Television Enters The Pediatric Ward

This opinion piece in the Washington Post on the television show “Red Band Society” got me thinking.  I have the same chronic illness as the author of the article and can attest that there is nothing glamorous about a young person who is sick and in pain. The new television show is about a group of sick children and their time bonding in the hospital.  Now the question I have is what is the show writers’ responsibility in this situation? A writer cannot accurately represent the life of every sick child because each child’s story is unique, even if there are some shared experiences.  During my own time in the hospital I was woken up every night because my roommate was unable to keep any food in her system.  Bodily excrements do not make for enjoyable television, however.  Should a show not try to represent illness if it can’t show every horrific part of it? 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/foxs-hospital-dramedy-red-band-719853

The small screen does not necessarily shy away from difficult topics. Many television shows deal with addiction, many shows deal with teen pregnancy, and every single fictional television show I have ever watched has dealt with death.  Death is an inevitable part of the human experience and because of that it does not necessarily need to be approached as carefully in fiction.  People have to be desensitized to death to survive in this world and so death is a subject that is tackled even in comedies. Sometimes an audience needs to laugh about a topic that is normally serious. Can the same be said about hospitalized children? What one viewer might find hurtful another could find relatable and inspiring. Is it a good thing to illustrate the lives of patients in a hospital or does an inaccurate portrayal do more harm than good. I honestly do not know how I feel about “Red Band Society” but I am interested to see how audiences respond to it and what the reaction will be amongst the demographic the show is trying to depict.

Let's Talk Politics at the Dinner Table

Conflict Kitchen, a restaurant in Pittsburgh, changes it's entire menu and theme every six months.  This restaurant "only serves food from countries with which the United States is in conflict." The current menu features food from Venezuela and past iterations have focused on Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Afghanistan. Founders Dawn Weleski and Jon Rubin realized that there were no restaurants in Pittsburgh serving food from countries that the United States was fighting with and they sought to fill that void. The idea of making a profit based on conflicts between the United States and other nations initially appears insensitive. Conflict Kitchen, however, does more than just serve food, it seeks to inspire conversation and debate.  

http://conflictkitchen.org/photos/

To get a job as a server you must be capable of "interacting with our customers on topics related to our country of focus. A keen interest in international politics, food, and culture is mandatory." Conflict Kitchen hosts many events "that seek to expand the engagement the public has with the culture, politics, and issues at stake within the focus country." An article in "The Daily Beast," focuses on a particular event called "The Two Koreas" in which food from North and South Korea was served. At the event "diners were divided by a culinary border but still allowed to converse and share the meal that was assigned to them." Careful thought goes in to the items on the menu to make sure that the food is accessible and appealing to an American audience while still being authentic to the chosen country. Wrappers might feature news articles or interviews from the current focus country.  

http://conflictkitchen.org/photos/

I have always viewed food as a universally uniting factor, something that connects people across different cultures and around the world.  What better way to make a foreign country more accessible, it's culture less "other," it's citizens more human, than by offering people an actual taste of their cuisine?