Media as Watchdog against Racism - A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black - Essay Example

Media as Watchdog against Racism: A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black? In 1991, a videotape taken by a bystander of a man being beaten up by four armed policemen – three of whom were white and one, Latin American -- was given prominent airtime in news and public information shows all over the United States. The footage showed officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) violently striking one Rodney King with a baton until he could no longer stand up and using an electroshock weapon on his person. In a controversial verdict, the police officers were acquitted of the charges that they used “assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury” and with assault “under color of authority.” This triggered massive riots in the streets of Los Angeles, now referred to as the LA Riots, and is known to be one of the worst and most destructive civil disturbances in the history of melting-pot State. More than fifty people lost their lives in the three-day frenzy of violence. The main cause of furor was the belief that the police violence was racially-motivated and the ferocity of the attack would not have happened if Rodney King were white. Media branded it as yet another example of racial profiling, and indeed it was. It was more than racial profiling in fact: it was brazen discrimination, it was violence of the most deplorable kind as it was perpetrated against a member of a race historically known to be marginalized. Indeed, media was right to condemn it at the first instance. (although it certainly condemned as well the frenzy of attacks and the riots that followed.) The Rodney King affair is indeed a glaring example of racial violence and overt acts of discrimination and should certainly be condemned. However, to focus on major events such as this is dangerous as well as it might be too easy to forget that there are subtle and insidious forms of discrimination taking place on a daily basis and in a sense, they are more dangerous because these forms of discrimination are more difficult to legislate against. In fact, they constitute such a gray area that they are difficult to interpret, and yet its long term effects could be as debilitating or even more so. When seen as a whole, it reveals a pattern that very much affirms the segregation practices of the past. As social scientists have taught, the consequences of segregation are far-reaching. Braddock and McPartland’s study (1989) found that: Blacks who grow up in a largely segregated environment are more likely to lead adult lives in segregated situations. At any given age, Blacks who are segregated in one institutional sphere – be it in education, residential location, employment, or informal social contacts – are also likely to have mostly segregated experiences in other institutional environments. While media has indeed played a big role in raising consciousness and against racism, an important question that should be asked in the field of international journalism is whether or not media has actually been contributory to fanning the flames of racism. Has there been racial profiling in media news reports as well that need to be scrutinized and explored? This is important because There can be no denying that media plays an important role in the molding of social values and in the legitimization of personal perceptions. It has been said that media is even more potent than formal education, in that its effects seep into the subconscious and accost individuals wherever they may be, whatever time of the day. In the United States, 98% have at least one television, 70% have more than one television, 70% have cable, and 51% of households with children have a computer. (Paik & Cornstock, 1994.) Stereotyping is one subtle form of racial profiling. The website Media Awareness Network states that “stereotypes act like codes that give audiences a quick, common understanding of a person or group of people—usually relating to their class, ethnicity or race, gender, sexual orientation, social role or occupation.” However, stereotyping is dangerous in that it transforms assumptions into realities and it places individuals in simplistic categories without recognition of each person’s uniqueness and gifts.1 Indeed, factual and fictional media portrayals have a propensity to activate culturally shared racial and gender stereotypes and affect judgment involving those who belong to stereotyped groups (Murphy, 1998). Werner-Wilson, Fitzharris and Morrisey2 wrote a paper entitled “Adolescent and parent perceptions of media influence on adolescent sexuality”. According to them: The media passively reinforce gender and ethnic stereotypes (Gerbher, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1986). Passive reinforcement of gender and ethnic stereotypes was demonstrated in a content analysis of Rolling Stone magazine, a popular adolescent periodical, which examined gender and ethnic themes in issues published in the years 1968 and 1988 (Wilson, 1990). Results from the content analysis suggested that women and people from traditionally underrepresented groups were rarely the source of stories; when they were featured, they were depicted unflatteringly. News reports, for all its declarations of impartiality and objectivity, may be guilty of racial stereotyping. In his landmark study, Ungerleider (1991), states that a news report has the implicit agenda of “casting” characters as heroes, victims or villains. Members of minority groups end up either ignored or cast in the role of villains. Since these stories are repeated over and over with this same angle, they become the "accepted understandings among those to whom alternative interpretations are not evident." A huge problem with regard to media stereotyping where racial issues are concerned is the tension between the right to free speech and the right of marginalized groups to live free from prejudice and bigotry. the problem is not solved merely by prohibiting overtly discriminatory practices such as making race a basis for employment. Such practices are outdated and have no place in the twenty first century. The problem is the more insidious forms of discrimination. These are the forms that are difficult to legislate. How indeed, can one determine where the right of marginalized racial communities begin and where the right to free speech ends? The boundaries are ever-shifting; and internally, the judge will be trying not only to apply the law, but to subject the text or speech in question to her own subjective inquiry in order to determine the intent of the message-bearer and what the material was trying to say. Social and political values inevitably come to the fore. To quote legal writer Thomas Streeter, “It is in the character of language, in other words, that a judge will never be able to look at the text of the Bill of Rights and legal precedents to decide whether or not flag burning is protected by the First Amendment; he will always in one way or another be forced to make a choice about whether or not he thinks it should be protected, and will always be faced with the possibility that a reasonable person could plausibly disagree.”. What distinguishes the area on free speech from other “legally-indeterminate” areas is that it is inextricably intertwined with and largely dependent on language which, as many eminent linguists have said, is arbitrary in the sense that meanings cannot be derived from anything logically-inherent in the words. These meanings are merely “assigned meanings” born of the collective experiences of people in a community and this system of interpretation is never static. An incident that demonstrates the tension between free speech – which all news agencies of the civilized world enjoy – and the right of minority groups to religious freedom happened just last year. the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons – twelve in all – about Islam and the Prophet Mohammad that was deemed offensive by the Islamic community at large. To illustrate, one cartoon showed Mohammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb. The issue generated international controversy. Some newspapers outside Denmark reprinted the cartoons in support of the concept of free speech. Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the newspaper, stated: The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. On the other hand, the Islamic community demonstrated their outrage at the cartoons through worldwide protests and calls of boycotts. They condemned the drawings as a form of hate speech and decried what they consider to be the offensive depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as well as the not-so-subtle link made between Islam and terrorism. This whole controversy makes a very interesting case for examining the role of the law in settling disputes that involve competing legal concepts reflective of competing values. There is a clear diversity issue at stake, it is not difficult to give credence to the arguments of Muslims all over the world that such depiction of their leader will foment even further inter-religious conflict, will marginalize Muslims and will be a setback for the cause of diversity and pluralism. On the other hand, there is no dispelling the argument as well that free speech is a right that should be cherished and protected. It protects not only the speech we love, but also the speech we hate. The right against censorship and prior restraint appears to be more serious, than the right to “not be mocked.” Mocking words are but manifestations of ideas – ill-formed ideas, yes, but ideas nonetheless – that are best refuted by better ideas in a free market of thought and discourse. Censorship, on the other hand, especially if state-sponsored, is a more chilling malady that does not bode well for robust democratic institutions. Of course, the most ideal solution would be to exercise restraint and sensitivity in one’s work – always taking into account the sensitivities of everyone in the community, particularly those who come from traditionally-marginalized classes, like those from religious minorities. This issue of the media unwittingly causing racism becomes even more problematic when one considers that another medium has been added in the past decade: the internet. Perhaps there are very few modern developments that have posed a challenge to this notion of the law and the legal system than the advent of the Internet. Precisely because of the uniqueness of the medium and the vastness of its breadth, there has been great difficulty imposing regulatory mechanisms on its use – thereby leading, in many cases, to its abuse. There can be no denying that media plays an important role in the molding of social values and in the legitimization of personal perceptions. Everyone with an internet connection may become a journalist and the world is his audience. In a nutshell, the Internet, also called the information superhighway, is a communications network wherein computers from all over the world may instantaneously communicate and exchange images with each other through the benefit of a modem and an Internet Service Provider. There is no one central source that can filter out images or regulate the flow of information. The internet cannot be shut down at will. On the issue of hate speech, the danger posed by the internet is that more often than not, it is the medium of choice of racial supremacist groups who thrive on the relative safety and untraceability that the Internet provides. Hier (2000) presents three reasons: First, there exists a considerable gap between the public images that racial supremacist groups attempt to present in the Internet and a far less benign image that emerges upon closer analysis; second, exemplified by the Freedom-site, the internet has facilitated a greater degree of solidarity between racial supremacist organizations; and third, given the impersonal nature of the internet, there exists a certain degree of danger that otherwise ordinary citizens will become more susceptible to the ideology of racial supremacism. (p. 471) Indeed, the swiftness with which technology and journalism have grown and developed is overwhelming and breathtaking. It used to be that children could only read books or play outside with other children. It was a simpler world and there was less reason to worry. Then television came and parents – particularly working parents – were alarmed at the barrage of information that could be absorbed by their curious mind of their young child. At the dawn of the internet age, we saw how technology can truly revolutionize not only the way we receive and provide information or the way we communicate, but also the way we live our lives, the way we define ourselves, the way we perceive the world. Of course, it cannot be gainsaid that media has played a very big role in alleviating the racial divide. By simply reporting on repressive policies of the government or acts of brazen discrimination, it calls attention towards these negative behaviors and galvanizes the greater community to take action and make concrete changes. But still more responsibility is warranted. While media should retain its role as watch dog and continue criticizing the government and call for discrimination to end, it must also take a good hard look at itself if this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While new developments have been introduced that have sought to alleviate the racial and religious divide in the world as well, it is incorrect to believe that the problem has been completely solved. We must be grateful that the world we have now is a more tolerant and more accepting world, but we must still try to think of steps to make further changes. WORKS CITED Braddock, J.H. II, and McPartland, J.M. Social-Psychological Processes That Perpetuate Racial Segregation: The Relationship Between School and Employment Desegregation Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Mar., 1989) , pp. 267-289 Hier, S. The Contemporary Structure of Canadian Racial Supremacism: Networks, Strategies and New Technologies. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 25(4) (Autumn 2000), pp. 471-494. Murphy, S. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 560, The Future of Fact (Nov., 1998), pp. 165-178 Paik, H., & Comstock, G. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, (1994) 516- 546. Streeter, T. (1995) Some Thoughts on Free Speech, Language and the Rule of Law. In Jensen, R. and Allen, D. (Eds.) Freeing the First Amendment: Critical Perspectives on Freedom of Expression.31-53. New York University Press. Ungerleider, C. "Media, minorities and misconceptions: The portrayal by and representation of minorities in Canadian New Media," Canadian Ethnic Studies, vol. 23, no. 3 (October 1991), 158. Read More