Reverse Discrimination

Rich Noonan, a local Fox anchor in Philadelphia, believes he was a victim of reverse discrimination. In 2002, his contract was not renewed and he was replaced by a black man. He argues that the station hired the black man to diversify the news team. The team included three white men and one while woman, but a black man replaced one of the white men.

Without knowing the inner workings of the station it is hard to tell if this really is reverse discrimination or if it is just an annoyed man looking for excuses and money. More established anchors are let go all the time for people who cost less money and do a good job. Noonan obviously didn't think of this. It's also possible that he wasn't as good of a worker. Of course, maybe it was race based and it just happened to be Noonan's contract that was needing renewed.

This seems to be a common complaint. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hammacher filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan for not accepting them but accepting minorities with worse GPAs and SAT scores. It was highly publicized, even gaining attention in a 60 Minutes episode. Many more people have felt this way, whether they made it public or not.

Is reverse discrimination a problem? I'm sure it happens sometimes, but people seem to overreact. After all the years of oppression and exclusion, whites can handle not being on top constantly. Yeah, personally being the victim would not be much fun, but in the great scheme of things, maybe it's time for the tables to be turned.

Bill and Juan

Everyone is ranting about Bill O'Reilly and Juan Williams (video). I want to add to the bunch.

I don't watch Fox News. It angers me and I don't like to hear everything I feel is not objective news. That said, I listen to NPR, watch CNN, and read The New York Times. I got to wondering, am I hearing unobjective news? Do I just think it's objective because I generally agree with it?

NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his remarks about Muslims on the O'Reilly Factor. He said, "I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."No this is not a good thing to say as it generalizes a race and religion, however, it is a view that a lot of people in the US have. NPR fired him because he was inconsistent with their editorial standards and practices. 


This seems unproductive. Why would a station that is all about communication and getting the truth out there not use this as a stepping ground for opening conversation about the subject? Since so much of the world feels this way about Muslims in general, why was it hushed? My only conclusion is that NPR has more bias than I thought. 


My next step was to watch the entire segment of the O'Reilly Factor that caused the uproar to see what else Williams said. Williams seemed to not really step out of bounds compared to O'Reilly. O'Reilly made extreme generalizations, compared things that shouldn't be compared, and fueled misconceptions. O'Reilly made a comment about the German/Turkish problems. To someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, he made it sound like terrorists were in Germany. He never specified they were Turkish immigrants. He said that most people never assimilate into German culture. While this is somewhat true, as conservative Muslims don't assimilate into German culture, it is no where near "most." I talked with German journalists who said only about 20 percent at most were causing the cultural problems. These are not the same problems as the US is having, and O'Reilly implies that they are. Meanwhile, Williams kept trying to put O'Reilly in his place, which needed to happen.


My conclusion is that news is biased and you can't be totally objective. This means that viewers must be extremely educated in what they are viewing.

Tokenism

Richard Dyer argues in his article, "The Matter of Whiteness," that being white is invisible unless it is in direct relation with a minority. We are bombarded with images of whiteness that we don't recognize it. Because of this, as a young white woman, it is hard for me to understand the concept of tokenism.

In a question and answer session with minority PR agents, the question "Do you ever feel like the token black woman in your workplace?" was asked. I realized that I have never imagined feeling this way. Yes, I'm a woman, which is a subordinate group. However, because half the population is women, it's hard to feel like a token woman. I don't really have the concept of being the token anything.

I've learned in various situations that by being white I don't really understand when anything that isn't blatant racism is around me. For example, I dated a guy who was multiracial and had dark skin and dark features. He constantly related things to race and would let me know when he noticed people giving me a weird look. I never noticed. At the time I just thought he was paranoid, but I've since understood that I was oblivious because I've never thought of anything like that directed towards me.

It is not good to have no concept of tokenism. In order to appreciate what you have, you need to experience what it could be like. It's never good to be the token, but it is also not good to never realize that it happens. In doing so you'll only continue the passive racism and tokenism that happens in our society.

Humor in Stereotyped Advertising

We all know that minorities and women were stereotyped historically in the media. Some ads were definitely going over the line of today's standards. Stereotypes are still used in advertising today, but all groups of people are stereotyped, and the producer usually knows and exaggerates these traits in a humorous way. Does this make current advertising stereotype usage acceptable?

People respond well to humor, especially in advertising. The funny commercials are always the ones talked about the day after the Super Bowl. Since stereotyping is so prevalent in our past, everyone understands it. Poking fun of these stereotypes is a new form of advertising. Even when the ads are ridiculously offensive, it's a social commentary on how common these are.

It is not only the subordinate groups that are stereotyped. The white male is also very commonly stereotyped in advertising. This makes the stereotyping even more acceptable. There is no group that is above the ridicule. Men are stereotyped as many things, including lazy, heartless, a terrible dancer, the bread winner, and much more. In this Miller Lite commercial the man is stereotyped as heartless, oblivious, and a womanizer.

There are also a lot of racial stereotypes, but they are so over the top, that it is hard not to laugh. For example, in this Heineken commercial the two Asian men are stereotyped as unable to assimilate into American culture and as followers. However, even though it's a terrible and untrue stereotype, they are showing these characters so over the top that it is socially acceptable. Helping make these racial stereotypes socially acceptable, is the fact that Caucasians are included in the humorous stereotyping. Bud Light has an entire campaign for the "Real Men of Genius." In this, the white guy is stereotyped as a terrible dancer and a total dork. If there is no racial group that is safe from stereotyping, then it is hard to complain about a specific stereotype.

This one video stereotypes men, women, the elderly, and the young. It allows everyone to laugh and themselves and others, and is quite a memorable video.

Diversity in Network News

The US has a history of black exclusion in the media. However, in recent years African Americans have started to take on leadership roles within the media. One of the first black network news anchors, Max Robinson, started at ABC in 1978 and moved to NBC in Chicago in 1984. Another black television news pioneer is Ed Bradley. He worked as the first black television corespondent for the White House in 1976 and then moved to CBS's 60 Minutes in 1978.

These two men have another thing in common. They are both very relatable to a mass audience. The African American population has people to relate to in the news, finally. However, these two are also extremely relatable to a white population. Both are very light skinned, which seems like both a good marketing tool and a cop out for the network stations. It makes sense to have anchors relatable to a wide audience because more people will watch, thus the network will get more money and a larger influence. On the other hand, these anchors are almost white. Why couldn't they have gone a little further with the diversity?

News anchors, even if they look different, are not diverse. All people in news sound exactly the same. No matter what race or where geographically the person grew up, everyone seems to be a white Midwestern person. If you play the videos without looking at the person (Max Robinson, Ed Bradley), you'll probably have no idea these men are black. The same thing happens with Asian newscasters (Connie Chung). It is very rare to hear a southern accent, a New Jersey accent, or a Minnesotan accent on network news unless it is an interviewee. It doesn't make sense to have the entire network news population come from one area of a very diverse country, even if it is so everyone can understand them.

News has come a long way from the days where diversity was completely excluded. However, there is still a long way to go. It's ridiculous to have anchors and newscasters talk the same. Even though we've come a long with with the racial diversity, television would seem more realistic if there were more of it and some accents to liven it up.

Tabooed Sex

Katherine Sender argues in her article, Sex Sells Sex, Class, and Taste in Commercial Gay and Lesbian
Media, that heterosexual sex sells, while homosexual sex doesn't. I had never really thought about that before. Sex is everywhere, so why is one form of it so taboo?

My roommate is an elementary education major. Her assignment for the week was to pick a controversial picture book and write an argument as to why she would introduce it to her class. After a trip to the library, we now have a number of gay and lesbian introducing kids' books on our coffee table. This has brought up a number of conversations with various people about what is appropriate to teach a young child.

Children are bombarded with sex before they understand what it is, and a lot of it is ignored. However, even I (and I like to think I'm liberal-minded) found myself uncomfortable with a few of the books. I realized the trend. The books I was more comfortable with didn't include sex and one of the characters easily could have been switched out for a member of the opposite gender. Uncle Bobby's Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen, is a cute story about a little girl-hamster who get's very jealous when she find out her uncle is getting married. This fiance happens to be a man-hamster, but it makes no sexual references. Also, if one of the man-hamsters was pictured in a dress but the story was exactly the same, no one would be confused. The King & King series, by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, is all fun and games. Even in the story where the kings meet each other, it is very comfortable because sex is not involved.

However, two other books created a lot of conversation. Heather has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman, has good intentions, but little details are uncomfortable. One page, specifically, feeds a lot of the sexual controversy conversations. The text on the page reads
   Kate and Jane went to see a special doctor together. After the doctor examined Jane to make sure
   that she was healthy, she put some sperm into Jane's vagina. The sperm swam up into Jane's womb.
   If there was an egg waiting there, the sperm and egg would meet, and the baby would start to grow.
Granted, this is not actual sex, but planting the idea of artificial insemination into an elementary schooler's head was a little much for us to grab onto- especially so graphically. On the same page, in the picture, the mother is sitting with the doctor with part of her shirt off. Part of the breast is extremely visible, for no apparent reason. These two details made everyone who saw it, a little confused as to why they are in a children's book. In Daddy's Roommate, by Michael Willhoite, there are countless images of the two men, or at least one of them, shirtless. They have chizzled arms and pecks, and in some images, their crotch areas are very pronounced. There are pictures of them hugging, rubbing suntan lotion on each other, and a general sexual tension throughout. Though the story itself is very straight forward and not sexual, because the sexuality in the images is so in your face, many people have felt confused as to the book's motives.

Even though it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, it is very good to introduce the idea of a gay relationship to a young child at a time when they don't have an understanding of it as a subordinate culture. Many people in our generation did not grow up with this idea. My first introduction to a gay relationship (that I remember), was when I was 12. An uproar occurred when a Russian pop band, t.A.T.u., released the music video for "All the Things She Said" in 2002. The video included a story of two school girls who are in love but are not accepted. The biggest issue was the fact that the two girls kiss. Because I had no concept of what the problem was, my first experience with homosexuality was in a controversial light. This is not a good introduction for a child.

I find it interesting that what we are introduced to as a child can affect your thoughts on a subject without you realizing it. I thought I was very liberal, but obviously I have my own issues introducing gay sex to a child, and by the conversations I've had, so do many others my age. Dominant sexuality in the media has to be pushed a lot further for it to be deemed inappropriate for children, and a lot of it is overlooked. It's my hope that the liberals of the elementary schools now are even more open minded than the liberals my age.

The Princess and the Frog

After over 100 years of film, it has become very evident that movies racially stereotype. It is no secret that Disney movies have been extremely racially stereotypical over the years. Disney has not shed great light on the African-American population, with the "Jim Crow" characters in Dumbo, the monkeys in Jungle Book, and Uncle Remus in Song of the South. In 2009, Disney tried to reverse this image, however, they did not do as well as they intended for a lot of people.

There have been white, Asain, Native America, and Arab princess, and in 2009, The Princess and the Frog (trailer), brought forth the first African-American princess, Tiana. There were racial issues from the beginning. Originally, the main character was to be named Maddy, however that sounded really close to "Mammy," so Disney changed it. Jennifer Daniels, from BET, wrote responding to the early stages of the movie that Disney brings "...our plucky young Black protagonist, Maddy, as a chambermaid. There's also a plantation owner, two practitioners of voodoo – one a Magical Negro, the other a villain – a singing alligator, and score by the whitest White man to ever rest his head in the Big Easy, Randy Newman, (Were the Neville brothers & Harry Connick, Jr., busy?). Knowing Disney, I'm sure there's a dead parent somewhere in the mix. The living parent, Maddy's mother Eudora, is also a maid. Somebody turns into a frog. Oh, and the prince is White." This doesn't sound very progressive.

Some viewers still have issues with The Princess and the Frog. African-American little girls finally have a princess, however she is a frog for the majority of the movie. New Orleans, of course, would not have a princess in the 1920s, so in order to make her a princess they bring in a white(ish) prince from fictional Maldonia. 

Even though there is so much anger towards The Princess and the Frog, many people find it a great addition to the Disney collection. Oprah Winfrey helped fund the movie and was the voice for Tiana's mother. Some reviewers thought Disney did a good job with a touchy subject. Anika Noni Rose, the voice of Tiana, says she "delivers a sense of partnership between other little girls who have friends and family members who look like Tianna. I think in the world of fantasy, and I'm not just talking about Disney, the dark character has always been associated with evil—the black hat is the bad cowboy—and this is the flip. It's wonderful to see something different, and it will be effective on many fronts to many children, and consequently to many adults years from now."

Because it is a classic Disney princess movie, The Princess and the Frog follows a set formula. This causes it to be a little stereotypical, just as the others are. It has gotten a lot of good and bad press, which causes the viewer to decide for themselves whether being stereotypical is offensive or expected.