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?