Hand of the Black Director?

Dr. Stacy L. Smith

Marc Choueiti, & Dr. Katherine Pieper

Media Diversity & Social Change Initiative Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism twitter: @MDSCInitiative

This secondary analysis examines race/ethnicity on screen and behind the camera across 500 popular films theatrically released in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012.1 In terms of on screen depictions, we evaluate every independent speaking character. A speaking character is any living being on screen that 1) utters one or more words discernibly and independently, or 2) is referred to by name somewhere across the plot.2 This investigation assesses demographic traits (gender, parental status, romantic relationship) as well as hypersexuality indicators (sexy attire, nudity) for all speaking characters.3

Only significant (p < .05) and meaningful (5% or greater) differences are reported. Over 20,000 speaking characters are coded for apparent race/ethnicity in this study. We also appraise whether each film has a black director (no/yes). We present four main findings below, highlighting 2012 results and then referencing over time trends on some measures.

#1 Popular Films are Still Washed in White

Of those speaking characters whose race/ethnicity could be ascertained across 100 top-grossing films of 2012, only 10.8% are Black, 4.2% are Hispanic, 5% are Asian, and 3.6% are from other (or mixed race) ethnicities. Just over three-quarters of all speaking characters are White (76.3%). These trends are relatively stable, as little deviation is observed across the 5-year sample (see Table 1). As a point of comparison, a full 44% of movie tickets sold domestically were purchased in 2012 by non Caucasians, according to the MPAA (2013). Twenty-six percent of tickets were sold to Hispanics, 11% to African Americans and 7% to people from other ethnicities. Using these MPAA percentages, Hispanics are the most under represented group on screen, as listed in Table 1. Table 1 Apparent Race/Ethnicity of Characters in Top-Grossing Films: 2007-2012

Year White Hispanic Black Asian Other 2007 77.6% 3.3% 13% 3.4% 2.5% 2008 71.2% 4.9% 13.2% 7.1% 3.5% 2009 76.2% 2.8% 14.7% 4.7% 1.5% 2010 77.6% 3.9% 10.3% 5% 3.3% 2012 76.3% 4.2% 10.8% 5% 3.6%

Note: Other is combined to include American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and characters with two or more apparent racial/ethnic origins.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 3! ! The gender prevalence in top-grossing 2012 films is examined across racial/ethnic categories.4 The percentages of female speaking characters who are Hispanic (33.9%), Black (34.6%), and Asian (34.8%) are greater than the percentages of White females (28.8%) and females from other ethnicities (16.1%). Although we see more women from certain racial/ethnic categories, compared to their male counterparts, females in every group are still under represented (see Table 2).

Table 2 Apparent Race/Ethnicity of Males and Females in Top-Grossing Films: 2012

White Hispanic Black Asian Other Males 71.2% 66.1% 65.4% 65.2% 83.9% Females 28.8% 33.9% 34.6% 34.8% 16.1% Ratio 2.48 to 1 1.95 to 1 1.89 to 1 1.87 to 1 5.21 to 1

Note: Other is combined to include American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and characters with two or more apparent racial/ethnic origins.

We also look at the percentage of Black speaking characters per film in 2012 (see Figure 1). Almost 40% of all 2012 movies portray Black characters as less than 5% of the speaking cast. Only 9% of films show Black characters as 12-14.9% of the cast, which dovetails the 2012 US Census percentage (13.1%).5 A full 70% of the 2012 films feature Black characters in a percentage below that of the US Census.

Figure 1 Percentage of Black Characters per Movie in 100 Top-Grossing Films: 2012

53.6-66.7% of cast is Black 2%

8% 20-46.7% of cast is Black

14% 38% 15.4-19.6% of cast is Black 9% 12-14.9% of cast is Black 28%

5.1-11.8% of cast is Black

0-4.8% of cast is Black

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 4! ! Figure 2 Female Hypersexuality Indicators by Race/Ethnicity: 2012

50%

41.1% 39.3% 40%

32.8% 32.3% 31.8% 30.5% 30%

Sexy Attire 20% 15.7% 15.7% Nudity

10%

0% White Hispanic Black Asian Characters Characters Characters Characters

#2 Characters’ Race/Ethnicity and Gender is Associated with Hypersexualization and Domestic Roles

Indicators of sexualization and stereotyping across four racial/ethnic groups (White, Hispanic, Black, Asian) are examined separately for females and males in 2012 films. As Figure 2 shows, Hispanic females (41.1%, 39.3%) are more likely to be depicted in sexy attire (tight and/or revealing clothing) and partially naked (exposing skin between mid chest and high upper thigh) than Black females (31.8%, 30.5%) or White females (32.8%, 32.3%).6 Asian females (15.7%, 15.7%) are far less likely to be sexualized than their non Asian female counterparts. A slightly different picture emerges for males. Black males (10.9%) are more likely to be shown in sexualized clothing than are Hispanic (2.7%) or Asian (3.8%) males. No differences emerge for male nudity by race/ethnicity (White=9.3%, Hispanic=5.4%, Black=10.9%, Asian=7.5%).

Table 3 Male Domesticated Roles in 2012 Films by Race/Ethnicity

Measures White Black Hispanic Asian Caregivers 45% 26.7% 83.3% 50% Partners 54.9% 43.3% 92.3% 50%

Turning to domesticated roles, female race/ethnicity is not associated with caregiver status or relational status.7 For males, however, both of these variables are related to race/ethnicity (see Table 3). Of those characters that possess enough information for research assistants to evaluate parental status, Hispanic males are more likely to be depicted as fathers than males in all other groups.8 Asian (50%) males are more likely to be portrayed as caregivers than are White males (45%), who, in turn, are more likely than Black males (26.7%). Focusing on those characters

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 5! ! with enough cues to assess relational status, Hispanic males (92.3%) are far more likely to be shown in a romantic relationship than are White (54.9%) or Asian (50%) males. Black males (43.3%) are the least likely to be depicted in a committed relationship.

Table 4 Black Directors by Gender in Top-Grossing Films: 2007-2012

Measures 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 Total Black 7.1% 4.5% 6.3% 4.6% 4.9% 5.5% Males (n=8) (n=5) (n=7) (n=5) (n=6) (n=31) Black 1.8% <1% 0 0 0 0 Females (n=2) (n=2) Total # of Directors 112 112 111 109 121 565

Note: The number of Black directors may include the same individual directing more than one movie per year (e.g., Tyler Perry). The top 100 films from 2011 are not included in the investigation.9

#3 Few Black Directors Work Behind the Camera

We also evaluate whether the director of every film is Black (see Table 4). Across 565 directors of the top-grossing films from 2007-2012, only 33 (5.8%) are Black (range=5-8 per year). This translates into a ratio of over 16 non Black directors working to every 1 Black director. The overall five year total (5.8%) and yearly percentage are both well below the 2012 Census percentage of Blacks/African Americans in the US (13.1%). There are only 2 Black females who directed a film across the 500 movies in the sample.10 Some individuals helm more than one film evaluated in the study (e.g., Antoine Fuqua, Tyler Perry, Tim Story). If we remove duplicates, only 22 unique Black directors appear across the 500 film sample (see Table 5).

Table 5 Black Directors Working in Top-Grossing Films Between 2007-2012

Philip G. Atwell Albert Hughes Peter Ramsey Damien Dante Wayans Lee Daniels Allen Hughes Tim Story Sylvain White Antoine Fuqua Malcolm D. Lee David E. Talbert Preston A. Whitmore II F. Gary Gray Tyler Perry George Tillman Jr. George C. Wolfe Sanaa Hamri Gina Prince-Bythewood Mark Tonderai Anthony Hemingway Olatunde Osunsanmi Denzel Washington

#4 Black Directors May Hold the Key to Diversifying Cinematic Content

Across the 500 film sample, the relationship between director race (Black vs. not Black) and race of character portrayed on screen (Black vs. not Black) is significant (see Figure 3).11 When a non Black director helms a picture, only 9.9% of the on screen speaking characters are Black. When a Black director is in this leadership role, 52.6% of all speaking characters on screen are Black. This represents a 42.7% increase. It may be the case that Black directors are telling stories populated by characters and themes that resonate with their own cultural experiences.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 6! ! Alternatively, financiers and studios may be more likely to attach a Black director to stories that feature Black characters and storylines.

Conclusion

The results from this analysis show that popular films under represent Black characters and Black directors, in comparison to US Census. Almost 40% of the movies portray Black characters in less than 5% of all speaking roles. Stories involving historic time periods or specific places devoid of diversity can explain some of the lack of inclusivity in these movies. However, these types of narratives cannot fully account for the fact that 38% of the 100 top- grossing movies of 2012 feature Black characters at percentages well below the US Census. Clearly, diversifying casts and depicting the US as a multi-racial and multi-ethnic country is not important to many working Hollywood storytellers.

In terms of portrayals, two gendered patterns emerge. First, race/ethnicity is associated with female hypersexualization. Hispanic females are more likely to be shown with exposed skin and in provocative clothing than females in other racial/ethnic categories. Additionally, almost a third of White and Black females are shown in a sexualized light. These patterns suggest that many females in film are still functioning as attractive eye candy, which may contribute to and/or reinforce females’ self objectification, body shame, and appearance anxiety.12 As such, repeated viewing of these types of portrayals may teach younger males and females that women are valued for how their bodies look rather than who they are.

Figure 3 Percentage of Black Characters On Screen by Director Race

% of Black Characters On Screen 60% 52.6%

40%

20%

9.9%

0% No Black Director Black Director !

Second, domesticated roles vary for male characters by race/ethnicity but not for female characters. In particular, Black males are the least likely to be portrayed as fathers and relational

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 7! ! partners in comparison to males in the other racial/ethnic groups. This is a missed opportunity for young Black males to see Black men in caring, domesticated roles in film.

Across the 500 film sample, only 33 Black directors are behind the camera and only two are female. Despite the Civil Rights movement and programs to increase diversity on screen and behind the scenes in Hollywood, the representation of people of color has not changed over the 5 years investigated. Different strategies for change are needed to alter the representational stalemate that is depicted in top-grossing films.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 8! ! Notes

1. This investigation is a secondary analysis of a report released on May 13, 2013 focusing on the status of females on screen and behind the camera in top-grossing films. Here, we assess race/ethnicity, which was not covered in the previous report. All of the study's methodology including films sampled, measures used, and reliability reported can be found on Dr. Stacy L. Smith's USC website: http://annenberg.usc.edu/Faculty/Communication%20and%20 Journalism/SmithS.aspx

2. The primary unit of analysis for all of our research is the independent speaking character. Groups were only coded when two or more identical or nearly homogeneous characters spoke sequentially on screen, thus making the independence of characters impossible to ascertain. Few characters meet this stringent “group” definition, with only 3 groups coded in 2012.

3. All of the study's measures are outlined in our earlier investigation. However, this investigation focuses on race/ethnicity. All available information was used to assess this variable for on screen speaking characters including: physical features, language/accent, knowledge about race/ethnicity included in the plot. There were 8 values for this variable: White, Hispanic, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian, Middle Eastern, Other. Coders also used can't tell (e.g., a character speaks but there is a lack of information needed to assign race/ethnicity) and not applicable (e.g., non speaking animals that are named).

4. Those individuals whose apparent race/ethnicity was categorized as “can’t tell” were not included in this analysis. Differences were associated with characters’ apparent race/ethnicity and biological sex, X2 (4,045, 4)=23.59, p< .05, V*=.08.

5. US Census (2012), see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/ 00000.html.

6. Sexually revealing clothing (SRC) and some nudity are both associated with female characters' race/ethnicity; SRC= X2 (1,152, 3)=10.90, p< .05, V*=.10, nudity= X2 (1,152, 3)=10.03, p< .05, V*=.09. In terms of sexually revealing clothing, a significant association emerged with male characters’ race/ethnicity, X2 (2,722, 3)=12.61, p< .05, V*=.07. A non significant relationship was observed for race/ethnicity by male characters' nudity: X2 (2,722, 3)=3.46, p>.05, V*=.04.

7. No differences emerged for females' race/ethnicity and parental status (p=.96) or relational status (p=.54).

8. Chi-square analyses were significantly associated with male characters’ race/ethnicity for parental status and relational status, respectively: X2 (429, 3)=11.34, p< .05, V*=.16; X2 (440, 3)=9.125, p< .05, V*=.14.

9. The investigation assessed the top-grossing films from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012. Thus, the highest grossing domestic movies from 2011 are not included in this analysis. In some cases, double features were included in the top 100 list (2007, 2009). See our prior research report for details on how we handled these films.

10. In our earlier report on Black characters and Black directors, a reporting error was detected for 2008 films. Two Black females (Gina Prince-Bythewood, Sanaa Hamri) directed films in 2008, not one.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 9! ! 11. A significant character race/ethnicity by director race (Black vs. not Black) was significant, X2 (20,053, 1)=1,836.94, p< .05, phi=.30.

12. Aubrey, J. S. (2006). Effects of sexually objectifying media on self"objectification and body surveillance in undergraduates: Results of a 2"year panel study. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 366- 386. Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self- objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 649-657. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206. Roberts, T.A., & Gettman, J.Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 51(1/2), 17-27.

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 10! ! Acknowledgements

We would be remiss not to mention individuals that helped facilitate the completion of this report. Special thanks go to Drs. Larry Gross and Ernest Wilson. We are also indebted to the continued support of the individuals in the following ASCJ posts: Business Office, Communication Director's Office, Dean's Suite, and ASC Technology and Facilities. Of course, the heart and soul of this research process is our amazing team of current and former students. We are tremendously grateful for Ashley Prescott, whose dedication to the team, eagerness to help, and good humor were always priceless. Our veteran "staff" was exceptional, with a particular nod to the sustained and meticulous efforts of Ariana Case, Stephanie Gall, Rosan Hsu, Yu-Ting "Tingers" Liu, Eliza Scofield, and Mojo Tuheen. It goes without saying that we could not have completed this project without the help of the 66 USC undergraduates listed below. You are the best!

Undergraduate Research Team

Marisa Andrade Kayla Nazdam Adriana Arango Charlotte Ness Lionel Batoba Luis Nevarez, Jr. Sarah Block Janet Ocampo Douglas Borchert Jun Ho Park Jessamy Carter Katie Phan Ariana Case Christopher Pousson Mitchell ‘Mitch’ Cavender Tanya Prouty Shian Ann Chia Janna Prowell Natalie Cohen Lily Puglisi Samantha Dickens Michael Ramires Eleanor Doran Billy J. Ramos Kathryn Durkee Vanessa Rivero Karim Elachkar Jane Rhodes Landy Eng, Jr. William Robinson Jordan Gary Alexander Rose Natalie Genini Jonathan Rowe Jennifer Gamez Jordan Schroer Kevin Graf Elizabeth Scofield Brianna Guttman Lauren Shapiro Jennifer Hang Hannah Sloan Sawyer Harris Alexa Smith Rachel Ho Erica Smith Jo-Shan ‘Rosan’ Hsu Alexandra Steadman Grace Huang Vanessa Tan Aimee ‘Jordan’ Jefferson Sareen Tavidian Katrina Karl Grace Tran Grace Kim Mahjabin ‘Mojo’ Tuheen Yu-Ting Liu Viviann Ur Andrea Lowitz Samuel Weiser Nicolas McManus Cody Wilder Saira Mirza Jaclyn Wu Amy Muramoto Youli Zheng

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! MDSC Initiative - 11! ! Appendix B List of 2012 Films in the Sample

Marvel's The Avengers Think Like a Man Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog The Dark Knight Rises The Campaign Days The Hunger Games The Expendables 2 Sinister Skyfall Wrath of the Titans Beauty and the Beast (3D) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Jack Reacher Savages (2012) Journey Dark Shadows The Best Exotic Marigold The Twilight Saga: Breaking Parental Guidance Hotel Dawn Part 2 John Carter Moonrise Kingdom The Amazing Spider-Man Act of Valor Here Comes the Boom Brave This Is 40 Red Dawn (2012) Ted Contraband The Three Stooges Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Looper Star Wars: Episode I - The Wanted Tyler Perry's Madea's Witness Phantom Menace (3D) Dr. Seuss' The Lorax Protection Resident Evil: Retribution Wreck-It Ralph Battleship The Cabin in the Woods Lincoln Pitch Perfect What to Expect When You're MIB 3 Mirror Mirror Expecting Django Unchained Chronicle (2012) Finding Nemo (3D) Ice Age: Continental Drift Hope Springs End of Watch Snow White and the Huntsman Underworld Awakening Rock of Ages Les Miserables (2012) The Lucky One Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hotel Transylvania The Dictator Hunter Taken 2 Total Recall (2012) Lawless 21 Jump Street Titanic (3D) The Guilt Trip Argo American Reunion That's My Boy Silver Linings Playbook ParaNorman Trouble with the Curve Prometheus This Means War The Watch Safe House Project X Frankenweenie The Vow The Woman in Black Step Up Revolution Life of Pi Paranormal Activity 4 Tyler Perry's Good Deeds Magic Mike The Devil Inside Monsters, Inc. (3D) The Bourne Legacy The Odd Life of Timothy House at the End of The Journey 2: The Mysterious Green Street Island Ghost Rider: Spirit of The Pirates! Band of Misfits Rise of the Guardians Vengeance Joyful Noise Zero Dark Thirty The Grey The Five-Year Engagement Flight Red Tails Cloud Atlas The Possession One For the Money

*Funded by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! © Dr. Stacy L. Smith 2013! ! 7RZDUGD7KLUG:DYH:K\0HGLD0DWWHUVLQ$VLDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHV

5HQHH7DMLPD3HxD

-RXUQDORI$VLDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHV9ROXPH1XPEHU)HEUXDU\ SS $UWLFOH

3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV '2,MDDV

)RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH

Access provided by Yale University Library (6 Aug 2016 09:56 GMT) 94 s *!!3 s

community actors in a much more meaningful and integral way. Faculty would be more likely to engage in consulting work, whether paid or pro bono, and progressive or otherwise. Finally, journalists will grow accustomed to seeing many more faculty who are expert at engaging with external audiences, and public officials will be much more likely to hear from constituencies that are touched by the work of university faculty. Incentives and norms, while critical, are only half the picture. We also need to add public engagement to our training, from early in graduate school through the promotion of senior faculty. Thus, for example, scholarly conferences should hold regular training sessions in making faculty more effective users of social media such as Twitter. Universities need to increase the quantity and quality of staff who can train and support faculty in their public engagement, from intensive training on how to engage with journalists to helping faculty to build better web sites, write and place more op-eds, and to produce more specialized work such as legislative committee testimony. While hiring more support staff in public and community outreach may cost the university in the short term, this will almost certainly pay off handsome dividends in the longer term—with alumni, parents, donors, legislators, and the larger public having a much greater awareness and appreciation for the work of the academy. Finally, it goes without saying that the very things that increase our ability to engage with external audiences will also improve our capacity to speak across disciplines to each other. We can still have our venues for more specialized and technical work, but we will also have new, institutionally supported spaces that encourage us to be better understood, to each other and to the larger society that supports our work.

Toward a Third Wave: Why Media Matters in Asian American Studies

renee tajima-peña

This is a manifesto, a call for advancing a third wave of collaboration among artists, scholars, and community to make media matter once again in Asian American studies. I am not referring to simply screening films in the classroom or researching web content, but rather a deeper engagement in the production of knowledge, the creation of culture, and, ultimately, the advancement of social justice. It is a call to marshal all of our resources, whether intellectual, creative, or the power of social action. Interactive, online technologies unleash new possibilities, such as “footnoting” a film online, heightening the experiential power Editor’s Forum: Whither Interdisciplinarity? s 95 of visual knowledge through gaming, and delivering content on digital platforms that expand the reach of Asian American studies. Back to the future of the origins of Asian American independent media production: In its first wave during the 1970s, filmmaking functioned as a cultural organ of the Asian American movement. Tasked with constructing the narrative of political identity and influenced by eclectic, cultural shape shifters from Fer- nando Solanas and Octavio Getino’s theory of third cinema, to Mao’s art for the people, Ozu, and American alternative film, the work resisted racist images while building new forms and representations. One of the earliest of the genre is Robert Nakamura’s classic documentary Manzanar (1972), in which he both reclaimed the buried history of Japanese American concentration camps and imagined a new aesthetics. A few years later, Curtis Choy’s tour de force Dupont Guy: The Schiz of Grant Avenue (1975) was a rapper’s delight meets rage against the culture machine that detonated any notion of flaccid assimilation. Filmmakers worked alongside scholars, students, and activists in the production of individual work and the establishment of institutions like New York’s Asian Cine-Vision, the Boston Asian American Resource Workshop, Seattle’s King Street Media, Los Angeles’s Visual Communications, and the Center for Asian American Media (formerly the National Asian American Telecommunications Association), based in San Francisco but established as the only national Asian American media arts center. We saw ourselves as interrelated moving parts of a larger Asian American movement, mobilizing collectively against U.S. aggression in Asia and for ethnic studies, labor rights, gender rights, equality in health care housing, and education. I worked in the early 1980s as the director of Asian Cine-Vision in New York’s Chinatown. We were a few doors down East Broadway from the Chinatown History Museum that historian Jack Tchen was launching, and nearby were the Basement Workshop art and literature collective, the Chinese Progressive Association, the Chinatown Health Clinic, and any number of community-focused organizations. We mounted film programs at the Chatham Square Library mod- erated by Asian American academics. Sometimes recent immigrants from China complained about the postscreening discussions. It reminded them of reeducation sessions during the Cultural Revolution. We were very, very young. The Japanese American movement for redress and reparations during that time epitomizes the collaborative spirit, with former internees, lawyers, academics, community and movement activists, and politicians all playing interconnected roles. Films such as Steven Okazaki’s Unfinished Business and Loni Ding’s Nisei Soldier gave the history an essential human dimension. Crews from Asian American media arts centers filmed testimony and interviews with former internees that 96 s *!!3 s

could be used to encourage others to come forward and participate in hearings of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC). With no Internet streaming, we “bicycled” tapes through the U.S. postal service. John Esaki at Visual Communications in Los Angeles would mail tapes to New York. We would then haul a television set and a gargantuan early VCR to a church basement or someone’s living room, and show the tapes at emotionally charged and transformational, internee workshops to prepare for the CWRIC hearings. The findings of the Commission, Personal Justice Denied, set the foundation for the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The second wave of Asian American independent media, beginning in the 1980s, was distinguished by the sweeping demographic change of new immigration in Asian American communities, and increasing professionalization and specialization of community, the arts, and the academy. Filmmakers competed for broadcast slots, faculty vied for tenure, activists ran for office. The pressures of legitimization encouraged a distance from our subjects and each other, and we became embedded in our own professional cultures and languages. Who ever used the terms subaltern or uprez outside the academy or the edit room? Who would ever perceive an assistant to be a best boy and Fido to be a companion species, a daily to be a roll of film or a text to be anything and everything? As we became increasingly aligned with our fields, and less so the movement, the differences were heightened. A filmmaker’s concern for journalistic integrity, experimenta- tion with aesthetics, or insistence at producing a lengthy festival version of his or her film may conflict with a community group’s interest in advocacy, legibility to many audiences, and brevity for use in organizing contexts. Filmmakers may find dense language and abstractions in scholarly writing to be frustrating. Likewise, scholars may rankle at the lack of rigor in film, where character, storytelling, and drama take precedence over data and theory. A caveat. That second wave was also a time of substantial, and inevitable progress. A calling could now be a day job. Community health clinics delivered better care, labor organizations worked transnationally, filmmakers moved beyond the obligation of positive portrayals and, alongside Asian American scholars, expanded the scope and complexity of inquiry and representation. Similarly, collaborative social-change-oriented work has never abated. The UCLA Center for EthnoCommunications, established by Robert Nakamura, and the UC Santa Cruz Social Documentation Program were established to train students in the theory and practice of social change media through the merger of art, activism, and the academy. Similar programs and courses have been taught by Loni Ding at UC Berkeley, Ming Ma at Pitzer College, Valerie Soe at San Francisco State Editor’s Forum: Whither Interdisciplinarity? s 97

University, and others. Also at Berkeley, Elaine Kim, in conjunction with Asian Women United of San Francisco, has produced interdisciplinary work for over three decades. New affordable and online technologies meant that media production could be further democratized and politicized, and proliferate among emerging immigrant communities. Witness the camcorder diaries produced by Southeast Asian youth who were trained by filmmaker Spencer Nakasako at the Vietnamese Youth Development Center in San Francisco’s Tenderloin. Coast to coast, from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance representing large numbers of South Asian drivers to Dreamers in Los Angeles, small-format video posted online has been used as an organizing tool. Why a third wave now? We are in a transitional moment. Digital and visual forms of knowledge have become ubiquitous, pushing out traditional forms like print journalism and innovating new ones. Asian Americans were early adapt- ers, and there has long been a robust community online, not only limited to the YouTube celebrities like Michelle Pham and Kev Jumba. In the early aughts, when the digital divide seemed almost insurmountable, I encountered Vietnamese meat packers while filming in small rural towns of southwestern Kansas. Whole families of adults worked in plants, often taking on grueling double shifts that left little time for community. There was not even a collective Tet celebration, yet people were plugged in to virtual communities on the Internet. Around the same time, Phil Yu launched his Angry Asian Man blog, an essential online venue that combines the analysis, irreverence, and energy of a Gidra, Bridge, and A Magazine. Ethnic studies and the humanities and social sciences as a whole have been slow to adapt to this fast-evolving cultural landscape. But there is great opportunity, and in any case, there’s no stopping history. A third wave would draw from our activist origins yet acknowledge the distinct identities of each field in a way that deploys varied skill sets. How does that collaboration make films different? In my own work, I have found the theoretical and analytic command of scholars to be invaluable in contextualizing and locating deeper meaning and significance of character and story. It changes what I see as a filmmaker. Lately I have reconsidered what I saw through the lens of my 1997 film, My America . . . or Honk if You Love Buddha. On one level, it is a road movie in search of Asian American identity, meant to smash stereotypes and introduce colorful characters, among them the Burtanog sisters of New Orleans’s longtime Filipino community, activists Bill and Yuri Kochiyama, and a pair of Seattle rappers called the Seoul Brothers. At the same time, I hoped My America would drill deeper. The superstructure of the film follows a historical trajectory, roughly pre–World War II to the 1990s, and tracks questions of representation, marginality, and the 98 s *!!3 s

role of Asian Americans in shaping in democratic project. It was a 1990s film, engaged in the conversation of multiculturalism and the decentering of histories and culture. At the time, I imagined the character of Mr. Choi, a fortune cookie maker and fish wholesaler, as a parody of the notion of the model minority on steroids. If I were to make the film in conversation with Asian Americanists today, an analysis of waning empires and rising superdiversity would undoubtedly shift my perspective. I would pay closer attention to Mr. Choi’s backstory, as an ethnic Chinese refugee from Vietnam, and at what was happening behind his fish tanks, where undocumented workers from Mexico and Hong Kong bunked down for the night after their shifts. By the same token, I believe media production can help build the capacity of Asian American studies. Mobile devices armed with GPS, for example, can be deployed to gather data and record testimony, link to distant research sites, connect to constituencies through social media, and provide content for digital storytelling that translates knowledge to nonacademic audiences. New technologies, energized by hacker culture, have produced online tools like html that are equivalent to consumer video of the 1980s. Just as scholars then were able to record oral histories with portable cameras, these new digital forms can make possible the creation of ebooks and interactive websites. In the UC Santa Cruz SocDoc Program, and now in Asian American studies at UCLA through the Center for EthnoCommunications, my students immerse themselves in scholarly approaches to topic as well as cinematic practice. They work with creative and substantive faculty, and engage with community and activist organizations. Tadashi Nakamura, who graduated from and taught for both EthnoCommunications and SocDoc, produced two documentaries, Pilgrim- age and A Song for Ourselves. These historicize Japanese American activism with a cultural energy and biographical intimacy distinctive to cinematic practice. SocDoc graduate Karin Mak’s Red Dust is a moving story of resistance on the part of women migrant workers in China, who were poisoned by cadmium dust at the battery factory where they worked. The film is informed by Mak’s on-the- ground work with Sweatshop Watch and her research into the consequences of rapid industrialization in China, such as mass migration, labor exploitation, and environmental devastation. Work by these new filmmakers combines intellect with an experiential and emotive power that changes hearts and minds. Theory and analysis may not be explicit on the screen in the form of expert talking heads or statistics, but theory and analysis are embedded in the DNA of the work. True, there are any number of institutional barriers to teaching, creating, and publishing across disciplines. Editor’s Forum: Whither Interdisciplinarity? s 99

But it is the future. Younger scholars are already comfortable with these forms and are willing to circumvent disciplinary boundaries to embrace hybrid careers.8 Above all, Asian American studies and Asian American independent filmmaking were borne to an ethos of social justice that obligates all of us to join in common cause to make our work matter.

Disciplinary Divides within Asian American Studies: Lessons from Intergroup Contact Theory and Community-Based Participatory Research

richard m. lee

I begin with a confession. I have been an on-again, off-again member of the As- sociation for Asian American Studies (AAAS) for the past seventeen years with the majority of time as a lapsed member. Yet throughout this time, I have been actively involved as a faculty member in Asian American studies (AAS) programs at the University of Texas at Austin (1997–2000) and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (2000–present). Moreover, as a professor of psychology, my research on ethnic identity, perceived discrimination, acculturation, parent-child cultural conflicts, and international adoption has long drawn upon AAS perspectives and scholarship. Nevertheless, I remain ambivalent about AAAS as a professional home, and I believe my own reservations with AAAS reflect a larger disconnect between the behavioral and social sciences and the field of AAS. In this article, I draw upon intergroup contact theory and community-based participatory research methods to suggest ways to bridge the divide between the behavioral and social sciences and AAS/AAAS.9 First, it’s important to begin with an understanding of what I mean by the behavioral and social sciences. I adopt a rather narrow definition that focuses primarily on empirical approaches to understanding human development, health, and well-being, because this specific subset of the field, which includes my own scholarship, is most absent from AAS/AAAS. The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of Health provides the following description:

Basic research in the behavioral and social sciences is designed to further our understanding of fundamental mechanisms and patterns of behavioral and social functioning relevant to the Nation’s health and well-being, and as they interact with each other, with biology and the environment. . . . Applied research in the behavioral and social sciences is designed to predict or influence health outcomes, !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! %XVLQHDV8VXDO"!

! ! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! L!

$ERXWWKH&HQWHU! )RUPRUHWKDQ\HDUVWKH5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW 8&/$KDVVXSSRUWHGPXOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\UHVHDUFKWKDWH[SDQGVRXUNQRZOHGJHDERXWWKH KLVWRU\OLIHVW\OHVDQGVRFLRFXOWXUDOV\VWHPVRISHRSOHRI$IULFDQGHVFHQWDQGLQYHVWLJDWHV SUREOHPVWKDWKDYHEHDULQJRQWKHLUSV\FKRORJLFDOVRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFZHOO"EHLQJ! $VDXQLWRI8&/$¶V,QVWLWXWHIRU$PHULFDQ&XOWXUHVWKH%XQFKH&HQWHUKDVVWURQJDIILOLD WLRQVDQGRQJRLQJFROODERUDWLRQVZLWK8&/$¶V&KLFDQR6WXGLHV5HVHDUFK&HQWHU$VLDQ $PHULFDQ6WXGLHV&HQWHU$PHULFDQ,QGLDQ6WXGLHV&HQWHUDQGWKH&HQWHUIRUWKH6WXG\ RI:RPHQ! 7KH%XQFKH&HQWHU¶VORFDWLRQLQ/RV$QJHOHVWKHHQWHUWDLQPHQWFDSLWDORIWKHZRUOGSUR YLGHVXQULYDOHGDFFHVVWR+ROO\ZRRG¶VOHDGHUVDQGFUHDWLYHWDOHQW,WVSRVLWLRQDVDQLQWHU GLVFLSOLQDU\³WKLQNWDQN´DOORZVFHQWHUUHVHDUFKHUVWROHYHUDJHWKHVWUHQJWKVRI8&/$ WKHFDPSXV¶VUHQRZQHGIDFXOW\RXWVWDQGLQJKXPDQLWLHVDQGVRFLDOVFLHQFHGLYLVLRQVDQG VWDWH"RI"WKH"DUWUHVHDUFKOLEUDULHVZLWKWKHFHQWHU¶VRZQXQLTXHDVVHWVDVWKH:HVW &RDVW¶VSUHPLHUUHVHDUFKLQVWLWXWHRQ$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHV! ! $FNQRZOHGJHPHQWV! 7KLVUHSRUWZDVDXWKRUHGE\'U'DUQHOO+XQW'U$QD"&KULVWLQD5DPyQDQG0LFKDHO 7UDQ)XQPLOROD)DJEDPLOD%ULDQD0F.R\$PEHULD6DUJHQW-DP\OD6DEUHH&DUPHOOD 6WRGGDUG'DQWp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

! )HEUXDU\! !

LL! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! %XVLQHDV8VXDO"!

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV!

([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

7KH'DWD!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

7KH+ROO\ZRRG/DQGVFDSH!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\7DNH7KUHH!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

$FFRODGHV!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

*DWHNHHSLQJ!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

'LYHUVLW\DQGWKH%RWWRP/LQH&DVWLQJ%R[2IILFHDQG5DWLQJV""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

&RQFOXVLRQ%XVLQHVVDV8VXDO!""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

(QGQRWHV!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

$SSHQGL[!"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""!!

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\! x *UHDWHUWKDQWRDPRQJOHDGVIRUERWK EURDGFDVWDQGFDEOHUHDOLW\DQGRWKHU 7KLVLVWKHWKLUGLQDVHULHVRIUHSRUWVWR VKRZV! H[DPLQHUHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQGLYHUVLW\DQG x WRDPRQJGLJLWDOVFULSWHGOHDGV! WKHERWWRPOLQHLQWKH+ROO\ZRRGHQWHUWDLQ PHQWLQGXVWU\,WFRQVLGHUVWKHWRS x WRDPRQJWKHFUHDWRUVRIEURDGFDVW WKHDWULFDOILOPUHOHDVHVLQDQG VFULSWHGVKRZV! EURDGFDVWFDEOHDQGGLJLWDOSODWIRUP x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJWKHFUHDWRUVRIFDEOH WHOHYLVLRQVKRZVIURPWKH"VHDVRQLQ VFULSWHGVKRZV! RUGHUWRGRFXPHQWWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFK ZRPHQDQGPLQRULWLHVDUHSUHVHQWLQIURQWRI x WRDPRQJWKHFUHDWRUVRIGLJLWDO VFULSWHGVKRZV! DQGEHKLQGWKHFDPHUD,WGLVFXVVHVDQ\ SDWWHUQVEHWZHHQWKHVHILQGLQJVDQGER[ x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJWKHZULWHUVFUHGLWHG RIILFHUHFHLSWVDQGDXGLHQFHUDWLQJV! IRUEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZV!

7KHIROORZLQJKLJKOLJKWVHPHUJHIURPWKLV x *UHDWHUWKDQWRDPRQJWKHZULWHUV \HDU¶VDQDO\VLV! FUHGLWHGIRUFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZV!

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x WRDPRQJILOPOHDGV! DUHQDVH[DPLQHGDQGPHUHO\KHOGWKHLU JURXQGLQWKHRWKHUIRXU7KH\UHPDLQHG x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJILOPGLUHFWRUV! XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGRQHYHU\IURQWLQ"! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJILOPZULWHUV! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJILOPOHDGV! x /HVVWKDQSURSRUWLRQDWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ DPRQJEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGOHDGV! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJILOPGLUHFWRUV! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJFDEOHVFULSWHGOHDGV! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJILOPZULWHUV! x WRDPRQJEURDGFDVWUHDOLW\DQGRWKHU x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJEURDGFDVWVFULSWHG OHDGV! OHDGV! x WRDPRQJFDEOHUHDOLW\DQGRWKHUOHDGV! x *UHDWHUWKDQWRDPRQJFDEOHVFULSWHG OHDGV! x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJGLJLWDOVFULSWHGOHDGV!

x *UHDWHUWKDQWRDPRQJFUHDWRUVRI EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZV!

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

x 1HDUO\WRDPRQJFUHDWRUVRIFDEOH LPSRUWDQWLQGXVWU\JDWHNHHSHUV²IURPWKH VFULSWHGVKRZV! H[HFXWLYHVWDIIWRWKHDJHQWVWRWKHSDUWQHUV ²ZHUHRYHUZKHOPLQJO\ZKLWHDQGGLVSUR x *UHDWHUWKDQWRDPRQJWKHFUHDWRUVRI GLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZV! SRUWLRQDWHO\PDOH0HDQZKLOHLQHYHU\ DUHQDPLQRULWLHVUHPDLQHGXQGHUUHSUHVHQW !793LORW3LSHOLQH7KHUHZHUH HGRQWKHDJHQFLHV¶WDOHQWURVWHUVLQ"! WHOHYLVLRQSLORWVLQWKHGHYHORSPHQW SLSHOLQHDVRI$SULO²SHUFHQWRI 7KH%RWWRP/LQH&RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH WKHSURMHFWVZHUHGUDPDVSHUFHQWZHUH ILQGLQJVRIHDUOLHUUHSRUWVLQWKLVVHULHVQHZ FRPHGLHVDQGSHUFHQWZHUHDQLPDWHG HYLGHQFHIURP"VXJJHVWVWKDW VKRZV:KLOHPRUHWKDQKDOIRIWKHSLORWV $PHULFD¶VLQFUHDVLQJO\GLYHUVHDXGLHQFHV KDGDWOHDVWRQHIHPDOHDXVSLFHDVVRFLDWHG SUHIHUGLYHUVHILOPDQGWHOHYLVLRQFRQWHQW! ZLWKWKHP SHUFHQW OHVVWKDQDTXDUWHU x )LOPVZLWKUHODWLYHO\GLYHUVHFDVWV SHUFHQW KDGDWOHDVWRQHPLQRULW\ HQMR\HGWKHKLJKHVWPHGLDQJOREDOER[ DXVSLFH$VDUHVXOWPLQRULWLHVZHUH RIILFHUHFHLSWVDQGWKHKLJKHVWPHGLDQ XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\DIDFWRURIQHDUO\WR UHWXUQRQLQYHVWPHQW! DWWKHHDUOLHVWVWDJHVRIWKHWHOHYLVLRQ x 0LQRULWLHVDFFRXQWHGIRUWKHPDMRULW\RI GHYHORSPHQWSURFHVV! WLFNHWVDOHVIRUIRXURIWKHWRS"ILOPVLQ $FFRODGHV,QPLQRULW\"GLUHFWHG UDQNHGE\JOREDOER[RIILFH ILOPVDQGWKRVHZLWKPLQRULW\OHDGVORVW LQFOXGLQJWKHKLJKHVWJURVVLQJILOPIRU WKH\HDU! JURXQGDWWKH2VFDUVUHODWLYHWRWKRVHOHGE\ ZKLWHGLUHFWRUVRUWKDWIHDWXUHGZKLWHOHDGV x 0HGLDQ"YLHZHUUDWLQJV DVZHOODV :KLOHILOPVGLUHFWHGE\ZRPHQJDLQHGVRPH PHGLDQKRXVHKROGUDWLQJVDPRQJZKLWHV JURXQGDWWKH2VFDUVLQWKRVHZLWK EODFNV/DWLQRVDQG$VLDQ$PHULFDQV SHDNHGIRUEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZV ZRPHQOHDGVGLGZRUVHWKDQWKH\HDUEHIRUH IHDWXULQJFDVWVWKDWZHUHJUHDWHUWKDQ $WWKH(PP\VVKRZVFUHDWHGE\ZRPHQ SHUFHQWPLQRULW\! DQGRUPLQRULWLHVDVZHOODVWKRVHZLWK IHPDOHDQGRUPLQRULW\OHDGVORVWJURXQG x 6RFLDOPHGLDHQJDJHPHQWSHDNHGIRU EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVZLWKFDVWVWKDW UHODWLYHWRWKHLUPDOHRUZKLWHFRXQWHUSDUWV ZHUHJUHDWHUWKDQSHUFHQWPLQRULW\! LQWKHFROOHFWLRQRIDFFRODGHV! x 0HGLDQ"YLHZHUUDWLQJV DVZHOODV *DWHNHHSLQJ6LQFHWKHODVWUHSRUWWKH KRXVHKROGUDWLQJVIRUEODFNVDQG/DWLQRV WKUHHGRPLQDQWWDOHQWDJHQFLHVKDYH SHDNHGIRUFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVZLWK PDLQWDLQHG DQGLQVRPHFDVHVLQFUHDVHG FDVWVWKDWZHUHDWOHDVWSHUFHQW WKHLUFRPELQHGGRPLQDQWVKDUHVRIWKHILOP PLQRULW\! GLUHFWRUVILOPZULWHUVILOPOHDGVEURDGFDVW x 6RFLDOPHGLDHQJDJHPHQWSHDNHGIRU VFULSWHGVKRZFUHDWRUVEURDGFDVWVFULSWHG FDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVZLWKFDVWVWKDWZHUH OHDGVDQGFDEOHVFULSWHGOHDGVFUHGLWHGIRU PDMRULW\PLQRULW\! WKHWKHDWULFDOILOPVDQGWHOHYLVLRQVKRZV ! H[DPLQHG7KHSHRSOHEHKLQGWKHVH

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\ WKHDQDO\VHVIRUWKLVUHSRUWLQFOXGHWKH 5HSRUW! IROORZLQJ! x 5DFLDOVWDWXVRIOHDGWDOHQW! 7KLVUHSRUWLVWKHWKLUGLQDVHULHVRIVWXGLHV E\WKH5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ x *HQGHURIOHDGWDOHQW! $PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$WRH[SORUHWKH UHODWLRQVKLSVEHWZHHQGLYHUVLW\DQGWKH x 2YHUDOOFDVWGLYHUVLW\! ERWWRPOLQHLQWKH+ROO\ZRRGHQWHUWDLQPHQW x 6KRZFUHDWRUUDFLDOVWDWXV! LQGXVWU\7KH%XQFKH&HQWHU¶VODUJHU +ROO\ZRRG$GYDQFHPHQW3URMHFWIURP x 6KRZFUHDWRUJHQGHU! ZKLFKWKLVUHSRUWVWHPVKDVWKUHHSULPDU\ x 6KRZORFDWLRQV! JRDOV WRJHQHUDWHFRPSUHKHQVLYHUHVHDUFK DQDO\VHVRIWKHLQFOXVLRQRIGLYHUVHJURXSVLQ x :ULWHUGLYHUVLW\! ILOPDQGWHOHYLVLRQLQFOXGLQJOHDGUROHV x 'LUHFWRUGLYHUVLW\! ZULWLQJGLUHFWLQJSURGXFLQJDQGWDOHQW UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WRLGHQWLI\DQGGLVVHPL x *HQUHV! QDWHEHVWSUDFWLFHVIRULQFUHDVLQJWKHSLSHOLQH RIXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGJURXSVLQWRWKH x 7DOHQWDJHQF\UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ! +ROO\ZRRGHQWHUWDLQPHQWLQGXVWU\DQG WR x 2VFDUDQG(PP\DZDUGV! FRQVLGHUWKHEURDGHULPSOLFDWLRQVRIGLYHUVH LQGXVWU\DFFHVVDQGPHGLDLPDJHVIRUVRFLHW\ x 5DFLDOVWDWXVRIWDOHQWDJHQWV! DVDZKROH! x *HQGHURIWDOHQWDJHQWV!

7KH'DWD! x 5DFLDOVWDWXVRI79SLORWDXVSLFHV!

7KH+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW x *HQGHURI79SLORWDXVSLFHV! H[DPLQHVWKHDWULFDOILOPVUHOHDVHGLQ DVZHOODVWHOHYLVLRQVKRZVDLULQJ x 1LHOVHQYLHZHUDQGVRFLDOPHGLDUDWLQJV! RUVWUHDPLQJGXULQJWKH"VHDVRQ x *OREDODQGGRPHVWLFER[RIILFH! 7KHWHOHYLVLRQVKRZVZHUHGLVWULEXWHGDFURVV VL[EURDGFDVWQHWZRUNVFDEOHQHWZRUNV x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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

7KH+ROO\ZRRG/DQGVFDSH! WLRQVIRUZKLFKWKH\ZRUNHG²DQGWKH LQFUHDVLQJO\GLYHUVHYLHZLQJSXEOLF²ZHUH 7KHSUHYLRXV+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW VKRUWFKDQJHG! FRQFOXGHGWKDWSDUWRI+ROO\ZRRG¶VUDFHDQG JHQGHUSUREOHPPD\OLHLQDODWHQWFRQIOLFW )LJXUHGRFXPHQWVWKHRSSRVLQJ EHWZHHQLQGLYLGXDODQGLQVWLWXWLRQDO WUHQGVLQWKHQDWLRQ¶VZKLWHDQGPLQRULW\ LQWHUHVWV7KDWLVWKHGLVFRQQHFWEHWZHHQ SRSXODWLRQVIURPWR,WUHYHDOV WKHLQGXVWU\¶VSURIHVVHGIRFXVRQWKHERWWRP WKDWWKHQDWLRQZDVQHDUO\SHUFHQW OLQHDQGDFWXDOLQGXVWU\VWDIILQJSUDFWLFHV PLQRULW\LQ²WKHODVW\HDUH[DPLQHGLQ PD\EHODUJHO\H[SODLQHGE\WKHUHOXFWDQFHRI WKLVUHSRUW²DQGZLOORQO\EHFRPHLQFUHDV WKRVHLQFRQWUROWRFRQFHGHWKDWWKH\FDQQRW LQJO\VRLQWKHFRPLQJ\HDUV,QGHHGWKH PHHWWKHQHHGVRIDQLQFUHDVLQJO\GLYHUVH QDWLRQLVSURMHFWHGWREHPDMRULW\PLQRULW\ DXGLHQFHDOODORQH! E\ZKHQWKHEOXHDQGUHGOLQHVFURVV $EVHQWVRPHVLJQLILFDQWFKDQJHLQ+ROO\ )RUWKHVHFRQG\HDUUXQQLQJILQGLQJVIURP ZRRG¶VEXVLQHVV"DV"XVXDOSUDFWLFHVWKH WKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWUHYHDOHGWKDWILOPVDQG GLVFRQQHFWGRFXPHQWHGLQHDUOLHUUHSRUWVLQ WHOHYLVLRQVKRZVZLWKFDVWVZKLFKURXJKO\ WKLVVHULHVZLOORQO\ZLGHQ! UHIOHFWWKHQDWLRQ¶VUDFLDODQGHWKQLF GLYHUVLW\RQDYHUDJHSRVWHGWKHKLJKHVWER[ 7KLVUHSRUWSLFNVXSZKHUHWKH RIILFHDQGUDWLQJVQXPEHUV

!"#$%&''()''*+,+'-./$012".3',41%&56 74"2&'138'9"3.%"2:6'(;<=>?=@=

,-./0 1.234./5

(**# !"# !*# $%# ")# $*# &*# &'# %*# )!# *# ("# (+$* %*(& %*"*

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()''*&%+&,-.#&'/"0-%"1$-"2,'23'!"450' 16'7&,%&8'(9:;'.,<'(9:='>,?:@A8':B;'C &!%' &!%( '!"!# &$"!# &!"!# %$"!# %!"!# $"!# !"!#

)LOP! &RPHG\$FWLRQDQG'UDPD)LOPV 'RPLQDWHWKH7RS5DQNV! 86DQG&DQDGD%R[2IILFH'HFUHDVHV 3HUFHQWEHWZHHQDQG! 7KHILOPVH[DPLQHGIRUZHUH FDWHJRUL]HGLQWRJHQUHV7KUHHRIWKH *OREDOER[RIILFHUHDFKHGELOOLRQLQ JHQUHV²'UDPD SHUFHQW &RPHG\ DSHUFHQWLQFUHDVHRYHUWKH SHUFHQW DQG$FWLRQ SHUFHQW ² ILJXUH+RZHYHUWRWDOER[RIILFHIRUWKH FROOHFWLYHO\DFFRXQWHGIRUSHUFHQWRIWKH 8QLWHG6WDWHVDQG&DQDGDLQZDVMXVW WRS"JURVVLQJILOPVLQFRPSDUHGWR ELOOLRQDSHUFHQWGHFUHDVHFRPSDUHG SHUFHQWRIWKHWRSILOPVFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH WR¶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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

!"#$%&'()''*%+,-.,/0'12'34'5&6%&7' !"#$%&'<)''B,3C&'12'34'5&6%&7' 89:(;:<'=&,/+6'>6?89@A 89:(;:<'=&,/+6'>6?DEFA

"7#7% ""#!% !*#!% !"#$% +,-./0 +,-./0 /12-2 ""#8% /12-2 "(#)% '8#"% $&#'% ,34.1 ,34.1 1.25630 1.25630

!"#$%&'E)''G"#"0,C'HC,0I+%J'12'34' !"#$%&'F)''=46-".,0&-'12'34'5&6%&7' 5&6%&7'89:(;:<'=&,/+6'>6?FFA 89:(;:<'=&,/+6'>6?:FA

+,-./0 $"#&% !*#!% !(#7% /12-2 ,34.1 "(#!% !&#&% ,34.1 8(#7% 1.25630 1.25630

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()''*+,%&'-.'/01,2"034' !"#$%&'C)''*+,%&'-.'/01,2"034' 5%0,61,72'*1%"82&6'*+0974 5%0,61,72'D&,E"2.',36'F2+&%'*+0974' :;<=>

&'#$% 88#'% () &9#&% () "#$% !"#$% *+, !8#'% *+, !#$% -./.01. 234560607 234560607

FRQVLVWHGRIRWKHUSURJUDPPLQJ5HDOLW\ SHUFHQW DOVRDFFRXQWHGIRUDQRWDEOHVKDUH SURJUDPPLQJDFFRXQWHGIRUWKHUHPDLQLQJ RIWKHVHORFDWLRQVLQFUHDVLQJLWVVKDUHQHDUO\ SHUFHQWRIWKHVKRZV! SHUFHQWDJHSRLQWVVLQFHWKH"VHDVRQ SHUFHQW ! /RV$QJHOHV¶V6KDUHRI%URDGFDVW79 /RFDWLRQV,QFUHDVHV! /RV$QJHOHV5HFODLPV0DMRULW\RI&DEOH 79/RFDWLRQV! &RQVLVWHQWZLWKQHZVDFFRXQWVRI³UXQDZD\ SURGXFWLRQ´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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

!"#$%&'()''*+,%&'-.'/01,2"034' !"#$%&'=<)''*+,%&'-.'/01,2"034' 5,-6&'*1%"72&8'*+09:4' 5,-6&'E&,6"2.',38'F2+&%'*+09:4' ;<=>?=@'*&,:03'A3B=;CD ;<=>?=@'*&,:03'A3B;>GD

'$#(% )* (<#(% *+,-.+- )* !"#$% ":#;% /010.+0 <:#<% 234 $#&% 234 567-8.8.9 "#$% !#!% 567-8.8.9

!H#$%&'==)''*+,%&'-.'/01,2"034' I"#"2,6'*1%"72&8'*+09:4' ;<=>?=@'*&,:03'A3B;=D

(&#<% '&#;% )* ((#(% 234 567-8.8.9

FDEOHUHDOLW\DQGRWKHUSURGXFWLRQVFODLPLQJ ! SHUFHQWRIWKHVHORFDWLRQVIRU"! ! )RUGLJLWDOVFULSWHGSURGXFWLRQVWKH1HZ !

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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¶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¶ VKDUHRIOHDGILOPUROHVLQ SHUFHQW ZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGHG WRXQGHUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQE\DIDFWRU RIQHDUO\WR)LOPVZLWK PLQRULW\OHDGVLQLQFOXGH7KH (TXDOL]HU5LGH$ORQJ$QQLH 7KLQN/LNHD0DQ7RRDQG6HOPD ,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWSHUFHQW RIWKHPLQRULW\OHDGVLQWKHWRS ILOPVH[DPLQHGZHUH$IULFDQ $PHULFDQ)URPWKHWUHQGOLQH HYLGHQWLQ)LJXUHLWDSSHDUVDVLI ²GXEEHGE\VRPHDVD ³EUHDNRXW\HDUIRUEODFNILOP´² PD\KDYHEHHQMXVWDEULHI GHYLDWLRQIURPEXVLQHVVDVXVXDOLQ +ROO\ZRRG!

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

!"#$%&'()*''+&,-'./01%'2,/&3' ! 45&,0%"/,6'!"6783')9((': )9(; ! <=>(?)3'(?)3'(?;3'(@AB -./01.23 45.26 7#8#9:0: !"#$%&'(;*''D"=1%"0E'F,80'G5,%&3 !""#"% HE'G5,%&'1I'45&,0%"/,6'!"6783' *"#"% )9((:)9(;'<=>(?)3'(?)3'(?;3'(@)B *)#$% *+#)% *,#,% *'#!% &"#"% !"%9019<6?? !!%9@09("% (!%9209,"% ,!%9209+"% +!%9209$"% $!%9;/A90B61 +"#"% ,'#)% &"#"% ("#"% !"#$% !$#!% !&#'% !(#)% $!#(% "#"% $"#"% ("!! ("!( ("!, ("!+ +"#"% !"#$%&'(A*''+&,-'./01%'C&=-&%3' ,!#"% ,+#"% 45&,0%"/,6'!"6783')9((:)9(; ,"#"% ()#&% <=>(?)3'(?)3'(?;3'(@AB' ($#,% ((#!% -;<6 =6>;<6 ("#"% !&#!% !'#,% !""#"% !+#$% !,#*% '+#+% '+#'% '+#(% *"#"% &)#(% !"#"% )#)% '#$% *#&% $#&% &"#"% (#,% &#,% "#"% +#)% +"#"% ("!! ("!( ("!, ("!+

("#"% ,"#*% ($#&% ($#,% ($#*% ! "#"% ("!! ("!( ("!, ("!+ !

:RPHQ&RQWLQXHWR7UHDG:DWHUDPRQJ /HDG5ROHVLQ)LOP! 0DOHILFHQW7KH+XQJHU*DPHV0RFNLQJ MD\±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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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²WKHLQWHUYDOFRQWDLQLQJ EHJLQQLQJRIDQXSZDUGWUHQG([DPSOHVRI WKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKHRYHUDOOSRSXODWLRQ PLQRULW\"GLUHFWHGILOPVIURPLQFOXGH LQ SHUFHQW ²GHFOLQHGIURP 5LR6HOPDDQG7KLQN/LNHD0DQ7RR! SHUFHQWRIWKHWRSILOPVLQWRRQO\ SHUFHQWLQ6LPLODUO\MXVWSHUFHQW :RPHQ/RVH*URXQGDPRQJ)LOP RIWKHILOPVH[DPLQHGIRUIHDWXUHGFDVWV 'LUHFWRUV! WKDWZHUHPDMRULW\PLQRULW\GRZQIURP )LJXUHVKRZVWKDWZRPHQGLUHFWHG SHUFHQWLQ7LWOHVLQWKLVODWWHUFDWHJRU\ MXVWSHUFHQWRIWKHWRSILOPVH[DPLQHGIRU IRULQFOXGH5LGH$ORQJ7KLQN/LNHD GRZQIURPWKHSHUFHQWILJXUHWKH 0DQ7RR6HOPDDQG1R*RRG'HHG! JURXSSRVWHGLQ$OLWWOHPRUHWKDQ ! SHUFHQWRIWKHSRSXODWLRQZRPHQZHUHWKXV

!"#$%&'()*''+"%&,-.%'/0,&1 !"#$%&'(?*''+"%&,-.%'B&71'(>71'(>:1'(?@A ;<=(>71'(?>1'(>:1'(?@A ,-./0 1.234./5 6#7#8939 1;<0 =0>;<0 (&&#&$ (&&#&$ %:#%$ !&#&$ !%#&$ !"#($ !&#&$ %*#'$ %)#"$ %:#"$ !"#!$ !'#'$ +&#&$ +&#&$

*&#&$ )"#%$ *&#&$ ("#!$ '&#&$ ((#&$ '&#&$ *#($ :#!$ +#)$ *#)$ ('#'$ ('#%$ &#&$ &#&$ '&(( '&(' '&() '&(* '&(( '&(' '&() '&(*

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

!"#$%&'()*''+%",&%'-./&0' !"#$%&'(@*''+%",&%'A&;B&%0' 12&.,%"/.3'!"3450'67((867(9' 12&.,%"/.3'!"3450'67((867(9' :;<()60'(=)0'()70'(=>? :;<()70'(=C0'()70'(=>? ,-./0 1.234./5 6#7#8939 1;<0 =0>;<0 *''#'% *''#'% &'#'% !"#$% !"#"% !"#'% &'#'% !'#&% &&#"% &:#!% &(#'% &(#*% )'#'% )'#'%

$'#'% +(#!% $'#'% *$#*% *+#'% *"#!% "'#'% (#&% **#&% "'#'% !#"% (#)% &#'% '#'% '#'% "'** "'*" "'*+ "'*$ "'** "'*" "'*+ "'*$

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¶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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

7HOHYLVLRQ! 6FDQGDO $%& ([WDQW &%6 *DQJ /HDGV! 5HODWHG )R[ DQG 0LQRULWLHV*DLQ 7KH0LQG\3URMHFW DPRQJ%URDGFDVW )R[ ! 6FULSWHG/HDGV! 0LQRULWLHV/RVH 0LQRULW\DFWRUV *URXQGDPRQJ FODLPHGSHUFHQW &DEOH6FULSWHG/HDGV! RIWKHOHDGUROHVLQ )LJXUHVKRZV EURDGFDVWVFULSWHG PLQRULW\DFWRUV SURJUDPPLQJGXULQJ DFFRXQWHGIRU WKH"VHDVRQ SHUFHQWRIWKHOHDG XSIURPWKHSHUFHQWILJXUHSRVWHGIRUWKH UROHVLQFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVGXULQJWKH "VHDVRQ VHH)LJXUH :KLOHWKH "VHDVRQ²QHDUO\DSHUFHQWDJHSRLQW WUHQGOLQHIRUPLQRULW\OHDGV UHGOLQH KDVD GURSIURPWKH"ILJXUH SHUFHQW FOHDUXSZDUGWUDMHFWRU\PLQRULWLHVUHPDLQ &RQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWWKLV VHULRXVO\XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVEURDGFDVW VKDUHUHPDLQVFRQVLGHUDEO\ODUJHUWKDQWKH VFULSWHGDUHQD7KDWLVJLYHQWKDWPLQRULWLHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJEURDGFDVWVKDUHIRUPLQRUL DFFRXQWHGIRUSHUFHQWRIWKHSRSXODWLRQ WLHVGXHWRWKHIDFWWKDWVHYHUDOFDEOH LQ JUD\OLQH WKHLU"VKDUHRI QHWZRUNVPDUNHWSULPDULO\WRPLQRULW\ RU EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGOHDGVFRUUHVSRQGVWR ³XUEDQ´ DXGLHQFHV6WLOOPLQRULWLHVZHUH XQGHUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQE\DIDFWRURIQHDUO\WR XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\DIDFWRURIDOLWWOHPRUH WKRXJKDQLPSURYHPHQWRYHUWKHWR WKDQWRDPRQJFDEOHVFULSWHGOHDGVGXULQJ ILJXUHFLWHGLQWKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUW([DPSOHV WKH"VHDVRQ JUD\OLQH 7KHIROORZLQJ RIEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVWKDWIHDWXUHG WLWOHVDUHDPRQJFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVWKDW PLQRULW\OHDGVLQWKH"VHDVRQLQFOXGH IHDWXUHGPLQRULW\OHDGVLQ"%HLQJ

!"#$%&'()*''+&,-.'/0'1,2&3'4%5,-2,.6' !"#$%&'9:*''+&,-.'/0'1,2&3'C,/D&'72%"86&-3' 72%"86&-3'9:((;(9'65'9:(<;(='7&,.5>.' 9:((;(9'65'9:(<;(='7&,.5>.' ?>@))3'(:A3'(9@(EF3'(FF3'(G(B ./012 30456017 8#9#:;5< ./012 30456017 8#9#:;5< '++#+$ '++#+$ !"#!$ !'#!$ )+#+$ !%#&$ )+#+$ )&#%$ )%#"$ )+#*$ (+#+$ (+#+$

"+#+$ %*#!$ "+#+$ %*#!$ ,+#+$ (#&$ ,+#+$ '(#($ &#'$ )#'$ '"#*$ '!#%$ +#+$ +#+$ ,+''-', ,+',-'% ,+'%-'" ,+''-', ,+',-'% ,+'%-'"

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

0LQRULWLHV6WLOO0RUH/LNHO\WR/HDG ! 5HDOLW\DQG2WKHU6KRZVWKDQ6FULSWHG ! 6KRZVLQ%URDGFDVW! ! 5HFDOOWKDWPLQRULWLHVZHUHXQGHUUHSUHVHQW HGE\DIDFWRURIQHDUO\WRDPRQJOHDGVLQ !"#$%&'()*''+&,-'.,/&01'23'4,5&6'7%8,-5,91' EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVGXULQJWKH" 4&,/"13':';1<&%'=<8>96'(?@@A@('18'(?@)A@B' VHDVRQ$PRQJEURDGFDVWUHDOLW\DQGRWKHU =&,9809'C0D@?B6'E(6'F)G SURJUDPPLQJ²DVWKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWVLQ ./012 30456017 8#9#:;5< WKLVVHULHVDOVRIRXQG²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¶V1H[W7RS0RGHO &: /HW¶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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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¶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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

0LQRULW\6KDUHRI'LJLWDO6FULSWHG/HDGV ! 0LUURUV%URDGFDVW$UHQD! ! 0LQRULWLHVDFFRXQWHGIRUMXVWSHUFHQWRI ! OHDGUROHVLQGLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZVIRUWKH "VHDVRQ VHH)LJXUH 7KLVILJXUH !"#$%&'()*''+&,-.'/0'1,2&3' LVFRPSDUDEOHWRWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRIOHDGV 4"#"5,6'72%"85&-'79:;.3' LQEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGSURJUDPPLQJIRUWKH (<=>?=@'7&,.:A'BAC>>D VHDVRQ SHUFHQW EXWVLJQLILFDQWO\ORZHU WKDQWKHJURXS¶VVKDUHLQFDEOHVFULSWHG !# SURJUDPPLQJ SHUFHQW $VLQWKH EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGDUHQDPLQRULWLHVZHUH $%&'( XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\DIDFWRURIPRUHWKDQ !"# WRDPRQJOHDGVRQWKHVHVKRZV([DPSOHV )&*+,&'- RIGLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZVWKDWIHDWXUHG PLQRULW\OHDGVIRU"LQFOXGH(DVW/RV +LJK +XOX 5RJXH 'LUHF79 DQG&KRS 6KRS 0DFKLQLPD3ULPH ! ! :RPHQ¶V6KDUHRI'LJLWDO6FULSWHG /HDGV0LUURUV%URDGFDVW$UHQD! ! )LJXUHVKRZVZRPHQDFFRXQWHGIRU SHUFHQWRIWKHOHDGUROHVLQGLJLWDOVFULSWHG !"#$%&'(E*''+&,-.'/0'F&A-&%3' 4"#"5,6'72%"85&-'79:;.3' SURJUDPPLQJGXULQJWKH"VHDVRQ (<=>?=@'7&,.:A'BAC>@D 7KLVILJXUHLVYLUWXDOO\LGHQWLFDOWR SHUFHQWVKDUHWKHJURXSSRVWHGLQWKH EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGDUHQDIRUWKH" 0/# VHDVRQ([DPSOHVRIGLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZV WKDWIHDWXUHGZRPHQOHDGVWKDWVHDVRQ ./# )12( LQFOXGH*KRVW*KLUOV

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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²SHUFHQW OHVV²WKHVLQJOHODUJHVWVKDUHDPRQJWKH ²FRQVLVWHGRIWKRVHZLWKFDVWVEHWZHHQ FDVWGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDOVWKDWVHDVRQ WRSEOXH SHUFHQWDQGSHUFHQWPLQRULW\0HDQ OLQH %XWWKLVVKDUHZDVDVPDOOGURSIURP ZKLOHFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVZLWKPDMRULW\" WKHSHUFHQWILJXUHIRUWKHLQWHUYDOLQ PLQRULW\FDVWVGHFUHDVHGIURPSHUFHQW "0HDQZKLOHWKHVKDUHRIEURDGFDVW RIDOOFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVLQ"WR VFULSWHGVKRZVZLWKFDVWVWKDWZHUHIURP SHUFHQWLQ"7KHGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO SHUFHQWWRSHUFHQWPLQRULW\DOVRGHFOLQHG FRQWDLQLQJWKHSHUFHQWPLQRULW\VKDUHRI EHWZHHQUHSRUWVIURPSHUFHQWGXULQJWKH WKH86SRSXODWLRQLQ LHSHUFHQW "VHDVRQWRMXVWLQ":LWK WRSHUFHQW FRQWDLQHGSHUFHQWRIWKH WKHH[FHSWLRQRIWKHLQWHUYDOZLWKFDVWV VKRZVLQ"XSIURPMXVWSHUFHQW EHWZHHQSHUFHQWDQGSHUFHQWPLQRULW\ RIWKHWRWDOLQ"6KRZVWKDWIHOOLQWR DOORIWKHRWKHUPRUHGLYHUVHFDVWLQWHUYDOV WKLVODWWHULQWHUYDOLQ"LQFOXGH/DE SRVWHGLQFUHDVHVEHWZHHQUHSRUWV%URDGFDVW 5DWV 'LVQH\;' +HOL[ 6\I\ *UDFHODQG VFULSWHGVKRZVZLWKFDVWVIURPSHUFHQWWR 86$ 6XOOLYDQ 6RQ 7%6 DQG7UHPH SHUFHQWPLQRULW\SRVWHGWKHODUJHVW +%2 ! LQFUHDVHIURPMXVWSHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOLQ "WRSHUFHQWLQ":KHUHDV 0DMRULW\RI'LJLWDO6FULSWHG6KRZV WKHUHZHUHQREURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVZLWK &RQWLQXHWR)HDWXUH&DVWVZLWK5HODWLYHO\ PDMRULW\"PLQRULW\FDVWVLQ"IRUWKH )HZ0LQRULWLHV! "VHDVRQWKHVHVKRZVFRQVWLWXWHG )LJXUHVKRZVWKDWSHUFHQWRI SHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDO,WLVZRUWKQRWLQJWKDW GLJLWDOSODWIRUPVFULSWHGVKRZVIHDWXUHG WKHGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDOFRQWDLQLQJWKH FDVWVWKDWZHUHSHUFHQWPLQRULW\RUOHVV SHUFHQWPLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKH86SRSXOD GXULQJWKH"VHDVRQXSIURP WLRQLQ LHSHUFHQWWRSHUFHQW SHUFHQWDVHDVRQHDUOLHU0HDQZKLOH VDZDVOLJKWLQFUHDVHLQLWVVKDUHRIEURDGFDVW DQRWKHUSHUFHQWKDGFDVWVWKDWZHUH VFULSWHGVKRZVEHWZHHQUHSRUWVIURP IURPWRSHUFHQWPLQRULW\XSIURPMXVW SHUFHQWLQ"WRSHUFHQWLQ" SHUFHQWRIWKHWRWDOLQ"%\ ([DPSOHVRIVKRZVWKDWIHOOLQWRWKLV FRQWUDVWRQO\SHUFHQWRIDOOGLJLWDO GLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDOLQ"LQFOXGH%URNH VFULSWHGVKRZVIHOOLQWRWKHGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO *LUOV &%6 %RQHV )R[ *UH\¶V$QDWRP\ FRQWDLQLQJWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKH $%& DQG1HZ*LUO )R[ ! SRSXODWLRQLQ" LHSHUFHQWWR!

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! !

!"#$%&'()*''+",-%"./'012.'341%&5'6/'341%&'-7' !"#$%&'@=*''+",-%"./'012.'341%&5'6/'341%&'-7' 8%-19:12.'3:%";.&9'34-<25'(=>>?>('.-' 016F&'3:%";.&9'34-<25'(=>>?>('.-' (=>@?>A'3&12-,2'B,C))5'>=D5'>(>E (=>@?>A'3&12-,2'B,C>G(5'>HD5'>DDE '%$-./-0122 ''$-3.-!%$ !'$-4.-"%$ '%$-./-0122 ''$-3.-!%$ !'$-4.-"%$ "'$-4.-)%$ )'$-4.-(%$ ('$-567-.81/ "'$-4.-)%$ )'$-4.-(%$ ('$-567-.81/ )%#%$ )%#%$ "(#)$ "+#%$ "*#+$ "(#%$ "(#%$ "%#&$ "(#"$ "%#%$ "%#%$ !&#'$ !&#'$ !(#%$ !&#%$ !)#&$ !(#%$ !"#!$ !(#"$ !%#%$ !%#+$ !%#9$ '*#&$ !%#%$ '*#!$ '+#)$ '(#%$ '(#%$ '"#%$ '%#&$ '"#*$ '(#!$ ')#%$ '!#)$ '%#)$ '%#%$ '%#%$ &#)$ 9#%$ &#'$ '%#"$ '%#!$ +#"$ (#%$ (#&$ (#%$ (#&$ "#"$ !#%$ )#&$ %#%$ %#%$ !%'','! !%'!,'" !%'",') !%'','! !%'!,'" !%'",')

!"#$%&'@>*''+",-%"./'012.'341%&5'6/'341%&'-7' I"#".1F'3:%";.&9'34-<25'(=>(?>@'1,9' (=>@?>A'3&12-,2'B,C>>5'@AE '%$-./-0122 ''$-3.-!%$ !'$-4.-"%$ "'$-4.-)%$ )'$-4.-(%$ ('$-567-.81/ (%#%$ )+#'$ )(#%$ )(#($ )%#%$ "(#%$ "%#%$ !*#($ !(#%$ !%#%$ '&#!$ '(#%$

'%#%$ 9#'$ (#9$ (#%$ !#9$ %#%$ !%'!,'" !%'",')

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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¶VVKDUHRIWKH WKDWREVHUYHGDERYHLQEURDGFDVWVFULSWHG!

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! ! !"#$%&'()*''+,-%&'./'0.1&23'45'0-6&3' !"#$%&'((*''+,-%&'./'0.1&23'45'0-6&3 ! 7%.-86-29'+6%":9&8'+,.;23' ! F-41&'+6%":9&8'+,.;23' )<=(>=?'+&-2.@'A@BC)DE )<=(>=?'+&-2.@'A@B==)=?'+&-2.@'A@BC)CE ! )<=(>=?'+&-2.@'A@B==)?E ! !

! ! &<# &&# %=# 7/., 7/., ! ! %$# >,7/., >,7/., ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"#$%&'(H*''+,-%&'./'0.1&23'45'0-6&3' !"#$%&'(K*''+,-%&'./'0.1&23' ! I"#"9-1'+6%":9&8'+,.;23' ! 45'G&@8&%3' ! )<=(>=?'+&-2.@'A@B=J(E ! I"#"9-1'+6%":9&8'+,.;23' )<=(>=?'+&-2.@'A@B)<,7/., 7*8,9 ! ! 4+),: ! ! !

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

SURJUDPPLQJDQGDSSUR[LPDWHGWKHFDEOH FUHDWRUVLQEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGSURJUDPPLQJ VFULSWHGEUHDNGRZQ%XWWKHGLVWULEXWLRQRI &RQVLVWHQWZLWKILQGLQJVIURPSUHYLRXV VSHFLILFPLQRULW\JURXSVKDUHVGHYLDWHG UHSRUWVLQWKLVVHULHVLWLVZRUWKQRWLQJWKDW VLJQLILFDQWO\,QWKHGLJLWDODUHQD/DWLQR KDOIRIWKHIRXUPLQRULW\"FUHDWHGVKRZVIRU DFWRUVFODLPHGWKHODUJHVWVKDUHRIWKHUROHV "²*UH\¶V$QDWRP\ $%& DQG DPRQJWKHPLQRULW\JURXSVSHUFHQWZKLOH 6FDQGDO $%& ²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¶VVKDUHRIGLJLWDO SHUFHQWILJXUHSRVWHGLQ" VHH)LJXUH VFULSWHGUROHVIRU"GHFOLQHGDFFRUG $VDUHVXOWPLQRULWLHVZHUHXQ LQJO\WRSHUFHQW! GHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\DIDFWRURIQHDUO\WR DPRQJWKHVHLPSRUWDQWLQGXVWU\SOD\HUVLQ ! FDEOH([DPSOHVRIFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVIRU 6KRZ&UHDWRUV! ZKLFKPLQRULWLHVZHUHFUHGLWHGDVVKRZ %\VXFFHVVIXOO\VHOOLQJWKHFRQFHSWIRUD FUHDWRULQ"LQFOXGH%HLQJ0DU\-DQH WHOHYLVLRQVKRZDVKRZ¶VFUHDWRUVHWVLQ %(7 %ODFN-HVXV $GXOW6ZLP 7KH+DYHV PRWLRQDKRVWRISURGXFWLRQFKRLFHVWKDW DQGWKH+DYH1RWV 2:1 DQG)URP'XVN XOWLPDWHO\LPSDFWWKHGHJUHHRIGLYHUVLW\LQ 7LOO'DZQ7KH6HULHV (O5H\ ! ZULWHUVWDIILQJDQGFDVWLQJ3UHYLRXVUHSRUWV 0LQRULWLHV8QGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\)DFWRU LQWKLVVHULHVUHYHDOWKDWWHOHYLVLRQ¶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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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¶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

$# :RPHQ8QGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\)DFWRURI 0RUHWKDQWRDPRQJ&UHDWRUVRI'LJLWDO 6FULSWHG6KRZV! %&'() !"# *'+,-'(. )LJXUHVKRZVWKDWMXVWSHUFHQWRI GLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZVIRUWKH"VHDVRQ ZHUHFUHDWHGE\ZRPHQ$VDUHVXOWZRPHQ ZHUHXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVDUHQDE\D IDFWRURIPRUHWKDQWRLQ"

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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²WKHGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO 45'6&78&%3' FRQWDLQLQJWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKH 9"#"10:'+;%"<1&83' SRSXODWLRQ LHSHUFHQW 7KLVODWWHU =>?)@?('+&02-7'A7B)=C LQWHUYDOZDVFRPSULVHGRIMXVWWZRVKRZVLQ $%# "%HWUD\DO $%& DQG&KLFDJR3' 1%& ,Q"DVZDVWKHFDVHLQWKH SUHYLRXVVHDVRQWKHUHZHUHQREURDGFDVW &'() VFULSWHGVKRZVIRUZKLFKPLQRULW\ZULWHUV !"# *)+'() ZHUHWKHPDMRULW\RIZULWHUVFUHGLWHG7KH RYHUDOOPLQRULW\VKDUHRIZULWHUVFUHGLWHGIRU EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVLQ"ZDVMXVW SHUFHQWZKLFKH[DFWO\PDWFKHVWKHILJXUH

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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²)URP'XVN7LOO'DZQ7KH6HULHV (O 1"#(234()5,* 5H\ ²ZHUHEODFN"RULHQWHGVLWFRPVDQG GUDPDVDLULQJRQQHWZRUNVWKDWFDWHUWR VLJQLILFDQW$IULFDQ$PHULFDQDXGLHQFHV 7KHVHODWWHUVKRZVLQFOXGH%HLQJ0DU\-DQH !"#$%&'(G)''*"+,%"-.'/01%&',2' %(7 5HDO+XVEDQGVRI+ROO\ZRRG %(7 3%&4"-&4'5%"-&%67'8.'/01%&',2' 7KH+DYHVDQGWKH+DYH1RWV 2:1 DQG I"#"-1F'/:%";-&4'/0,<67 7\OHU3HUU\¶V)RU%HWWHURU:RUVH 7%6 =>?@A?('/&16,+'B+C=GD 7KHRYHUDOOPLQRULW\VKDUHRIZULWHUVFUHGLWHG %# IRUFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVLQ"ZDV %# "'#()*(+,-- SHUFHQWGRZQIURPSHUFHQWWKHSUHYLRXV ""#(.)($'# VHDVRQ$VDUHVXOWPLQRULWLHVZHUH %0# $"#(.)(/'# XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGLQWKLVDUHQDE\DIDFWRURI /"#(.)(0'# PRUHWKDQWR! 0"#(.)(1'# ! !

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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²$OSKD &DEOH6FULSWHG:ULWLQJ&UHGLWV6OLJKWO\ +RXVH $PD]RQ 6HTXHVWHUHG &UDFNOH /HVV*HQGHU'LYHUVH! DQG7KH.LOOLQJ 1HWIOL[ ZKHUHWKH\ZHUH 7KHIHPDOHVKDUHRIFUHGLWHGZULWHUVZDV EHWZHHQSHUFHQWDQGSHUFHQWRIWKH JUHDWHUWKDQSHUFHQWIRUDERXWSHUFHQW ZULWHUVFUHGLWHGDQG+RXVHRI&DUGV RIFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVLQWKH"VHDVRQ 1HWIOL[ ZKHUHWKH\ZHUHEHWZHHQ VHH)LJXUH ²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¶V$QDWRP\ $%& 1DVKYLOOH 1%& )LJXUHVKRZVWKHIHPDOHVKDUHRI DQG7KH&DUULH'LDULHV &: 7KHRYHUDOO FUHGLWHGZULWHUVZDVJUHDWHUWKDQSHUFHQW

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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

!"#$%&'()*''!&+,-&'./,%&'01' !"#$%&'(G*''!&+,-&'./,%&'01' 2%&3"4&3'5%"4&%67'89'./,%&'01' 2%&3"4&3'5%"4&%67'89'./,%&'01' :%0,3;,64'.;%"<4&3'./0=67' 2,8-&'.;%"<4&3'./0=67 >?@AB@('.&,60C'DCE@@(F >?@AB@('.&,60C'DCE@H)F

!&#()*(+,-- !&#()*(+,-- !"# 6# !'# $0# !!#(.)($&# !"# !!#(.)($&# $&# !$# $!#(.)('&# $!#(.)('&# '!#(.)(/&# !%# '!#(.)(/&# !0# /!#(.)(0&# /!#(.)(0&# !%# $$# !5# 0!#(123()4,* 0!#(123()4,*

!"#$%&'(I*''!&+,-&'./,%&'01' 2%&3"4&3'5%"4&%67'89'./,%&'01' J"#"4,-'.;%"<4&3'./0=67' >?@AB@('.&,60C'DCE>HF

!&#()*(+,-- !!# '6# !0# !!#(.)($&# $!#(.)('&# 5# '!#(.)(/&# 5# /!#(.)(0&# !6# 0!#(123()4,*

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

79'LUHFWRUV! SHUFHQWDQGSHUFHQWRIWKHHSLVRGHVIRU RQO\SHUFHQWRIWKHVKRZV&DEOHVFULSWHG $VQRWHGLQWKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWVLQWKLV VKRZVIRUZKLFKPLQRULWLHVGLUHFWHGWKH VHULHVPLQRULWLHVKDYHIDFHGDQXSKLOOEDWWOH PDMRULW\RIHSLVRGHVLQ"²OLNHWKRVH LQWKHSDVWZKHQDWWHPSWLQJWRVHFXUH REVHUYHGDERYHIRUZKLFKPLQRULWLHVUHFHLYHG GLUHFWLQJMREVLQWHOHYLVLRQ%HORZZHXSGDWH WKHPDMRULW\RIZULWLQJFUHGLWV²ZHUH ILQGLQJVIURPWKHVHHDUOLHUUHSRUWVE\ W\SLFDOO\EODFN"RULHQWHGVKRZVDLULQJRQ FRQVLGHULQJWKH"VHDVRQ! QHWZRUNVZLWKVL]HDEOH$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ 0LQRULWLHV'LUHFW3HUFHQWRU)HZHURI DXGLHQFHV([DPSOHVRIWKHVHVKRZVLQFOXGH (SLVRGHVIRU0RUHWKDQ7ZR7KLUGVRI %HLQJ0DU\-DQH %(7 5HDO+XVEDQGVRI %URDGFDVW6FULSWHG6KRZV! +ROO\ZRRG %(7 7KH*DPH %(7 7KH )RUSHUFHQWRIEURDGFDVWFRPHGLHVDQG +DYHVDQG+DYH1RWV 2:1 DQG7\OHU GUDPDVIURPWKH"VHDVRQPLQRULWLHV 3HUU\¶V)RU%HWWHURU:RUVH 7%6 7KH GLUHFWHGSHUFHQWRUIHZHURIWKHHSLVRGHV RYHUDOOPLQRULW\VKDUHRIGLUHFWHGHSLVRGHV VHH)LJXUH %\FRQWUDVWPLQRULWLHV IRUFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVLQ"ZDV GLUHFWHGEHWZHHQSHUFHQWDQGSHUFHQW SHUFHQWGRZQPRUHWKDQSHUFHQWDJH RIWKHHSLVRGHV²WKHGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO SRLQWVIURPWKHSHUFHQWILJXUHIRUWKH FRQWDLQLQJWKHSHUFHQWPLQRULW\VKDUHRI SUHYLRXVVHDVRQ! WKH86SRSXODWLRQLQ²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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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²+LJK0DLQWHQDQFH 9LPHR ²IRU ZKLFKLQFOXGHVWKHPDMRULW\RIHSLVRGHVIRU ZKLFKWKH\GLUHFWHGWKHPDMRULW\RIWKH WKUHHVKRZV&DOOWKH0LGZLIH 3%6 +RZ, HSLVRGHV)XOO&LUFOH 'LUHF79 IRUZKLFK 0HW

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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²DILJXUH !%":$ 708 WKDWLVDQRWDEOHLPSURYHPHQWRYHUWKH 9. PLQRULW\FUHDWRUVKDUHVLQHLWKHUEURDGFDVW FDEOHRUGLJLWDOIRUWKH"VHDVRQ :KLOHLWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWWKLVILJXUHUHSUHVHQWV WKHOHDGLQJHGJHRIDVKLIWLQEXVLQHVV"DV"

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

XVXDOSUDFWLFHVLQ+ROO\ZRRGFRQFHUQLQJ XQGHUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQLVVWLOOWKHQRUP GLYHUVLW\DQGSURMHFWGHYHORSPHQWLWVKRXOG 0LQRULWLHVJDLQHGDOLWWOHJURXQGEHWZHHQ EHQRWHGWKDWWKHOLRQ¶VVKDUHRIWKHVH UHSRUWVDPRQJEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGOHDGVEXW SURMHFWVZLOOQHYHUPDNHLWWRWKHVPDOO ORVWJURXQGRUWUHDGHGZDWHULQDOOWKHRWKHU VFUHHQ7REHVXUHHYHQLISHUFHQWRIWKH DUHQDV0HDQZKLOHZRPHQORVWJURXQGLQ SURMHFWVWKDWDUHHYHQWXDOO\JUHHQOLJKWHG QHDUO\HYHU\DUHQD²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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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¶VOLNHOLKRRGRI )LOPV'LUHFWHGE\:RPHQ*DLQDW2VFDUV" ZLQQLQJDWOHDVWRQH2VFDUE\PLQRULW\FDVW )LJXUHVKRZVZRPHQGLUHFWHG VKDUHIRUDQG,WUHYHDOVWKDW SHUFHQWRIWKHILOPVWKDWUHFHLYHGDWOHDVW EHWZHHQUHSRUWVWKHRGGVRIZLQQLQJDQ RQH2VFDULQ7KRXJKWKLVVKDUHLVDQ 2VFDUJHQHUDOO\LQFUHDVHGIRUPRUHGLYHUVH LPSURYHPHQWRYHUWKHSUHYLRXV\HDU²ZKHQ ILOPV,QGHHGWKHRGGVRIZLQQLQJDQ2VFDU QRQHRIWKHILOPVWKDWZRQDWOHDVWRQH2VFDU LQDFWXDOO\SHDNHGIRUILOPVWKDWZHUH ZDVGLUHFWHGE\DZRPDQ²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²ZKLFKZDVDOVRWKHRQO\2VFDU" PLQRULW\%XWWKHRGGVRIZLQQLQJ²JLYHQ ZLQQLQJILOPGLUHFWHGE\DZRPDQDQGRQHRI FDVWGLYHUVLW\²ZHUHVOLJKWO\ORZHUIRUILOPV RQO\WZRGLUHFWHGE\DPLQRULW\²DQG%LJ LQWKLVGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDOEHFDXVHLWFRQWDLQHG +HUR! WKHODUJHVWQXPEHURIWLWOHV! )LOPVZLWK:RPHQ/HDGV/RVH*URXQGDW ! 2VFDUV" ! :LWKUHVSHFWWRZLQQLQJDWOHDVWRQH2VFDU WKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWQRWHGWKDWILOPV ! IHDWXULQJZRPHQOHDGVKDGUHDFKHGSDULW\ !

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()*''+,-.%'/"00&%,' !P#$%&'E=*''+,-.%'/"00&%,' 12'3"%&-45%'6.-&7' 12'3"%&-45%'I&0G&%7' 89&.4%"-.:'!":;,7'<=>>?<=>@'A0B>>7'>>7'C7'>>?<=>J'A0B>>7'>>7'C7'>

!"#$%&'E>*''+,-.%'/"00&%,' !"#$%&'E<*''+,-.%'/"00&%,' 12'F&.G'H-45%'6.-&7' 12'F&.G'H-45%'I&0G&%7' 89&.4%"-.:'!":;,7'<=>>?<=>@'A0B>>7'>>7'C'7'>>?<=>@'A0B>>7'>>7'C7'>

!"#$%&'EJ*''F"K&:"955G'5L'/"00"0#'+,-.%7' 12'M"05%"42'N.,4'O9.%&7' 89&.4%"-.:'!":;,7'<=>J'.0G'<=>@' *"!) *"!, !'#"$ !*#'$ !"#%$ !"#"$ &#!$ +#)$ &#!$ '#"$ '#'$ ,#'$ )#+$ ,#*$ "#"$ ;!"$ !!$<04 *!$<04 )!$<04 ,!$<04 =>15<'"$ *"$ )"$ ,"$ '"$

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! !"#$%&'()*''+,,-'."//&%0' ! !I#$%&'(D*''+,,-'."//&%0 1-'2%&345%'637&8' 1-'2%&345%'J&/:&%8' ! ! 9%53:7304';7%"<4&:8' 9%53:7304';7%"<4&:8' ! =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0'B/CD8'(8'??E ! =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0'B/CD8'(8'??E -./01 2/345/06 2891 :1;891 !""#"$ ! ! !""#"$ %"#"$ !""#"$ %"#"$ %"#"$ %!#%$ ! %&#&$ '"#'$ ! ("#"$ ("#"$ 7"#"$ +"#"$ ! ! +"#"$ !(#)$ '#!$ *"#"$ "#"$ *"#"$ *"#"$ !%#*$ "#"$ ! ! "#"$ *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ ! !

! ! !"#$%&'((*''+,,-'."//&%0' ! ! !"#$%&'(G*''+,,-'."//&%0' 1-'2%&345%'637&8' 1-'2%&345%'J&/:&%8' ! 231F&';7%"<4&:8' ! 231F&';7%"<4&:8' =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0'B/CG8'H8'GE =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0'B/CG8'H8'GE ! -./01 2/345/06 ! 2891 :1;891 !""#"$ !""#"$ ! ! %"#"$ !""#"$ !""#"$ !""#"$ %"#"$ !""#"$ %7#)$ ("#"$ ! ! ("#"$ ))#%$ +"#"$ +"#"$ **#*$ !+#&$ *"#"$ ! "#"$ "#"$ "#"$ ! *"#"$ "#"$ "#"$ "#"$ ! *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ ! *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ ! !

! ! !"#$%&'(K*''L"M&F"N55:'5O'."//"/#'+,,-8' !"#$%&'(H*''L"M&F"N55:'5O'."//"/#'+,,-8' ! 1-'P"/5%"4-'2304';N3%&8' ! 1-'P"/5%"4-'2304';N3%&8' 9%53:7304';7%"<4&:8' 231F&';7%"<4&:8' ! =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0' ! =>??@?='45'=>?A@?)';&305/0 *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ *"!!,!* *"!*,!& *"!&,!+ *7#"$ ! ! !"#"$ *7#"$ %#7$ *"#"$ )#)$ ! !&#&$ ! !7#"$ !*#7$ 7#"$ !"#"$ ! ! )#)$ 7#"$ ! ! "#"$ "#"$ ?15=7"$ ?15=7"$ ! *"$ &"$ +"$ 7"$ ! *"$ &"$ +"$ 7"$

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

*DWHNHHSLQJ! WKLVVHULHVKDYHFRQFOXGHGWKHQSURPRWLQJ GLYHUVLW\DPRQJWKHLUWDOHQWURVWHUVDQG ,QUHFHQW\HDUVWDOHQWUHSUHVHQWDWLRQLQ DJHQWVPD\DOVRKHOSWDOHQWDJHQFLHVDGGUHVV +ROO\ZRRGKDVEHHQVKDSHGE\WKHLQFUHDV WKHLUFKDOOHQJHVDVZHOO! LQJGRPLQDQFHRIDVPDOOQXPEHURIODUJH WDOHQWDJHQFLHVWKHSUROLIHUDWLRQRI 7KHSUHYLRXV+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUWV ³SDFNDJLQJSUDFWLFHV´WKDWVKLIWSRZHUIURP IRXQGWKDWWKHWKUHHGRPLQDQWWDOHQW VWXGLRVWRGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHVDWWKH DJHQFLHVKDYHUHSUHVHQWHGDQLQFUHDVLQJ QHJRWLDWLQJWDEOHDQGWKHJOREDOL]DWLRQRIWKH PDMRULW\RIFUHGLWHGWDOHQWLQWKH\HDUV HQWHUWDLQPHQWLQGXVWU\! H[DPLQHG

6RLIGLYHUVLW\LVJRRGIRUWKHERWWRPOLQHIRU ! VWXGLRVDQGQHWZRUNVDVSUHYLRXVUHSRUWVLQ

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()*''+,"-&'./0'1.2&'3,.%&4'56'7&8' 954"-"5/4:';,%&&'<5="/./-';.2&/-'>#&/?"&4: @)AB'C/DAEF:'EF(:'A@AG:' =>21.45>6<. [email protected]>6<. %'#"$ )&&#&$ !"#!$ %&#!$ !&#&$ '!#)$ ")#*$ (%#)$ '&#&$ *&#&$ +&#&$ &#&$ ,-./0123.451677 89.:1 ;6<1:.<

'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV2YHUZKHOPLQJO\ GLIIHUHQWWDOHQWDJHQFLHV%XWDVQRWHGLQWKH :KLWHDQG'LVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\0DOH! SUHYLRXVUHSRUWVLQWKLVVHULHVWKUHHRIWKHVH DJHQFLHVFODLPHGRQWKHLUURVWHUVWKHOLRQ¶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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

ILOPGLUHFWRUVRQWKHFRPELQHGURVWHUVRIWKH 'RPLQDQW7DOHQW$JHQFLHV¶6KDUHRI)LOP UHPDLQLQJILUPVSOXPPHWHGWRMXVW /HDGV'HFOLQHV! SHUFHQWLQDIWHUQHDUO\UHDFKLQJ )LJXUHVKRZVWKDWWKHGRPLQDQW SURSRUWLRQDWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQDWSHUFHQW WDOHQWDJHQFLHVUHSUHVHQWHGSHUFHQWRI LQ! WKHFUHGLWHGOHDGVLQWKHILOPVH[DPLQHG 'RPLQDQW7DOHQW$JHQFLHV¶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² WR5HSUHVHQW0LQRULW\)LOP:ULWHUV! DILJXUHFRUUHVSRQGLQJWRXQGHUUHSUHVHQWD WLRQE\DIDFWRURIQHDUO\WR JUD\OLQH )LJXUHFRPSDUHVWKHPLQRULW\VKDUH %\FRQWUDVWSHUFHQWRIWKHFUHGLWHG RIILOPZULWHUVIRUWKHGRPLQDQWDQG OHDGVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHUHPDLQLQJDJHQFLHV UHPDLQLQJWDOHQWDJHQFLHVEHWZHHQDQG LQZHUHPLQRULWLHV RIOHDGV ! ,WUHYHDOVWKDWWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRI ILOPZULWHUVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHGRPLQDQW ! DJHQFLHVGHFOLQHGEHWZHHQDQG² ! IURPWKHSHUFHQWILJXUHIRUQRWHGLQ WKHSUHYLRXVUHSRUWWRMXVWSHUFHQWLQ ! RIZULWHUV :KLOHWKHPLQRULW\ ! VKDUHRIFUHGLWHGZULWHUVIRUWKHUHPDLQLQJ ILUPVLQSHUFHQW RIZULWHUV ! ZDVWZLFHWKDWRIWKHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHV ! PLQRULW\ZULWHUVQHLWKHUGRPLQDQWQRU ! UHPDLQLQJDJHQFLHVDSSURDFKHGDQ\WKLQJ FORVHWRSURSRUWLRQDWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQWKDW ! \HDU JUD\OLQH ! ! !

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()*''+,-"./.0'1#&.23'45/%&',6' !"#$%&'(;*''F".,%"03'45/%&',6'+"%&20,%78' +"%&20,%78'95&/0%"2/:'!":-78' +,-"./.0'G7H'I&-/".".#'1#&.2"&78' ;<))=;<)>'?.@)(;8')A;8')AB8')>AC 95&/0%"2/:'!":-78';<))=;<)>' ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 ?.@)(;8')A;8')AB8')>AC +""#"$ ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 7#8#9:-: %&#&$ %'#($ !%#)$ )"#"$ %"#"$ !"#"$

)"#"$ ("#"$ *!#6$ **#*$ ("#"$ '"#"$ '"#"$ ++#&$ '"#"$ +(#"$ *"#"$ 6#"$ +$ '+#($ (#&$ 6#($ "#"$ +(#&$ +!#)$ "#"$ '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+( '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+(

!"#$%&'(B*''+,-"./.0'1#&.23'45/%&',6' !"#$%&'(>*''F".,%"03'45/%&',6'D%"0&%78' D%"0&%78'95&/0%"2/:'!":-78 +,-"./.0'G7H'I&-/".".#'1#&.2"&78' ;<))=;<)B'?.@)(;8')A)8')A;8')BEC 95&/0%"2/:'!":-78';<))=;<)B' ?.@)(;8')A)8)A;8')BEC ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 7#8#9:-: +""#"$ )"#"$ !(#%$ !)#*$ !+#"$ %"#"$ )&#+$ ("#"$ )"#"$ *!#6$ ("#"$ '"#"$ +*#6$ +"#&$ !#%$ +"#"$ '"#"$ *(#6$ '6#"$ )#*$ ++#'$ &#+$ '&#'$ '*#!$ "#"$ !#+$ "#"$ '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+( '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+(

! !

!"#$%&'(A*''+,-"./.0'1#&.23'45/%&',6'J&/K78' !"#$%&'(M*''F".,%"03'45/%&',6'J&/K78' 95&/0%"2/:'!":-78' +,-"./.0'G7H'I&-/".".#'1#&.2"&78' ;<))=;<)B'?.@)(;8')AL8')MA8')A>C 95&/0%"2/:'!":-78';<))=;<)B' ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 ?.@)(;8')AL8')MA8')A>C ,-./0102 34.1/0/05 7#8#9:-: +""#"$ !6#6$ %6#+$ %+#'$ !'#+$ )"#"$ %"#"$ &"#"$ )"#"$ ("#"$ *!#6$ ("#"$ '!#6$ '+#+$ +%#%$ +%#%$ +&#"$ +"#6$ '"#"$ +'#'$ '"#!$ '"#"$ !#*$ 6#($ 6#)$ "#"$ "#"$ '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+( '"++ '"+' '"+* '"+(

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

7HOHYLVLRQ! WKHLUURVWHUVLQ"WRSHUFHQWLQ " RIVKRZFUHDWRUV ! 'RPLQDQW7DOHQW$JHQFLHV,QFUHDVH7KHLU 6KDUHRI6KRZ&UHDWRUVLQ%URDGFDVW! 'RPLQDQW7DOHQW$JHQFLHV¶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²SHUFHQW RIOHDGV DQG SHUFHQW RIOHDGV UHVSHFWLYHO\%XW 0HDQZKLOHWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKHVKRZ ERWKRIWKHVHILJXUHVZHUHVWLOOZHOOEHORZ FUHDWRUVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHUHPDLQLQJWDOHQW SURSRUWLRQDWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ JUD\OLQH DJHQFLHVDOVRGHFOLQHGEHWZHHQWKHVHDVRQV ,QGHHGLQ"PLQRULW\OHDGVRQ! IURPSHUFHQWRIWKHVKRZFUHDWRUVRQ

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! ! ! ! ! !

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

! ! ! !

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

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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¶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¶W PXFKEHWWHUDWWKHUHPDLQLQJDJHQFLHVWKDW ! VHDVRQZKHUHPLQRULW\VKRZFUHDWRUVZHUH XQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\DIDFWRURIPRUHWKDQ ! WR! ! 'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV,QFUHDVH7KHLU6KDUH ! RI&DEOH6FULSWHG/HDGV$JDLQ! 7ZHQW\"QLQHWDOHQWDJHQFLHVUHSUHVHQWHGWKH ! DFWRUVFUHGLWHGDVOHDGVRQWKHFDEOHVFULSWHG ! VKRZVH[DPLQHGIRUWKH"VHDVRQ7KH WKUHHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHVFRPELQHGWR ! UHSUHVHQWSHUFHQWRIWKHVHOHDGVXS

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! !

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

! !

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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV5HSUHVHQW0RUHWKDQ 0LQRULWLHV8QGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\)DFWRU 7KUHH4XDUWHUVRI'LJLWDO6FULSWHG6KRZ RI0RUHWKDQWRDPRQJ'LJLWDO6FULSWHG &UHDWRUV! /HDGVDW'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV!

6L[WDOHQWDJHQFLHVUHSUHVHQWHGWKHVKRZ )LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHPLQRULW\ FUHDWRUVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUGLJLWDOVFULSWHG VKDUHVRIGLJLWDOVFULSWHGOHDGVUHSUHVHQWHG VKRZVGXULQJWKH"VHDVRQ)LJXUH E\WKHGRPLQDQWDQGUHPDLQLQJWDOHQW VKRZVWKDWWKHWKUHHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHV DJHQFLHVIRUWKH"VHDVRQ2QO\ UHSUHVHQWHGSHUFHQWRIWKHVHLPSRUWDQW SHUFHQWRIWKHFUHGLWHGOHDGVRQWKHWDOHQW LQGXVWU\SOD\HUV RIVKRZFUHDWRUV ! URVWHUVRIWKHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHVWKDWVHDVRQ ZHUHPLQRULWLHV RIOHDGV FRPSDUHGWR 0LQRULWLHV8QGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\)DFWRU SHUFHQWRIWKHFUHGLWHGOHDGVDWWKH RIWRDPRQJ'LJLWDO6FULSWHG6KRZ UHPDLQLQJDJHQFLHV RIOHDGV $VD &UHDWRUVDW'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV! UHVXOWPLQRULWLHVZHUHXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGE\ )LJXUHSUHVHQWVWKHPLQRULW\VKDUHV DIDFWRURIPRUHWKDQWRDPRQJWKHUDQNV RIGLJLWDOVFULSWHGVKRZFUHDWRUVUHSUHVHQWHG RIGLJLWDOVFULSWHGOHDGVDWWKHGRPLQDQW E\WKHGRPLQDQWDQGUHPDLQLQJWDOHQW DJHQFLHVDQGQHDUO\WRDWWKHUHPDLQLQJ DJHQFLHVIRUWKH"VHDVRQ:KLOHWKH DJHQFLHV! UHPDLQLQJDJHQFLHVKDGQRFUHGLWHGPLQRULW\ ! VKRZFUHDWRUVRQWKHLUURVWHUVWKDWVHDVRQ RQO\SHUFHQWRIWKHVKRZFUHDWRUV ! UHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHVZHUH ! PLQRULWLHV RIVKRZFUHDWRUV $VD UHVXOWPLQRULWLHVZHUHXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHG ! DPRQJWKHUDQNVRIFUHGLWHGVKRZFUHDWRUVDW ! WKHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHVE\DIDFWRURIDERXW ! WRWKDWVHDVRQ! ! 'RPLQDQW$JHQFLHV5HSUHVHQW1HDUO\ 7ZR7KLUGVRI'LJLWDO6FULSWHG/HDGV! ! ! 6HYHQWDOHQWDJHQFLHVUHSUHVHQWHGWKHDFWRUV FUHGLWHGDVOHDGVRQWKHFDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZV ! H[DPLQHGIRUWKH"VHDVRQ)LJXUH ! VKRZVWKDWWKHWKUHHGRPLQDQWDJHQFLHV FRPELQHGWRUHSUHVHQWSHUFHQWRIWKHVH ! OHDGV RIOHDGV ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

! ! ! ! ! !

!"#$%&'(M*''=#&,>/'012%&'-3'01-4'5%&2.-%67 !"#$%&'()*''+",-%"./'012%&'-3'01-4'5%&2.-%67' 8-9",2,.':6;'<&92",",#'=#&,>"&67' 8-9",2,.':6;'<&92",",#'=#&,>"&67' 8"#".2?'0>%"@.&A7'BCDEFDG'0&26-,'H,IBEJ 8"#".2?'0>%"@.&A7'BCDEFDG'0&26-,'H,IBEJ *%%"%$ )&"($ *%%"%$ )%"%$ )%"%$ (%"%$ (%"%$ '%"%$ '%"%$ *6"'$ &%"%$ &%"%$ !"#$ %"%$ %"%$ %"%$ +,-./0/1 23-0././4 +,-./0/1 23-0././4

! ! ! !

!"#$%&'(L*''=#&,>/'012%&'-3'K&2A67' !"#$%&'((*''+",-%"./'012%&'-3'K&2A67' 8-9",2,.':6;'<&92",",#'=#&,>"&67' 8-9",2,.':6;'<&92",",#'=#&,>"&67' 8"#".2?'0>%"@.&A7'BCDEFDG'0&26-,'H,IBLJ 8"#".2?'0>%"@.&A7'BCDEFDG'0&26-,'H,IBLJ

*%%"%$ *%%"%$

)%"%$ )%"%$ (#"%$ (%"%$ (%"%$ #6"%$ '%"%$ '%"%$

&%"%$ &%"%$ !"5$ *%"%$ %"%$ %"%$ +,-./0/1 23-0././4 +,-./0/1 23-0././4

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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¶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

!"#$%&'()*''+,-./,'0-1'233"4&'56667666897' !"#$%&')6*''K&=$%<'-<'L/8='?@/%&7'A@&/=%"4/,'!",B87' .:';"<-%"=:'>/8='?@/%&7'A@&/=%"4/,'!",B87' C6DDEC6DF'5

!$%$ $ "$*+,- ""*+1, )"*+2, &"*+2, ("*+2, '"*+345 "$*+,- ""*+1, )"*+2, &"*+2, ("*+2, '"*+345 ./00 )$* &$* ($* '$* ,6/- ./00 )$* &$* ($* '$* ,6/-

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

'HVSLWHWKHREYLRXVSRSXODULW\ RIWKHGLYHUVHVKRZVLGHQWLILHG DERYHDFURVVWKHYDULRXV DXGLHQFHVHJPHQWVLWLVZRUWK QRWLQJWKDWPRVWEURDGFDVW VFULSWHGVKRZVH[DPLQHGLQ KDGFDVWVWKDWZHUHRQO\ SHUFHQWPLQRULW\RUOHVV RIVKRZV ! $XGLHQFH(QJDJHPHQWZLWK 6RFLDO0HGLD3HDNVIRU %URDGFDVW6FULSWHG6KRZV 5HIOHFWLQJ$PHULFD¶V5DFLDO 'LYHUVLW\" )LJXUHFKDUWVWKH %URRNO\Q1LQH!1LQH )R[ *DQJ5HODWHG PHGLDQYROXPHRIWZHHWVDQGXQLTXHDXWKRUV )R[ /DZ 2UGHU6SHFLDO9LFWLPV8QLW IRUEURDGFDVWVFULSWHGVKRZVE\FDVWGLYHUVLW\ 1%& DQG+DZDLL)LYH!2 &%6 0HGLDQ LQWHUYDOIRUWKH"VHDVRQ,WVKRZV UDWLQJVIRUSHUVRQV"DOVRSHDNHGIRUWKH WKDWWKHPHGLDQYROXPHRIWZHHWV VKRZVLQWKLVFDVWGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO SHDNHGIRUVKRZVIDOOLQJLQWKHSHUFHQWWR UDWLQJVSRLQWV DVWKH\ZHUHQRGRXEWGULYHQ SHUFHQWPLQRULW\FDVWGLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDO² E\KLJKPLQRULW\HQJDJHPHQWZLWKWKHVH WKHLQWHUYDOHQFRPSDVVLQJWKHDFWXDO VKRZVDQGEHFDXVHPLQRULWLHV SHUFHQW PLQRULW\VKDUHRIWKH86SRSXODWLRQLQ RIWKHSRSXODWLRQLQ ZHUHDGLVSURSRU SHUFHQW 7ZHQW\VKRZVIHOOLQWRWKLV WLRQDWHO\ODUJHVKDUHRIWKHWHOHYLVLRQ GLYHUVLW\LQWHUYDOLQ"([DPSOHV DXGLHQFH! LQFOXGH7KH%ODFNOLVW 1%& &DVWOH $%& 1HZ*LUO )R[ DQG*UH\¶V$QDWRP\ $%& $PRQJZKLWHKRXVHKROGVPHGLDQUDWLQJV 7KHPHGLDQYROXPHRIXQLTXH7ZLWWHU DOVRSHDNHGIRUUHODWLYHO\GLYHUVHVKRZV²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

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

!"#$%&'()*''+&,"-.'/-0".#1' !"#$%&'(@*''FG"00&%'/-0".#1''CAAA1E8 23'+".4%"03'5-10'67-%&8')9:;('-.,'<<'/-=&8 23'+".4%03'5-10'67-%&8 >%4-,=-10'6=%"?0&,8'@A)B:);'6&-14.'C.D));E >%4-,=-10'6=%"?0&,'674G18' !$5+# 678/3 9:;<= >;/8?0 @A8;? @A)B:);'6&-14.'C.D))AE $"&& B633/A @C/704A !&"&& *"&& #"!' %"&' %"&& $"&& ("'$ ("&& %"&& +"&& ("') '"!* '"&& +"&& )"*$ )"&& !"#$ )"&& !"&&

&"&& &"&& ,!&- !!-./0 )!-./0 '!-./0 +!-./0 1234.(&- ,!&- !!-./0 )!-./0 '!-./0 +!-./0 1234.(&- )&- '&- +&- (&- )&- '&- +&- (&- ! ! ! !

!"#$%&'(B*''+&,"-.'<<'/-0".#1' !"#$%&'(;*''FG"00&%'/-0".#1'CAAA1E8' 23'+".4%"03'5-10'67-%&8')9:;('-.,'<<'/-=&8' 23'+".4%"03'5-10'67-%&8' 5-2H&'6=%"?0&,8'@A)B:);'6&-14.'C.D)IIE 5-2H&'6=%"?0&,'674G18' !$5+# 678/3 9:;<= >;/8?0 @A8;? @A)B:);'6&-14.'C.D)IBE '"&& B633/A @C/704A !&"& #"* )"(& )"'' $"& )"&& %"* %"& !"(&

+"& !"&&

&"+# &"(& )"& &")* &"'! &"+! &"&& &"& ,!&- !!-./0 )!-./0 '!-./0 +!-./0 1234.(&- ,!&- !!-./0 )!-./0 '!-./0 +!-./0 1234.(&- )&- '&- +&- (&- )&- '&- +&- (&-

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

&RQFOXVLRQ%XVLQHVVDV ! 8VXDO! ! 7KHLQLWLDOUHSRUWLQWKLVVHULHVUHOHDVHGLQ SURGXFHUVDQGVKRZUXQQHUV ZKRURXWLQHO\ DLPHGWRPDNHVHQVHRIDJODULQJ VXUURXQGWKHPVHOYHVZLWKOLNH"PLQGHG GLVFRQQHFWWKHIDFWWKDWWKH+ROO\ZRRG FROOHDJXHVUDWKHUWKDQLQYLWHGLYHUVH LQGXVWU\LVZRHIXOO\RXWRIWRXFKZLWK SHUVSHFWLYHVLQWRWKHURRP ! $PHULFD¶VLQFUHDVLQJGLYHUVLW\GHVSLWH 7KHIROORZ"XSUHSRUWUHOHDVHGODVW\HDU LQFUHDVLQJHYLGHQFHWKDWGLYHUVLW\LVJRRGIRU FRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHUHLVQRPDJLFEXOOHWIRU EXVLQHVV7KHIDOVHQRWLRQWKDWWKHUHLVD VROYLQJ+ROO\ZRRG¶VUDFHDQGJHQGHU QHFHVVDU\WUDGHRIIEHWZHHQGLYHUVLW\DQG SUREOHP,WLVDPXOWL"GLPHQVLRQDOSUREOHP H[FHOOHQFHWKHUHSRUWFRQFOXGHGKDVHQDEOHG WKDWZLOOUHTXLUHLQWHUYHQWLRQVRQHYHU\IURQW WKLVLQGXVWU\EXVLQHVVDVXVXDO! %XWPHDQLQJIXOLQWHUYHQWLRQVKDYHEHHQVORZ (YHU\LQGXVWU\VHFWRULVFRPSOLFLWLQWKH WRHPHUJHEHFDXVHRIDODWHQWFRQIOLFW IDOODF\²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

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

ORVVHVLQHLJKWRIWKHDUHQDVH[DPLQHGDQG WUHDGHGZDWHULQWKHRWKHUWKUHH%RWK JURXSVUHPDLQHGXQGHUUHSUHVHQWHGRQHYHU\ LQGXVWU\HPSOR\PHQWIURQWLQ"! 2IFRXUVHWKHUHKDVEHHQFRQVLGHUDEOHEX]] UHFHQWO\DERXWDUHQDLVVDQFHLQWHOHYLVLRQ WKDWKDVXVKHUHGLQDFURSRIQHZGLYHUVH VKRZVDFURVVVHYHUDOQHWZRUNV%\H[DPLQ LQJWKH"WHOHYLVLRQVHDVRQQH[W\HDU¶V UHSRUWZLOOVKHGVRPHOLJKWRQZKHWKHUWKLV GHYHORSPHQWPDUNVDIXQGDPHQWDOVKLIWLQ LQGXVWU\EXVLQHVVDVXVXDORUMXVWPDUJLQDO FRQWLQXHWRSURGXFHPRUHRIWKHVDPH DWWHPSWVWRUHVSRQGWRWKHKDQGZULWLQJRQ GHQ\LQJLQFUHDVLQJO\GLYHUVHDXGLHQFHVWKH WKHZDOOZLWKRXWGLVUXSWLQJWKHLQGXVWU\¶V FRQWHQWWKH\FUDYH,QVWLWXWLRQDOLQWHUHVWV XQGHUO\LQJSRZHUVWUXFWXUH2QHWKLQJLV WKXVVXIIHUDVELOOLRQVDUHOHIWRQWKHWDEOH! FOHDUWKHUHLVQRHYLGHQFHRIVLPLODU 7KHFXUUHQWUHSRUWSUHVHQWVPRUHHYLGHQFH IRUZDUG"WKLQNLQJGHYHORSPHQWVLQILOP! VXJJHVWLQJWKDW+ROO\ZRRG¶VEXVLQHVVDV $VZHKDYHDUJXHGWKURXJKRXWWKLVUHSRUW XVXDOLVDPRGHOWKDWPD\VRRQEHXQVXVWDLQ VHULHVDGHTXDWHO\UHVSRQGLQJWR+ROO\ZRRG¶V DEOH$WQHDUO\SHUFHQWRIWKHQDWLRQ¶V UDFHDQGJHQGHUSUREOHPZLOOUHTXLUHPRUH SRSXODWLRQDQGJURZLQJSHRSOHRIFRORUDUH WKDQWRNHQHIIRUWVDQGZLQGRZGUHVVLQJ,W RYHUUHSUHVHQWHGDPRQJ+ROO\ZRRG¶V ZLOOUHTXLUHEROGJHVWXUHVWKDWGLVUXSW DXGLHQFHV,QGHHGPRVWRIWKHPRYLHWLFNHWV LQGXVWU\EXVLQHVVDVXVXDOZKLFKQRWRQO\ IRUIRXURIWKHWRS"ILOPVLQ DGMXVWWKHRSWLFVLQIURQWRIWKHFDPHUDEXW LQFOXGLQJWKHQXPEHURQHILOP ZHUH WKDWDOVRRYHUKDXOWKHFUHDWLYHDQGH[HFXWLYH SXUFKDVHGE\SHRSOHFRORU6LPLODUO\YLHZHU PDFKLQHU\EHKLQGLW7KHILOPDFDGHP\¶V UDWLQJVDQGVRFLDOPHGLDHQJDJHPHQW GHFLVLRQWRIXQGDPHQWDOO\RYHUKDXOLWV GHPRQVWUDWHWKDWSHRSOHRIFRORUQRZPDNH PHPEHUVKLSLQWKHIDFHRIWKLV\HDU¶V XSDUJXDEO\WKHPRVWLPSRUWDQWVHJPHQWRI 2VFDUV6R:KLWHIXURU²OLNH$%&¶VUHFHQW WKHWHOHYLVLRQDXGLHQFH! DSSRLQWPHQWRIWKHILUVW$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ %XW+ROO\ZRRGLQGXVWU\SRZHUEURNHUVVHHP ZRPDQWRKHDGDPDMRUEURDGFDVWQHWZRUN² REOLYLRXVWRWKHVHDXGLHQFHUHDOLWLHV7KH FRQVWLWXWHVDFULWLFDOSDUDGLJP"VKLIWLQJPRYH YHU\SHRSOHEHVWVLWXDWHGWRKHOSWKHP LQWKHULJKWGLUHFWLRQ! FRQQHFWZLWKWRGD\¶V DQGWRPRUURZ¶V 2QO\WLPHZLOOWHOOLIWKHVHLPSRUWDQW DXGLHQFHVDUHKDUGO\DWWKHWDEOH:KLOH GHYHORSPHQWVGHILQHWKHOHDGLQJHGJHRID PLQRULWLHVIHOOEDFNDIHZVWHSVVLQFHWKHODVW ORQJ"RYHUGXHQHZQRUPDOIRUWKH+ROO\ZRRG UHSRUWLQVL[RIWKHLQGXVWU\HPSOR\PHQW LQGXVWU\6XEVHTXHQWUHSRUWVLQWKLVVHULHV DUHQDVH[DPLQHGDQGPHUHO\KHOGWKHLU ZLOOSURYLGHWKHGDWDQHFHVVDU\IRUDQVZHULQJ JURXQGLQWKHRWKHUIRXUZRPHQVXIIHUHG WKLVTXHVWLRQ!

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

(QGQRWHV! :LGHUHOHDVHLQFOXGHVDOOILOPVSOD\LQJLQ PRUHWKDQWKHDWHUV*HQHUDODXGLHQFH ! 7KHVHILOPVLQFOXGHGWKHWRSWKHDWULFDO SROOLQJLQFOXGHVPRYLHJRHUVDQGROGHUIRU ILOPVUHOHDVHGLQUDQNHGE\ZRUOGZLGH 3*"PRYLHVDQGDQGROGHUIRU5"UDWHG ER[RIILFHPLQXVIRUHLJQILOPV! ILOPV´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³2WKHU´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³/HDGUROH´LVGHILQHGLQWKLVUHSRUWDVWKH UDFHRIWKHKHDGRIKRXVHKROGZKLOH" ILUVWFUHGLWHGDFWRUSHUIRUPHUIRUDJLYHQ UDWLQJVDUHEDVHGRQLQGLYLGXDOYLHZHUV SURMHFW¶VOLVWRIFDVWPHPEHUV! 6RFLDOPHGLDUDWLQJVFRQVLVWRIWZHHWVDQG ! KWWSZZZQ\WLPHVFRP XQLTXHDXWKRUVZKLFKDUHPHDVXUHVRI PRYLHVFRPLQJ"VRRQ"D"EUHDNRXW"IRU"EODFN" UHOHYDQW867ZLWWHUDFWLYLW\IURPWKUHH ILOPPDNHUVKWPO"SDJHZDQWHG DOO BU ! KRXUVEHIRUHWKURXJKWKUHHKRXUVDIWHUD EURDGFDVWORFDOWLPH³7ZHHWV´DUHDVFULEHG ! 7KHRYHUDOOFDVWGLYHUVLW\PHDVXUHXVHGLQ WRDOLQHDU79HSLVRGHZKLOH³XQLTXH WKLVUHSRUWIRUERWKILOPDQGWHOHYLVLRQLV DXWKRUV´UHIHUWRXQLTXH7ZLWWHUDFFRXQWV EDVHGRQO\RQWKHILUVWHLJKWFUHGLWHGDFWRUV WKDWKDYHVHQWDWOHDVWRQHWZHHWDVFULEHGWRD IRUDJLYHQWLWOH! VSHFLILF79HSLVRGH! ! :RPHQDQGPLQRULWLHVZHUHFRXQWHGDV ! $FFRUGLQJWR5HQWUDN³3RVW7UDNLVFRQGXFWHG ³ZULWHU´IRUWKHILOPDQDO\VHVLIWKH\ZHUH HYHU\ZHHNIRUDOOILOPVLQWKHLUILUVWDQG FUHGLWHGDVWKHVROHZULWHURUDWOHDVWDVSDUW VHFRQGZHHNRIZLGHUHOHDVH7ZHQW\"RQH RIDZULWLQJWHDP! WKHDWHUVLQXQLTXHPDUNHWVZHUHFKRVHQWR ! 7KHQXPEHUIRUQDWLYHDFWRUVZDVVRORZ MXVW SDUWLFLSDWHDQGDUHGHPRJUDSKLFDOO\ WKDWWKH1DWLYH$PHULFDQVKDUHRI UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH86&HQVXVSRSXODWLRQ

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

EURDGFDVWVFULSWHGUROHVURXQGHGWR IROORZLQJ2XWVWDQGLQJ/HDG$FWUHVVLQD SHUFHQW! 'UDPD6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ/HDG$FWRULQD 'UDPD6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ6XSSRUWLQJ ! 6LPLODUO\WKH1DWLYH$PHULFDQDFWRUVRQ $FWUHVVLQD'UDPD6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ FDEOHVFULSWHGVKRZVURXQGHGWRDSHUFHQW 6XSSRUWLQJ$FWRULQD'UDPD6HULHV VKDUHLQWKDWDUHQDDVZHOO! 2XWVWDQGLQJ*XHVW$FWUHVVLQD'UDPD6HULHV ! 7KHDQDO\VLVRIFUHDWRUUDFLDOVWDWXVDQG 2XWVWDQGLQJ*XHVW$FWRULQD'UDPD6HULHV JHQGHUZDVOLPLWHGWRLQGLYLGXDOVFOHDUO\ 2XWVWDQGLQJ:ULWLQJIRUD'UDPD6HULHV FUHGLWHGDV³FUHDWRU´! 2XWVWDQGLQJ'LUHFWLQJIRUD'UDPD6HULHV 2XWVWDQGLQJ'UDPD6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ/HDG ! )RUH[DPSOHVHH+XQW' ³7XUQLQJ $FWUHVVLQD&RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ 0LVVHG2SSRUWXQLWLHV,QWR5HDOL]HG2QHV /HDG$FWRULQD&RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ 7KH+ROO\ZRRG:ULWHUV5HSRUW´/RV 6XSSRUWLQJ$FWUHVVLQD&RPHG\6HULHV $QJHOHV:ULWHUV*XLOGRI$PHULFD:HVW! 2XWVWDQGLQJ6XSSRUWLQJ$FWRULQD&RPHG\ !KWWSYDULHW\FRPWYQHZVGJD"VWXG\" 6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ*XHVW$FWUHVVLQD VKRZV"ZRPHQ"PLQRULWLHV"ODJJLQJ"DV"ILUVW" &RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ*XHVW$FWRULQD WLPH"WY"GLUHFWRUV"! &RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ:ULWLQJIRUD ! &\QWKLD/LWWOHWRQ³%LJ)RXU1HWZRUNV7HDU &RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ'LUHFWLQJIRUD 8SWKH3LORW6HDVRQ5XOHERRN´9DULHW\ &RPHG\6HULHV2XWVWDQGLQJ&RPHG\6HULHV! 0DUFKKWWSYDULHW\FRPWY ! 9LRODLQH5RXVVHO³7DOHQW$JHQWLQJLQWKH$JH QHZVLWV"D"QHZ"SOD\LQJ"ILHOG"IRU"WKH"ELJ"IRXU RI&RQJORPHUDWHV´LQ3UHFDULRXV&UHDWLYLW\ "QHWZRUNV"! *OREDO0HGLD/RFDO/DERUHGV0&XUWLQ ! 'DWDEDVHGRQDVQDSVKRWRIHYHU\SURMHFWLQ DQG.6DQVRQ %HUNHOH\&$8QLYHUVLW\RI GHYHORSPHQWDVRI$SULO5HVHDUFK &DOLIRUQLD3UHVV "! HUVXVHG9DULHW\,QVLJKW6WXGLR6\VWHPDQG ! 7KHGDWDIRUWKHDQDO\VLVRIDJHQWGLYHUVLW\ RWKHUPHGLDVRXUFHVWRLGHQWLI\WKHUDFH ZHUHFROOHFWHGIURP9DULHW\,QVLJKW¶V HWKQLFLW\RIWKHLQGLYLGXDODXVSLFHV! GLUHFWRU\RISHUVRQQHORQ$XJXVW ! $FFRUGLQJWRWKH/RV$QJHOHV7LPHVWKH 5HVHDUFKHUVXVHG9DULHW\,QVLJKWDQGRWKHU 0RWLRQ3LFWXUH$FDGHP\¶VPHPEHUVKLSLQ PHGLDVRXUFHVWRLGHQWLI\WKHUDFHHWKQLFLW\ ZDVDERXWSHUFHQWZKLWHSHUFHQW DQGJHQGHURIHDFKDJHQW! PDOHDQGKDVDQDYHUDJHDJHRI\HDUV ! )RUWKHVHDQDO\VHVVLPSOHUHWXUQRQ +RUQ 6PLWK 'HFHPEHU ! LQYHVWPHQWLVFRPSXWHGDVIROORZV 5HYHQXH ! ,QWKHDQDO\VHVIRUWKLVVHFWLRQDILOPRU ±%XGJHW %XGJHW7KDWLVWKHKLJKHUWKH WHOHYLVLRQVKRZWKDWUHFHLYHGDQ2VFDURU UDWLRWKHKLJKHUWKHUDWHRIUHWXUQ! (PP\LQDQ\FDWHJRU\LVFRXQWHGDVDQ ! 2QO\GUDPDVDQGFRPHGLHVDUHFRQVLGHUHGLQ ³2VFDUZLQQHU´RU³(PP\ZLQQHU´1R WKHVHDQDO\VHV! GLVWLQFWLRQLVPDGHEHWZHHQILOPVRU WHOHYLVLRQVKRZVWKDWZRQDVLQJOHRUPXOWLSOH ! DZDUGV! ! ! ³(PP\ZLQQHUV´IRUHDFKVHDVRQDUHGHILQHG ! DVVKRZVWKDWZRQDWOHDVWRQHPDMRU(PP\ DZDUG7KHUHOHYDQWFDWHJRULHVLQFOXGHWKH !

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

$ERXWWKH$XWKRUV! +XQW %ODFN/RV$QJHOHV$PHULFDQ'UHDPV DQG5DFLDO5HDOLWLHV 1HZ

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

$SSHQGL[! 'LVFRYHU\)LW +HDOWK! 7DEOH1HWZRUNVDQGGLJLWDOSODW 'LVQH\! IRUPVLQFOXGHGLQWKHVWXG\! 'LVQH\-U! $ (! 'LVQH\;'! $%&! (! $%&)DPLO\! (631! $0&! (O5H\! $2/! (VTXLUH! $GXOW6ZLP! );! $PD]RQ! );;! $QLPDO3ODQHW! )<,! %%&$PHULFD! )RRG1HWZRUN! %(7! )R[! %UDYR! *$&! &%6! +%2! &07! +*79! &1%&! +DOOPDUN&KDQQHO! &11! +LVWRU\&KDQQHO! &:! +XOX! &DUWRRQ1HWZRUN! ,)&! &LQHPD[! ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ'LVFRYHU\! &RPHG\&HQWUDO! /LIHWLPH! &RRNLQJ&KDQQHO! /LIHWLPH0RYLH1HWZRUN! &UDFNOH! /RJR! ',

! !

+ROO\ZRRG'LYHUVLW\5HSRUW! !

1DWLRQDO*HRJUDSKLF! :(WY! 1HWIOL[! :*1! 1HWIOL[!

! !

! 5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$!

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

=P+,$)"),$/&"*M&"('&Q,-R)"'&(-'*"M,NM>,NM*&%",$"N'&&$0">-))&)",$"'&%S

! !

5DOSK-%XQFKH&HQWHUIRU$IULFDQ$PHULFDQ6WXGLHVDW8&/$! +DLQHV+DOO%R[ł/RV$QJHOHV&$"! ! ZZZEXQFKHFHQWHUXFODHGX! ZZZIDFHERRNFRP%XQFKH&HQWHU8&/$! ZZZWZLWWHUFRP%XQFKH8&/$! ZZZ\RXWXEHFRPXVHUXFODEXQFKHFHQWHU!

! OFFICER LATINA MARTINEZ WITH CARTEL HOT ACCENT GUNMAN #2

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP A REPORT ON THE STATE OF LATINOS IN U.S. MEDIA

BY Frances Negrón-Muntaner with Chelsea Abbas, Luis Figueroa, and Samuel Robson

COMMISSIONED BY FUNDED IN PART BY

The Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race National Latino Arts, Education, Columbia University and Media Institute

Latinos are a powerful force in featuring compelling Latino talent and American society. Topping !fty-three storylines are rewarded with high EXECUTIVE million, Latinos constitute one of the ratings and revenue. fastest growing ethnic groups in the SUMMARY United States, comprising 17% of Yet, with few exceptions, Latino the population and over 20% of the participation in mainstream English- AND key 18–34 marketing demographic.1 language media is stunningly low. A Relative to the general population, review of the top movies and television KEY FINDINGS Latinos also attend more movies and programs reveals that there is a narrower listen to radio more frequently than range of stories and roles, and fewer do any other U.S. racial or ethnic Latino lead actors in the entertainment group.2 In addition, their purchasing industry today, than there were seventy power is steadily increasing. By 2015, years ago. Likewise, whereas the Latino Hispanic buying power is expected to population grew more than 43% reach $1.6 trillion. To put this !gure from 2000 to 2010, the rate of media in perspective: if U.S Latinos were to participation—behind and in front found a nation, that economy would be of the camera, and across all genres the 14th largest in the world.3 and formats—stayed stagnant or grew only slightly, at times proportionally Latinos are not only avid media declining.5 Even further, when Latinos consumers; they have made important are visible, they tend to be portrayed contributions to the !lm and television through decades-old stereotypes as industries, and currently over-index criminals, law enforcers, cheap labor, as digital communicators and online and hypersexualized beings. content creators.4 Moreover, they are watchful of their image: when programs To visualize the magnitude of Latino or !lms are perceived to have anti- media exclusion, we can imagine that Latino content, advocacy groups and references to the states of California consumers target studios and networks (38 million people), Illinois (12.8 with increasingly e"ective campaigns. million) and Rhode Island (1 million); Simultaneously, programs and movies or New York (19.6 million), Florida (19.5 million), and Pennsylvania (12.7 million) are eliminated from American media culture.6 And in the rare case that audiences saw or heard anything about, say, California or Illinois, we would be shown bikini-clad women and gangsters.

In this report, we have named this conundrum the Latino media gap: as Latino consumer power grows, relative Latino media presence shrinks. Although the modest increase in numbers and the success of a handful of stars like Jennifer Lopez is noteworthy, the rate of incorporation is out of step LATINO MEDIA EXCLUSION with the massive demographic changes sweeping the country. EXCLUSION OF MORE THAN THE ENTIRE STATES OF CALIFORNIA AND ILLINOIS (38 MILLION) (12.8 MILLION) #e consequences of this gap are far-reaching. #e current data

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 1 suggests persistent and unchecked highest-rated scripted television shows; Spaniards are regularly confused with job discrimination in a major U.S. public television programming focusing Latinos in media representations and industry. $e relegation of Latinos on history, music, and independent tend to play Hispanic-coded roles, we similarly deprives media consumers of documentary ; and select YouTube sites refer to their in%uence and presence innovative perspectives at a moment through March 31, 2014. but do not count them as Latinos of rapid industry and demographic for statistical purposes. In addition, change. Equally important, as To determine short- and long-term the report uses the terms Latino and entertainment and news reports often trends, we consulted a range of available Hispanic interchangeably. carry more weight than do other sources: the U.S. Census; past research forms of communication, the limited and guild reports by the Writers Guild and stereotypical nature of existing of America, Directors Guild of America, FINDINGS stories about Latinos skews the public’s and Screen Actors Guild; PBS show perception of U.S. society. It also archives; entertainment and advertising !e Latino Media Gap report makes sanctions hostility toward the country’s trade magazines; and studio and eight principal "ndings on the gap largest minority, which has already network websites; as well as the Nielsen between Latino presence and media become the majority in many cities, Ratings, Box O!ce Mojo, and Internet inclusion in the U.S. today: including the media capitals of Miami Movie Database (IMDb). Furthermore, and Los Angeles. we conducted interviews with 27 media 1. Latino participation in advocates, innovators, and executives programming and movies is extremely over a period of "ve years (2009–2014). limited. THE STUDY In order to better understand the In general, Latino media participation !e Latino Media Gap examines relationship between level of inclusion has modestly increased since the the state of Latino participation in and cultural impact, we measured 1940s. But, per capita, it is the same mainstream media and the Internet Latino media participation in two or lower than it was in prior decades in with the goal of identifying challenges di#erent ways. $e "rst gauged the major categories. For example, in the and opportunities to promote an number of creative talent out of all 1950s, Latinos were on average 2.8% inclusive media landscape. individuals in that "eld. $e second of the U.S. population. In the top ten focused on how frequently creative scripted shows, however, Latinos were One of the most comprehensive talent appeared and/or was employed 3.9% of lead actor appearances and reports on Latinos and U.S. media, its over a season or a year. We found 1.5% of all lead roles; in the top ten seven sections provide an overview of both approaches useful, particularly movies, Latinos made up 1.3% of lead critical issues, namely rates of media to describe the inclusion of actors, appearances and played 1.7% of lead participation, stereotyping, ownership, since a single star like Cameron Diaz roles. Yet, in 2013, despite being 17% leadership, diversity policies, economic or So"a Vergara may represent a small of the population, Latinos comprised impact of diversity, Latino advocacy, percentage of actors in a category none of the lead actors among the top and Latino innovation. $e "rst but can be highly visible due to the ten movies and scripted network TV three sections focus on the stagnation repetition of a hit show or popular shows. and proportional decline of Latino character over time. participation in media since 1940 while 2. Latino men have disappeared as noting new trends in the incorporation Another important methodological leading actors; though the percentage of women and Afro-Latinos. $e last consideration refers to the term of Latinas and Afro-Latino actors is four sections emphasize approaches, “Latino.” As there are di#erent rising. initiatives, and individuals that are both de"nitions and these can a#ect expanding opportunity for Latinos in statistical outcomes, the present study Until the 1990s, there were considerably media and transforming the industries. de"nes Latinos as persons born in more Latino male leads than Latina the United States who are of Latin leads in TV shows and "lms. $is $e study encompasses new research American descent and/or who have trend has signi"cantly reversed. In the based on quantitative and qualitative been born in Latin America and have 2010–2013 period, Latino men did not methods. Our team analyzed Latino immigrated to the United States. We perform any leading roles in the top ten inclusion in network and studio identi"ed Latino talent by surname, "lms and TV shows, and constituted leadership; top ten movies as measured place of origin, self-identi"cation, and fewer than 3% of supporting television by domestic gross revenue; top ten other corroborating data. Being that and "lm actor appearances. Latinas

2 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP also did not play any television leads. has also narrowed. Presently, 36.6% of campaign’s goal has shrunk from an Still, they were 4.6% of all female !lm Latino TV character appearances are average of two years in the 1970s to lead appearances and 9.5% of all TV in law enforcement and a whopping three weeks today. supporting female appearances. On 44.7% of Latino-coded television television, Latinas accounted for 67% characters are either uncredited or 8. Latinos drive new media of Latino supporting roles. unnamed. Equally important, 69% production and innovation. of iconic media maids in !lm and In addition, while there were few television since 1996 are Latina. As Latinos continue to be shut out Afro-Latino stars in prior eras, the of traditional media, their creativity percentage of prominent Afro-Latino 5. News is worse than !ction. is migrating to the Internet, blurring actors has signi!cantly increased. From the distinction between producer and 2010 to 2013, Afro-Latino performers Stories about Latinos constitute less consumer. Latino participation online is represented 18.2% of Latino !lm than 1% of news media coverage, and signi!cantly higher than in mainstream actors and 16.7% of Latino TV actors, the majority of these stories feature media or PBS. Of the top 50 single- although they were generally con!ned Latinos as lawbreakers. Moreover, focused YouTube channels with the to supporting roles in both media. Latino participation in front and most subscribers, 18% are produced behind the camera is extraordinarily by and/or feature U.S. Latino content 3. Latinos are still missing behind the low: As of 2013, there were no Latino creators. And even with little support, scenes. anchors or executive producers in any some of the most important new media of the nation’s top news programs. innovators, such as transmedia pioneer "e vast majority of industry executives According to available data, only 1.8% Je# Gomez, are Latinos. support diversity policies. Yet, the of news producers are Latinos. main strategy employed by most media companies over the last decades—the 6. Latino content and audiences creation of diversity executive positions expand viewership. and departments—has been relatively EIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS ine#ective in increasing diversity in When possible, Latino media FOR CLOSING THE GAP both creative and leadership pools. consumers reward shows and !lms that feature compelling Latino talent Closing the Latino media gap will In the 2010 to 2013 period, Latinos and storylines with high ratings and require the active participation of all comprised none of the top ten television revenue. "is is evident in the success media industry leaders. We o#er eight show creators, 1.1% of producers, 2% of the Lifetime television show Devious recommendations for consideration to of writers, and 4.1% of directors. In Maids, the radio program Cohen and key stakeholders: top ten movies, Latinos accounted for Martinez on NPR, and the Universal 2.3% of directors, 2.2% of producers, Studios’ movie franchise !e Fast and and 6% of writers. Even more dramatic, the Furious. Latinos also reject and no Latinos currently serve as studio organize against extreme stereotypical heads, network presidents, CEOs, or representations, as in the case of the owners. Among the top 53 television, campaigns against the canceled scripted radio, and studio executives (including shows Rob and Work It, and the news chairpersons), only one is Latina. program Lou Dobbs Tonight.

4. Stereotypes restrict opportunities 7. Consumer pressure creates impact. and perceptions. Latino consumer pressure is increasingly On television and movies, Latinos e#ective in bringing about change by continue to be represented primarily using the Internet and social media. as criminals, law enforcers, and cheap From 1968 to 1998, 63% of Latino labor. From 2012 to 2013, 17.7% of media campaigns aimed at television Latino !lm characters and 24.2% of shows, advertisements, or movies TV characters were linked to crime, a prevailed in all or part of their goals. considerable increase from 1994, when After 1998, this !gure jumped to it was only 6% on television.7 "e range 86%. Even further, the average length of television roles played by Latinos of time required to obtain a successful

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 3 1. Major Networks, PBS, consumers who can mobilize quickly BEHIND THE REPORT: and Studio Leaders: across multiple media markets. PARTNERS AND FUNDERS

Hire diverse top leadership with 7. Latino Consumers: !e Latino Media Gap: A Report on e#ective decision-making power in the State of Latinos in U.S. Media is a all positions, including in the areas E#ectively communicate both critical collaboration between the Center for of business, policy, and content. and supportive perspectives on existing the Study of Ethnicity and Race’s Media Empower diversity executives to programs, movies, and companies. and Idea Lab at Columbia University, ensure that diversity policies are widely Provide alternative visions for Latino the Hispanic Foundation for the Arts, implemented, and support talent representation through content and the National Association of Latino engaged in producing Latino and other production and consumer campaigns. Independent Producers. !e report diverse media. was funded in part by the generous 8. New Media Companies: support of the Social Science Research 2. Diversity Executives: Council; !e Coca-Cola Foundation; Invest in young talent working in new the National Latino Arts, Education, Develop innovative programs to employ media as early as possible; support the and Media Institute; and Marcos A. the existing, deep and underutilized creation of widely accessible digital tools Rodriguez, founding managing partner talent pool, as well as to scout, to facilitate communication between of Palladium Equity Partners. highlight, and recruit new talent in Latino media consumers, advocates, traditional grounds like universities and and producers. About the Center for the Study of new media spaces such as YouTube. In Ethnicity and Race addition, generate transparent annual reports regarding diversity e#orts, hiring !e Center for the Study of Ethnicity practices, and the results of diversity and Race (CSER) at Columbia training programs. University is the institution’s main interdisciplinary hub for the most 3. Executive Producers in innovative research, public discussion, Entertainment: and teaching about race, ethnicity, and indigeneity in the United States and Promote open casting and diverse beyond. CSER is also the home of the hiring, form partnerships with diversity Media and Idea Lab, a novel program programs, and lead in the development that promotes media research and of new talent and stories. the use of media as modes of inquiry. !e Lab’s "rst project was Small City, 4. Advertisers: Big Change, a policy brief and video, produced in association with Hispanics Reward programming that attracts high in Philanthropy. To learn more about ratings by featuring non-stereotypical CSER’s programs and download the full Latino characters and storylines. report, visit http://www.columbia.edu/ cu/cser/ 5. News Executives: About the National Hispanic Advise editorial personnel to broaden Foundation for the Arts Latino coverage and expand sourcing of experts, guests, and commentators to !e National Hispanic Foundation include more Latino talent. for the Arts (NHFA) was co-founded in 1997 by actors Jimmy Smits, 6. Media Advocates: Sonia Braga, Esai Morales, Merel Julia and Washington, D.C. lawyer Generate research on new trends and Felix Sanchez to advance the presence identify game-changing challenges. and image of Latinos in the media, Similarly, increase the use of social telecommunications, and entertainment media to engage a greater number of industries. NHFA has concentrated on increasing access and expanding

4 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP career opportunities for Latino artists include Brincando el charco: Portrait We would also like to thank Celeste and professionals while fostering of a Puerto Rican (Whitney Biennial, Fraser Delgado, Dennis Leoni, the emergence of new Latino talent 1995), Small City, Big Change (2013), Joe Karaganis, Mark Lloyd, David in all aspects of entertainment and and War in Guam (2014). In 2005, she Madigan, Kenneth Prewitt, Sarabel telecommunications. was named one of the most in$uential Santos, and Je% Valdez for all their Latinos by Hispanic Business Magazine, thoughtful suggestions and support in NHFA also provides scholarships and and in 2008, the United Nations’ Rapid the making of the report. Moreover, outreach programs to Latino graduate Response Media Mechanism recognized we are deeply indebted to our media students at eight universities with a her as a global expert in mass media colleagues Chris White (POV), Pamm direct pipeline into the entertainment and Latin/o American studies. She is Higgins (Independent Television business: Columbia University, New a founding member and former board Service), Andy Montoya (History York University, Harvard University, chair of the National Association of Detectives), Kimberly Myers, Darnell Yale University, Northwestern Latino Independent Producers, and Hunt, and Tery Lopez (Writers Guild University, the University of Texas at current director of the Center for the of America); Federico Subervi (Kent Austin, the University of California Study of Ethnicity and Race. State University), Michael Toland and at Los Angeles, and the University of Bill Stotesery (KLRU–Austin), as well Southern California. Research Assistants as producers Ray Telles, Rick Tejada Flores, and Jim Mendiola for helping us About the National Association of Chelsea Abbas is a Ph.D. candidate in to generate the most accurate possible Latino Independent Producers anthropology at Teachers College. She data. specializes in race, visual anthropology, !e National Association of Latino and social movements in the Americas. In addition, we are thankful to the Independent Producers (NALIP) is Center for the Study of Ethnicity a national membership organization Luis A. Figueroa obtained his B.A. in and Race’s sta%, Teresa Aguayo and that addresses the professional needs of International Studies Cum Laude at Josephine Caputo, and graduate Latino/Latina independent producers. Georgia State University in Atlanta. students Vanessa Miller and Kelly Founded in 1999, NALIP’s mission Currently, he is pursuing a Masters in Swope. We are also extremely grateful is to promote, advance, and advocate Public Administration at the School to David Stone and Victoria Benitez for Latino and Latina content creators of International and Public A%airs at from Columbia’s communications team, in media. NALIP is the only national Columbia. our editor Andrea Retzky, fact checker organization committed to supporting Kim Leiken, proofreader Leonard both grassroots and community-based Sam Robson is an oral historian based Rosenbaum, and designer Stephen producers/media makers along with in New York City. Among his past Chou for their impressive talent and publicly funded and industry-based projects is a series of interviews of important contributions to making this producers. Afro-Nicaraguan veterans of the 1980s report a success. Contra War. Among NALIP’s programs are its annual conference, plus six other Acknowledgements initiatives: Latino Writer’s Lab™, Latino Producers Academy™, Latino Media A report of this scale would not be Resource Guide™, “Doing your Doc: possible without the support of many Diverse Visions, Regional Voices” friends and partners. Our heartfelt documentary development workshops, thanks go to Moctesuma Esparza for all the Latino Media Market™, and the his support and guidance throughout Latino Artist Mentoring Program. the process; Esai Morales for his contagious enthusiasm; and Felix Principal Investigator Sanchez for his wisdom and energy, particularly in the last stretch. We are Frances Negrón-Muntaner is a likewise grateful to former and current #lmmaker, writer, and scholar. Among members of NALIP’s sta%, board of her books are Boricua Pop: Puerto directors and trustees, especially Axel Ricans and the Latinization of American Caballero, Maria Agui Carter, Kathryn Culture (CHOICE Award, 2004) and Galan, Cynthia Lopez, and Rick Schomburg (forthcoming). Her #lms Ramirez.

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 5 GUESTS ON NEWS / TALK SHOWS

GUESTS IN NEWS PROGRAMS 2.7% THAT ARE By all measures, Latinos have made a writers, directors, and producers has LATINO GUESTS WHITE MALE THE LATINO signi!cant impact on U.S. media. Even also proportionally declined or not FOX NEWS - 88% CNN - 83% when Latinos constituted 3% or less of kept pace with population growth. MEDIA MSNBCGAP - 83% the U.S. population in the 1940s and "is is the Latino media gap: as Latino PBS - 82% 1950s, there was a range of !lms and consumer power grows, relative Latino TV shows featuring Latinos, including media presence shrinks. Zorro, !e Cisco Kid, and I Love Lucy. While not all represented complex portrayals, these narratives showed GROWING LATINO CONSUMER a range of characters and situations POWER % that suggested a long history of Latino 20 presence in the United States. At present, Latinos comprise 17% of the United States’ inhabitants. In Starting in the late 1960s, there was a densely populated cities such as New 15 burst of Latino-made media that again York, Los Angeles, and Miami, Latinos LATINO POPULATION IN U.S. GROWING GAP transformed U.S. culture. Producers, are an even greater share: from 27% to 1 10 writers, and directors who began their 68% of residents. "e rate of Latino professional careers during this period population growth is also dramatic. GAP went on to create contemporary classics From 2000 to 2010, Latinos accounted 5 that were also pro!table and popular. for more than half of the growth in the "is is evident in Luis Valdez’s La U.S.2 "is trend is likely to continue: Bamba (1987); producer Moctesuma while the U.S. population is projected 0 Esparza’s !e Milagro Bean"eld War to expand by 42% from 2010 to 2050, 2000 02 04 06 08 10 (1988) and Selena, directed by Gregory the Latino component is expected to Nava (1997). increase by 167% during the same % of Latino writers in the WGA period.3 % of Latino writers in the television industry Yet, despite signi!cant achievements and present expansion of the Latino Moreover, of great value to advertisers consumer market, a review of and media companies, the coveted contemporary television and !lm reveals marketing demographic of Latinos that, relative to the fast-growing Latino ages 18 to 34 is growing !ve times population, there are fewer Latino faster than the rest of this population types of roles and lead actors today segment.4 Indeed, Latinos represent one than seventy years ago. "e number of of the youngest ethnic groups in the

LATINOS FROM 2000 - 2010 BY 50+% LATINOS ACCOUNTED FOR 17% MORE THE OF US POPULATION THAN (53 MILLION+) 50%OF NUMBERS AND GROWING FAST US POPULATION GROWTH USA LARGE PRESENCE IN MAJOR US CITIES: FASTEST PROJECTED GROWTH 2010-2050 27.5% 28.9% 48.1% 68.2% PROJECTED LATINO 167% POPULATION GROWTH NYC CHICAGO LA MIAMI (PROJECTED US AVG. GROWTH = 42%)

6 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP United States: over 60% of Latinos are highest rate at 6.4. Similarly, Latinos younger than 35. In addition, Latinos buy 25% of all movie tickets.9 have a median age of 28, compared to the national median of 37.5 Despite these SHRINKING LATINO MEDIA Latino consumer power is also PRESENCE numbers, the level increasing exponentially. In 2012 alone, at least 500 newspaper articles noted Despite these numbers, the level of the surge of the Latino market to over Latino inclusion in mainstream English- of Latino inclusion 1 trillion dollars of spending power. language media remains low and is not !at is more than any other minority signi"cantly improving. To provide in mainstream group, including Asian Americans and a picture of the current situation, we African Americans—and close to 10% reviewed all talent listed for the top ten English-language of the total purchasing power of the scripted television shows and "lms on United States as a whole.6 According to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), media remains the research company IBISWorld, by consulted network and studio sites as 2015, Hispanic buying power will hit well as diversity reports published in the stunningly low and $1.6 trillion, “growing at a 48% clip, last four decades. To establish long- compared to about 27% for the entire term trends, we also referred to studies nation.”7 produced by professional organizations is not significantly such as the Writers Guild of America, Equally relevant for the media industry, Directors Guild of America, and Screen improving. Latinos are among America’s most Actors Guild. enthusiastic media consumers. !ey listen to radio more than any other ethnic group, with 94% of Latinos over 12 tuning in every week.8 According to the 2013 Motion Picture Association annual theatrical statistics report, Latinos are one of the most important demographics sustaining the "lm industry in the United States. While the average U.S. moviegoer attends theaters 4.1 times a year, Latinos have the

LATINOS ARE YOUNG LATINO BUYING POWER 94% LATINOS 35 OVER CURRENTLY OVER > $ LISTEN TO RADIO <35 60% 1 TRILLION UNDER THE AGE OF 35 AND BY 2015 $ 1.6 TRILLION EVERY IN THE AGE GROUP 18-34 (FASTEST GROWING IN THE NATION AT 48%) WEEK (COVETED MARKETING DEMOGRAPHIC) IF US LATINOS CONSTITUTED A NATION LATINOS BUY LATINOS GROWING 5X FASTER IT WOULD BE THE TH LARGEST ECONOMY 25% LATINO MEDIAN AGE = 28 14 OF ALL (US NATIONAL MEDIAN = 37) IN THE WORLD MOVIE TICKETS

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 7 If one considers standard reference Latinos in Television measures such as the percentage of Latinos in the professional media !e most dramatic case study of 1 guilds–Directors Guild of America Latino decline involves leading actors. LIMITED: (DGA), Writers Guild of America In the 1950s–the "rst decade when (WGA), or the Screen Actors Guild Nielsen ratings were introduced– LATINO INCLUSION IN (SAG-AFTRA)–Latino membership Latinos were, on average, 2.8% of the FILM AND TELEVISION ranges from 2% in DGA (2013) and population and 3.9% of all top ten TV 3% in WGA (2012) to 6.4% in SAG- lead appearances. But in the 1980s, AFTRA (2008).1 Participation in front Latinos were close to 7.7% of the and behind the camera in movies and population and none of the leads. From television at the most visible level is at 2010 to 2013, Latinos constituted times lower in some categories. an even greater share, 17% of the population, but no Latino actors played television leading roles. !e result is a BETTER OFF BEFORE? growing gap between population and NUMBERS IN PERSPECTIVE representation.

Although counterintuitive, a Signi"cantly, even if we shift our comparison between Latino media method and consider how many top employment today and in earlier 25 shows had Latino leads over the last periods reveals very modest gains decades, the general decreasing pattern alongside stagnation and decline. still holds (see Figure 1). Among the Even when there is an increase in top 25 scripted television shows, the patticipation, Latinos do not securely 1970s through 1990s decades had a gain ground. Rather, the statistics higher number of Latino leads than at #uctuate and upward trends do not present.2 By this measure, on-camera necessarily relate to greater opportunity representation in the 2000s was the but to the rise of a small number of star same as in the 1950s, and signi"cantly actors and/or creative talent. In this lower than in the 1970s, when four regard, even minor advances cannot be shows had Latino leads: Chico and taken for granted. the Man (1974-1978), CHiPs (1977 –1983), Paul Sand in Friends and Lovers (1974–1975), and Fantasy Island (1978–1984). Moreover, this trend continued in the 1980s and 1990s, with each decade having three shows with a Latino lead, including 9 to 5 (1982–1988), NYPD Blue (1993– # OF TOP SHOWS WITH LATINO LEADS 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

1 0 4 3 3 1 1

I Love Lucy Chico and the Man CHiPs NYPD Blue Desperate Housewives Desperate Housewives Paul Sand in Friends and Lovers Fantasy Island Union Square Fantasy Island 9 to 5 Malcolm in the Middle 9 to 5

Figure 1: Top 25 TV Shows and Latino Leads (Sources: IMDb and U.S. Census, 1950–2013

8 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP Figure 2: Percentage of Latino Actor Appearances in Top Ten Highest-Rated Scripted TV Shows (Sources: IMDb and U.S. Census, 1950–2013)

2005), Union Square (1997–1998), and creative talent in recent years suggests Malcolm in the Middle (2000–2006). continuity with that history. A comparison Since the end of Desperate Housewives (2012), only Modern Family (2009– From 2000 to 2009, Latinos comprised between Latino present) has a central Latino character.3 1.2% of producers (including one show creator), 2.2% of directors, and 1.9% of participation today Trends regarding supporting actors writers.4 In the 2010–2013 period, the are complex. On the one hand, per number of directors modestly rose to and in earlier capita, there were more Latino roles 4.1%. Likewise, in the critical position and supporting appearances in the of writer, the number of Latinos slightly periods reveals 1960s than in the 2010s (see Figure 2). increased to 2%. Yet, there were no On the other hand, a relatively stable Latino show creators and producers that, over the last upward tendency has emerged in the decreased to 1.1%, declining in both number of Latino supporting actors. absolute and proportional terms. Given past patterns, it is unclear if decades, one finds this trend will hold and/or result in a Latinos in Movies greater number of Latino actors crossing very modest gains over to lead roles or whether they will Similar to TV, Latino participation as remain con!ned to playing secondary lead actors in movies was higher in prior alongside stagnation characters. eras, this time in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1940s, the Latino population was and decline. Behind the camera, Latino participation close to 2%. At this point, Latino actors has been persistently low over the last made up 0.9% of lead appearances and six decades. With the exception of the 2% of all leads in the top ten movies. Desilu era on television (1950–1962), In the 1950s, Latinos were 2.8% of the in which the Cuban American Desi population, 1.3% of lead appearances, Arnaz was involved in producing top and 1.7% of total leads. shows such as I Love Lucy, few Latinos have served as directors, writers and/ From 2000 to 2013, among the ten or producers. Our survey of television !lms with the highest domestic gross

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 9 20.00% !e Role of Gender, Race, and National Origin in Media Employment Opportunities 15.00% LATINO ACTOR APPEARANCES IN TOP 10 LATINO POPULATION OF THE US As noted in the opening pages, this HIGHEST-GROSSING FILMS 10.00% study uses the term “Latino” to encompass U.S. and Latin American– born talent of all races and both 5.00% PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION PERCENTAGE LATINO SUPPORTING / TOTAL SUPPORTING genders. Yet, the routine count LATINO LEADS / of Latino talent without further 0.00% TOTAL LEADS quali"cation may mask more complex 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s patterns of marginalization. !ese are DECADE important to note in order to better address speci"c barriers to participation Figure 3: Percentage of Latino Actor Appearances in Highest-Grossing Films that may relate to gender, race, and (Sources: IMDb and U.S. Census, 1950-2013) national origin, among other categories of social di#erence. per year, Latino lead role appearances From 2000 to 2009, Latinos accounted decreased from 2.8% in the 2000s to for 2.4% of directors, 0.8% of For example, while the overall inclusion 1.4% in the 2010s (see Figure 3). At producers, and 0.6% of writers. In of Latinos is limited, when we consider the same time, the percentage of Latino absolute terms, most of these numbers gender, we see a striking phenomenon: actors playing leading roles fell under went up in the 2010-2013 period: the near disappearance of the Latino 2%. !e number of Latino supporting Latinos were 2.3% of directors, 2.2% lead actor concurrent with a relative actors has grown in absolute terms, but of producers and 6% of writers. !e increase in the number of lead Latina remains20.00% low and the gap has widened relative increase of writers in the top actresses (see Figure 4). !is represents a since the 1940s. ten movies, however, should not be 15.00% TOP 10 signi"cant change. Up until the 1990s, RATED SCRIPTED confused with a signi"cant expansion of there were considerably more male than TV SHOWS LATINO POPULATION OF THE US Not unlike10.00% television–but without opportunity for U.S. Latinos in the "lm female leads in both "lm and television. the Desilu exception–Latinos have industry. It is instead indicative of very !e current trend reached its highest accounted5.00% for a small fraction of top ten slow gains in U.S. Latino employment, point in the 2010-2013 period, when movie OF POPULATION PERCENTAGE producers, directors, and writers. combined with much faster rates of Latino men did not play any leading !e last0.00% decades suggest that growth for incorporation of star Latin American 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s roles in the top ten "lms but Latinas Latinos in "lm will continue toDECADE be slow. talent, a generally misunderstood trend played 5.9% of female leads and 100% that we will discuss further below. of Latino protagonists.

20.00% 20.00%

15.00% 15.00% TOP 10 LATINOS RATED SCRIPTED IN HIGHEST LATINO POPULATION OF THE US TV SHOWS LATINO POPULATION OF THE US 10.00% GROSSING FILMS 10.00%

5.00% 5.00% PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION PERCENTAGE

0.00% 0.00% 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s DECADE DECADE

Figure 4: Percentage of Latino/a Lead Actor Appearances in Figure 5: Percentage of Latino Actor Lead Appearances in Ten Highest-Grossing Films by Gender Ten Highest-Rated Scripted TV Shows by Gender (Sources: IMDb and US Census 1950–2013) (Sources: IMDb and US Census, 1950–2013)

20.00% 10 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 15.00% LATINOS IN HIGHEST LATINO POPULATION OF THE US 10.00% GROSSING FILMS

5.00% PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION PERCENTAGE

0.00% 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s DECADE !e greater presence of Latina PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF AFRO-LATINO AFRO-LATINO FILM AFRO-LATINO AFRO-LATINO actresses and characters is a welcome AFRO-LATINO FILM SUPPORTING TV LEAD TV SUPPORTING DECADE POPULATION / LEAD APPEARANCES and signi"cant change. At the same LATINO POPULATION APPEARANCES APPEARANCES APPEARANCES PERCENTAGE / TOTAL LATINO LEAD / TOTAL LATINO / TOTAL LATINO LEAD / TOTAL LATINO time, this increase has not completely APPEARANCES SUPPORTING APPEARANCES APPEARANCES SUPPOPTING APPEARANCES translated into greater visibility for Latina actresses or storylines. On the one hand, most of the roles played by 2000s 2.3% 20.0% 20.8% 0% 16.7% Latinas in the top ten movies were of animated or fantasy characters in "lms 2010s 2.5% 0% 16.7% 0% 18.2% such as Shrek Forever After (Cameron Diaz), How to Train Your Dragon (America Ferrera) and Avatar (Zoe Figure 7: Afro-Latino Actor Appearances in Relation to All Latino Actors in TV and Saldaña). On the other hand, Diaz Film (Source: U.S. Census, 2000-2010, estimated 2000-2009 "gure) and Ferrera voiced “white” characters, underscoring that the long-term success Measuring this increase with precision of stars like Diaz has been partly rooted poses some challenges. To date, there in thatDIRECTORS she is rarely identi"ed as Latina. isPRODUCERS no de"nitive census data regarding WRITERS the number of Afro-Latinos in 2000. On television, we see a similar gender Yet, even if we used the arguably higher trend (see Figure 5). In the 2000–2009 2010 census "gures of 0.4% of total period, men disappeared from leading population and 2.5% of the Latino roles while the number of women segment as reference points, Afro-Latino playing lead characters rose. Although actors still over–indexed in all categories currently there are no 2.3%Latina LATINO leads in in both number of actors and frequency any of the top (OFten WHICH television 100% LATIN shows, AMERICAN) of appearances. In "lm, during the So"a Vergara plays a main character in 2000–2009 period, they accounted for 6.0% LATINO Modern Family 0.6% of total lead roles and supporting the ensemble comedy . (OF WHICH 75% LATIN AMERICAN) actor appearances as well as 20% of 2.7% LATINO Signi"cantly, Vergara’s success is part Latino lead appearances and 20.8% of (OF WHICH 50% LATIN AMERICAN) of a larger drift. In the supporting supporting actor appearances. Figure 6: Zoe Saldaña starring in Star Trek actor category, women have likewise (Source: collider.com) gained greater visibility than men. !is trend appears to be weakening In the 2010-2013 seasons, Latinas slightly in recent years. From 2010 to constituted 11.8% of female supporting 2013, no Afro-Latino actor was cast in roles while Latino men were only 4.9% a leading role.6 !e supporting actor of supporting male roles. In general, category, however, continues to over– Latinas played 67% of all supporting index. In the last three years, Afro- Latino characters. !e current gender Latinos comprised 0.5% of supporting economy suggests that media decision- actor appearances and 16.7% of Latino In the 2000!2009 makers view Latinas as more culturally supporting actor appearances (see desirable than Latino men. Figure 7). period, Afro-Latinos When factoring race we see another On television, Afro-Latino actors important change. Whereas the have yet to be cast in a leading role. accounted for 50% of majority of Latino actors are considered But from 2000 to 2009, Afro-Latinos “Hispanic white” and there are few constituted 1.3% of all supporting Latino film leads. Afro-Latino stars, from 2000 to 2013, actor appearances and 16.7% of Latino Afro-Latino actors like Laz Alonso, supporting actor appearances. In Rosario Dawson, Jon Huertas, Zoe the 2010–2013 seasons, this trend Saldaña, and Ruben Santiago-Hudson marginally increased with Afro-Latinos became increasingly more prominent in continuing to represent 1.3% of both movies and/or on television (see supporting actors but 18.2% of Latino Figure 6).5 supporting actor appearances.

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 11 PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE OF AFRO-LATINO AFRO-LATINO FILM AFRO-LATINO AFRO-LATINO AFRO-LATINO FILM SUPPORTING TV LEAD TV SUPPORTING DECADE POPULATION / LEAD APPEARANCES LATINO POPULATION APPEARANCES APPEARANCES APPEARANCES PERCENTAGE / TOTAL LATINO LEAD / TOTAL LATINO / TOTAL LATINO LEAD / TOTAL LATINO APPEARANCES SUPPORTING APPEARANCES APPEARANCES SUPPOPTING APPEARANCES

2000s 2.3% 20.0% 20.8% 0% 16.7%

2010s 2.5% 0% 16.7% 0% 18.2%

DIRECTORS PRODUCERS WRITERS

2.3% LATINO (OF WHICH 100% LATIN AMERICAN) 6.0% LATINO (OF WHICH 75% LATIN AMERICAN) 2.7% LATINO (OF WHICH 50% LATIN AMERICAN)

Figure 8: Latino and Latin American Directors, Producers, and Writers, 2010–2013 (Source: IMDb)

Latino indigenous actors are less National origin also plays an important 33% of Latino producers but none of salient. According to the 2010 census, role in acting opportunity but the Latino directors or writers. indigenous Latinos constitute 0.2% of considerably more in !lm than on the U.S. population and 1.4% of all television. #is is evident in that some Equally relevant, Latin American Latinos. Although not measured by of the most popular “Latin” movie stars national origin correlates with behind- the census, an even greater number of of the last decade are not U.S. Latinos the-camera opportunity in the movie Latinos claim indigenous roots and/or but Latin American or Spanish-formed industry. If from 2010 to 2013 Latin are mestizos (of European and Native actors like Salma Hayek, Javier Bardem, Americans represented a small fraction descent). Yet, there are currently no Antonio Banderas, and Penélope Cruz. of TV talent; in !lm, Latin American indigenous Latino stars. directors, writers, and producers such #e Spanish trend is particularly robust as Alfonso Cuarón (Gravity) and Self-identi!ed mestizo actors such in the 2010-2013 period. Whereas Guillermo del Toro (!e Hobbit: !e as John Leguizamo and Benjamin Spaniards comprise less than 0.2% of Desolation of Smaug) constituted 66% Bratt, however, are more visible. On the U.S. population (and if counted of all top ten Latino movie talent. !lm, from 2000 to 2009, mestizos as Hispanic, 1.4% of Latinos), in the Broken down by creative position, accounted for 0% of Latino leads, 0.2% top ten movies, they played 50% of Latin American–born and formed of all supporting actors, and 8.3% of Latino-coded leads and 27% of Latino professionals, mostly from Mexico, Latino supporting actor appearances. supporting roles. In television, however, made up 100% of directors, 75% of In the 2010-2013 period, mestizos the vast majority of TV stars portraying writers, and 50% of producers (see held no lead roles but were 0.3% of all Latino roles are U.S.-raised Latinos. #e Figure 8). supporting actors, and 8.3% of Latino most visible exception is Vergara. supporting appearances. Di"erences in race and gender are also NORTH OR SOUTH OF THE On television, from 2000 to 2009, signi!cant behind the camera—in BORDER: WHY DOES IT mestizos did not play any lead or dissimilar ways. While Afro-Latinos MATTER? supporting roles. Still, In the 2010- over–index in some acting categories, 2013 period, they constituted 1.3% of from 2010 to 2013, no self-identi!ed Latin American culture and artists supporting roles and 16.7% of Latino Afro-Latinos served as writers, directors, have always been a rich part of U.S. supporting actor appearances. Arguably, or producers. In the top ten TV shows, media history. Likewise, the distinction the di"erences in incorporation of Latinas constituted 0% of producers between U.S. Latino and Latin Afro-Latino and indigenous actors and 33% of all Latino directors. At the American talent can be porous in the relate to how Afro-Latinos can signify same time, they over–indexed as writers, context of growing interconnectivity both Latino and black identities to key accounting for 75% of all Latino writers between the hemisphere’s media demographics. on television. In !lm, the situation is industries. It can also be relative, as nearly the opposite: Latinas represented many Latin American professionals

12 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP settle permanently in the U.S., in news. Our survey of 19 primetime 98.2% “becoming” Latino over time. Yet it shows revealed that of 22 anchors is an important analytical distinction. featured in top news shows, 20 or NON-LATINO Not only does Latin American talent 90.9% were white and two (9%) were TV NEWS PRODUCERS receive most of the top mainstream black––Van Jones of CNN’s Cross!re !lm opportunities accorded to Latinos and Al Sharpton of MSNBC’s Politics in Hollywood today, the press often Nation. No anchor was Latino. Among sees their achievements as emblematic the 21 top news executive producers, all of increased Latino media inclusion. were white, including three women. "is understanding, however, overlooks important di#erences in the Of the eight shows that posted incorporation of U.S. Latinos and Latin information on their websites regarding Americans to the movie industry. their producing sta#, all of which were 1.8% on CBS, NBC, and MSNBC, only two LATINO A key di#erence is that Latin of 114 producers, or 1.8%, were Latino TV NEWS PRODUCERS American !lm professionals tend to (see Figure 9). "ese were Andres Triay Figure 9: Latino TV News Producers be white, male, and from privileged of CBS News with Scott Pelley, and (Sources: IMDb and network websites) socio-economic backgrounds. "ese Mario Garcia of NBC Nightly News circumstances mean that they were less with Brian Williams. Fox, CNN, and likely to encounter gender, racial, and/ ABC did not provide information in or class discrimination at the beginning their sites nor did they respond to our of their careers, as is the case for most queries. Using alternative sources, we U.S. Latinos. Moreover, nearly all also identi!ed that CNN’s Anderson successful Latin American talent arrived Cooper 360 has had at least one Latino in the U.S. with world recognition for producer on sta# in the past, David prior work, which facilitated peer-to- Puente. peer interactions in Hollywood and access to e#ective talent representation. "e lack of Latinos applies to news stories as well: A study by the National In addition, the majority of top Latin Association of Hispanic Journalists American writers, producers, and directors are involved in mainstream big budget productions and do not focus their work on Latino stories nor "NEWS WORSE THAN FICTION" cast U.S. Latino actors. "is is not to say that media artists should tell certain STORIES ON NEWS AND TALK SHOWS stories or employ speci!c actors. But to underscore that the greater participation of Latin American over U.S. Latino talent in movies has been possible due to important di#erences in personal background, professional trajectories, and career objectives in the context of a OF THAT 1% COVERAGE globalized industry. It is not inherently ! representative of a major opening for LESS THAN 1% U.S. Latino talent and stories. LATINO-RELATED 66% FOCUSED ON THE NEWS IS WORSE THAN CRIME, TERRORISM, FICTION ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

If Latino participation seems limited in Figure 10: "emes of Latino News Stories entertainment, it is nearly non-existent (Source: National Association of Hispanic Journalists, 2005)

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 13 focusing on the 1995–2004 period shooting also received attention in both found that “in nine of 10 years, Latino years. stories made up less than 1 percent of all network news stories.”7 Of these, Lastly, Latino opinion on commercial GUESTS ON NEWS / TALK SHOWS 66% focused on crime or illegal television and PBS is shut out as well. immigration (see Figure 10). Latinos are consistently excluded from talk shows, with Latino guests across Since 2004, the !rst trend has actually multiple programs in all networks at worsened: a forthcoming study by under 3%.9 A May 2013 report by scholar Federico Subervi on news story Media Matters for America further topics from 2008 to 2012 found that indicated that the situation is similar the percentage of general market TV on cable. On Fox News, only 3% of network news stories highlighting evening guests are Latinos; at CNN and Latinos declined from 1% in 2008 MSNBC, Latinos make up only 2%.10 to 0.6% in 2012.8 Over this period, Latinos were central in only 491 out of GUESTS approximately 80,000 stories. WHERE IS THE (LATINO) IN NEWS PROGRAMS PUBLIC IN PUBLIC 2.7% THAT ARE LATINO GUESTS WHITE MALE Similarly, crime and related topics TELEVISION? FOX NEWS - 88% continue to dominate news coverage of CNN - 83% Latinos. In both 2012 and 2013, the In some ways, the Public Broadcasting MSNBC - 83% PBS - 82% only top news story featuring a Latino Service (PBS) is no di#erent than was that of George Zimmerman, the commercial networks when it comes neighborhood watch coordinator who to including Latino talent and themes. fatally shot teenager Trayvon Martin. Although PBS has yet to release detailed "e death of teacher Vicki Soto at information regarding its diversity, the Sandy Hook Elementary School our survey of posted data from their

INCEPTION-2013 2010-2013 % OF LATINO OR LATIN % OF LATINO OR LATIN % OF LATINO OR % OF LATINO OR % OF LATINO OR AMERICAN-THEMED AMERICAN-THEMED LATIN AMERICAN LATIN AMERICAN LATIN AMERICAN EPISODES / SEGMENTS EPISODES / SEGMENTS DIRECTORS PRODUCERS EXEC. PRODUCERS 2.7% 2.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 2.6% 3.7% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 5.5% 3.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 6.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% (SEGMENTS) (SEGMENTS) 11.2% 14.4% 7.8%7.8% 3.4% 2.4% 14.9% 12.5% 9.8% 8.8% 6.0%

TOTAL 7.0% 9.7% 14.8% 4.8% 2.1%

Figure 11: PBS Latino and Latin American–"emed Programming (Regular and Series) (Sources: PBS webite and IMDb)

14 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP website and IMDb reveals that there are currently few regular Latino-focused programs on PBS.11 !e last major Latino-themed PBS series was American Family, which ran in 2002. Moreover, the late October 2013 departure of Ray Suarez from their "agship program NewsHour left PBS without any senior Latino journalists.12

Latino history is also both acknowledged and marginalized. In the fall of 2013, PBS released a noteworthy stand alone, three-part documentary series, !e Latino Americans, co-produced by Latino Public Broadcasting. Yet, in signature history- related series like American Experience and American Masters, Latino content has been limited and still tends to largely focus on Latin American, rather than U.S. Latino, history and #gures.

In our survey of eight series correlate with inclusion of Latino as executive vice president and co- highlighting history, performance, and directors or producers. Across all executive producer from 2006 to 2014. music since their inception to 2013, we surveyed series from 2010 to 2013, similarly found a mixed picture: Latino- Latinos made up 2.1% of executive themed programming has ranged from producers, 4.8% of producers, and O, JOSÉ CAN YOU SEE? less than 3% in American Experience 14.8% of directors. All directors, and American Masters to 11.2% in however, were part of only two series: In sum, U.S. viewers see an extremely Independent Lens and 14.9% in POV, Independent Lens and POV. low percentage of Latinos on television both curated series. and movie screens in all genres and In addition to the lack of directors, formats. Current rates of inclusion During the 2010-2013 period, the most series did not include any Latino are also advancing at a very slow pace. two curated series continued to lead in executive producers, as was the case of One way of visualizing the situation is Latino-themed programming: 14.4% of American Experience, American Masters, to consider that at the present rate of Independent Lens episodes and 12.5% Austin City Limits, Soundstage, and change, it will take 60 years for Latinos of POV shows were Latino-themed History Detectives. Overall, Latinos to #ll 17% of lead roles in the top ten (see Figure 11). Most series, however, had the highest levels of participation #lms. To reach 17% of lead roles in the experienced a modest decline while in POV and Independent Lens, top ten scripted TV shows will take over American Masters slightly increased underscoring the importance of both 100 years. By then, however, the Latino its share of Latino programming to series to diversity on television.14 population is projected to double, 3.7%. !e recently created Genealogy making the goal of greater inclusion an Roadshow has a relatively high Furthermore, it is signi#cant to note elusive one for decades to come. percentage of Latino stories. Since that of the longest-running series, its #rst broadcast in 2013, 50% of those beginning in the 1970s and shows have featured at least one 1980s, POV is the most inclusive and Latino character, although only 7% of the only one that demonstrates a clear segments were Latino-themed.13 trend of increased incorporation of Latino-themed programming over At another level, our review found time. Perhaps not surprisingly, POV is that presence of Latino-themed also the sole series to have had a Latina programming did not necessarily executive, Cynthia Lopez, who served

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 15 If U.S. media suddenly increased the mostly “law and order” dramas on number of Latinos in front of the television and action movies. In camera, the cultural landscape could, in contrast to prior eras, they also play 2 some ways, grow worse. Not only does an increasingly narrower range of BANDIDOS FOREVER?: the media signi!cantly underrepresent characters. Latinos and other groups, but also, in THE PERSISTENTLY the few instances when Latinos appear, During the 1990s, Latinos still NARROW RANGE OF they tend to embody many of the same portrayed creative types, including a stereotypes !rst visualized in cinema playwright, a photographer, and an LATINO CHARACTERS over a century ago: criminals, cheap artist in TV shows like Union Square, labor, and sexual objects. Ironically, Suddenly Susan, and Jesse. Beginning while there is a new Latina stereotype –– in the prior decade, however, Latino the maid––the once familiar “Latin characters and Latino actors were Lover” has nearly disappeared from increasingly associated with only two television and movies, eliminating types of roles: criminal or law enforcer. one of the few kinds of leading roles Since 1984, 51.9%, or 14 of the 27 available to Latino men. Latino main cast roles in top ten scripted TV shows, have been related to To determine the persistence of both criminal activities, law enforcement, or new and old stereotypical portrayals, security (see Figure 12). we reviewed Latino roles listed for the top ten scripted television programs "is trend continues through 2013, and !lms on IMDb (Internet Movie even when Latino actors do not Database). Additionally, we analyzed play Latino-speci!c roles. In these the number and percentage of times shows, three out of !ve featured adult that stereotypical roles appeared in the characters work in law enforcement or 2012–2013 television season. the military: an Israeli agent (Cote de Pablo, NCIS), a homicide detective (Jon Overall, we found that stereotypical Huertas, Castle) and an NYPD detective storylines and characters that were (Marisa Ramirez, Blue Blood). Across coded as criminals, law enforcers, the top ten shows, there were a total of Figure 12: Latino Actors and Characters and blue-collar workers continue to 2,596 roles, of which 161 or 6.2% were in the Main Cast of Top Ten–Rated dominate television shows, movies, Latino-speci!c. Of these, 24.2% were Scripted TV Shows, 1950–2013 (Source: and news. Equally important, Latinos criminal roles and 23% law enforcers. IMDb) remain con!ned to very few genres,

BAND FARM PROHIBITION STUDENT/ OWNER, PHOTO- GARAGE UNEMPLOYED LEADER HAND AGENT SUPERVILLAIN STUDENT/SON DAUGHTER GRAPHY STUDIO WORKER (WEALTHY PLAYBOY)

1951–57 LEAD 1957–63 SUPPORTING 1959–63 SUPPORTING 1966–68 SUPPORTING 1968-74 SUPPORTING 1968–74 SUPPORTING 1975–76 SUPPORTING 1974–77 LEAD 1981–90 SUPPORTING Ricky Ricardo by Desi Pepino Garcia by Tony Agent William Youngfellow !e Joker by Cesar Romero Craig Carter by Desi Arnaz, Kim Carter by Lucie Arnaz Julie Erskine by Liz Torres Chico Rodriguez by Freddie Lance Cumson by Lorenzo Arnaz in I Love Lucy Martinez, in !e Real McCoys by Able Fernandez, in !e in Batman Jr. in Here’s Lucy in Here’s Lucy in Phyllis Prinze in Chico and the Man Lamas in Falcon Crest Untouchables

POLICE POLICE POLICE PLAYWRIGHT/ ARTIST/ FBI LIEUTENANT DETECTIVE DETECTIVE FORMER LAWYER PHOTOGRAPHER ART TEACHER MAID NURSE AGENT

1984–90 SUPPORTING 1984–90 SUPPORTING 1994–98 LEAD 1997–98 LEAD 1996–00 SUPPORTING 1998–00 SUPPORTING 1999–06 SUPPORTING 2001–09 SUPPORTING 2002–09 SUPPORTING Lieutenant Martin Castillo Detective Gina Calabrese Detective Bobby Simone by Gabriella Diaz by Luis Rivera by Nestor Diego Vasquez by Bruno Rosario Salazar by Shelly Nurse Carla Espinosa by Judy Danny Taylor by Enrique by Edward James Olmos in by Saundra Santiago in Jimmy Smits in N.Y.P.D. Constance Marie in Union Carbonell in Suddenly Susan Campos in Jesse Morrison in Will & Grace Reyes in Scrubs Murciano in Without A Trace Miami Vice Miami Vice Blue Square

16FBI THE LATINOPOLICE MEDIA GAP PLANE CRASH PLANE CRASH SURVIVOR/ POLICE CRIME SCENE BUSINESSMAN/ FBI AGENT DETECTIVE SURVIVOR SECURITY GUARD CAPTAIN INVESTIGATOR INMATE HOUSEWIFE AGENT

2005–09 SUPPORTING 2003–10 SUPPORTING 2004–10 SUPPORTING 2005–06 SUPPORTING 2009–11 SUPPORTING 2002–12 SUPPORTING 2004–12 SUPPORTING 2004–12 LEAD 2005–12 SUPPORTING Elena Delgado by Roselyn Scotty Valens by Danny Pino Hurley Reyes by Jorge Garcia Ana Lucia Cortez by Captain Roy Montgomery by Eric Delko by Adam Carlos Solis by Ricardo Gabrielle Solis by Eva Natalia Boa Vista by Eva Sanchez by Without A Trace in Cold Case in Lost Michelle Rodriguez in Lost Ruben Santiago-Hudson in Rodriguez in CSI: Miami Chavira in Desperate Houswives Longoria in Desperate LaRue in CSI: Miami Castle Housewives

STUDENT/ STUDENT/ COVERT MEDICAL UNEMPLOYED/ HOMICIDE DAUGHTER DAUGHTER AGENT DOCTOR STUDENT HOMEMAKER STUDENT DETECTIVE DETECTIVE

2008–12 SUPPORTING 2008–12 SUPPORTING 2005–13 SUPPORTING 2006–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2013 SUPPORTING Juanita Solis by Madison de la Celia Solis by Daniella Ziva David by Cote de Pablo Dr. Callie Torres by Sara Grace Florrick by Makenzie Gloria Delgado-Pritchett by Manny Delgado by Rico Javier Esposito by Jon Huertas Maria Baez by Marisa Ramirez Garza in Desperate Housewives Baltodano in Desperate in NCIS Ramirez in Grey’s Anatomy Vega in !e Good Wife So"a Vergara in Modern Rodriguez in Modern Family in Castle in Blue Bloods Housewives Family 19.1% 16.2% 17.7% 17.7% 14.7% 14.9% 13.8% 11.3% 10.8% 5.8% 3.4% 0.00% CRIMINALS CRIMINALS LAW ENFORCEMENT BLUE COLLAR/ WHITE COLLAR/ CREATIVE (ALL) (BLUE COLLAR) / MILITARY SERVICE WORKERS EDUCATION-BASED TYPES WORKERS ROLES PLAYED BY LATINO ACTORS ROLES PLAYED BY ALL ACTORS

Figure 13: Roles Played by Latino Lead and Supporting Actors Compared to Roles Played by All Actors in Ten Highest-Grossing Films in the U.S, 2010-2013 (Source: IMDb)

AsBAND suggested above,FARM only twoPROHIBITION major Signi"cantly, the percentageSTUDENT/ of criminal OWNER,in ! PHOTO-e Big BangGARAGE !eory. Notably,UNEMPLOYED in adultLEADER Latino/a HANDcharacters wereAGENT not SUPERVILLAINroles today is STUDENT/SONhigher than a DAUGHTERdecade ago. GRAPHYlaw STUDIOand orderWORKER shows, Latino(WEALTHY criminal PLAYBOY) members of law enforcement or According to a 1995 National Council characters tend to appear more often military institutions. Of these, the most for La Raza commissioned study, in in stories involving gangs and/or drugs, in!uential is Gloria Delgado-Pritchett, 1994, criminals made up only 6% of rather than across all plotlines. played by So"a Vergara in Modern characters in primetime TV and 16% in 1 Family1951–57 LEAD. Yet, whereas1957–63 SUPPORTING Vergara’s1959–63 character SUPPORTING 1966–68reality SUPPORTING shows.1968-74 SUPPORTING 1968–74 SUPPORTING 1975–76In SUPPORTINGaddition to1974–77 the LEAD uneven 1981–90distribution SUPPORTING Ricky Ricardo by Desi Pepino Garcia by Tony Agent William Youngfellow !e Joker by Cesar Romero Craig Carter by Desi Arnaz, Kim Carter by Lucie Arnaz Julie Erskine by Liz Torres Chico Rodriguez by Freddie Lance Cumson by Lorenzo isArnaz a in continuationI Love Lucy Martinez, of in !thee Real McCoys“sexyby spitAble Fernandez,"re” in !e in Batman Jr. in Here’s Lucy in Here’s Lucy in Phyllisof the criminalPrinze instereotype, Chico and the Man Lamas there in Falcon is Crest Untouchables stereotype whose accent is a constant While the idea that Latinos are actual a meaningful di$erence between POLICE POLICE POLICE PLAYWRIGHT/ ARTIST/ FBI sourceLIEUTENANT of humor,DETECTIVE she is also portrayedDETECTIVE FORMERor potential LAWYER criminalsPHOTOGRAPHER endures,ART TEACHER however, MAIDthe number NURSEof criminal rolesAGENT and as being skilled with guns. #e show we found that the centrality of the the number of times that a criminal repeatedly implies that her Colombian criminal stereotype varied greatly from character appears in relation to Latino heritage makes her comically show to show, ranging from 0% in Two law enforcers. Although criminal and accustomed to violence. and Half Men and 5.1% in Criminal law enforcement characters are almost Minds to 32% in NCIS LA and 50% equal when measured in number of 1984–90 SUPPORTING 1984–90 SUPPORTING 1994–98 LEAD 1997–98 LEAD 1996–00 SUPPORTING 1998–00 SUPPORTING 1999–06 SUPPORTING 2001–09 SUPPORTING 2002–09 SUPPORTING Lieutenant Martin Castillo Detective Gina Calabrese Detective Bobby Simone by Gabriella Diaz by Luis Rivera by Nestor Diego Vasquez by Bruno Rosario Salazar by Shelly Nurse Carla Espinosa by Judy Danny Taylor by Enrique by Edward James Olmos in by Saundra Santiago in Jimmy Smits in N.Y.P.D. Constance Marie in Union Carbonell in Suddenly Susan Campos in Jesse Morrison in Will & Grace Reyes in Scrubs Murciano in Without A Trace Miami Vice Miami Vice Blue Square

FBI POLICE PLANE CRASH PLANE CRASH SURVIVOR/ POLICE CRIME SCENE BUSINESSMAN/ FBI AGENT DETECTIVE69% SURVIVOR SECURITY GUARD CAPTAIN INVESTIGATOR INMATE HOUSEWIFE AGENT

44.3%

2005–09 SUPPORTING 2003–10 SUPPORTING 2004–10 SUPPORTING24.2% 2005–06 SUPPORTING23%2009–11 SUPPORTING 2002–12 SUPPORTING 2004–12 SUPPORTING 2004–12 LEAD 2005–12 SUPPORTING Elena Delgado by Roselyn Scotty Valens by Danny Pino Hurley Reyes by Jorge Garcia 19%Ana Lucia Cortez by Captain Roy Montgomery by Eric Delko by Adam Carlos Solis by Ricardo Gabrielle Solis by Eva Natalia Boa Vista by Eva Sanchez by Without A Trace in Cold Case in Lost Michelle Rodriguez in Lost Ruben Santiago-Hudson13% in Rodriguez in CSI: Miami Chavira in Desperate Houswives Longoria in Desperate LaRue in CSI: Miami Castle 9% Housewives

STUDENT/ STUDENT/ COVERT MEDICAL 1% UNEMPLOYED/ HOMICIDE DAUGHTER DAUGHTER AGENT DOCTOR STUDENT ! HOMEMAKER STUDENT DETECTIVE DETECTIVE MAIDS CRIMINALS LAW CREATIVE (BLUE COLLAR) ENFORCEMENT TYPES % MEDIA REPRESENTATION OF LATINOS ACTUAL % OF LATINOS BY OCCUPATION (US CENSUS) 2008–12 SUPPORTING 2008–12 SUPPORTING 2005–13 SUPPORTING 2006–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2009–13 SUPPORTING 2013 SUPPORTING Juanita Solis by Madison de la Celia Solis by Daniella Ziva David by Cote de Pablo Dr. Callie Torres by Sara Grace Florrick by Makenzie Gloria Delgado-Pritchett by Manny Delgado by Rico Javier Esposito by Jon Huertas Maria Baez by Marisa Ramirez Garza in Desperate Housewives Baltodano in Desperate in NCIS Ramirez in Grey’s Anatomy Vega in !e Good Wife So"a Vergara in Modern Rodriguez in Modern Family in Castle in Blue Bloods Housewives Family

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 17 Figure 14: Race and Media Maids, 1930– roles, law enforcers appear considerably in Two and Half Men are blue–collar 2013 more frequently: 36.6% vs. 13.7%. In workers or sexy Latinas, and 50% of (Source: IMDb) other words, for every Latino criminal Latino characters in !e Big Bang !eory appearance, there are three appearances are blue-collar workers or criminals. by Latino law enforcers. !is gap can be Television then seems to view Latinos explained in part by the fact that Latino in a more favorable light when they criminal roles tend to be episodic, are part of a multicultural anti-crime throwaway characters while Latino law force than when they are inside the Once dominated by enforcers are on the main cast. overwhelmingly white domestic realm. Moreover, blue-collar and “sexy” female Lastly, an important if previously African American roles are still present but accounted unreported trend, is that over a for only 9.9% and 1.9% of the third or 44.7% of the total number roles respectively. Like the criminal of Latino roles on television are actresses playing stereotype, however, blue-collar workers unnamed or uncredited. While 72% appear less than the number of roles of Latino characters are portrayed as ”Mammy” stereotypes, suggests, only 5.7% of all Latino law enforcers, criminals, blue-collar character appearances. Conversely, workers, sexy women, and other the maid role has overly sensual Latinas are a very small minor stereotypes such as “member number of roles. But given Vergara’s of a big Latino family,” a considerable shifted decisively highly visible character, they account percentage of these characters have little for 9.1% of appearances in the top ten airtime. toward Latinas. shows. In the ten highest-grossing movies Equally signi"cant, traditionally from 2010 to 2013, Latinos performed stereotypical characters are often more a greater variety of roles than on common in comedy shows than in television, including princesses, Vikings crime dramas. For instance, besides and vampires. But similar patterns are Modern Family’s Gloria Delgado- present. Pritchett, 50% of Latino characters

18 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 19.1% 16.2% 17.7% 17.7% 14.7% 14.9% 13.8% 11.3% 10.8% 5.8% 3.4% 0.00% CRIMINALS CRIMINALS LAW ENFORCEMENT BLUE COLLAR/ WHITE COLLAR/ CREATIVE (ALL) (BLUE COLLAR) / MILITARY SERVICE WORKERS EDUCATION-BASED TYPES WORKERS ROLES PLAYED BY LATINO ACTORS ROLES PLAYED BY ALL ACTORS Of a total of 2,042 roles, Latinos played Finally, in the last two decades, a For example, mainstream television 68 or 3.3%, not counting uncredited new stereotype was born, becoming and !lm present worlds where Latinas or unnamed.2 Over a third of these visible in both television and !lm: make up 69% of maids and 24.2% roles were related to law enforcement/ the housemaid (see Figure 14). A role of criminals, yet government statistics military (19.1%) and crime (17.7%). once associated with African American indicate that Latinos comprise 44.3% actresses playing “Mammy” style of maids or housecleaners and 19% Furthermore, we measured two types of characters, the maid role has shifted of the non-federal prison population.4 criminal roles: (1) blue-collar criminals, decisively toward Latinas. Since 1996, Likewise, according to TV stories, 23% involved in the theft of goods and cash, Latina actresses have played 69%, or 11 of Latinos are law enforcers, even if kidnapping, the manufacture and sale out of 16, of the most iconic TV and the census lists only 13% of Latinos of illegal drugs, and physical violence; movie maids. #is trend was succinctly working in those professions. Perhaps and, (2) white collar or corporate captured by the late Mexican American most surprising, although mainstream criminals, implicated in embezzlement, actress Lupe Ontiveros, who once television represents Latinos as artists bribery, cybercrime, and identity famously declared that she had played at less than 1% of the time, Latinos theft. While 4.3% of criminal roles in least 300 maid characters in her career.3 constituted nearly 9% of the nation’s these !lms were white-collar, all of the creative professionals (see Figure 15). criminals portrayed by Latinos were blue-collar. In addition, Latino actors HOLLYWOOD VS. THE U.S. Equally important, whereas most news were nearly twice as likely to portray CENSUS stories about Latinos correlated them blue-collar criminals than as were white with crime and undocumented entry, actors. All of the Latino criminals were Another way to visualize the scope the majority of Latinos are native-born gang-a"liated. of stereotypical representation is U.S. citizens. According to the 2012 to compare the mainstream media census, of the 52.3 million people in Many Latinos also played law universes to another in$uential 2012 who identi!ed themselves as enforcement o"cials, who, although mapping of America: the U.S. census. having Hispanic or Latino ancestry, often central characters in the narrative, While neither presents a complete only 11.1 million or 21%, were are still connected to crime. Taken picture, their contrast underscores undocumented.5 together, criminal and law enforcement the speci!cally limited ways that roles made up a quarter of roles mainstream media portrays Latinos. performed by all actors, but comprised over a third of those played by Latinos. As in television, the con!nement of 69% Latinos to crime stories ultimately produces a limited lens through which to represent and understand them: “good Latino” or “bad Latino.” 44.3% Our survey similarly found that when one compares the types of characters 24.2% 23% played by Latinos to the actual 19% frequency of these types of roles, it is 13% evident that Latinos disproportionately 9% perform stereotypical roles. Latinos 1% were, for instance, more than three ! times as likely to play blue-collar labor, such as construction workers and MAIDS CRIMINALS LAW CREATIVE waitresses, as were actors in general (BLUE COLLAR) ENFORCEMENT TYPES (see Figure 13). #ey were also slightly less likely to play white-collar workers. % MEDIA REPRESENTATION OF LATINOS Moreover, while 3.4% of all actors played creative types, such as dancers, ACTUAL % OF LATINOS BY OCCUPATION (US CENSUS) musicians, and writers, Latinos did not play any of these roles. Figure 15: TV Latino Stereotypes and United Maids vs. the Census (Sources: U.S. Census, 2010 and IMDb)

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 19 !e persistence of the Latino media (NEARLY) NO ONE AT THE gap raises the question of the role TOP: THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF that Latinos and other groups play CEOS, OWNERS, AND SHOW 3 in decision-making. Here, the high CREATORS THE DECIDERS: frequency of stereotyping and low levels of Latino participation as Since monitoring of top media WHO RUNS THE SHOW? writers, directors, and actors pales in management began in 1968 with the comparison with the scant number of Kerner Commission, relatively little has Latinos who serve as decision-makers, changed in the leadership composition including company owners, CEOs, of the media industry. In 1989, and television show creators. To the minorities were less than 1.6% of all extent that corporations produce media high-level producers.1 Today, Latinos through on a top-down model with hold very few decision-making positions tightly controlled decision-making in studios and networks. structures, the absence of Latino industry leaders is a key factor in the In order to determine the extent of current marginalization of Latino talent Latino participation as decision-makers, and stories. we reviewed published lists of leading executives at the top 22 mainstream media outlets. We found that none of the 45 studio or network CEOs and presidents are Latino, and only two are not white men: Kevin Tsujihara, the Asian American CEO of Warner Brothers Entertainment, and Paula Kerger, CEO of PBS. If one adds the eight company chairpersons, all are white men except for Kazuo Hirai of the Japan-based Sony Corporation, and CBS’s Nina Tassler, who is Latina. Overall, among the top 53 radio, studio, and TV executives, 1.9% were Latina or Latino (see Figure 16).

Latinos are better represented on the PBS Board of Directors, if still not proportionally. !ree Latinos––Ernest 1.9% Bromley, Helen Hernandez, and Ramon Rodriguez––currently serve on the 27-member body, accounting for 11.1% of all members. !e level of inclusion in the senior administration is slightly higher. Of the 15 PBS corporate o"cers and senior executives, two, or 13.3%, are Latino: Mario Vecchi, NO SUITS % OF LATINO TV SHOW CREATORS, TV AND FILM EXECUTIVES WITH GREENLIGHT AUTHORITY Chief Technology O"cer; and Juan Sepúlveda, Senior Vice President, Figure 16: Percentage of Latinos in Top Media Leadership Positions Station Services.2 (Sources: Top media company websites) !e show creator situation is one of the most challenging. From 2010 to 2013, there were no Latino show creators. !is low level of participation correlates to the limited involvement of

20 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 2010 2011 2012 2013 PERCENTAGE OF WRITER POSITIONS 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% FILLED BY LATINOS PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCER POSITIONS 1.9% 0.6% 0.9% 2.1% FILLED BY LATINOS PERCENTAGE OF DIRECTOR POSITIONS 1.5% 1.3% 3.7% 2.7% FILLED BY LATINOS

Figure 17: Latinos Behind the Camera in Network TV Pilots, 2010–2013 (Source: !e Hollywood Reporter)

Latinos in pilot production (see Figure area where Latino participation is low. 17). As Latino talent receives fewer As reported by the Minority Media and opportunities to present ideas, they are Telecommunications Council, in 2009, also less likely to be part of !nal lineups. Latinos owned only 2.5% of television stations, 2.9% of radio stations, and Speci!cally, in the 2010 to 2013 period, no !lm studios. "ree years later, the Latinos accounted for 2.1% or less of Federal Communications Commission The absence of pilot show producers. In 2011 and (FCC) found that between 2009 and 2012, there were no Latinos writing for 2011, Latino ownership of television Latinos as executives network TV pilots at all. Yet, in 2013, stations slightly increased from 2.5% the number of writer and producer to 2.9%.3 Latinos, however, continued and producers positions !lled by Latinos increased. to hold majority-voting interests in just But the numbers are still quite small 2.7% of full power television stations, is a key factor relative to the population: only 25 out indicating stagnation in this sector.4 of 901 posts in network TV pilots were in the current !lled by Latinos, representing 2.8% of the total. THE RACE OF RECOGNITION marginalization of It is unclear if the 2013 increase in "e lack of Latino decision-makers is writers and producers will become a also dramatically evident in institutions Latino talent and trend or have an impact. Between 2010 that recognize the achievements of and 2011, for example, the proportion professionals working in the industry. stories. of Latino writer, producer, and director positions fell. At the same time, given Of these, the most well–known to that 2013 was the only year in the the public is the Academy of Motion sample in which Latino producers Picture Arts and Sciences, which exceeded 2% and Latino writers awards the “Oscars” every year. As of surpassed 5% of the total, it is possible 2012, 94% of the Academy voters were that viewers may see a modest increase white, and fewer than 2% were Latino.5 in Latino participation on television "is composition correlates with the over the next few years. nominations and awarding of the Oscars.

EQUALLY LACKING: POWER According to a UCLA report, from BEHIND THE POWER 2002 to 2012, only 4% of Oscar nominees in the major categories were Media company owners also drive key Latino, and none of them earned media decisions—and this is yet another an award.6 No Latino performer has

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 21 NOMINATIONS 2002 2005 2006 2008 2010 LATINOS & OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING LEAD OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR GUEST ACTRESS IN DIRECTOR IN ACTRESS IN SUPPORTING THE EMMYS IN A DRAMA A COMEDY DRAMA COMEDY ACTRESS IN COMEDY 2002–2013 OF 312 EMMYS AWARDED FREDDY LUPE RODRIGO AMERICA SOFIA BETWEEN 2002–2013, LATINO RODRIGUEZ ONTIVEROS GARCIA FERRARA VERGARA ACTORS WON ONLY 6 (1.9%), WITH Six Feet Under Desperate Houswives Big Love Ugly Betty Modern Family ANOTHER 11 NOMINATIONS. 2011 2012 2013 OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING WRITING IN GUEST ACTOR IN SUPPORTING GUEST ACTOR IN GUEST ACTOR 6 ACTRESS IN COMEDY COMEDY COMEDY ACTRESS IN COMEDY COMEDY IN COMEDY LATINO WINS (1.9%) SOFIA LOUIS BOBBY SOFIA BOBBY LOUIS VERGARA CK CANNAVALE VERGARA CANNAVALE CK Modern Family Louie Nurse Jackie Modern Family Nurse Jackie Saturday Night Live

2005 2006 2007 2012 2013 312 EMMYS OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING LEAD OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR WRITING IN ACTRESS IN WRITING IN SUPPORTING DIRECTING IN 2002–2013 IN A COMEDY COMEDY COMEDY COMEDY ACTOR IN DRAMA COMEDY

BOBBY GREG AMERICA LOUIS BOBBY LOUIS CANNAVALE GARCIA FERRARA CK CANNAVALE CK Will and Grace My Name is Earl Ugly Betty Louie Boardwalk Empire Louie

Figure 18: Latinos and the Emmys, 2002–2013 (Source: Emmys website) received an Oscar for acting since list of the Academy’s 15,000 members is In sum, depending on the company, Benicio del Toro won Best Supporting available, in our survey of the Academy’s network or institution, the vast majority Actor for the !lm Tra!c (2000). top leadership, we found that no of all fundamental media decisions As with other industry institutions, Latinos are part of the organization’s 58 are made by a$uent, middle-aged, gains are not sustained or su"cient: Board of Governors. Likewise, none of white men. Yet, most industry leaders in both 2011 and 2013, no Latino the Executive Committee’s 18 members publicly support diversity as a corporate was nominated in any of the major are Latino. policy and recognize the importance categories. #e 2014 roster featured one of diverse storylines to the country’s main successful nomination to Alfonso Not surprisingly, this lack of diversity youngest viewers. To better understand Cuarón for directing Gravity, starring is also evident in the number of this disjuncture, the next section looks Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. Latinos recognized by the Academy. closer at why diversity departments #is win accounted for 2.9% of all top From 2002 to 2013, there were 1,125 have not been able to fully realize their awards.7 primetime Emmy nominations for mandates. drama and comedy series encompassing #e Emmys present a similar situation. outstanding acting, writing, directing, #ey are presented by the Los Angeles– and programming. Latinos received 18, based Academy of Television Arts and or 1.6%, of the nominations. Of the Sciences; the organization’s objective 312 Emmys actually awarded in the top is to honor the best in primetime categories, Latinos won six, accounting programming. Although no complete for 1.9% of the total (see Figure 18).8

22 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP Concern over Latino inclusion is persistent stereotyping and exclusion of not new in the media industry and women, Latinos, and other groups. it has arisen from di!erent contexts. 4 Arguably, the "rst “o#cial” Latino While it would be an exaggeration to DIVERSITY AND diversity initiative took place during conclude that diversity departments the 1940s.1 At the time, the United have been completely ine!ective, it ITS DISCONTENTS States government instructed the movie would not be unfair to say that they industry to represent Latin Americans have failed to signi"cantly change the in a more “positive” light to secure the face of the industry. In many, if not region’s markets and political support most instances, diversity executives during WWII. Accordingly, the number can generate data and exert in%uence, of movies with Latin American themes but generally have little or no power to exploded, nurturing the careers of both enforce compliance, particularly in the U.S. Latino and Latin American stars. critical area of content creation. As a After the end of the war, however, these result, the fundamental job of diversity directives were no longer considered executives has been to monitor rather important and were dropped. Latino than actualize diversity within their inclusion plummeted on screens. networks and/or studios.

$e next key moment took place In order to better understand the two decades later. In the 1960s, the possibilities and limits of the current African American and Latino civil model of diversity departments, we rights movements identi"ed media interviewed 27 diversity and other representation as a civil right and media executives, producers, and/or gave rise to campaigns targeting advocates to assess their views on the discrimination in hiring and success of diversity e!orts. Although all stereotypical representation. As social of the executives interviewed favored movements continued into the 1970s, diversity as a policy, all but one agreed new pressures were applied to the "lm that the present model had largely and television industries.2 not achieved its main objective. All advocates concurred that diversity To address these, television outlets such departments had not brought about as PBS made important modi"cations substantial change. to their content, producing Latino- themed features, multicultural children’s programming, and bilingual sitcoms DIVERSE PROBLEMS such as the now classic Que Pasa, USA (1977). But once the pressure declined, Respondents identi"ed a broad range of most media outlets opted to exclude reasons why diversity departments had Latinos rather than proportionally not been highly e!ective. $ese reasons incorporate them in non-stereotypical can be classi"ed as interpersonal or roles and as behind-the-camera talent. focused on individual desires and fears; institutional, emphasizing company During the 1990s, advocacy groups policies and rules; and societal, referring again organized to demand better to broader social relations, laws, and representation of minorities in discourses. television and "lm. $is time, media companies responded by creating Interpersonal Factors diversity departments and appointing people of color, mostly African Most interviewees gave great weight to Americans, as diversity executives. In everyday life and professional behavior this context, “diversity” emerged as in accounting for the performance a less confrontational term than did of present diversity initiatives. $is “a#rmative action” to address the suggests that while media professionals

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 23 recognize the importance of other overwhelmingly white, middle-aged, factors, they also view individual actions and male. According to one diversity as key to understanding the status quo. executive, “Writers tend to write what they know. And what they know is !e “Comfort Zone.” Beverly Hills to car to studio and back, always surrounded by people like #ere was a strong consensus that the themselves.”5 “comfort zone” of decision-makers ”Writers tend to played a signi"cant role regarding A second diversity executive provided who is o$ered opportunities in the the following example of how attempts write what they media industry. All interviewees agreed to change the status quo fail: “A that producers and executives tend diversity executive will ask a writer to to hire people they know, who are add diverse people to the script and know. And what recommended by acquaintances, and/ the white writer will !ip out and say or with whom they feel comfortable. ‘the character is everything, I can’t they know is In the words of one guild advocate: change him.’ When the writer says ‘I “#e industry is hostile, dog-eat-dog, don’t feel it,’ the showrunner generally Beverly Hills to car and very stressful. In that world, you sides with him. At best, you will get want people who have your back.”3 a diverse sidekick character or ‘fruit to studio and back, Since the vast majority of top industry salad’ background where the characters management is currently white and do not make signi"cant contributions always surrounded male, this results in hiring along the to the story. Showrunners themselves same racial and gender lines. #e are almost always from the same by people like assumption is that people outside of the background as the writer.”6 network will not be loyal or supportive themselves.” to those already inside. Fear of Displacement. Unconscious Bias. According to some respondents, the description of the media industry as a Several Latino producers stated that family business and/or one based on executives, showrunners, and casting relationships may mask a greater anxiety directors view Latinos as better suited for industry insiders: fear of change. for low-wage, “unintellectual” jobs and “#ey say that the business is based on roles. #is perception is reinforced by relationships,” a guild advocate noted. the relationships that managers tend to “But the fact is that people just don’t have with Latinos, particularly in the want to change. We do a lot of network industry’s capital, Los Angeles. As one mixers and it goes nowhere. #e Latino producer stressed, “#e view of business is so competitive, no one wants Latinos is as a servant class. All they to open it up to new people for fear of know us as is their gardeners and maids. being displaced.”7 Or in more direct #at’s what they see when they look at terms, “When someone is up, someone us and that’s how they cast us.”4 is down.”8

Resistance to Changing the Story. Importantly, the fear factor is not only a white/non-white issue. Some A number of Latino media makers interviewees pointed out that African and diversity executives also identi"ed Americans were also hesitant to the reluctance of individual writers advocate on behalf of Latinos for fear to diversify the kinds of stories that of losing their hard-fought yet still they write as a key obstacle to change. limited access. “#ere is a fear of black For many of the study’s participants, displacement because blacks had been this is linked to the homogeneity of standing in for all diversity until now,” writers and executive producers in the one producer observed.9 To the extent industry, who for decades have been that inclusion is largely understood

24 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP in racial and gender terms, it tends to understood globally. #is means that an important part of the market. But reinforce intra-group solidarity, and employment and programs involving, it accounts for the haphazard ways that makes coalition-building di!cult. say, Latin America and/or Latin change happens. One year the numbers Americans outside of the U.S., are are up; the next they are down.”19 counted as Latino diversity. One media INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS advocate recounted: “#e network was claiming that Paula Abdul, who has SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND Respondents also identi"ed several key Syrian and Jewish roots and was partly POLICY FACTORS institutional reasons why diversity has raised in Brazil, was a Latina.”14 not taken hold in studios, stations, and While most interviewees focused on networks. #ese ranged from a weak #e majority of U.S.-born Latino institutional and individual factors, commitment to ine$ectual benchmarks respondents were particularly critical there was a convergence that the to the ambiguity of the category of this tendency: “Latin Americans are following three socio-political and “Latino.” used as de%ection. #ey come from elite economic aspects contributed to the backgrounds and their journey is very lack of diversity in media. Diversity is a “Front.” di$erent than that of a U.S. Latino.”15 #ese assumptions were evident in the #e vast majority of executives believe interview process: when pressed for that diversity programs have not evidence of Latino participation, most succeeded because diversity is not diversity and human resource o!cials yet a true institutional value. In the cited their overseas divisions and named ”Diversity has words of one executive: “Diversity Latin American born-and-bred talent. has never been an intrinsic part of the never been an institutional fabric. Diversity is like a Benchmarks are Wrong, Tactics Christmas ornament that you bring out Ine!ective. intrinsic part of the and, after it’s over, you put it away.”10 Or, as a diversity o!cer bluntly put A smaller number of executives it, “Diversity o!cers are managers of expressed that diversity programs institutional fabric. discontent and get paid well to do it.”11 are intrinsically %awed and therefore unsuccessful: “Diversity recruitment Diversity is like a Others felt that diversity initiatives events do not produce the best were in fact a conservative mechanism candidates. We hire through internal Christmas ornament to maintain the status quo. “Diversity,” networking.”16 Some executives also says one guild advocate, “is the product rejected the idea that population that you bring out of white backlash. Taking some of our should match employment, the usual language and using it on us.”12 #e benchmark of media advocates: “#e and, after it’s over, bottom line is that, as another guild talent–employment–population ratio advocate summarized: “Ultimately, the is not a valid way to measure. One you put it away.” companies control everything. #ey can’t say that because Latinos are 17% choose the executives; the diversity of the population, they should be departments serve at their pleasure, 17% of the writers.”17 What is needed, and cannot implement policies added a second executive, “are di$erent autonomously. #ey also choose the benchmarks for diversity.”18 showrunners and producers. If the networks and studios really wanted Latinos Buy Us Anyway. more diversity, it would happen.”13 A minority of independent advocates Diversity is Vague. pointed out that diversity programs fail because network and studio heads Likewise, the majority of executives say believe that that there is no true need that accountability is di!cult because to diversify, as Latinos are already measures of diversity are not well consuming media beyond their de"ned. A key example is that for major numbers. “#is is slowly changing as studios and networks, diversity is executives now believe that Latinos are

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 25 Latino Inclusion is Not a Public As one studio executive forcefully Good. concluded, “!e days of a"rmative action are over.”25 All Latino media advocates expressed that, in contrast to African Americans, It’s the Economy. Latinos are generally viewed as new arrivals and foreigners, so inclusion In addition to racial fatigue, most of Latinos in media institutions is not respondents concurred that the perceived as a public good. As one recent recession and #nancial impact advocate noted, “!ey don’t understand of changing media distribution our struggles. !ey don’t know that platforms and income streams there were thousands of Mexican create a less hospitable atmosphere Americans murdered in Texas from for proportionally increasing the Latinos are 1900 to 1909.”20 !e advocates further participation of minorities. “!e biggest observed that Latino claims are regarded threat right now is for someone to take generally perceived as opportunistic or unwarranted: your job,” one guild advocate, stated. “Latinos are seen as recent immigrants “People don’t want to hear about as recent arrivals trying to ride on the coattails of minority exclusion, because everyone African Americans.”21 In the words of is su$ering.”26 Others concurred and foreigners, so a guild advocate, “Whites do not feel that today’s juncture was di"cult to responsible. !eir sense is ‘I didn’t do maneuver given the economic crisis: it.’”22 “People get defensive. If it’s di"cult inclusion of Latinos for everyone, it’s harder to talk about According to most respondents, this minorities. And the board doesn’t even in media institutions larger context partly explains why want to hear it.”27 executives do not feel any urgency is not perceived as a to increase opportunity. One human resources executive, for instance, public good. summed up the situation in this way: “At our company, people tend not to leave. So we can’t keep up with outside demographics. We just don’t have many opportunities for promoting minorities.”23

We Live in a “Post-Racial” Society.

Beginning in the 1990s and culminating in the immediate aftermath of President Barack Obama’s election in 2008, there is also a growing consensus, particularly among whites, that the U.S. is now a “post-racial” society. !is is broadly echoed among the surveyed leadership. “!ere is no discrimination,” a guild advocate stated. “People just look for where the money is.”24 Most diversity o"cers highlighted that Latinos were not considered to be as prepared or educated as Asian Americans or whites. In this sense, there is a general and growing rejection to the use of a collective rights argument over individual talent and preparation.

26 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP From a business point of view, the McPherson implemented a strategy reluctance to diversify is puzzling as based on the idea that, given U.S. there is strong evidence that increasing demographics and appeal of Latino 5 the presence of Latinos in media leads stars, diverse shows could help revive DIVERSITY PAYS to more viewers, higher ratings, and network ratings and increase revenue. greater pro!ts for media companies. "is is the case not only because a To this end, ABC approved three shows greater number of Latinos may watch from 2004 to 2005 with key Latino shows or !lms but also because Latino talent in quick succession: Desperate talent often appeals to a signi!cant cross Housewives (2004), Lost (2004), and section of the audience. In this regard, Grey’s Anatomy (2005). "e results were when it comes to Latino inclusion, remarkable: ABC’s ratings climbed studios and networks appear to act from 3.2 in the 2003–04 season to 4 not out of economic self-interest, in the 2005–06 season (see Figure 19). but only when they are pressured. As In 2006, the show Ugly Betty, executive one advocate put it, “When change produced by Salma Hayek, also had an happens, it’s really about fear…fear of impressive premiere, becoming ABC’s losing your job, embarrassment, and highest-rated scripted show in its time failure.”1 slot since Matlock in 1995.3

For this section, we surveyed the Moreover, as a result of increased impact of greater Latino diversity in viewership, advertisers immediately !lm, television, and radio. To illustrate started paying attention.4 "e network’s the premise that “diversity pays,” we advertising revenue reportedly climbed identi!ed four case studies in which to an unprecedented $50 million in executives have successfully developed the Ugly Betty-Grey’s Anatomy "ursday business models based on diverse hiring. slot.5 Ten years later, diversity continues to be a key component of ABC’s business strategy. ABC RISING: THE IMPACT OF DIVERSE PROGRAMMING ON RATINGS AND REVENUE DEVIOUS MAIDS BRINGS (MORE) LIFE TO LIFETIME In 2004, ABC was at the bottom of the main network ratings pile.2 In Signi!cantly, the ABC experience is not response, ABC executives Lloyd Braun, isolated; it also applies to cable shows. Susan Lyne, and incoming CEO Steve A case in point is Devious Maids, which

4.2 ABC’S 4.0 4.0 RATING 49 AVERAGES – 3.8 2003-2007 3.7 3.6 3.5

RATING AVERAGE RATING 3.4 3.2 AMONG ADULTS 18 AMONG ADULTS 3.2 3.0 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 SEASON

Figure 19: ABC Rating Averages, 2003–2007 (Source: SpottedRatings.com)

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 27 12 10 LATINO MEDIA 10 CAMPAIGNS 8 1968–2013 5 6 4 3 4

NUMBER OF PROTESTS 2 2 1 0 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s DECADE began to air on Lifetime in 2013 after As it was widely noted in the press, when after only four weeks, the star being turned down by the networks. adults aged 18–49 accounted for 1.4 host, Madeleine Brand, quit, citing that Based on a Latin American soap opera million viewers, 1.2 million of whom she could no longer do the show.15 about the lives of "ve maids and their were women. Signi"cantly, Latinos employers, Devious Maids featured an made up a large share of that audience: Despite missteps and a learning all-Latina lead cast, two Latina writers close to 19%, which is almost twice curve for the new host, the station and Desperate Housewives star Eva Lifetime’s primetime average.8 #is experienced the unexpected. According Longoria as an executive producer. response suggests that many Latinos, to journalist Gabriel Kahn, a month particularly women, did not object to after Brand and Martinez began #is line up made Devious Maids the maid characters as long as they were working together, over 7,000 more "rst major television show in history to not stereotypically drawn. Although listeners tuned in. And four months include such a high number of Latina there are currently no public statistics after Brand’s replacement, Alex Cohen, leads and behind-the-camera talent. concerning Devious Maids’ impact on began to work with Martinez, NPR #e question was: is anyone going to advertisement revenue, Lifetime picked di!usion in Latino households shot watch? At the beginning, it was not up the show to air for a second season up from 5% to 25%, ushering in clear. Even before anyone could tune in 2014.9 a signi"cant surge in pledges and in, Latino media advocates began to membership.16 Equally important, the criticize the show as perpetuating the station’s morning audience share rose by maid stereotype. Yet, while pundits LISTENING TO CALIFORNIA: 17% and donations to the station hit debated in the blogosphere, Devious THE KPCC BOOM record highs.17 Maids became a big hit for the Lifetime network. Two million viewers watched Another dramatic example involved the premiere in June 2013, and the 89.3 KPCC, one of the widest-reaching FAST AND THE FURIOUS audience grew to three million for the public radio stations in southern MOVES THE MARKET season "nale in September.6 According California, with approximately 600,000 to journalist Nellie Andreeva, the show listeners each week.10 Like most media As noted in earlier sections, Latinos are “made Lifetime the No. 1 cable network entities, the station had a commitment the most avid movie ticket buyers in the in the Sunday 10 PM time slot among to diversity and had actually designed U.S., a fact that is often leaned on to women.”7 a three-year, $10 million project to avoid rather than to promote diversity address it.11 Still, they had not made in hiring and storylines. #ere is, substantial changes to key programming however, one movie franchise that has in years. learned the huge risk that a studio may incur in when it fails to address a core In 2012, board member Ana Valdez, audience: !e Fast and the Furious. one of two Latinos on the board, sounded the alarm: if the station did !e Fast and the Furious is the biggest GROWTH AFTER A. MARTINEZ not incorporate greater Latino diversity, box o$ce franchise of all time for it might not survive in the long term.12 Universal Studios, grossing over $2.3 JOINS While 80% of NPR’s current audience billion as of 2013.19 #e latest "lm, 25% is estimated to be white, over 45% !e Fast and the Furious 6, reached of southern California’s population is $500 million in worldwide box o$ce Latino.13 totals with greater speed than any other SURGE IN "lm in Universal’s history.20 Given the PLEDGES AND MEMBERSHIP #e board chose to test the waters by series’ ample domestic and worldwide 5% LATINO ADULT LISTENERS hiring a Latino co-host, A. Martinez, audience, Universal is already MORE THAN DOUBLED for its morning news show, !e considering the production of sequels as Madeleine Brand Show. As this was far ahead as !e Fast and the Furious 9. NPR LATINO a top-rated show, there was some HOUSEHOLD PENETRATION +15% apprehension, particularly as Martinez Latinos have signi"cantly contributed TAKE TWO’S AQH +20% was perceived as a “sports radio guy to Universal’s success. When analyzing from ESPN” with no experience in domestic box o$ce returns, there is a +20% public radio.14 #ere was also fear that strong correlation between the presence RECORD HIGH IN TAKE TWO’S tinkering with a proven formula could of Latino talent and earnings. And this DONATIONS TO KPCC AUDIENCE SHARE drive away listeners. #is fear increased can be con"rmed by examining the

28 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP box o!ce of the second through fourth $238,679,850 installments. $209,837,675 While each "lm in the franchise has $144,533,925 $155,064,265 earned more at the box o!ce than the $127,154,901 prior "lm, there are two exceptions: 2 Fast 2 Furious and !e Fast and $62,514,415 the Furious 3. Domestically, 2 Fast 2 Furious earned 13% less in revenue. Some critics attributed the drop to the departure of lead actor Vin Diesel. 2001 2003 2006 2009 2011 2013

Subtitled Tokyo Drift, the third THE FAST 2 FAST TOKYO FAST & FAST FAST & installment experienced an even steeper AND THE 2 FURIOUS DRIFT FURIOUS FIVE FURIOUS 6 drop–43%. #is time, critics identi"ed FURIOUS the absence of actor Paul Walker as a MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ EVA MENDEZ MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ JOAQUIN DE ALMEIDA MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ COLE HAUSER LAZ ALONSO ELSA PATAKY JOHN ORTIZ determining factor in the franchise’s LA MEXICO CARTER VERONE JOHN ORTIZ TEGO CALDERON decline. Yet, the fact that Vin Diesel AMAURY NOLASCO TEGO CALDERON DON OMAR SPAIN DON OMAR EVA MENDEZ again starred in the third "lm points LA MIAMI MIRTHA MICHELLE MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ to the possibility of another, less noted LA MEXICO RIO MIAMI absence: Latinos. PANAMA CITY DR Speci"cally, the drop in revenues Figure 20: Latino Box O!ce Impact on !e Fast and !e Furious Franchise between the "rst and second "lms was (Sources: !e Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times and IMDb) arguably not as dramatic as between the second and third in part because Latino talent and locations did not disappear that a limited sampling indicated that perpetuating stereotypes of Latinos as altogether. #ough Michelle Rodriguez 46% of the audience for !e Fast and cops and robbers, the series is unusual, did not star in 2 Fast 2 Furious, Eva the Furious 4 was Latino.21 Such a as most characters are represented as Mendes played a detective, and much number signi"cantly exceeds the Latino neither entirely “good” nor “bad,” and of the action took place in Latino cities population (17%), and the percentage the storyline creates a world where like Los Angeles and Miami. Tokyo of tickets that Latinos buy on average people of multiple racial backgrounds Drift, however, did not include any (25%).22 In 2013, the Los Angeles Times interact and work together toward Latino actors, themes, or locations. again reported that once Rodriguez common goals. was reintroduced to the series, Latino #e signi"cant impact of Latinos to audiences helped to carry the "lm to the #e importance of compelling Latino the franchise’s survival becomes even top of the box o!ce: they accounted for portrayals is additionally evident clearer in the fourth installment, with nearly a third of the "lm’s spectators on in the failure of two 2012 shows, the return of Michelle Rodriguez in her opening weekend.23 ABC’s Work It and CBS’s Rob, which signature role of Letty Ortiz and the featured Latino actors and situations "lm’s multiple Latin American settings. but relied on extreme stereotypical At that point, the franchise experienced ADDING IT UP representations. #e shows made it only a major jump in box o!ce revenues. to two and eight episodes respectively, Whereas Tokyo Drift earned only $62.5 #ese case studies reveal that the fear demonstrating the pitfalls of such million, !e Fast and the Furious 4, of diversity is unwarranted. When programming. Work It was also the made over $155.1 million (see Figure English-language networks, stations, target of a large boycott by Latino 20). #e franchise has since maintained and studios diversify talent, they are advocates and consumers, an e$ort top Latino talent, setting, and/or amply rewarded. It is also evident that contributed to its cancellation and characters in all subsequent "lms. that although Latinos are passionate underscored the importance of Latino consumers of existing o$erings, they consumer power in the new media #e importance of Latino moviegoers also prefer media that includes Latino landscape.24 to the franchise’s rise can be further characters and storylines, and avoids veri"ed by measuring audience share. blatant stereotypes. While !e Fast and In 2009, !e Los Angeles Times reported the Furious franchise can be seen as

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 29 As previously noted, estimates indicate ADVOCATING FOR CHANGE that Latino consumers hold over 1 trillion dollars in spending power, or Since the introduction of cinema in the 6 close to 10% of the U.S total—and this late nineteenth century, Latinos have ACTION!: LATINO consumer power is growing fast. By responded to media misrepresentation 2015, Latino buying power is expected and employment discrimination CONSUMER to reach $1.6 trillion.”1 with organized campaigns, and these POWER AND intensi#ed after WWII.4 Our review In the mainstream and trade press, of published accounts in the news and ADVOCACY allusions to Latino consumer power scholarly press revealed that there have tend to be accompanied by the been at least 25 national campaigns led assumption of passivity. Even when by Latino media advocates since 1968. studies show that Latinos actually !e rate of these protests also increased change brands at higher rates than substantially in the 1970s, before other groups, corporate reports and the declining in the subsequent decade. press tend to portray Latino consumers Media advocacy e$orts picked up once as brand-loyal.2 Furthermore, in our more in the mid-1990s, and 2011 saw a survey, some executives represented %urry of activity reminiscent of the late advocates as detrimental to achieving 1970s (see Figure 21). media change. In the words of one executive, “Protests are outdated. !ey Along with the sheer volume of ru"e feathers.”3 campaigns, it is signi#cant that present 4.2 ABC’S 4.0 Latino media advocacy e$orts are 4.0 RATING Yet, the mobilization of Latino media increasingly e$ective. From 1968 to 49 AVERAGES – consumers and advocates has been 1998, most successful media campaigns 2003-2007 3.8 3.7 key in the acceleration of change over took an average of 23 months and as 3.6 the last #ve decades, and this3.5 pressure much as four years to accomplish their continues to be an essential force stated goals. In addition, just 63% of

RATING AVERAGE RATING 3.4 3.2 in diversifying media. Speci#cally, Latino campaigns prevailed in all or AMONG ADULTS 18 AMONG ADULTS 3.2 advocates and consumers have part of their goals. Since 1998, with challenged stereotypes, helped to create the rise of the Internet and the Latino 3.0 pipelines of opportunity, and pressured population, 86% of campaigns achieved 2003–04 2004–05networks 2005and– 06studios to tell 2006 new–07 stories. all or part of their objectives in under a ToSEASON better understand their role today, month, and none took more than nine this section investigates how Latino months (see Figure 22). consumer and advocacy power have grown and changed since the 1960s. Likewise, our survey found that the most e$ective Latino media advocacy campaigns have taken the form of 12 boycotts targeting advertisers in relation 10 LATINO 10 MEDIA to what consumers consider o$ensive CAMPAIGNS programming or commercials. Since 1968 8 –2013 1968, every mobilization by Latinos 6 5 against products with stereotypical ads 4 3 has achieved the campaigners’ goals. 4 !ese include protests against Bell

NUMBER OF PROTESTS 2 2 1 Telephone, Granny Goose, Ligget and Myers, Frito-Lay, Elgin National Watch 0 Company, American Motors, and Coors 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Light (see Figure 23). DECADE Figure 21: Number of National Latino Media Campaigns, 1968–2013 !is tendency continues to the present. (Sources: !e New York Times and scholarly publications) Campaigns aimed at advertisers have

30 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 60 LENGTH 50 OF LATINO MEDIA 40 CAMPAIGNS Advocates and 30 consumers have (IN MONTHS) 20 10 challenged MAX. ESTIMATED DURATION OF CAMPAIGN, DURATION MAX. ESTIMATED 0 stereotypes, created 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR OF CAMPAIGN pipelines of Figure 22: Length of Latino Media Campaigns, 1968-2013 (Sources: !e New York Times and scholarly publications) opportunities, and been responsible for the banning of Equally important, campaigns aimed at encouraged networks a Seinfeld episode that featured the news programs have become gradually burning of a Puerto Rican !ag in 1998, more fruitful. A case in point is the and studios to tell and accelerating the cancellation of campaign demanding an end to the television shows like the previously- CNN news show, Lou Dobbs Tonight, mentioned Work It in 2012.5 To date, which we explore in greater detail new stories. only the ongoing national campaign below. $is e"ort was noteworthy against the John and Ken radio show not only because it focused on one of begun in 2011 by the National the media formats where Latinos are Hispanic Media Coalition has been less visible and more stereotypically unable to achieve its main goal of taking represented––television news––but also the program o" the air, although it has because of its innovative approach to triggered an exodus of advertisers.6 advocacy and its potential to serve as a model for future campaigns. In general, the least successful campaigns have been against studios for speci#c #lms. $is is partly the case THE FIGHT AGAINST LOU because studio revenue has historically DOBBS TONIGHT not been as dependent on advertisement dollars and national audiences, making In 2008, anti-immigrant talk was heard the studios less vulnerable to domestic everywhere, contributing to an all- consumer pressure. Beginning in the time high of 735 hate crimes against late 1990s, however, some campaigns, Latinos in the U.S. (see Figure 24). At such as “No nos quieren” ($ey CNN, news personality Lou Dobbs Don’t Want Us), also launched by the was making a career out of American National Hispanic Media Coalition immigration anxiety. Since the show’s against ABC and Disney, in!uenced creation in 2003, Lou Dobbs Tonight the creation of writing programs had become a central source for anti- that provide access for Latinos to immigrant and racist rhetoric, often entry-level creative opportunities.7 In passing o" exaggeration for fact.8 the near future, the e"ectiveness of Latino advocacy campaigns will likely For example, in 2005, Dobbs made the increase as studios require even greater inaccurate claim that “the invasion of budgets, and the promotion of a #lm illegal aliens is threatening the health becomes more reliant upon the sale of of many Americans.” He cited that merchandise and the incorporation of immigrants were importing leprosy over corporate brands into the narrative. the Mexican border at a very high rate,

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 31 a total of 7,000 cases in three years. for America, the National Council of However, this was the total number La Raza, the New Democrat Network, of cases over the previous 30 years.9 the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Regardless of Dobbs’ anti-immigrant and the Southern Poverty Law Center, bias, CNN did not act to hold the show initiated a “Drop Dobbs” coalition. accountable to journalistic standards. "is campaign focused its attention Instead, the company supported the on advertisers and demanded that the show, which experienced a signi!cant network stop supporting Dobbs’ show.12 ratings bounce: between 2003 and 2007, its audience grew 72%.10 While both groups were important in ousting Dobbs, the “Basta Dobbs” But not all were appreciative. In 2009, campaign embodied a new approach to an online advocacy organization called media advocacy in the digital age. On Presente.org formed a campaign named the one hand, the campaign e#ectively “Basta Dobbs,” calling on CNN to !re employed traditional means by Lou Dobbs. Led by media strategist recruiting writers to contribute op-eds Roberto Lovato, the campaign came in !e New York Times, Chicago Tribune, to include more than 40 grassroots New York’s El Diario-La Prensa and Los organizations spanning 12 states and Angeles’ La Opinión, and gathering over 25 major media markets. Overall, the 100,000 signatures. On the other hand, “Basta Dobbs” campaign made two the campaign leveraged new media key arguments.11 One, CNN could tools to amplify their message and exert not retain Dobbs and hope to be pressure on CNN.13 considered a politically neutral news site. Two, CNN could also not expect "ese tools included the production to keep Dobbs as a host and still court of an online video by award-winning Latino viewers with its upcoming documentary !lmmaker Arturo Perez Latino in America series, which included titled “CNN: Lou Dobbs or Latinos senior Latina journalists at the helm: in America?” In addition, the group correspondent Soledad O’Brien and created a text-message “shortcode” Figure 23: Goals and Outcomes of Latino senior producer Rose Arce. call to action, publicized via radio and Media Campaigns 1968–2011 on-the-ground events in 18 of the (Sources: !e New York Times and scholarly Not long afterwards, several major largest Latino media markets. "is publications) organizations, including Media Matters enabled thousands of people to join the

1968 2 MONTHS 1970 9 MONTHS LATINO Increase Latino acting opportunities in !lms Improve representations of Mexican MEDIA such as Che! Americans in !lms after the release of Butch 1968 2 YEARS Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, True Grit, and !e Wild Bunch CAMPAIGNS Retire Bill Dana's stereotypically “lazy and 1968–2011 stupid” Latino character José Jiménez 1970 2 YEARS 1969 2 YEARS Discontinue Elgin watch ads depicting FAIL PARTIAL SUCCESS SUCCESS Take a Bristol-Myers' “Mum” deodorant Emiliano Zapata as a thief commercial featuring a “smelly” Mexican 1970 4 YEARS outlaw o" the air AVERAGE CAMPAIGN DURATION BY DECADE Retire Frito-Lay's “Frito Bandito” mascot 1969 2 YEARS Take a Granny Goose chips commercial showing 1970 2 YEARS 1960s 1 YEAR AND 7.6 MONTHS stereotypical Mexican bandits o" the air Discontinue Rainbow Bread “bandito” ads 1970s 1 YEAR AND 9.3 MONTHS 1969 2 YEARS 1970 2 YEARS Take Liggett & Myers cigarette commercials 1980s 1 YEAR Discontinue American Motors “bandito” ads highlighting a “lazy Mexican” named Paco o" 1990s ~1 YEAR (52.5 WEEKS) the air 1976 3 YEARS End the subservient Latino stereotype in the 2000s 6 MONTHS TV series Chico and the Man 2010s 3 WEEKS

32 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP campaign through their cells phones 800 by writing the word “ENOUGH” 735 to number 30644. Moreover, “Basta 700 654 681 Dobbs” organized a “digital sit-in” on 595 CNN’s website, which allowed Presente. 600 576 org members and supporters to deliver 522 500 475 their comments and pictures directly to 426 CNN. 400

"e Basta Dobbs campaign also used 300 ANTI-LATINO the media to critique the media—it HATE CRIME was launched at the same time that CRIME INCIDENTS OF HATE NO. 200 2003-2010 Dobbs chose to participate in an anti- immigrant conference organized by the 100 Federation for American Immigration 0 Reform (FAIR) in September, and it 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 was re-launched a month later when CNN’s Latino in America was to be Figure 24: Rise in Anti-Latino Hate Crimes broadcast. As Lovato describes, “On (Source: FBI Hate Crimes Report, 2003–2010) their big day in the limelight with Latino in America, all coverage was emphasized how Dobbs, not Latinos, building an audience by mobilizing about how Latinos wanted CNN were a threat to the CNN brand, anti-immigrant feelings and fueling the to cut its ties to Lou Dobbs.”14 "e bringing shame to an organization President Obama “birther” controversy negative attention hurt the brand and self-identi!ed by the slogan “the most was failing—he had lost 15% of his jeopardized the resources invested trusted name in news.” overall viewership,16 and one month in Latino in America to bring new before his exit, the show was “dead last” audiences to the network (see Figure After three months of campaigning, in the critical 25–54 demographic.17 25). on November 11, 2009, Lou Dobbs But the show’s decline and cancellation announced he was retiring from the was greatly accelerated by consumer Signi!cantly, the campaign focused not network.15 Klein stated that Dobbs was criticism and organizing. In the end, on Lou Dobbs, which had the potential not asked to withdraw because of the CNN paid Dobbs an $8 million to reach a dead end of “he said, they protests, and activist pressure was likely severance package to leave before his said,” but on Jonathan Klein, president not the only variable in terminating contract expired.18 of CNN. In this way, the advocates the show. By July, Dobbs’ strategy of

1979 1995 1 YEAR 2009 3 MONTHS Halt the violent depiction of Mexican Revoke the radio license of !e Howard Stern Cancel the news show Lou Dobbs Tonight due Americans in !e Streets of L.A. Show, whose host made negative comments to misinformation and hate speech in relation 1979 about Mexican singer Selena following her to undocumented Latino immigrants Halt the violent depiction of Mexican death 2011 1 WEEK Americans in Act of Violence 1996 3 YEARS Cancel Coors Light “Emboricuate” ads which 1979 1 YEAR Force ABC and Disney to include more con"ated Puerto Rican identity and drunken Stop hiring white actors for Latino roles, such Latino-focused programming and hire more behavior as in the !lm Walk Proud Latino actors 2011 1 MONTH 1979 1 YEAR 1998 1 WEEK Counter negative stereotypes of Colombians Halt the violent depiction of Latinos in Ban the Seinfeld episode featuring rioting in the !lm Colombiana with positive Boulevard Nights Puerto Ricans information about Colombia. Force Sony 1999 1 WEEK Pictures to apologize to the Colombian community in North America and donate to 1980 1 YEAR Improve Latino representation in television an organization working to reduce violence in Halt production and distribution of the !lm through a one-week TV boycott Fort Apache, the Bronx in protest of Colombia. stereotypical and demeaning representations 2007 9 MONTHS 2011 1 MONTH of Latinos and African Americans Halt the release of Ken Burn’s 14-part series Halt production and cancel ABC sitcom !e War due to exclusion of Latino veterans Work It due to writing that associated drug dealing with Puerto Rican identity

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 33 CHANGING MEDIA IN THE in the past, new media tools enable DIGITAL AGE more people to express their views with greater speed. Additionally, even As the “Basta Dobbs” campaign a consumer campaign engaging a In contrast to the underscores, an e"ective mobilization relatively small percentage of the Latino requires linking broad networks of online population, over a month or less, film and television people and leveraging their strength can cut into a media company’s pro!t via online technology and on the margin and/or stain a brand’s prestige. eras, the success ground contact. #e power of such e"orts will likely increase as both U.S. While advocacy and consumer power of all media today demographics and the media continue have not to date challenged media to change at a rapid pace. In contrast structures as a whole, they have played increasingly depends to the !lm and television eras, the a major role in challenging stereotypes success of all media today increasingly and expanding opportunity for Latinos. depends on an expanding network of If this power is organized and mobilized on a network of consumers who communicate swiftly at a higher rate than at present, it about content. could become an even greater force in consumers who shaping the current media landscape. Moreover, the new environment A population with $1.2 trillion in communicate quickly a"ects how political action unfolds. buying power and signi!cant content In the words of Lovato, chief architect production potential is capable of about content. of the “Basta Dobbs” campaign, that—and more. “#e compression of time that is characteristic of digital reality and the acceleration of communication systems also accelerates political time.”19 #e cost of a Latino consumer boycott of a studio or network is likewise on the rise.

Although street protest has been the main strategy of media activists

Figure 25: Roberto Lovato leading the Basta Dobbs Campaign (Photo Credit: Yanira Arias)

34 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP In closing, we would like to focus on a generally ignored reason to open up paths of opportunity to Latino 7 talent: media innovation. !e vast UPLOADING STORIES: majority of diversity, advocacy, and talent-development e"orts are aimed LATINO PRODUCERS at incorporating Latinos in traditional ONLINE AND BEYOND media, particularly broadcast and cable television, and studio #lmmaking. !is emphasis is warranted as the most high-paying and/or creative jobs have historically been in these sectors. Yet, our research indicates that this focus overlooks some important Figure 27: Vlogger and Fashion trends and opportunities for Latinos Commentator Bethany Mota’s Channel on the Internet and in multi-platform (Source: YouTube) storytelling in three important ways. media, Latino creativity is migrating !e #rst is that the Internet and online online, blurring the distinction between companies may be the future of high- producer and consumer. A recent quality content production—or at least study of college students found that a growing part of it. A turning point Latinos were more likely to be online was DreamWorks Animation’s decision content creators than were white to stream 300 hours of episodic students.4 Furthermore, the Forrester television content via Net$ix, bypassing Social Technographic Ladder noted the obvious choice of cable television.1 that, “47% of online Latinos are Formerly a distributor of television and ‘content creators.’” According to New #lm products, Net$ix is now creating Generation Latino, this represents an original content as well. !e entry of over–index of 263 when the activity Net$ix into production and distribution of non-Hispanics is indexed at 100.5 hints that the broadcast paradigm may To the extent that users of social TOP 50 YOUTUBE CHANNELS 2 (MOST SUBSCRIBERS) collapse in less than a decade. media tend to be young people; the marked youth of the Latino population !e Net$ix model has also already ensures that Latino presence online will opened new opportunities for Latinos continue to grow. with the release of the Net$ix original series, Orange is the New Black (2013) Our survey of the content on major created by Jenji Kohan. !e show video-sharing sites through March 7, features a white actress playing a self- 2014, similarly found that Latinos are identi#ed “WASP” in a women’s prison, far more active as talent and producers where the majority of inmates and sta" online than they are on network are Latino and/or African American. television and movies. Of the top 50 While this setting may reinforce Latino single-focused YouTube channels with stereotypes for some viewers, there is the most subscribers, 18% are produced an attempt to develop each character by and/or feature U.S. Latino content with extensive backstories. Executive creators (Figure 26). story editor Marco Ramirez oversees the crafting of plots that devote as Among the top 200 channels, there 9 OUT OF 50 (18%) much time to the stories and romantic are 25 Vevo channels dedicated to PRODUCED OR FEATURE interests of the characters of color as to speci#c musical artists. Four or 16% U.S. LATINO CONTENT CREATORS those of the white protagonist.3 of these artists are Latino—Pitbull, Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato, and Figure 26: Latino Creators on YouTube In addition, as Latinos continue to Shakira. !ese trends are evident in (Source: VisStatsX) be shut out of positions in traditional other music-related videos as well: !e

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 35 most-subscribed YouTube channel successful practitioners and theorists featuring a rock band is that of Boyce of transmedia is Je! Gomez, who Avenue, made up of three Puerto Rican transformed personal challenges into a brothers.6 In the popular genre of young new way of telling stories. women’s fashion advice, one of the top Latinos are not three independent YouTube creators is Born on the Lower East Side in 1963 to Latina, Bethany Mota (Figure 27). A a teenage Jewish American mother and only highly visible second top vlogger, Yuya, is based in a Puerto Rican father, Gomez spent his Mexico. earliest years in foster care in upstate online, they are New York within a relatively privileged Lastly, Latinos are not only proli#c environment.8 "is was to be important also producing online content creators; they are for his work, as Gomez realized that also storytelling innovators. "is some people lived very di!erently than suggests that a greater investment in his biological family did, and that major creative Latino talent may make a valuable “inner city reality was not the only contribution to the development of reality.”9 and infrastructure new narrative paradigms. "is remains essential to change: as one advocate put Gomez reunited with his mother while innovations in it, “Without stories, nothing is going to still a child, moving with his family happen.”7 into a heavily Latino housing project media. on the Lower East Side. "e contrast between his new and old environment TRAILBLAZER: JEFF GOMEZ was so jarring that he took refuge in popular culture and began drawing One of the most far-reaching Latino iconic monsters and dinosaurs. Later, media innovations has been in the Gomez’s imagination was enriched by #eld of transmedia, understood as his summer trips to Puerto Rico. "ere, interactive storytelling in which a he was exposed to Roman Catholic narrative is extended across various doctrine, with its emphasis on good media, including books, comic books, and evil, espiritismo, and stories of the Figure 28: Je! Gomez speaking computer games, #lms, television, and supernatural. Equally signi#cant, it was at TEDxTransmedia in Geneva, smartphones; and audiences are invited in Puerto Rico that a paternal aunt gave Switzerland to collectively add their creativity to Gomez a copy of a crucial book for his (Photo Source: Flickr) these new worlds. Among the most media imagination: !e Hobbit.10

Gomez’s narrative repertoire grew further when his mother again moved the family, this time to Hawaii, in the 1970s. In Hawaii, he encountered Japanese popular culture, particularly a series called Kikaider (1972), which spanned several forms of media— television, comic book, and #lm. "e Kikaider experience would be useful when Gomez returned to New York as a teenager. To cope with school bullies, Gomez began to draw detailed personalized worlds for both friends and foes, and to incorporate them in the leading role-playing game of the time: Dungeons and Dragons.

Inspired by his skill and popularity among his peers, Gomez went on to create and write original comic

36 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP book characters. !is led to a job as a who are responsible for the “planning, extends way beyond just purchasing producer for Acclaim Entertainment’s development, production, and/or commodities. In his own words: comic book division. !ere, he helped maintenance of narrative continuity “Large media companies, consumer create the Acclaim Comics superhero across multiple platforms, and product corporations, and even entire universe, and also adapted Valiant creation of original storylines for new governments are underestimating the Comics superheroes into videogames for platforms”13 (see Figure 28). extent to which the consumer now Nintendo and PlayStation consoles. !e controls the dialogue, and this paradigm characters, concepts, and games that To date, Gomez and his company have shift is among the most dramatic ever Gomez conceived, wrote, and produced largely focused on corporate brands seen. We are witnessing the rise of for Acclaim’s Turok, Dinosaur Hunter and mainstream intellectual properties. communal narrative, and this is giving a and Turok 2: Seeds of Evil helped that !is has allowed him to work with voice and power to those who have thus franchise to gross over $420 million. some of the most talented people in far been invisible.”16 entertainment, while introducing Gomez’s success, however, was hard- new worlds of possibility to large earned, as he often faced outright audiences. “For me, this is the power discrimination: “When I signed of transmedia: I worked on a Hot CONCLUSION my actual name to articles, they Wheels campaign that featured driver were rejected. But when I used a ch aracters for the "rst time. I wrote In sum, for Latinos, the current pseudonym, they were accepted. two of the "ve leads as a Puerto Rican landscape presents exciting new !at rekindled my Latino roots, and a North African. I argued and won possibilities alongside old challenges. and late in college, I stopped using a for their dialog to be re$ective of their pseudonym. My job for the next 20 cultures, which was not happening After analyzing Latino talent diversity years would be to understand how to in children’s animation at that time. in network and studio leadership, hack infrastructure. I was never going My real goal is to show people, and movie and television shows, the to succeed conventionally like Steven particularly young people, that there are report’s "rst general conclusion is that Spielberg. I was going to be a ghost in alternatives. If I didn’t have reminders Latino presence in mainstream media the machine.”11 in popular culture of how it was remains extremely low and changing possible to rise above my station in life, at a very slow pace in relation to With this goal in mind, in 2000, I would have fallen into an abyss. So, I the demographic changes sweeping Gomez founded Starlight Runner don’t care if it’s a toy car, soda water or the country. We have called this Entertainment with Chrysoula Artemis a "sh cracker. !e important thing is connundrum the Latino media gap: as and Mark Pensavalle. Initially, the to create aspirational narratives, a tiny Latino consumer power grows, relative company was interested in developing little story, capable of starting you down Latino media presence shrinks. software to tell stories on the web. a di#erent road.”14 But over time, it became a consulting At the same time, the report "nds "rm on the creation of media worlds For Gomez, transmedia goes further that Latinos demonstrate growing across various platforms. !e company than traditional media in that it can consumer power and advocacy moved in this direction in part because o#er audiences a wider range of stories e#ectiveness through expanded use of Gomez wanted to focus on storytelling, to imagine themselves beyond their the Internet and digital tools. Equally not technology. His aim was “to current circumstances. !is vision is important, Latinos are innovating in introduce ideas in the greater ocean of leading Gomez to invest in education media content and storytelling forms connectivity.”12 by introducing transmedia skills and such as transmedia. If this creativity is literacy into schools in the U.S. Last supported and consumer engamement Since then, Starlight Runner has March 2013, Gomez also undertook expanded, the convergence may become one of the top transmedia his "rst Latino-themed project, a accelerate the current rate of change, at companies in the country and Gomez partnership to bring Lucha Libre AAA last closing the Latino media gap. has worked on such blockbuster to the United States, and “build an universes as Pirates of the Caribbean, exciting multi-platform world…[that] !e Amazing Spider-Man, Men in will resonate with the aspirations of the Black III, Avatar, and Microsoft’s Halo. powerful emerging Latino audience and Moreover, in 2010, to a large extent the youth market.”15 due to Gomez’s e#orts, the Producers Guild of America rati"ed a new credit Ultimately, Gomez views transmedia called “Transmedia Producer.” !e as a strong indicator of a much larger credit recognizes those professionals social shift, in which consumer power

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 37 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP entrada/25003-hispanic-radio-today- NOTES 2013%E2%80%8F.html 1. Jason Koebler, “11 Cities with the Most Hispanics,” U.S. News and World 9. Andrew Stewart, “Global Box O%ce Report, March 25, 2011, http://www. Hits Record in 2012 as Hispanic usnews.com/news/slideshows/11-cities- Attendance Grows in U.S., China with-the-most-hispanics Surpasses Japan as Largest Overseas Market According to MPAA Report,” 2. David Folken!ik, “Eyeing Latinos, Variety, March 21, 2013, http://variety. NBC News Snuggles Up to com/2013/#lm/news/global-box- Telemundo,” NPR, August 14, 2002, o%ce-hits-record-in-2012-as-hispanic- http://m.npr.org/story/158690903 attendance-grows-1200327049/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS 3. “State of the Hispanic Consumer,” 1 Nielsen Report, Quarter 2, 2012, http:// LIMITED: LATINO INCLUSION 1. Chiqui Cartagena, “Hispanics es.nielsen.com/site/documents/State_ IN FILM AND TELEVISION are Creating a New Baby Boom of_Hispanic_Consumer_Report_4-16- in the United States,” CNN.org, FINAL.pdf. 1. "e WGA also counts employed October 14, 2013, http://www.cnn. members. In 2012, the percentage of com/2013/10/14/opinion/cartagena- 4. “Si TV Launches Groundbreaking latino-boom/ Collective of Community-Driven employed Latino writers was slightly Lifestyle and Culture Websites, higher, at 3.6%. 2. “Morning Growth is Driving Hispanic Connecting Young Latino Artists and Radio Listening Gains,” Nielsen, March Consumers While Creating Authentic, 2. Multiple sources were consulted to 3, 2014, http://www.nielsenadfocus. Integrated Opportunities for obtain lists of the top-ranking #lms cn/us/en/newswire/2014/morning- Advertisers and Strategic Partners,” PR and television shows in this report. growth-is-driving-hispanic-radio- Newswire, October 22, 2010, http:// "ese include the websites Deadline, listening-gains.html#sthash.rn5RXI4d. www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/si- ABC Medianet, IMDb, and Box dpuf tv-launches-groundbreaking-collective- O%ce Mojo, as well as the book by of-community-driven-lifestyle- Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh, The 3. “State of the Hispanic Consumer: and-culture-websites-connecting- "e Hispanic Market Imperative,” young-latino-artists-and-consumers- Complete Directory to Prime Time Nielsen Report, Quarter 2, 2012, http:// while-creating-authentic-integrated- Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946– es.nielsen.com/site/documents/State_ opportunities-for-advertisers-and- Present (New York: Ballantine Books, of_Hispanic_Consumer_Report_4-16- strategic-partners-58784207.html 2007). Television rankings were FINAL.pdf based on Nielsen prime time network 5. “State of the Hispanic Consumer,” ratings, and followed the fall-to-spring 4. David Chitel, “Latinos Have Nielsen Report, 2012. television schedule. Film rankings were the Power to Change Media and based on domestic box-o%ce totals Entertainment and Create a New 6. “Understanding the U.S. Hispanic through the date of this study, and were Image,” !e Hu"ngton Post, October Market,” "e FSU Center for considered by the calendar year. 11, 2011, http://www.hu%ngtonpost. Hispanic Marketing Communication, com/david-chitel/latinos-have-the- 2011, http://nkates.#les.wordpress. power_b_1004145.html com/2012/06/center-for-hispanic- 3. By consensus, the cast of Modern marketing-communication-overview- Family agreed to identify all characters 5. “"e Hispanic Population: 2010,” presentation.pdf as “supporting” given the ensemble 2010 U.S. Census Bureau Briefs, May nature of the show. In this report, we 2011, http://www.census.gov/prod/ 7. Je$ Koyen, “"e Truth About Hispanic refer to Vergara’s character as central or cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf Consumers,” AdWeek, March 11, featured rather than as lead. 2012, http://www.adweek.com/ 6. All #gures relate to the 2010 U.S. sa-article/truth-about-hispanic- 4. Television creators and producers Census. consumers-138828 are often also writers. For statistical 7. S. Robert Lichter, Daniel R. 8. “A Detailed Look at the Radio purposes, we are counting creative Amundson, and John "omas Listening Habits and Consumer talent according to their o%cial credit. Sheehan, “Don’t Blink: Hispanics in Insight Among Hispanic Listeners Television Entertainment,” Report in the U.S.,” !e NiLP Network on 5. Given the di$erences in Latin prepared for the National Council of Latino Issues, December 23, 2013, American and American racial schemes, La Raza, April 1996, 1–18. http://blog.rimix.com/rilatino/ determining Afro-Latino and mestizo

38 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP identity in the U.S. is not always the archivists of several of the surveyed Occupation, Sex, Race, and Hispanic straightforward. In most cases, we television shows. or Latino Ethnicity,” U.S. Department counted Afro-Latino and mestizo actors of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, based on their self-identi$cation. 12. Non-primetime series like Charlie 2013, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11. Rose and Voces have Latino executive pdf 6. Sonya Rastogi, Tallese D. Johnson, producers, including Yvette Vega and Elizabeth M. Hoe"el, and Malcolm P. Sandie Pedlow, respectively. 5. U.S. Census, “Hispanic Origin: 2012,” Drewery, Jr., “!e Black Population: http://www.census.gov/population/ 2010,” 2010 U.S. Census Briefs, 13. We did not include PBS’s highest- hispanic/data/2012.html September 2011, http://www.census. rated show, Antiques Roadshow, as its gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06. historical content is less central than 3 pdf that of the other shows. Our 2013 THE DECIDERS: WHO RUNS review, however, revealed that Latino THE SHOW? 7. Federico Subervi with Joseph Torres inclusion is low: there are no Latino and Daniela Montalvo, “Network hosts or executive producers and 1. Chon A. Noriega, “!e Numbers Brownout Report 2005: !e Portrayal Latinos represent only 1.3% of touring Game,” Jump Cut, no. 39 (June 1994): of Latinos & Latino Issues on appraisers. 107–110, 109. Network Television News, 2004 with a Retrospect to 1995 Quantitative & 14. !e percentage of Latino executive 2. “Juan Sepúlveda Named New PBS Qualitative Analysis of the Coverage,” producers was di#cult to assess long- Senior Vice President, Station National Association of Hispanic term given incomplete data and the Services,” PBS Press Release, January Journalists, June 2005, http://www. use of di"erent de$nitions. According 9, 2014, http://www.pbs.org/about/ nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2005/june/ to available data, however, Latinos news/archive/2014/sepulveda-station- NAHJbrownout0616.pdf accounted for 11.8% of executive services/ producers of Latino-themed shows. 8. Federico Subervi, personal 3. Joe Flint, “FCC Media Ownership communications via email, January 22, 2 Survey Reveals Lack of Diversity,” Los 2014 and March 3–4, 2014. BANDIDOS FOREVER?: Angeles Times, November 14, 2012, THE PERSISTENTLY http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ 9. “Taking the Public Out of Public NARROW RANGE OF LATINO nov/14/entertainment/la-et-ct-fcc- TV: PBS Fare Di"ers Little from CHARACTERS diversity-20121114 Commercial TV,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,” 2010, http://fair.org/ 1. S. Robert Lichter, Daniel R. 4. Alton Drew, “Dearth in Minority press-release/taking-the-public-out-of- Amundson, and John !omas Media Ownership Persists, MMTC public-tv/; and “Gender and Ethnic Sheehan, “Don’t Blink: Hispanics in O"ers Capital Solution,” Politic365, Diversity in Prime-Time News,” Media Television Entertainment,” Report November 19, 2012, http://politic365. !at Matters Report, 2007, http:// prepared for the National Council of com/2012/11/19/dearth-in-minority- mediamatters.org/research/diversity_ La Raza, April 1996, 1–18. media-ownership-persists-mmtc-o"ers- report/ capital-solution/ 2. We did not count unnamed or 10. “Diversity on Evening Cable News uncredited roles in $lm, as the vast 5. John Horn, Nicole Sperling, and Doug in 13 Charts,” Media Matters majority of these were not played by Smith, “Oscar Voters Overwhelmingly for America, May 13, 2013, Latino actors or were Latino-coded White, Male,” Los Angeles Times, http://www.mediamatters.org/ characters. February 19, 2012, http://www.latimes. research/2013/05/13/report-diversity- com/entertainment/news/movies/ on-evening-cable-news-in-13- 3. Patrick Kevin Day, “‘Desperate academy/la-et-unmasking-oscar- ch/194012 Housewives’ Actress Lupe Ontiveros academy-project-html,0,7473284. Dies at 69,” Los Angeles Times, July 27, htmlstory 11. !is has been noted by Alex Nogales 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ in “Open Letter on Lack of Latino jul/27/entertainment/la-et-st-lupe- 6. Russell K. Robinson, Su Li, Angela Inclusion at PBS,” November 4, 2013, ontiveros-dies-20120727 Makabali, and Kaitlyn Murphy, “Not http://www.nhmc.org/nhmc-issues- Quite a Breakthrough: !e Oscars and open-letter-on-lack-of-latino-inclusion- 4. “Household Data, Annual Average: Actors of Color, 2002–2012,” UCLA at-pbs/. Our team also consulted with Employed Persons by Detailed Chicano Studies Research Center,

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 39 Latino Policy & Issues Brief, no. 27 7. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, December 2009. (March 2012): 2; For a complete list, December 2009; follow-ups by phone see “Nominees and Winners for the and email, 2013-2014. 25. Interview, studio executive, Los 84th Academy Awards,” http://www. Angeles, January 2010. oscars.org/awards/academyawards/84/ 8. Interviews, studio diversity executive, nominees.html Los Angeles, 2009-2010. 26. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, December 2009. 7. “Oscar Winners and Nominees: 9. Interview, producer, Los Angeles, Complete List,” Los Angeles Times, December, 2009. 27. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, February 25, 2013, http://www. December 2009, follow-ups via email latimes.com/entertainment/ 10. Interview, television executive, and phone, 2013-2014. envelope/moviesnow/la-et-en-oscars- Washington, DC, January 2010. 2013-nomination-list,0,1532667. story#axzz2qm4qYUB2. For the 11. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, 5 2014 nominations, see http://www. December 2009. DIVERSITY PAYS oscars.org/awards/academyawards/84/ nominees.html 12. Ibid. 1. Interview, media advocate, January 8, 2010, via phone. 8. For a complete list, see “65th 13. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, Primetime Emmys Nominees and December 2009; follow-ups by phone 2. Nielsen Ratings, TVIV, October 23, Winners,” http://www.emmys.com/ and email, 2013-2014. 2008, http://tviv.org/Nielsen_Ratings/ awards/nominees-winners/2013/lead- Historic/Network_Television_by_ actor-comedy 14. Interview, media advocate, Los Angeles, Season/2000s#Network_Rankings December 2009. 4 3. Joal Ryan, “Nothing ‘Ugly’ About DIVERSITY AND ITS 15. Interview, producer, Los Angeles, !ursday,” E! Online, September DISCONTENTS December 2009; follow-up, 2013- 29, 2006, http://www.eonline.com/ 2014. news/53437/nothing-ugly-about- 1. Félix Gutiérrez, “More !an 200 thursday Years of Latino Media in the United 16. Interview, press relations television States,” American Latino !eme Study, executive, New York, May 2010. 4. Claire Atkinson, “’Ugly Betty’ Looks American Park Service, 2012, http:// Pretty Good to ABC,” Advertising Age, www.nps.gov/latino/latinothemestudy/ 17. Interview, studio diversity executive, September 29, 2006, http://adage.com/ media.htm Los Angeles, December 2009. article/media/ugly-betty-pretty-good- abc/112151/ 2. Chon A. Noriega, “El Hilo Latino,” 18. Interview, studio diversity executive 2, Jump Cut, no. 38 (June 1993): 45–50, Los Angeles, 2009. 5. Ibid. http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/ onlinessays/JC38folder/HiloLatino. 19. Interview, producer, Los Angeles, 6. Rick Kissell, “’Devious Maids’ Delivers html December 2009, follow-ups by phone Records Highs as It Wraps First and email, 2013-2014. Season,” Variety, September 23, 2013, 3. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, http://variety.com/2013/tv/ratings/ December 2009; follow-ups via phone, 20. Interview, advocacy leader, January 8, devious-maids-delivers-record-highs-as- and email, 2013-2014. 2010, via phone. it-wraps-"rst-season-1200662531/

4. Interview, producer, Los Angeles, 21. Ibid. 7. Nellie Andreeva, “Lifetime’s Devious January 2010; follow-ups by phone and Maids Renewed for a Second Season,” email, 2013-2014. 22. Interview, guild advocate, Los Angeles, Deadline Hollywood, August 13, 2013, December 2009, follow-ups via phone http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/ 5. Interview, studio diversity executive 2, and email, 2013-2014. lifetimes-devious-maids-renewed-for- Los Angeles, 2009. second-season/ 23. Interview, press relations executive, 6. Interviews, studio diversity executive, New York, May 2010. 8. Kissell, “’Devious Maids’ Delivers Los Angeles, 2009-2010. Record Highs,” 2013. 24. Interview, guild advocate, New York, 40 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 9. Ibid. arbitron-20121031 6 ACTION!: LATINO CONSUMER 10. Southern California Public Radio 89.3 18. Interview, Valdez, 2013. POWER AND ADVOCACY KPCC website, http://www.scpr.org/ about/people/ 19. “!e ‘Fast and !e Furious’ Franchise 1. Je$ Koyen, “!e Truth About Hispanic Revenue,” Statistic Brain, December Consumers,” AdWeek, March 11, 11. Dru Sefton, “Co-host Pairing Prompts 10, 2013, http://www.statisticbrain. 2012, http://www.adweek.com/ Brand to Exit KPCC,”Current.org, com/the-fast-and-the-furious-franchise- sa-article/truth-about-hispanic- October 9, 2012, http://www.current. revenue/ consumers-138828 org/2012/10/co-host-pairing-prompts- brand-to-exit-kpcc/#sthash.h1vX1aAQ. 20. Pamela McClintock, “Box O"ce 2. Ibid. dpuf Report: ‘Fast and Furious 6’ Scores Universal’s Highest Opening in China,” 3. Interview, studio diversity executive, 12. Interview with Ana Valdez, via phone, !e Hollywood Reporter, July 24, Los Angeles, December 2009. May 30, 2013. 2013, http://www.hollywoodreporter. FRPQHZVER[RI¿FHUHSRUWIDVW 4. Félix Gutiérrez, “More !an 200 furious-594431 13. For NPR’s audience demographics, Years of Latino Media in the United see “!e Listeners of National Public States,” American Latino !eme Study, Radio,” On the Media, September 21. Reed Johnson, ‘“Fast and Furious’ Taps American Park Service, 2012, http:// http://www.onthemedia. 1, 2006, into Latino Market,” Los Angeles Times, www.nps.gov/latino/latinothemestudy/ org/story/128613-the-listeners-of- http://articles.latimes. April 7, 2009, media.htm national-public-radio/transcript/. com/2009/apr/07/entertainment/et- carlatino7 Regarding the Latino share of 5. “NBC Apologizes for ‘Seinfeld’ Episode California’s population, see Linda Lou, on the Puerto Rican Day Parade,” Hyojung Lee, Anthony Guardado 22. Andrew Stewart, “Global Box O"ce !e New York Times, May 9, 1998, and Dowell Myers, “Racially Balanced Hits Record in 2012 as Hispanic http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/09/ Cities in Southern California, 1999 Attendance Grows in U.S., China nyregion/nbc-apologizes-for-seinfeld- to 2010,” USC Population Dynamics Surpasses Japan as Largest Overseas episode-on-the-puerto-rican-day- Research Group, February 2012, Market According to MPAA Report,” parade.html https://www.usc.edu/schools/price/ Variety, March 21, 2013, http://variety. research/popdynamics/pdf/2012_Lou- com/2013/#lm/news/global-box- 6. “Take John and Ken O$ the Air,” etal_Racially-Balanced-Cities.pdf o"ce-hits-record-in-2012-as-hispanic- National Hispanic Media Coalition, attendance-grows-1200327049/. http://www.nhmc.org/johnandken/ 14. Gabriel Kahn, “Making Radio Waves: !e Surprisingly Messy End to KPCC’s 23. Oliver Gettell, “‘Fast and Furious 6’ 7. Greg Braxton, “Molina Joins in Protest ‘!e Madeleine Brand Show,’” Los Gets Box O"ce Boost from Latino Over Alleged Disney Discrimination,” Angeles Magazine, November 29, 2012, Moviegoers,” Los Angeles Times, May Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1997, http://articles.latimes. http://www.lamag.com/citythink/ 30, 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06- com/2013/may/30/entertainment/ citythinkblog/2012/11/29/making- 27/entertainment/ca-7277_1_media- ODHWPQIDVWIXULRXVER[RI¿FH radio-waves-the-surprisingly-messy- coalition end-to-kpccs-the-madeleine-brand- latino-moviegoers-20130530; show Tony Castro, “Latinos Turn ‘Fast 8. David Folken%ick, “What’s Behind & Furious 6’ Into a Box O"ce Lou Dobbs’ Leaving CNN?,” NPR, 15. Sefton, “Co-host Pairing Prompts Hit,” !e Hu"ngton Post, June 4, November 12, 2009, http://www. KWWSZZZKXI¿QJWRQSRVW Brand to Exit KPCC,” Current.org, 2013, npr.org/templates/story/story. com/2013/06/04/latinos-fast-and- 2012. php?storyId=120351492 furious-hit_n_3384627.html 16. Kahn, “Making Radio Waves,” 2012. 9. David Leonhardt, “Truth, Fiction 24. Matt Barbot, “Boricua Groups Call for and Lou Dobbs,” !e New York 17. Steve Carney, “KBIG-FM Slips ‘Work It!’ Boycott, but It May Not be Times, May 30, 2007, http:// Back to !ird as KIIS Regains Top Worth it,” Remezcla.com, January 10, www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/ Los Ratings,” October 30, 2012, 2012, http://www.remezcla.com/2012/ business/30leonhardt. Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes. latin/boricua-groups-call-for-work-it- html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. com/2012/oct/30/entertainment/la-et- boycott-but-it-may-not-be-worth-it

THE LATINO MEDIA GAP 41 10. Ibid. 7 11. Ibid. UPLOADING STORIES: LATINO 11. “Basta Dobbs Victory Press,” PRODUCERS ONLINE AND 12. Ibid. Bastadobbs.com, November 18, BEYOND 2009, http://bastadobbs.com/blog/, 13. Adalbert (Woitek) Konzal, Entertainment Architecture: Constructing November 5, 2009. 1. Brook Barnes, “DreamWorks and a Framework for the Creation of an Net"ix in Deal for New TV Shows,” Emerging Transmedia Form, 12. Jason Linkins, “‘Drop Dobbs’: CNN !e New York Times, June 17, 2013, Ph.D. Pressured To Give Up Controversial http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/ dissertation, European Business !e Hu"ngton Post Host,” , November business/media/dreamworks-and- School, 2011, http://eprints.qut.edu. 16, 2009, http://www.hu!ngtonpost. net"ix-in-deal-for-new-tv-programs. au/50489/1/Adalbert_Konzal_#esis. com/2009/09/16/drop-dobbs-cnn- html pdf pressured_n_288506.html 2. Tim Wu, “‘House of Cards’ and the 14. Interview, Gomez, 2013. 13. Albor Ruiz, “Ironically Latinos Should Decline of Cable,” !e New Yorker, be Grateful to Former CNN Blowhard 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/ 15. “FactoryMade Ventures Forms Joint New York Daily News Lou Dobbs,” , online/blogs/culture/2013/02/house- Venture with Lucha Libre AAA, Plans November 19, 2009, http://www. of-cards-and-the-death-of-cable.html Franchise Reinvention and U.S. nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv- Expansion,” BusinessWire, March 11, movies/ironically-latinos-grateful-cnn- 3. #ank you to Celeste Fraser 2013, http://www.businesswire.com/ blowhard-lou-dobbs-article-1.415858 Delgado for calling attention to this news/home/20130311006538/en/ development. FactoryMade-Ventures-Forms-Joint- 14. Interview, Roberto Lovato, New York, Venture-Lucha-Libre#.U11tLySpoyN June 2013. 4. Teresa Correa and Sun Ho Jeong, “Race and Online Content Creation,” 16. Je$ Gomez, personal communication 15. “Transcript: Lou Dobbs Says He’s Information, Communication & Society, via email, June 15, 2014. CNN Leaving CNN,” , November 11, 14:5 (2011): 638–59. 2009, http://www.cnn.com/2009/ US/11/11/lou.dobbs.statement/ 5. David Chitel, “Latinos Have #e Power To Change Media and “ 16. Controversy Surrounding Lou Dobbs Entertainment and Create a New Has Failed to Increase His Ratings,” Image,” !e Hu"ngton Post, October New York Observer July 30, 2009, , 11, 2011, http://www.hu!ngtonpost. http://observer.com/2009/07/ com/david-chitel/latinos-have-the- controversy-surrounding-lou-dobbs- power_b_1004145.html has-failed-to-increase-his-ratings/ 6. For further information, see “Two 17. Julia Hollar, “Dropping Dobbs: A Hundred Most Subscribed Channel Victory for Media Activism, and the Rankings List by Subscribers,” Challenge Ahead,” NACLA, January 4, VidStatsX, http:// http://vidstatsx.com/ 2010, https://nacla.org/news/dropping- youtube-top-200-most-subscribed- dobbs-victory-media-activism-and- channels challenge-ahead 7. Interview, advocacy leader, January 8, 18. Ibid. 2010, via phone.

19. Interview, Lovato, 2013. 8. Interview, Je$ Gomez, via phone, June 22, 2013.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

42 THE LATINO MEDIA GAP

Portrayal of African Americans in the Media: An Examination of Law and Order

Shannon T. Isaacs, McNair Scholar The Pennsylvania State University

McNair Faculty Research Advisor: Julie Horney, Ph.D. Professor, Crime, Law and Justice Department of Sociology The Pennsylvania State University

Abstract Television media is one of the most powerful tools used for entertainment and information in this generation. Hence, it should feature accurate portrayals of racial groups in order to erase the hierarchy that exists between people LQWRGD\¶VVRFLHW\7KLV study will examine the portrayal of African Americans in the media over a twenty year time span within the television crime drama Law and Order, and will be used to determine whether the media exaggerates its portrayal of African Americans in the media. Introduction

Stereotypes are preconceived assumptions based upon the characteristics and behaviors of all members of a particular group. These assumptions are often commonly held beliefs that are thought to be true by many people in a population (Power, Murphy, Coover, 1996). Stereotypes have extended into the root of society mainly through media outlets such as the television. Many Americans rely on television as a source of information and entertainment; thus, it is a domLQDQWVRXUFHLQWRGD\¶VFXOWXUH. According to the 2009 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics- American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which measures how the average American spends their time, discovered that Americans 15 years-old and above spent 2.8 hours per day watching television. In 2009, A.C. Nielsen Company reported that 99% of all households owned at least 1 television and 66% of U.S. homes owned 3 or more televisions. Data also revealed that 79% of Americans believed that television violence aided to increase societal violence. For that matter, the content that is projected through the medium of television is crucial, due to the fact that the television is the central focus of many households. The portrayal of stereotypes concerning African Americans in the media is most often tied to the cultivation theory developed by George Gerbner and Larry Gross (1976). According to the theory, individuals who frequently watch high contents of television will begin to believe that they are living in a world similar to what is portrayed on the screen (Fujioka, 1999; Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Therefore, a person who watches numerous shows will believe that he/she is living in a world more dangerous than it

158

actually is, large in part because their sense of crime becomes heightened (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Nonetheless, the media portrays African Americans acting out and behaving in unflattering ways; thus, these stereotypes can become even more believable and allow members of other racial groups to see these characteristics as definite actions of African American people (Berg, 1990; Tamborini, Mastro, Chory-Assad, Huang, 2000).

Background During the 1940s and 1950s, African Americans had few roles, but when they were offered parts it consisted of stereotypic portrayals of characters being lazy, simple, or holding domestic servant roles such as television shows Beulah and $PRVµQ$QG\ depicted (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory-Assad, Huang, 2000). By 1955, African Americans were portrayed in roles where nearly 49% of the characters were seen as not having a high school diploma, and 47% were viewed as having low economic status (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory-Assad, Huang, 2000). Even in the 1960s, African Americans still received stereotypical roles that were created in order to amuse White viewers (Atkin, 1992; Cummings, 1988). As the Civil Rights Movement went underway, it became clear that minority characters were not being represented fairly on television (Rada, 2001; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1977). On further examination, alleged discriminatory hiring practices were taking place at many television networks, explaining why African Americans were not being shown. Findings later revealed that the portrayal of minorities on television was ³LQIUHTXHQWDQGVWHUHRW\SLFDO´ 0DVWUR ,WZDVWKHQQRWHGWKDWWKRVHSRUWUD\DOV played a large role in shaping the negative perception Whites acquired for minorities (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1977). Fortunately enough, after the civil rights movement, African AmHULFDQVEHJDQJHWWLQJPRUHUROHVWKDWGLGQ¶WDOZD\VGHSLFWWKHP negatively as television shows The Mod Squad and Julia illustrated (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory-Assad, Huang, 2000). However, although African Americans were receiving more notable roles (Gunter, 1998), findings suggest that stereotypical portrayals were still featured (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory-Assad, and Huang 2000). Nonetheless, African Americans on television became more noticeable in later years. In 1971, African Americans represented 6% of characters in television comedies and dramas and made up 11% of the actual population, which was a drastic disparity in relation to the 89% that Whites accounted for on television (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory- Assad, Huang, 2000). By 1980, African Americans depicted 8% of characters and represented 12% of the population. Nevertheless, change certainly came by 1993 as African American characters represented 11% of characters on television and made up 12% of the population. Researchers noted that African American actors represented 13% of law enforcement/court officials, and 11% of all criminals (Tamborini, Mastro, Chory- Assad, and Huang, 2000). Hence, African Americans had crossed a milestone (Greenberg and Brand, 1994).

Crime Drama: Law and Order Television crime dramas are a blend between both reality and fictional television. Hence, crime dramas are usually similar to real life occurrences and often rely on real life situations for its plot. Nonetheless, crime dramas often depict most African American and

159

Hispanic characters as criminals or victims of police brutality and White characters as police officials (Oliver, 1996). Therefore, it is no wonder why these depictions of racial groups in television programs seem to strengthen negative perceptions of minorities through the eyes of its viewers. Law and Order premiered on September 13, 1990 and its last episode aired on May 24, 2010 spanning its 20 year television series. The show will be used to analyze the change over time within the portrayal of African American characters in televised programming and whether stereotyping was still present on the show. Law and Order was used for analysis not only because of its long span on prime time television, but because of its strong viewership record. The earliest record of the show is from 1993- 1994; during those years the show averaged 9.6 million viewers per episode. Peak viewership occurred in 2001-2002 with an average of 18.7 million viewers per episode. In the shows final year 2009-2010, an average of 7.2 million viewers tuned in each episode. Hence, television crime dramas continue to be one of the most watched and enjoyed genres on television. Crime dramas also seem to pull a larger fan base than that of traditional television news programming (TV Dimensions, 2003).Consequently, research has shown that concerns over the portrayals of violence in crime dramas have continued to spark the interests of authors since the early 1970s (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beeck, Jeffries-Fox & Signorielli, 1978; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorelli, 1980). However, although many researchers use the cultivation theory to explain the problems within television programming, more research needs to be done, specifically on crime dramas to examine the nature of violence, as well as stereotypical racial portrayals, and the repercussions that they can have on its audiences (Holbrook & Hill, 2005). Therefore, based on findings of previous researchers, the specific area of this research is to examine the portrayal of African Americans on the crime drama Law and Order and to determine if there has been any change over the last two decades regarding the portrayal of African Americans on television, and perhaps if there is change, whether it will help to lessen or perpetuate racial stereotypes in the media.

Methods In order to study possible change over time within the media, a study was constructed over a nine-week period to analyze the portrayal of African Americans in episodes of the television crime drama Law and Order. The sample of study included seasons 1 and 20 to examine the variance amongst the first and last seasons of the program. Episodes were chosen through random selection, and were conducted using a random number table. The entire sample included 10 episodes from each season, with a combined 20 episodes to be analyzed. Each episode was 45 minutes long, totaling 15 hours of viewing. The units of analysis in the study were: (1) 20 random selected episodes of season 1 and 20, (2) all characters, taking a specific look at non- reoccurring or regular characters that portray criminal involvement, (3) race of characters and the role they play, as well as (4) specific stereotypical portrayals of African American characters. A code sheet was developed to examine selected variables to be measured. Variables included mutually-exclusive and non-exclusive variables. Variables consisted of the following: race SK\VLFDOKHULWDEOHWUDLWWKDWGHWHUPLQHVWKHFRORURIDSHUVRQ¶Vskin), role

160

(specific characterization interpreted by actor), appearance (visual look of character), behavior (actions and response to actions from other characters), language/speech (vocal communication of character), verbal aggression (vocal speech used to cause harm or pain to another character), physical aggression (use of body to cause harm or pain to another character), crime committed (violent act carried out to cause harm or pain), domestic crime (violent act carried out to cause harm or pain to a family member), indicator of guilt (any presence or sign that character is involved or connected to offense), verdict (final decision of character¶s guilt or innocence), repeat character (the amount of time character appears), and role importance (significance or influence of character). Race was coded as three variables: Black (African American descent or character has black skin), White (Caucasian, of European descent or character has white skin), other (applies to any character that is not Black or White). Note that this study did not pay specific attention to the ³RWKHU´ category. However, it was still coded and used for analysis in the study. Role was coded as: suspect (character suspected of offense), police (character that maintains order, character is a state/federal law enforcement agent), attorney (character is a legal defense or prosecuting agent), judge (character is an appointed public officer that decides upon trail/case), witness (character gives testimony or evidence of crime), victim (character faces harm or injury), other (any character not previously noted). Appearance was coded as: poorly dressed (character is not dressed in appropriate clothing for role, occupation, or occasion that they are seen in), well groomed (character appears to maintain good hygiene; character is neat, shaven, or clean cut), not well groomed (character does not appear to maintain good hygiene; character is not neat, shaven, or clean cut), baggy/sagging clothes (FKDUDFWHU¶VFORWKHVDUHORRVHDQGGRHVQRW fit to body), dirty clothes (FKDUDFWHU¶VFORWKHVDSSHDUXQZDVKHG, is stained, or has marks), ripped clothes (character¶s clothes are tattered). Behavior was coded as: inappropriate in business settings (character is not respectful in formal settings; character maintains opposite behavior of his or her environment), behaves obnoxiously (character draws attention to his or herself by behaving in an annoying, offensive, or stubborn manner), is angry and or demanding (character is resentful or spiteful; character is authoritative and requires urgency; character appears in an unpleasant mood), is controlling (character is dominant in observed situation and does not care about the feelings and needs of other characters), is emotional (character appears to be crying, or expressing any form of deep emotion [e.g., character has a tantrum]), is disrespectful to others (character is impolite; character mistreats others and does not seem to care about their feelings). Speech was coded as: speaks clearly (character is easy to understand and speaks in clear American English), hard to understand (character is not easy to understand and does not speak in clear American English), speaks in African American dialect (character speaks in Black English vernacular (BEV); character speaks in African American broken (QJOLVKRIWHQFDOOHG³(ERQLFV´ ), speaks with an accent (character speaks in an accent from a different country of origin; character pronounces and/or speaks with unfamiliar emphasis on syllables), speaks loudly (character appears to naturally speak louder than others), speaks shyly (FKDUDFWHULVWLPLGZKHQVSHDNLQJFKDUDFWHU¶VYRLFHLVORZDQG quiet), speaks in a joking way (character does not appear serious when he or she speaks;

161

character continues to joke during a serious situation ), has a speech impediment (character suffers from a speech defect; character is hindered from speaking correctly). Verbal Aggression was coded as: yells often (character is often seen yelling or screaming; character rarely speaks in a decent tone; character¶s voice is above others), speaks sarcastically (character mocks others when speaking; character is not sincere), uses derogatory language (character insults others; character curses), belittles others when talking (character hurts others when he or she is talking; character is negative to others), often interrupts others when talking (character talks over others; character does not wait until others are finished talking to begin). Physical Aggression was coded as: reacts to aggression (character quickly reacts to aggression in a negative manner), carries weapon (character is seen with a weapon; character threatens others with weapon; character uses weapon against others), is seen fighting (character is seen fighting, punching, kicking or applying any form of bodily force upon others), willingly attacks others (character gets a rush out of attacking others; FKDUDFWHU¶VWHPSHULVHDVLO\SURYRNHGDQGWKH\VHHNWRKXUWRUKDUPRWKHUV ). Crime Committed was coded as: Arson (character commits crime involving fire; character burns building or property), assault (character causes bodily harm to others), drug (character is seen using, selling, buying, or in possession of drugs), murder (character kills another, with or without intent to kill), rape (character sexually abuses others), theft (character steals from others), other (any crime that is not previously noted). Domestic Crime was coded as: (Yes/No) as well as Indicator of Guilt which was coded as: (Yes/No). If the character committed a domestic crime it was coded as yes, if the character did not commit a domestic crime it was coded as no. If there was any indication of guilt the character would be coded as yes. If there was no indication of guilt the character would be coded as no. Verdict was coded as: guilty (character is proven responsible for crime), not guilty (character is proven innocent for crime; character is not responsible for crime), or other (character is not proven guilty or innocent for crime). Note that if character is seen committing a crime they were coded as guilty. Also, if character is arrested, seen in jail or in custody they were coded as guilty. This also applied if viewer did not see a trial or a verdict of guilt at the end of the show. Role Importance was coded as: major (FKDUDFWHU¶VUROHLVHVVHQWLDOLQHSLVRGHWKH episode is structured around the character), or minor (FKDUDFWHU¶VUROHLVQRWHVVHQWLDORU structured around the character). Repeat Character was coded as: (Yes/No) and was determined depending on how many times the character was seen throughout the 10 episodes for each season. Characters that were continually present in all episodes were coded as Yes for repeat characters. Characters that only appeared as guest stars or were featured in less than 2 episodes were coded as No for repeat character. Season 1 episodes were viewed from a 6- disc DVD set and were analyzed on a computer monitor. Season 20 episodes were watched and examined on a computer monitor via an online website where the episodes were purchased. Each episode was analyzed and coded while being watched. Each character that appeared on the show was coded. Note that characters seen in the background were not coded. However, characters that did not have a speaking role but were clearly noticeable to the viewer and were significant to the episode were coded. Once all episodes were watched and coded, they

162

were watched a second time and codes were checked for accuracy. The total time for coding and watching all episodes more than once was approximately 50 hours, and 345 characters were coded. In order to analyze the results of the study, variables coded in the episodes were entered into statistical analysis software (SPSS) for assessment. Character¶Vrace was always used as the independent variable (IV). All other variables to be measured were selected as the dependent variable (DV). The control variables were the seasons (season 1 and season 20) in order to illustrate change over time. To test the hypotheses, the independent variable (IV), and dependent variable (DV), descriptive statistics and cross tabulations were used to show relationships between the independent and dependent variables in season 1 and season 20.

Results

From the sample, 345 characters were examined. The focus of this study is on the difference between how Whites and African-Americans are portrayed. Although the ³other´ race was analyzed it was not a specific focus of the study and will not be fully discussed within the results. Findings from the study show that 71.3% of characters were White (n= 246), 20% of characters were African American (n= 69) and 8.7% of characters were depicted as other (n= 30). Race Results for season 1 show that 58.9% of characters were White (n= 145), 39.1% of characters were African American (n= 27) and 46.7% of characters were represented as other (n= 14). Results from season 20 found that 41.1% of characters were White (n=101), 60.9% of characters were African American (n=42) and 53.3% of characters were depicted as other (n= 16). Role As seen in Table 1, White actors are shown more often and receive more roles than their African American counterparts. Cross tabulations for season 1, revealed a statisticalO\VLJQLILFDQWUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQUDFHDQGWKHFKDUDFWHU¶VUROH Although that relationship refers only to the overall pattern of results, a few of the roles are obviously responsible for the statistical results. The table shows that 90.9% of police officers were depicted as White, whereas only 6.1% of police were represented as African American. This 6.1% is much smaller than the overall 14.6% of roles that were played by African Americans. Attention should also be paid to the role of attorney in season 1, as African Americans accounted for 27.8% of all the attorneys portrayed; a number much higher than their overall representation across all roles. The percentages of African Americans were higher in victim and ³RWKHU´ roles and lower on judge and witness roles than would be expected. In the suspect role the percentage of African Americans was very close to their overall representation across roles.

163

Table 1: Season 1 Role Portrayal by Race

Character Race

White Black Other Total Character Role Suspect 13 3 3 19 68.4% 15.8% 15.8% 100.0% Police 30 2 1 33 90.9% 6.1% 3.0% 100.0% Attorney 13 5 0 18 72.2% 27.8% .0% 100.0% Judge 11 1 0 12 91.7% 8.3% .0% 100.0% Witness 42 5 6 53 79.2% 9.4% 11.3% 100.0% Victim 2 2 0 4 50.0% 50.0% .0% 100.0% Other 33 9 4 46 71.7% 19.6% 8.7% 100.0% Total 144 27 14 185 77.8% 14.6% 7.6% 100.0%

For season 20, characters portraying the role as police revealed a substantial change in its portrayal. As shown in Table 1 and 2, from season 1 to season 20 African American characters depicting police officers increased from 6.1% of all police officers to 50% of all police officers by season 20, even higher than the percentage of Whites. This is a dramatic change across the 20 years. However the percentage of attorneys who were African American decreased from season 1 to season 20. The percent of African American suspects are also lower than expected.

Table 2: Season 20 Role Portrayal by Race

Race Character Race

White Black Other Total Character Role Suspect 13 4 4 21 61.9% 19.0% 19.0% 100.0% Police 15 17 2 34 44.1% 50.0% 5.9% 100.0% Attorney 10 1 0 11 90.9% 9.1% .0% 100.0% Judge 2 0 0 2 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% 164

Witness 21 6 1 28 75.0% 21.4% 3.6% 100.0% Victim 7 1 2 10 70.0% 10.0% 20.0% 100.0% Other 33 13 7 53 62.3% 24.5% 13.2% 100.0% Total 101 42 16 159 63.5% 26.4% 10.1% 100.0%

Appearance Results for season 1 depicted statistical significance based on the results of the Pearson Chi-Square tests. White characters were only represented 3.4% as appearing poorly, however African American characters were shown 37%, a number not representative to the total amount of characters in season 1, as shown in Table 3. Season 20 showed noticeably different results as :KLWH¶VDUHVHHQDSSHDULQJSRRUO\DQG African Americans only 4.8%, a number much lower than the portrayal shown in season 1.

Table 3: Season 1 Poor Appearance

Poor Appearance

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 140 5 145 % within Race 96.6% 3.4% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 17 10 27 Black % within Race 63.0% 37.0% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 11 3 14 % within Race 78.6% 21.4% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 168 18 186 % within Race 90.3% 9.7% 100.0% Character Race

Largely, season 20 shows more of an actual representation of both characters based on the percent of characters in each race. Season 20, does not show African American characters as being severely poorly dressed but shows that it is only a small

165

percentage of the amount of characters. Thus, these results show that, in terms of appearance, the portrayal of African-Americans has improved considerably across 20 years.

Table 4: Season 20 Poor Appearance

Poor Appearance

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 87 14 101 % within Race 86.1% 13.9% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 40 2 42 Black % within Race 95.2% 4.8% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 14 2 16 % within Race 87.5% 12.5% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 141 18 159 % within Race 88.7% 11.3% 100.0% Character Race

Speech Season 1 data revealed significant results in speech differences between both races. African American characters were viewed 66.7% of the time speaking in Black English vernacular (BEV), in an accent, or broken English, whereas only 25.5% of Whites were portrayed speaking unclearly, as shown in Table 5. Based on the Pearson- Chi square, the results were proven to be significant.

Table 5: Season 1 Speech Unclear

Speech Unclear

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 108 37 145 % within Race 74.5% 25.5% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Black Count 9 18 27

166

% within Race 33.3% 66.7% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 8 6 14 % within Race 57.1% 42.9% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 125 61 186 % within Race 67.2% 32.8% 100.0% Character Race

Season 20 did not reveal any significant difference in speech, as shown in Table 6. However, it does depict that the portrayal of African Americans is more reflective of the population. Although in both seasons, African Americans were observed having more difficulty speaking than Whites, by season 20 the percentages for Whites and African- Americans were more similar.

Table 6: Season 20 Speech Unclear

Speech Unclear

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 88 13 101 % within Race 87.1% 12.9% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 30 12 42 Black % within Race 71.4% 28.6% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 12 4 16 % within Race 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 130 29 159 % within Race 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% Character Race

Negative Behavior Analysis of negative behavior for both seasons revealed that the numbers were very much alike and almost indistinguishable. From 345 characters in both seasons, 23.2% of White characters were shown behaving inappropriately and 26.7% of African Americans. Figures shown in Table 7 and 8 show that the difference between Whites and African Americans exhibiting negative behavior decreased between Season 1 and Season 20.

167

Table 7: Season 1 Negative Behavior

Negative Behavior

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 113 32 145 % within Race 77.9% 22.1% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 19 8 27 Black % within Race 70.4% 29.6% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 11 3 14 % within Race 78.6% 21.4% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 143 43 186 % within Race 76.9% 23.1% 100.0% Character Race

Table 8: Season 20 Negative Behavior

Negative Behavior

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 76 25 101 % within Race 75.2% 24.8% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 32 10 42 Black % within Race 76.2% 23.8% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 11 5 16 % within Race 68.8% 31.3% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 119 40 159 % within Race 74.8% 25.2% 100.0% Character Race

168

Verbal Aggression

Table 9: Season 1 Verbal Aggression

Verbal Aggression

.00 1.00 10.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 107 37 1 145 % within Race 73.8% 25.5% .7% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 21 6 0 27 Black % within Race 77.8% 22.2% .0% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Count 11 3 0 14 Other % within Race 78.6% 21.4% .0% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 139 46 1 186 % within Race 74.7% 24.7% .5% 100.0% Character Race

For season 1, verbal aggression, the results revealed similar findings between the races as seen in Table 9. White characters observed to be verbally aggressive was 25.5% and African American characters were 22.2%. These numbers are not extreme in comparison to each other and illustrates that neither group is seen as overly aggressive. However, although the findings within the races are close in proximity White characters lead approximately 3% more than African Americans as being verbally aggressive. Findings for season 20, verbal aggression revealed that 16.8% of White characters were seen as verbally aggressive and 9.5% of characters were observed as being verbally aggressive. Based on the results, Whites exceed African Americans as being more verbally aggressive by nearly 7%. However, although there is a clear majority the numbers are still too small to make any clear observation as shown in Table 10. Also note, for both seasons 1 and 20, separate variables for verbal aggression including yells often, speaks sarcastically and uses derogatory language were combined into one category Verbal Aggression, for better analysis of the data. All variables were dichotomous (1= Yes, 0= No)

Table 10: Season 20 Verbal Aggression Verbal Aggression

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 84 17 101

169

% within Race 83.2% 16.8% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Count 38 4 42 Black % within Race 90.5% 9.5% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 16 0 16 % within Race 100.0% .0% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 138 21 159 % within Race 86.8% 13.2% 100.0% Character Race

Physical Aggression

Table 11: Season 1 Physical Aggression

Physical Aggression

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 138 7 145 % within Race 95.2% 4.8% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Black Count 24 3 27 % within Race 88.9% 11.1% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 14 0 14 % within Race 100.0% .0% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 176 10 186 % within Race 94.6% 5.4% 100.0% Character Race

For season 1, physical aggression data shows that only a small percentage of characters were seen as physically aggressive. However, African American characters were seen as more physically aggressive with an approximate 6% increase over White characters.

Table 12: Season 20 Physical Aggression

Physical Aggression

.00 1.00 Total Character Race .00 White Count 97 4 101

170

% within Race 96.0% 4.0% 100.0% Character Race 1.00 Black Count 42 0 42 % within Race 100.0% .0% 100.0% Character Race 2.00 Other Count 16 0 16 % within Race 100.0% .0% 100.0% Character Race Total Count 155 4 159 % within Race 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% Character Race

Data for season 20, physical aggression reveal that 4% of White characters were seen as physically aggressive. African Americans were not shown as physically aggressive. Although the results determine that White characters exceed African Americans in physical aggression, there is not enough data to fully determine a conclusion. Also note, for both seasons 1 and 20, separate variables for physical aggression including reacts to aggression, is seen fighting, and carries weapon were combined into one category Physical Aggression, for better analysis of the data. All variables were dichotomous (1= Yes, 0= No)

Crime Committed In season 1 Whites were portrayed as murderers 2.8% (n= 4) and African Americans were not seen committing any murders. Whites were viewed as rapists 2.8% (n= 4) and African Americans were not portrayed as rapists. Data for season 20 show that 4% of Whites committed murders (n= 4) and 4.8% of African Americans committed murders (n= 2). Crime labeled as other was committed 1% for White characters (n= 1) and African Americans were not portrayed as committing crimes labeled other. It is important to note that all other crimes were not portrayed as being committed in either season 1 or 20. Only murder, rape, and other crimes were shown. For crime committed, African American characters were portrayed as a murderer 4.8% which is still higher than its counterpart with 4%. However, in all other areas of crime African Americans data shows that they were not portrayed as committing any other crime.

Domestic Crime The numbers of domestic crimes were too small to be able to interpret the data in a meaningful way.

Indicator of Guilt Data for season 1 show that 7.6% of White characters were viewed with an indication of guilt and 7.4% of African Americans were represented with an indication of guilt. Data for season 20 shows that 15% of White characters indicated that they were guilty (n= 15) and 7.1% of African Americans indicated guilt (n= 3). It is important to

171

note that these characters were all seen as suspects. All other characters played different roles which eliminates them from these results.

Verdict Data of season 1 show that Whites were viewed as not guilty 50% (n=6), guilty 33.3% (n= 4), and other as 16.7% (n= 2). African Americans were seen as not guilty 100% (n= 2). African Americans were not seen as guilty or other. In season 20 Whites were portrayed as not guilty 12.5% (n= 1), guilty 37. 5% (n= 3), and other 50% (n= 4). African Americans were represented as guilty 100% (n= 2). African Americans were not viewed as not guilty or other. These numbers are too small to be able to interpret in a meaningful way.

Role Importance Results for season 1 show that 18.6 % of the roles played by Whites were major roles (n= 27), and 14.8% of the roles played by African Americans were major roles (n= 4). Season 20 shows that 28% of White characters played major roles (n= 28) and 45.2% of African American characters played major roles (n= 19). It is important to note that characters listed as playing major roles were the characters the episode mainly focused on, which excludes background characters from the data. Also note that this finding was used to examine the difference between the racial groups, therefore attention should be paid to the differences between the racial groups and the significance of their playing a major role.

Repeat Character Season 1 data revealed that 8.3% of White characters were repeat characters (n =12) and 14.8% of African Americans (n=4). Season 20 shows that 23% of white characters where repeat characters (n= 23) and 35.7% of African Americans (n= 15). It is important to note that repeat characters only include characters that were featured in more than 2 episodes. All other characters were viewed as guest appearing characters.

Discussion

Based on the results of the study it is evident that there has been a significant change over time within the crime drama Law and Order. Throughout the data it is visible that during the first season of the show there were large disparities that reflected negatively on African Americans. However, by the 20th season one can see that gradual change has taken place. In later episodes in the last season it is almost unrecognizable that the same race of characters during season 1 are now in season 20 represented with squeaky clean images. However, although these new portrayals are more favorable on African American people they still reveal disparities because the results are frighteningly unreal. Results from season 20 also revealed an attempt for African American and White characters to be seen as similar in regards to criminal actions and behavior, as shown in Table 7. This portrayal does not place any full emphasize on one group, nor does it separate the races as good or bad. Instead, they stand in relatively the same place, which are often times not seen. Hence, this is very significant.

172

However, although these results do show a significant amount of change from the first season to the last, what does the change mean? And why did it change so drastically? Especially because the portrayal of African American characters in season 1 was dreadfully stereotypical. Hence, although African Americans were no longer seen as just criminals in season 20, television shows especially shows such as Law and Order which often make an emphasis on being similar to real life representations should also depict similar portrayals to the actual population and crime statistics that occur rather than portraying false realities on both extremes, as shown with both season 1 and 20. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, African Americans made up 12.1% of the population and Whites made up 80.3% in the 1990 data report. The projected population for 2010 U.S. population based on the U.S. Census Bureau lists that Whites make up 79.70% and African Americans account for 12.86%. In 1995, the Uniform Crime Reports revealed that African Americans represented 30.9% of arrests for crime and Whites represented 66.8% of the arrests. For violent crime, which is noted in the (UCR) as offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, 43.7% of those arrested were African American and 54.3% of those arrested were White. For property crime, which is noted in the (UCR) as crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson 32.6% of those arrested were African Americans and 64.7% of those arrested were Whites. In 2008, the Uniform Crime Report shows that of all arrests 28.3% were African Americans and 69.2% were White for violent crime arrests in 2008, 39.4% were African American and 58.3% were White. For property crime arrests, 30.1% were African American and 67.4% were White. Based on these figures the depictions made in both season 1 and 20 were not representative to the actual population and crime that occurred. Nevertheless we see that the media does highly exaggerate whether for good or bad purposes; however, television shows such as Law and Order and other crime dramas should not be used as an example or be viewed to measure real life. Thus, for those who watch large quantities of television it is no surprise that they are more fearful of the world around them. Not to mention, if the viewer is unaware of the racial disparities found in television media and believe what they see, as the cultivation theory suggests. Researchers note that the media draws stereotypes deeper into our cognitive minds which force us to always think about race. For that matter, if people are not taught to pay attention to race and stereotypes it would not be as important in our culture because we would not have a preexisting schema to draw from (Bargh, Lombardi, & Higgins, 1988; Higgins & Brendl, 1995). Thus, if something is not relevant in society it is no longer viewed as important and can no longer harm others. Therefore, why should it not be assumed that if the media did not overly exaggerate the portrayals of characters on television then stereotypes could be erased? Unfortunately, because stereotypes extend so far back. Hence, every time a television show, commercial, or a magazine feeds into these negative portrayals it only takes the entire race another step backwards because those messages only continue to form and strengthen, consequently reproducing racism (Gandy, 1994). According to researchers, after doing several public opinion polls they found that most Whites felt more fearful of crime when around African Americans or in the assumed presence of African Americans (Moeller, 1989; St. John & Herald-Moore, 1995; Oliver, 2003). It is not strange that African Americans are looked upon as criminals or

173

suspected of being dangerous because that is the portrayal that they often get in the media. However, what is truly strange is that the majority of Whites who were polled felt fearful. Thus, will stereotypes truly leave our culture since it is so engrained in us that even the thought of being near an African American person leaves others in fear? An examiner states WKDWLWLVQ¶WVXUSULVLQJWKDWVWHUHRtypes have continued to develop, mainly because most people get their information from the media. Hence, based RQWKHPHGLD¶VSRUWUD\DORIFULPHDQGthe portrayal of African Americans, it only ³creates and sustains´SUHFRQFHLYed notions of African Americans (Oliver, 2003). The findings of the study were not largely consistent with the literature, mainly because many of the stereotypes that were heightened in season 1 depicting African American characters were no longer observed, or were not seen often enough to analyze by season 20. However, the literature does help to describe that with less negative representation of minorities in the media it can lead to a better society. As stated by the researchers, it is simply because our culture would have less negative portrayals of minorities which would help to limit the effect of stereotypes that have been embedded in our culture; and thus, because there would be different depictions of minority people that go against what individuals know to be true. Consequently, with less negative portrayals to generalize and stereotype an individual solely based on their skin complexion the act can become less commonplace. Thus, season 20 results show that there was a significant change in which African Americans were less likely to be seen in a negative light. Thus, this drastic change can lead to future positive changes in our culture concerning racial issues.

174

L a t i n o P o l i c y & Issues Brief

NO. 14 DEcember 2006

HOLLYWOOD’S RACE/ETHNICITY AND GENDER-BASED CASTING: PROSPECTS FOR A TITLE VII LAWSUIT

by Russell Robinson UCLA School of Law

Hollywood studios often specify a preferred race/ethnicity character in the breakdowns is assumed to be white” (Calvo 1999).2 Thus, 69% of available roles were reserved for white or gender for particular roles, preferences that are recorded actors. Actors of color were limited to between 0.5% and 8.1% in casting announcements, or “breakdowns.” Breakdowns of roles, depending on their racial/ethnic background, and could compete with white actors for the 8.5% of roles that were open overwhelmingly favor white male actors for leading roles, to white and nonwhite actors alike. These rigid set-asides stand in sharp contrast to employment opportunities in virtually every leaving only a small proportion of roles open to actors of color other industry, where the law authorizes that all races/ethnicities or to women. This brief explores the legality of discriminatory be allowed to compete for every available job. breakdowns, looking in particular at the gap between the broad

Figure 1. Casting Breakdowns by Race/Ethnicity. (Source: Breakdown promise of equal employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Services, June 1, 2006, through August 31, 2006.)

Act of 1964 and the reality of continuing exclusionary treatment 50 White (Specified) 46.5 White (Default Racial Designation) within the ﬁlm industry. It examines the potential for lawsuits Open to All Ethnicities African American 40 based on Title VII’s equal employment opportunity provisions Latino Asian American and offers recommendations for viable alternatives. Native American Middle Eastern A survey of all breakdowns from June 1, 2006, through 30 Multiracial August 31, 2006, revealed that 94% of the roles in the breakdown sample contained sex designations. Fifty-nine 22.5 % of Roles percent of the roles were designated male roles, and 35% were 20 designated female. In addition, 22.5% of roles were designated for whites, and 22.7% were designated for another racial/ethnic 1 group (ﬁg.1). Although the largest group of listings, 46.5%, 10 8.5 8.1 comprised roles that did not designate a race/ethnicity, these 5.2 4.3 roles were understood to be for white actors. As noted in the 1.7 2.9 0.5 Los Angeles Times, “casting directors and agents agree that each 0 UCLA CSRC Hollywood’s Race- and Gender-Based Casting

EMPL OYME NT INJURIES the industry launch? Title VII speciﬁcally Figure 2. Lead Roles by Gender. (Source: IMDB.com.)

By virtue of their race/ethnicity or gender, prohibits an employer, a labor organization, 80 Men 73 actors of color and female actors are or an employment agency from printing, Women presumptively relegated to the margins of the publishing, or causing to be printed or

film industry, where they must grapple with a published “any notice or advertisement 60 double bind: if they refuse stereotypical roles, relating to employment…indicating any they face economic hardship; if they accept preference, limitation, specification, or 44 stereotypical roles, they increase damage to discrimination, based on race, color…[or] 40 40 self- and group identity. sex.”4 In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the general framework for Title % of Roles Economic Harms. Casting director Jane 27 Jenkins states that it is “definitely harder VII claims, determining that the plaintiff for minority actors to get good [agent] must establish that gender or race/ethnicity 20 representation and to get work.” Female was, as the legislation states, a “motivating actors also compete for fewer roles, especially factor” for an adverse “employment 5 women over forty, who are “as much a practice.” Ultimately, a plaintiff need 0 minority as any ethnic group” (Jenkins 2006). not prove that he or she would have Leads Secondary Third-Billed A review of the 171 commercially released been offered employment if given the films during 2005 that reported a gross of opportunity to compete for it, but only that Figure 3. Lead Roles by Race. (Source: IMDB.com.) at least $1 million showed that men were the opportunity was denied. 90 Caucasian 81.9 African American almost three times as likely as women to BFOQ Defense. According to guide- 80 Latino work in the first-billed lead role (fig. 2) and lines established by the Equal Employment Asian that whites occupied 82% of these roles (fig. Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title 70 Native American 3 VII’s bona fide occupational qualification Multiracial 3). Women had better representation in 60 Other supporting roles, yet they were outnumbered (BFOQ) provision purports to authorize by men in each category. African American gender discrimination insofar as it is 50 “necessary for the purpose of authenticity women, Latinos, Asians, and Native 40 % of Roles Americans were all underrepresented. or genuineness,” and it gives casting as one Identity Harms. Many film roles require example.6 This exception flies in the face 30 of most Title VII precedent. For instance, actors of color to personify blatant racial/ 20 precluding individuals from auditioning for ethnic and gender stereotypes. For example, 11.1 African American actors must regularly a role based on the assumption that most 10 1.8 3.5 actors would be unable to convincingly play 1.2 0 0.6 “black up,” and female actors similarly 0 “sex up,” their identities and performances. a member of the opposite sex is contrary Actors experience four main types of to Title VII’s requirement that people be applied to expressive organizations, like identity harms: 1) taking on an identity considered for employment on the basis the press, without triggering heightened the actor loathes, 2) being employed as of individual qualifications. Claiming free speech protection. Recent Supreme the mouthpiece for a writer (often a white that certain traits (other than physical) Court rulings have created some uncertainty male) who is stereotyping the actor’s gender are more “authentically” male or female is by recognizing some exceptions to or racial/ethnic group, 3) explaining to stereotyping on the basis of gender, also antidiscrimination laws, but because these family and friends the reason for accepting prohibited by Title VII. cases did not involve commercial employers, a stereotypical role, and 4) being typecast First Amendment Defense. Supporters it is unlikely that a court would apply these or locked into playing stereotypical roles. of racial/ethnic casting argue that freedoms rulings to film studios. Women may suffer additional harms: 1) guaranteed by the First Amendment Market-Based Defense. Studios would being caught in age-based “role traps,” and take priority over those protected by likely assert that casting based on race/ 2) taking health risks, such as cosmetic antidiscrimination laws. Opponents ethnicity and gender maximizes box office surgery, to conform to ideal and youthful claim that because the film industry is a potential. Empirical evidence is unlikely to beauty standards. commercial enterprise, the use of racial/ help the defense tie the success or failure of ethnic or gender specifications foregrounds a film to race/ethnicity or gender, however, THE TIT LE VII LAW SUIT issues of fair employment practices. The because the reasons for a film’s critical or Given these harms, how might a Title VII U.S. Supreme Court has held that generally financial outcome are complex. Furthermore, lawsuit proceed? What defenses might applicable laws, such as Title VII, may be what appear to be audience preferences POLICY BRIEF N O VEM BER 2006

for white, male protagonists are socially prohibiting discriminatory breakdowns source of information about casts and box office constructed choices based in part on the would not preclude studios from taking grosses—and boxoficemojo.com. industry’s history of discrimination and race/ethnicity or gender into account 2. See also Hill 2005 and Cannon 2005; these two stereotyping in casting. Preferences shaped during and after an audition. Race/ casting professionals (one black and one white) state that a listing without a racial/ethnic designation is assumed by past discrimination should not justify ethnicity and gender are permissible to be for white actors. Another professional (who is white) continuing discrimination. considerations under the First Amendment says that such a listing would be “open to all ethnicities”; Artistic Defense. Nondiscriminatory when these traits are integral to the see Jenkins 2006. casting might create a burden on protected storyline. Nonetheless, many breakdowns 3. These findings are consistent with those reported in speech by either adding an unintended currently preclude actors of color and Lauzen 2003 and Screen Actors Guild 2004. racial/ethnic or gender element to the women from important roles without any 4. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-352, 42 storyline or requiring filmmakers to strong narrative justification. U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b). Although the industry is vulnerable alter the storyline to avoid racial/ethnic 5. Ibid., 2000e-2(m). For the Court’s decision, see Desert 7 or gender implications. A court would to Title VII lawsuits, it could proactively Palace Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003). address this problem by implementing the likely assess the burden on the studio by 6. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Guidelines determining whether the narrative would following: on Discrimination Based on Sex, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(2). be substantially altered if a character’s race/ • Ban the use of racial/ethnic and Title VII does not include an exception for race/ethnicity. ethnicity or gender were changed. Courts gender designations in breakdowns except 7. See Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and might find that in many cases studios can where casting an actor of a specific race/ Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), where make slight alterations to the narrative that ethnicity or gender is truly integral to the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that speakers generally increase employment opportunity without the narrative. Require studios to instruct have the autonomy to decide not merely what to say but curtailing First Amendment rights. directors and casting directors not to use also what not to say. designations unless they complete a form 8. For example, the director of Sideways cast Sandra Oh, RECOMME N DAT I ONS justifying their use. an Asian-American, as a character with a black child and a white mother. This racial/ethnic mixing was not explained Taking race/ethnicity or gender into • Conduct an annual review of the but did not harm the film critically or commercially. account when actors are assigned to information obtained from these forms. positions in the industry’s hierarchical Additionally, compile annual information REFEREN CES system violates Title VII’s opposition to on the race/ethnicity and gender of the Calvo, Dana. 1999. “Applying the First Light Coat.” Los segregation and subordination. Complying primary actors in all the studio’s films. This Angeles Times, November 20, F1. with the equal opportunity provisions of information can be used to identify areas Cannon, Reuben. 2005. Interview with author, Los Title VII would not require studios to where certain groups are being excluded and Angeles, September 29. use quotas, but it would require them to to inspire efforts to increase employment Hill, Erin. 2005. Interview with author, Los Angeles, give more consideration to actors of color opportunity. October 11. and women. Ample support in case law • Study the casting practices of films Jenkins, Jane. 2006. Interview with author, Burbank, encourages the decision to apply Title VII 8 and television shows that achieve diversity. January 26. to mitigate the use of racial/ethnic and Draw on these practices to design effec- Lauzen, Martha M. 2003. “The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind gender designations in breakdowns. tive interventions that can be employed the Scenes and On-Screen Employment of Women Practical considerations would limit throughout the film industry. in the Top 250 Films of 2002: Executive Summary.” Title VII’s burden on the industry because Unpublished manuscript. many roles are cast without auditions NOTES Screen Actors Guild. 2004. 2003 SAG Casting or breakdowns, thereby limiting the 1. Compiled from data available at IMDB.com—the Data. Available at www.sag.org/Content/Public/ enforcement of Title VII. Moreover, Internet Movie Database, widely regarded as a definitive 03castingdatarpt.pdf.

AUTH O R Russell Robinson is Acting Professor at the UCLA School of Law. Robinson clerked for Judge Dorothy Nelson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court. He worked for the U.S. Department of Justice and practiced entertainment law. His current interests include antidiscrimination law, law and psychology, and media and entertainment law. Contact at [email protected]. SOUR CE This brief is drawn from “Casting and Caste-ing: Reconciling Artistic Freedom and Antidiscrimination Norms,” forthcoming in California Law Review. HOLLYWOOD ’ S RACE/ETH N ICITY- A N D FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: G E N DER-BASED CAST I N G : PRO S P ECT S F O R A UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center TIT LE VII LAW SUIT 193 Haines Hall Hollywood “breakdowns” often specify a preferred race/ethnicity Los Angeles, CA 90095-1544 Phone: 310-825-2642 or gender for a role—a hiring practice that gives an overwhelming Fax: 310-206-1784 proportion of lead roles to white male actors. This brief examines the E-Mail: [email protected] potential for Title VII lawsuits as well as viable alternatives. Web: www.chicano.ucla.edu

MISSION STAT E M E NT The UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center supports interdisciplinary, collaborative, and policy-oriented research on issues critical to the Chicano community. The center’s press produces books, reports, briefs, media, newsletters, and the leading journal in its ﬁeld, Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies.

Latino Policy & Issues Brief. An ongoing series offering the latest research Series Funding: This series is a project of the on critical issues facing the Latino community. To receive an electronic CSRC Latino Research Program, which receives copy automatically, register at www.chicano.ucla.edu. funding from the University of California ISSN: 1543-2238. Committee on Latino Research.

Editor: Chon A. Noriega Press Manager: Wendy Belcher Senior Editor: Rebecca Frazier Research Assistant: Mirasol Riojas

UCLA CHICANO STUDIES RESEARCH CENTER 193 HAINES HALL LOS ANGELES, CA 90095-1544 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(-E) LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge Renee A. Fisher Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [50, 52]

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants International Creative Management Partners, LLC (“ICM”), (Dkt. No. 50), and United Talent Agency, Inc. (“UTA”), (Dkt. No. 52), (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants seek to dismiss all of the claims in Plaintiff Lenhoff Enterprises, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 50, 52.) Plaintiff alleges four causes of action in its TAC: (1) conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) unfair competition and unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 16720 et seq. (Cartwright Act) and 17200 et seq. (Unfair Competition Law or “UCL”); (3) intentional interference with contract; and, (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. (Dkt. No. 49.) After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motions, the Court deems these matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 1 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%&%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(-E/ LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff and Defendants are talent agencies doing business in California, providing their agency services to individuals in the entertainment industry. (Pl.’s Third Am. Compl. (“TAC”) ¶¶ 1–3, 7–9.) Plaintiff is a small boutique agency with two agents, (TAC ¶ 9), while Defendants are large agencies with significantly more agents and a larger clientele than Plaintiff, (TAC ¶¶ 11–12).

B. Sherman Act § 1 Claim

Plaintiff claims that beginning in the late 1990s and continuing to 2002, Defendants and other large talent agencies “conspired and agreed . . . that it was in their best interests to proceed without Rule 16(g)” of the franchise agreement between the Association of Talent Agents (“ATA”)1 and the Screen Actors’ Guild (“SAG”). (TAC ¶ 25.) Rule 16(g) had two pertinent effects: (1) it precluded agencies from accepting investments from “outside/offshore investors, private equity hedge funds, ad agencies, advertisers[,] and independent producers,” (TAC ¶ 28); and, (2) it prevented an agency from possessing “any financial interest in a production or distribution company,” (TAC ¶ 24). With the expiration of Rule 16(g) imminent, in February 2002, ATA and SAG agreed to amend the rule’s restrictions. (TAC ¶ 32.) The deal allegedly provided that agents would be allowed “to take up to a 20% stake in production and distribution companies,” and that advertising firms and independent (non-studio) producers would be permitted to take up to 20% stakes in talent agencies. (Id.) However, upon submission to SAG members for approval, the Rule 16(g) agreement was rejected. (TAC ¶ 33.)

Plaintiff claims that the ATA—specifically, the ATA’s Strategic Planning Committee, comprised of UTA’s Jim Berkus, ICM’s Jeff Berg, and representatives from the other large agencies—did not renegotiate the deal and instead awaited Rule 16(g)’s expiration. (TAC ¶¶ 22, 37.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ intent “in bringing about the demise of Rule 16(g) . . . was to destroy competition and to build a cartel of Uber Agencies.” (TAC ¶ 27.) Without Rule 16(g)’s restrictions, Plaintiff alleges that

1 All of the named parties in this action are members of the ATA. (TAC ¶¶ 8, 21.) CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 2 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%F%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(-EG LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Defendants and the two other large agencies, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (“WME”) and Creative Artists Agency (“CAA”), received significant increases in investments and business. (TAC ¶¶ 3, 38.) As a result, Plaintiff avers that the four “Uber Agencies”—comprised of ICM, UTA, WMA, and CAA (collectively, the “Big 4 Agencies”)—now control 94% of the scripted series packaging market. (TAC ¶¶ 3, 45.)

Plaintiff goes on to allege that the increase in the Big 4 Agencies’ business is caused by their ability to provide exclusive “packaging” arrangements to clients, which allow larger agencies, like Defendants, not to charge the standard 10% commission typically charged by smaller agencies, such as Plaintiff. (TAC ¶ 54.) In lieu of the 10% fee, Plaintiff alleges that the Big 4 Agencies earn “packaging fee[s]” from studios or production companies, which compensate the Big 4 Agencies based on the underlying work’s success. (TAC ¶ 53.) The rights are allegedly in perpetuity, and the total payments to the packaging agencies can, in some circumstances, exceed the total payments to the client. (TAC ¶¶ 53, 56.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants lure talent away from smaller firms, like Plaintiff, by eliminating the standard 10% commission and offering to package the individual in future deals with studios, networks, and producers. (TAC ¶¶ 52, 54.)

Plaintiff further avers that the Big 4 Agencies split packaging fees with each other, but they do not split with any other firms, thereby forming a “cartel” which controls the relevant market. (TAC ¶ 46.) Although Plaintiff claims that the Big 4 Agencies exclude all other talent agencies from participating in co-packaging agreements, (TAC ¶ 67), it states that in 2014/2015, two non-Big 4 Agencies co-packaged with Big 4 Agencies and that only 85 of 353 packaged scripted series were co-packaged together by and among Big 4 Agencies, (TAC ¶ 45, Exs. A, B). Plaintiff also contends that Defendants, along with the other Big 4 Agencies, conspired to coerce purchasers of talent services—studios, networks, and producers—to refuse deals with non-Big 4 Agencies and the individuals they represent. (TAC ¶ 68.) According to Plaintiff, the threatened consequence of dealing with non-Big 4 Agencies was loss of future packaging of the Big 4 Agencies’ talent. (TAC ¶ 75.)

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 3 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%>%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(-E. LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. C. Client-Poaching Allegation

Plaintiff also alleges that around September or October 2014, one of Plaintiff’s clients, Client #1, attended Defendant UTA’s VIP screening of Client #1’s show, during which Defendant “UTA began the process of encouraging and inducing Client #1 to break her contract with Plaintiff.” (TAC ¶ 94.) On November 4, 2014, Client #1 allegedly informed Plaintiff that she was terminating Plaintiff’s representation. (TAC ¶ 93.) Plaintiff similarly alleges that Defendant ICM invited another of Plaintiff’s clients, Client #2, to a meeting to discuss representation/packaging, which Plaintiff alleges induced Client #2 to breach his contract with Plaintiff. (TAC ¶ 97.)

Plaintiff further contends that the agreements with Clients #1 and #2 were verbal contracts subject to “Rider D” of the agreement between the ATA and the Directors Guild of America (“DGA”). (TAC ¶¶ 91–92, 95.) Rider D provides as follows:

If during any period of ninety (90) consecutive days immediately preceding the giving of notice of termination herein described, the Director (1) fails to be employed or (2) fails to receive a bona fide offer then either Director or Agent may terminate the employment of Agent hereunder by giving written notice of termination to the other party, subject to the following terms and provisions:

C. Actual employment of or contracts or bona fide offers for the employment of the Director in any field whatever in which the Director is represented by the Agent shall be deemed to be employment. If the Director has been employed or has had contracts or bona fide offers for employment in any field in which Director is represented by Agent the Director may not terminate so long as Director is entitled to an amount equal to his last compensation at a pro rata equivalent to 3 weeks of services.

(TAC, Ex. C.)

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 4 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%)%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(-EE LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. D. Procedural Background

On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Original Complaint, (Dkt. No. 3), but never served it on Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on June 15, 2015, (Dkt. No. 8), and served it on UTA and ICM on June 16 and June 17, respectively, (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13). Defendants subsequently filed Motions to Dismiss on August 10, 2015, seeking to dismiss all claims in Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 16, 18, 21.) On September 18, 2015, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendants’ Motions. (Dkt. No. 28.) Namely, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under § 2 of the Sherman Act without prejudice. (Id. at 7.) The Court did not address the merits of the Sherman Act claim, instead concluding that Plaintiff failed to allege any facts indicating that a conspiracy existed to create a monopoly in a single entity, as required under § 2. (Id. at 6–7.) The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic damage claims without prejudice. (Id. at 9–10.) Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief with prejudice, (id. at 11–12), but denied Defendants’ Motions as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim, (id. at 8).

On October 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), alleging: (1) a § 1 Sherman Act claim; (2) an unfair competition and unlawful and unfair business practices claim; (3) an intentional interference with contract claim; and, (4) an intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. (Dkt. No. 31.) Defendants subsequently filed their Motions to Dismiss on November 9, 2015. (Dkt. Nos. 34, 36.) The Court granted both Motions in their entirety without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 43.)

Plaintiff filed its TAC on January 22, 2016, alleging the same causes of action as its SAC. (Dkt. No. 49.) On February 12, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC. (Dkt. Nos. 50 (hereinafter, “ICM Mot.”), 52 (hereinafter “UTA Mot.”).) Plaintiff timely filed its Oppositions, (Dkt. Nos. 56 (hereinafter, “Pl.’s ICM Opp’n”), 57 (hereinafter, “Pl.’s UTA Opp’n”)), and Defendants timely replied, (Dkt. Nos. 61, 62).

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 5 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%/%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-- LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

In support of its Motion, Defendant ICM filed a Request for Judicial Notice. (See Dkt. No. 51 (hereinafter, “RJN”).) A court may properly take judicial notice of (1) material which is included as part of the complaint or relied upon by the complaint, and (2) matters in the public record. See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688–89 (9th Cir. 2001). A court may also take judicial notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). Under the rule, a judicially noticed fact must be one that is “not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(2); In re Icenhower, 755 F.3d 1130, 1142 (9th Cir. 2014).

Defendant ICM requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following: (1) the ATA/DGA Agreement incorporating Rider D, which is attached to Plaintiff’s TAC, (see TAC, Ex. C); (2) a March 2014 email between Sony executives that Plaintiff refers to in its TAC, (see TAC ¶ 18); and, (3) a Deadline article referenced in the Sony email. (See RJN, Exs. A–C.) Here, Plaintiff relied upon the ATA/DGA Agreement and the Sony email in its TAC, and neither party has objected to their authenticity. (See TAC ¶ 18, Ex. C); Marder, 450 F.3d at 448. Additionally, the Deadline article “was in the public realm at the time” the Sony executive email allegedly sent the email. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Courts may take judicial notice of publications introduced to ‘indicate what was in the public realm at the time . . . .’” (quoting Premier Growth Fund v. Alliance Capital Mgmt., 435 F.3d 396, 401 n.15 (3d Cir. 2006))). The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendant ICM’s request for judicial notice.2 However, as to the Deadline article, the Court only takes judicial notice 2 Defendant ICM objects to the declarations of Ted P. Tatos and Charles Lenhoff in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition. (See Dkt. No. 63.) The declarations purportedly establish “that the percentage of co-packaged shows between Uber Agencies is enormously out of proportion with the statistical likelihood of such co-packaging based on the number of agencies in the market.” (Pl.’s ICM Opp’n at 24; Pl.’s UTA Opp’n at 23–24.) In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court may not look beyond the pleadings except in limited circumstances, none of which apply here. See United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court considers these CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 6 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%G%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-( LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. “to ‘indicate what was in the public realm at the time, not whether the contents of those articles were in fact true.’” Id. (quoting Premier Growth Fund, 435 F.3d at 401 n.15).

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If a complaint fails to do this, the defendant may move to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, there must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility’” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Where a district court grants a motion to dismiss, it should provide leave to amend unless it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”). Leave to amend, however, “is properly denied . . . if amendment would be futile.” Carrico v. City & County of San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2011).

declarations in determining only whether to grant leave to amend. See Acinelli v. Torres, No. ED CV 13–1371–AB (PLA), 2015 WL 4380772, at *2 n.3 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (citing Orion Tire Corp. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 268 F.3d 1133, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2001)). CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 7 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%.%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-& LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. V. DISCUSSION

A. Sherman Act Claim

Plaintiff argues that it sufficiently pleads the existence of a Sherman Act § 1 violation. (See Pl.’s ICM Opp’n at 8–19; Pl.’s UTA Opp’n at 8–19.) Plaintiff’s Sherman Act allegations can best be summarized as follows: First, Defendants agreed amongst themselves that it was in their best interest to allow Rule 16(g) to expire, and to that end, conspired to cause that result by refusing to renegotiate with SAG regarding the Rule 16(g) amendments. (TAC ¶¶ 25, 36–37.) Next, given the lack of financial restrictions resulting from Rule 16(g)’s expiration, Defendants and the other Big 4 Agencies obtained significant capital investments from outside sources. (TAC ¶ 38.) The Big 4 Agencies then lured talent away from other agencies by eliminating the 10% commission in lieu of a packaging fee. (TAC ¶¶ 52–54, 56.) Given the influx of talent, the Big 4 Agencies were able to control the relevant market by conspiring to exclusively co-package with each other, thereby harming competition. (TAC ¶¶ 43, 75–76, 78.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants agreed to coerce studios, networks, and producers to refuse deals with non-Big 4 Agencies, threatening to withhold talent as a consequence of noncompliance. (TAC ¶ 63.) The resulting harm to competition, according to Plaintiff, is a lack of diversity among talent and a reduction of agencies in the scripted series market, thereby allowing the Big 4 Agencies to set the prices for talent. (TAC ¶¶ 17, 49, 78–79.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that it was harmed by the anti-competitive aspect of Defendants’ practices—namely, the package-fee incentive—when Defendants “poached” two of Plaintiff’s clients. (TAC ¶ 81.)

1. Per Se Analysis—Price-Fixing Allegation

As discussed in the Court’s prior Order, claims under § 1 of the Sherman Act are evaluated under either a per se analysis or the rule of reason. In re WellPoint, Inc. Out- of-Network UCR Rates Litig., 865 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1024–25 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Thurman Indus., Inc. v. Pay ‘N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir. 1989)). To state a claim for a per se violation of the Sherman Act, Plaintiff must sufficiently plead that Defendants (1) entered into an agreement (2) to fix prices or divide the market. Id. Here, as in its SAC, Plaintiff alleges that the Big 4 Agencies are engaged in horizontal price-fixing. (Compare TAC ¶¶ 43, 78, with SAC ¶¶ 73, 84, 116.) However,

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 8 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%E%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-F LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Plaintiff adds no factual details to support this conclusion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff again fails to sufficiently plead a per se Sherman Act violation.

2. Rule of Reason Analysis—Unreasonable Restraint of Trade Allegations

To sufficiently state a § 1 claim under the rule of reason, Plaintiff must sufficiently plead each of the following elements: “(1) a contract, combination or conspiracy among two or more persons or distinct business entities; (2) by which the persons or entities intended to harm or restrain trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations; (3) which actually injures competition.” Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc., 675 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to these elements, Plaintiff must also plead “(4) that [it was] harmed by [Defendants’] anticompetitive contract, combination, or conspiracy, and that this harm flowed from an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “In its design and function the rule [of reason] distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and restraints stimulating competition that are in the consumer’s best interest.” Id. (quoting Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 886 (2007)).

a. Conspiracy

As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to (1) bring about the expiration of Rule 16(g), (2) exclude non-Big 4 Agencies from co- packaging contracts and not split packaging fees with anyone other than the Big 4 Agencies, and (3) coerce studios, networks, and producers to boycott non-Big 4 Agencies through threats of withholding the Big 4’s talent from those who do not comply. Defendants compare Plaintiff’s TAC to its SAC and argue that Plaintiff has again failed to plead these facts with the requisite specificity. (ICM Mot. at 6–16; UTA Mot. at 5– 12.) Once again, the Court agrees with Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 8–11.)

To sufficiently “allege an agreement or conspiracy between antitrust co- conspirators, the complaint must allege facts such as a ‘specific time, place, or person involved in the conspiracies’ to give a defendant seeking to respond to allegations of a conspiracy an idea of where to begin.” Kendall v. Visa USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1047

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 9 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(-%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-> LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10). “[T]erms like ‘conspiracy,’ or even ‘agreement,’ are border-line: they might well be sufficient in conjunction with a more specific allegation—for example, identifying a written agreement or even a basis for inferring a tacit agreement,” but such terms, alone, are insufficient to state claim of conspiracy. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (quoting DM Research, Inc. v. Coll. of Am. Pathologists, 170 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 1999)).

Like its SAC, Plaintiff’s TAC relies upon circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence, to plead the existence of a conspiracy. (TAC ¶ 47; see also Dkt. No. 43 at 9 n.3.) When relying on circumstantial evidence to allege a conspiracy, the plaintiff may point to the defendants’ parallel conduct to create the inference that the parties have entered into an agreement. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 553 (“[A] showing of parallel business behavior is admissible circumstantial evidence from which the fact finder may infer agreement . . . .”). However, parallel conduct alone does not constitute a Sherman Act violation. Id. “‘[T]he crucial question’ is whether the challenged anticompetitive conduct ‘stem[s] from independent decision or from an agreement, tacit or express.’” Id. (quoting Theatre Enters., Inc. v. Paramount Film Distrib. Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 540 (1954)).

In the Ninth Circuit, courts distinguish “permissible parallel conduct from impermissible conspiracy by identifying certain ‘plus factors,’” which are “economic actions and outcomes that are largely inconsistent with unilateral conduct but largely consistent with explicitly coordinated action.” In re Musical Instruments, 798 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 n.4). “If pleaded, they can place parallel conduct in a context that raises a suggestion of preceding agreement,” thereby distinguishing it from lawful independent action. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

As in the previous Order, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts regarding the purported conspiracies between Defendants and the other Big 4 Agencies. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 10.) Like the SAC, the only alleged conspiracy of which Plaintiff provides names of participating individuals is the alleged agreement “to eliminate Rule 16(g).” (TAC ¶¶ 22–23.) Plaintiff alleges that “the ATA’s Strategic Planning Committee consisting of UTA’s Jim Berkus, ICM’s Jeff Berg, CAA’s Bryan Lourd, William Morris’ Walt Zifkin, Endeavor’s Rick Rosen, and Broder/Kurland/Webb/ Uffner’s Bob Broder” was created “with the specific goal and intent of eliminating the

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 10 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%((%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-) LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. [Rule 16(g)] prohibitions on outside investments and funding.” (TAC ¶ 75.) In sum, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ agents on the ATA’s Strategic Planning Committee “agreed amongst themselves that it was in their best interests to proceed without Rule 16(g).” (TAC ¶ 25.)

Defendants argue that their participation in the ATA meetings cannot be construed as an illegal conspiracy. (UTA Mot. at 8.) Further, Defendants contend that even assuming the ATA members thought it in their best interest to allow Rule 16(g) to expire, that is not “‘inconsistent with unilateral conduct’ or ‘largely consistent with explicitly coordinated action.’” (ICM Mot. at 12 (quoting In re Musical Instruments, 798 F.3d at 1194).) Rather, according to Defendants, this allegation “suggest[s] rational, legal business behavior.” (Id. (quoting Kendall, 518 F.3d at 1049).) Defendants also point to the Court’s prior Order, in which the Court noted that it was SAG, not the ATA, which decided to reject the new Rule 16(g) terms, thereby allowing Rule 16(g) to expire. (UTA Mot. at 7 (citing Dkt. No. 43 at 11); ICM Mot. at 9 (citing Dkt. No. 43 at 11); see also TAC ¶¶ 32–34.)

First, “mere participation in trade-organization meetings where information is exchanged and strategies are advocated does not suggest an illegal agreement.” In re Musical Instruments, 798 F.3d at 1196. Thus, merely stating—as the SAC did, (SAC ¶ 49)—that Defendants’ agents served on the Strategic Planning Committee and “had ample opportunity” to plan to eliminate Rule 16(g) fails to sufficiently plead a conspiracy claim. (TAC ¶ 23; see Dkt. No. 43 at 11.) Adding dates of committee meetings and communications likewise does not cure this defect. (See TAC ¶ 23.) Further, as the Court concluded in its previous Order, the decision to permit Rule 16(g) to expire is as much evidence of a conspiracy as it is evidence that each individual agency acted for its own independent benefit. (Dkt. No. 43 at 11.) In sum, that the expiration of Rule 16(g) would ultimately benefit Big 4 Agencies does not demonstrate that Defendants conspired to bring about its demise, especially in light of the fact that SAG, not the ATA, rejected a new version of Rule 16(g).

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 11 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(&%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-/ LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. As for the alleged conspiracy to exclusively co-package with Big 4 Agencies, Plaintiff’s TAC relies on two sets of data3 which purportedly show that “only 2 of 53 agencies” were able to co-package with Big 4 Agencies and that 85 of 353 packaged series were co-packaged amongst Big 4 Agencies. (TAC ¶ 45, Exs. A, B (emphasis omitted).) An “amended complaint may only allege ‘other facts consistent with the challenged pleading.’” Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 297 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)). Here, in its SAC, Plaintiff alleged that in 2014/2015, sixteen co- packages included non-Big 4 Agencies, while Big 4 Agencies co-packaged exclusively with one another on eighty-nine occasions. (SAC ¶ 73.) However, Plaintiff’s TAC includes a chart representing that Big 4 Agencies co-packaged exclusively amongst themselves eighty-five times and with smaller agencies only twelve times in 2014/2015. (TAC ¶ 45, Exs. A, B.)

Plaintiff attempts to account for these discrepancies by pointing to “[r]ecent information published by the FX Network and other sources.” (TAC ¶ 45 n.2.) However, the Court need not accept the newly alleged, contradictory data as true. Azadpour v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., No.C06-03272 MJJ, 2007 WL 2141079, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2007) (“Where allegations in an amended complaint contradict those in a prior complaint, a district court need not accept the new alleged facts as true, and may, in fact, strike the challenged allegations as ‘false and sham.’”). Even assuming the Court considered the data, it fails to establish that Defendants conspired to exclude non- Big 4 Agencies from co-packaging. Indeed, the data demonstrates that Big 4 Agencies co-packaged with smaller agencies on at least twelve occasions. (See TAC, Ex. A.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s own allegations contradict its claim that Defendants’ co- packaging agreements are exclusive to the Big 4 Agencies.

Further, like its SAC, Plaintiff’s TAC fails to provide the names of any individuals who allegedly conspired to coerce studios, networks, and producers to boycott smaller agencies. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 11.) Nor does the TAC include a reference to a specific

3 Defendant UTA claims to have contacted Plaintiff regarding the “facial inaccuracies” of this data, (UTA Mot. at 3 n.1), and Plaintiff concedes the existence of “two minor errors,” (Pl.’s UTA Opp’n at 13 n.5). Even assuming the exhibits were entirely accurate, the data still conflicts with Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants conspired to entirely exclude non-Big 4 Agencies from co-packaging with them. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 12 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(F%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-G LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. time or place such agreements took place. Plaintiff also fails to plead a specific instance of a threat against a studio, network, or producer. Thus, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a conspiracy based on the alleged coercion.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has again failed to sufficiently plead a conspiracy. For this reason alone, the Court could grant Defendants’ Motions as to Plaintiff’s § 1 Sherman Act claim. However, as discussed below, Plaintiff also fails to satisfy the injury to competition element.

b. Restraint of Trade—Injury to Competition

“In order to plead injury to competition, the third element of a Section 1 claim, sufficiently to withstand a motion to dismiss, ‘a section one claimant may not merely recite the bare legal conclusion that competition has been restrained unreasonably.’” Brantley, 675 F.3d at 1198 (quoting Les Shockley Racing, Inc. v. Nat’l Hot Rod Ass’n, 884 F.2d 504, 507–08 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Rather, a claimant must, at a minimum, sketch the outline of [the injury to competition] with allegations of supporting factual detail . . . [that] raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an injury to competition.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The first element of a § 1 Sherman Act claim is linked with the third element, in that to establish an injury to competition, “the claimant must identify a contract, combination or conspiracy that has an anticompetitive effect.” Id. For example, a “horizontal agreement”—an agreement between competitors in the same market—“to set prices may injure competition because the result of such an agreement, if effective, is the elimination of one form of competition, namely price.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Or a group of competitors may act in concert to harm another competitor or exclude that competitor from the market and thus ‘protect . . . dealers from real or apparent price competition’ from the targeted competitor.” Id. (quoting United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127, 146–47 (1966)).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have entered into horizontal agreements that have effectively eliminated other agencies from the market, thereby facilitating horizontal price-fixing and restraining trade. (TAC ¶¶ 43, 78.) However, as was the case in Plaintiff’s SAC, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead the predicate fact—an agreement or

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 13 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(>%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-. LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. conspiracy. See discussion supra Section V.A.2.a. Thus, Plaintiff again fails to state a claim of injury to competition based on the alleged horizontal agreements.

Plaintiff also claims the existence of vertical agreements between Defendants and the studios, networks, and producers. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants coerced the studios, networks, and producers to institute a boycott of non-Big 4 Agencies through threats of withholding the Big 4 Agencies’ coveted talent from future package deals from noncompliant studios, networks, and producers. (TAC ¶¶ 63–64.) However, this allegation fails because Plaintiff fails to plead enough facts to “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal” the existence of such agreements. Brantley, 675 F.3d at 1198. For example, Plaintiff provides no names, dates, or other facts to support this allegation.4 Rather, it relies on a conclusory allegation that Defendants “coerce[d]” the studios, networks, and producers to boycott non-Big 4 Agencies. (TAC ¶ 62.) Such an allegation lacks the requisite specificity to state a claim for an agreement under Twombly and Iqbal.

Further, it is unclear based on the alleged facts whether Defendant unlawfully coerced or lawfully pressured the studios, networks, and producers to refrain from dealing with non-Big 4 Agencies. See Filco v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 709 F.2d 1257, 1263 (9th Cir. 1983) (stating that “[d]emands or threats, however, must be distinguished from mere exposition, persuasion, argument, or pressure,” and that the issue in that case was whether the statements at issue were “enough to raise an inference of coercion and thus create an inference of” illegality) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Plaintiff concedes that the Big 4 Agencies represent “top acting, writing, producing[,] and directing talent,” and therefore are better suited to develop new series than smaller agencies. (TAC ¶ 14.) Accepting this as true, it is reasonable to infer that studios, networks, and producers would be drawn to work with Big 4 Agencies; no threats would be necessary.

4 In its TAC, Plaintiff adds a quote from an alleged 2014 email sent by the chairman of Sony Pictures. (See TAC ¶ 18 (“They [Uber Agencies] are demanding and getting fees now on these from the financiers (they call it a ‘packaging fee’) and are keeping as many emerging high[-]end filmmaker projects off the market until they have full control.”) (emphasis omitted); RJN, Ex. B.) The email, however, is irrelevant to this matter, as it concerns a motion picture investment rather than a scripted television series package. (See ICM Mot. at 15, 15 n.6; RJN, Exs. B, C.) CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 14 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%()%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((-E LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Finally, Plaintiff references Defendants’ alleged “tying agreements” in an effort to plead an injury to competition. (See TAC ¶¶ 42, 78.) “Tying is defined as an arrangement where a supplier agrees to sell a buyer a product (the tying product), but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product.” Brantley, 675 F.3d at 1199 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The potential injury to competition threatened by this practice is that the tying arrangement will either harm existing competitors or create barriers to entry of new competitors in the market for the tied product . . . or will force buyers into giving up the purchase of substitutes for the tied product.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In its TAC, Plaintiff alleges three tying agreements whereby Defendants allegedly “coerc[ed]” or “cajol[ed]” a studio, network, or producer to accept tied talent along with the coveted talent. (See TAC ¶ 42 (discussing “UTA coercing AMC Network to renew their extremely low rated series ‘Halt And Catch Fire’ . . . in order to get a different and higher rated series, ‘Better Call Saul,’ or ICM cajoling ABC to renew the ratings[- ]challenged ‘Private Practice’ series in order to keep their package of ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ going”).) Even assuming Defendants utilized tying agreements, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege how these assumed agreements “harm existing competitors or create barriers to entry of new competitors in the market for the tied product.” Brantley, 675 F.3d at 1199. Plaintiff also fails to allege that the buyers were forced “into giving up the purchase of substitutes for the tied product.” Id. As such, Plaintiff fails to establish restraint of trade through Defendants’ alleged tying agreements.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff again fails to sufficiently plead the conspiracy and harm-to-competition elements of its § 1 Sherman Act claim.5 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED as to that cause of action. Given that this is Plaintiff Third Amended Complaint, and because Plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies as to its Sherman Act § 1 claim in each of its previous pleadings, Plaintiff’s Sherman Act claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (“As here, where the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims,

5 Given that Plaintiff again fails to satisfy these two elements, the Court need not discuss the remaining two elements of Plaintiff’s § 1 Sherman Act claim. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 15 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(/%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((- LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Unfair Business Practices Claim

The UCL defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Plaintiff may therefore base its claim upon “acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.” Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 50 Cal. App. 4th 632, 647 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of the UCL. (See Pl.’s ICM Opp’n at 20; Pl.’s UTA Opp’n at 20.)

In Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163 (Cal. 1999), the California Supreme Court defined the meaning of an “unfair” act under the UCL as it applies in the antitrust context:

When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury from a direct competitor’s “unfair” act or practice invokes section 17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition.

Id. at 187. However, where, as here, (see TAC ¶¶ 83, 85, 87–88), “the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and an ‘unfair’ business act or practice for the same reason—because it unreasonably restrains competition and harms consumers—the determination that the conduct is not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not ‘unfair.’”6 City of San Jose v. Office of the Comm’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 93 Cal. App. 4th 363, 375 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)). 6 Because “[t]he analysis under California’s antitrust law mirror the analysis under federal law,” County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148, 1160 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700 et seq.), Plaintiff’s new allegation that Defendants violated the Cartwright Act does not alter the Court’s conclusion, (see TAC ¶ 83).

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 16 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(G%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((( LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Like in its previous Order, (see Dkt. No. 43 at 15–16), the Court finds that because Plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded an unreasonable restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act, Plaintiff also necessarily fails to plead unfair or unlawful conduct under the UCL, see Office of the Comm’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d at 691–92; Chavez, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 375. Defendants’ Motions are therefore GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s UCL claim, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice for the same reasons as Plaintiff’s § 1 Sherman Act claim. See Zucco, 552 F.3d at 1007.

C. Intentional Interference with Contract

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants interfered with its contractual relationships with Clients #1 and #27 by inviting the clients to a private VIP screening or meeting, during which Defendants began persuading the clients to breach their contracts with Plaintiff. (TAC ¶¶ 94, 97.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to plead intentional interference with contract given its failure to allege that the contracts were not terminable at will. (ICM Mot. at 22–25; UTA Mot. at 18–24.) Thus, according to Defendants, the competitor’s privilege applies, and Plaintiff fails to aver an independently wrongful act to defeat the privilege.8 (Id.)

To state a claim for intentional interference with contract, Plaintiff must sufficiently plead the following: “(1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant’s knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126 (Cal. 1990). “‘A plaintiff need not allege an actual or inevitable breach of contract in order to state a claim for disruption of contractual relations’; rather, unlike the tort of inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations requires only proof of interference.” RealPage, Inc. v. Yardi Sys., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1230 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (quoting Pac. Gas & 7 Plaintiff explains that Clients #1 and #2 are directors and members of the DGA. (TAC ¶¶ 91, 96.)

8 As discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to (1) sufficiently allege that Client #1’s contract was not at will and (2) defeat the competitor’s privilege. Thus, the Court need not address Defendant UTA’s additional argument that Plaintiff fails to adequately allege knowledge or causation with respect to the Client #1 agreement. (See UTA Mot. at 24–25.) CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 17 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(.%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((& LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. Electric Co., 50 Cal. 3d at 1129) (emphasis in original). However, where contracts are terminable at will, the competitor’s privilege applies. See, e.g., Pac. Exp., Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 959 F.2d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 1992). If the privilege applies, “a plaintiff must also plead and prove that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act,” which induced the party to leave the plaintiff. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140, 1152 (Cal. 2004). “[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.” Id.

Here, as in the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that it had “valid and exclusive contracts” with Clients #1 and #2. (TAC ¶ 90.) However, Plaintiff alleges that its agreements with Clients #1 and #2 were “verbal contracts,” (TAC ¶¶ 91, 95), and Plaintiff fails to allege whether those contracts were for a specified term or terminable at will.9 Thus, the competitor’s privilege applies, which Plaintiff again cannot overcome because it fails to sufficiently allege a Sherman Act violation.

Plaintiff’s principal argument is that Rider D in the ATA/DGA Agreement establishes that the contract was not terminable at will, and thus that the competitor’s privilege does not apply. However, the Court need not determine whether this is true, as Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Rider D Agreement’s termination restriction was triggered to preclude Clients #1 and #2 from terminating their agreements with Plaintiff.

The crux of the Rider D Agreement is that a director or agent may not terminate an agreement so long as (1) the director has been employed or received a bona fide offer of employment in a field in which the director is represented by the agent within ninety (90) days preceding the director’s notice of termination, and (2) the director is entitled to an amount equal to his last compensation at a pro rata equivalent to three weeks of services.

9 Although Plaintiff alleges that its agreement with Client #2 “commenced on . . . February 10, 2009” and had an “initial term of years, with a 2-year renewal term, followed by 1-year terms,” (see TAC ¶ 95), Plaintiff fails to allege whether the initial two-year agreement was ever renewed, thereby continuing the term contract. Further, the alleged acts of interference appear to have occurred shortly before Client #2 gave notice of termination of June 26, 2014, (see TAC ¶ 97), after the initial two-year term had expired. Thus, without any allegation as to whether the initial two-year agreement was renewed, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead that, at the time of the alleged interference, the agreement with Client #2 was for a specified term. CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 18 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%(E%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((F LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. (See TAC ¶ 92, Ex. C at 2.) According to Plaintiff, Rider D applied to its relationships with Clients #1 and #2, thereby precluding them from leaving Plaintiff for another agency. (TAC ¶ 92.) However, as discussed in the Court’s prior Order, it is clear based upon the agreement’s language that there are two conditions that must be met before a director is restricted from terminating the relationship with his or her agent. The first is that within ninety (90) days preceding the notice of termination, the director must have obtained employment in his field, or at least received a bona fide offer of employment. (TAC ¶ 92.) The second is that the director must be “entitled to an amount equal to his last compensation at a pro rata equivalent of 3 weeks of services.” (Id.)

Here, as in the SAC, Plaintiff alleges facts that, taken as true, establish the first condition—that Clients #1 and #2 obtained employment within the ninety days preceding their notices of termination. (See TAC ¶¶ 93, 95.) However, Plaintiff fails to allege the second condition, as it states no facts alleging whether the payment for Client #1’s and Client #2’s employment met Rider D’s terms. Instead, Plaintiff states, in a conclusory fashion, that Clients #1 and #2 “received an amount equal to [their] last compensation at a pro rata rate equivalent to three (3) weeks of services.” (TAC ¶¶ 93, 95.) Plaintiff does not allege the amount each client was compensated for their prior work, nor does it allege the amount each client received for their subsequent work. Merely reciting Rider D’s terms is insufficient to state a claim under Twombly. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”) (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Thus, even assuming that the ATA/DGA Agreement could elevate the contracts to term agreements, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead that Rider D’s termination restriction would apply to Client #1’s and Client #2’s notices of termination.

Because Plaintiff again fails to plead that the agreements with Clients #1 and #2 were not at will, the competitor’s privilege applies. As discussed above, Plaintiff again fails to sufficiently plead a Sherman Act violation, thus there is no “independently wrongful act” to defeat the competitor’s privilege. Reeves, 33 Cal. 4th at 1152. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED. As to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant UTA for interference with Plaintiff’s relationship with Client #1, that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, as Plaintiff has failed multiple times to allege that agreement was not at-will, see Zucco, 552 F.3d at 1007, and amendment of that claim CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 19 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%&-%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((> LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. would be futile, Carrico, 656 F.3d at 1008. However, Plaintiff’s intentional interference with contract claim against Defendant ICM relating to Client #2 is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as Plaintiff may avoid the competitor’s privilege if it sufficiently pleads, in good faith, that at the time the alleged interference took place, Client #2 was under an agreement for a specified term.

D. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

To plead a claim for intentional interference with prospective business advantage, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege the following:

(1) [A]n economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.

Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1153 (Cal. 2003). Further, a plaintiff must plead and prove “that the defendant’s interference was wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself.” Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376, 392–93 (Cal. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As in its SAC, Plaintiff relies on Defendants’ acts allegedly violating the Sherman Act as the independent and wrongful acts to support this claim. (Compare TAC ¶ 104, with SAC ¶ 138.) However, as discussed above, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently plead a violation of the Sherman Act. See supra Section V.A. Thus, Plaintiff again fails to sufficiently allege that Defendants’ conduct was “wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself,” as required under Della Penna. See Della Penna, 11 Cal. 4th at 393. Defendants’ Motions are therefore GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim, and that claim is DISMISSED with prejudice, as Plaintiff has again unsuccessfully amended this claim despite having filed three amended complaints. See Zucco, 552 F.3d at 1007.

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 20 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%&(%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'((() LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. E. The Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over the Remaining State Law Claim

“The decision whether to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed lies within the district court’s discretion.” Foster v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007). “In Gibbs, the [United States Supreme] Court stated that ‘if the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.’” Carnegie-Melon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). Although this is not a per se rule, “in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity— will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Id. “When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.” Id. at 350.

Here, only Plaintiff’s intentional interference with contract claim as to Client #2 remains—a state-law cause of action. See discussion supra Section V.C. Further, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s sole federal-law claim with prejudice. See discussion supra Section V.A. Accordingly, there is no federal-law claim remaining. Given that this action is in its early stages, and because the federal-law claim has “dropped out of the lawsuit . . . and only [a] state-law claim[] remain[s],” the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Carnegie Melon, 484 U.S. at 350.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED with prejudice as to Plaintiff’s Sherman Act § 1 claim, UCL claim, intentional inference with prospective economic advantage claim, and intentional interference with contract claim as to Client #1. Although, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s intentional interference with contractual relations claim with regard to Client #2, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim given that the

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 21 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*-(-./*012*334%%%56+78$9:%/)%%%3;<$=%->?&-?(/%%%@"A$%&&%6B%&&%%%@"A$%C5%D'(((/ LINK: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 15-01086-BRO (FFMx) Date April 20, 2016 Title LENHOFF ENTERPRISES, INC. V. UNITED TALENT AGENCY, INC. ET AL. sole federal claim has “dropped out of the lawsuit . . . and only [a] state-law claim[] remain[s].” Carnegie Melon, 484 U.S. at 350. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to the extent Plaintiff’s intentional interference with contractual relations claim remains as to Client #2.

IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of rf Preparer

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Page 22 of 22 !"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'(

1 LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) [email protected] 2 AMNON Z. SIEGEL (State Bar No. 234981) [email protected] 3 LAUREN R. WRIGHT (State Bar No. 280809) [email protected] 4 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000 5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4400 6 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400

7 HARRY F. COLE, Pro Hac Vice application to be filed [email protected] 8 FLETCHER, HEALD & HILDRETH, PLC 1300 North 17th St., 11th Floor 9 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 812-0400 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 13

14 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00609 15 AFRICAN AMERICAN-OWNED MEDIA, a California limited liability 16 company; and ENTERTAINMENT COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS STUDIOS NETWORKS, INC., a VIOLATION; FOR DAMAGES; 17 California corporation, AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

18 Plaintiffs,

19 v. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; 21 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, a federal agency; and 22 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

23 Defendants.

25 26 27 28

278989.10 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&

1 Plaintiffs National Association of African American – Owned Media 2 (“NAAAOM”) and Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc. (“Entertainment Studios”) 3 allege claims against Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. (“Charter”), the 4 Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 5 (collectively, “Defendants”) as follows: 6 INTRODUCTION 7 A. Background 8 1. This case is about racial discrimination in contracting for television 9 channel carriage. At the direction of its President and Chief Executive Officer, Tom 10 Rutledge, Defendant Charter Communications has intentionally excluded African 11 American–owned media companies, including Plaintiff Entertainment Studios, from 12 contracting for carriage on its television distribution platform. Rutledge did this 13 himself and by and through his subordinates, including Allan Singer, Senior Vice 14 President of Programming at Charter. 15 2. Entertainment Studios—a 100% African American–owned media 16 company with a portfolio of seven, 24-hour, high definition television networks 17 currently carried by AT&T U-Verse, Verizon Fios and DirecTV, among others—has 18 been attempting to enter into a carriage agreement with Charter for years, to no 19 avail.1 Rutledge has refused to take, or return, any of Entertainment Studios’ calls 20 or to meet with Byron Allen, the African American founder, chairman and CEO of 21 Entertainment Studios. Even when Entertainment Studios implores Rutledge’s 22 underlings to approach Rutledge regarding the launch of Entertainment Studios’ 23 channels on Charter’s television system, Rutledge refuses to consider a possible 24 carriage deal with this African American–owned media company. 25 1 26 A carriage agreement is a contract between a multichannel video programming distributor, such as Charter, and a channel vendor/programmer, such as 27 Entertainment Studios, granting the distributor the right to “carry” (that is, 28 distribute) the programmer’s channels.

278989.10 1 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'=

1 3. Rutledge’s unwavering refusal to negotiate a carriage deal with 2 Entertainment Studios effectively blocks Entertainment Studios’ portfolio of 3 television networks from reaching Charter’s millions of subscribing television 4 viewers. Charter currently provides cable television services to more than four 5 million subscribers and is poised to dramatically increase its television footprint 6 with the acquisition of Time Warner Cable (currently the fourth-largest television 7 distributor in the United States) and Bright House Networks (tenth-largest). 8 4. If these acquisitions go through, Charter will become the third-largest 9 television distributor, and the second-largest cable and broadband internet operator, 10 in the United States with more than seventeen million subscribers. This merged 11 television distributor will be headed up by Rutledge—who is a blatant racist. 12 5. Charter’s merger application is currently pending before the Federal 13 Communications Commission (“FCC”), one of the federal agencies tasked with 14 reviewing the merger to ensure that it will serve the public interest. This public 15 interest evaluation considers a multitude of factors, including whether the proposed 16 merger would promote a diversity of information sources to the public. Needless to 17 say, diversity requires the economic inclusion of African American–owned media 18 companies. 19 6. Diversity is a core concern for FCC merger approval. Indeed, a driving 20 purpose of the Federal Communications Act and the First Amendment is to ensure 21 the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse sources. Yet the FCC 22 has done nothing to protect the voices of African American–owned media 23 companies in the face of increased media consolidation. 24 7. Instead, the FCC works hand-in-hand with these merging television 25 distribution companies to enable and facilitate their Civil Rights violations. The 26 FCC’s apparent standard operating procedure is to obtain and accept sham diversity 27 commitments from merger applicants, in excess of its statutory duties. 28

278989.10 2 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'=

1 8. Unlike a merger condition, these diversity “commitments” are shielded 2 from judicial review under the dubious pretense that the merging parties 3 “volunteered” to them. But, in actual practice, the FCC routinely encourages, and 4 then accepts as reliable, these empty diversity promises in order to ostensibly satisfy 5 the law’s diversity requirements. 6 9. These commitments—whose genesis is, at best, questionable—do 7 nothing to actually protect or promote diversity in the media industry. They merely 8 foster a public impression that the FCC is taking steps to enhance diversity. In 9 reality, these superficial commitments—entered into with non-media, non-channel- 10 owner civil rights groups—harm African American–owned media companies. The 11 FCC’s conduct actually facilitates the economic exclusion African American–owned 12 media companies and supports white ownership using African American “fronts.” 13 10. In this regard, the FCC has violated—and continues to violate— 14 Entertainment Studios’ equal protection rights under the due process clause of the 15 U.S. Constitution. The FCC enables and facilitates Charter’s racial discrimination 16 in contracting, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 17 11. Given Charter’s record of refusing to do business with African 18 American–owned media companies, as detailed herein, Charter’s proposed merger 19 with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks will neither promote diversity 20 nor be in the public interest. Rutledge is now trying to cast Charter as a promoter of 21 diversity, despite his and Charter’s sordid record of refusing to do business with 22 African American–owned media companies. 23 12. Rutledge recently announced that Charter has entered into a 24 memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) with a dozen “multicultural leadership 25 organizations,” including Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, among other 26 non-media civil rights groups. Through the MOU, Charter has made a number of 27 symbolic commitments that it says it will implement upon approval of the merger, 28 including appointing minority members to its presently all-male, all-white Board of

278989.10 3 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'=

1 Directors; appointing a so-called “Chief Diversity Officer”; and enhancing its 2 “involvement and investment” in organizations serving communities of color—i.e., 3 making monetary “contributions”—pay offs—to non-media civil rights groups that 4 support the merger. 5 13. In other words, rather than actually doing business with African 6 American–owned media companies, Rutledge and Charter have chosen to secure 7 merger support by embracing Al Sharpton and other non-media civil rights groups. 8 But Al Sharpton neither owns nor operates a television network. Nor does Sharpton 9 speak for all Black people, and certainly not for all, or any, African American– 10 owned media companies. He is a token, a shill being used by Rutledge, Charter and 11 the FCC. Charter uses Al Sharpton as racial cover, which is far less expensive than 12 doing real business with African American–owned media companies, like 13 Entertainment Studios. 14 14. Sharpton has a well-documented business model and track record of 15 obtaining payments from corporate entities in exchange for his support on “racial 16 issues.” Sharpton can be bought on the cheap. Doing business with real African 17 American–owned media companies requires true economic inclusion for African 18 Americans—something that is unacceptable to Rutledge and Charter. 19 15. Rutledge and Charter’s motives are made evident by the “promises” 20 made in the MOU. Indeed, the MOU’s symbolic commitments do nothing to 21 promote diversity in the media industry. Charter has made no commitment— 22 through the MOU or otherwise—to contract with and thereby ensure true economic 23 inclusion for African American–owned media companies. 24 16. The MOU includes no pledge by Charter to launch African American– 25 owned and operated networks. Rather, Charter states only that it will “expand 26 programming targeting diverse audiences.” But this vague “commitment” does 27 nothing to promote and protect programming from—and economic inclusion of— 28 diverse sources, which is the very heart of the public interest diversity inquiry.

278989.10 4 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%)%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?')

1 17. Charter’s MOU is nothing more than a ploy to garner FCC support for 2 and approval of its merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. In 3 this regard, Charter has taken a page out of a familiar playbook—the same one 4 another cable giant, Comcast, used to gain approval of its 2011 merger with NBC- 5 Universal. 6 18. In the time leading up to its merger, Comcast, too, was criticized for its 7 poor track record in contracting for carriage with minority-owned media companies. 8 To counter the opposition to its merger, Comcast entered into memoranda of 9 understanding with some of the same non-media civil rights groups Charter has now 10 partnered with. Comcast, like Charter, made purely symbolic diversity 11 commitments, without any true intentions of doing business with African 12 American–owned media companies. And, indeed, post-merger, Comcast has 13 flouted its MOU commitments and steadfastly refused to do business with truly 14 African American–owned media companies. 15 B. FCC Futility 16 19. Charter is playing the same game as Comcast. And if the past is any 17 predictor of the future, Charter’s merger is on the path to approval. Just as the FCC, 18 in approving Comcast’s merger, chose to rely on Comcast’s sham diversity 19 commitments in an MOU, so too is the FCC on track to approving Charter’s merger 20 based on the same sham diversity commitments. 21 20. The FCC has established, repeatedly, that it is ready, willing and able to 22 give merger applicants significant credit for making “voluntary” diversity 23 commitments. Through this practice, the FCC has encouraged merger applicants— 24 including Charter—to take that route. The result provides the agency and the 25 merging parties with a “win-win” situation: The FCC can claim that it has secured 26 voluntary concessions (and, thus, can posture itself as a champion of diversity), 27 while the applicants get what they want—i.e., agency approval. 28

278989.10 5 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%:%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?':

1 21. Because of the supposedly “voluntary” nature of the “diversity 2 commitments,” the FCC’s actions in this regard are immune to judicial review. The 3 only losers here are the bona fide African American–owned media companies who 4 are left out in the cold. The FCC is exceeding its statutory duties; this practice 5 violates the law. 6 22. If the FCC approves Charter’s merger and Charter becomes the third- 7 largest television distributor in the United States, Entertainment Studios and other 8 African American–owned media companies will be shut out from Charter’s 9 seventeen million subscribers due to Charter’s racial discrimination in contracting. 10 23. The FCC has done nothing to enforce or investigate Comcast’s blatant 11 violations of the commitments it made in its MOU, signaling to Charter that empty 12 promises and symbolic gestures are all that is required to satisfy the FCC. There is 13 no accountability in the FCC. 14 24. Based on the FCC’s established practice of encouraging merger 15 applicants to enter into sham diversity agreements in order to secure merger 16 approval, the FCC is engaging in extra-legal activity exceeding its statutory duties. 17 It would therefore be futile for Plaintiffs to approach the FCC and seek relief 18 therein. 19 25. Absent court intervention, the FCC will approve Charter’s merger 20 based on its phony MOU, without consideration for Charter’s racially 21 discriminatory policies and practices in contracting for channel carriage, as detailed 22 herein. The FCC is thereby encouraging the racist and discriminatory practices of 23 Charter to continue unabated. 24 C. Racial Discrimination 25 26. Plaintiff Entertainment Studios is a 100% African American–owned 26 media company involved in the production and distribution of television 27 programming through broadcast television, its seven cable television channels and 28 its subscription-based internet service. It is the only 100% African American–

278989.10 6 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'=

1 owned video programming producer and multi-channel operator/owner in the 2 United States. It is a victim of Charter’s racial discrimination in contracting and the 3 FCC’s practice of providing its governmental stamp-of-approval on racial 4 discrimination in the media industry, in violation of law. 5 27. Charter has come up with every excuse in the book to avoid doing 6 business with Entertainment Studios. For example, Charter claimed to have 7 “bandwidth challenges,” but in reality it was reserving all of its bandwidth for other, 8 non-African American-owned networks. It also claimed that it was not launching 9 any new networks “for the foreseeable future,” a statement which has been belied by 10 Charter’s launch of several new channels during the same time period, including (as 11 just one example) white-owned RFD-TV. 12 28. Entertainment Studios was also told by Charter personnel that Charter’s 13 President and CEO, Tom Rutledge, “doesn’t meet with programmers,” and thus they 14 should not reach out to him to discuss a carriage deal. The truth is, Rutledge does 15 not meet with African American–owned programmers, like Entertainment Studios. 16 He has been witnessed meeting with other, white-owned programmers. Rutledge is 17 pulling the strings at Charter and is orchestrating its pretextual excuses for its 18 discriminatory refusal to do business with Entertainment Studios. 19 29. On information and belief, Charter currently spends upwards of $4 20 billion annually to license video programming via channel carriage agreements. Of 21 this, nothing is paid to 100% African American–owned multi-channel media 22 companies. This discrepancy is the result of—and evidences—racial discrimination 23 in contracting, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 24 30. Section 1981 was enacted to eradicate racial discrimination in 25 contracting. It was enacted after the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment 26 eradicating slavery, to outlaw racial discrimination in contracting. Under Rutledge, 27 Charter’s business model is to engage in economic exclusion of African American– 28 owned media companies by “buying” the support of an African American shill

278989.10 7 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%.%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'.

1 (Sharpton) to mask Charter’s racist business practices. This business model 2 completely undermines the purpose and intent of the Civil Rights Act and 3 constitutes unlawful discrimination under § 1981. 4 31. Through this lawsuit, Entertainment Studios and NAAAOM seek to 5 vindicate their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and to enforce their due process rights 6 under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To that end, Plaintiffs seek an 7 order compelling the FCC to discontinue its facilitation of Charter’s racial 8 discrimination in contracting for channel carriage and end the practice of allowing 9 sham MOUs to satisfy diversity requirements. 10 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 D. Plaintiffs 12 32. Plaintiff NAAAOM is a California limited liability company, with its 13 principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 14 33. NAAAOM was created and is working to obtain for African 15 American–Owned media companies the same contracting opportunities as their 16 white counterparts for, among other things, distribution, channel carriage, channel 17 positioning and advertising dollars. Its mission is to secure the economic inclusion 18 of African American–owned media companies in contracting, the same as white- 19 owned media companies. NAAAOM currently has six members. 20 34. Historically, because of the lack of distribution/advertising support and 21 economic exclusion, African American–owned media companies have been forced 22 either to (i) give away significant equity in their enterprises; (ii) pay exorbitant sums 23 for carriage, effectively bankrupting the business; or (iii) go out of business 24 altogether, pushing African American–owned media to the edge of extinction. 25 35. As alleged herein, Entertainment Studios—a member of NAAAOM— 26 is being discriminated against on account of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 27 Entertainment Studios thus has standing to seek redress for such violations in its 28 own right. The interests at stake in this litigation—namely, the right of African

278989.10 8 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(-%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'(-

1 American–owned media companies to make and enforce contracts in the same 2 manner as their white-owned counterparts—are consonant with NAAAOM’s 3 purpose. NAAAOM seeks only injunctive relief, so the individual participation of 4 its members is not required. 5 36. Plaintiff Entertainment Studios Networks, Inc. is a California 6 corporation, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. 7 Entertainment Studios is a 100% African American–owned television production 8 and distribution company. It is the only 100% African American–owned video 9 programming producer and multi-channel operator/owner in the United States. 10 37. Entertainment Studios is a bona fide Minority Business Enterprise as 11 defined by the National Minority Supplier Development Council, Inc. and as 12 adopted by the Southern California Minority Supplier Development Council. 13 38. Entertainment Studios was founded in 1993 by Byron Allen, an African 14 American actor / comedian / media entrepreneur. Allen is the sole owner of 15 Entertainment Studios. Allen first made his mark in the television world in 1979, 16 when he was the youngest comedian ever to appear on “The Tonight Show Starring 17 Johnny Carson.” He thereafter served as the co-host of NBC’s “Real People,” one 18 of the first reality shows on television. Alongside his “on-screen” career, Allen 19 developed a keen understanding of the “behind the scenes” television business. 20 Over the past 22+ years, he has built Entertainment Studios as an independent media 21 company. 22 39. Entertainment Studios has carriage contracts with more than 40 23 television distributors nationwide, including AT&T/DirecTV, VerizonFIOS, 24 Suddenlink, RCN and CenturyLink. These television distributors broadcast 25 Entertainment Studios’ networks to their millions of subscribers. 26 40. Entertainment Studios owns and operates seven high definition 27 television networks (channels), six of which were launched to the public in 2009 and 28 one in 2012. Entertainment Studios produces, owns and distributes over 32

278989.10 9 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%((%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'((

1 television series on broadcast television, with thousands of hours of video 2 programming in its library. Entertainment Studios’ shows have been nominated for, 3 and won, the Emmy award. A copy of an Entertainment Studios promotional 4 presentation highlighting key aspects of the company and the programming it 5 produces is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 41. In December 2012, Entertainment Studios launched “Justice Central,” a 7 24-hour, high definition court/informational channel featuring several Emmy- 8 nominated and Emmy-award winning legal/court shows. After just three years, 9 Justice Central has already proved itself a successful channel, boasting tremendous 10 ratings growth across key television viewing periods and demographics. 11 E. Defendants 12 42. Charter Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its 13 principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. Charter also has an office, is 14 registered to do business and operates in California. Charter is currently the 15 seventh-largest television distribution company in the United States, providing 16 subscription television services to more than four million subscribers. If its merger 17 application goes through, it will become the third-largest television distribution 18 company in this country, with more than seventeen million subscribers. 19 43. The Federal Communications Commission is the federal administrative 20 agency tasked with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, 21 television, wire, satellite and cable. 22 44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that 23 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are individually and/or jointly liable to 24 Plaintiffs for the wrongs alleged herein. The true names and capacities, whether 25 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, 26 inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs sue 27 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, by fictitious names and will amend this 28 Complaint to allege their true names and capacities after they are ascertained.

278989.10 10 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(&%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'(&

1 F. Jurisdiction & Venue 2 45. This case is brought under a federal statute, § 1981 of the Civil Rights 3 Act, and under the Constitution of the United States; as such, there is federal 4 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue of this action is proper in Los 5 Angeles because Charter resides in this district, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391; and 6 the acts in dispute were committed in this district. 7 FACTS 8 A. Racial Discrimination in the Media 9 46. Racial discrimination in contracting is an ongoing practice in the media 10 industry, with far-reaching adverse consequences. It effectively excludes African 11 American–owned media companies and African American individuals—and their 12 diverse viewpoints—from the vast majority of the television viewing audience. 13 47. Major television channel distributors, like Charter, have unique power 14 to limit the viewpoints available in the public media. Channel owners, like 15 Entertainment Studios, are reliant upon the services of television distributors, like 16 Charter, to provide access to their distribution platforms not only to realize 17 subscriber and advertising revenue, but also to reach television consumers 18 themselves. 19 48. Charter has control over television distribution on its distribution 20 platform; its exclusion of African American–owned channels has contributed to the 21 near-extinction of African American ownership in mainstream media, and this 22 exclusion is self-perpetuating. 23 49. There is a statistic that highlights the inequity here: Charter’s President 24 and CEO, Tom Rutledge—the main perpetrator of the discrimination recounted 25 herein—was paid $16.1 million in compensation in 2014 alone, while 100% African 26 American–owned media companies received nothing by way of license fees from 27 Charter. 28

278989.10 11 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'(=

1 50. White-owned media has worked hand-in-hand with governmental 2 regulators to perpetuate the exclusion of truly African American–owned media 3 companies from contracting for channel carriage. This has been done through, 4 among other things, the use of “voluntary” diversity commitments made by merging 5 television distribution companies in order to secure merger approval from the FCC. 6 51. To satisfy their diversity commitments, these merger applicants then 7 use “token fronts” and “window dressing”—African American shills posing as 8 “fronts” or “owners” of so-called “Black cable channels” that are actually majority 9 owned and controlled by white-owned businesses. 10 B. The FCC’s Prior Track Record – Comcast/NBC-Universal Merger 11 52. In connection with its 2010 bid to acquire NBC Universal, television 12 distributor Comcast misled and circumvented the FCC and its diversity requirements 13 by the use of, and through, a sham “diversity” MOU. 14 53. In the time leading up to the merger, Comcast was criticized for its 15 failure to do business with minority-owned media companies, including African 16 American–owned media companies. 17 54. As with Charter’s merger with Time Warner Cable and Bright House 18 Networks, Comcast’s merger was subject to regulatory approval by the FCC. 19 Entertainment Studios and other minority-owned media companies opposed 20 Comcast’s merger bid, publicly criticizing Comcast for its failure to do business 21 with African American–owned media companies. Entertainment Studios urged the 22 FCC to impose merger conditions that would address Comcast’s discriminatory 23 practices in contracting for channel carriage. 24 55. Realizing that its racist practices and policies jeopardized the approval 25 of the NBC-Universal acquisition, Comcast entered into a MOU with non-media 26 civil rights groups, including Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. These non- 27 media civil rights groups are not television channel owners and do not operate in the 28 television channel business.

278989.10 12 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'(=

1 56. Through the MOU, Comcast purported to address the widespread 2 concerns regarding the lack of diversity in channel ownership on its systems by, 3 among other things, committing to launch several new networks with minority 4 ownership and establishing “external Diversity Advisory Councils” to advise 5 Comcast as to its “diversity practices,” including in contracting for carriage. 6 57. In reality, the MOU was a ruse designed to secure merger approval 7 without obligating Comcast to do business with truly African American–owned 8 media companies. And the ruse worked: In 2011, the FCC approved Comcast’s 9 merger with NBC-Universal, emphasizing Comcast’s adherence to the 10 “commitments” it made in the MOUs. 11 58. But the FCC conducted no actual inquiry into Comcast’s 12 discriminatory practices in contracting for channel carriage. The FCC turned a blind 13 eye to Comcast’s racist practices and policies. And the FCC never made any effort 14 whatsoever to follow up as to whether Comcast actually fulfilled its “voluntary 15 commitments,” even in the face of substantial evidence demonstrating that Comcast 16 had violated those commitments entirely. 17 59. Post-merger, Comcast has flouted its MOU commitments. It has not 18 entered into carriage agreements with any truly African American–owned media 19 companies. Rather, the networks Comcast has launched pursuant to the MOU are 20 owned, controlled and backed by white-owned media and money. Comcast gave 21 African American celebrities token ownership interests in those channels to serve as 22 figureheads in order to cover up its racial discrimination in contracting. 23 60. The “external Diversity Advisory Councils” Comcast established are 24 also shams. Not only do the Council members have limited understanding of the 25 television industry and little-to-no experience operating television networks, but 26 Comcast has not given the Council any real authority to “advise” Comcast as to its 27 diversity initiatives in contracting for carriage. Instead, Comcast gave the Council 28 members a standard tour of its offices, and never even asked the members about

278989.10 13 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'(=

1 channel carriage. The Diversity Advisory Councils were nothing more than an 2 empty symbolic gesture to secure merger approval. 3 61. Despite Comcast’s failure to adhere to the diversity commitments it 4 made in the MOUs, the FCC has done nothing to cure Comcast’s violations or 5 otherwise enforce Comcast’s promises of diversity. The FCC has thus signaled to 6 Charter and any other media companies seeking approval of major mergers and 7 acquisitions that empty promises and symbolic gestures are all that is required to 8 satisfy the FCC that a proposed merger will promote diversity and thereby be in the 9 “public interest.” 10 62. There is no accountability imposed by the FCC. “Window dressing” 11 by way of sham “diversity” MOUs is how the FCC operates, and it is happening 12 again here in connection with the proposed Charter merger with Time Warner Cable 13 and Bright House Networks. 14 C. Taking A Play Out of Comcast’s Playbook, Charter Enters Into An 15 MOU With Non-Media Civil Rights Groups 16 63. Recently, Charter’s President and CEO, Tom Rutledge, announced that 17 Charter had entered into a memorandum of understanding with twelve 18 “multicultural leadership organizations”—i.e., non-media civil rights groups— 19 including the National Urban League and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. 20 64. Implementation of Charter’s MOU is contingent upon the approval of 21 Charter’s merger application by the FCC. Rutledge’s motive in entering into the 22 MOU is thus transparent: The pledges made by Charter are designed to facilitate 23 approval of the merger; Charter otherwise has no true intention of increasing 24 diversity or inclusion in its business practices, including with respect to contracting 25 for channel carriage. If the merger falls through, it is business as usual at Charter— 26 i.e., diversity is not on the agenda. 27 65. Charter’s press release regarding the MOU states that the MOU 28 includes “specific steps” that Charter will take, post-merger, including the

278989.10 14 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%()%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'()

1 following: 2 Appointing one African American, one Asian American / Pacific Islander 3 and one Latino American to its board of directors within two years of the 4 close of the transaction; 5 Appointing a so-called “Chief Diversity Officer”; and 6 Expanding “programming targeting diverse audiences.” 7 66. These first two commitments—to add minority members to its board of 8 directors and appoint a “Chief Diversity Officer”—are symbolic, empty promises. 9 They do nothing to enhance diversity of information sources available to Charter’s 10 subscribers, nor to advance diverse ownership or economic inclusion of African 11 American–owned media companies. The fact that, in 2016, Charter does not 12 already have a Diversity Officer indicates that Charter has no interest in diversity. 13 And as a matter of fact, Charter does not even have a woman on its Board of 14 Directors. 15 67. Nor does Charter’s vague commitment to “expand programming 16 targeting diverse audiences” promote diversity in ownership, or economic inclusion 17 of African American–owned media companies, in any real way. Through this 18 pledge, Charter committed only to distributing more programming “targeting” 19 diverse audiences. Charter has made no commitment to actually do business with 20 minority-owned media companies. 21 68. Without a commitment to doing business with minority-owned media 22 companies, there can be no true economic inclusion for such companies in the media 23 industry. Charter’s symbolic commitments to add minority members to its board 24 and appoint a “Chief Diversity Officer” do nothing to protect African American– 25 owned media companies, like Entertainment Studios, from continued economic 26 exclusion by Charter. Post-merger and post-implementation of the MOU, the 27 television content available to Charter’s seventeen million subscribers will continue 28 to be limited by Charter’s racial discrimination in contracting.

278989.10 15 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(:%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'(:

1 D. Charter’s Discriminatory Refusal To Contract With Entertainment 2 Studios 3 69. For over five years, Entertainment Studios has attempted to contract 4 with Charter for carriage of its television channels, to no avail. In fact, Charter’s top 5 programming official, Allan Singer, Senior Vice President, time and again refused 6 to meet with this African American–owned media company to discuss a possible 7 carriage deal, sometimes pushing Entertainment Studios’ meeting requests back by a 8 year or more. 9 70. At Rutledge’s direction, Singer and other Charter executives have 10 given Entertainment Studios multiple, pretextual excuses for why “now” was never 11 the right time to seek carriage. 12 71. For example, in 2011, Entertainment Studios reached out to Charter to 13 discuss a possible carriage deal. Singer told Entertainment Studios they needed to 14 “be a bit patient.” He insisted that they try again “next year” instead. 15 72. When “next year” rolled around, Singer still would not give 16 Entertainment Studios the time of day. In 2012, Singer explained that, again, “now” 17 was not the right time. Speaking on behalf of Charter, Singer stated “we aren’t 18 launching.” As additional excuses, Singer also told Entertainment Studios that 19 Charter’s “bandwidth and operational demands have increased,” such that it did “not 20 have any opportunities for the foreseeable future.” Just as he did in 2011, Singer 21 told Entertainment Studios that a “meeting in 2012 doesn’t make sense.” 22 73. Charter’s pretextual claims that, in 2012, it was not launching any new 23 networks on its system and that it had bandwidth problems are provably false. 24 During this same period, Charter was in negotiations to launch several new white- 25 owned networks on its system. Indeed, in late 2012, Charter publicly announced 26 that it had entered into carriage agreements with, among others, Walt Disney 27 Company (for the Longhorn Network, among others) and Time Warner Cable 28 Sports.

278989.10 16 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'(=

1 74. Charter’s pretextual excuses and refusals to discuss a carriage deal with 2 Entertainment Studios continued into 2013. In 2013, Charter again told 3 Entertainment Studios that it would not launch its networks “for the foreseeable 4 future,” further stating that it would not even allow Entertainment Studios to make 5 “another pitch.” 6 75. According to Singer, Charter did not believe in Entertainment Studios’ 7 “tracking model” because Entertainment Studios’ content not only appears on 8 Entertainment Studios’ channels, but is also sold to other broadcast stations and 9 cable networks. This is yet another made up excuse. Indeed, several white-owned 10 media companies with which Charter has carriage agreements have the same 11 business model—i.e., their content not only appears on their channels but is also 12 sold to other networks. If this business model is satisfactory for these white-owned 13 networks, so too should it be satisfactory for this African American–owned media 14 company. 15 76. Also in 2013, Singer advised Entertainment Studios that Charter would 16 be willing to keep one of Entertainment Studios’ channels, Justice Central, in 17 consideration only for “the next e basic launches”—i.e., the “expanded basic” or 18 second-highest penetrated tier in the industry. After several years of making no 19 progress with Charter, Entertainment Studios was surprised and excited by this 20 potential launch opportunity. 21 77. Entertainment Studios thanked Charter for its consideration of Justice 22 Central as part of its next e basic launches. But this potential launch opportunity 23 was too good to be true. Charter had no true intention of ever doing business with 24 Entertainment Studios. Shockingly, Singer told Entertainment Studios: “I was 25 being facetious. We are never doing e basic launches . . . .” In other words, the 26 only consideration Charter was willing to give to Entertainment Studios was for a 27 service that it never intended to launch or utilize. Singer also stated, “Even if you 28 get support from management in the field, I will not approve the launch of your

278989.10 17 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%(.%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'(.

1 networks.” 2 78. Sensing that it could make no progress through Singer, Entertainment 3 Studios requested a meeting with Charter’s President and CEO, Tom Rutledge. But, 4 again, this avenue for negotiating carriage was thwarted. Singer told ESN that 5 Rutledge “does not meet with programmers.” To the contrary, however, 6 Entertainment Studios witnessed Rutledge meeting with Phillipe Daumann, CEO of 7 Viacom—i.e., a programmer (who is white). 8 79. Thus, on its own initiative, ESN reached out to Rutledge in March 9 2013. Rutledge never even responded. 10 80. Charter’s excuses in 2013 for why Entertainment Studios would not be 11 eligible for a carriage deal “in the foreseeable future” are pretextual. In 2013, it was 12 publicly announced that Charter had entered into a channel carriage agreement with 13 white-owned/controlled RFD-TV, which provides programming focused on rural 14 and western lifestyle issues. 15 81. Despite Charter’s repeated refusals to negotiate for carriage with 16 Entertainment Studios, Entertainment Studios persisted. They reached out again in 17 June 2015. Despite several years of knocking on Charter’s door and countless 18 attempts to set in-person meetings and phone calls to discuss a carriage deal, Singer 19 feigned ignorance in response to Entertainment Studios’ renewed carriage request. 20 82. Singer lied. He claimed that he believed Entertainment Studios was 21 “no longer interested” in obtaining carriage on Charter’s system. Singer further 22 stated that “practice in the industry” dictated that Entertainment Studios “provide a 23 presentation about [its] channels as the first step to considering carriage,” and that 24 he “looked forward to learning more about them.” But Entertainment Studios had 25 already provided information about its channels to Singer on multiple occasions 26 throughout their years-long efforts to obtain carriage with Charter. 27 83. Singer’s comments in this regard were disingenuous. Entertainment 28 Studios at no time stopped seeking carriage on Charter’s system, and Singer had no

278989.10 18 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&-%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&-

1 legitimate basis to believe they were “no longer interested” in a carriage deal. 2 Indeed, Singer often balked at Entertainment Studios’ persistence, telling them that 3 he did not need “another pitch” from the company and that it did not make sense to 4 “meet again” regarding Entertainment Studios’ request carriage. Singer was, once 5 again, just making up excuses to avoid doing business with this African American– 6 owned media company. 7 84. Entertainment Studios called Singer out on his lies and phony excuses. 8 And in doing so, Entertainment Studios copied several FCC commissioners, 9 including Chairman Wheeler, to notify them of Charter’s discriminatory practices in 10 contracting for carriage. In other words, the FCC has already been apprised of 11 Charter’s unfair and discriminatory business practices; hence Charter’s eagerness to 12 “prove” it is now a proponent of diversity in the media industry to get its merger 13 approved. 14 85. Despite Entertainment Studios’ many attempts to reach out to 15 Chairman Wheeler and the FCC to address the rampant racism in the media 16 industry, Chairman Wheeler would not set a meeting with Entertainment Studios 17 founder, chairman and CEO, Byron Allen, or even return his numerous phone calls. 18 86. After Entertainment Studios called Singer out on his lies and excuses, 19 Singer finally agreed to set a meeting with Entertainment Studios in July 2015. 20 87. Entertainment Studios’ team traveled from their office in Los Angeles 21 to Charter’s headquarters in Connecticut, with the understanding that the purpose of 22 the meeting was to negotiate the terms of a carriage deal. But when they arrived, 23 they soon learned that was not the case. Singer dragged Entertainment Studios to 24 Connecticut just so he could say that he met with them and gave them consideration 25 for a carriage deal. But at the meeting, he made clear that Charter would never 26 consider doing business with Byron Allen’s company. 27 88. Once more, Singer gave Entertainment Studios all the excuses in the 28 book. For example, Singer told Entertainment Studios that Rutledge wanted to wait

278989.10 19 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&(%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&(

1 to “see what AT&T does.” But AT&T already carried one of Entertainment 2 Studios’ networks (Justice Central) at the time, and AT&T has since launched 3 Entertainment Studios’ entire portfolio of channels on its television distribution 4 system. Despite this—and despite Charter’s indication that it just wanted to wait to 5 “see what AT&T does”—Charter still refuses to carry any of Entertainment Studios’ 6 channels. 7 89. Charter also told Entertainment Studios that it would have to wait until 8 after the merger was approved to be considered for a carriage deal. According to 9 Charter, until the merger is approved, there are “too many unknowns” to enter into a 10 carriage deal with Entertainment Studios. Singer told Entertainment Studios: “You 11 go back to the line”—i.e., “Get to the back of the bus behind white-owned channels 12 who have carriage.” 13 90. Charter just wanted to postpone the negotiations and lead 14 Entertainment Studios to believe that it had a chance to obtain carriage on its system 15 so that Entertainment Studios would not publicly oppose the merger on the basis of 16 Charter’s racist refusal to do business with African American–owned media 17 companies. 18 91. Charter also continued its mantra regarding limited bandwidth as a 19 pretextual excuse to avoid doing business with Entertainment Studios in 2015. But 20 despite its purported bandwidth limitations, Charter expanded the reach of its 21 distribution of white-owned RFD-TV in 2015, when it began distributing RFD-TV 22 across its entire television footprint—including in major urban cities such as Los 23 Angeles and Atlanta where, presumably, the demand for rural networking is not 24 nearly as high as the demand for the general audience, lifestyle networks offered by 25 Entertainment Studios. More pretext. 26 92. Meanwhile, Singer has ceased returning Entertainment Studios’ calls 27 altogether. 28

278989.10 20 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&&%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&&

1 93. Charter is discriminating against Entertainment Studios on account of 2 race in connection with contracting for carriage in violation of the Civil Rights Act, 3 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Without access to viewers and without licensing fees and 4 advertising revenues from one of the largest video programming distributors in the 5 country, this African American–owned media company is being shut out and 6 severely damaged. 7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 8 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) 9 NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios Against Defendant Charter 10 A. Section 1981 11 94. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each foregoing and 12 subsequent paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 13 95. Charter has engaged in, and is engaging in, pernicious, intentional 14 racial discrimination in contracting, which is illegal under § 1981. Section 1981 is 15 broad, covering “the making, performance, modification, and termination of 16 contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the 17 contractual relationship.” 18 96. African Americans are a protected class under § 1981. Entertainment 19 Studios is a 100% African American–owned media company. 20 97. As alleged herein, Entertainment Studios attempted many times over 21 many years to contract with Charter to carry its channels, but Charter has refused, 22 providing a series of phony, pretextual excuses. Yet Charter has continued to 23 contract with—and make itself available to contract with—similarly situated white- 24 owned television channels. 25 98. Charter has refused to contract with Entertainment Studios for channel 26 carriage. Charter has a pattern and practice of refusing to do business, or offering 27 unequal contracting terms to, African American–owned media companies. 28

278989.10 21 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'&=

1 B. Damages 2 99. But for Charter’s refusal to contract with Entertainment Studios, 3 Entertainment Studios would receive millions of dollars in annual license fees and 4 advertising revenue. Moreover, with distribution on one of the largest television 5 platforms in the nation, the demand for Entertainment Studios’ channels both 6 domestically and internationally would increase, leading to additional growth and 7 revenue for Entertainment Studios’ channels. 8 100. Based on the revenue Entertainment Studios would generate if Charter 9 contracted with them in good faith, Entertainment Studios would be valued at 10 approximately $10 billion. 11 101. Similarly situated lifestyle and entertainment media companies are 12 valued at higher amounts. But for Charter’s refusal to contract with Entertainment 13 Studios, Entertainment Studios would have a higher valuation. 14 102. Accordingly, Charter’s unlawful discrimination has caused 15 Entertainment Studios in excess of $10 billion in damages, according to proof at 16 trial; plus punitive damages for intentional, oppressive and malicious racial 17 discrimination. 18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS 19 UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT 20 NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios Against Defendant FCC 21 103. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate by reference each foregoing and 22 subsequent paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 23 104. Defendant FCC is violating the due process rights of NAAAOM and 24 Entertainment Studios by engaging in a pattern or practice of facilitating economic 25 exclusion of African Americans by encouraging merger applicants to execute sham 26 diversity MOUs in order to secure merger approval. 27 105. The FCC’s pattern of accepting sham commitments to diversity permits 28 television distributors, including Charter, to discriminate as described herein. This

278989.10 22 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'&=

1 amounts to a racially discriminatory practice and procedure. 2 106. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 3 Constitution contains an equal protection component prohibiting the federal 4 government from invidiously discriminating between individuals or groups, 5 including on the basis of race. This constitutional protection applies to actions by 6 governmental agencies such as the FCC, which are required to provide Americans 7 with equal protection of the laws without regard to race, based on the guarantee of 8 liberty in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 9 107. Discrimination based on race by a federal agency such as the FCC is so 10 unjustifiable as to violate constitutional due process. The U.S. Supreme Court has 11 repeatedly invalidated federal actions fostering discrimination in violation of due 12 process clause. 13 108. In this case, the FCC’s pattern and practice of facilitating Charter’s 14 racial discrimination by encouraging and accepting sham “diversity” MOUs, while 15 in fact excluding African Americans from real economic inclusion, provides a 16 federal government stamp of approval on these discriminatory practices. The result 17 is that the FCC is complicit in Charter’s racial discrimination in contracting for 18 channel carriage, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 19 109. Through the FCC’s policy of leading Charter and other television 20 distributors to eschew their commitments to diversity and true economic inclusion 21 of African American–owned media companies by creating a false pretense of racial 22 equality, the FCC denies Entertainment Studios and other African American–owned 23 media companies of the constitutionally required due process guarantee to be free of 24 government sanctioned invidious discrimination. 25 110. The FCC’s encouragement and acceptance of sham MOUs and its “lip 26 service” to African American–owned media companies fosters the false impression 27 that the FCC has taken diversity considerations into account when determining 28 whether a proposed merger is in the “public interest.” This constitutes a pattern or

278989.10 23 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&=%0>%&:%%%;"<$%?/%@'&=

1 practice of invidious discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 2 Constitution. 3 111. The FCC’s established pattern and practice of facilitating 4 discrimination by television distributors, including Charter, happens behind closed 5 doors. There is no formal rule promulgated by the FCC governing this policy and 6 practice, nor is there any recount or record of this policy and practice when the FCC 7 approves a merger. 8 112. As a result, this discriminatory policy and practice by the FCC evades 9 judicial review through traditional channels such as the Administrative Procedure 10 Act. Indeed, nothing further could be gained by waiting for a final agency action, as 11 the FCC’s actions to facilitate discrimination have not and will not appear in any 12 administrative record. 13 113. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for a U.S. 14 constitutional claim against a governmental agency. And based on the FCC’s 15 established practice of pretending to care about racial equality and claiming 16 diversity as an important value, while actually encouraging the economic exclusion 17 of African American–owned media companies, it would be futile for Plaintiffs to 18 approach the FCC to exhaust their administrative remedies. 19 114. Defendant FCC’s violations of the constitutional rights of NAAAOM 20 and Entertainment Studios causes serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to Plaintiffs. 21 Absent relief, the FCC will approve this merger under the façade of diversity and 22 racial equality while being complicit in Charter’s racially discriminatory policies 23 and practices in contracting for channel carriage, thus encouraging the racist and 24 discriminatory practices of Charter and other television distributors to continue 25 unabated. 26 115. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby seek injunctive relief precluding the 27 FCC from utilizing the sham diversity agreements offered by Charter in its 28 regulatory review of the Charter / Time Warner Cable / Bright House merger.

278989.10 24 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&)%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&)

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment, as follows: 3 1. Plaintiff Entertainment Studios prays for compensatory, general and 4 special damages from Charter in excess of $10 billion according to 5 proof at trial; 6 2. Plaintiffs NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios pray for injunctive 7 relief prohibiting Charter from discriminating against African 8 American–owned media companies, including Entertainment Studios, 9 based on race in connection with contracting for channel carriage; 10 3. Plaintiff Entertainment Studios prays for punitive damages, based on 11 oppression and malice, according to Charter’s net worth; 12 4. Plaintiffs NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios pray for injunctive 13 relief that the FCC discontinue its practice of facilitating sham 14 “diversity” agreements/MOUs, including the Charter MOU described 15 herein, and not rely on these agreements in considering whether to 16 approve proposed mergers, including Charter’s proposed acquisition of 17 Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks; 18 5. Plaintiff Entertainment Studios prays for attorneys’ fees, costs and 19 interest; and 20 6. Plaintiffs NAAAOM and Entertainment Studios pray for such other 21 and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 22 23 DATED: January 27, 2016 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 24

25 By: 26 /s/ Louis R. Miller LOUIS R. MILLER 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 28

278989.10 25 COMPLAINT

!"#$%&'()*+,*--)-.%%%/0+12$34%(%%%567$8%-(9&:9()%%%;"<$%&:%0=%&:%%%;"<$%>/%?'&:

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiff Entertainment Studios hereby demands trial by jury pursuant to the 3 Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution on the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 4 claim for damages. 5

6 DATED: January 27, 2016 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 7

8 9 By: /s/ Louis R. Miller 10 LOUIS R. MILLER 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

278989.10 26 COMPLAINT

Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

THR, ESQ.

EXEC SUITE

FEBRUARY 23, 2015 7:29am PT by Eriq Gardner Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

Al Sharpton AP Images/Invision

! " #

The National Association of African-American Owned Media alleges that Sharpton and other advocates have been bought off.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 1 of 7 Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

Even though the FCC hasn't yet ruled on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, one group has already !led a lawsuit claiming at least $20 billion in damages from the way the two giants allegedly discriminate against black-owned media.

The complaint, !led in California on Friday, comes from the National Association of African-American Owned Media, which also !led a similar suit against AT&T and DirecTV in December.

This time, the plaintiff is not only targeting both Comcast and TWC — on the eve of the two companies merging to become what would be the largest pay television distributor in the United States — but also various African-American advocacy groups and MSNBC host Al Sharpton for allegedly facilitating discrimination.

Read more 'American Sniper' Snubbed at 2015 Oscars

Comcast is one of the biggest companies to employ a chief diversity of!cer, and its practices have been lauded by many including Black Enterprise magazine, which recently named it as one of the 40 best companies for diversity. The lawsuit !gures to face many hurdles, from the suf!ciency of its allegations to possibly the First Amendment, but for now it presents a larger portrait of a media company that isn't carrying many fully owned black channels and the dangers of allowing it to grow bigger.

"We do not generally comment on pending litigation, but this complaint represents nothing more than a string of inflammatory, inaccurate, and unsupported allegations," responds Comcast in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 2 of 7 Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

Sharpton tells us that he "welcomes the opportunity to answer the frivolous allegations" and says he will be bringing counterclaims for defamation.

According to the lawsuit, Comcast and TWC "collectively spend approximately $25 billion annually for the licensing of pay- television channels and advertising of their products and services, yet 100% African American–owned media receives less than $3 million per year."

At the time of Comcast's 2010 acquisition of NBCUniversal, Comcast entered into memoranda of understanding with the NAACP, the National Urban League and the National Action Network, but the lawsuit says the voluntary diversity agreements are "a sham, undertaken to whitewash Comcast's discriminatory business practices."

Read more Oscar Voter on Diversity Gripes: Lay Off Us, Al Sharpton! (Guest Column)

The plaintiff objects that the only fully black-owned channel picked up by Comcast is the Africa Channel, and that entity is owned by former Comcast/NBCU exec Paula Madison, who "was directly involved in putting together the sham MOUs and obtaining government approval for the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, thus creating a serious conflict of interest."

Other black channels are said to be "window dressing," with black celebrities as "fronts" when they are "white-owned businesses" that are run by friends or family of Comcast executives.

The lawsuit goes on to say that Comcast made large cash "donations" to obtain support for its acquisition. The money

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 3 of 7 Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

includes $3.8 million to Sharpton and his National Action Network. The money, it's charged, was meant to pay Sharpton to endorse the NBCU deal and divert attention away from discrimination. As for Sharpton's MSNBC gig, the complaint says, "Despite the notoriously low ratings that Sharpton's show generates, Comcast has allowed Sharpton to maintain his hosting position for more than three years in exchange for Sharpton's continued public support for Comcast on issues of diversity."

Sharpton objects that the budget for National Action Network is not even $4 million, and as for his MSNBC show, he believes he has the most successful show in the 6 p.m. hour at MSNBC, that "the numbers speak for themselves." The lawsuit seems to count Sharpton's reported $750,000 annual salary at MSNBC as part of the $3.8 million and leverages past criticism of the noted civil rights leader that's rooted in him allegedly turning an eye and forgoing boycotts and protests on corporations upon receiving monetary contributions to the National Action Network.

As for support to the theory of discrimination in contracting, the lawsuit says Comcast has a "Jim Crow" process with respect to licensing black-owned channels, and that one Comcast exec stated, "We're not trying to create any more Bob Johnsons," referring to the founder of Black Entertainment Television.

The NAAAOM is suing along with Entertainment Studios Networks, which was founded by Byron Allen and now has a television operation with stations like Justice Central that reach 7.5 million consumers through deals with smaller pay TV distributors.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 4 of 7 Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

Representing the plaintiffs are Louis "Skip" Miller at Miller Barondess. The attorney has been a mainstay for many years on The Hollywood Reporter's list of the 100 most powerful lawyers in the entertainment industry. Besides representing clients including Rod Stewart, Steven Tyler, Elton John and Bob Dylan, he also defended the city of Los Angeles in the Rodney King civil rights case.

Read more Why the Comcast-Time Warner Merger Is Bad for Content (Guest Column)

A Comcast spokesperson responds, "We are proud of our outstanding record supporting and fostering diverse programming, including programming from African-American– owned and –controlled cable channels. We currently carry more than 100 networks geared toward diverse audiences, including multiple networks owned or controlled by minorities."

She adds, "Comcast has engaged in good-faith negotiations with this programmer for many years. It is disappointing that they have decided to !le a frivolous lawsuit. We will defend vigorously against the scurrilous allegations in this complaint and fully expect that the court will dismiss them."

The National Action Network also responds.

"National Action Network has not been served with any papers and considers this claim frivolous," says a spokesperson. "If in fact we were to be served, we would gladly defend our relationship with any company as well as to state on the record why we found these discriminatory accusations made by said party to be less than credible and beneath the standards that we engage in."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 5 of 7 Comcast, Al Sharpton Hit With $20 Billion Racial Discrimination Lawsuit | Hollywood Reporter 8/6/16, 5:10 PM

The group adds, "As for Rev. Sharpton's TV show ratings the numbers are clear. Rev. Sharpton's show has the highest ratings of any 6 p.m. show in the history of the network."

Email: [email protected] Twitter: @eriqgardner

!"#$%&'()*+,*-(&./*01*213% 45+67$89%(% :;<$=%-&>&->()% 0"?$%(%5@%A(% 0"?$%B4%C'( !

! 5297:!;*!3755<;!=:>->/!?-@!01*!)A"A"B .CDEE/@FCDEE/@G-@1HI/..*J1C " 63020!K*!:7->/!?-@!01*!#(A+M"B -.D/N/EFCDEE/@G-@1HI/..*J1C # 569;<0!;*!O;7LP8!=:>->/!?-@!01*!#M&M&+B EQ@DNR>FCDEE/@G-@1HI/..*J1C $ 3755<;!?6;20S<::T!554 "+++!6U/HV/!1W!>R/!:>[email protected]!:VD>/!"&&& % 51.!6HN/E/.T!,-EDW1@HD-!+&&$X 8/E/YR1H/Z! =("&B!))#%AA&& & [-J.DCDE/Z! =("&B!))#%MA&&

' 6>>1@H/\.!W1@!4E-DH>DWW.

( !"#$%&'($)$%('&#($*#+$'+,!*$

) +%"$*)-'&#($*#+$',.'+)-#.,*"#)/'0%($%*"'#(#,"

!! !0->D1H-E!6..1JD->D1H!1W!6W@DJ-H% +)(%'",2'34567897:53;< 6C/@DJ-H!2QH/I!3/ID-T!-!,-EDW1@HD- ! !" EDCD>/I!ED-GDED>\!J1CY-H\]!-HI +,=>-)#"$'.,*4 /@>-DHC/H>!:>VID1.!0/>Q1@^.T!7HJ*T!- !# ,-EDW1@HD-!J1@Y1@->D1HT 5?'*)+#)-'&#(+*#=#")$#,"'#" 1#,-)$#,"',.'@3'!2(2+2'A'5DWW.T )"&

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

"##$%&&"'#&($&)*+!#'#&'#&")! ,-./!01* ,23456708

!"#$%&'()*+,*-(&./*01*213% 45+67$89%(% :;<$=%-&>&->()% 0"?$%&%5@%A(% 0"?$%B4%C'& !

! 4E-DH>DWW.!0->D1H-E!6..1JD->D1H!1W!6W@DJ-H%6C/@DJ-H!2QH/I!3/ID-

ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015?dg Page 6 of 7 Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity - LA Times 8/6/16, 5:05 PM

ENTERTAINMENT / ENVELOPE Amid widening outcry, Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity

After the N.W.A biopic "Straight Outta Compton" failed to land a nomination, the academy leadership appears ready to consider returning to a fixed group of 10 nominees. (Jaimie Trueblood / AP)

By Rebecca Keegan and Glenn Whipp • Contact Reporters

JANUARY 22, 2016, 3:00 AM

nder the gun to address a growing controversy about the lack of diversity among Oscar nominees, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is weighing new rules designed to include more U people of color among its membership — and, potentially, the actors and films they choose to honor.

At a closed-door meeting Tuesday night, the academy's 51-member Board of Governors will discuss expanding the number of films in the best picture category to 10 every year and increasing the number of

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-academy-diversity-changes-20160122-story.html Page 1 of 5 Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity - LA Times 8/6/16, 5:05 PM acting nominees in each category.

In addition, the board will consider changing the way the academy invites new members by allowing prospective members to put themselves forward, rather than waiting to be sponsored by current members, according to a person with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic.

#OscarsSoWhite: Full coverage of the boycott and Hollywood's reaction

The measures come in response to the widening outcry over the Academy Award nominations announced last week, in which all 20 people nominated in the acting categories, for the second consecutive year, were white.

But some of the measures are likely to face resistance, according to several academy members, who cautioned against the board moving too quickly in the heat of a crisis.

Former academy president Howard Koch conceded that this year's selections are "not reflecting the truth of our culture and civilization." But Koch added: "What I don't want to see happen is, let's not find a way to increase the number of awards or the number of people so that we can get a diverse person nominated.

"That, to me, is panic. We shouldn't be panicked. We should be saying, hey, this is an industry problem. We need to change it, and we need to do better," he said.

Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs declined to comment. Earlier this week, she issued a statement promising that the organization was making "big changes" and taking "dramatic steps to alter the makeup of our membership."

Her statement followed pledges by director Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith to stay home from the Oscar telecast on Feb. 28 and social-media calls for a boycott of the show. Pinkett Smith's husband, actor Will Smith, announced Thursday that he would not attend the ceremony either.

The academy's decision to take up the issue weeks before its telecast shows how concerned the organization is about the effect of the controversy. Typically the academy waits until spring — months after the telecast — to institute major rule changes, but this year's nominees have provoked an uproar that threatens the image and the financial health of the organization.

If a boycott gains traction and hurts TV ratings for the show, it could affect the future sales of TV rights,

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-academy-diversity-changes-20160122-story.html Page 2 of 5 Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity - LA Times 8/6/16, 5:05 PM which constitute the academy's primary source of revenue.

2016 awards season database: Search all of the nominees and winners

For the last three years, the awards body has been in the midst of a push for more diversity, inviting larger and demographically broader groups to join its 6,261 voting members. In November, Boone Isaacs announced a new initiative, called A2020, intended to diversify the staff of the organization.

But given the size of the academy — and the fact that its members, mostly older white men, have lifetime tenure — any change to the organization's overall demographics will come slowly.

Another, far less likely change the board could make at Tuesday's meeting would be to cull its rolls of members who haven't actively worked in the film industry for a period of several years, which was the approach then-academy President Gregory Peck took in 1970 in response to criticism that the organization was out of touch with changes in the industry.

Since the board itself includes some members who have not been active in film for more than a decade, it's unlikely they would push for such a measure, and, indeed, to do so would inspire outrage, and potentially lawsuits, among many longtime academy members.

Pushing inactive academy members out of the institution would be difficult in part because members receive a wide variety of perks, including meet-and-greets with Oscar nominees and DVD screeners of films before they are released to the general public.

"Nobody wants to give up their free screeners," academy member and producer Lucy Fisher, a former executive at Columbia TriStar and Warner Bros., said at a panel discussion on diversity at Bloomberg's Century City offices this week, drawing laughs from the crowd.

Last year, when the academy nominated an all-white group of actors, passing over a critically praised performance by David Oyelowo in "Selma," it inspired the trending social media hashtag #OscarsSoWhite. But awards watchers said much of the blame belonged with the studios greenlighting films, which had given minority actors precious few roles to begin with.

This year, when the academy failed to nominate "Straight Outta Compton" for best picture, and overlooked performances by black actors including Idris Elba, Smith, Samuel L. Jackson and Michael B. Jordan, the controversy heightened, with some activists calling for Oscars host Chris Rock to step away from his duties. Boone Isaacs, in a statement, described herself as "heartbroken and frustrated by the lack of inclusion."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-academy-diversity-changes-20160122-story.html Page 3 of 5 Academy of Motion Pictures may change its rules for more diversity - LA Times 8/6/16, 5:05 PM

If the academy changes the way the best picture nominees are determined, it would mark a decided shift from the feeling, just 10 months ago, when the group was considering constricting the category to five nominees again, the standard in place from 1944 to 2008.

But after the N.W.A biopic "Straight Outta Compton" failed to land a nomination, the academy leadership appears ready to consider returning to a fixed group of 10 nominees, the method used in 2009 and 2010.

Several academy members, speaking on condition of anonymity, echoed Koch's sentiment, saying they were concerned the organization was moving too hastily.

"It's a knee-jerk response to this year's #OscarsSoWhite controversy that, if enacted, won't necessarily solve anything other than the academy's current public relations disaster," says one academy member who, because of the sensitive nature of the issue, asked not to be identified.

The best picture nominees are currently determined by a preferential balloting system. The voting academy members are asked to list up to five movies and rank them in order of preference. To earn a nomination, a movie must be one of the top choices of at least 5% of the voters.

First-place votes (commonly referred to as "passion votes" by Oscars campaign consultants) matter greatly because this is where the dozen or so PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants initially look when tabulating the ballots.

Many academy members believe that the system favors independent dramas like "Room" or "Brooklyn" at the expense of popular commercial fare like "Straight Outta Compton," a movie that some awards consultants believe showed up as the No. 4 or 5 movie on a great many ballots but lacked the ardent support of voters who would put it at No. 1.

Another option would be to make sure academy members really are watching the films they have access to.

"That's the really dark underbelly because there's no follow-up about that," said acting branch member Jennifer Warren, who is also chair of the Alliance of Women Directors.

"If [the academy] put pressure on their members to ask if they've seen all the films that should be in the running … and they had to be slightly embarrassed when they said they'd only seen certain ones, I think that would help. I really think that if all the academy members had seen [films like 'Compton' and 'Creed'], those nominations would be there."

Times staff writers Josh Rottenberg and John Corrigan contributed to this report.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/la-et-mn-academy-diversity-changes-20160122-story.html Page 4 of 5 Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity - The New York Times 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

http://nyti.ms/1V9JWGF

MEDIA Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity

By MICHAEL CIEPLY JAN. 20, 2016 LOS ANGELES — The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is expected to announce as early as next week measures aimed at making its Oscar choices more diverse, people briefed on the matter said Wednesday.

The talk of possible changes follows calls to boycott this year’s Academy Awards ceremony after no minority actors were nominated for a second consecutive year, and “Straight Outta Compton” and other black-themed contenders were not among the eight nominees for best picture.

One of the likeliest quick changes would be an immediate return to a 10-film field of best picture nominees, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality strictures. That was the case in 2010 and 2011, but it would not guarantee more range in the films nominated. Only “The Blind Side,” which featured a young black actor, Quinton Aaron, and “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire,” could make a serious claim to ethnic diversity among the best picture nominees in those years.

A less likely adjustment — but one that has been floated internally by some at the academy in recent days — might also open the acting categories to a larger group of nominees, say, eight or even 10.

Expanding the acting nominations could result in more black, Hispanic or

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/ﬁlm-academy-under-ﬁre-is-expected-to-take-steps-to-improve-oscar-diversity.html Page 1 of 4 Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity - The New York Times 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

Asian contenders, though it would certainly rile those who regard the five-nominee system, in place since the 1930s, as sacrosanct.

Also possible is a requirement that academy members cast a ballot regularly, or lose voting privileges temporarily. It was not immediately clear how a use-it-or- lose-it provision would change the voting.

No firm plan to change voting methods, or possibly the membership process, is likely before a meeting of the academy’s 51-member governing board on Tuesday, according to the people briefed on the matter.

But officers and executives of the academy have been scrambling to find changes that might broaden the nominees next year, even as they wait for a push for diversity to substantially change a voting base that in the past was heavily white, older and male. The academy’s membership is made up of more than 6,000 movie professionals from around the world. Invitations to join are extended annually based on achievement and other contributions to the industry.

In a statement on Monday the group’s president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, pointed toward “dramatic steps” and an immediate review of how members are recruited.

An academy spokeswoman declined to discuss the expected steps.

But a larger best picture field might have opened the door this year to “Straight Outta Compton” or “Creed.” The current nominating system, in which voters are asked to list five films in order of preference and then the field is winnowed to a group that can vary from five to 10 movies, based on intensity of support, may also have played a role.

Some academy insiders have long urged that Dawn Hudson, the group’s chief executive, and Ms. Isaacs, its elected president — both of whom have been pressing for more diversity — consider stronger measures to bar from voting those members who have not been active in the film industry for a certain period, say 10 or 20 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/ﬁlm-academy-under-ﬁre-is-expected-to-take-steps-to-improve-oscar-diversity.html Page 2 of 4 Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity - The New York Times 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

But such a move would inevitably meet fierce resistance, and does not appear likely at Tuesday’s meeting, which is a regularly scheduled session. Some academy members privately suggested this week that any move to ditch the older members’ votes might provoke a class-action lawsuit.

An unsettling possibility remains, notwithstanding any changes: Next year the academy may have to choose from an even slimmer field of ethnically diverse contenders, as some of the most prominent black stars and filmmakers turn toward less-obvious awards bets, or television.

For instance, Ryan Coogler, who directed “Creed” — and was not nominated — has been lined up as the director of Marvel’s “Black Panther,” and Ava DuVernay, who directed “Selma,” a nominee for best picture but not best director last year, is working on a television series, “Queen Sugar.”

Whatever emerges from Tuesday’s meeting, the academy’s staff, governors and officers alike have been aware of a need for immediate action, if they are to head off damage to a show set for broadcast on Feb. 28 by ABC.

Though there have been calls for a boycott, and Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett- Smith have both said they intend to avoid the show, Chris Rock has so far remained committed to hosting the ceremony.

While the boycott movement remains short of a showstopper, academy associates have been working feverishly to defuse the controversy, and perhaps to include some of those who were not nominated — one person being courted to appear is Ms. Pinkett Smith’s husband, Will Smith, overlooked for his role in “Concussion.”

Whether Mr. Smith will appear, on stage or off, on Oscar night is unclear. But race will certainly be front-and-center among the topics that Mr. Rock, a comedian who does not shy away from much, cannot avoid.

Correction: January 23, 2016 An article on Thursday about efforts by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/ﬁlm-academy-under-ﬁre-is-expected-to-take-steps-to-improve-oscar-diversity.html Page 3 of 4 Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity - The New York Times 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

Sciences to make its Oscar nominees more diverse misspelled the surname of an actor featured in “The Blind Side,” a film about a homeless black teenager that was nominated for best picture in 2010. He is Quinton Aaron, not Aron. A version of this article appears in print on January 21, 2016, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Film Academy, Under Fire, Is Expected to Take Steps to Improve Oscar Diversity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/business/media/ﬁlm-academy-under-ﬁre-is-expected-to-take-steps-to-improve-oscar-diversity.html Page 4 of 4 Oscars organizers invite new members in diversity push | Reuters 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

EDITION: UNITED STATES SIGN IN

World | Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:49pm EDT Related: U.S., ENTERTAINMENT, FILM Oscars organizers invite new members in diversity push

LOS ANGELES | BY PIYA SINHA-ROY

BREAKINGVIEWS

Wal-Mart has long unicorn ride in Amazon chase

Organizers of the Oscars, facing an outcry over the lack of diversity on its voting board for the film awards, said on Wednesday it has invited nearly 700 new members with a focus on female and minority talent.

Actors Idris Elba, America Ferrera, Oscar Isaac, John Boyega, Eva Mendes and this year's Best Actress Oscar winner Brie Larson were among the 683 potential new members, the academy said in a statement.

Forty-six percent of those invited are female and 41 percent are people of color, aged 24 to 91, said the organization, whose members also include directors, producers, cinematographers and composers. RIO OLYMPICS OPENING CEREMONY

"This class continues our long-term commitment to welcoming extraordinary talent reflective of those working in film today," Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs said in the statement.

"We encourage the larger creative community to open its doors wider, and create opportunities for anyone interested in working in this incredible and storied industry."

All 20 acting Oscar nominees this year were white for a second consecutive year, prompting criticism with the online hashtag #OscarsSoWhite. Oscars host Chris Rock provided biting commentary during the awards show, which was boycotted by director PHOTOS OF THE WEEK

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ﬁlm-oscars-diversity-idUSKCN0ZF2RG Page 1 of 4 Oscars organizers invite new members in diversity push | Reuters 8/6/16, 5:06 PM

Spike Lee and actress Jada Pinkett Smith.

The largely white, male and older roster of film industry professionals who belong to the academy has long been cited as a barrier to racial and gender equality at the Oscars.

The organization responded by announcing a sweeping affirmative action program, pledging to double female and minority membership by 2020.

The potential new members would boost the academy's female roster to 27 percent from

25 percent last year, Business it said. People Markets of color World would Politics make upTech 11 percent Commentary of the totalBreakingviews voting Money Rio 2016 body, up from 8 percent in 2015. TRENDING ON REUTERS

If all 683 invited professionals join, the academy would have 7,789 members, it added. Fire kills 13 in bar in northern French town 1 The academy has also introduced new membership rules to help diversify its makeup by As Turkey's coup strains ties with West, stripping some older members of voting privileges. detente with Russia gathers pace 2

Under the new rules, lifetime voting rights would be conferred only on academy members Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to less who remain active in the film industry over three 10-year terms, or have won or been than three points: Reuters/Ipsos poll 3 nominated for an Oscar. Singapore calls for vigilance after 'rocket attack' plot foiled 4 (Reporting by Piya Sinha-Roy; Editing by Richard Chang)

Islamic State 'almost completely' ousted from Syria's Manbij city: Observatory 5

Patents & Entrepreneurial Universities Measuring and evaluating academic innovation

> Demonstrating Impact to Funders

> Understanding your University's Rankings

> Highly Cited Researchers: Mazen Omar Hasna

Sponsored Financial Content (?) 2 of 2 Actor Idris Elba arrives at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute Gala (Met Gala) to 1 of 2 celebrate the opening of 'Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology' in the Manhattan Asia300 - News and Analysis On Listed borough of New York, May 2, 2016. Philippine Companies Nikkei Asian Review REUTERS/LUCAS JACKSON Take our survey and win a free strategy consultation Editions Financial

Expert financial and political views on Latin America MarketViews

Top 10 reasons to invest in income MarketViews More from Reuters Weekly update on the financial markets Ship hits wall of MarketViews Panama Canal, renews design concerns | 26 Jul

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ﬁlm-oscars-diversity-idUSKCN0ZF2RG Page 2 of 4