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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)