Television and the public image of social workers: portrayal or betrayal?

The start of the new millennium brought with it three prime-time television series featuring social workers, the latest of which to debut in the winter of 2001 was Kate Brasher. Was this a sign of greater public awareness of the essential role of social workers? Would this newest series provide a more accurate and flattering portrayal of social workers than other television shows? Unfortunately, the answer was "no" to both questions. The power of the media to mold public images is well established (see, for example, Best, 1995; Chaffee & Frank, 1996; Hiebert, 1999; Zaller, 1992). The focus here is on one source of image-making--television. Television has high impact and rapid message delivery (Andreasen, 1995). A study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA, 2001) for the Council for Excellence in Government, for example, found that the vision of elected officials and civil servants as inept (if not corrupt), which had been promulgated and reinforced on prime-time television has undergone a metamorphosis. With new series, particularly The West Wing, government workers are now portrayed--and thus increasingly viewed by the public--as dedicated, sensitive, competent people (de Moraes, 2001; Jurkowitz, 2001). If only this were the case for social workers, who could use a boost in public image. Television's Recent Portrayal of Social Workers In the latest, but short-lived, social work entry into prime time, promotions billed the key character, Kate Brasher, as a "single mother, social worker, everyday hero. " "She fights hard for the underdog . because she is one" (as described in that authoritative source of television lore . the TV Guide, 2001). Who was this superwoman of social work? A woman who did not complete high school. Her credentials included experience as a waitress. She landed a job simply by visiting a community center in search of assistance with a personal problem. There she confronted a professional staff (including an attorney and a director whose profession remains a mystery) who were rude and overbearing (albeit eventually capable of displaying humanity), and their personal issues and agenda were worn on their sleeves. Open personnel recruitment, selection, and training were simply nonexistent in this community center. To get hired, one apparently had to walk through the door at the right time. Kate, our social worker, however, was a dedicated mother, conscientious, and possessed other positive virtues, such as the ability to listen well and to mobilize others and advocate on the "case" and "cause" level. These characteristics were in contrast to those of Norm, her colleague on another network. The CMPA (2001) concluded that Norm represented the most negative portrayal of a civil servant to appear on television. His training was as a hockey player. His employment in social services was involuntary; it was either community service or jail for tax fraud (Collis, 2000; Gates, 1999; Gibelman, 2000). Although social workers walked the picket line to protest the profession's outrage about the portrayal of Norm as a social worker ("Members say 'Norm Show' mocks real ethical norms," 1999), we should be getting the message: Television is not kind to social workers. NASW recognized and applauded Tyne Daly's portrayal of a social worker, Maxine Gray, on the series Judging Amy ("Tyne Daly wows," 2001). However, the accolades ate deserved not in an absolute sense, but relative to the consistently negative images that have typified television social work characters. Whereas the character Maxine Gray is certainly a refreshing contrast to that of Norm, she is not the vision of professionalism. First, we know nothing about her training. Does she hold a BSW or MSW? Is she licensed? Have we ever heard reference to her participation in continuing education? Her behavior often pushes the boundaries of ethical practice. She engages in insubordination frequently. …