I think images of war and death (not only from war but from anything) should be censored to an extent. I remember when Hurricane Katrina happened and it seemed like every day on the cover of The New York Times that they showed dead bodies, with haunting captions underneath the pictures. Perlmutter and Major say, "When photographers capture gruesome images...journalists and the public wonder what should be shown, how it should be shown, and why," (p.182). Reading the article by Campbell actually made me sick to my stomach and I couldn't read it all. He includes very vivid images when he describes the death of James Byrd and the death of a man and his son in Gaza. Campbell says, "Images do bring a particular kind of power to the portrayal of death and violence," (p.17). Also, I think news organizations use images of death and violence for shock value, to kind of get their point across. For example when they show gruesome images of war, they are just reinforcing that war is terrible and that people do die grizzly deaths. Another example is when they do stories about Sierra Leone, they show you what really happens over there, from the stories that are told to the images you see.
"...The controversy over what type of content should be available to different consumers has plagued the relationship of between media industries and the FCC," (p.260). I think certain programs and movies on television channels for children shouldn't be on them, for example on the channel ABC Family, they play movies that are unsuitable for certain age groups, movies like "Cruel Intentions." When I see these movies being played on there on early Saturday afternoons, when anyone could be watching upsets me greatly. Gone are the days where content was appropriate. However, I think it is up to the parents to monitor or "censor" what their children are watching, not the FCC or the government. However, how can the FCC regulate what children can watch on television but not in theaters? Every time I go to a Rated R movie, there are families there, even for scary ones, that you know contain gory images, graphic violence, etc.
In the article I found it talks about how the FCC is trying to regulate violence on television shows that are played during the times children could be watching, becuase they say that watchihng violent television does have an effect on children. According to Paul Farhi and Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, "The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers -- typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say." Farhi and Ahrens also state, "For decades, the FCC has penalized over-the-air broadcasters for airing sexually suggestive, or "indecent," speech and images, but it has never had the authority to fine TV stations and networks for violent programming." I think the FCC wanting to regulate how much violence is portrayed on television programs is absurd. Also, what does the FCC classify as "violence" on these television shows? Is it a man hitting his wife or someone getting shot; both are violent? If parents don't want their children to watch these programs then don't have them watch it or they should use the device called the V-chip, that allows parents to block shows and channels that they deem unsuitable for their children. "First Amendment experts and television industry executives, however, say that any attempt to regulate TV violence faces high constitutional hurdles -- particularly regarding cable, because consumers choose to buy its programming," according to Farhi and Ahrens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042302048.html
But when you look at how in Communist countries their government regulated everything, from what they watched on television to what they listened to on the radio, etc. This government also didn't say what they did wrong, it was how well they did. I can't even imagine living in those countries at that time, and when Maria talked about how her mom was at the door while her dad listened to the radio, to make sure they wouldn’t get in trouble is crazy. John Tuza says, "We were metaphorically broadcasting in the dark, and many of our listeners were actually listening in the dark," (p.1). Tuza says,"...BBC World Service, Radio Liberty, VOA and Deutsche Welle, were collectively known as the 'Voices'," (p.6). These broadcasters and stations provided people of these Communist countries with information their government covered up or just didn't tell its people. "What the BBC taught its listeners was to judge critically, to apply critical questioning to problems," says Tuza. I found this article interesting that citizens of the Communist countries were curious about their government and what their government was telling them and that they weren't "ignorant" on what was really happening. According to Tuza, "The foreign broadcasts played their part in freeing ordinary listener from relying on official media. It confirmed that there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality," (p.8).
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Mass media during the communist regime in Romania (a personal view)
The article “Radio and the fall of communism” by John Tusa reflects very well what deprivation of information meant and how people tried to inform themselves in other way than listening or watching the “official” radio and television from the communist countries. I agree with Tusa who concludes: “…there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality”. (13)
Mass media represented in all communist countries a tool of propaganda, of manipulation and lying of citizens. Starting from this article, I will share a part of what meant media in Romania before 1989. Many aspects revealed by the article characterized the communist period from Romania from 1965 to 1989.
The communist mass media system from Romania was entirely controlled by the government: all types of TV and radio programs and all types of print articles.
The viewers could watch TV programs only three hours per day. Each TV program started and ended with the national hymn. It was followed by news, cartoons (5-10 minutes), a movie and others programs dedicated to the president of Romania Nicolae Ceausescu and to the Communist Party.
The news program idolized Ceausescu and the Romanian Communist Party. The news was sprinkled with sound bites. Crowds of people from different towns of Romania participated at some special events organized by the propaganda apparatus in large public squares in order to celebrate the realizations of different institutions and they were directed to chant: “Long live Ceausescu, long live Romania!”.
The news were focused on the zeal of the workers from factories, industry and agriculture, on the exports made by Romania in others countries, on the visit of Ceausescu in other countries. The main character of almost all programs was Ceausescu. His wife didn’t miss either. In contrast with this type of news, the viewers could see, as bad news, information about “the disasters” from the capitalist countries (for example: the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, significant stock exchange drops and the craziness thereafter, and worker strikes) in order to inoculate in the mind of Romanians the idea that the communist political system means prosperity and stability.
The most important part of TV and radio programs were dedicated to Ceausescu. The audience could watch and listen interminable songs and poetry about the dictator and his “realm”. One of the most popular TV program was “The Ode of Romania”. It was basically a sort of continuous festival, a compilation of different brainwashing shows organized in different parts of the country in honor of Ceausescu and the Party. Many other ridiculous TV programs followed in line, for example, “Guarding the Motherland”, which informed the audience about the bravery of the army and about their strong preparation for eventual attacks of some elusive enemy.
Sometimes, the viewers could watch, after the news bulletins, Romanian, and Russian movies. In 1970s Western movies with John Wayne were broadcasted (but that was cut in the 1980s), documentaries for popularizing the science, such as: “Travel in the Univers” by the American astrophysicist Carl Sagan. The Romanian viewers enjoyed, on Sunday, in the afternoon, short episodes from American serials, such as “Dallas”, or the Brazilian serial “Paulista Boulevard”. All was in order to show the “decomposition” of the capitalist society.
The children enjoyed cartoons with Romanian, Polish and Russian characters: “Lolek and Bolek”, “Miaunel and Balanel” (something like Mieowy and White Spot) and The Wolf and the Bunny, of maximum 10 minutes each day. Only, on Sunday, the audience could watch Disney cartoons as “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” also for about 10 minutes, which extended the presentation of a single movie to about half a year.
The censorship in Romanian communist media was very strong. At the end of 1980s the vocabulary of different publications and broadcast programs was cleaned by foreign words. Step by step were interdicted the programs for learning foreign languages. Only the programs dedicated to national minorities were broadcasted.
In the same period the subscriptions for foreign publications were interdicted. After the Michael Gorbaciov coming to power in Kremlin and after the breaking of political relations between Romania and Russia, the access, - free until then – of Romanians at Soviet press was stopped. All movies and TV programs, all publications or any product of Western economy became prohibit in order to not to shadow the “grandiose achievements” of Romanian economy.
It was very boring to read the print newspapers. The articles were characterized by the so called “wooden language”, consisting of a narrow selection of words and fixed-style phrases. Everything was presented as strong, grandiose, lofty, triumphant, successful, victorious, etc.
The titles of newspapers were really hilarious: for example: “Free Romania”. Free Romania who? People were spied upon even in their houses. My father, for example, listened “The Voice of America” on the radio and “Free Europe” with some other member of the family keeping watch at the door… During his listening, my grandfather stayed as a guard at door and my mother walked around the house in order to assure herself that there are no Securitate agents spying around the house… The news were discussed afterwards.
Nowadays the press freedom and the freedom of Romanians to inform themselves is not a problem any longer, but the political system still inherits habits from the past has not fully taken its grip from mass media. Now, mass media is controlled by more political voices in comparison with communist period. Especially, the Romanian Public Television is manipulated politically.
Many of the press trusts are owned and coordinated by political leaders, therefore the information of the audience is not always objective. But Romania, as other ex-Communist countries, is passing through a transition period from many points of view even that regarding the relation between mass media, political power and public opinion. At the same time the transition from the communist to the capitalist system needs time. Eighteen years passed from the fall of Communist Party, but it is still not enough in order to have a mass media system similar with the Western media system.
Maria Iova
The article “Radio and the fall of communism” by John Tusa reflects very well what deprivation of information meant and how people tried to inform themselves in other way than listening or watching the “official” radio and television from the communist countries. I agree with Tusa who concludes: “…there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality”. (13)
Mass media represented in all communist countries a tool of propaganda, of manipulation and lying of citizens. Starting from this article, I will share a part of what meant media in Romania before 1989. Many aspects revealed by the article characterized the communist period from Romania from 1965 to 1989.
The communist mass media system from Romania was entirely controlled by the government: all types of TV and radio programs and all types of print articles.
The viewers could watch TV programs only three hours per day. Each TV program started and ended with the national hymn. It was followed by news, cartoons (5-10 minutes), a movie and others programs dedicated to the president of Romania Nicolae Ceausescu and to the Communist Party.
The news program idolized Ceausescu and the Romanian Communist Party. The news was sprinkled with sound bites. Crowds of people from different towns of Romania participated at some special events organized by the propaganda apparatus in large public squares in order to celebrate the realizations of different institutions and they were directed to chant: “Long live Ceausescu, long live Romania!”.
The news were focused on the zeal of the workers from factories, industry and agriculture, on the exports made by Romania in others countries, on the visit of Ceausescu in other countries. The main character of almost all programs was Ceausescu. His wife didn’t miss either. In contrast with this type of news, the viewers could see, as bad news, information about “the disasters” from the capitalist countries (for example: the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, significant stock exchange drops and the craziness thereafter, and worker strikes) in order to inoculate in the mind of Romanians the idea that the communist political system means prosperity and stability.
The most important part of TV and radio programs were dedicated to Ceausescu. The audience could watch and listen interminable songs and poetry about the dictator and his “realm”. One of the most popular TV program was “The Ode of Romania”. It was basically a sort of continuous festival, a compilation of different brainwashing shows organized in different parts of the country in honor of Ceausescu and the Party. Many other ridiculous TV programs followed in line, for example, “Guarding the Motherland”, which informed the audience about the bravery of the army and about their strong preparation for eventual attacks of some elusive enemy.
Sometimes, the viewers could watch, after the news bulletins, Romanian, and Russian movies. In 1970s Western movies with John Wayne were broadcasted (but that was cut in the 1980s), documentaries for popularizing the science, such as: “Travel in the Univers” by the American astrophysicist Carl Sagan. The Romanian viewers enjoyed, on Sunday, in the afternoon, short episodes from American serials, such as “Dallas”, or the Brazilian serial “Paulista Boulevard”. All was in order to show the “decomposition” of the capitalist society.
The children enjoyed cartoons with Romanian, Polish and Russian characters: “Lolek and Bolek”, “Miaunel and Balanel” (something like Mieowy and White Spot) and The Wolf and the Bunny, of maximum 10 minutes each day. Only, on Sunday, the audience could watch Disney cartoons as “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” also for about 10 minutes, which extended the presentation of a single movie to about half a year.
The censorship in Romanian communist media was very strong. At the end of 1980s the vocabulary of different publications and broadcast programs was cleaned by foreign words. Step by step were interdicted the programs for learning foreign languages. Only the programs dedicated to national minorities were broadcasted.
In the same period the subscriptions for foreign publications were interdicted. After the Michael Gorbaciov coming to power in Kremlin and after the breaking of political relations between Romania and Russia, the access, - free until then – of Romanians at Soviet press was stopped. All movies and TV programs, all publications or any product of Western economy became prohibit in order to not to shadow the “grandiose achievements” of Romanian economy.
It was very boring to read the print newspapers. The articles were characterized by the so called “wooden language”, consisting of a narrow selection of words and fixed-style phrases. Everything was presented as strong, grandiose, lofty, triumphant, successful, victorious, etc.
The titles of newspapers were really hilarious: for example: “Free Romania”. Free Romania who? People were spied upon even in their houses. My father, for example, listened “The Voice of America” on the radio and “Free Europe” with some other member of the family keeping watch at the door… During his listening, my grandfather stayed as a guard at door and my mother walked around the house in order to assure herself that there are no Securitate agents spying around the house… The news were discussed afterwards.
Nowadays the press freedom and the freedom of Romanians to inform themselves is not a problem any longer, but the political system still inherits habits from the past has not fully taken its grip from mass media. Now, mass media is controlled by more political voices in comparison with communist period. Especially, the Romanian Public Television is manipulated politically.
Many of the press trusts are owned and coordinated by political leaders, therefore the information of the audience is not always objective. But Romania, as other ex-Communist countries, is passing through a transition period from many points of view even that regarding the relation between mass media, political power and public opinion. At the same time the transition from the communist to the capitalist system needs time. Eighteen years passed from the fall of Communist Party, but it is still not enough in order to have a mass media system similar with the Western media system.
Maria Iova
Friday, October 26, 2007
"No restriction on Freedom of Speech"
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker,” Frederick Douglass.
I am proud to be an American because of the many freedoms I enjoy in this country. Just being able to write and print my ideas is essential to my growth as a person.
Do I disapprove of hate groups who march to get their point across? No, as U.S. citizens, they have the right but I too have a right to counter protest.
Edison and Jacobs’s example of Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl was the catalyst for government intrusion. Congress wasted no time in putting hefty fines on television and radio stations to comply with its new restrictions.
Restriction must put on those who do not understand what true freedom means. This country has produced great speakers such as, W.E. B. Du Bois, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
Here are two websites that give insight into this freedom we all share.
Http:www.freedomforum.org and Http:www.ourcivilisation.com
I am proud to be an American because of the many freedoms I enjoy in this country. Just being able to write and print my ideas is essential to my growth as a person.
Do I disapprove of hate groups who march to get their point across? No, as U.S. citizens, they have the right but I too have a right to counter protest.
Edison and Jacobs’s example of Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl was the catalyst for government intrusion. Congress wasted no time in putting hefty fines on television and radio stations to comply with its new restrictions.
Restriction must put on those who do not understand what true freedom means. This country has produced great speakers such as, W.E. B. Du Bois, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
Here are two websites that give insight into this freedom we all share.
Http:www.freedomforum.org and Http:www.ourcivilisation.com
Thursday, October 25, 2007
When journalists get lazy
... the First Amendment doesn't amount to much. This article in the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates how media created myth in the Gena 6 story. It is so startling, I had to post it. This is an example of why local reporting is important.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html
Friday, October 19, 2007
You HAVE to read this ASAP!
This article was in the Times on Oct. 17.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece
This is absolutly ridiculous!!!!!!! I am pretty much disgusted that someone would say this. He claims that black people are less intelligent and he has found evidence in the DNA. Read for yourself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece
This is absolutly ridiculous!!!!!!! I am pretty much disgusted that someone would say this. He claims that black people are less intelligent and he has found evidence in the DNA. Read for yourself.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
I'm scared for the First Amendment
Maybe it is the lack of diversity of media opinions that bothers me. Maybe it is the control that each media corporation dictates on what is news and what isn't.
Moyers says on page 221: "So what must we devise to make the media safe for individuals stubborn about protecting freedom and serving the truth? And what do we all -- educators, administrators, legislators, and agitators-- need to do to restore the disappearing diversity of media opinions?"
It is true that the amount of media opinion is much smaller. Here's why: Media opinion attached to big corporation means that local news stations cannot just be local news stations. They have to be subordinate to the larger conglomerate, let's use Fox News as an example.
When something happens around the country, the news stations locally act for the national news. Basically, the local is removed as we are all thrown onto the national scene, constantly.
Multiply this by many media stations, divided it by the amount of substations, and square the amount of total national stations, and that equals a complete lack of diversity.
Random diversity is completely necessary for democracy to occur. Random occurrences are also necessary as well.
If all the media in the country all are subordinate to one type of opinion "from the top", how is that helping democracy?
It is easy for us to sit here in a graduate class and philosophically discuss the first amendment and whether we believe in it, however the strange reality is the amendment meant to protect us is quickly turning into something that it isn't, or something that won't exist soon.
Bottom line, I don't want to see the same story on CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC. I want to see differences and competition, not just cheap policing of each other like a bunch of elementary school kids. (O'Reilly said this or Couric said that type stories)
This country needs opinion diversity or the First Amendment will die.
Moyers says on page 221: "So what must we devise to make the media safe for individuals stubborn about protecting freedom and serving the truth? And what do we all -- educators, administrators, legislators, and agitators-- need to do to restore the disappearing diversity of media opinions?"
It is true that the amount of media opinion is much smaller. Here's why: Media opinion attached to big corporation means that local news stations cannot just be local news stations. They have to be subordinate to the larger conglomerate, let's use Fox News as an example.
When something happens around the country, the news stations locally act for the national news. Basically, the local is removed as we are all thrown onto the national scene, constantly.
Multiply this by many media stations, divided it by the amount of substations, and square the amount of total national stations, and that equals a complete lack of diversity.
Random diversity is completely necessary for democracy to occur. Random occurrences are also necessary as well.
If all the media in the country all are subordinate to one type of opinion "from the top", how is that helping democracy?
It is easy for us to sit here in a graduate class and philosophically discuss the first amendment and whether we believe in it, however the strange reality is the amendment meant to protect us is quickly turning into something that it isn't, or something that won't exist soon.
Bottom line, I don't want to see the same story on CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC. I want to see differences and competition, not just cheap policing of each other like a bunch of elementary school kids. (O'Reilly said this or Couric said that type stories)
This country needs opinion diversity or the First Amendment will die.
Friday, October 12, 2007
men and women's image issues
Are women affected my media resulting in body & image issues more than men?
I agree with parts of either side of the argument. The first section (Martin & Gentry) focused on adolescents being affected and influenced by media standards and images. But Cottle moved on to discuss Men & Women's magazines. The discussion cannot be one in the same. pre-pubescent teens and the effects that media images have on their mental image of what they 'should' be and their self-esteem, cannot be looked at next to the effects that Adult, Cosmopolitan type magazines have on, well, ADULTS. Cottle puts on a great argument with plenty of examples, citing specific ads, articles and products that cause men to be as involved with image issue as women notoriously are, but Cottle argument is based on a mature audience that 1) has the spending power to direct money into much more drastic and consistent procedures and products. and 2) has an fully grown/mature body that they are altering. Martin & Gentry are discussing image issues of teens and tweens that don't have an income to spend (although, let us not neglect those fortunate little ones that have trust funds and mommy & daddy's checkbook to write from). Cottle also uses the gay [very image conscious] population as an example of being prime targets for image altering feeding. Also, when you examine the reasons behind Cottle's population's image altering and insecurities, you must realize that sexual drive is a real force behind these image obsessions. Even though teens do have the capacity to urge and become sexually active, there is not nearly as much drive behind their image issues. I know I focused primarily on this one article but it is because i really feel that there was such a gap in subjects examined on either side of it and wanted to make sure that it was pointed out.
I agree with parts of either side of the argument. The first section (Martin & Gentry) focused on adolescents being affected and influenced by media standards and images. But Cottle moved on to discuss Men & Women's magazines. The discussion cannot be one in the same. pre-pubescent teens and the effects that media images have on their mental image of what they 'should' be and their self-esteem, cannot be looked at next to the effects that Adult, Cosmopolitan type magazines have on, well, ADULTS. Cottle puts on a great argument with plenty of examples, citing specific ads, articles and products that cause men to be as involved with image issue as women notoriously are, but Cottle argument is based on a mature audience that 1) has the spending power to direct money into much more drastic and consistent procedures and products. and 2) has an fully grown/mature body that they are altering. Martin & Gentry are discussing image issues of teens and tweens that don't have an income to spend (although, let us not neglect those fortunate little ones that have trust funds and mommy & daddy's checkbook to write from). Cottle also uses the gay [very image conscious] population as an example of being prime targets for image altering feeding. Also, when you examine the reasons behind Cottle's population's image altering and insecurities, you must realize that sexual drive is a real force behind these image obsessions. Even though teens do have the capacity to urge and become sexually active, there is not nearly as much drive behind their image issues. I know I focused primarily on this one article but it is because i really feel that there was such a gap in subjects examined on either side of it and wanted to make sure that it was pointed out.
Men are concerned with their image too...
I fully agree that the self-image for women relative to the media applies to men as well.
About 8 out of 10 men that I knew in college all weekly went to get manicures to clean their nails. The same amount subscribed to Maxim and Men's Health, and all of them would go "shopping" and end up buying more than they set out to buy in the first place.
The media is not only effecting how women view themselves, but also how a man views himself as well.
I find that most men won't admit that the clothes they bought are a little.. out there. Instead, it is phrased, like in the reading of the No side in Taking sides, that it is a manly purchase. That somehow they are more "man" now from doing this.
I think this is a critical point to understanding this kind of marketing. Men, on one hand, need to be marketed that they will be more manly. What is ironic is the standard of man has changed. In the article, the phrase "John Wayne days" is used to describe how men used to be more rugged. I ascribe my standard of image to those days. John Wayne is awesome.
Now the image has changed to something more than that. Men, to be more manly, have to be more attractive. Men now are self conscious (and maybe more self aware as well).
So maybe the standard of man has just changed. Now a man needs more things to be a man, before you could just wear an old t-shirt from a decade or so ago.
I am still going to wear my t-shirt, personally.
About 8 out of 10 men that I knew in college all weekly went to get manicures to clean their nails. The same amount subscribed to Maxim and Men's Health, and all of them would go "shopping" and end up buying more than they set out to buy in the first place.
The media is not only effecting how women view themselves, but also how a man views himself as well.
I find that most men won't admit that the clothes they bought are a little.. out there. Instead, it is phrased, like in the reading of the No side in Taking sides, that it is a manly purchase. That somehow they are more "man" now from doing this.
I think this is a critical point to understanding this kind of marketing. Men, on one hand, need to be marketed that they will be more manly. What is ironic is the standard of man has changed. In the article, the phrase "John Wayne days" is used to describe how men used to be more rugged. I ascribe my standard of image to those days. John Wayne is awesome.
Now the image has changed to something more than that. Men, to be more manly, have to be more attractive. Men now are self conscious (and maybe more self aware as well).
So maybe the standard of man has just changed. Now a man needs more things to be a man, before you could just wear an old t-shirt from a decade or so ago.
I am still going to wear my t-shirt, personally.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The changing, and unchanging, presentation of women in media
The article, Women's Depiction by the Mass Media, is a bit dated. Many of the statistics that were valid in 1979 are no longer valid today. There is an obvious benefit to this, however, in that it allows us to draw comparisons with how women were depicted then and how they are depicted today. While the amount of progress that still needs to be made is an argument for another day, some of the changes that have occurred are startling. Tuchman notes that, "voiceovers continue to be dominated by men" (532). Yet, we saw in the article by Ji and McNeal a few weeks ago that only 10 percent of American commercials used males for voiceovers in commercials during their period of study from 1997 to 1999 (87). Although this is not a strictly apples-to-apples comparison, since Tuchman includes station breaks and program descriptions and not solely commercials in her article, the shift shows how much more of an impact women have on influencing consumers through advertising. One area where I do not think this trend has followed, though, is the television news media. While Katie Couric made history by becoming the first female lead anchor of a network evening news, the program is still introduced with a male voice. In fact, if you turn on your TV at 6:30 p.m. each weekday evening, you see that all of the introductions to the big 3 networks' (CBS, ABC, NBC) news programs are introduced by a male, as they seemingly always have been. Perhaps Americans now are more influenced by women when it comes to buying products but still prefer to hear a man on the evening news.
Is it because the American public can find a woman appealing when it comes to advertising, but stop short when it comes to the perceived intelligence and trust they look for in a news broadcast? An uneven image is still exerting itself significantly.
So how, then, does the media view women in the male-dominated world of sports? According to Jones, Murrell, and Jackson, research suggests that despite the achievements of women in sports, print media coverage of the gold medal-winning US Olympic women's sports teams "deemphasizes task-relevant aspects of their performance and focuses instead on performance-irrelevant dimensions... and success is socially constructed as an alternative to their male counterparts" (189-190). Even in "female-appropriate" sports, like gymnastics, they found the focus was less on the athletes' peformance and more on their "beauty and grace" (190). I decided to search around a little bit to find an example, and I found that this construct is not restricted to the print media. Take a look at this:
The overarching theme of this athlete's story is not how talented and athletic she is, but how she was a child with braces, and not so long after became a hero to young girls. To do so, she had to defeat a "diva" with "Russian grace" (who might also be an athlete too- we're not quite sure).
Perhaps the comparison to men in some of these sports was inevitable since men were the first to compete in these sports on a large scale and laid the groundwork for how these games are played. And maybe we focus on the grace of women in sports like gymnastics and figure skating because it is this gracefulness that makes them so popular and sets them apart. After all, men compete in gymastics and figure skating too, but are far less popular than their female counterparts. Yet, we cannot ignore the idea that the admiration of the grace of these women is as much rooted in looks and body type as it is the undertaking of their sport.
Is it because the American public can find a woman appealing when it comes to advertising, but stop short when it comes to the perceived intelligence and trust they look for in a news broadcast? An uneven image is still exerting itself significantly.
So how, then, does the media view women in the male-dominated world of sports? According to Jones, Murrell, and Jackson, research suggests that despite the achievements of women in sports, print media coverage of the gold medal-winning US Olympic women's sports teams "deemphasizes task-relevant aspects of their performance and focuses instead on performance-irrelevant dimensions... and success is socially constructed as an alternative to their male counterparts" (189-190). Even in "female-appropriate" sports, like gymnastics, they found the focus was less on the athletes' peformance and more on their "beauty and grace" (190). I decided to search around a little bit to find an example, and I found that this construct is not restricted to the print media. Take a look at this:
The overarching theme of this athlete's story is not how talented and athletic she is, but how she was a child with braces, and not so long after became a hero to young girls. To do so, she had to defeat a "diva" with "Russian grace" (who might also be an athlete too- we're not quite sure).
Perhaps the comparison to men in some of these sports was inevitable since men were the first to compete in these sports on a large scale and laid the groundwork for how these games are played. And maybe we focus on the grace of women in sports like gymnastics and figure skating because it is this gracefulness that makes them so popular and sets them apart. After all, men compete in gymastics and figure skating too, but are far less popular than their female counterparts. Yet, we cannot ignore the idea that the admiration of the grace of these women is as much rooted in looks and body type as it is the undertaking of their sport.
Twisted Gender Equality
The article "Turning Boys Into Girls", the no side of the issue, is emphasis on body image in the media harmful to females only, was great. I thought that it brought up a lot of great points and I thought that the light tone that it was written in was great. I actually started laughing a little bit when I was reading this.
I think the fact that Cottle says that if women want gender equality we have to make men as obsessed with their looks as women is a great point. I think that it is almost impossible to reverse the affect that advertising and society have on women and I think now that the media, advertisers and beauty products are focusing on men in some very twisted way it begins to level the playing field. I think that in general if we could reverse these effects and somehow prevent our society from being so obsessed with looks the world would be great but I think only in a utopian world could that ever happen.
I think that it is nature as the yes side was saying that people want the most healthy and attractive looking mate and I feel like advertising has taken it to another level by completely exploiting beauty. I don't think that beauty is the problem I think that it is the money driven world that we live in, people want to make money and beauty and beauty products sell. I mean I think that is the problem here, in the no side, Cottle stated that the advertising went up in Men's Health when people figured out that this was an untapped market. Basically the idea is to exploit people's insecurities to make a buck.
I do think that men being obsessed with their looks is generational though, I think that younger men are much more concerned for the most part with their looks than older men. And I think eventually we will live in a society where everyone is so obsessed with their looks, men and women and children to adults. I mean we already see it happening. I think that maybe we just need a little bit more movement to stop this advertising. I do remember seeing this Dove campaign I think it was called Real Women are something like that, and there were all different types of women in the advertising. I thought that it was a great campaign but I think that it is the only major campaign that I've really seen.
I just have a few questions, do you think that it is possible to reverse the effects of advertising on both men and women? How long before men are just as equal to women with their insanity about their looks? What ways to you think that we can attempt to stop this from affecting children?
I think the fact that Cottle says that if women want gender equality we have to make men as obsessed with their looks as women is a great point. I think that it is almost impossible to reverse the affect that advertising and society have on women and I think now that the media, advertisers and beauty products are focusing on men in some very twisted way it begins to level the playing field. I think that in general if we could reverse these effects and somehow prevent our society from being so obsessed with looks the world would be great but I think only in a utopian world could that ever happen.
I think that it is nature as the yes side was saying that people want the most healthy and attractive looking mate and I feel like advertising has taken it to another level by completely exploiting beauty. I don't think that beauty is the problem I think that it is the money driven world that we live in, people want to make money and beauty and beauty products sell. I mean I think that is the problem here, in the no side, Cottle stated that the advertising went up in Men's Health when people figured out that this was an untapped market. Basically the idea is to exploit people's insecurities to make a buck.
I do think that men being obsessed with their looks is generational though, I think that younger men are much more concerned for the most part with their looks than older men. And I think eventually we will live in a society where everyone is so obsessed with their looks, men and women and children to adults. I mean we already see it happening. I think that maybe we just need a little bit more movement to stop this advertising. I do remember seeing this Dove campaign I think it was called Real Women are something like that, and there were all different types of women in the advertising. I thought that it was a great campaign but I think that it is the only major campaign that I've really seen.
I just have a few questions, do you think that it is possible to reverse the effects of advertising on both men and women? How long before men are just as equal to women with their insanity about their looks? What ways to you think that we can attempt to stop this from affecting children?
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Nicole's issue 3 response (since I was absent from class..)
Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
Nicoleissue 3 response since I was absent from class..
Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].
Friday, October 5, 2007
How interesting...
Isabelle Rigoni's article on Muslim media bugged me. In fact, it really, really bugged me.
Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.
Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.
Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.
I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...
I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".
My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.
Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.
Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.
Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.
Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.
Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.
I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...
I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".
My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.
Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
A word about racial stereotypes
Is media a reflection of culture or does it take a life of its own and define a culture?
In our readings about African-American stereotypes in the media, the answer seems to be both. Havens points to the international success of The Cosby Show as an example of how the economic progress of African-Americans led to the creation of a show about a black middle class family. Cosby paved the way for a new generation of situation comedies depicting African-American family life. This is an example of how the media reflected changes in our culture.
On the other hand, Havens also points out that Cosby, in turn, had the power to change cultural attitudes. For example, the critics worried that the wildly successful sitcom gave whites the mistaken impression that we no longer had to worry about racism. In addition, according to Havens, The Cosby Show gave hope to black South Africans that they too could achieve economic and social equality.
It seems to me that the way African-Americans are depicted on fictional television has changed over the years. In the beginning, it was a question of whether African-Americans were seen at all. Then there was a period when the majority of depictions of black people were negative and pandered to accepted stereotypes. Today, we have everything from Cliff Huxtable lecturing his son about personal responsibility to gun-toting gangsta rappers.
The images have changed and become more varied, but the central question remains the same: To what extent do media images of minorities impact their ability move up in society? Most interesting is the current debate raging within the African-American community itself: Is gangsta rap an empowering refection of inner city culture--or is it helping to lock this generation of poor African-Americans into a cycle of poverty?
If you are interested, here are two books about this issue:
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It by Juan Williams
Nuthin' But a "G" Thang: The Culture and Commerce of Gangsta Rap
By Eithne Quinn
In our readings about African-American stereotypes in the media, the answer seems to be both. Havens points to the international success of The Cosby Show as an example of how the economic progress of African-Americans led to the creation of a show about a black middle class family. Cosby paved the way for a new generation of situation comedies depicting African-American family life. This is an example of how the media reflected changes in our culture.
On the other hand, Havens also points out that Cosby, in turn, had the power to change cultural attitudes. For example, the critics worried that the wildly successful sitcom gave whites the mistaken impression that we no longer had to worry about racism. In addition, according to Havens, The Cosby Show gave hope to black South Africans that they too could achieve economic and social equality.
It seems to me that the way African-Americans are depicted on fictional television has changed over the years. In the beginning, it was a question of whether African-Americans were seen at all. Then there was a period when the majority of depictions of black people were negative and pandered to accepted stereotypes. Today, we have everything from Cliff Huxtable lecturing his son about personal responsibility to gun-toting gangsta rappers.
The images have changed and become more varied, but the central question remains the same: To what extent do media images of minorities impact their ability move up in society? Most interesting is the current debate raging within the African-American community itself: Is gangsta rap an empowering refection of inner city culture--or is it helping to lock this generation of poor African-Americans into a cycle of poverty?
If you are interested, here are two books about this issue:
Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It by Juan Williams
Nuthin' But a "G" Thang: The Culture and Commerce of Gangsta Rap
By Eithne Quinn
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
'The Sopranos' and stereotypes (post from Jenna)
http://blog.nj.com/sopranosarchive/2007/06/the_sopranos_and_stereotypes_p.html
I think there are still stereotypes in the media. I agree with the writer of this article that television falls back on stereotypes, rather than challenges them. They still have African Americans playing “thugs” with their baggy pants, being loud-mouthed, on well-fare, etc. They still have Asians as martial arts masters and Latinos as not being able to speak English or as cleaning people, etc. Rarely do you see minorities on shows that are based around white characters. For example the show “Friends” is based in New York City that is vastly diverse in different nationalities, yet none of the main characters had any minority friends. I’m a huge fan of “Friends” and they only had 2 black supporting characters on the show, and 1 was only in 1 episode. The media also stereotypes Caucasians. They have Caucasians as being rich, as “trailer trash,” or Italians as being in the mob. They portray British people as having bad teeth and Irish people as drinking alcohol and hot-tempered.
Take for instance “The Sopranos” and mobster movies like “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “A Bronx Tale.” All of these have two things in common, they are about the mob and they are about Italians. Mobster shows and movies alike, glorify the mob business as being dangerous, you get to sleep with countless women, and it has nice perks, etc. However, what are these shows telling young audiences (15 and up) who watch these types of media. They see being in the mob as cool and they look up to certain characters because maybe it would be fun to be the “boss” and in charge, and to get away with doing illegal things, and living in a mansion, etc. They even portray African Americans on the show negatively as drug dealers and gang bangers and they call then the “n-word.”
Many Italians aren’t in the mob, but someone people watching “The Sopranos” or mob movies may think all Italians are in the mob, because it seems that’s how they show Italians in the media, which is misconstrued. People may see the mob image associated with Italians because of these types of media. However, not all Italian characters are portrayed as being in the mob, but they do cast them as being degenerates. Take for instance Fonzie on “Happy Days” or John Travolta’s character in the movie “Grease.” Both characters were greasers and got into trouble many times.
I don’t think stereotyping will ever be gone from the media or in the real world, because that is just the way the world is. Media executives know they can make bundles of money out of having stereotypical characters and they know people will watch.
I think there are still stereotypes in the media. I agree with the writer of this article that television falls back on stereotypes, rather than challenges them. They still have African Americans playing “thugs” with their baggy pants, being loud-mouthed, on well-fare, etc. They still have Asians as martial arts masters and Latinos as not being able to speak English or as cleaning people, etc. Rarely do you see minorities on shows that are based around white characters. For example the show “Friends” is based in New York City that is vastly diverse in different nationalities, yet none of the main characters had any minority friends. I’m a huge fan of “Friends” and they only had 2 black supporting characters on the show, and 1 was only in 1 episode. The media also stereotypes Caucasians. They have Caucasians as being rich, as “trailer trash,” or Italians as being in the mob. They portray British people as having bad teeth and Irish people as drinking alcohol and hot-tempered.
Take for instance “The Sopranos” and mobster movies like “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “A Bronx Tale.” All of these have two things in common, they are about the mob and they are about Italians. Mobster shows and movies alike, glorify the mob business as being dangerous, you get to sleep with countless women, and it has nice perks, etc. However, what are these shows telling young audiences (15 and up) who watch these types of media. They see being in the mob as cool and they look up to certain characters because maybe it would be fun to be the “boss” and in charge, and to get away with doing illegal things, and living in a mansion, etc. They even portray African Americans on the show negatively as drug dealers and gang bangers and they call then the “n-word.”
Many Italians aren’t in the mob, but someone people watching “The Sopranos” or mob movies may think all Italians are in the mob, because it seems that’s how they show Italians in the media, which is misconstrued. People may see the mob image associated with Italians because of these types of media. However, not all Italian characters are portrayed as being in the mob, but they do cast them as being degenerates. Take for instance Fonzie on “Happy Days” or John Travolta’s character in the movie “Grease.” Both characters were greasers and got into trouble many times.
I don’t think stereotyping will ever be gone from the media or in the real world, because that is just the way the world is. Media executives know they can make bundles of money out of having stereotypical characters and they know people will watch.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Polish stereotypes on television
Comment on "Image, status, mobility, and integration in American society: the Polish experience"
I’m old enough to remember the Barney Miller show—it was one of my favorites. If you are interested in how Det. Stan 'Wojo' Wojciehowicz is portrayed, watch the episodes “The Courtesans” Parts 2 and 3.
http://www.searchforvideo.com/entertainment/tv/barney-miller/
* for you younger folks, that strange device Wojo is using is a typewriter! ;)
The character of “Wojo” was not portrayed as generally stupid, but he was stupid about relationships. And the African-American character, Detective Harris, whom Pula describes as “impeccably dressed” and “articulate”, was also a snob. Yamana, the Japanese-American detective, bet on horses. Deitrick, the German-American, got himself into a couple of scrapes because of his ultra-liberal political views and often alienated himself from “the regular guys” by his constant philosophizing.
My point is that each of the characters had a personal quirk. With Wojo, it was women. He just couldn’t get enough of them. As a young viewer, (this was the seventies and I watched it as a teenager) it never occurred to me to associate that weakness with the fact that he was Polish… to me, he was just a guy with a long name who had a lot girlfriends, some of whom were downright flaky.
But if you are Polish and have had to listen to a lot of insensitive Polish jokes, I can understand why you might take offense at the character. I was a public school teacher for ten years, and I cringe at the stereotypical teacher characters on kids’ shows. Most of them are prissy, clueless, and don’t like kids very much. To me, most of these portrayals aren’t all that funny, but kids find them hilarious.
The mispronunciation of Wojciehowicz's last name was a running gag on the show, but the people who mangled it more than once were portrayed as stupid and insensitive.
Wojo himself was a complex character. He was also honest, hardworking, sincere, and a male chauvinist. In one episode he offers asylum to a Russian immigrant who sought refuge from communism. In another, he deals with the knowledge that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his tour as a soldier in Vietnam.
How we see media characters depends on our past experiences. If your only experience with a certain ethnic group comes from mostly negative portrayals in the media, I think it can impact how you think of that group.
I’m old enough to remember the Barney Miller show—it was one of my favorites. If you are interested in how Det. Stan 'Wojo' Wojciehowicz is portrayed, watch the episodes “The Courtesans” Parts 2 and 3.
http://www.searchforvideo.com/entertainment/tv/barney-miller/
* for you younger folks, that strange device Wojo is using is a typewriter! ;)
The character of “Wojo” was not portrayed as generally stupid, but he was stupid about relationships. And the African-American character, Detective Harris, whom Pula describes as “impeccably dressed” and “articulate”, was also a snob. Yamana, the Japanese-American detective, bet on horses. Deitrick, the German-American, got himself into a couple of scrapes because of his ultra-liberal political views and often alienated himself from “the regular guys” by his constant philosophizing.
My point is that each of the characters had a personal quirk. With Wojo, it was women. He just couldn’t get enough of them. As a young viewer, (this was the seventies and I watched it as a teenager) it never occurred to me to associate that weakness with the fact that he was Polish… to me, he was just a guy with a long name who had a lot girlfriends, some of whom were downright flaky.
But if you are Polish and have had to listen to a lot of insensitive Polish jokes, I can understand why you might take offense at the character. I was a public school teacher for ten years, and I cringe at the stereotypical teacher characters on kids’ shows. Most of them are prissy, clueless, and don’t like kids very much. To me, most of these portrayals aren’t all that funny, but kids find them hilarious.
The mispronunciation of Wojciehowicz's last name was a running gag on the show, but the people who mangled it more than once were portrayed as stupid and insensitive.
Wojo himself was a complex character. He was also honest, hardworking, sincere, and a male chauvinist. In one episode he offers asylum to a Russian immigrant who sought refuge from communism. In another, he deals with the knowledge that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his tour as a soldier in Vietnam.
How we see media characters depends on our past experiences. If your only experience with a certain ethnic group comes from mostly negative portrayals in the media, I think it can impact how you think of that group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)