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 I appreciate being able to discuss the issues without sentimentally steeping myself to the point that my logos is withdrawn and I'm leaning more on my pathos instead.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


:)