Lastly.

I have had a little bit of a struggle making a significant comment this week because I feel like I'd be repeating commentary from past weeks, just with slight changes. I'm also tired of the formula of not having anything comment about what the book is saying, so the answer is to resort to commenting on how the author is saying it instead. 

For these last two sections and the conclusion, let me take a brief, topical approach.

As the author addressed in her conclusion, I did wonder why there weren't more recent examples for both the Hispanic candidates section and the Asian American section. However, I found the examination of the San Antonio elections relevant and interesting considering the proximity of that area. In fact, San Antonio feels like sort of an irony with regard to racializaiton. Here is a city that celebrates its cuisine culture and latin influence while simultaneously celebrating the myths and stories surrounding the Alamo that seem to magnify the colonial American paradigm. Also ironic is the enormous American (or at least American-like) pride that Texas has considering its history and how it came to be, especially with how much Mexican culture permeates and has influenced much of the state. 

The section on Asian-American candidates only further emphasizes an underlying message of this whole textbook as well as the whole of American media.  That is, when it comes to the film and entertainment side of media, the eye behind the camera is likely trying to portray the world the way they have observed it. While it is certainly arguable that much of media is agenda-driven, sometimes a discourse is perpetuated because its all a media maker knows. I know that's exactly what so many CDA critics argue—there really is no reason or excuse for racialized media anymore. Even so, I think in the long run an effort to change the way every storyteller tells their story will be less effective than creating more storytellers who tell stories with eyes that are opened to race. In other words, it seems like displacement will be more effective than conversion when it comes to presenting paradigms through media. 

As CDA folks we're fixated on the "prevailing discourse" and what it maintains. Often the discussion approaches the discourse by talking about its problems and pleading that people open their eyes; that current filmmakers and media portray the world in a way that detracts from the minority and it needs to stop. The acknowledged problem is that a whitewashed worldview produces whitewashed media that perpetuate a whitewashed discourse. But, when you try to convince a people that see a white-dominant world to make media that isn't predominantly white, you're asking them to recreate something they think is subjectively false. That is, you're pleading with them to pretend enough that the pretended idea becomes real. I think in some circles that's called faith.  My argument (and my experience) is that trying to change someone's faith is a hard thing—especially the older they get. I think it will be more fruitful to displace a prevailing discourse by introducing new discourses by whatever means. Time spent trying to change the old faithfuls might be wasted when it could be spent creating new discourse instead. The internet has changed the face of mass media. The way we communicate now convinces me that a curtailing of the prevailing discourse will not be through some kind of mind-changing inside coup, but instead through an overthrowing by the louder, bigger voices. Airtime and radio waves are no longer the shackles they have been in former decades. Let the white people have their television and radio pawns in high number. Meanwhile, the kings and queens of the internet can prepare for their checkmate on the prevailing discourse and finally realize the change they've been waiting for.

... well, that got awfully preachy and lofty. Yet, most of our discussion is based on one or more of these things: blaming, ideals, dreams, and muckraking. The textbooks and discussion from this semester have given me a stronger hope for the rise minority media. Yeah, you know I'll still be calling out the errors of prevailing discourse. But, I think that is a dead end road of name calling. I'd rather cross my fingers and promote minority media in the hope that one day America's media will be (at least) a bi-partisan discourse.

Last post!

I'm presenting tonight so I don't want to give away any spoilers... but if I had to pick one thing out of this week's readings, it would be my annoyance with the section on the Locke vs. Craswell campaign in Chapter 19. I realize that this book focuses on racial minorities rather than gender (specifically women as minorities), but Larson completely overlooks the fact that women, even white women, in politics have a harder time being taken seriously than men of any ethnicity (think Hillary Clinton vs. Obama--I seem to recall reading something that attributed Obama's victory to his race being the "lesser of two evils," the other evil being the female gender). She spends quite a bit of time discussing the criticism of Craswell's appearance, but never comes to the conclusion that gender was more of a cause for inequality in the coverage of the two candidates than race. Craswell did have other problems that impeded her progress as a candidate (her extreme religious stance, for instance), but even based on the evidence given in the book, it seemed clear to me that simply being female hurt her chances against Locke. I think that that should have been acknowledged or at least entertained, even if the book is about racial minorities.

Micah Wright - Last Post... For this class...

During the 2010 race for San Antonio District Attorney, Susan Reed (the current DA) and Nico Lahood (an ADA) faced off in the political ring.  While Nico Lahood, a Hispanic candidate, attacked Reed on her conviction rates, Reed (a White candidate) attacked Lahood on his criminal record.  Paralleling the Lexus Nexus Results of the Bonilla/Jones race from the book, the Hispanic candidate definitely occupied most of the negative media spotlight.

Like most people, I was interested to know what was so important about Lahood’s record that could de-qualify him to become a district attorney. Besides, he had already spent a good number of years working as an attorney - even as a special prosecutor for a number of counties.  Susan Reed argued that because of his criminal record, Lahood could not become a police officer and therefore should not become a DA – she even had the San Antonio Police Officers Association endorsement.

SAPOA Endorses Susan Reed

So what’s the point of the negativity? I’m sure most unaware citizens will not even know who is running for DA, so why not just talk about how good someone is at being a lawyer? I believe the negativity promoted a certain racial stereotype of Nico Lahood.  If the DA, who has been the almost unopposed DA since 1998, comes on TV and says that a specific person is a criminal, who is going to question her authority?

Susan Reed, along with the media coverage, created a specific character structure for Lahood. Instead of being portrayed as a bad lawyer, he was portrayed as a dangerous Mexican. Once the archetype was set, the only thing Nico Lahood could do was embrace it. In his commercials he portrays himself as the poor troubled Hispanic kid who was able to rise above his mistakes, instead of the talented lawyer who was qualified to be DA.

Unfortunately (I voted for Lahood), not enough people questioned Reed (Lahood lost). “The dependence of the news on elites to define what is important and as the ‘go to’ people for comments and interpretations affects how the coverage of racial minorities change over time; it also explains the limited nature of these changes because the news will only be as progressive on racial issues as the dominant ideology allows” (507, IBook). In many political races, whether it is explicitly mentioned, or hinted at in passing, the race of a candidate is always at the forefront. 

Media & Minorities Last Post!

I like the overall message of this book, and the way she discussed it in the conclusion.  "The first is that representation of race serves to protect the racial hierarchy in America..."  I agree with this. I do think this is the point of the book and I think that as a holistic work it does a good job showing this.  There are times though where her lack of detail in argument and in examples, could possibly lead to her not being taken seriously, which I think is a big problem.

I found it problematic, like Lexi, that she spent so much time talking about this "coconut" comment, going in depth about what it meant. I think Lexi explained this best, so I'm going to leave my comments at her argument being the best one to reference in terms of this coverage.

I also found some of the political campaigns that she chose to use for reference problematic.  I found it annoying that she kept presenting saying Solarz was white, but also calling him Jewish.  Wait, what?  As in, he is racially white but religiously Jewish?  I wasn't really sure what she was trying to say here. Honestly, it bothered me that it wasn't clear.

In the campaign between Locke and Craswell, she leaves out gender almost entirely in the discussion of analysis.  WHY?!  It is important when it comes to politics as well.  It's something that you cannot just "ignore" for the sake of the piece.  It is a factor.

Also, using the campaign of Jay Kim when he had just been convicted for accepting illegal campaign contributions and was under house arrest, seemed ridiculous.  Why would you choose that?  Obviously, things are going to be skewed in coverage about a corrupt politician.

Lastly, in her conclusion...this honestly just pissed me off.  "Since the mainstream media's exclusion and representation of all four racial-minority groups..."  Um, the four you covered.  There are not "4 minority groups".  It's been bugging me all along that this book focuses on four groups but doesn't even acknowledge that minorities are not just four groups, and even her groupings probably would not be agreed upon.  It was just frustrating for me and I wish she would have said more clearly that she realized her study was not all encompassing and completely representative.  Because it wasn't.  She spends a lot of time talking about representation, without seeming to acknowledge how she was being exclusionary herself.  I'm not saying she could have covered everything, but acknowledging it more blatantly would have been a step in the right direction.

Coconuts and Oreos: How Can Food be Racist?

This time I wanted to talk about how Larson decided to skim across the racial comments directed towards Bonilla. It's interesting that Larson decided to highlight the comments of Victor Morales by putting in Morales quotaion "coconut" and then making sure we. the readers, knew what he meant by that. She went on to clarify "(meaning brown on the outside, white on the inside)." As if that was not enouh, Lasrson continued this trend by exapand Morales' quote and giving its context on the next page. Personally I would have been content with the extended justification on the next page or even the limited introduction she gave the quote, but she is giving this instance a lot of attention. This brings me to my next issue. Why is Larson, and us as the rhetorical audience if you didn't think about what I am going to point out, using this example to illustrate how race is used in political races and why are we not questioning the acceptability of racism within the races which is another form of racism or colorism. Shouldn't we be more critical at the fact that Bonilla's authenticity of Mexican American heritage is being questioned because his personality is condusive to the Republican party, he's a "model minority", or a "sell out" rather than accepting this peice of new as being coded for "good news"/ "bad news" that can be used to cout his visability or popularity, especially in a book who's purpose is to bring to light the unbalenced social structures of the hegemony and minorieties? Larson didn't mention that type of discrimination when she was describing any of the black politictions. You can be sure that in the African American communities those racially discriminatory words exsist. Even I've been called them. The favoriet among those who use them is "oreo" (black on the outside, whit on the inside). This name is used for anyone who can speak Standard English and can carry themselve proper in civilized society (i.e. not be loud in small groups or inside spaces, use limited to no profane words, no attitude like head, neck or eye rolling/ neck or finger snapping and finger pointing the usual stereotypical "ghetto" talk). Do you see how these terms seem like they are innocent? However, when you define the boundaries of the terms, they are racsist. Subtle racism is still racism.

Last post of the semester

I would like to talk about two different elements of these chapters. First, it was rather interesting to read about how some politicians of color had to downplay their race in order to get elected. Locke's case was particularly interesting, because the media coverage of his campaign focuses largely on race. This was done in spite of his effort to "be a governor for everybody." It reminded me how the media never provides nuanced, or even truthful coverage. Instead, it trades in stereotypes because they make better sound bites. It always frustrates me when I hear complaints about the media, whether it be the "liberal media" or fox news. To me, they're all equally bad in that they don't seem to really care about stories, but about narratives. This comes up a lot in politics as well as sports journalism. In politics, the media always has an angle regarding a predetermined narrative. In the Locke case,  he was the "Asian candidate," for example. I call also recall Al Gore as "boring" throughout his campaign. In sports, the media tends to pick guys they like and guys they don't. ESPN has always been extremely critical of Terrell Owens for no good reason, while they have lionized Ray Lewis, despite his involvement in various crimes. I find this kind of framing extremely frustrating, because I feel like the media finds "facts" irrelevant; if the truth doesn't support the narrative, they throw the truth away instead of changing the narrative.

On another note, I found it rather interesting to read about politics in Miami in depth, as I lived there for many years. I entirely agree with the book that the media's popular narrative regarding politics in south florida tends to center on U.S. policies with Cuba. As someone who voted in local elections in Miami, I know that there are actually a lot of complex issues that go into these campaigns. The city has a lot of problems, from economically depressed areas downtown, to crime and gang violence. While all of these matters are brought up consistently with politicians, the media seems to always foreground the Cuba issue as the only relevant issue. I was glad to see the book take a critical stance here, because I'm rather sick of that coverage. This is the kind of thing I've been trying to convince family members about for years...yet that is easier said than done. Many people, including my friends and family are either not aware of these kinds of issues or choose to ignore them. I'm glad to have read this book for a couple of reasons: 1) it reinforces some of my core beliefs 2) I learned a lot I didn't even know about the media.

I was glad that the book's final chapter helped provide some insight into how we can take action in these matters. For those of us who are/will be teachers, I think one important way we can subvert the system is to make our students aware of these things. I think it's OK to be controversial in the classroom - we should be teaching our students to think critically about our subject - can't we teach them to be critical of the media and society as well?

Last post!

The final section we read of Larson’s book deals with the final section on media coverage of Hispanic politicians and Asian American politicians. Similar to Native American politicians, there is little research on the coverage of Hispanic politicians, but there seems to be a bit more information on Asian American politicians (despite the small number of Asian American politicians in American federal politics).

Much of the research on the Hispanic population and politics focuses on how White politicians have tried to market themselves to the Hispanic population. This sort of mentality in the research is probably indicative of the agency of White people over other people of color. It is sad, but not surprising to think that so much research and politics is actually about manipulating the Hispanic population rather than looking at how, like was more the case in African American politicians, the minority people shaped their own politics. This is probably indicative of stereotypes about Latinos.

The lack of federal (because there are hundreds of local) Asian American politicians seems to be attributed to this being minor minority with a lack of connections to other ethnic minority groups. It is positive that they are not excluded from the media though there is still a prevalence of stereotypes and a focus on ethnicity and race.

Overall, the last chapter does not assert very astonishing conclusions: media helps uphold existing hegemonies, minorities are treated fairly equally poorly, and the third was pretty much the same. Really, the conclusions saying 1. there is less difference and 2. there is more similarity seem obviously related, but maybe the stress is clouding my mind. So have things gotten better? Larson asked. Yes and no. Woah. But really, overall, that is the focus of the book. Sure things have progressed towards equality, but there is a way to go and not enough people recognize this.

Critical Dorothy: Had to share this with you guys!

http://vitaminw.co/culture/wizard-oz-feminist-utopia-hollywood-cliche

Larson's point that "attention to the race of black candidates reinforces fears among white voters that he or she will not represent them" reminded me, of course, of Obama's election and re-election. As much as some white Obama opponents deny that their disapproval of him is about race (ignoring for a moment the people who will shout it from the mountaintops), it is very likely that they feared being represented by a black man in that his values will not be aligned with their own. What does it say about our great and powerful country if we have a black man as a president? If wealth and power are typically associated with the white man, what does it mean if this archetype is dethroned? I think that's why so many people have taken comfort in the notion that Obama is "not like" other black men. After Obama's first State of the Union, Chris Matthews stated that he "forgot [Obama] was black" while watching news coverage of the address. Even Joe Biden referred to him as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." (Ouch.) I would even go so far as to say that this ideology is what leads us to the notion that we live in a post-racial society--look, you can't even tell the difference between 'em anymore! Race is now a non-issue. It is as though, in order to make a candidate or a politician more trustworthy, we have to squint our eyes and try to see them as white.

We were all thinking it...

So this week our readings covered Asian politicians. Not surprisingly, the first thing I thought of was Kim Jong-Un (because, well, you know- he's pretty much in the news 24/7 these days).
As a Redditor (but who isn't these days?), I've decided to discuss the relationship between Kim Jong-Un and Reddit.
Those of you that are Redditors know that the website often contains memes of him, usually making fun of him and his weight/lack of intelligence/resources, etc. For the most part, none of these things actually have anything to do with him or his policies, or even the possible launch of nuclear weapons. They all just make light of the situation. Many of the memes also encourage North Korea to start a war, as they believe that America will completely crush North Korea. Although its true that North Korea most likely doesn't have the resources to actually do much damage to America, I don't think any of these people are genuinely considering the terrible outcome/damage if all of this were to happen.
Come on, Redditors- war isn't cool. And nuclear weapons are even less cool.

Aryeh post 4/11

Sorry I'm posting a bit late - I've been sick and in bed all day the last few days.

That being said, these readings were difficult for me in several ways. The most significant issue I had with the book was the consistent downplaying of Jessie Jackson's anti-semetic remarks during his presidential campaign. While I can somewhat understand Larson's point that the media overly focused on this single issue, as a Jewish person, it's hard for me to see media coverage of his comments as unfair. I'm originally from Chicago (Jackon's hometown), and I've seen a lot of friction between African-Americans and Jews there, especially in regards to politics and various city issues. It's not surprising that the contention that exists there would find its way into Jackson's campaign. Still, I think presidential candidates need to be held to some standard of decency, and I feel that Jackson's anti-semetic comments were (and are) inappropriate. It's hard for me to agree with Larson that the media overstated this element of Jackson's campagin, because frankly, the media blows everything out of proportion. They have a tendency to focus on the most irrelevant elements of any campaign; the fact that they caught on to Jackson's comments and used them (along with the Farrakhan video clip) to essentially end Jackson's presidential run isn't something that I'm terribly broken up about. 

Another problem I had with the readings was my bias against politics in general. On a personal level, I'm pretty skeptical of politicians; they all seem similarly inauthentic to me, regardless of their background. Still, it was interesting to read so much Chicago-centric information, as I know quite a bit about these figures.

Reading this book, I kept wondering how it might be different if it included information about President Obama's campaigns. I think Larson could probably write an entire book about the whole "terrorist fist jab" comment, for example (if you're unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, it's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_vmQrTi3aM)

Speaking of racism in Chicago, as a native Chicagoan, I was surprised by this book's treatment of Harold Washington's campaign; I would not have thought that his candidacy had received "balanced" coverage as the book states. Even today, I think most people recall Washington as being a terrible mayor, which is probably related to the fact that he has been to this date the only African-American mayor of the city. Still, I guess it says something for the Chicago press than even in the 1980's, they were giving an African-American reasonable coverage.

Subtle Racism

Since the book was outdated, I was disappointed that it couldn’t discuss the racist media coverage and rhetoric following both presidential elections.  Since Obama’s election I have heard tons of arguments claiming that racism had finally been crushed, especially when Herman Cain ran against Obama for his second term. Larson’s assertion of minorities being rewarded for criticizing “their own” came to mind, but as Larson mentions “ racism has not gone away; it has gone underground, and subtle racism has taken its place.” ( pg. 201).

To me the subtle racism is not so subtle, but again I know that I tend to be a bit more critical than my peers who are not involved in academic world. And that is always the disheartening part and as J K Lewey ( sorry don’t know who you are, John I am guessing) mentioned in his blog, some non-whites have internalized the racism they see in the media and embrace stereotypes as figures of truth.  I, at one point in my life, did it as well. It can be hard when the only non-whites who are allowed to be seen only hold up the dominant racist ideology by either fitting into a stereotypical category or assimilating and allowing themselves to be “white washed”. Sometimes the “white washing” isn’t even allowed, it is just institutionally inserted as normal, acceptable and those who assimilate can find rewards.

Well I see the subtle racism, and wonder how to break it down without sounding, to others less critical, like a conspiracy theorist. I love this Noam Chomsky quote about the term conspiracy theory, and try to remember this every time I started doubting my analysis and worrying that I am going to far. I cant remember it exactly but its something along the lines of acknowledging the term conspiracy theory as a four letter word made to discredit and silence. To be critical or make an institutional analysis is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Sometimes being so critical of the media, speaking to my friends and my family about it, pointing out the sublet racism in the news, and the sexism in commercials, can be alienating. I can feel like I am always taking it too far, but I just cant turn my critical brain off.  I am always hoping that the people around me are at least half listening to me and considering what I say.

So I always feel like its cheating to bust out Fox news people to point out the racism in the media, but they give me just too much ammunition. Take it away Ann Coulter

Although Joy Behar is supposed to be calling Ann Coulter out she mostly just wants to prove that there are impressive Black democrats. Not that her ( Coutler's) statement " Our Blacks are better than their Blacks" was racist. In the middle of the discussion Joy even says something along the lines of " I am not going to make this a race discussion". Nope, she aint gonna touch that. To me its obvious racism on Coulters part and racism through silence on Joys part. 

I doubt I am the only one who wishes this book had been written after the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. I'm sure it is no longer "difficult to assess the nature of the coverage because studies disagree about the tone of black candidates' coverage" (218). I suppose some people might argue that political attacks such as accusing President Obama of being a Muslim not born on American soil are not racially motivated, but I would argue those people are probably also racists (but of the "I'm not a racist, it has nothing to do with race" ilk). I've never been accused of being a Muslim or a non-citizen. Hell, I'll let Bill O' Reilly speak for himself:

"It's a changing country. The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America any more. And there are 50% of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. And, whereby twenty years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?"

See, totally not racist... Okay, okay, that was totally racist. But that's just Bil O' Reilly, right? Hm, what about comments made by Brent Bozzell of the (improperly named) Media Research Center:

"How long do you think Sean Hannity's show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does. Everybody on the left would come forward and demand he be fired within five minutes for being so insulting towards a leader of the United States."

Sounds a tad racist to me. So are statements made by Fox News' Eric Bolling that President Obama was "chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO" or that when President Obama had the president of Gabon and a a rapper (both Black) over to the White House he had "hoodlum[s] in the hizzouse." I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all get the point. I guess what I am trying to say is that this section of the book seems dated and a bit irrelevant. I have a difficult time believing that this racism in the media when it comes to minority candidates is a new phenomenon, even though I will admit that I did not notice it until the 2008 presidential election when it was thrust full force into the spotlight. This section just seemed filled with a bunch of seemingly meaningless statistics. I would have much preferred a deep analysis of the language used to describe the candidates rather than a percentage of references made to the candidate and other information that I had a difficult time interpreting in any productive way (and it seems like Larson had the same problem). Hopefully more research into racism towards politicians in the media will be conducted soon, if it hasn't been already.

Definitely not Blatant Racism...

“Overt Racism is unlikely to appear in contemporary news coverage of politicians and candidates since racist statements and terminology have become unacceptable in Mainstream American culture” (Larson 370, IBook). Too be honest, I wholeheartedly disagreed with Larson when I read this statement. She continues by admitting that racism subtly exists in the “underground.”  During the first and second presidential races where President Obama was elected/re-elected, I could not bear to watch some of the mainstream coverage due to the overt racism – maybe Larson and I have different opinions of what the word overt means. 

Granted the photo listed above is not indicative of all mainstream media, but if I remember correctly, the concept of Barack Obama being a “Dangerous Muslim” was certainly pushed by someone – I know I didn’t imagine it… “Black Candidates can suffer under stereotypes of corruption and dishonesty” (Larson 383, IBook). Now I guess we need to determine if this is overt or not.  

Larson explains, “Old fashioned racism has been replaced by code words that imply race based threats to traditional values” (Larson 370, IBook).  I guess this poster could have been made with all good intentions; I mean, I don’t see any blatant “old-fashioned racism.”  Too be honest, I’m not sure what that really looks like. Besides it’s not like the media ever showed us Barack Obama actually associating with less than desirable people.

“Rather than present black candidates or politicians as violent, they are shown with dangerous people, accused of promoting threatening ideas, and portrayed as angry” (Larson 385, IBook).  Depending on what news channel you watched, the commentary on this association could have been different.  Glenn Beck obviously promotes the dangers of Barack Obama by showing the obvious association with someone who is viewed as completely radical and nonsensical.  Again, is Glenn Beck being blatant or subtle? I guess we don’t have to worry about answering that questions because, remember, President Obama isn’t black…