Croteau Hoynes 195 227

‘CHAPTER 6
Social Inequality and Media Representation

he examination of media content traditionally has been the most
common type of media analysis, perhaps because of the easy acces- sibility of media
products. The production process takes place in the relative remoteness of movie lots,
recording studios, and editors’ offices. In contrast, media products surround us and are
within easy reach of the researcher.
Whatever the reason, there is an enormous volume of research and commentary on the
nature of media content. Rather than try to review this vast literature, we have organized
this chapter on media content around the single theme of representation. We explore the
question, “How do media representations of the social world compare to the external ‘real’
world?” As we discuss below, this is not the only possible line of investigation related to
media content. However, given our sociological interest in the relationship between the
media and the social world, it is a central one.
Furthermore, our discussion focuses on the issue of social inequality. We argue that the
creators of media content have often reproduced the inequalities that exist in society based
on race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. This is not to say that the media have acted as
a mirror, pas- sively reflecting the inequalities of society. Rather, white, middle- and upper-
class men have historically controlled the media industry, and media content has largely
reflected their perspectives on the world. Therefore, the inequalities in the social world
have affected the organization of the media industry that produces media products.
In turn, activists have challenged the media to broaden their narrow perspectives. Some
have developed alternative media and told their own theories through words and pictures.
More recently, progressive social ange movements have succeeded in altering some facets
of social equality in society at large. This human agency has created changes in e social
world, which, in turn, have affected the organization of the edia industry. Contemporary
media content reflects these changes to aying degrees.
Comparing Media Content nd the “Real”’ World
Does media content reflect the realities of the social world? Based on the cumulated volume
of media research, the answer is an emphatic no. ontent analyses of media products have
repeatedly shown them to be aite different from key measurable characteristics of the
social world. iis gap between the “real world” and media representations of the scial world
is the subject of this chapter.
“How do media representations of the social world compare to the aernal ‘real’ world?” is
an important question since we conventionally eganize media according to how closely they
represent reality. We talk, 1 example, about fiction versus nonfiction, news or public affairs
*rsus entertainment, documentaries versus feature films, “reality” pro- ‘ams, and so on. The
impact of media, as we will see in Part Four, can tually become more significant if media
products diverge dramatically om the real world. We tend to become more concerned, for
example, ‘hen media content lacks diversity or overemphasizes violence, sex, Or iher
limited aspects of the real world.
The question of how media representations of the social world smpare to the external “real”
world also raises several issues. First, the terature in media and cultural studies reminds us
that representations re not reality, even if media readers or audiences may sometimes be
‘mpted to judge them as such. Representations—even those that ttempt to reproduce
reality such as the documentary film—are the -sult of processes of selection that invariably
mean that certain aspects f reality are highlighted and others neglected. Even though we
often use re “realness” of the images as a basis for evaluating whether we like or islike
particular representations, all representations “re-present” the ocial world in ways that are
both incomplete and narrow.
Second, the media usually do not try to reflect the “real” world. Most of us would like news
programs, history books, and documentary films > represent happenings in the social world
as fairly and accurately as iossible. (After examining the production process, we now know
how ficult it is to achieve this, if only because of limited time and
resources.) But by its very nature, a science fiction film, for example, is likely to diverge
significantly from contemporary social life. Without that gap between reality and media
image, the genre would cease to exist.
We cannot push this point too far, however, because even “fantasy” products such as
science fiction films hold the potential for teaching us something about our society. Often,
this is the attraction of the genre. When Captain Kirk and Lieutenant Uhuru of Star Trek
kissed on prime- time television in the 1960s, it was the first interracial kiss on a U.S. tele-
vision series. This media content, though clearly embedded in a fantasy science fiction
about the future, just as surely was making a statement about race relations in
contemporary America. Social commentary continued in later Star Trek spin-offs when
producers cast an African American as the commander of Deep Space Nine and a woman as
captain of Voyager. Both of these programs were science fiction, yet clearly both were
commenting on social conditions at the time of their creation.
The point is that there is potential social significance in all media products—even those that
are clearly make-believe fantasies. Creators of media products are often aware of this fact
and use entertainment media to comment on the real social world. In turn, readers and
audiences develop at least some sense of the social world through their exposure to both
entertainment media and news media. It behooves us, therefore, to attend to what these
media messages might be. That includes looking at media forms—including science fiction,
soap operas, music videos, and romance novels—that clearly do not claim to accurately
reflect society.
A third issue raised by the question of how media representations of the social world
compare to the “real” world concerns the troublesome term real. In an age in which
sociologists teach about the social construction of reality and postmodernists challenge
the very existence of a knowable reality, the concept of a “real world” may seem like a
quaint artifact from the past. We generally agree with the social constructionist perspective,
which suggests that no representation of reality can ever be totally “true” or “real” since it
must inevitably frame an issue and choose to include and exclude certain components of a
multifaceted reality. However, some social facts seem solid enough to be used as a measure
of reality. To give a simple example, we have a pretty good idea of the age distribution in the
United States. In 2000, for example, the Census Bureau estimated that about 21 percent of
the U.S. population were younger than age 15. Imagine that, for some unknown reason,
television situation comedies became inundated with children, who made up, say, two-
thirds of all characters. We could then reliably state that, compared to the real world, such
programs featured three times as many children.
19% 198 / Content: Media Representations of the Social World
Such a claim is possible only because we have a reasonably accurate way of measuring age
distribution in the population as a whole.
The legitimacy of the question becomes much more dubious, however, with other
examples. Is media content more liberal than society at large, as some contend? That
depends on how you go about defining liberal and how you attempt to measure it in both
the media and the “real” world. Such a concept is much more ambiguous than age, and
therefore we have to be careful about claims of “bias” leveled at the media. In the end, we
can make some useful comparisons between the content of media and society, but our
limited ability to measure the social world necessarily limits such claims.
Finally, the question of how media representations of the social world compare to the “real”
world seems to imply that the media should reflect society. This premise is not agreed on.
For many people, media are an escape from the realities of daily life. Therefore, how “real”
media products are is irrelevant to many people. However, it is not necessary to believe that
the media should accurately reflect society in order to compare media representations with
the social world. Gaps between media content and social reality raise interesting questions
that warrant our attention.
The Significance of Content
While this chapter focuses on the content of media, it is important to realize that many
researchers study media content to make inferences about other social processes. In other
words, they study media content to assess the significance of that content. There are at least
five ways in which researchers can assess the significance of media content. They involve
linking content (a) to producers, (b) to audience interests, (c) to society in general, or (d) to
audience effects or (e) examining content independent of context.
To illustrate, let’s return to our hypothetical example about children and situation
comedies. If researchers found that child characters appeared on situation comedies three
times as often as children do in the real world, then several lines of interpretation would be
possible. Each of these different approaches tries to explain the source and significance of
media content.
Content as Reflection of Producers. First, it would be possible to infer that this child-
centered content reflected the intent of the program writers and producers. This line of
interpretation—linking content to producers—encour- ages us to investigate the social
characteristics of situation-comedy writers and producers. We might find that such creative
personnel are disproportionately “thirtv-somethings.” with children of their own, who
draw on
DULIAL HPT YUL Were tere crepe me
their own family lives for story inspiration. As a result, a disproportionate percentage of
programs feature children. Or perhaps corporate advertisers have expressed strong
interest in sponsoring child-related programs, influencing producers to create more such
programs. Determining this connection would require research that moved beyond media
content and studied media personnel and the production process more generally (exactly
the kind of research we examined in Part Two). Content analysis would alert us to this issue
but by itself could not provide an adequate explanation for the heavy population of children
on such programs.
Content as Reflection of Audience Preference. Second, we might infer that perhaps the high
number of child characters reflects the audience for situation comedies. This does not
necessarily suggest that children const- tute a large percentage of the audience. It may
simply mean, for example, that many viewers are parents who enjoy watching the antics of
young children on situation comedies. Here the implication is that media personnel are
merely responding to the interests of their likely audience, not to their own interests or to
the influence of the production process. This approach suggests that content is a reflection
of audience preference. The idea that media producers are only “giving the people what
they want” also implies that people want what they get. To test such claims, researchers
must explore more than media content. They must move into the area of audience research.
Content as Reflection of Society in General. Third, some researchers investigate media
content as a gauge of social norms, values, and the interests of society in general—not just
the audience. Some analysts might suggest that child-dominated situation comedies reflect
a high level of social concern for children. They might reflect the fact that we live ina child-
centered society where people value children highly. The difficulty in firmly making such
sweeping assessments should be clear. To support such claims, research would need to
extend well beyond the boundaries of media content.
Content as an Influence on Audiences. Fourth, researchers sometimes examine media
content for potential effects on audiences. Perhaps the pre- ponderance of children on
television will encourage couples to have children or to have more children. Here, too, the
researcher would have to link content analysis with research on audience interpretations—
a topic examined in Part Four. The influence of media is so diffuse, however, that a direct
link is usually very difficult to establish. The emphasis in this case—in contrast to the first
three—is not on content as a reflection of the production process, audiences, or society.
Instead, it is on content as a social influence on audiences. IS5 2uu / Content: Media
Kepresentations OF tne social vvoriu
Content as Self-Enclosed Text. Finally, a substantial body of work addresses media content
on its own terms. That is, it usually makes no attempt to link content to producers,
audiences, or society but instead examines media as a self-enclosed text whose meaning is
to be “decoded.” For example, an analysis of the film Rambo might show
how this film follows the conventions of the Hollywood genre of the “war film,” which
dramatizes conflict between the United States and its “enemies,” and provides a happy
ending that portrays the victory of good over evil. It would study the strictly cinematic and
formal elements of the film, dissecting the ways that camera angles present Rambo as a god
or how slow-motion images of him gliding through the jungle “code” him as a force of
nature. One would also notice that images of Rambo being tortured adopt familiar
crucifixion iconography, valorizing him as a Christlike martyr, and images of his headband
and clothing code him as an individualist, thus appropriating 1960s countercultural
iconography for the political right. (Kellner, 1995, pp. 10-11)
This tradition has many variations associated more with the struc- turalism and semiology
found in literary studies and linguistics than with the content analysis found in the social
sciences. However, researchers sometimes combine this approach with studies of
production and audience reception under the rubric of cultural studies. It is often difficult
or impossible to assess the validity of the claims of such analyses because no standard
methods exist in this field. Still, such work can be useful for those whose concerns lie with
issues such as the relationship between elements of a text or the language, grammar, and
vocabulary of image production.
Having sketched out the different ways in which researchers assess the significance of
media content, we now turn to the content itself. As you will note, it is impossible to
examine content without touching on the role of producers, audiences, or larger social
norms. However, we will focus primarily on media content per se. We will also limit our
discussion to a few basic characteristics—race, class, gender, and sexual orientation— that
are illustrative of a sociological approach to content analysis and that relate to our theme of
inequality.
Race and Media Content: Inclusion, Roles, and Control
Nearly all sociologists and anthropologists now recognize that race is a socially constructed
concept whose meaning has evolved over time. There
Social Inequality and Media Kepresentation / su1
is no biologically valid difference in the genetic makeup of different “races.” In fact, different
blood types might be mote biologically significant than different racial classifications.
However, racial distinctions have powerful social meaning with profound real-world
consequences. Social scientists chart the development and implications ot these socially
constructed distinctions, especially as they influence discriminatory structures and
practices.
Since race is a cultura! or ideological construct, it is not surprising that there has been much
interest in content analysis that examines how media messages treat the issue of race. In
the United States, the issue of race has been most evident—and most studied—in black-
white race relations. This situation is rapidly changing, however, as the population of
other racial minorities increases and as scholars examine the history and legacy of other
people of color.
Historically, the U.S. media have taken “whites” to be the norm against which all other racial
groups are measured. The taken-for-granted nature of “whiteness” means that it need not
be explicitly identified. For example, we generally do not talk about “white culture,” “the
white community,” “the white vote,” and so forth. We do, however, often hear reference to
“black culture,” “the Latino community,” and so on. The absence of a racial signifier in this
country usually signifies whiteness. The pervasiveness of white perspectives in media is
perhaps its most powerful characteristic.
To understand how racial difference is portrayed in the mass media, we must recall the
earlier roots of racial stereotyping in American culture. Throughout much of U.S. mass
media history, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, and other racial minorities have
been, at best, of little consideration to the media industry. Because such minorities
comprised a relatively small part of the population, mainstream media did not see them as
an important segment of the mass audience. When it came to media content, racial
minorities were either ignored or stereotyped in such roles as the Black Mammy, the Indian
Maiden, the Latin Lover, or the sinister Asian Warlord. Such stereotypical images were the
product of white media producers and bore little resemblance to the realities of the
different racial groups (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1995).
When we consider how racial differences have been portrayed in the media, three crucial
issues emerge. First is the simple issue of inclusion. Do media producers include the images,
views, and cultures of different racial groups in media content? The second issue of concern
is the nature of media roles. When producers do include members of racial minorities in
media content, how do they portray them? Here the history of racial stereotypes takes
center stage. Finally, the control of production is
crucial. Do veovle from different racial groups have contro! over the 21 202 / Content:
Media Representations of the Social World
creation and production of media images that feature different racial groups? This last issue
is more about the production process and the nature of the media industry than about
media content in itself. However, the history of media suggests that content very often
reflects the views of those in control.
Racial Diversity in Media Content
A sample of some research findings on racial images in the modern media will help provide
historical context and alert us to the changes that have occurred over time. The inclusion of
different racial groups in the media has changed dramatically. In early Hollywood films of
the 1920s and 1930s, for example, blacks were largely absent or were relegated to two
roles: entertainer or servant (Cripps, 1993). Not until after World War II did more African
Americans begin appearing on the screen. Even then, there were a limited number of
available roles, and progress since then has been halting. The trend, though, seems to be
toward more racial diversity in films.
On television through the 1940s and 1950s, the presence of blacks was limited largely to
their traditional, stereotypical roles as entertainers and comedians. There were virtually no
serious dramatic roles for blacks in this period. Instead, comedies and variety shows were
the only regular forum for black talent (Dates, 1993). In the 1960s and 1970s, this began
to change as television programs featured more blacks and, to a lesser extent, other racial
groups. By the 1969-1970 season, half of all dramatic television programs had a black
character. Surveys conducted from this period through the early 1980s show that whereas
roughly 11 percent of the population was black at that time, 6 to 9 percent of all television
characters were black (Seggar, Hafen, and Hannonen-Gladden, 1981). By the 1991-1992
season, blacks made up 12 percent of the population and 11 percent of prime-time
characters and 9 percent of daytime characters (Greenberg and Brand, 1994).
Few other racial groups, though, were regularly portrayed on prime- time TV. In the 1970s,
only two situation comedies, Chico and the Man and the short-lived Viva Valdez, centered
on Latino characters. The 1980s saw a few major roles for Latino characters on programs
such as Miami Vice and L.A. Law. However, by 1997, only 179 of 8,662 characters on prime-
time television, or 2.6 percent, were Latino (Reuters, 1998). Asian characters, too, have
been few and far between. It was only in 1994 that an Asian family was used as the premise
for a situation comedy, All- American Girl (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1995).
Minorities have also historically been underrepresented in other areas.
Tn NOAA Anh A naerant Af land norfarmore Aan AATV muiiscic videns were
Social Inequality and Media Representation / U3
black (Brown and Campbell, 1986). On news and public affairs programming, racial
minorities continued to lack visibility. In a study of Life, Time, and Newsweek, Lester and
Smith (1990) found that in the 1980s only 7.5 percent of the photos were of blacks—and
this was up from 3.1 percent in the 1960s and 1.3 percent in the 1950s. A study of guests on
the two preeminent public affairs television programs, Nightline and the MacNeil-Lehrer
News Hour, found that nearly 9 out of 10 guests were white (Croteau and Hoynes, 1994).
Studies of advertising have repeatedly found underrepresentation of minorities. A study of
Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and Vogue in the late 1980s found that only 2.4 percent of ads
featured black women (Jackson and Ervin, 1991). One review of research findings on
broadcast advertising concludes that, compared to earlier years, “there are more Black
faces, but they get less time, are less visible, may be buried in a sea of faces, and rarely
interact with Whites” (Greenberg and Brand, 1994, p. 292).
Some media have begun to include more minorities. For example, a Screen Actors Guild
(2001) study of TV and theatrical roles in 2000 found that African Americans received 14.8
percent of all roles cast—a higher percentage than their representation in the US.
population. But Latinos (4.9 percent) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (2.2 percent) were still
badly underrepresented. There are simple economic reasons for this development. Growing
racial diversity in the population as a whole means that people of color make up larger
segments of the market than in the past. Many advertisers have become interested in
reaching this growing minority market.
This trend has been facilitated by the growth in media outlets—especially cable television
and the newer broadcast television networks. In the late 1980s, for example, the new Fox
network created a significant number of programs aimed at black audiences because the
other networks were largely ignoring this market niche. As the Fox network gained
prominence in the 1990s, though, it began competing with the “big three” networks for
more lucrative white audiences, and its programs, too, became more white. The process
then repeated itself in the late 1990s as the WB and UPN networks tried to establish
themselves, in part, by appealing to minority audiences.
However, another result of media outlet growth and the fragmenting market is that most
Americans are not seeing the growing diversity in mass media. Instead, television
programming became extremely segre- gated in the mid-1990s, leaving white audiences
watching white programs while black households tuned in to black programs. For
example, in the 1994-1995 season, only 1 of the 20 most popular television programs in
black households was among the top 20 programs in white
haucohalde Rut hy the end of the decade. perhaps due to the growth of Zo SN Se ee ee Se ee
eee ee ee
multiethnic casts, the trend was reversing. By the 2000-2001 season, the number of
common top 20 programs had increased to 9 (Bauder, 2001).
Sull, the segmentation of media audiences has stirred concern that the media are losing
their role as a common socializing agent. Media com- panies compete for advertising dollars
by developing products that are targeted at the narrow, demographically specific audiences
advertisers want to reach. As targeting becomes more sophisticated, audiences increas-
ingly pay attention to media products that are designed specifically for their demographic
or “lifestyle” group and ignore media designed for others. Turow (1997) warns that this
process “may accelerate an erosion of the tolerance and mutual dependence between
diverse groups that enable a society to work” (p. 7).
Race and Media Roles
For much of U.S. history, most white-produced images of other racial] groups have been
unambiguously racist. As early as the late 1700s, the “comic Negro” stereotype of “Sambo”
appeared in novels and plays. On the stage, Dates and Barlow (1993) note, this racist
character “was cast in a familiar mold: always singing nonsense songs and dancing around
the stage. His dress was gaudy, his manners pretentious, his speech riddled with
malapropisms, and he was played by white actors in blackface” (p. 6). Such images in
popular culture are the precursor of racist stereotypes in the mass media.
Early Images of Race
Racist stereotypes were peppered throughout popular culture in the nineteenth century. In
the novel The Spy, James Fenimore Cooper introduced the stereotypical image of the loyal,
devoted, and content house slave who doubled as comic relief because of his superstitious
beliefs and fear of ghosts. This image reappeared in many later books and films. Whites in
blackface performed racist stage acts, portraying blacks as clownish buffoons. In the 1830s,
a white actor named Thomas Dartmouth Rice copied a song-and-dance routine he saw
performed on a street corner by a young slave boy. Rice used burnt cork to blacken his tace,
dressed in tattered clothes, and popularized the “Jump Jim Crow” routine. Early minstrel
shows consisted of whites in blackface copying black music and dance traditions. Native
Americans, too, were ridiculed in stage performances. One popular play was titled The
Original, Aboriginal, Erratic, Operatic, Semi-Civilized and Demi-Savage Extravaganza of
Pocahontas (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1995). Popular songs, sung on the stage and printed in
sheet music, also featured many racist stereotypes.
Even well-intentioned works such as Harriet Beecher Stowe’s antislavery novel, Uncle
Tom’s Cabin, perpetuated a “positive” image of blacks as gentle, suffering victims with
childlike innocence.
The end of slavery brought different but equally racist images. The “contented slave was
taken over by the faithful servant: the female side of this stereotype became the domestic
mammy caricature, while the male side matured into elderly Uncle Toms” (Dates and
Barlow, 1993, p. 11). The folksy character of “Uncle Remus,” speaking in stereotypical black
dialect, became the prototypical apologist for postbellum plantation life. Free black men
began appearing as angry, brutal, and beastlike characters in novels. When D. W. Griffith’s
1915 film, Birth of a Nation, featured similar characters, it was an indication that producers
would fill the new film medium, as well, with racist images.
By 1920, the United States had fought in World War | “to make the world safe for
democracy,” according to President Wilson. However, early U.S. films were routinely
presenting racist images of white supremacy. Blacks were viciously attacked in films such
as The Wooing and Wedding of a Coon (1905) and The Nigger (1915). The Mexican govern-
ment banned films such as 1914’s The Greaser’s Revenge, which portrayed Mexicans as
bandits, rapists, and murderers. Movies portrayed Asians as a threat to American values, as
in the film The Yellow Menace. Early films openly advocated white supremacy over
American Indians, as in the 1916 film The Aryan (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1995).
As the film industry matured and grew in the pre-World War II years, it continued to use
stereotypically racist images, albeit in less crude forms. Cliched portrayals of Native
Americans filled the popular “west- ern” film genre. Movie directors transferred the faithful
black servant image to the silver screen, leading to the first Oscar for a black actor when
Hattie McDaniel won the award for her portrayal of Scarlett O’Hara’s servant in Gone With
the Wind. Hollywood responded to com- plaints—and to declining distribution sales in
Mexico and Latin America—by largely replacing the earlier “greaser” image with the exotic
“Latin lover” stereotype. Asians were either violent villains, in the mold of Dr. Fu Manchu, or
funny and clever, as in the enormously popular Charlie Chan film series.
Slow Change and “Modern” Racism
It is out of this long legacy of racist imagery that the modern media's portrayals of racial
minorities emerge. Media images have changed over the years. Since World War II, and
especially since the 1960s, the trend has been toward more inclusiveness and growing
sensitivity in media of all types. The civil rights struggle for racial equality influenced
Hollywood,
IOe and discrimination against blacks became the theme of a number of prominent movies
in the late 1950s and 1960s. The more militant black power struggles in the late 1960s and
early 1970s were accompanied by ihe rise of “black exploitation” films with nearly all-black
casts. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the huge success of some black performers, such as
Whoopi Goldberg and Denzel Washington. Directors cast these black stars in a wide variety
of roles, from comic to dramatic.
Meanwhile, white guilt over the domination of Native American indians surfaced in a series
of movies. The 1970 film Little Big Man suggested that, since General Custer had engaged
in years of atrocities against American Indians, he got what he deserved at the Little Big
Horn massacre. Films in the 1990s began to create a different stereotype: the idealized
Indian. Dances With Wolves (1990) and Geronimo (1993), for example, extended the theme
of white guilt and Indian dignity. Film portrayals of other racial groups followed this
general trend toward a new set of roles tor people of color (Wilson and Gutierrez, 1995).
But although mainstream media have generally grown more sensitive to stereotypes,
controversial racial and ethnic images continue to emerge. For example, The Siege, a 1998
film depicting an epidemic of Arab terrorism in New York City, and Rules of Engagement, a
2000 film about the killing of demonstrators outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen, sparked
protests from ‘Arab American groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations
{CAIR), who believed both films perpetuated stereotypes of violent fanat- ical Arabs.
(Ironically, both films starred African American actors; Denzel Washington in the first,
Samuel L. Jackson in the second.)
Increasingly, stereotypical imagery is being challenged by organizations that monitor and
respond to such content (see Exhibit 6.1). Asian American organizations, for example, have
decried the relative absence of Asian American characters on television. This was especially
visible on programs such as Party of Five or Suddenly Susan, which were set in San
Francisco—a city where more than one-third of the population is Asian American—but
which rarely or never featured Asian American characters. They have also objected to
films such as Lethal Weapon 4, in which popular Hong Kong film hero Jet Li is cast as a
stereotypically evil Asian villain who is brutally killed by the Mel Gibson character.
Blatantly racist images of minority groups are now rare in the mainstream U.S. media.
Certainly, it is still possible, without much effort, to idenufy stereotypical racial images in
film, television, novels, and other media, but the clear trend has been away from such
unabashed stereotyping. Some researchers, however, believe that in recent years the
legacy of racism has manifested itself in more subtle but perhaps equally powerful ways.
In a study of local Chicago news coverage of blacks and whites, Robert Entman (1992)
illustrates the complicated dynamics present in
eXHIBIT 6.1 Fighting Media Stereotypes
There are numerous organizations that fight stereotyping by the media. The Media
Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA)
is one such group. It is a media
monitoring and advocacy organization whose mission is “to create an environment free of
racism through accurate, balanced, and sensitive Asian American images.” MANAA
produced an oper: memo to Hollywood entitled “Asian Stereotypes: Restrictive Portrayals
of Asians in the Media and How to Balance Them.” The following is excerpted and adapted
from that memo.
“Despite the good intentions of individual producers and filmmakers, limited and
unbalanced portrayals of Asians have traditionally been the norm in the entertainment
industry. . . . Below is a list of restrictive Asian portrayals that are constantly repeated in the
mainstream media. . . . Each description is followed by a ‘Stereotype-Buster’ that can
combat the inaccuracies of such portrayals.
“This list . .. is designed to encourage Hollywood's creative minds to think in new
directions—to help our storytellers create more interesting roles
for actors by avoiding old, stale images.”
Stereotype Stereotype-Buster
1. “Asian Americans as foreigners 1. who cannot be assimilated.”
2. “Asian Americans restricted to 2. cliched occupations (e.g., grocers, martial artists,

prostitutes)”
3. “Asian racial features, names, 3.
accents, or mannerisms as inherently comic or sinister.”

4. “Asians relegated to supporting 4.
roles in projects with Asian or Asian American content.”
5. “Asian male sexuality as negative or 5.
nonexistent.”
6. “Asian women as ‘China dolls’ 6.
(i.e., exotic subservient, compliant, industrious, eager to please).”
7. “Asian women as ‘dragon ladies’ 7.
(i.e., inherently scheming, untrustworthy,and back-stabbing).”
8. “Asians who prove how good they 8.
are by sacrificing their lives.”
9. “Asian Americans as the ‘model 9.
minority’ (i.e., overachievers with little emotional life).”
10. “Asianness as an ‘explanation’ for _10.
the magical or supernatural.”
“Portraying Asians as an integral part of the United States. More portrayals of acculturated
Asian American speaking without foreign accents.”
“Asian Americans in diverse, mainstream occupations.”
“Asian names or racial features as no more ‘unusual’ than those of whites.”
“More Asian and Asian American lead roles.”
“More Asian men as positive romantic leads.”
“Asian women as self-confident and self-respecting, pleasing themselves as well as their
loved ones.” “Whenever villains are Asian, it’s important their villainy not be attributed to
their ethnicity.” “Positive Asian characters who
are still alive at the end of the story.”
“The audience empathizing with an Asian character's flaws and foibles.”
“Asian cultures are no more or less magical than other cultures.”
contemporary images of race. In his work, Entman distinguishes between two forms of
racism. “Traditional racism” involves open bigotry usually based on beliefs about the
biological inferiority of blacks. “Modem racism” is a “compound of hostility, rejection and
denial on the part of whites toward the activities and aspirations of black people” (p. 341),
Modern racism, therefore, is much more complex. It eschews old-fashioned racist images,
and as a result, according to Entman, “stereotypes are now more subtle, and stereotyped
thinking is reinforced at levels likely to remain below conscious awareness” (p. 345). Is this
“modern Tacism” found in the news media? Entman argues that it is, but at first some of his
claims can seem counterintuitive.
One of his findings was that the local news prominently covered the activities of politically
active blacks. We could easily see the exclusion of such activities as racially motivated, but
here Entman (1992) says that the form of their inclusion suggests a racist image. Entman
found that “black activists often appeared pleading the interests of the black community,
while white leaders were much more frequently depicted as representing the entire
community” (p. 355). Thus, Entman argues, it is possible lor viewers to get the impression
that blacks are pursuing a politics of ‘special interests” rather than one of public interest.
The cycle of racial stereotypes becomes difficult to break. Political marginalization as a
result of years of racism may spur black leaders to agitate on behalf of the “black
community.” The news media duly cover this activism. Such cov- crage unintentionally
conveys a message that blacks are seeking special treaunent, thus fostering white
resentment and perpetuating the political marginalization of blacks.
Wilson and Gutierrez (1995) note a similar problem in the media coverage of minority
issues in general. They argue that in recent years, “the coverage of minority issues often
focused inordinate attention on the more bizarre or unusual elements of minority
communities, such as youth gangs, illegal immigration, or interracial violence” (p. 26).
While these are legiti- mate issues, the near-exclusive emphasis on such negative stories
“resulted in a new stereotype of racial minorities as ‘problem people’ groups either beset by
problems or causing them for the larger society” (p. 26).
In his study, Entman (1992) criticizes the portrayal of politically active blacks as being
inadvertently racist. However, he also criticizes the regular use of blacks who “did not talk
in angry or demanding tones” (p. 357). He is referring to black newscasters, who are
generally “unemo- tional, friendly but businesslike” (p. 357). Station managers often use a
black newscaster as a coanchor, with a white newscaster, for the local news. While this
practice may be seen as a very positive step, Entman suggests that
the innocuous black anchors may also reinforce whites’ impatience with the poor or
demanding blacks who appear so frequently as news subjects. The anchors’ very presence
suggests that if blacks just keep quiet and work hard, the system will indeed allow them to
make progress and even earn more money than most whites. Showing attractive, articulate
blacks in such a prestigious public role implies that blacks are not inherently inferior or
socially unde- sirable—and that racism is no longer a serious impediment to black progress.
(p. 358)
Entman’s (1992) arguments are provocative, though speculative. His work was based on
content analysis of news programs, not ona study of news audiences. There is no way to tell
from his work how audiences interpret what they are seeing. However, his suggestions
raise difficult questions about African American media images in the future. For example,
if the exclusion of blacks from news anchor positions reflects underlying racism and the
inclusion of blacks in such positions inaccurately implies that racism no longer exists, then
what should the media industry do? Entman’s analysis suggests that we have to
understand race and the media in a holistic fashion. Racially diverse news anchors really do
not indicate much progress if, at the same time, the content of news remains racially
skewed. Real change will come when all aspects of the media—including media content—
more accurately reflect the racial diversity of society.
Entman (1992) suggests that we must pay closer attention to how the process of media
production influences the content of the media. Entman believes that the production norms
of news are linked with the perpetu- ation of stereotypical images. To create dramatic
stories, for example, reporters will often choose “sound bites” from black leaders that are
emotional and suggestive of conflict. Such dramatic quotes, though sometimes misleading,
follow media conventions for “good television.” The unintended result is that such norms
and practices contribute to stereotypical images of African Americans.
These stereotypical images are often subtle, as Entman and Rojecki (2000) found in their
survey of various forms of media. On local television news, for example, they found that
crime stories tend to overrepre- sent both black perpetrators and white victims. Compared
to whites, blacks were more likely to be shown in mug shots and were twice as likely to be
shown under the physical custody of police. Thus, the authors contend, blacks tend to be
portrayed in ways that make them more threatening and less sympathetic than whites.
Ns Kace and Class
Enunan’s (1992) study hints at—but does not explore—the interven- ing issue of class in
the portrayal of African Americans. He is, in effect, contrasting black anchors who exude
upper-middle-class manners and confidence with the poor and working-class blacks
featured in many hews accounts. To understand contemporary media images of different
racial groups, therefore, it is important to consider their class (and, as we will see, their
gender). There is no longer any single image of African Americans in the mainstream media.
The intervention of class in the portrayal of blacks on television has resulted in a bifurcated
set of images (Gray, 1989). On one hand, even though audiences are more fragmented now,
middle-class blacks have become mainstream in prime-time entertainment programs,
Epitomized by The Cosby Show of the 1980s, these programs portray African American
iamilies who have succeeded in attaining a piece of the traditional American Dream.” On the
other hand, news coverage and documentaries about blacks tend to focus on poor African
Americans in the so-called “underclass,” mired in drugs, crime, and violence. One implicit
message in these contrasting images may be that, since some blacks have clearly succeeded,
the failure of other blacks is their own fault.
In their conclusion to a sweeping review of black images in television, radio, music, films,
advertising, and public relations, Dates and Barlow (1993) suggest that the tension between
white-produced images of blacks and black cultural resistance “has become increasingly
entangled in more complex social conflicts and concerns. In effect, the primacy of the ‘color
line’ is being challenged by generational, gender, and class dif- terences” (p. 527). We have
moved beyond the point where we can say
that a single set of media images represents African Americans—or any other racial group.
Controlling Media Images of Race
the absence or stereotyping of different racial groups in the media highlights a fact often
taken for granted: Affluent, white men have historically controlled the mainstream mass
media. But although whites have often propagated racist images, it is important to note
that, historically, Aifican Americans and other minorities have responded by producing a
culture of resistance. From the slave chronicles of Frederick Douglass to be poetry of
Langston Hughes, from the blues of Bessie Smith to the Tap sf Public Enemy, from the
diverse work of Paul Robeson to the films of pike Lee—to name just a few of the better-
known personalities—black ictivists and artists have created a counterculture that opposes
the racist
stereotypes being propagated in white-owned media and culture. Freedom’s Journal was
the first African American newspaper in the United States. Its editors wrote in the first 1827
edition, “We wish to plead our own cause. Too long have others spoken for us. Too long has
the publick been deceived by misrepresentations” (in Rhodes, 1993, p. 186). The
importance of presenting a distinct “black perspective” continues to this day, as Jacobs
(2000) chronicles in his study of the black press’ coverage of major events such as the
Watts and Rodney King uprisings.
These sentiments also underlie efforts by other racial groups to create alternatives to
mainstream media. In journalism, for example, the first Latino paper, El Misisipi, was
published in 1808 (by a white publisher) in New Orleans. The first Native American
newspaper, Cherokee Phoenix, was published in 1828. What was probably the first Asian
American newspaper, The Golden Hills’ News, first appeared in San Francisco around 1851.
All three publications were bilingual, and ever since, bilingual publications have served
Latino, Asian, and Native American communities in many areas (Wilson and Gutierrez,
1995).
People of color, as well as women and people promoting the interests of the working class
and poor, have had to confront a basic dilemma: They have had to choose between
developing alternative media and struggling to change mainstream media from within.
The first strategy—developing alternative media—has the advantages of being feasible
with more limited financial resources and of promising control for the producers. However,
it usually means sacrificing the chance of reaching a mass and broad audience in favor of a
smaller, narrower one, in part because media operations working on a shoestring budget
cannot hope to match the slick, seductive production quality of the mainstream media.
The second strategy—changing the mainstream media from within— offers an opposite set
of advantages and challenges. Mainstream success can result in access to major financial
resources that allow a product to reach millions of people. However, ownership and control
of mainstream media are still predominantly in the hands of wealthy, white men. While
some people of color and some women have worked their way into positions of authority
and influence, they are still vastly underrepresented. The example of journalism illustrates
this. In the more than 20 years between 1978 and 2001, the percentage of minorities in U.S.
newsrooms almost tripled from 4 percent to 11.6 percent. Although this was progress, it
was far slower progress than news editors had anticipated, and it still woefully
underrepresented minorities, who actually made up 30 percent of the population in 2001.
Minorities were also concentrated at lower levels of the newsroom hierarchy, making up
12.7 percent of reporters but only 9.1 percent of supervisors (American Association of
Newspaper
”
é
if Editors, 2001). One way minority journalists have worked for change in their field is by
organizing a variety of associations that often collaborate on etforts to promote more
diversity in the newsroom. These include the National Association of Hispanic Journalists,
the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Black Journalists,
and the Native American Journalists Association.
Gender and Media Content
In some ways, the media's history of portraying women parallels its history of portraying
people of color. Women were often marginalized in all types of media. Simple, blatantly
stereotypical images dominated the earlier years of mass media. As media audiences and
the media industry felt the influence of movements struggling for women’s rights, these
stereotypical images gave way to a wider diversity of images and roles for women. Here ioo,
then, we see a history of injustice, inequality, and change.
Vomen: Presence and Control in the Media
Reviews of the extensive literature on gender and the media reveal a fundamental
inequality in the frequency of appearance of women and men. Television, for example,
features more portrayals of men than women, and men appear more often in lead roles
(Fejes, 1992). However, family and heterosexual relationships are central to the plots of
many films, music videos, and television programs, ensuring that women (unlike racial
minorities) are regularly included in these media, though in secondary roles.
Control of the creation and production of media images is also in male hands—though
women are making substantial gains. Consider the news media, for example. In broadcast
news, women made up 40 percent of the workforce in 2001 but only 20 percent of news
directors. Similarly, in news radio, women made up 37 percent of the workforce but only 22
percent of news directors (Radio-Television News Directors Association, 2001). At
newspapers, women made up 40 percent of the reporters and 34 percent of the supervisors
in 2001 (American Association of Newspaper Editors, 2001).
Women are even less represented in other forms of media. For example, an analysis of
“behind-the-scenes” employment in the top-grossing 250 domestic films of 2000 found that
women were dramatically underrepresented in all job categories. Women were only 16
percent of executive producers, 24 percent of producers, 11 percent of directors, 14 percent
of writers, 2 percent of cinematographers, and 19 percent of editors {Lauzen, 2001).
®
The dynamics relating to gender are similar to those found in the discussion of race.
Women are generally not in positions of control and, perhaps as a result, are less likely than
men to be prominently featured in media products. However, like racial images, the
situation of women in media is undergoing what one observer calls “a long, slow journey”
(Lafky, 1993, p. 87).
Changing Media Roles for Women ...and Men
The media images of women and men reflect and reproduce a whole set of stereotypical but
changing gender roles. On television, we are more likely to find men in action and drama
roles and less likely to find them in situation comedies and soap operas (Fejes, 1992). Men
are also more likely than women to be portrayed as having high-status jobs—in tradi-
tionally “male occupations”—and are less likely to be shown in the home. Producers are
likely to portray men as more dominant than women and as more prone to engage in
violence. In situation comedies, men are more likely to disparage women than vice versa,
but overall men are more often the object of humor or disparagement. Even simple camera
techniques used on women and men seem to differ. Television camera shots are more likely
to feature women’s entire bodies while more often showing men in close-ups of only their
faces.
Fejes (1992) concludes that “men, as portrayed on adult television, do not deviate much
from the traditional patriarchal notion of men and masculinity” (p. 12). They are portrayed
in the media as generally powerful and successful. They “occupy high-status positions,
initiate action and act from the basis of rational mind as opposed to emotions, are found
more in the world of things as opposed to family and relationships, and organize their
lives around problem solving” (p. 12). Alerting us to the intersection of different identities,
Fejes points out that “the masculinity portrayed on television is a white, middle-class
heterosexual masculinity” (p. 12). While important distinctions exist, we can make similar
observations about advertising, film, music, and other media.
Women’s roles have often reflected similar stereotypes about feminin- ity. Over the years,
the dominant roles for women have been as mother/ homemaker or sexual object. The
media industry, though, responded to feminists organizing for social change. As with racial
stereotypes, the industry has muted the blatant simplicity of stereotypical gender images in
more recent years. There is certainly a wider palette of roles and media images of women in
the 1990s than there was 25 years ago, despite what some have called a “backlash” (Faludi,
1991) in the 1980s against femi- nist gains. However, the inequality that women still face in
society as a
213 whole is clearly reflected in the unequal treatment women receive in the media. Some
of this unequal treatment, such as that in sexist advertising and degrading pornography, is
straightforward and easy to spot, as are some of the stereotypical roles writers still create
for women on television situation comedies and dramas. However, like racist stereotypes,
sexist stereotypes have often taken subtler forms.
Media coverage of women’s sports, for example, has changed as more women have entered
organized sports at all levels. Messner, Duncan, and jensen (1993) note that
sport is still dominated by men at nearly all levels, and still serves to construct culturally
dominant ideals of “exemplary masculinity.” _.. But the dramatic increase in female
athleticism in the past two decades directly challenges the assumed naturalness of the
equa- tion of men, muscles, and power. In short, the institution of sport has become a
“contested terrain” of gender relations and ideolo- gies. (p. 122)
Messner and his associates examined the role of the media in this “contested terrain.”
Despite the growing popularity of women’s sports, research has showed that media
coverage of women’s sports is minuscule compared to men’s sports, accounting for less
than 10 percent of all sports coverage in newspapers and on television. Tuggle (1997), for
example, found that ESPN’s SportsCenter and CNN's Sports Tonight devote less than 5
percent of their coverage to women’s sports, concluding that “in nearly every measurable
way, the two programs portrayed women’s sports as less important than men’s athletic
competition.”
However, the relative absence of media coverage of women’s sports tells us nothing about
the quality of the coverage that does exist. Studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s
found that on the rare occasions when women athletes were covered on television, they
“were likely to be overtly trivialized, infantilized, and sexualized” (Messner et al., 1993, p.
123). Such media images of women’s sports are the area that Messner examines. The
examples Messner and his associates studied were the television coverage of the 1989
men’s and women’s NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) basketball
tournaments and coverage of various matches in the 1989 U.S. Open tennis tournament.
What they found is symptomatic of the subtle ways in which media both reflect and re-
create gender inequality.
First, they note that their study “revealed very little of the overtly sexist commentary that
has been observed in past research” (p. 125). They did find that camera angles, especially in
tennis, tended to differ
abit between women and men and perhaps subtly framed women athletes as sexual objects.
However, the main focus of their study—verbal commentary—did not do so. We can
consider this finding qualified good news since it contrasts with the overtly sexist coverage
researchers found in earlier studies.
Second, though, they found that commentary did frame women’s and men’s sports
differently. One finding was that gender was constantly “marked” in women’s basketball
coverage. For example, the coverage mentioned—77 times during three games—both
verbally and graphi- cally that it was the “NCAA Women’s National Championship Game” or
“women’s basketball.” (This does not even count gender-marked team names, such as the
“Lady Tigers,” which were mentioned 102 times.) Not a single instance of gender marking
occurred in coverage of men’s basketball. Television coverage referred to men’s
competition in a universal way: “The Final Four,” “The NCAA National Championship
Game," and so on. It did not mention gender.
Tennis coverage showed roughly equitable treatment—for example, in references to the
“men’s doubles finals,” “women’s singles semifinals,” and so on. However, gender
differences did occur in discussing the athletes. The researchers note that “in the mixed-
doubles match, the commentators stated several times that Rick Leach is ‘one of the best
doubles players in the world, where Robyn White was referred to as one of ‘the most
animated girls on the circuit’” (Messner et al., 1993, p. 126). More gender marking occurred
when CBS used pink graphics for the women’s matches and blue graphics for the men’s
matches.
The naming of athletes also differed by gender. The announcers called women “girls,”
“young ladies,” and “women.” They never called men “boys,” only “men,” “young men,” or
“young fellas.” Commentators covering tennis matches referred to female athletes by first
name seven times as often as they did male athletes. In basketball, the ratio was about two
to one. Messner and his associates (1993) remind readers that
research has demonstrated that dominants (either by social class, age, occupational
position, race, or gender) are more commonly referred to by their last names (often
prefaced by titles such as Mr. [or Professor!]). Dominants generally have license to refer to
subordinates (younger people, employees, lower-class people, ethnic minorities, women,
etc.) by their first names. (p. 128)
Finally, an array of differences appeared in the language used to des- cribe athletes. Male
coaches “yelled,” while female coaches “screamed.” Announcers described female tennis
players as having “confidence,” but
A
g they never applied this term to male players. Was it because announcers took for granted
that men were confident? While an excellent shot by a female player was “lucky,” excellent
play from a male player showed that he was “imposing his will all over this court.”
Announcers described success differently as well:
Men appeared to succeed through a combination of talent, instinct, intelligence, size,
strength, quickness, hard work, and risk taking. Women also appeared to succeed through
talent, enterprise, hard work, and intelligence. But commonly cited along with these attrib-
utes were emotion, luck, togetherness, and family. (Messner et al., 1993, p. 130)
Language is never neutral. Media coverage, in this case of sports, reflects—and helps to
construct and affirm—a particular framing of the social world. When media personnel use
language in a way that represents stereotypical gender roles, it helps perpetuate such roles.
Conversely, when they use language self-consciously to counter stereotypes, itcan be
influential in changing social realities.
Class and the Media
lnterestingly, researchers have not given a great deal of attention to class in media content.
There are many fewer studies about class in television, for example, than about either race
or gender. Yet class permeates media content, and it is useful to examine both the class
distribution of people in the media and the roles given to characters of different class status.
It is also important to keep in mind the relationship between class and the media industry.
“Some People Are More Valuable Than Others”
Class underlies the media industry in a distinctive way. Class consid- erations connect
advertisers, producers, content, and audiences. The for- profit, advertiser-driven nature of
all commercial media means that advertisers are keenly interested in the economic status
of media consumers. They want to reach people with enough disposable income to buy
their products. You can guess which class a media product reaches by examining the ads
that accompany it. Everybody has to buy tooth- paste and breakfast cereal, but when a
program or publication features ads for jewelry, expensive cars, and investment services,
you know it is aimed at an affluent audience. (Take a look at one of the national weekly
newsmagazines, for example. Whom do you think advertisers are trying
LU LEALLES YY IEUId OULIELS, 11) LUTTL, Wa4HAL LO allract amlivke Nt CONSUMES ana
often gear their content to a more affluent reader or viewer.
The influence of class can sometimes take on strange dimensions. For example, one of the
lesser-known strategies sometimes employed in the newspaper business is to reduce
circulation to increase profits. While at first this may seem to be an impossible strategy,
here is how publishers make it work. Newspapers receive about two-thirds of their revenue
from advertisers, not readers; therefore, they must be sensitive to advertiser needs to stay
in business. In turn, as noted above, advertisers want to reach only readers with enough
disposable income to buy their products. In the information that major newspapers send to
potential advertisers, they usually tout the affluence of the consumers who read their paper
because these are the readers advertisers want to reach. To sell advertising space at a
premium, newspapers want to improve the demographic profile (in terms of average
household income) of their readership. They can do this in two ways: attract more affluent
readers and/or get rid of poorer readers.
The first approach is reflected in media content that is clearly aimed at more affluent
households. This content includes major business sections with extensive stock market
reports and “style” sections with articles that highlight fashion, culture, and other upscale
consumer activities. The second strategy is more direct. Some papers have made it difficult
for poor people to buy their product. Publishers sometimes limit the paper's distribution in
poor neighborhoods and in some cases even raise the price of the paper in these areas
while reducing it in wealthier areas! The Los Angeles Times, for example, raised its daily
sales price in inner-city neighborhoods from 35 cents to 50 cents. At the same time, it
reduced the price to 25 cents in affluent surrounding counties (Cole, 1995).
Newspaper publishers are not the only ones who recognize that affluent people are more
important for the media industry than poor or working-class people. In the 1970s, ABC
issued a profile of its viewing audience, highlighting its desirable demographics. The
network titled the profile “Some People Are More Valuable Than Others” (Wilson and
Gutierrez, 1995, p. 23). It is important, therefore, to keep in mind the underlying profit-
oriented nature of the media when we examine class in media content.
Class and Media Content
Overwhelmingly, the American society portrayed in the media is wealthier than it is in the
real world. The real world is predominantly
Bit EXHIBIT 6.2a Social Class in Prime-Time Programs
The class status of a television family is communicated to viewers in various ways, MOSt
obviously through the
occupation of the major characters, Another signal of class is the set used to represent home
life, as seen here in two classic sitcoms from the 1980s and 1990s.
Most prime-time programs feature families that are middle to upper-middle class. The
Home Improvement photo shows a distinctly middle-class set: beautiful glass doors open
onto a backyard with an expensive- looking jungle gym, the dining room furniture appears
to be high quality, tasteful artwork decorates the wail, and books fili the shelves. (Here, the
father is teaching his sons proper table manners.) Notice how many
prime-time programs feature such “tasteful” and upscale sets. {Photo © 1996 CAPITAL
CITIES/ABC, INC./Fred Sabine. Used with permission.)
working class, with the vast majority of Americans working in service, clerical, or
production jobs. Media, however, portray the social world as one heavily populated by the
middle class—especially middle-class professionals. Images showing comfortable middle-
class life fill magazines, films, and television programs. These images are most obvious in
advertising. Simply put, advertisements aimed at selling products do not feature poor
people and rarely feature working-class people. Instead, comfortable middle-class and
affluent upper-class images reign in ads.
Entertainment Media
Entertainment is little different from advertising. Butsch (1992) examined 262 family-
based situation comedies that aired from 1946 to 1990. Because programs based in a
workplace—such as police shows—would dictate the occupation of the main characters, he
intentionally excluded
EXHIBIT 6.2b Social Class in Prime-Time Programs
In contrast to the usual middle-class fare, the set of Roseanne iNustrates what is probably
closer to reality for
working-class Americans of more modest means. There is an eat-in kitchen instead of a
dining room, and the trappings of the set are much less fancy: the furniture appears to be
worn, the wall is decorated with an Elvis Presely plate and discount department store
artwork instead of “tasteful” art, and there are no booklined shelves on the set. (Photo ©
1996 CAPITAL CITIESIABC, INC./Don Cadette. Used with permission.)
What other devices are used to signal the class status of television characters? What social
class is most
commonly portrayed in today’s sitcoms?
these. The focus of domestic-based situation comedies is home life away from work. Thus,
creators of such programs are free to give their characters a wide range of potential
occupations. Butsch found that only 11 percent of such programs featured blue-collar,
clerical, or service workers as heads of the household. More than 70 percent of home-based
situation comedies featured middle-class families. In 1992, professionals made up roughly
15 percent of the U.S. workforce. In Butsch’s study, fully 44.5 percent of families—three
times as many—were headed by professionals. And these weren't your run-of-the-mill
professionals, either. The elite professions were vastly overrepresented. Doctors
outnumbered nurses nine to one, professors outnumbered schoolteachers by more than
three to one, and lawyers outnumbered less glamorous accountants by more than nine to
one. All these high-paying jobs for television characters meant lots of disposable income,
and families in these situation comedies overwhelmingly lived in beautiful middle-class
homes
a13 equipped with all the amenities (see Exhibit 6.2). More than one out of every five
families even had a servant!
Try to think of domestic-based situation comedies in which the head of the household had a
working-class job. A number of well-known programs may come to mind. Archie in All in
the Family was a dockworker. Ralph in The Honeymooners was a bus driver. On the prime-
time cartoon The Flintstones, Fred was a “crane” operator in a rock quarry. The short- lived
Fox program ROC featured an African American garbage collector and his wife, who was a
nurse. The main character in Roseanne held various jobs, including a factory worker,
waitress, and shampooer in a beauty salon, while her husband struggled as a construction
worker and mechanic. The father in Family Matters was a police officer. Married With
Children featured a shoe salesman, and Homer in The Simpsons was a woefully
underqualified technician in a nuclear power plant. (Interestingly, several of these working-
class programs highlight their characters’ aspirations for middle-class life through the
launching of small businesses. For example, Archie Bunker became a bar owner in the later
program, Archie's Place. Both parents on Roseanne opened up businesses of their own: an
unsuccessful motorcycle shop and a diner.) You can probably come up with a few more
examples of family-based situation comedies with working-class main characters—but
you can't come up with many more because, as Butsch (1992) has shown, they simply don’t
exist. The exceptions here prove the rule.
Now think of domestic-based situation comedies in which the head of the household had a
middle-class job. The list of lawyers, doctors, architects, advertising executives, journalists,
and businesspeople should be quite long. Butsch (1992) argues that the predominance of
middle- class characters in these television situation comedies conveys a subtle but
significant message. The few working-class characters who do popu- jate some programs
are the deviant exception to the norm, and therefore st must be their own fault that they are
less economically successful. (This observation is quite similar to the one Gray [1989] made
when examining the portrayal of blacks in the media. As you may remember, Gray argued
that middle-class blacks on entertainment programs were the “norm” against which real-
life blacks in the news were contrasted.)
The message that people in the working class are responsible for their fate is a
quintessential middle-class idea that ignores the structural conditions that shape social
class. It is also an idea reinforced by another ten- dency identified by Butsch (1992). In
contrast to most middle-class television families, the father in working-class families is
usually ridiculed as an incompetent, though sometimes lovable, buffoon. Ralph Kramden,
Fred Flintstone, Al Bundy, and Homer Simpson are perhaps the most obvious
cases. All, to varying degrees, were simpletons who pursued foolish get-rich schemes and
wound up in trouble because they simply weren't very smatt. Each of these shows
portrayed the female main character as more level headed and in control. Often, these
programs even portrayed the children of working-class men as smarter and more
competent than their fathers. Here, too, the father on Roseanne and the lead character on
ROC, for example, were notable exceptions that illustrate the possibility of more
sympathetic portrayals of competent working-class fathers.
Butsch (1992) acknowledges that this kind of program sometimes also ridiculed middle-
class fathers but not nearly as often as working- class fathers. Instead, the norm in comedies
with middle-class families— from Father Knows Best and Leave It to Beaver to Bewitched
and the Brady Bunch to the Cosby Show and The Wonder Years—is for middle-class fathers
to be competent at their jobs and often to be wise and capable parents. The implication,
argues Butsch, is that working-class families struggle because of incompetence and lack of
intelligence, while middle- class families succeed because of competence and intelligence.
Such images help reinforce the idea that class-based inequality is just and functional.
The comedies that have populated prime-time television since Butsch’s (1992) study was
written have continued to focus overwhelmingly on middle-class people. Even work-based
programs that at first suggest working-class life turn out to be different. Working featured
a college graduate in a multinational corporation. Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place actually
starred two graduate students, an ex-college roommate, and a pizza place; working-class
jobs were just a temporary stopover on the way to brighter careers. Similarly, The Jamie
Foxx Show highlighted the trials of an aspiring actor as he worked in a hotel—owned by his
uncle. There were some exceptions. The cartoon King of the Hill featured a propane
salesman and substitute elementary schoolteacher. The Steve Harvey Show starred an ex-
R&B singer turned high school music teacher. And King of Queens starred a parcel
deliveryman. But although working- class folks make up a substantial portion of the
population, they continue to be scarce on network television.
If media rarely show working-class folks, they are even less likely to show working people
in labor unions, despite the fact that more than 16 million Americans belong to a union. And
as Puette (1992) has shown, the media’s portrayal of unions has been anything but
sympathetic. Like the stereotypical images of racial groups and women, the media stereo-
types of unions have evolved over the years. After examining the image of labor unions in
Hollywood movies, television dramas, TV news, and editorial cartoons, Puette argues that
there are some basic “lenses” that
an! sior and distort media portrayals of organized labor and its leaders. mong these media
images are the stereotypes that unions protect and ycourage unproductive, lazy, and
insubordinate workers; that unions ndermine America’s ability to compete internationally;
that union leaders, ecause they do not come from the educated/cultured (privileged) asses,
are more likely to be corrupted by power than are business or olitical leaders; and that
unions are no longer necessary. Certainly, nions are far from perfect organizations, and they
are fair game for vedia criticism. However, with very few exceptions, Puette’s analysis ints
to a systematic and relentless disparagement of the most visible ffort at collective
empowerment by working Americans.
News Media
Class enters directly into news media content as well. News tends to ighlight issues of
concern to middle- and upper-class readers and view- rs. Take the example of stock market
reports. Most American families do vot own any type of stock, and four out of five families
do not own stock lirectly. In fact, 86 percent of the nation’s stock is owned by just 10 per-
ent of the nation’s families (Mishell, Bernstein, and Schmitt, 1999). tus, the vast majority of
the public is unlikely to be interested in stock eports. Most Americans do not even
understand stock listings and eports. Yet stock market reports are a prominent feature of
news pro- wams and newspapers. Now think fora moment. When was the last time sou saw
a news story explaining how to apply for welfare benefits or viewing the legal rights of
workers to form a union or to learn about vealth and safety hazards in the workplace? Even
suggesting such stories might seem odd because it contradicts our taken-for-granted notion
of what news is “supposed” to be.
On the whole, the news reflects a middle- and upper-class view of the world. In this world,
newspaper business pages flourish, but labor reporters are almost an extinct breed, News
may address “regular” people as consumers, but it almost never addresses them as workers.
Even consumer-oriented stories are scarce because they have the potential to offend
advertisers. For example, the San Jose Mercury News once published an innocuous feature
story advising consumers on how to buy a new car. The prospect of well-informed
customers apparently concerned a group of 47 local auto dealers. They retaliated by
collaborating and canceling 52 pages of advertising in the paper's weekly “Drive” section—
a joss of $1 million for the paper. While pressure from local car dealers is infamous in the
newspaper industry, this time the paper went to the rederal Trade Commission (FTC),
which ruled that the auto dealers had illegally conspired. The dealers reached an agreement
with the FTC and
agreed not to boycott the newspaper in the tuture (Chiuy, 1995). This episode is a dramatic
illustration of how advertisers can influence media content—directly or indirectly.
Advertisers do not want media content to interfere with the “buying mood” of the public.
The people who populate news and public affairs programs also represent a skewed
sample of American life. “Hard news” usually features people in positions of power,
especially politicians, professionals, and corporate executives. We might argue that, for
many journalists, the very working definition of news is what those in power say and do. As
we saw in Chapter 4, the organizational structure of journalism also favors coverage of the
wealthy and powerful. The industry organizes its news beats around powerful political
institutions such as the city hall, the state house, and federal offices. People with substantial
resources and influence can also command attention from the media by supplying journal-
ists with packaged information such as press releases, press conferences, and pseudo-
events. The only regular features on working-class and poor people are likely to come from
the reporter on the crime beat.
Unlike straight news broadcasts, public affairs programs offer a great deal of flexibility in
the list of guests who are invited by producers to comment on and analyze current issues.
Yet the class characteristics ot the guests on such programs are also heavily skewed toward
protession- als. On the prestigious public affairs programs Nightline and the MacNeil-
Lehrer News Hour, politicians and professionals dominated the guest lists (Croteau and
Hoynes, 1994). Representatives of organizations speaking on behalf of working people are
almost nonexistent on such programs. Public television in general is skewed toward
professional sources, usually leaving the public out of the picture (Croteau, Hoynes, and
Carragee, 1996).
Finally, there is often a racial dimension to class images. The term working class often
conjures up images of whites, even though people of color are disproportionately working
class. Barbara Ehrenreich (1995) notes, “The most intractable stereotype is of the working
class (which is, in imag- ination, only white) as a collection of reactionaries and bigots—
reflected, for example, in the use of the terms ‘hard hat’ or ‘redneck’ as class slurs” (p. 41).
She also observes, “It is possible for a middle-class person today to read the papers, watch
television, even go to college, without suspect- ing that America has any inhabitants other
than white-collar people— and, of course, the annoyingly persistent ‘black underclass’” (p.
40).
That last phrase is important. In the media, the “poor” tend to be equated with blacks—
even though two-thirds of people living below the poverty line in the United States are
white. One study of the major newsmagazines and the three major networks (Gilens,
1996) examined
£24 224 | Content: Meld REpreseiauvee ve see ee
images used to accompany stories about poverty. It found that although blacks make up less
than 30 percent of the poor in real life, 62 percent of poor people pictured in
newsmagazines and 65 percent of those on celevision were black. Such gross
misrepresentation of class and race can easily conuibute to mispercepuons on the part of
the public. Indeed, polls have shown that Americans—of all races—tend to vastly overesti-
mate the percentage of poor people who are black.
Sexual Orientation: Out of the Closet and Into the Media?
Finally, let's consider one more group in society that suffers unequal treatment both in and
outside the media: lesbians and gays. For decades lesbians and gays have been either
ignored or ridiculed in nearly all media accounts. Like the movements for racial equality,
women’s rights, and organized labor, the gay and lesbian movement has both developed
alternative media and worked for more positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in the
mainstream media.
Reviewing the literature on lesbians, gays, and the media, Fejes and Petrich (1993) argue
that unul the early 1930s, film portrayals of homosexuals were used either as “comic
devices,” as “a form of erotic titilla- tion,” or “to depict deviance, perversion and decadence”
(p. 397). From the mid-1930s to the early 1960s, more conservative norms reigned in
Hollywood, and producers severely restricted and censored images of gays and lesbians.
The lesbian and gay images that emerged in the 1960s were usually quite negative in tone.
Fejes and Petrich note that during this period, “homosexuality was portrayed at best as
unhappi- ness, sickness, or marginality and at worst perversion and an evil to be destroyed”
(p. 398). They cite one review of all the films made between 1961 and 1976 that featured a
major homosexual character. Thirty-two such films appeared in this period. Eighteen of
these films featured a homosexual character who ends up being killed by another character,
13 featured a homosexual character who commits suicide, and the one remaining film
featured a gay man who lives—but only after being cas- trated. The portrayal of gays and
lesbians in films has improved since then——there was no place to go but up. However,
realistic and positive portrayals are still a rarity, although independent films by lesbians
and gays have served as an important source in providing a broader range of images.
Television has followed much the same route as Hollywood. From comic drag queens to
threatening villains, television routinely disparaged homosexuals. Fejes and Petrich (1993)
cite a 1967 CBS documentary in which the host, Mike Wallace, concluded, “The average
homosexual, if
there be such, is promiscuous. He's not interested in, nor capable of a lasting relationship
like that of a heterosexual marriage” (p. 400). As the gay and lesbian movement gained
strength in the 1970s and 1980s, it more actively sought fairer television portrayals of
homosexuals. A 1974 episode of the medical drama Marcus Welby featured a homosexual
child molester and suggested that homosexuality was a treatable disease. The program
angered gay activists, who responded by organizing media watch efforts that challenged the
negative media portrayals of gays and lesbians. Because of such efforts, gay and lesbian
characters began to appear on prime-time programs, especially in episodes that revolved
around homosexuality. Such programs, though, almost always framed these images as a
“heterosexual view of homosexuality. Dramatic programming portrayed homosexuality as
a problem disrupting hetero- sexuals’ lives and expectations” (Fejes and Petrich, 1993, p.
401). In the 1980s and 1990s, gay and lesbian characters began appearing in more serious
and realistic portrayals, especially in roles highlighting the issue of AIDS. This time, it was
conservative and religious fundamentalist groups who organized to challenge the media
images. They objected to the positive portrayals of lesbians and gays and organized
boycotts against advertisers on such programs.
A milestone was reached in 1997 when the lead character of the situation comedy Ellen—
and the actress that played her, Ellen Degeneres— “came out” in a highly publicized and
anticipated episode. ‘To commem- orate television’s first openly gay lead character, the Gay
and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) sponsored “Coming Out with Ellen”
benefits, and the Human Rights Campaign developed a party kit for the thousands of hosts
celebrating the event across the country (Rosenfeld, 1997).
Although a year later, declining ratings spelled the end for Ellen, lesbian and gay
characters have since become more prominent on television (including a new 2001 series
for Degeneres, The Ellen Show.) In the fall of 2001, there were more than 25 recurring
roles—including more than a dozen leading roles—for lesbian, gay, and bisexual characters
on cable and network TY, including a doctor on the popular ER, a gay rights activist on Spin
City, and even a trusty sidekick to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (GLAAD, 2001). In 2001, prime-
time’s first recurring transgender character also appeared as a college professor in The
Education of Max Bickford. In some cases, these characters directly confronted
stereotypical images. The Spin City character, Carter Heywood, was an African American
man who in one episode responded to a coworker, “You're surprised | play basketball
because I'm a gay man. But you see, Stuart, I’m also a black man. So it’s really just a battle of
your archaic stereotypes” (New York Times, 1997, p. D7). 926 Stereotypes and limits still
exist on television portrayals of gays and ‘sbians. Television almost always presents
homosexual characters in jolation, not as part of a gay community. Also, displays of physical
affec- on between homosexual characters are still largely taboo on American jJevision, One
episode of Thirtysomething showed two gay men talking 1 bed. After the episode aired,
conservative activists organized protests, sveral advertisers withdrew from the show, and
the network dropped ye episode from its summer rerun schedule. As Peter Nardi (1997)
otes, “In a show filled with all sorts of sexual escapades,” the lone gay jaracter on ihe
popular Melrose Place “has rarely been seen dating and is kiss with another man was edited
from the final version” (p. 436). iardi goes on to observe, “Many of today’s ‘positive’
depictions are sim- ly nonsexualized lesbian or gay characters who do not pose a threat to
elerosexuals” (p. 430). One program introduced in 1998, Will and cnice, featured the first
gay male lead of a situation comedy. However, it silowed this “nonsexualized” tradition by
having the character be the sommiate of a woman. The result, publicity material for the
program woted, is “the perfect couple whose relationship is perfect because sex oesn’t get
in the way” (NBC, 1998).
News coverage of lesbians and gays has also changed over the years. tavely mentioned
before the 1960s, homosexuality entered the news as
result of gay and lesbian activism. The AIDS epidemic in the 1980s srodded the news media
to address issues related to the gay community nore directly. In the 1990s, debate about
lesbians and gays serving in the nilitary were front-page stories. The move toward more
positive coverage yf lesbians and gays has taken place primarily in larger metropolitan yeas
with large, active, and visible gay and lesbian organizations. Smaller, nore conservative
communities have often lagged behind in their coverage if gay and lesbian issues.
As with the evolution of media coverage of women and racial minori- ies, the media’s
portrayal of lesbians and gays has slowly become less siatantly stereotypical. While
coverage is still significantly limited, con- emporary media have at least displayed a sense of
tolerance toward gays ind lesbians. This is a start, but there is a long way to go before media
srovide tuly equitable coverage. “Tolerance” of homosexuality is a far +y from a media
position that no longer privileges heterosexuality.
Pejes and Petrich (1993) note that the changes in mass media images i gays and lesbians
did not occur spontaneously. Such changes “were not yrought about by more enlightened
social attitudes. Rather, the activism f gays and lesbians in confronting and challenging
negative stereotypes layed a decisive role in the change” (p. 412). Nardi (1997) observes
hat changing images are also partially the result of “an increase in the
production of media by gays and lesbians themselves, such as the lesbian and gay film
festivals regularly held in many major cities, gay newspapers and magazines that
increasingly attract mainstream advertisers, and gay public access television” (p. 438).
These important points apply to all the groups we have examined. Women’s organizations
and civil rights groups, as well as lesbian and gay organizations, were significant social
factors, in the form of collective human agency, in influencing the media industry to change
the nature of media content. Labor unions and other organizations representing working-
class and poor people have not had the same impact on media coverage of their
constituents.
Conclusion
Entertainment and news media do not reflect the diversity of the real world. However, by
its lack of diversity, media content does reflect the inequality that exists in the social
world—and in the media indusuy.
The dynamic relationship between media content and the social world is complicated. Is
media content cause or effect? A sociological approach would suggest that it is both. The
social world affects media producers and media products. For example, we have seen how
the efforts of social-movement organizations have influenced changes in media content. In
this case, human agency has altered the operations of a major institutional structure. In
turn, media content certainly influences our understanding of the social world. However,
to fully assess the potential impact of media content, we must look at the meanings actual
audiences attach to the media they read, watch, and listen to. We also need to explore the
ways in which media are a part of the political world and our everyday social interaction.
Having examined media production and media content, we turn in Part Four to the ways
the media influence contemporary social and political life.

Croteau Hoynes 195 227

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Croteau Hoynes 195 227

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Croteau Hoynes 195 227

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How do media representations compare to the real world?

What factors influence changes in media content?

‘CHAPTER 6

Social Inequality and Media Representation

2. “Asian Americans restricted to 2. cliched occupations (e.g., grocers, martial artists,

3. “Asian racial features, names, 3.

accents, or mannerisms as inherently comic or sinister.”

You might also like