Activity links

O.J Simpson trial reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBSzvXydptQ

Bill O’Reilly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/nov/07/election-2012-bill-oreilly-white-establishment-minority-video

Asian Model Minority:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7412214n

The Right Kind of Immigrant:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57574514/trump-immigration-reform-a-suicide-mission-for-gop/

Feministng:

http://feministing.com/2012/09/20/native-american-students-protest-racist-anti-choice-posters-in-new-mexico/

http://feministing.com/2011/02/24/new-racist-anti-choice-billboards-show-up-in-nyc/

http://feministing.com/2011/06/08/new-racist-anti-choice-billboard-campaign-to-target-latinas/

Indian Country Today:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/03/21/house-introduces-bill-ban-racist-redskins-trademark-148292

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/03/05/drunk-indians-joke-lands-mike-molly-hot-water-148020

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/02/27/blackface-wearing-new-york-politician-says-he-wont-dress-indian-147900

The American Dream = Assimilation

The second section of this book is a little repetitive. Larson categorizes the different minorities, yet she says pretty much the same about each one: each minority is only seen in the news as stereotypical and that the only good reports are those that have assimilated to the homogenous American norms.

I had a couple of questions in mind when reading the different chapters, like: why do reporters situate or frame minorities in the first place? What audience are they trying to reach, and why are they trying to reach that audience, for what reason? Money?; why were there not any Southeast Asian origins mentioned from 1994-1995? Why did Larson point this out but not discuss the topic any further?; why did Larson group Samoans with the Asian American chapter, why didn't she given them their own chapter like the Indian Americans?

I could go on about Larson and the inconsistencies within her book but then I wouldn't be looking at the heart of the matter which is that minorities in media, news, and life have been neglected stereotyped and left out in the cold so to speak. As a country of minorities why is it that we all have to follow the American Dream? Larson discusses this in many of the chapters and it is because of this misconception that all people group and categorize each other. Who is not living up to the standard of reaching the American dream and why would anyone not want to.

I have had a problem with this dream and choose to go against the rationality behind it. I make my own life and whatever happens happens. I, like others, would like to be considered for who I am not what I am.





With this I would like to go back to Martin Luther King Jr.'s The American Dream speech.

"I would like to start on the world scale, so to speak, by saying if the American Dream is to be a reality we must develop a world perspective. It goes without saying that the world in which we live is geographically one, and now more than ever before we are challenged to make it one in terms of brotherhood. Now it is true that the geographical oneness of this age has come into being to a large extent through man’s scientific ingenuity. Man through his scientific genius has been able to dwarf distance and place time in chains. And our jet planes have compressed into minutes distances that once took weeks and even months. I think Bob Hope has adequately described this new jet age in which we live. He said it is an age in which it is possible to take a nonstop flight from Los Angeles, California to New York City, a distance of some 3,000 miles...and if on taking off in Los Angeles you develop hiccups, you will “hic” in Los Angeles and “cup” in New York City.. . (laughter) ...You know, it is possible because of the time difference to take a jet flight from Tokyo, Japan on Sunday morning and arrive in Seattle, Washington on the preceding Saturday night; and when your friends meet you at the airport and ask you when you left Tokyo, you would have to say I left tomorrow...(laughter)...This is the kind of world in which we live. Now this is a bit humorous, but I’m trying to laugh a basic fact into all of us, and it is simply this: through our scientific genius we have made of this world a neighborhood, and now through our moral and ethical commitment, we must make of it a brotherhood. We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools. This is the challenge of the hour. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone. Somehow we are interdependent."

I would like to live in a world where everyone is created equal, but I know that is not possible (at least as the American media portrays it). With the vote up for same-sex marriages, the notion of the American Dream is up for debate and to view this topic critically, I know that equality will continue to be challenged. I can only hope that we (all americans) do not assimilate or make any people assimilate in order to be considered a part of society.

Sorry for the rant, I was just trying to get my thought out.

Stereotyping in the news media might be even more dangerous than stereotyping in fictional television shows and movies since most people believe anything they hear or see on their favorite news network. As I read the first chapter in this weeks readings, I was reminded of my grandparents. They are good people for all intents and purposes, but they watch so much Fox news that they have a very skewed view of reality. Because of the agenda set by Fox news and the way they frame stories, my grandparents have crazy ideas about the world, such as President Obama being the anti-christ and Laredo, TX being so dangerous that any white person who sets foot there is highly likely to be kidnapped or murdered. They completely saturate themselves in Fox news, television set blaring all hours of the day, and are easily worked up into a frenzy by the nonstop coverage of issues that more than likely are not as important as the amount of coverage they get might make them appear. The last time I saw my grandparents before I moved to Texas, my grandfather tried to tell me that what the United States government did to Native Americans was not really genocide, and that the Native American tribes would have killed each other off anyway, so what does it matter? <sigh> He is a good man who would (and has so many times throughout his life) do anything to help anybody regardless of ethnicity, but he has been programed by Fox news, and the books he reads by the pundits featured on the channel, to believe crazy ideas. I've given up trying to argue with him, it does no good.

"Whites have become so used to seeing blacks in stories about crime that they assume blacks to be perpetrators of crimes covered on television even when those stories lack photographs or descriptions of the suspect" (91) As I read this passage, I was reminded of a news story I read on Yahoo news. A ten-year-old girl was kidnapped from her home and then released ten hours later. Police did not issue a description of the two suspects other than saying that they were both male and one was approximately 18-years-old. What I found surprising before this weeks reading and very relevant were the comments following the article, many of which focused on the lack of description of the subjects on their possible race, as well as why the police and the media did not mention the suspects' race.

Link to the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/girl-found-2-sought-abduction-la-home-082709593.html

Some comments I found particularly interesting and racist:

"If he was black they would have said it before the story came out. I'm just glad he is OK, Thank God"

"Believe it or not....some Cities don't release that information because it is considered to be a racist thing if you mention it. They consider it "racial profiling." That is a policy. Unbelievable, but true."

"If it were a WHITE man they would have said white man, that's allowed. But what I don't understand if its a black, hispanic or Asian person they are looking for, PC be damned and just say so, wouldn't it be easier if the publci got a real description of the perps"

"If they don't mention it, assume black."

"9 times out of 10 when they don't provide a race it's usually black. They always tell you when it's a white person. They very, very rarely mention race anymore when it's anything other than a white person because they don't want to be "racist". In my opinion, if people don't want their race to be associated with crime then maybe they should take steps to stop their race from committing so many crimes."

"They wont say because they dont want to insult the white community either. Cmon, what minority wakes up that early to kidnap anybody? Only white people wake up that early"

That is no where near all of them, but you get the idea. I found it interesting that not only did so many people assume that the kidnappers were black or another minority, they also seemed to believe in a conspiracy in the media to cover up the race of minority criminals in a version of politically correctness run amok. I am amazed that so many people have such a skewed version of reality.

I found the remaining chapters in this section to be interesting, but I do wish there were more current examples, not because I think things have changed much but because I think there are so many modern examples that would be interesting to analyze. What is most compelling to me about these chapters is that racism in the news media has not changed much outside of the terminology used. Black people are still "lazy" and "criminals," Native Americans are still "drunks" and "savages," Hispanics are all "illegal Immigrants" and "Mexicans," and Asians are "docile," "super intelligent," and "obedient." People are still portrayed with many of the same stereotypes that existed 100+ years ago, but in slightly different ways. Will racial prejudice ever fade away? After all of the reading we have done for this class, I am not very optimistic. I don't really know what to do about it other than continuing to stand up to bigotry and prejudice when I encounter it, but I just don't have time to talk to 300 million Americans.

Stereotyping. Ugh.

This section on News Coverage of Racial Minority Mass Publics in the book goes into detail about exclusion, stereotypes, the limited effectiveness of diversifying news personal, and how the news frames stories about minorities to push specific master narratives that continue to support the status quo and create fear among the dominant ideology that minorities are trying to negatively disrupt the status quo.

Larson discusses the bias in news media and how it cannot be “a mirror of society or the events that occur; nor can it be” (84).  Perhaps some of the most difficult parts to read were stories of the public associating Blacks with poverty because of what they see on the news.  It was frustrating—to the extreme, as well as selective inclusion in other stories in order to deny systemic racism.  The undercurrent of racism through framing and stereotypes makes me so angry—and even more angry because they create stories to use as ways of denying that the stereotyping and racism exists!  It seems that the only reason to create those stories is because at some level, there is recognition that these actions are racist and it is a way of the news media to cover their asses.  Why do that?  Why not consider the stories they are telling instead?  I mean, I understand that economics are important to them.  I understand that.  But, how can people sleep at night, knowing this?  It seems they have to have some idea.  At least someone in the news company has to know.

The stereotypes about Hispanics were terrible too!  Immigration, is probably one of the biggest things that continues to be discussed in mainstream media, continues to stereotype Hispanics, frames Hispanics in a negative light, and all of these stereotypes and framing are used to push English-Only legislation, question work being done on making immigration a fairer process, and villainizing not only illegal immigrants but even legal immigrants, and American citizens who are of Hispanic descent.  All of the news media fails to discuss the immigration process, immigration reform, or distinguish between different groups of Hispanics.  Instead, they frame them as criminals, who are anti-American, and continue to push fear ideology about these people.  This fear creates mistrust in viewers, who then come at the issue of immigration with racist and limited knowledge of the issue and out of fear, refuse to consider the argument from a larger context. 

Two men accused of stealing $65,000 in chicken wings*

*The blog title refers to a recent headline about two men who stole a heap of frozen chicken wings in the days preceding The Super Bowl. I read almost every iteration of the story when it came out, and even several blogs and smaller websites that covered the incident. It was interesting to see how dominant stereotypes played out in relation to the headline. Some news journals (it seemed) purposefully omitted pictures of the two black men involved, and made no mention of their race, while several others positioned the culprits' pictures right at the top of the article. Then, there were a few blogs who had either a black readership or a comedic tone that poked fun at the headline because it was so readily a punchline in a joke about black stereotypes.

Anyway.

This week's reading was interesting. Explaining why will be easier in writing than it would be in our class setting because an attempt to be assertively objective or to counter in a discussion about minorities places the arguer (me or others) in a den of lions.

First off, let me say that I observe and agree with all the underlying assertions contained in critical discourse analysis. I just do. I like to think that I can analyze and evaluate media without foaming at the mouth nor fomenting an angry argument. Honestly, that makes me less of an activist and more of a theorist in this case. While there are times I'd love to be an activist, that's just not my role. I feel my role is to analyze, synthesize, and/or evaluate whatever it is I observe—especially in a class about critical media discourse (note that our class is not called "Critical Media Activists Unite"). I appreciate being able to discuss the issues without sentimentally steeping myself to the point that my logos is withdrawn and I'm leaning more on my pathos instead. I also like that, on the whole, our class members are able to do that as well. There have been many times when I wish I was anything but white just so that I, too, wouldn't lose credibility in my argument merely because of stereotypes associate with my skin color. But, that is the way the cookie crumbles in mass publics, regardless of the country or clime.

These few chapters in the section about Mass Publics in the News are a valuable read. Surely, the American public needs to be awakened to the flaws of representation in the news. I like that the author addresses African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Though some might argue that those four categories are not a full representation of American minorities, it is a majority of minorities (ironic, eh?) in our country. Also, even though I found those sections informative, I found the sections on media coverage during the civil rights movement most intriguing. The examinations and studies for that section suggest that the civil rights movement (specifically, the years between 1952 and 1973) was underrepresented in American media and, consequently, was robbed of the social power it would have had if it were given the headline time it deserved. I find this section more favorable than the prior sections because the arguments and evidences are concrete and real. Though racism is still a very huge factor in today's media, the author's approach to the situation of current media seemed logically weak and based more in shaky examples, assumptions, and sometimes outright supposition. I won't note them all here, but I will outline a couple in the initial part of the readings.




Notes:


Stereotypes:

"Even positive stereotypes can hurt by making it harder ton those who do not fit the stereotype. For example, if the stereotype is that all Asians are good at math, what do we make of one who is not? What will he or she make of himself or herself?" (83)

While I appreciate the example, this psychology likely applies to all stereotypes across all races—not just minorities. Hence, all the never ending discussion on the impact of media on men and women, young and old, regardless of race or social class.



System-supportive themes and Limited Effectiveness of Diversifying News:

"The achievers also promote assimilation by showing that 'those who escape their designated place are not a threat to society because they manifest the same values and ambitions as the dominant culture and overcome the deficits of their home communities" (84).

With all the good things that come with discourse analysis, I dislike most the vehement critics that pose their argument in away that denies any other argument has validity. However, in second place on my dislike list is any critic that positions an argument about minorities that makes it seem like there is just now way to win as a minority. The above example frames the scenario that even an "achieving" minority who experiences a financial or job-related accomplishment is just promoting assimilation (here used pejoratively). Now a minority cannot achieve without being filed under the assumption that they are feeding a bigger racism machine. Cross-culturally, financial or occupational gain is considered a worthy achievement—it is not just an "American dream" to want to or to be able to achieve. Minorities should not be pigeonholed to two seemingly negative options: "stay in your place and be oppressed by the majority, perpetuating a stereotype" or "reach for the stars, but at the risk of being a weak-minded/weak-willed assimilator."  How can a person win in a scenario like that? There's haters on every side! That would get old fast! Furthermore, the complexity of political correctness is increasingly thickened with theories like these.

A perpetuation of this line of thinking is seen in the next subsection (Limited Effectiveness of Diversifying News) as well. There, the example is an objective black reporter that, due to their dutiful alignment to objectivity, has to report stories on their own race that may not be favorable.

So now what? Now a white person is racist for being objective in the news, but if a black person attempts to be objective it's actually subjectivity because they are trying to please their news journal master? Why make it seem like a black reporter isn't capable of their own true objectivity? I get that news as a whole has an agenda, but this author is talking about a narrower issue when she addresses diversified news.

Supposed theoretical breakdown:

• Nationally, white reporters cover news about other white people that might be embarrassing to the white race. (Scandals, murders, etc.) and it's considered "tailoring the news for a certain class of viewers."
• If white reporters also cover news of similarly embarrassing content that involves minority races (Scandals, murders, etc.) then it is considered a perpetuation of racial stereotypes and misrepresentation.
• If a black (or other minority) reporter, however, covers news about white people that might be embarrassing to the white race, it's still considered "tailoring the news for a certain class of viewers."
• But if a black (or other minority) reporter covers news about their own race, they are no longer capable of being objective and they instead have to "sully the character" of their race just to find acceptance with editors?
• "Even a reporter trying to bring racial consciousness to his or her reporting will find this difficult due to the pressure on all reporters to demonstrate objectivity" (middle ¶, 87).
• Hello! Shouldn't all reporters of all races feel the pull of objectivity? Shouldn't it be difficult as well? There is some flawed and ignorant logic in this author's approach to an issue that is undoubtedly real in todays world, but doesn't have to be construed to be discussed.
• And, yet again, the author pigeonholes minorities into a place where it seems like no decision they make can be a correct one. The way she's posed the discussion has created a weird double standard for minorities that is logically upsetting in a way that instigates the type of "reverse racism" backlash we so frequently see from people trying to grasp the larger issue.

So, finally, I don't know where the middle ground is. I don't have an answer as to how critics can effectively discuss media and minorities without drifting into radicality or extremity. The textbook answer is "to just be objective" in our discussion of media. Yet, the two most recent texts we've been reading from lean out of objectivity and into a place of extremity based in accusation. While the media culprits should be pointed out and the discussion is unequivocally necessary, it is important not to forsake context in favor of an enticing argument. I (somewhat) look forward to the second half of our current text. I see that it covers the "politics" side that the title implies, so here's hoping that it's a little more concrete.

Unrelated, but funny find


:)

Let's Not Stereotype Anymore!

Stereotypes are harmful. All stereotypes, all the time. –Stephanie Greco Larson

After reading this section, I thought Larson’s main idea could be so summarily, although perhaps too sarcastically stated. In this section she broke down portrayals, lack of portrayal, and stereotyping of minorities in new media, specifically. She discussed African-American, Latino, Native American, and Asian stereotyping. I don’t know that I could say I “liked” or “didn’t like” this week’s reading. As far as reader response, I guess my reaction was pretty neutral. I mean, the information was not something I am happy about, and I certainly wish there was an easy fix to the issues of stereotyping and exclusion. I appreciated that Larson was very thorough and specific in her analysis. I kept wanting her to offer some kind of solution, but of course, as a I said, it is not easy.

As some of my classmates have pointed out, issues of race and domination are complex and have many levels, from the national political to personal identity. The past several weeks, I have found myself becoming hyper aware of racial stereotypes. Walking down the street, in the grocery store, and then arguing with myself about something I saw could or could not fit into stereotypes. I notice people of different races on tv, mixed race couples being portrayed, and who fits into gender roles.

Is this an appropriate reaction though? What good does it do? I guess it is good that I do see these things on tv at all, so yay we are no longer pre-civil rights, but it is still a problem that minority races continue to fill stereotyping roles. I think I probably don’t watch enough news, but even in the news I read, the issues discussed are probably not issues that are central to specific minorities, because the news conglomerates do not care about such niche reporting despite its potential importance.

When she was talking about representation of Latinos(Hispanic? Chicano?) in the news, the first image in my mind was of a news broadcast I saw in high school. It was a Houston news station, and I noticed for the first time that all the reporters and both anchors had Spanish surnames. But the majority of the news was about crime and traumatic events. I didn’t really think too much about this beyond noticing, because this was different from news I had seen living in areas that did not have high populations of Latino immigrants. So wasn’t this cool? Maybe Larson should study Houston news. I am sure Larson could have a lot to say about how the station is using Latino reporters to reinforce beliefs about the Latinos they were reporting on. 

Sorry I Can't Hear you Over Your STEROtyping

                This week’s reading was just like last week’s, predictable. But there was something different that I just couldn’t get past while reading and that was the frequency of Larson’s labeling (i.e. “black”). Every time, well almost every time, she referred to African Americans she used the term “black(s)”. Really Larson? Is there no other term to describe a person other than by the color of their skin, which by the way once again leaves out the issues of colorism and the spectrum of “black” that is group into the African American category. The ideas or concepts Larson was trying to discuss, was frankly getting lost in the overbearing amount of color categorizing in that chapter. I actually counted the number of times she used the term “black” versus “African American” (the only other word used to describe people of African descent) and it was 168 to 3 respectively, not counting words in quotes or titles. It was also interesting that “black “ was never capitalized but those who were quoted and used that term did capitalize it implying “Black” as a pronoun; a group or people or community; it gives it human characteristics rather that making it an adjective. Larson’s other chapters are somewhat redundant with the names she uses to refer to minorities but somehow she finds a way to use other words interchangeable ever once in a while. I was reminded of an article I read for the paper we had to do for Dr.Pimentel, The Naming: A Conceptualization of an African American Connotative Struggle written by Anthony Neal. This article describes the conflict and effects of what to name a black person. There’s a passage that applies the premise of “a rose by some other term could have a much lovelier bloom…” to the naming concept of African Americans by quoting Baird (1970):

In America Europeans have been the victors in the American adventure while Africans have been the victims, but it is also the truth that the oppressors have used communication as an instrument of control to maintain their ascendancy over the oppressed. Indeed, by defining to their own satisfaction the identity, status, and destiny of the oppressed consciously or unconsciously celebrate the insult and compound the injury to their victims. Thus, as to identity, the Euro-American owned and controlled communications media designate people of African descent as Negro—the name which marked them as slaves—or black which describes them physically but deprives them of cultural identity. (qtd. in Neal 52)

By Larson repeatedly using primarily one word to describe an ethnicity, she is in effect depleting their culture just like the news. As a writer, especially of a minority text, you should be conscious of words used to create or decline one’s identity. After all that, I’m not going to say I don’t like what she said, my complaint is more about her style of writing. However, I do not know her and this could have been part of her plan, but I think it was not effective.

This Book is Bad.

To my faithful followers:  I did not include pictures in this post because I'm lazy.  I apologize.

This has been one of my least favorite texts we've read in both this semester or last.  This section, especially, demonstrated some serious problems with Larson's writing and framing, despite the fact that she seems to have gotten over putting colloquial phrases in quotes every other sentence (don't worry, she still does it on 85 - by putting "bad demographics" in quotes, she lets her audience know that she doesn't really think that minorities are bad demographics.  If the quotes were not present, we might be too dumb to miss this subtlety.)

Let's begin with organization.  Larson opens with telling us that the upcoming section excludes figures "engaged in explicitly political activities (such as campaigns, social movements, or governing)" (81).  She gives no justification for this, and it begs the question why this division makes more logical sense than excluding criminals, or athletes, or any other group that would be featured frequently in the news.  I understand that the book goes on to cover more specifically politicians and social movements, but it still makes no sense to me to exclude them from this broad chapter.

Continuing with organization.  Why is Native American given their own section, when their population in the United States is roughly equivalent to both Arab-American populations and Indian-American populations?  Why is the Native American section listed before Hispanic Americans, when the latter population is about 16x the size?  Within the Native American section, why on Earth is the phrase "Indian" used over and over and OVER seriously?  How on EARTH can I take Larson seriously when she tells me that the media using the term powwow is racist when she herself is still using an outdated term that's disrespectful to both Indian-Americans and Native Americans?  How is using powwow for a meeting racist anyway?  Am I not allowed to refer to a nap as a siesta?  Borrowing NEUTRAL words and using them APPROPRIATELY is about as far from racist as I can imagine.

On studies--Most of Larson's descriptions of the studies she uses leave something to be desired.  In one by Campbell on 82, it's told he watches 40 hours of news programming, but it doesn't say region for the coverage or any supporting details that would help convince.  Not that I'm a skeptic on there being an overwhelming amount of racism in journalistic coverage, but there's no point in including a source without including the needed details.  A better use of a study is on pages 89-90, where more details were given and the implications were expounded upon.

On 83, she says minorities in soft news are only there for their novelty and color, despite the fact that a page before she had included sports in soft news ... not following that logic.

On 87, she claims politicians use news to determine public opinion.  Going to need a citation on that.  I could follow the logic she uses later when she says news pushes voters' opinions which in turn sways politicians, but NOT that politicians themselves are swayed.

During the parallel sources sections, she primarily goes over print papers based in the US.  I'll forgive the omission of digital sources since the research for this book probably began in 2003ish (although they were definitely present then), but the omission of the fact that a large number of immigrant populations continue to subscribe to news sources from their native countries feels silly.

During the specific minority sections, I felt a much needed addition was emphasis on how little attention minorities receive when they are the VICTIMS of a crime.  Check out the coverage of This American Life's Harper High School stuff vs. the Sandy Creek crap, or that white girl in Aruba, or anything else - crimes only matter when they affect white people is the message we get over and over again.

Finally, the argument on 127 that some minority targeting papers are not REALLY PARALLEL JOURNALISM because they don't cover hard-hitting topics is crap - all journalism aims to make a profit.  Larson fails to show evidence of a different motive.

Racism in the News

I remember working at Barnes and Noble my senior year of high school, and as we were closing up for the night, headed out of the break room and down the escalator, I asked my co-workers if anyone was keeping up with the coverage of the Casey Anthony story--something that had caught my attention while watching Nancy Grace (stop laughing; Fox News is on 24/7 at my parents' house; it could not be helped). One of my co-workers, a college-aged, very liberal white guy named Chris scoffed at me and made some remark that of COURSE Fox News is covering the murder of a little white girl, as usual, and how often did I see them covering stories about little black girls?

I considered myself to be pretty conservative in high school and was probably a little taken aback by his comment, but it stuck with me as I noticed how, on the news, an injustice against a white is an absolute tragedy while injustices against blacks or other minorities are... well, not really reported. Of course the murder of anyone is a tragedy, but his comment made me realize how the media sympathizes more strongly with whites... but with blacks and other minorities, perhaps their take is that crime is to be expected?

I feel like everything I'm typing feels like an awful thing to say, but then again, the media's representation (or misrepresentation) of race is pretty awful (and I've got a few examples below to support this point/make me feel better about all the awful conclusions I'm drawing).

Larson states that "news is in the business of trying to appeal to the mainstream (white, middle-class American) audience" (85). Naturally this mainstream audience is going to find it more shocking when a little white girl is murdered versus when a black child is murdered because their sympathy lies with the child who looks like it could be one of their own. They cannot possibly imagine something like this happening in their own safe neighborhoods, where it is likely that everyone is white. Black people, as Larson explains in Chapter 8, are consistently associated with crime in the media. When they are represented, it is usually as the perpetrator and not the victim. Then, when a black person is the victim, it's often the "alleged" murder, or a case that needs to be investigated further before confirming that yes, an injustice was done to a black person. Or, the victim may even be at fault in some way that would be unimaginable were it a white person: Geraldo Rivera's comments about Trayvon Martin are one such example.

Because this is okay:

 But this is not:

Some other gems from Fox News (I know, I could try to be more varied in my examples but they make it so damn easy): Michelle Obama fulfilling the angry black woman stereotype, Bill O'Reilly letting us know what a coke dealer looks like, and Bill O'Reilly letting us know what Asians are like. 

The conclusion drawn here is that the media will continue to perpetuate racist stereotypes because we, the mainstream white audience, are comfortable with that representation--or rather, we have not expressed our discomfort.

Aryeh Response to Larson Part 2

This reading was pretty interesting. I've always had misgivings about how the news media warps stories into its generic format. I like that the book provides some specific examples and goes into quite some detail on those. For example, I liked the book's discussion of the L.A. riots, because it talked about several aspects of the issue from the way the story was framed in headlines to the types of "experts" provided on network news programs. This approach worked for me, because it truly proved the book's general thesis regarding the pervasive marginalization of non-white groups in mainstream media. There were, however, some aspects of the book that I would have liked to see covered in more detail. For example, I attended college in Miami and lived there for several years; this book really did not go into enough detail regarding Spanish-language media in Miami. In many areas in Miami, Spanish-language media is much more prevalent than English media. I think this is a situation that could have been covered in more detail, because it's such a unique case. A single page in the book's larger chapter on Hispanic narratives was not enough to really help readers understand this issue, and if I were editing the next edition of this book it would be the first thing I would look to include.

Once again, I was happy to see a chapter devoted to Asian-American stereotypes, as racism against Asians seems to be rarely discussed not only in society but even these types of investigations. I'm glad the book brought attention to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and I was dismayed to find out about how the government exploited Japanese American publications during that time period. It's possible that I am affected more by this because my girlfriend is Asian and I spend a lot of time with her, but I have seen and heard a lot of racist speech against Asians in the media as well as in my daily life, and it's something the press rarely covers. As stated in the book, Asians are almost never mentioned in the media. I was rather disturbed by the statistic that there were almost zero stories about Asians in the New York Times for some sixty years. Still, I'm glad that we have our class where we can raise these issues and discuss them.

Minorities in the media and the case of De'Marquis Elkins

     Last week a woman's baby was shot in Georgia during a mugging. The woman says that she was walking her 13 month old baby in a stroller when two teenage boys approached her and demanded that she give them her money. When she refused, they threatened her baby and shot him in the head.
     The police have already arrested two teenage boys and are charging 17 year old De'Marquis Elkins as an adult. Elkins' aunt has said that her nephew was eating breakfast when the murder took place and is innocent.
       The police have refuted his alibi, claiming that there is strong evidence that proves Elkins is responsible for the horrific crime, though they have not elaborated. However, with no murder weapon and no other eyewitnesses I wonder what kind of strong evidence there could actually be.
        This entire situation, while horrendous and devastating, is definitely bizarre and open ended. The difference in stories definitely makes me wonder why more media outlets aren't asking questions about the murder and are instead solely focusing on Elkins as the murderer, as though he has already been tried and found guilty.

Second Section of Larson

Diving right on into content here, as someone who grew up in a relatively small town that was close to Houston, being exposed to racist discourse, especially in the news, was no new thing. Growing up around people that had a "small town" mindedness have a tendency to believe that the news, like Biblical parables, is law. It's like historical movies, while there may be some similarities between the film and the truth, there is likely going to be some gaping hole in the story.

Racist news rears its ugly head often in Houston. Whites are often framed as victims or saviors, and tend to comprise most of the news staff. If a staff member happens to not be white, they are often "white washed". Consider anchorman Isiah Carey, whom I believe is an anchor for FOX in Houston; a few years ago a  video was released of Carey conducting a field newscast when a bug flew into his mouth. As he reacted to it, his "real" voice came out... which there happened to be nothing wrong with.   He was criticized for going from "zero to ghetto" in a matter of seconds. While that's another entire racist issue altogether, it's a shame that anyone that doesn't "sound white" should be expected to change their voice to fit better in a news setting.

Additionally, I can speak form experience that blacks and latin@s are often depcited as evil, lazy, dangerous, easy, etc in the news. When war on drugs, crimes against police, or welfare stories are done, the first pictures shown tends to be that of minorities, but back in the newsroom where the "successful" people are, it's nothing but white.

I'll be the first to admit that all I know of Native Americans comes from a class that I took here at TXST with Dr. Cohen. I certainly received no legitimate information from my public school experience nor from the news. If left to the media, all we'd know about them is of gambling and alcohol problems...as if those aren't concerns with every race. The same goes with Asian groups; according to the media, all the Asian people are capable of doing is driving poorly and stealing our jobs, or being adopted, of course. It's very offensive and tasteless and honestly makes us as Americans look ignorant and careless. What's even worse is that so many people, and not just those in my hometown  consider the news to be concrete and factual. Racist ideologies are being spread every night at 5, 6, and 10.

The Complications of Americanization: The Unnecessary Evil

For the past year I have been going back and forth trying to get comfortable with my Americanization. Being irritated with my parents for allowing it doesn’t make them weak, it only requires me to be stronger. I dislike when people assume I speak Spanish, but that depends on who is asking. If a brown woman approaches me speaking Spanish I am embarrassed to explain “No habla espanol”. I am embarrassed that I have linguistically assimilated. If a white person assumes I only speak Spanish, I am offended that I am only allowed one dimension. Angry to be pigeon holed. If they assume that I am bilingual two things happen: I get embarrassed that I am not bilingual, thinking to myself I should be, but I also wonder why they would assume I would be when I am in America where our government and school system require that I speak English. Even if it isn’t in stone, it is what is demanded, if not through policy then merely through the paths allotted to attain the “American Dream”. Assimilation is taught to be required, so why is anyone surprised. Isn’t my monolingualness what white America has worked for? I am a good Mexican, a model minority. “SPEAK AMERICAN” is the obnoxious equivalent. That is a blatant fact to me; I am the embodiment of it.

I have heard white men and women comment on how well I speak, and I’ve heard my past Mexican boyfriends’ parents praise their son for finding such an articulate, educated woman to spend time with.  I receive positive attention for being Americanized and rarely encounter (until recently) a push to be anything other. Never to be a Chicana, never to learn Spanish, never to follow my blood through history to know what happened to us. Nothing. It was of no concern, because I was where I needed to be, on the way to the top, going through the motions, graduating, each step of the way, slowly passing up my ancestors in education and class while leaving them and my culture behind. Forgetting how and why I am able to be where I am. Cultural genocide at its finest.

Wait . .  . that’s actually not completely true. Whenever I was confronted with my Americanization by some BROWN people it was with disapproval, not understanding. Only hash judgment followed by feelings of guilt. To those brown people, I am one to play victim and complain, since to them what I really was, was a sellout. A weak sellout. I hate being called that. But I’ll call my parents that. I’ll call Bill Cosby that.

If I hadn’t recently read Paulo Freire I would be tempted to continue the cycle of condemning those who chose to assimilate to give their kids or themselves a better life. And I still slip up and do it sometimes. Freire mentions that the oppressed can find false liberation through the perpetuation of oppression. The oppress oppressing the oppressed. Assimilation happens sometimes in the act of the oppress oppressing each other, in the shaming of one’s own culture, and in forgetting one’s culture, and in my case,not understanding why some might have chose to assimilate. Even if assimilation is initially required to succeed, the problem comes when you are taught to forget. No one should be praising me for properly assimilating. No one should be condemning me either. It should be recognized and rectified with remembrance. It is cultural genocide to forget, and my ancestors past is already fading from the books and my tongue.

To assimilate, as I have seen it in America, is different than just absorbing. I am not saying absorbing another culture is a problem. But the kind of assimilation I see in America, Americanization, seems to require you to replace your culture with American culture. I believe that’s how white people in America became white people. Americanization calls white people, whites, and not Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, or German-American. But people of color can never assimilate in that way. Even if our culture and language is replaced I cannot escape the skin I’m in. I shouldn’t feel like I have to, right? Then what is the difference between language and culture. It is easier to replace my culture through education, media, and other institutions. It is less obvious, less racist, then requiring me to eradicate my difference by altering my appearance: dying my hair, changing my eye color, and bleaching my skin. Although people have tried.

Someone had mentioned the complications of the portrayal of minorities in the media as being white washed or stereotyped. If we look at The Cosby Show critically, someone could call it white washed. Or someone could say that calling it white washed is racist and denying the portrayal of black families as happy, financial stable, “well spoken”, and academically successful. It is the same conflictions I am faced with when asked if I speak Spanish.

If Bill Cosby had not assimilated (and condemned Ebonics), then he wouldn’t have been allowed to be seen. He would have denied the black community a visible and successful role model. If my parents hadn’t assimilated, maybe I wouldn’t be sitting in this class talking shit. But what I want to do, and what I am not always so keen to be able to spit out is to say

 Bill Cosby is not wrong, my parents are not wrong, but they are also not right.  I will no longer condemn them, but American assimilation, Americanization, should not be praised or accepted as a necessary evil.

What I will do is not only acknowledge americanization, point it out and recognize the values, incentives and forces behind it, but work to reverse the idea that it is necessary. The ideology and acceptance of changing your language, forgetting your culture, and even denouncing your own to succeed should be eradicated. Although I am not saying absorbing another culture and langue is bad, is matter of fact I believe ideology should be promoted.But American assimilation, Americanization, is not meant to be an absorption. It is not taking in another culture to add to your library, but a replacement for whatever it was you were before.  You have a right to your language. The problem is not your language, your skin; it is not your culture. The problem is with the eyes, ears, and minds that the judge it. It is with those who cannot accept with the same respect difference in religion, cultural practices, skin color, or language. I will not be afraid to offend my oppressor, and I will no longer accept American assimilation as a necessary evil.

 It is not necessary.

Larson, Lars off

Having perused my classmates' entries, I am of agreement that this text has several issues.  For starters, what the hell is going on with quoting every other phrase?

Seriously, do the authors really need to tell us every time they are using words or phrases that they are attributing to the popular vernacular and not to themselves?  Would any educated reader really believe that Stephanie Greco Larson came up with or would intentionally use the phrase "appear raceless" without the proper cultural context?

Also, like Lexi, I took issue with several examples Larson used.  While I agree with the idea that large numbers of roles being shoehorned into stereotypical crap is bad, the author trying to shoehorn popular movies into categories they don't fit in is destructive to her argument.  The two main ones I take issue with are her painting of The Bodyguard as bad because it ignores the racial issues of the relationship in the movie, and her criticism of Men in Black as being a Huck Finn-esque buddy movie.  Really?

So every movie featuring a minority must become a commentary on their minority status or else it's not a valid film in Larson's eyes?  Isn't that a pretty immense burden to place on entertainment?

Modern literary publishing is undergoing a big shift in thinking about equality in their writing, but the way they have gone about it is much different than this article.  Recently VIDA (http://www.vidaweb.org/) made a comprehensive study of all book reviews published in 2012.  They harvested the gender of the reviewer and the gender of the reviewee, and the results were pretty dismal.  This has caused a lot of good discussion, including a male book reviewer who is pledging to do better.  And I feel this approach is a much better one than Larson's blanket critiquing of individual works - show us the numbers, show us how insane it is.  Because it is insane, but insulting Whitney Houston's work is not winning me over here!

I'm curious what the future of racism, especially in the movies, will look like as we move into a more mixed society.  After all, if my wife and I have children, they will be both White and Hispanic, just as our president is both Black and White.  Right now, we still shoehorn people of multiple ethnicities into whatever best suits us for the occasion (OH GOD SHOULD I PUT THAT IN QUOTES TO SHOW I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT?) but as the numbers become overwhelming, won't that have to change?  I hope?  Can we look at advertising, where women are airbrushed and made up to be generically ethnic, and that's the new thing to attain?

Speaking of my wife, reading this reminded me of an experience I had with her last year, when we went to a Spanish Mass at a local Catholic church when her mother was in town.  Inside, I was one of maybe a dozen people who were obviously White, in a crowd of at least 200 (note, three of the others had parts in the Mass, out of five total).  Yet, on the mural on the wall, in the painting of what heaven looks like, every single face up there was definitively European, definitively White.  What does that say?  Is it pointless to critique media when it's ingrained to that point in our culture?

That picture is actually from their site.

In the African American section, I'm surprised they left out the role of the "Magic Negro" that's all-present in film.  See this list - Bagger Vance, Green Mile, O Brother Where Art Thou, Bruce Almighty.  Also, holy crap, Fresh Prince is racist.  There's a really good write-up out there about how racist it is, especially in regards to Will's mother, but I can't find it.  Take my word for it.

In the Native American section, I found it HILARIOUS that Larson identifies Sherman Alexie SOLELY as "a Spokane" when talking about his role in Smoke Signals.  It's not the like man wasn't a world-famous author with multiple best sellers or awards before then, no, instead she felt the need to zero in solely on his race as a measure of his contribution to the film.  Both should've been listed.

Finally, for the Asian American section, it was the only section where I basically couldn't think of an example outside of the stereotypes presented in the chapter.  It was amusing to think of the one Asian character from Twin Peaks though, a lady who basically alternates between the two roles Larson describes.