During Monday's class, we discussed the concept of media literacy. Basically, media literacy is a skill acquired by people that enables them to comprehend and analyze media, and separate different types and qualities of media from one another. We looked over a list compiled by Len Masterman of eighteen principles of media education – a term that he prefers over media literacy, for whatever reason. Unsurprisingly, his principles drive home the utter importance that he places on media education, perhaps best in his very first point – "Media education is a serious and significant endeavor. At stake is the empowerment of majorities and the strengthening of society's democratic structures."
Bold words, but he's absolutely right. A well-informed citizenry is by far the most important tool in keeping democracy alive, and since people look to their news media to gather the information they need to actively participate in the republic, media literacy is of the utmost importance. If people lack the necessary media skills that are crucial in determining what bits of the information overload that they receive every single day are the useful bits, then there's no way they'll be able to make the right decisions when they get to the voting booths. Many people are so overwhelmed by the glut of information the media throws at them that they remove themselves completely from the process, choosing to remain ignorant rather than deal with a media that they perceive as bullying or too omnipresent.
That is the great challenge that media literacy advocates will face moving into the next decade. An increase in media consumption might ironically come with a decrease in media literacy, as people become flooded with information that they don't know how to sort out. It's extremely important that we teach tactics for media literacy in our schools, and that people who grow up as a part of a generation that doesn't remember what dial-up Internet is be instructed in such a way that makes them savvy media consumers when they get older.
Our very democracy may depend upon it.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Public Relations and Celebrities
My group gave our presentation in class this past week, and it was about how public relations influence media coverage. One of the most highly visible, and most interesting, arenas that public relations impacts is the world of celebrity. Perhaps no group places a higher importance on public image than celebrities and athletes. Every aspect of their life takes place in the public eye, and they're expected to be role models for young people. So when they get into trouble with the law or have an otherwise unfortunate thing happen to their reputation, they call in public relations firms.
Celebrities emerging from what have come to be called "PR crises" can end up one of two ways – redeemed in the eyes of the general public, or permanently disgraced and stigmatized. Some of this is based on the nature of what they did to sully their reputation, but an equally important role is played by how aggressively their PR people try to rehabilitate their image. My group began our presentation by offering pictures of ten celebrities and asking people to say what the first thing that came to mind when they saw them was. Not surprisingly, no one answered with the reason the celebrity is famous. Instead, they attempted character judgments. For Taylor Swift, they regarded her as innocent, which her public image as presented by PR machinery pretty much has been. For Chris Brown, domestic abuse was the first thing that leapt to people's minds. Interestingly, Robert Downey, Jr., who had a very public bout with drug abuse and alcoholism in the 1990s and early 2000s, didn't receive any negative comments from our audience. It would seem that his has been one of the most successful PR rehabilitation campaigns. His starring role in the two wildly successful Iron Man films, as well as his apparently exponentially increasing handsomeness, have saved his reputation from being tainted by his earlier problems. Other celebrities, like the late, great Michael Jackson, will probably never have their former reputations restored to them. Again, some of that is the nature of the PR crisis, and some of it is the PR itself.
Unfortunately for celebrities, it seems that most Americans are onto their attempts at restoring their reputations. The concepts of positive spin and PR campaigns have become all too familiar to the public, and their cynicism has become so pervasive that many celebrities (and companies) trying to recover from affronts to their reputation are judged as being mere purveyors of PR and not truly "changed." This perceived awareness that so many people have of the PR industry puts both PR firms and their clients in a tough spot, but there's always genuine success stories, like Robert Downey, Jr.'s and Michael Vick's – whose dog-fighting past is easier to forget when he's volunteering for the Humane Society and throwing touchdown passes. PR firms are involved in plenty of other work, but some of the most fascinating is the work they do with celebrities.
Celebrities emerging from what have come to be called "PR crises" can end up one of two ways – redeemed in the eyes of the general public, or permanently disgraced and stigmatized. Some of this is based on the nature of what they did to sully their reputation, but an equally important role is played by how aggressively their PR people try to rehabilitate their image. My group began our presentation by offering pictures of ten celebrities and asking people to say what the first thing that came to mind when they saw them was. Not surprisingly, no one answered with the reason the celebrity is famous. Instead, they attempted character judgments. For Taylor Swift, they regarded her as innocent, which her public image as presented by PR machinery pretty much has been. For Chris Brown, domestic abuse was the first thing that leapt to people's minds. Interestingly, Robert Downey, Jr., who had a very public bout with drug abuse and alcoholism in the 1990s and early 2000s, didn't receive any negative comments from our audience. It would seem that his has been one of the most successful PR rehabilitation campaigns. His starring role in the two wildly successful Iron Man films, as well as his apparently exponentially increasing handsomeness, have saved his reputation from being tainted by his earlier problems. Other celebrities, like the late, great Michael Jackson, will probably never have their former reputations restored to them. Again, some of that is the nature of the PR crisis, and some of it is the PR itself.
Unfortunately for celebrities, it seems that most Americans are onto their attempts at restoring their reputations. The concepts of positive spin and PR campaigns have become all too familiar to the public, and their cynicism has become so pervasive that many celebrities (and companies) trying to recover from affronts to their reputation are judged as being mere purveyors of PR and not truly "changed." This perceived awareness that so many people have of the PR industry puts both PR firms and their clients in a tough spot, but there's always genuine success stories, like Robert Downey, Jr.'s and Michael Vick's – whose dog-fighting past is easier to forget when he's volunteering for the Humane Society and throwing touchdown passes. PR firms are involved in plenty of other work, but some of the most fascinating is the work they do with celebrities.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Gender Discrepancies in Public Relations
In last week's blog entry, I discussed the illusion of hiring equality in professional sports that is created by the large numbers of minorities employed as players. This week, a similar issue will be the focus, albeit in a less glamorous context than pro sports. I'm going to talk about hiring equality in public relations as it relates to gender, and whether the large numbers of women in the field really amount to gender fairness.
In a 2002 study on gender discrepancies in public relations by Linda Aldoory and Elizabeth Toth, people in the public relations field were interviewed about how they perceived gender equality both at their own places of business and in the field as a whole. The responses were as one might expect: No one thought that their own business engaged in unfair hiring practices, but they mostly acknowledged that they happened elsewhere in public relations. In all cases, though, it was made clear that mere hiring inequality was not the problem; firms employed plenty of women. The gender equality issues lay primarily with promotion and pay.
Just as the upper management positions on professional sports teams are overwhelmingly occupied by whites despite the large number of minorities who suit up for games, the upper spots in a lot of public relations firms are occupied by men while the company projects an overwhelmingly female image by populating its staff with mainly women. And in a bizarrely backwards attempt to be "equal," men are often given more consideration for advancement because, in public relations, they are a "minority." The same reasoning is applied to the equally bizarre pay scale in PR. Since promotions are usually attached to a monetary component, men are making more money to do work that women are capable of because there are less of them. It's inequality masquerading as equality, and it needs to stop.
In a 2002 study on gender discrepancies in public relations by Linda Aldoory and Elizabeth Toth, people in the public relations field were interviewed about how they perceived gender equality both at their own places of business and in the field as a whole. The responses were as one might expect: No one thought that their own business engaged in unfair hiring practices, but they mostly acknowledged that they happened elsewhere in public relations. In all cases, though, it was made clear that mere hiring inequality was not the problem; firms employed plenty of women. The gender equality issues lay primarily with promotion and pay.
Just as the upper management positions on professional sports teams are overwhelmingly occupied by whites despite the large number of minorities who suit up for games, the upper spots in a lot of public relations firms are occupied by men while the company projects an overwhelmingly female image by populating its staff with mainly women. And in a bizarrely backwards attempt to be "equal," men are often given more consideration for advancement because, in public relations, they are a "minority." The same reasoning is applied to the equally bizarre pay scale in PR. Since promotions are usually attached to a monetary component, men are making more money to do work that women are capable of because there are less of them. It's inequality masquerading as equality, and it needs to stop.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Minority Athletes
In Thursday's class, one of the group presentations was about stereotypes of minority athletes. A point of emphasis was that, unlike virtually every other profession in America, professional sports employs minorities as a majority of its workforce. To some degree, it seems that this is enough to declare that pro sports promotes equality in hiring, and indeed, yearly surveys by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seem to agree with that fact by giving the four major leagues "A" ratings for workforce equality. But there's more to the story than that.
Sports leagues "hire" lots of minorities, enough to push them to the majority of their workforce, but most of that is because they are players. Unfortunately, this ostensible hiring equality doesn't often extend to upper management positions. In fact, front office positions for professional sports teams are still overwhelmingly dominated by whites. The men who show up to the clubhouse in suits rarely reflect the breakdown of the men who show up in uniform, and when people of color do ascend to management positions with sports teams, they are often former players. The message that this sends, however subliminally, is that minority groups can only thrive on the field of play and lack the intelligence to hold other positions in the business. There's a certain amount of institutional racism that comes with watching any professional sporting event, as outlined, among other places, in the book Forty Million Dollar Slaves by William C. Rhoden.
When a predominantly white audience pays outlandish prices to watch predominantly black athletes play a sport, the only difference between the sporting event and the minstrel shows of the Jim Crow days is that the blacks at the sporting event are making big money. I don't mean to condemn the existence of professional sports – I'm an enormous fan of them myself – but the connotations that it brings with it make every barb that much more racially charged. Black players who skip practice are called "lazy" by white fans who are using incredibly coded language whether they realize it or not. Black players who try to get bigger contracts are invariably called greedy by white people who, deep down, don't like the idea of blacks making that much more money than they ever will. Not every reaction to happenings in professional sports is racially motivated, (LeBron James faced a backlash when he claimed that media coverage of his decision to play for the Miami Heat next year was racially charged) but enough is that it's worth bringing up. A quick way to alleviate some of these racial tensions would be to show that blacks and other minority groups are valuable to sports organizations in capacities other than playing and coaching.
Sports leagues "hire" lots of minorities, enough to push them to the majority of their workforce, but most of that is because they are players. Unfortunately, this ostensible hiring equality doesn't often extend to upper management positions. In fact, front office positions for professional sports teams are still overwhelmingly dominated by whites. The men who show up to the clubhouse in suits rarely reflect the breakdown of the men who show up in uniform, and when people of color do ascend to management positions with sports teams, they are often former players. The message that this sends, however subliminally, is that minority groups can only thrive on the field of play and lack the intelligence to hold other positions in the business. There's a certain amount of institutional racism that comes with watching any professional sporting event, as outlined, among other places, in the book Forty Million Dollar Slaves by William C. Rhoden.
When a predominantly white audience pays outlandish prices to watch predominantly black athletes play a sport, the only difference between the sporting event and the minstrel shows of the Jim Crow days is that the blacks at the sporting event are making big money. I don't mean to condemn the existence of professional sports – I'm an enormous fan of them myself – but the connotations that it brings with it make every barb that much more racially charged. Black players who skip practice are called "lazy" by white fans who are using incredibly coded language whether they realize it or not. Black players who try to get bigger contracts are invariably called greedy by white people who, deep down, don't like the idea of blacks making that much more money than they ever will. Not every reaction to happenings in professional sports is racially motivated, (LeBron James faced a backlash when he claimed that media coverage of his decision to play for the Miami Heat next year was racially charged) but enough is that it's worth bringing up. A quick way to alleviate some of these racial tensions would be to show that blacks and other minority groups are valuable to sports organizations in capacities other than playing and coaching.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Latino and Asian American Stereotypes As Seen in Stand Up Comedy
In a group presentation in class this past Thursday, the focus was stereotypes of Latinos and Asian Americans in media. The group presented the stereotypes inherent in portrayals of both groups. For Latinos, there's assertions of laziness, saucy suggestiveness, and hot temper. For Asians, there's implications that the average Asian is everything from a bad driver to a kung fu master. There's also the issue of lumping dozens of unique nationalities, ethnicities and cultures into umbrella terms like "Hispanic," "Latino," and "Asian." While these terms aren't necessarily inaccurate, they certainly don't encourage a deeper understanding of the diverse cultures that exist within them. The presenting group used the routines of some notable Latino and Asian American stand up comedians to demonstrate the views on stereotypes within those communities. It's this use of comedy as a reflection of real views of the Latino and Asian American communities that I'd like to use the rest of this blog post to focus on.
In class, the Latino comedian used to show Latino views on stereotypes about their race was George Lopez. Mr. Lopez's act is almost entirely based on the fact that he is Latino, and he uses stereotypes and comments on race relations to create comedy. In class, we saw several clips of Lopez, including one of him talking about how Jesus Christ was Latino because he was a "carpenter accused of a crime he did not commit" and "thought his mom was a virgin." Other bits of his comedy routine discuss how everyone who works at fast-food restaurants is Hispanic, and others still imply that Latinos a) are the target of police shooting beanbag guns and b) that these Latinos love eating beans so much that they would take the projectiles home to cook them. It's clear that these play up stereotypes about Latinos, and it would be unacceptable for a comedian of another race to make these jokes in earnest. But just because George Lopez has the right, should he?
Asian American comedians often exploit some of the same kind of stereotypes for jokes. In class, we watched clips from Henry Cho and Margaret Cho, both of whom are ethnically Korean but were born and raised in the United States. Henry discussed the feeling of foreignness and alienation he felt when he visited Korea as a kid and implied that all Asians look alike, and Margaret did an impression of an Asian person that would be extremely offensive if it was done by someone who wasn't Asian. Again, these stand up bits were only acceptable because of the ethnicities of the people performing them. They absolutely should be allowed, but does that mean they should do it?
If they can make it funny, then sure. It's not just Latino and Asian American comics who pay the bills with racial humor about their own race – black comedians like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle fill seats by talking about black-white race relations, and some of Louis C.K.'s funniest bits are about being white. If you can't make it funny, though, it's just lazy comedy, and I think Lopez especially is guilty of this. Still, there's no real danger in lazy comedy. Where I question this kind of comedy is when people start considering stand up comics ambassadors for their race, people whose views on stereotypes and race issues should be considered "how it is" regardless of whether they have any evidence beyond the anecdotal. In a perfect world, people would know the difference between comedy and academia. In real life, however, racist sketches like Jeff Dunham's Achmed the Dead Terrorist inform the worldview of far too many people, and comedians should be careful what kind of message their material gives off.
In class, the Latino comedian used to show Latino views on stereotypes about their race was George Lopez. Mr. Lopez's act is almost entirely based on the fact that he is Latino, and he uses stereotypes and comments on race relations to create comedy. In class, we saw several clips of Lopez, including one of him talking about how Jesus Christ was Latino because he was a "carpenter accused of a crime he did not commit" and "thought his mom was a virgin." Other bits of his comedy routine discuss how everyone who works at fast-food restaurants is Hispanic, and others still imply that Latinos a) are the target of police shooting beanbag guns and b) that these Latinos love eating beans so much that they would take the projectiles home to cook them. It's clear that these play up stereotypes about Latinos, and it would be unacceptable for a comedian of another race to make these jokes in earnest. But just because George Lopez has the right, should he?
Asian American comedians often exploit some of the same kind of stereotypes for jokes. In class, we watched clips from Henry Cho and Margaret Cho, both of whom are ethnically Korean but were born and raised in the United States. Henry discussed the feeling of foreignness and alienation he felt when he visited Korea as a kid and implied that all Asians look alike, and Margaret did an impression of an Asian person that would be extremely offensive if it was done by someone who wasn't Asian. Again, these stand up bits were only acceptable because of the ethnicities of the people performing them. They absolutely should be allowed, but does that mean they should do it?
If they can make it funny, then sure. It's not just Latino and Asian American comics who pay the bills with racial humor about their own race – black comedians like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle fill seats by talking about black-white race relations, and some of Louis C.K.'s funniest bits are about being white. If you can't make it funny, though, it's just lazy comedy, and I think Lopez especially is guilty of this. Still, there's no real danger in lazy comedy. Where I question this kind of comedy is when people start considering stand up comics ambassadors for their race, people whose views on stereotypes and race issues should be considered "how it is" regardless of whether they have any evidence beyond the anecdotal. In a perfect world, people would know the difference between comedy and academia. In real life, however, racist sketches like Jeff Dunham's Achmed the Dead Terrorist inform the worldview of far too many people, and comedians should be careful what kind of message their material gives off.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
LGBT Advertising
For class this past week, we read an interesting article by Katherine Sender entitled "Sex Sells: Sex, Class and Taste in Commercial Gay and Lesbian Media." The article alleged that magazines with a focus on gay issues were less likely to use sexual appeal in their advertising than comparable "straight" magazines. While straight-audience magazines like Esquire and GQ rely heavily on scantily-clad beautiful people, publications like Advocate, perhaps ironically, were more conservative in their advertising. This isn't evidence of prudishness on the part of the gay magazine editors; rather, it shows how careful these magazines have to be to maintain the respect of the publishing world.
Many editors of traditionally gay magazines keep sex-related advertising out of their publications in numerous capacities and for numerous reasons. There are essentially two level of sex-based advertising that editors may try to keep out: sex-appeal advertising like Calvin Klein ads, and sex advertising like 900 numbers and escort services. The motivation to ban the former is primarily an audience-based choice, since a gay audience would be less interested in straight-targeted sex appeal advertising, and because lesbians would not be receptive to advertising targeted toward gay men, and vice versa. The latter is of graver concern.
Permitting advertisers representing sex line and escort service companies to advertise in non-pornographic gay magazines presents three major problems. First, as an aesthetic choice, any classy vibe given off by a magazine is erased once that kind of advertising is permitted. Second, that kind of advertising reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about the gay community as a sex-crazed clutch of degenerates who get their kicks from phone sex and prostitutes. Third, sex advertising limits the number of venues that editors can put their magazines; it certainly rules out sending copies of their magazine to schools for educational purposes. Considering all that, it would be senseless for editors of non-pornographic gay magazines to permit sex advertising.
Unfortunately, classy gay magazines don't operate on a level playing field, and their straight counterparts can get away with a lot more, both in advertising and in content. Gay magazines are constantly under harsh scrutiny, and they have to do everything right to maintain the respect of the journalism community. Considering the inherently unfair double standard that gay magazines are faced with, their editors do a generally excellent job of keeping their status as respectable publications, and a big part of that is the selectivity they exercise when selling ads.
Many editors of traditionally gay magazines keep sex-related advertising out of their publications in numerous capacities and for numerous reasons. There are essentially two level of sex-based advertising that editors may try to keep out: sex-appeal advertising like Calvin Klein ads, and sex advertising like 900 numbers and escort services. The motivation to ban the former is primarily an audience-based choice, since a gay audience would be less interested in straight-targeted sex appeal advertising, and because lesbians would not be receptive to advertising targeted toward gay men, and vice versa. The latter is of graver concern.
Permitting advertisers representing sex line and escort service companies to advertise in non-pornographic gay magazines presents three major problems. First, as an aesthetic choice, any classy vibe given off by a magazine is erased once that kind of advertising is permitted. Second, that kind of advertising reinforces inaccurate stereotypes about the gay community as a sex-crazed clutch of degenerates who get their kicks from phone sex and prostitutes. Third, sex advertising limits the number of venues that editors can put their magazines; it certainly rules out sending copies of their magazine to schools for educational purposes. Considering all that, it would be senseless for editors of non-pornographic gay magazines to permit sex advertising.
Unfortunately, classy gay magazines don't operate on a level playing field, and their straight counterparts can get away with a lot more, both in advertising and in content. Gay magazines are constantly under harsh scrutiny, and they have to do everything right to maintain the respect of the journalism community. Considering the inherently unfair double standard that gay magazines are faced with, their editors do a generally excellent job of keeping their status as respectable publications, and a big part of that is the selectivity they exercise when selling ads.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Women-Led Newsroom
We spent the better part of our third week in J375 discussing the dynamics of a women-led newsroom and how those create a different culture than the traditional, masculine newsrooms of yesteryear. A fairly recent study involving a handful of American newspapers with masculine and feminine newsrooms was conducted to find the differences between the two, and the results were pretty much as one would imagine. The masculine newsrooms were found to be more cutthroat and competitive, and the female newsrooms were found to be more nurturing and teamwork-oriented.
The results seemed to almost be stereotypes, but there was data to back them up. However, it seems that the years since the study have done something to correct this. We had Bob Zaltsberg, editor of the Bloomington Herald-Times, speak to our class on Wednesday. His newspaper was one of the ones involved in the study, and it was considered to be one of the "feminine" newsrooms. When it was suggested that the "feminine" culture in his newsroom was based on the presence of females in leadership positions, he didn't disagree, but he wasn't quick to accept it, either. In fact, calling it a "feminine" culture wasn't his preferred term. He appreciates the welcoming, teamwork-based culture that the Herald-Times' leadership has fostered, but he thinks it transcends gender and is more about creating a welcoming environment for everyone who works for him.
I'm inclined to agree. While I understand that the reactions in the study were based on observational data, it's nearly impossible to quantify something like culture and atmosphere in a newsroom. I found some of the conclusions offensive, and if I were a strong, motivated woman, I probably would have been offended by some of the conclusions about my apparent "nurturing" nature as well. I think the so-called feminine newsroom is a desirable environment for a publication, but I don't think it should be linked to gender. Instead, it should be judged on a person-to-person basis, and the genderized terminology should be dropped altogether.
The results seemed to almost be stereotypes, but there was data to back them up. However, it seems that the years since the study have done something to correct this. We had Bob Zaltsberg, editor of the Bloomington Herald-Times, speak to our class on Wednesday. His newspaper was one of the ones involved in the study, and it was considered to be one of the "feminine" newsrooms. When it was suggested that the "feminine" culture in his newsroom was based on the presence of females in leadership positions, he didn't disagree, but he wasn't quick to accept it, either. In fact, calling it a "feminine" culture wasn't his preferred term. He appreciates the welcoming, teamwork-based culture that the Herald-Times' leadership has fostered, but he thinks it transcends gender and is more about creating a welcoming environment for everyone who works for him.
I'm inclined to agree. While I understand that the reactions in the study were based on observational data, it's nearly impossible to quantify something like culture and atmosphere in a newsroom. I found some of the conclusions offensive, and if I were a strong, motivated woman, I probably would have been offended by some of the conclusions about my apparent "nurturing" nature as well. I think the so-called feminine newsroom is a desirable environment for a publication, but I don't think it should be linked to gender. Instead, it should be judged on a person-to-person basis, and the genderized terminology should be dropped altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)