Politics, Race, and Press Coverage

In this section of the book Media and Minorities, Larson discusses politician press coverage and discusses specifically minority politicians and their coverage compared to white politicians in terms of visibility, favorability, and stereotyping.  It seemed based on the reading that Larson is arguing that very little scholarship has looked at minority politicians and the press coverage surrounding them.  She is calling for more scholarship about these issues to help shed light on it.  \

I really did like the fact that she discussed how the media shouldn't be dismissed on covering political candidates.  She included information about how exclusion from media coverage "can hurt a candidate's chances because name recognition is an important factor when voting" (198).  She also mentioned how the media "can influence or destroy a candidate's legitimacy with the coverage's tone and treatment" (198).  I immediately thought of the last presidential race and of Herman Cain.  As he began to gain more attention from voters, the media immediately undercut him with sex scandal stories, to the point that anytime he was mentioned it was always in the context of the sex scandal, that framed him as already guilty.  Ultimately, he dropped out of the race because of the scandal, meaning the media did play a huge role in the outcome of his campaign.  I think her point on this was stressed, and is important, because previously political scientists had said that the media does not play a significant outcome in the politician's campaigning.  It also raised questions for me about funding.  Because, if a candidate is unable to pay for the funds to appear in different places in the country and illicit press coverage, it is less likely that they will be covered extensively by the media.  Which, ultimately means that the coverage goes to mainly upper class candidates, further cutting a diversified government that represents all people in the US.  I think it was also a good reminder that "News coverage carries credibility that self-interested, paid advertising does not" (200).  The news and the stories presented by the news are often taken as non-biased and the truth, despite positive/negative story framing and the exclusion of information at the discretion of the reporters and news company.

I thought about the discussion of Farrakhan, and the main message I got out of it was that the news has used him as a way to connect to other politicians to generate fear.  But, I don't really know much about Farrakhan, or the movement he was involved in, and I found it difficult to really follow what was going on.  I would have liked more context to help me understand and have a better understanding of what she was talking about.  So, I can definitely see how the news is framing Black politicians/candidates as dangerous and threatening, especially when they associate them with figures that illicit fear, but I want to know why that image would fill people with fear, and if it is justified or not.  By that I mean, was it another story framing narrative from the media that made people fear him, or was there something to be feared?

Overall, I really enjoy this book so far.  There are times where I wish there was more context, but it's really my own ignorance that leaves me not completely comprehending the extent of what she is talking about, I think.