Please read the assigned articles for today. Next I want you to think deeply and respond to the following questions. Is the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not? One race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree? As you make your argument, use examples as necessary. Finally, we will explore the idea of "representation" in our class discussion. Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
Due: Oct. 21 at 5 p.m.
Warning: I'm about to sound like a horrible person.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of things that I take issue with in the conducting of the study on All in the Family.
First, in it, they hypothesize that those who agree with Archie are more likely to watch it longer. Well, I just pulled an episode up on YouTube and watched it. If the theory they are postulating is 'it's entertaining to watch people of your own viewpoint', then non-prejudiced people could be just as entertained. Here's why: 10 The son-in-law is constantly yelling about his opposing views and 20 in the end of every episode Archie's diabolical plans get dashed somehow to the victory of his enemies. That righteous justice is just as frequent as the bigoted statements of Archie. If you're going to say people watch it to match their own views, that needs to be taken into consideration.
Next, it's not very scientific to label one of your sections "All too many viewers saw nothing wrong with...". Unless this research was intended to be an opinion piece, that kind of judgement call is out of place here.
In addition, the article really doesn't take into consideration any explanation for the answers of its subjects. The survey question asks, "Which character... do you admire more?" To 'identify' with a character (as the article put it) doesn't necessarily mean you agree with them. By this I mean that the opposition character to Archie, Mike, was HIGHLY OBNOXIOUS as was his wife- even if they were right! They were unrelenting, unforgiving, negative, and are constantly disgusted with everything around them. Who would want to identify with that? Archie on the other hand was given all of the laugh-lines. He was married to a sweet (but simple) wife who adored him and Archie had made a life for himself; he was out of school, owned the home, supporting all the other characters with his blue-collar job.
But based on the following question in the survey, "Whose arguments make more sense" it shouldn't be a shock at all to see such a low agreement with Archie.
And does it bother anyone else that the Canadian counterpart was constantly not significant?
Another issue- I think it would have been a major help to know if high prejudiced subjects felt unique in their opinions. If they believed "All in the Family" was RARE in showcasing an agreement to their opinions, then they would be more prone to watching it. Just as far right conservatives like listening to the outraged Mark Levin commentator on the radio- because it's rare.
Finally, their conclusions are made with a very broad brush. They say, "many persons did not see the program as a satire on bigotry". Many persons? Really? They also did not test for effectiveness on the opinions of the subjects. Asking if they felt the use of racial slurs doesn't accurately define a person's personal habits any more than people who don't believe in PC language. And frankly that has to be taken into account because obviously the FCC at the time didn't ban any of those terms. So what was the common stance at the time? Are we building this study based on the idea that people are bigots and this may feed their habits?
Frankly, looking at the data they pulled, I believe their conclusions are wonky.
I promise I'll answer the real question to the blog post soon. I just had to get this out there.
Casey I agree with you on the part of Mike. I feel like normal people may have liked the show because there were two "extremes" involved. I have seen the show many times. Dont agree with Archie but I dont agree with Mike either. I think a lot of people laughed because they knew there were people like that. And maybe even taking into some third person perception, maybe some people felt Archie may be like that but Im not that prejudiced. Anyway indentifying with Mike isnt always easier like you point out
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI want to answer this starting with the following question- Is white-washing racist? The answer to that question would be equivalent to whether or not Hollywood is racist because Yes, Hollywood white-washes like they got tricked by Tom Sawyer.
ReplyDeleteI also have to mention that this semester I am teaching the Issues in Global Communications and have spent a significant amount of time recently researching how powerful the "Big 6" media companies of America (including Hollywood) disseminate to the rest of the world as well as how foreign media agencies handle their own international media. My conclusion is- yes, they are all biased.
Countries outside the United States with much longer histories than America's have an invested interest in maintaining their own culture. In fact, a lot of money gets poured into the industries by the government to ensure their own ethnicity and culture is preserved. China for example only allows 32 movies made in America to be shown a year so that local cinema can compete. America on the other hand, doesn't have that hang up. Their focus is on profits and their white-washing media is living proof of it. I speak specifically to the white-washing as it applies to Asians (more on that later).
Do TV and Movie companies present a white-centric perspective? Ab-so-friggin-lutle-ly. For 2 major reasons, first- profit. Even Bruce Lee when he was spilling blood pounding pavement to make his mark in the industry said he understood why no one wanted an asian in a lead role- for the same reasons China wouldn't cast a European; the audience wouldn't connect with a hero from a foreign culture. The second reason is that the makers of these films cannot escape their own reality. The truth of who makes these films? White people. And it is exemplified all the time in media, it's a huge reflection on the people who create it. For a long time I was researching a controversy about the decreasing quality of Disney movies (the children represented were less and less realistic) blaming the artists and creators employed at Disney for becoming increasingly homosexual. I don't say that to be mean, but in fact I worked for Disney Studios and it's not an understatement. But that may be due in part to the fact that they are located in Burbank California, one of the most liberal-left cities in the United States right next to Hollywood which houses a huge section of homosexual people in America. It would be naive to think the location of the studios don't play a major role. Similarly, ABC (which Disney owns) is right across the street. ABC is notorious for developing television shows with similar far-left views like Seventh-Heaven, The Real Life of the American Teenager, ect.
However, there is also a nitch factor that needs to be addressed specifically in the form of AfricanAmerican-centric TV and Movies. By way of example- BET Channel and the Tyler Perry movies. It might be said that these creations are catering to a different audience than whites, but it still plays to the idea that having a significantly black cast would not appeal to a general American audience. I'm certainly not going to make conclusions about why this model is the one that Hollywood believes makes them money. But it happens to be true.
"Like they got tricked by Tom Sawyer," Bah ha ha. Also, relevant since Tom Sawyer is getting banned by so many schools for its racist lingo.
DeleteI am in agreeance with Miss Casey! I am glad you brought up the "nitch" factor thing -- I have been thinking of that a lot with the new drama "Empire" on fox that has apparently broken all expectations and has been a roaring success, and consists of a black cast. Because it is on a mainstream network, I wonder what the overall impact will be with such an amazing success. Or maybe it won't make anybody change ever. #theytried
DeleteNow, I'd like to present a series of examples in which Hollywood has determined it was in their best interest to deliberately re-write or re-cast a character intended (or in reality was) Asian: *Ahem*
ReplyDelete- The Last Airbender
- Dragon Ball Evolution
- 21
- Pan (The latest one in theaters now)
- Breakfast at Tiffany's
- The Departed (shot for shot remake of Infernal Affairs)
- The Lone Ranger
- 47 Ronin
- And does Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift count?
These are the films I can just name off the top of my head.
Examples I had to look up include: Ghost in the Shell, Akira, Firefly, Power Rangers, Hunger Games, The Weapon, Star Trek ect.
So the question posed in the blog asks if certain ethnicities should be shown even if it's in a negative light or let only a few good examples come out?
Addressing specifically American media; they have the luxury to do both. Hollywood is not on a quest to maintain their own culture. I'll use a specific example from the list above, Pan. The movie Pan cast a blonde woman in the role of Tiger Lily (the main love interest in this film) who is normally Native American. From what I read, they claimed they did it so her "tribe" was less defined by a nationality as it was a community "family". Personal experience says to me that they were much more afraid of law-suits and the PC police coming after them for every move they made in representing a Native American and so just hired a famous white lady. So when we talk about what should be happening, the issue may depend on a large degree to what they are willing to risk. Frankly, Hollywood is erring on the side of showing none rather than make a false move. As far as I'm concerned, they need to be far more concerned about CONTENT than the packaging. Case in point with this Pan movie: Tiger Lily CAN'T be white or the story falls apart. Tiger Lily's role in the original story is to play as a foil against the distinctly european charms of Wendy. Tiger Lily represents the exotic, otherworldly, wild nature of Neverland which stands in opposition to the linear streets and polite manners of London. If Tiger Lilly is cast as a blonde woman, the character's appeal and purpose is literally reduced to zero. Perhaps that's why the movie is tanking in the box office. (Side note, guess who produced it? You got it- Disney). So as to the question of which is better, an accurate and purposeful use of ethnicity would far out-weigh the benefits gained by misusing any culture in large proportion.
Shows like "Off the Boat" are trying to appeal to an Asian American audience in the same way that BET is created for their ethnic segment. The problem is, the characters are not being well represented. They're just throwing out poorly produced media to appease a selection of underrepresented people... the rub is, poor quality entertainment rubbed the demographic the wrong way and now they have decided to go and represent themselves. It's because of that movement in the nation today that has inspired me to write a paper on Asian American YouTube Stars (NigaHiga, KevJumba, OffTheGreatWall, CheasterSee, WongFu Productions (again, off the top of my head)). Having been rejected by the mainstream, this Asian American community is dominating the independent circuit online. By their actions, they are answering the question posed here perfectly- No, they would rather be represented well than just as the token Asian Guy. (For example as in 21, Oceans 11, Expendables, The Matrix, Star Wars, ect ect ect)
Please read the assigned articles for today. Next I want you to think deeply and respond to the following questions. Is the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteYes: and reasons that came to my mind are:
1) Some directors are actively racist and want to present racist ideas (Mel Gibson, and Spike Lee come to mind).
2) Some directors are pressured into, or fall into the trap of, using stereotypes in order to convey messages clearly within very short time ranges.
3) Some inherit director styles from whoever taught it to them/traditions of cinema trade. For example when you have a woman director using the old present-a-woman-from-the-feet-up camera move. That's an inherently male perspective camera move, and yet we see heterosexual female directors use it because that's what they were taught.
4) Limited schema by the directors - I was thinking of my undergrad roommates who didn't think asian guys were attractive compared to myself who absolutely believed there were loads of attractive asian guys. What was the difference between us? My exposure- they were raised here with very limited opportunities to interact with asian men, where I had just come from a Northern Californian college where asians where the majority of the students. I had plenty of first hand experience getting successfully flirted with by asian guys, where as that just didn't exist for them. So, if we had been asked to cast a romantic lead - I would inherently be more likely to cast an Asian guy because that was well within my schema. My roommates, on the other hand, wouldn't. Not that they were actively racist against asians, but it just wouldn't be in there schema to think of an asian guy that way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe representation question is difficult, but I think a full range of positive and negative is good. I think most viewers can tell when minorities are being presented as overly-lovable, and it feels false, and pandering...but we have a PC police difficulty where if a minority is presented in not a positive light, the creators will get attacked as some sort of "ist" and there's a spiral of silence effect happening that is leading to directors still presenting one-dimensional minority figures, or the directors just default to using average white guys to simply not have to deal with all of that.
ReplyDeleteIs the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteDetermining whether or not media is racist or sexist is quite subjective, and as with all questions posted on this blog, has no black and white answer (no pun intended, but appreciated). Media reflects a lot of what already happens culturally -- it relies on traditional “stock” characters to tell a quicker, more understandable story (i.e. Germans as villains, Mom as a homemaker, etc). The argument could be brought up that perhaps society follows what is portrayed in media -- but if we are going back to the very beginnings of TV in society -- society had its own racist and sexist practices much before TV came. In fact, I would argue that in comparison with many “normal” citizens of the U.S., TV portrays a more liberal lifestyle, one that can be seen reflected in many LDS teens that are being socialized by television and social media.
I have become increasingly aware of media outlets and their reflections of racism and sexism; indeed, many of my red flags of racism or sexism are seen prevalently on TV. For instance, I recently watched Inside Out, the new Disney-Pixar movie, and was again surprised that they had chosen a white girl and her perfect family to be the protagonists -- Mom stayed home, Dad worked, that sort of thing. There were a few minority characters, but all of the lead characters seemed to reflect white stereotypes and white ideals. In Disney’s defense, perhaps they were just trying to have an identifiable main character -- according to movieguide.org, 58% of movie tickets in 2011 were sold to whites -- with a few minority groups making up for the other 42%. Based on these numbers, I assume that more whites are watching Disney movies. As with the Archie Bunker example, Disney has made some changes in their movie and media casting that probably have changed some ideals of race and sex. They have black, chinese and native american princesses! But the biggest argument of all: Disney is not necessarily being racist if they cast a white character. Nothing has been explicitly mentioned about it to make anyone think otherwise...right?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBut I do! Read my post. I dare Disney to portray a regular Mexican American as a main character. I dare them!! They even made the people on the Emperor's new grove too light skinned for what they should have been. But for aladdin they didnt...hmmm
DeleteNice work with the black and white pun. 10 points Gryffindor!
DeleteOne race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree? As you make your argument, use examples as necessary.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know that the whiteness in television is intentional, though it is most definitely present. But people keep demanding the same things, and media delivers. I was a bit surprised and astounded at the results of the Archie Bunker paper: Many viewers saw nothing wrong with his bigotry. Most found it funny -- and as the author suspects: the show, rather than serving as a deterrent from bigotry, further made it more permissable and acceptable for those who were already bigot-inclined. This would serve to support the white-superiority in media hypothesis mentioned above. I would also argue (based on my quick Google search) that the television that I am exposed to and that is most readily available to most Americans is probably owned or controlled by a majority of whites. If my experience is at all similar to these white media-controlling males, all they really have known in life was a white society where they found few limitations and they were able to “make it big.” Though they perhaps do not write the stories that are put on air, those under them may have similar backgrounds. And in these cases, it would be easier to write about what one knows, what one has experienced. Likewise, as mentioned by Bott et al. (2010) white subjects had a visual preference for white models -- generally speaking, people are more attracted to things similar to them. But that story comes out of the mouth of a white girl.
However, this white girl happens to be closely associated with latin/hispanic culture (as others in the class are). I grew up some years in Central America and saw this same kind of television broadcast to rich and poor alike. It sold a fairytale: of a comfortable life, free of violence and full of elegance, affluence and parties. The protagonists were almost always white. And thus I sometimes experienced a sort of jealous racism from my peers -- they believed the messages sold to them on television of my motherland. They wanted it for themselves, and hated that I had simply been born into it. I doubt TV producers and writers were aware of just how big their impact on society is. I would argue that a lot of what is seen on television is an unintentional and innocent white supremacy. But we write what we know.
Finally, we will explore the idea of "representation" in our class discussion. Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAs for representation, I think it is best to represent a minority group more frequently and with positive stereotypes -- but since that was not an option from the prompt, I still believe that a more positive light being shed is better than a negative light. For some whites in rural America, their first or only reaction with people of color will come from television. Though times have changed, I remember my mother (a native of Provo) telling me about the first time that she had ever seen a black person. She couldn’t stop staring. I’m not sure she knew what to think. Because so many Americans subconsciously look to television as a window to the “real” world -- it might do us good to portray minorities with positive stereotypes to see if we can change or at least shift some of the pre-existent biases and prejudices. On the other hand, those minorities that so often see similar others portrayed negatively are likely being affected by this. TV may tell them that “Hispanic people are like this,” which subsequently becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I suppose I have a little bit of the Norman Lear dream inside of me -- but rather than portray a negative example to provoke awareness, why not combat “bad” with “good”?
I also want to add a reason for racism on TV (and in general) is our biologically inherited distrust for "the other." Early cave-dwelling humans had a basic survival need to know who was in or not in their tribe. Someone not in their tribe was a competitor for survival resources, and lived outside of their tribal social contract to care for their safety. So someone outside their tribe was, for survival, distrusted. I think our reading touched on this in the eye tracking lit review about how similarity in culture superceeded differences in race. In other words, someone, who seems to still be in my tribe (despite looking a little different) will get my bio-reflexive trust more than someone who looks like me, but has somehow branded themselves as being in a different tribe.
ReplyDeleteSo spin off question to the representation question: does positive representation basically mean "like my tribe"?
DeleteIs the media industry racist and/or sexist? Maybe this is politically incorrect, but no? I think in the past it was more racist/sexist than it is now, and there are definitely plenty of instances of racism in the media, but in my limited, personal experience with the media, I’m just not really feeling offended for anyone. Sorry if that makes anyone angry.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of my attitude comes from my personal background and experiences growing up. First of all, I’m mixed race. My grandpa is German, my dad/grandma/aunts were Korean, and I have adopted cousins from Russia, Kazakhstan, and India. Second, despite the fact that I grew up in Utah, I happened to be raised in a very diverse neighborhood. On my one tiny block alone (12 houses to be exact), we had Caucasian (American and Swedish), Brazilian, Mexican, Japanese, Pilipino, Korean, and Jordanian. And they were all native – born and raised in other countries, not gazillionth generation. And even though most of my schoolmates were white, I still had a good handful of classmates that were black, Native American, Latino, and Polynesian. Sooo, I basically grew up “color blind.” It didn’t even register in my mind that my German grandpa wasn’t the biological father of my full-Korean dad until some embarrassingly old age which I’m not going to share with you. :)
Anyway, as I grew older and realized that these different colors meant different countries, cultures, races, etc., naturally I developed an appreciation and respect for the diversity that they each bring. But honestly, when it comes to media, unless they do something blatantly racist, I really don’t care who is showing up on my screen. My child-like standpoint of “people are just people” tends to take over when I’m not focused on specifics. In fact, I barely notice when someone is a different race. Is that good, is that bad? – I don’t know.
From the media’s standpoint, I understand how stereotypes are hard to avoid and that they can be extremely useful for quickly conveying ideologies and personality traits of TV or movie characters. And honestly, playing off of stereotypes can be really funny sometimes. I love the quirky, smart Asians, the sassy African Americans, and simple-minded rednecks. But I know how those can become a problem when people take those stereotypes as hard-and-fast frames from which to see minorities in real-life. It is an important issue that should be taken seriously.
As far as representation goes, I love seeing diversity in American-made media. My roommates/friends/family can attest that I get extremely excited when I see a Korean in American TV. But I honestly don’t find it insanely problematic that there are more whites than anything in our media. It’s just the nature of the nation. The majority of people in America are white. Besides, looking back on all my favorite TV shows and movies, there is plenty of diversity. No doubt there could and probably should be even more, but I don’t think we need an over-exaggerated amount of minorities in the media either. The media has been blamed so often for being racist and under-representing certain demographics, I feel like a lot of ethnic, women, gay, or other non-traditional-white-male characters have almost become part of a checklist. Every once in a while, I can just feel the moment when the casting director was all, “Not-white person, check. Strong, female lead, check.” I somehow find that more offensive than anything. Which leads me to answering the question about quantity verses quality of diversity in the media: I vote quality!
P.S. I hope no one was offended by my lack of offense about diversity in the media. In case there was any confusion, I truly love all people from everywhere and hope they get their fair exposure in our media!! Woohoo!
Question 1
ReplyDeleteHeck yes the media industry is racist!! Man! Can you think of a single present show where the main character is a black hero? Or a Latino hero, especially with a large growing Hispanic population in this country. The biggest ethnic heroes we got are Will Smith and Dora the explorer! But I don’t think any else will come to mind.
Now that I’ve blown off a little steam, I don’t think all media is biased with a malicious intent, but the media is all about making money. They aren’t going to market a show with a minority hero or star to the white folk. In contrast to the results of the study by Bott et al (2010), I believe the majority just won’t buy or it won’t be as effective as selling a white hero, (but I guess they still haven’t caught on to the consumption habits of Hispanics, remember Fernando mania.) Why do you think the movie Frozen was liked so much?! It sure was not funnier or had better songs than Aladdin. It’s because the characters were extremely white and it makes the Caucasians feel better about themselves. Maybe that is a stretch, but this is a common characteristic in all humans I believe. As Bott et al (2010) referred to several studies, including those by Barban and Cundiff (1964) and Hoon and Ramaprasad (2006), Moon and Nelson (2008), where different ethnicities, in each study respectively, all preferred media content with representatives of their ethnicity. I feel the problem lies when one group, especially one that can be considered a large minority is completely marginalized or put off to second rate positions or roles.
Question 2
But this just isn’t in American media. It is extremely pervasive in Spanish television. On all of the telenovelas they pick the whitest Mexicans possible, ones I rarely see, at least not representing the entire population. The other day I was a laundromat. Most of the people and I were Latino, with the exception of my wife. The TV was turned on to Univision or Galavision and all the commentators or broadcasters were light skinned. No one looked like us in the laundromat. No one! This is when it is a problem.
Now I understand that for the time the majority of Americans are White, so we can expect to see most media portrayed under a white bias. If most of the country was black or Asian we could expect the same. Hispanics on the other had have seemed to culturally expect people of all colors to represent them but somehow that is not portrayed on primetime television.
Question 3
That last question is like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. In regards to All in the Family, I agree with the study. It really depends who you are in how you interpret it. I don’t agree with “Lear’s line of argument” (Vidman and Rokeach, 1974) that this overall catharsis will be released. The study may be debatable (as Casey so emphatically and significantly pointed out) but I think the overall results are somewhat true. Nevertheless I’ve always thought shows that poked fun at race too much just gave bigots more opportunity to laugh instead of actually helping society. Several years ago, David Chappelle reported on Oprah that at one point he felt uneasy because he noticed that the white camera man filming one of his race themed sketches was laughing more at the comedian than with him (Wikipedia). The saying bad publicity is better than no publicity, I just don’t know. But then again, maybe it will get honest seekers of truth to really communicate with minorities to see what they are like, somewhat how the Church is able to teach truth when ridiculed. I guess infrequent positive stereotypes would be better.
I see some potential in change in heuristic processing when it comes to the extrinsic cue of likeability (Whittler, 1989: 1991).
Hahahaha, "Heck Yes!!" Right on!
DeleteI believe there are other ways to be likeable without looking like someone. I offer a solution. Framing this through perceived similarity, the only way that non-white characters and figures will ever be equally portrayed is when television starts to portray them as “normal”. Not as assimilated or submitting to white culture, but without having to delve into their ethnic background as a primary focus or main theme of humor. When white people are portrayed on TV we don’t talk about their German or Irish ancestry constantly. Only occasionally programs refer to their ethnic background like Everybody Loves Raymond and Seinfeld. Will Smith frequently did but he was just so likeable. I think we need to take the approach that the church tried to take in Meet the Mormons. Mormons are regular people. Latinos are regular people. My Mexican ancestry is huge but just like the white star, people need to identify with how I am American like them. When we can develop a main character like that, it’s a win-win situation. Minorities will love him and white people will love him. Or her. Hehe. Yes media is sexist.
ReplyDeleteIs the media industry racist? I always hesitate to use the word “racist.” It’s a powerful word with strong negative connotations. To me, calling someone racist is worse than calling them any other derogatory term. I feel if you call a person racist, you better have strong evidence to make your case. That said, I wouldn’t call the media industry racist. I would say some television shows and commercials reinforce and propagate less appealing stereotypes for minority groups, namely blacks. How often do you see whites primarily featured in McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken commercials? The following url links to webpage titled “6 Racist Commercials You Can't Watch Without Shaking Your Head (VIDEOS)” : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/07/racist-commercials_n_5947676.html
ReplyDeleteYes, I found myself shaking my head. Apparently, blacks are supposed to dress a certain way, talk in slang, and never turn down fried chicken. At least that’s what those commercials suggest. Just as a U.S.- Canadian study found “All in the Family” could reinforce rather than reduce racial and ethnic prejudice, I feel some fast food commercial do the same.
It’s hard for me to say whether I agree or disagree with the theorist suggestion television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. I shy away from words that denote absoluteness. I don’t know the true intent of producers’ hearts. What I have observed is what seems like a disproportionate amount of whites to blacks in “white collar commercials,” as I like to call them. These would be TV commercials like investment ads. Take for instance this Fidelity Investments 30 second spot and some of the other spots about buying a home and a car: https://www.youtube.com/user/FidelityInvestments?v=iNgrNkAmCUg
You don’t see too many minority faces portrayed. Of course this is just a minute sample of one company. In the research paper, “Does it Matter if She’s Black or White, Thomsen writes Schlinger and Plummer (1972) found those who viewed the “white version of a commercial saw it as being more professional, more interesting, and more sophisticated than the black versions.” Looking back at the commercials jut mentioned, of course I would rather be portrayed in an investment ad than a fast food ad. The investment ad carries a high level of professionalism and sophistication, but we see those ads tend to lean towards white actors, whereas fast food ads appear to lean toward minorities. That’s just my observation. I don’t have any research to cite to back up this claim.
Lastly, I feel it’s better for a minority group not to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. I feel a person can do many good and positive things in their lifetime, but what do people cling to… negative publicity. For instance, when I look at Bill Cosby now, all I think about is rape allegations. I see Oscar Pistorius and I think he got away with murder, even though the courts did not convict him. In my case, my stock photos have been on many ads. The majority are fun to look at, but there is one where my face is attached to sexually transmitted disease (I’m pretty sure this was a violation of my contract). I don’t like the ad. It casts negative light on me, if anybody was to recognize me in the photo. Along the same line, ads that propagate negative stereotypes of minorities are better left off the TV screen and print ads, even if it means a decrease in minority representation in the media. Sometimes the best publicity is no publicity.
I love that you mentioned that you wouldn't call it "racist". I feel like that word is a lot stronger than we think and it is used too lightly. It's also true what you said about people clinging to negativity. I never thought about it that way.
DeleteHey Othello, I like your possible solution for making the media not as negatively stereotyped. That would be nice if minorities tending to get more of the serious roles. Everybody should invest right. I also offer a solution kinda with what you said. Making minorities just be regular (although everyone can be extraordinary) people. Without a certain slant. I like the serious content idea
DeleteThe media industry is racist and sexist because the media is owned by corporations that want to make money. So they make what sells. I’m trying to think back on what I used to watch with my family when I was younger and the few shows that stand out to me are The Simpsons, Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, and Family Matters, Full House, Even Stevens, and Lizzie McGuire. I feel like back then, there has always been a majority of whites or blacks in shows and not many shows that have both black and white people in them in every episode. Today, I feel that now some TV are still filmed dominantly with white people and the supporting actors are a “minority” race. I think the media industry is also sexist because to produce a romantic comedy, there’s always a leading lady. With an action film, the leading subject is usually a male.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with the race theorist who suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position because there are networks that only produce black dominant shows, like the network BET. However, back in the 90’s, the shows Fresh Prince and Family Matters were also on major networks and had many viewers. Both main families in the shows were middle to high class in society. They did not have any socioeconomic problems they had to face, from what I can remember. I have also noticed many of the shows I used to watch and some I do watch, the majority of the cast is white. I wonder if these networks and corporations have white dominance in their shows because of what their perception of whether more whites watch their shows.
It would be a great world for a minority group to be represented on television with a more positive stereotype, but there always has to be an antagonist in a story. And it seems like the antagonist is almost always portrayed by a minority person or group. I do feel like today the representations are not as stereotypical as they used to be. There are more shows now that the leading subject is a minority. For example, in The Mindy Project, the title character is an Indian woman. In Jane the Virgin (great show by the way), the majority of the cast is Latino. I feel like the media industry still has a ways to go, but those are a couple examples of shows that are breaking away from negatively representing stereotypes.
Way to put it bluntly! The media "make what sells". SO TRUE! If their audience is white females in high school, they are going to produce something that will appeal to that demographic. Even then they stereotype what that demographic will like. I also thought about the crime scene shows...a lot of the times I see the antagonist or the criminal as an individual from a minority group. Which in turn feeds what we perceive an ethnic group as.
DeleteI say that the media does have a long way to go in this area. However, what is holding me back are the words sexist and racist. Those seem really strong. If we are going to use those words, then I would add "ageist" to that list. For example, my husband and I went and saw The Martian last night. I have been to NASA headquarters and most of the scientists there are older, but in The Martian, you have all these young and attractive geniuses. If you were to look at the cast, you would see mostly young white guys, a couple African American guys, one older white guy, a latino guy, 2 Chinese leaders (man and woman) and four girls. Different races are being depicted, but I can't speak as to whether they are being represented correctly. Perhaps they are from a white subject position, but I guess I wouldn't know it.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that it is better for minority groups to be represented/appear frequently on television even if that representation includes negative stereotypes than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes? As a woman, I would answer yes to this question. Women are represented frequently, but they almost always include negative stereotypes: sexualized, objectified, young, ultra-thin, eye-candy. And sometimes the pendulum swings too far the other way and women are made extra "manly" being buff and violent and that's not real either (nor is that real for most men). I would much rather have women shown infrequently and with positive stereotypes. I would imagine this is how ethnic minorities feel?
I saw the Martian and I too have been to NASA. I found that super interesting as well and simply passed it off as "it's just a movie". I didn't think much deeper than that, but now I totally am!
DeleteIs the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI really had to think this one through. It was hard to wrap my mind around what I found as sexist or racist. The more I thought about it the more sexism came to mind. In the past women were portrayed as housewives and homemakers. Today I feel like women are the more powerful characters and guys are seen as the goofs. Take for example “King of Queens”, “Everybody Love Raymond”, “Mike and Molly”, and even “Big Bang Theory”. Even through Penny (the girl) isn’t as academically on the level of the guys, it still portrays her as an independent strong attractive female, and the guys are nerdy goofs. I think in the past media was more sexist against women, and now maybe the playing field is evened out.
When I try to think if media today is racist, I can kind of see if from both sides. I don’t know if I would use the word “racist”, but I could see that it often provides stereotypes in order to reach a specified audience. I grew up in a town where my school was almost equally divided into 3 ethnic groups (white, black, and hispanic). My group of friends at school was also pretty diverse. I don’t notice color when I watch media. However, I can see where other ethnic groups may notice it. I’m white so I feel like if media is primarily white, I may not notice as much as a minority group might. I think of Disney movies. Many of the Disney princesses are caucasian. They have added a couple of other princesses from different cultures and ethnicities, but I even felt like they followed a stereotype. I think that media can in some ways still be bias in the way the represent ethnic groups or lack their of, but I believe they are really just trying to appeal to a group or audience.
One race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree? As you make your argument, use examples as necessary.
The first thought that comes to mind is “media in what location”. If we are talking about America, where we have quite a “melting pot”. I would say that I think some television definitely is staged from a white subject position, but not all. I can think of television programs that were staged around other ethnicities, but maybe not by them. Like Fresh Prince, Family Matters, or Moesha. I could see how those shows could be written by caucasians to fulfill a stereotype. However, if you look at the Madea plays and movies, written by Tyler Perry (an african american), I feel like he portrays their ethnicity in a similar way to how caucasian writers have. I kind of feel at a loss with this question.
Finally, we will explore the idea of "representation" in our class discussion. Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
In the past I think it was better to have the ethnicity, even if it was negative. You have to start somewhere. If we never allowed ethnicity on television, where would we be at today. I think that media is slowly getting better at broadening the perspective and the stereotypes in which they produce. I feel like you are seeing more ethnic groups throughout media in a more neutral way (not necessarily positive or negative). Of course there are still going to be stereotypes, that’s just natural, but I think that showing all ethnicities in all stereotypes helps to promote that all races can fall within a stereotype. I think that more exposure of ethnic groups is better, even if SOME of the exposure is negative. Media will keep growing and keep evolving and I think at some point there won’t be much of a question. I think there are just as many stereotypes in media around social class than race.
Is the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI’ll be honest, racism isn’t something I think about often and maybe that’s because I’m white, so racism doesn’t come up often. However, sexism in media is something that I’m somewhat educated in and feel is a problem. There is a fabulous movie out called Miss Representation, all about the misrepresentation and sexualization of women in the media. It explains how women are shown on TV way less, and when they are they are highly sexualized. Even female newscasters or political figures get made fun of for being to “manly” (professional dress) or too sexy. It’s hard for a women to find a medium.
One race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree?
Again, I have a really hard time with these questions. “White superiority” is a really strong phrase and I don’t really have much experience in even looking for racism within the media. I guess most of the shows I watch have white main characters, but I don’t feel like I wouldn’t watch a good show if the main characters were of another race. I don’t think that television shows that are staged from a white subject are trying to promote white superiority. As the article Bott article explained, we are drawn to media that has characters that are like us. Perhaps those who are producing television shows are generally white, so they naturally choose to base television shows from a white subject position. Not because they are racist or are promoting white superiority, but perhaps because they feel they are better able to write a television script around a white family, since they themselves are white. That’s not research based though, just a question.
Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
As a woman, I think I would prefer that women appear less frequently in the media with positive stereotypes than to be frequently shown with negative stereotypes. Although, being shown frequently and positively would be ideal. I would imagine that people of other races would feel the same way. They would like to be portrayed on television, but they’d rather not appear if they are just going to be made fun of or portrayed in a negative way.
Is the media industry racist? Definitely! Is the media industry sexist? Absolutely. Regarding racism, white actors and actresses are presented in media in highly disproportionate ways. Thinking of romantic comedies, I cannot name one that came out within the past 10 years (that I have seen) that starts a non-white actor. I think casting non-white actors is more common in other types of media genres (i.e. action, documentaries, sci-fi, etc.) but this does not compensate for the lack of diversity represented in popular media. Regarding sexism, I believe this happens in two ways, both for men and women. For instance, women are extremely sexualized, and as such are almost always presented as thin, beautiful, perfectly done up, sexy etc. characters. Women are rarely cast as comedians/humorous characters and when women do make jokes in media, it is often portrayed as inappropriate or embarrassing. Men are also sexualized in that they are most often presented as quite muscular, though the entire population does not appear that way. In addition, I think an even more troubling portrayal of men in popular media is that they are stupid, goofy, overtaken by their sexual feelings, etc.; all these portrayals do is minimize what options men have to portray themselves…and they are inaccurate, limiting, and basically just suck.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the race theorist’s comment, I partially agree that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects, though I disagree at the same time. I think I comprehend how frustrating it would be to a non-white audience, to constantly see white actors and actresses but no one representing their race or ethnicity. I think the media is currently trying to focus on more non-white actors and actresses, as well as related cultural aspects or topics, though this transition is moving slowly. The part of that statement that I do not agree with is that TV’s purpose is to reinforce the superiority of the “White” perspective. I think TV was originally aimed at white, middle class families who could afford a TV set. As TV (and other media sources) have become more available to a wider variety of people, the people in charge of media content have been slow to change their representations and casting strategies.
Based on my media background, I would guess that it would be better for minority groups to be portrayed less often but positively, as opposed to more often but negatively. I believe this because what we view inevitable influences our opinions and beliefs—if an individual only sees negative portrayals of non-white individuals, then negative stereotypes will be reinforced and he or she will begin to endorse those stereotypes. However, if the portrayals of minority groups are positive, albeit rare, individuals will have positive attitudes and beliefs about minorities. Obviously this is not a perfect way to portray minorities because the message that minorities are not important would also be communicated if they were not portrayed often, though this is the lesser of two evils option.
Yes! the media is racist but we must understand where that bias is emanating from, the society. Race is an institutional part of American history and the media is has been playing a key role in perpetrating the effects of this historical oppression that continue to ascribe second class citizens to certain groups.
ReplyDeleteWhere i strongly differ, is the role of the media in dabbling into negative stereotypes that assign negative qualities to other groups and ignoring individual variety.
This is why i agree with the postulations of race theories that "Television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects" The media indeed cannot exonerate itself from diving the working class and stereotyping for instance, young African-American males as gangsters or drug dealers, focusing on the negative aspects of the black community.
The deep rooted media bias that anything back is bad, made the American society to accept these stereotypes which the media ascribed to the black community. The media also reinforced the creation of societal hierarchies of value and power so that some race are perceived to be more dominant and others subordinate.
I like you media effects frameworks here Bayo. If we have learned that media can effect everything else, socialization, aggression, body image, than it can definitely affect racist behavior
DeleteVery true Daniel, Media influence in all facets of life cannot be over emphasized.
DeleteMy Apologies for all typos. I wrote a more comprehensive response to the questions but it all disappeared as i click "publish" I had to hastily recall the little i can to meet the deadline.
I think the media can be sexist and racist because racism and sexisim exist in society. However, because of education, immigration and globalization people are finding it harder to express these outdated philosophies about race and sex as they have to interact with minorities and women in almost all fields and positions. As long as there are people that enjoy racist/sexist media there will always be a market for it. However, once someone creates media that follows that path it will be very hard to get anything into mainstream media without getting exposed and then boycotted by the public thanks to social media and the internet. Their appeal has decreased tremendously and the racist/sexist market is only getting weaker. Although Islam is not a race, Muslims are a minority in the United States. I remember how Muslim bashing became one of media's most successful products after 9/11. Movies almost always portray Muslims as either terrorists or gullible. Recently it has gotten a lot better where the media is finding it very hard to say stereotypical hateful comments against Muslims without receiving backlash from the public. (at least on media platforms with a more educated audience) Unfortunately, change does not come fast and it does not come easy. It requires a lot of effort by minority groups to become strong and hold influential positions that would allow them to prove to society that they are as important. Although it is hard to imagine that it requires effort to be considered a human being of equal importance in the eye of some, it is essential to do so for the sake of other people that face the same issues. A Muslim child that grows up in the Untied States for example, should not feel that he has to apologize or answer for actions done by terrorists. Media outlets are becoming better at delivering a more specific blame to criminals and organizations that actually commit those crimes thanks to a change in public perception towards Muslims.
ReplyDeleteThe portrayal of African Americans in the media has become drastically better. A lot of the shows I have watched have had African Americans in non-stereotypical positions. Whether someone is African American, Indian, Arab or Latino they can identify with each other's struggles. Women share a similar understanding on how it feels to be judged and boxed by society and media. The market is becoming diverse and people are experiencing the benefits and merits of this diversity. Therefore, in order for media outlets to stay successful they have to adapt to this market. A better and more fair portrayal of minority groups is essential for the success of the media organization if they want to appeal to the biggest market which is the mainstream market that is becoming more and more diverse.
I think positive less frequent portrayal is better than frequent negative portrayal because media is a part of the socialization process of so many people. It is important for that socialization process to always have a positive attitude towards all races. However, it is important for the issues that minority groups face to be portrayed as well to allow the public to become aware of those issues. I think positives should outweigh the negatives to reflect things more accurately.
Is the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or Why not?
ReplyDeleteI think the media industry began as racist and sexist because of the times and social norms back then, and as time went on, I guess the industry tried to change that by including and portraying more minorities in tv shows and movies. However, even though we see more minorities and cultures represented in entertainment, most characters portrayed only help to further uphold stereotypes, often negative. For example, as a Latina, I notice that when my ethnicity is portrayed in shows, the character is usually very loud and has a very heavy accent, and with the women, an emphasis is put on the “exotic” factor. Asians are usually the really smart characters like doctors, scientists, students, etc., and the black characters are the “hip” ones or the athletes (but always friends with the white athlete). And one thing they all have in common in most shows is that they are never the leading role. In most shows, the white character and his/her life and doings are the center of the storyline.
One race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree?
I agree. Whether it’s done intentionally each time, I’m not sure, but we live in a society where there is such a thing as inequality due to skin color and media is not immune. While reading and writing about this subject, I was reminded about an essay I read for a class a couple semesters ago. It was titled “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. In this essay, the author Peggy McIntosh makes a list of privileges and advantages she has as a white person over people of different color. She writes the following: “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks.” And as her privilege #5, she has listed: “I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.” Television is definitely something used to reaffirm the superiority of whiteness, as is a lot of other things because that is the way it’s always been and it’s something difficult to change. In television it is easily done by the mere casting of characters and who they represent and how.
Do you think it’s is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
I honestly think that it’s better for a minority to be represented less in entertainment if that means more positive stereotypes are portrayed. We’ve been discussing the effect media has on the learning and cultivation of social norms on society and analyzing the degree of its effects; we know that media plays an important role in influencing society. If people are watching shows that have minorities portrayed with negative stereotypes, people who have never interacted with that said minority will create a schema with those stereotypes, believing that that is how that minority acts and behaves in reality. Children are even more easily influenced. If they grow up seeing a minority portrayed in a certain way on tv, that is all they are going to know about them, and it may affect the way they treat others who are different in the future.
It’s funny that while thinking about these questions last night, I came across a video my friend had shared on Facebook which touches on the same general concept. I found it brought up some valid points and is worth a look.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/Slate/videos/10153568445156438/?pnref=story
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/10/diversity_in_the_tv_writers_room_writers_and_showrunners_of_color_lag_far.single.html
Is the media racist or sexist? I believe our media specialists of today would like to think they are doing a pretty dang good job of adjusting with the social demands of the twenty-first century. The irony is that in their efforts to show equality among the races, the minority groups come out unscathed, while more often than not, the majority, or mainstream takes the hit. This is a perfects example of how the pendulum swings both ways. What the media have done today is over-embraced the lesser cultures, claiming that taking any opposing view or side is skeptical or racist. How much are gay and lesbian rights permeate the media? How many times does the jury side with the African American? How often do feminists put the quash on any benefits for men? In our liberal world, the media is so slanted in these groups, brainwashing us with new stereotypes, and making us to believe we are wrong if we don’t over-support these minorities. But what does that do to the majorities of this generation? Now we’ve gone too far in the opposite direction.
ReplyDeleteLet’s look at some examples, and ask ourselves a few questions. Ferguson. Who was at fault? Or who would the media put to blame? What were the reasons? Were the valid? Or were they based on skin color? What if the police officer had been black? Or the boy white? How would the dynamics have changed? Does the media feel the need to overcompensate cultures for past indiscretions? What would have been viewers’ reactions had the media sided with the majority in today’s day in age? How would the media have been portrayed? How does this affect the majorities? Who is being discriminated against? Is this considered racist?
Concerning minority coverage in the media, I feel they should be treated with the same exposure as majority groups. If we, in fact, are all equal, than it should never even be an issue. The media has no qualms about throwing majorities under the bus to prove they “don’t discriminate” against minorities. But what does that ultimately reveal about their character regarding equality? It’s all backwards. All they’ve managed to do is swing to the opposite side of the skeptic boat. If that is in fact the case, then I believe a huge congratulation is in order. Well done, media. You’ve successfully crossed the line, and come full circle once again.
this just in everybody! doing another assignment and found out that as of 2003 us census 13% of population was Latino, largest minority group, we can expect that to have risen since, and only .6 to 6.5% of all pritime programming characters were latino Children Now,2004; Espinosa, 1997; Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005; Williams & Condry,1989),
ReplyDeleteThat was as of 2004 i guess
DeleteIs the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn some respects, yes. Media is created by people and people have prejudices, some of those prejudices are based on race or gender. But this answer is very simplistic and does not get to the heart of the question. I think the question should be whether the media are intentially racist/sexist.
I doubt that most media is trying to ostricize a group of potential consumers (ie, blacks or women) by being racist or sexist. This argument breaks down when media is specifically aimed at a racist or sexist group because, in that case, media are trying to appeal to that group by being racist or sexist. Otherwise, media might express racist or sexist attitudes subconsciously or in a stereotype. The stereotype would be used to convey some sort of message without having to develop that message. An example is the dumb blonde; a writer can insert the dumb blonde into the media and most people will understand that this character is unsofisticated, yet good-hearted. This can save time in a half-an-hour long sitcom by not needing to spend time developing this character. In these ways, intentional racism/sexism aimed at racist/sexists, subconscious racism/sexism, and stereotype racism/sexism, media might be racist/sexist.
television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects.
I will pass up the easy answer (anytime the word 'always' is used you can safely say no). As stated above, everyone has prejudices, that includes people in the television industry. If that person in the television industry is white then the ideology expressed will likely be a white one. Now, is that ideology put forward as being superior to others? Maybe. I think that there are two ways an ideology might be put forward as being superior to others. One way is when the person putting the ideology forward as being superior. The other way is when the consumer (viewer) takes it as being put forward as superior. I do not disagree that the writers or producers of television programming include in it some ideology based on their experiences, including experiences as whatever race they are. I will answer the question of 'whether they put forward the ideology as being superior to other ideologies' by asking another question 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'
The British are consumed/obsessed with class and the Americans are consumed/obsessed with race.
The thing that makes race an issue is the perceived difference between people that it creates. When people understand that the color of someone's skin is fairly insignificant (outside of melanoma discussions) then we can move on to more productive conversations. In as far as representations affects this understanding then it should be addressed. I think a more productive way to overcome the idea of difference is to get to know someone of a different race. The person experience will affect someone more than seeing an African American on TV in a good light will.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWow, I actually just posted a status on Facebook, discussing this issue. First and foremost, regardless of the popular opinion, I do not believe that racism/sexism are as big of a deal as the media in the US make it out to be. I am not sure, if they are able to make money off of it, or attract more viewers but they must be getting some type of benefit from these topics, that promote this hypersensitivity in society. Television shows what sells. Is there really a “whiteness ideology”? I don’t believe so. There are multiple cultures in the US and regardless of your color you can belong to either one of them. Being black, doesn’t mean living in the projects and selling your body to earn food, or speaking Ebonics. Now, stereotyping is a completely different issue.
Representation is a whole different thing. What is television representing? Are they showing black families who always speak Ebonics, which shows they lack of formal education? Do black characters get in trouble with drugs, rapes, etc. more in those movies? Yes, and that is stereotyping but not racism.
Now onto sexism. I have spent a few years working in a large US corporation, and as part of my job frequently interacted with multiple other firms. I have yet to meet a woman in a corporate world who was passed for a promotion because a man got it or who got paid less than men who held equal positions did. It is simply illegal. Media likes to get us fired up with all these “sexism” messages, but in reality all there is to it is men are men, they like women. Sometimes they objectify women, sometimes they feel that women are inferior in certain aspects (like football or lifting heavy things, or being logically driven) but it is just a natural thing, not a societal problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that racism and sexism are rampant in the media industry and that the major networks are led by white males. However, I do agree with Othello’s point that there is a very big difference between blunt racism and messages that may reinforce existing stereotypes, often times unintentionally.
ReplyDeleteI do think that there are some steps that have been made in recent years to show more diversity in advertisements and TV shows, but this is often done poorly. As Kacie pointed out in her post, shows like “Fresh Off The Boat” may feature non-white main characters, but they also are depicted from a white persons standpoint and can be very stereotypical in nature. The Asian parents in “Fresh Off The Boat” are depicted as strict no-nonsense individuals that make sure their children perform perfectly in school and excel in music lessons. This may be the white male viewpoint on the way Asian families operate, but is it truly accurate?
The Office is one of my favorite shows of all time, but boy is it full of racist comments and sexist remarks. Michael Scott, like Archie Bunker is such a funny and likeable excuses him to say whatever he wants. He uses hyperbole in every joke, but perhaps it reinforces negative stereotypes in some even though it appears as pure humor to others. One line from Vidmar’s research resonated the most “non-prejudiced viewers and minority group viewers may perceive and enjoy the show as satire, whereas prejudiced viewers may perceive and enjoy the show as episodes “telling it like it is.” It is fascinating that some people wrote in applauding Archie Bunker for his racism, while others were pleased of the way they made fun of bigotry. Both parties received the same message, but the way it was perceived was completely different.
While working in advertising, I worked on several TV commercials where we were careful in our casting to make sure we included as many nationalities as possible. I remember sitting in one casting session for a Sesame Place TV commercial in which we had dozens of Caucasian boys and girls come in to audition while only a few African Americans, Asians, and Latino’s showed up. Nearly all of the non-Caucasian actors were put into the commercial regardless of their talent. Of course Philadelphia and NYC (the regions where the commercial primarily ran) is a melting pot for people of all ethnicities. Showing diversity was mainly done strategically as a way of connecting with as many individuals from as many backgrounds as possible. I personally feel that although we had to turn away a handful of talented Caucasian kids, it was important to include diversity in our commercial.
Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
This is perhaps the trickiest question from this weeks post. I think that showing minority less frequently but in a more positive light is better than showing them frequently in a negative light. I also think that there is so much stereotyping done within Caucasian dominated media that is negative in nature that perhaps should be changed as well. The fact of the matter is that money is what drives media production and so the natural choice for media companies is to give the people what they want. Or it can also be argued that they are telling us what we should want. Either way, it is an industry driven by the dollar sign and I don’t think we will see the day that content is based on high moral principles over money.
On a side note, I enjoyed speaking with my dad about Archie Bunker. He can remember sitting around the TV as a family watching that show and my grandma would always talk about my grandpa being just like Archie (which kind of scared me but also made sense).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, one other note regarding the white male dominated media industry. I do agree that conglomerates are manly run by white males, but I also would not go so far as to say that they have all of the power. After all, they are busy running companies where they are too busy to look at every video or message that goes out their company's door. Obviously they do set the tone and mission of what they would like their employees to accomplish, but at the end of the day, it is the mid-level folks that are getting most messages out to the world. I think that based on my prior work experience there is typically a diverse group of people working on every type of media message. The filtering process that content typically goes through is crucial in making sure end products are not racist or sexist in nature. Of course, this is not a perfect process and often times bad messages make their way into the marketplace of ideas. But to assume that white males always have control is giving them way too much credit. In the same breath, I would also say that they do have power and maybe far greater than I currently understand.
ReplyDeleteIs the media industry racist and/or sexist? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn order to answer this question, racist & sexist have to be operationalized. I’ll assume that our definitions are that racism is prejudice against a race, and sexism is prejudice against a gender (usually female). Also, is the media industry considered entertainment (TV & movies) or news media? Another thing to consider is who the determiner/audience is. Maybe if a black man watches the news, he would say yes. If a white woman watches it, would she also say yes? There are a lot of white women represented in the news, as well as celebrated. I think that belonging to a certain group (race, gender, class, etc.) makes a person jaded to other prejudices. This is a major generalization, but ever since Ferguson media coverage, I think that agenda-setting caused African-Americans to believe that the media and law enforcement are racist against them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLm1dDkqH7A). So in some people’s eyes, yes, the media industry is racist and sexist. But in my opinion, people will always hear what they want to hear. Those who feel victimized (Black Lives Matter, for example) will always hear racist undertones in the media because they’re looking for it, and it fuels their hate-fire.
One race theorist has suggested that television is always staged from a white subject position reaffirming the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects. Do you agree or disagree? As you make your argument, use examples as necessary.
Was this race theorist white? I would guess not. Is TV “always” staged from a white position? Absolutely not. Jane the Virgin, The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Empire, any Tyler Perry thing, Scandal, How to Get Away With Murder, etc. To generalize TV as being from a white subject position is just as bad as saying all blacks are criminals. It just isn’t true, and it leads to incorrect assumptions and stereotypes. I don’t agree with this because it lends to unnecessary victimization (yes, there’s a theme here. I hate the victim complex). But, then again, if someone is LOOKING for the superiority of whiteness and the ideology it reflects, they are going to find it.
Finally, we will explore the idea of "representation" in our class discussion. Do you think its is better for a minority group to be represented/appear frequently on television (or in other media), even if that representation includes negative stereotypes, than to be shown infrequently with more positive stereotypes. Why or why not?
I remember talking about this in one of my undergrad classes, specifically about disabilities being represented in media. They’re either not shown, or shown as being helpless. But then I thought about the wheelchair kid on Glee…he can keep up with everyone else, and they frequently discuss his limitations (or lack thereof). Because of the nature of that show, they were able to talk about it openly and show him as a strong, independent character. However, if they did that on another show that didn’t frequently handle difficult topics, it probably wouldn’t have been received well. I think this idea applies to all minority representations - context matters. If the representation (whether negative or positive) won’t be understood correctly in context, then it probably isn’t worth mentioning or discussing.