The Obamas and Mass Media

Race, Gender, Religion, and Politics

Mia Moody-Ramirez, Jannette Dates

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137404930
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Journalism
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Using the cultural prism of race, this book critically examines the image of African Americans in media of the twenty-first century. Further, the authors assess the ways in which media focused on gender, religion, and politics in framing perceptions of the President and First Lady of the United States during the Obama administration.

1

Film, Print, and Broadcast Representations of African Americans

Abstract: Chapter 1 focuses on representations of African Americans in film, print, and broadcast media. It introduces the concepts of media framing, stereotypes, and hegemony as they relate to race and mass media studies. The chapter also introduces antebellum portrayals of African Americans, which are explored in greater depth in subsequent chapters.

Keywords: African Americans; antebellum portrayals; framing; President Obama; stereotypes

Moody-Ramirez, Mia and Dates, Jannette L. The Obamas and Mass Media: Race, Gender, Religion, and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137404930.

Framing and gatekeeper theory

One of the founding tenets of journalism is objectivity, but because of newsroom norms, limited space, personal beliefs, and experiences, journalists often use frames, cultural narratives, and stereotypes in the coverage of an issue. Media “frames” offer an interpretation to isolated facts (e.g., McQuail, 2002; Gamson, 1985; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Entman (1993) defined “framing” as selecting “some aspects of a perceived reality and making them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation” (p. 52). The term “framing” also refers to modes of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to present information in a way that resonates with existing underlying schemas among their audiences (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996).

Frames become an issue during the reporting process as journalists reproduce culturally embedded views of the world (Foucault, 1980) and use cultural codes to distinguish what is significant or valid and who has the standing to say what is true. Framing is of interest in media studies because most public policy issues are multidimensional, meaning the potential for framing is present. For example, a pro-life frame might include terms such as “baby,” “abortionist,” “unborn,” and “murder,” whereas a pro-choice frame might include “fetus,” “doctor,” “woman,” and “freedom” to describe the same situation (Hertog & McLeod, 1999).

Scholars also apply the gatekeeping theory to mass media studies (Gieber, 1960; Shoemaker, 1991; White, 1950). Gatekeeping is a selection process that offers communication scholars a framework for analyzing, evaluating, and comprehending how communication or news selection occurs. Gatekeeper studies illustrate that the gatekeeper’s role is highly biased based on his or her own set of experiences, attitudes, and expectations. The gatekeeper effect becomes problematic when journalists ignore minority issues because readers look to texts for ideas about issues that are most important.

The differences in people’s culture, race, religion, class, and gender influence how they write stories, as well as how they perceive media coverage of various issues. This is significant, according to Gans (1979), because the majority of journalists come from an upper-middle- to upper-class background, which he asserts most often offers a distinctly White, male perspective. Likewise, Dates and Pease (1994) assert that the norm in this country is that the perspectives of White, mainstream men generally create the lenses through which America, whether peripherally or directly, views race, and itself. Thus, there is good reason for many Blacks to think their perspectives, if heard at all, are “warped.” The result is the presentation of a world dominated by White, male concerns, where society treats the voices of people of color and women as marginal and peripheral (Ross, 2002). In the end, gatekeeping, framing, and hegemony allow certain groups to exert power over public opinion. These are critical concepts to explore when analyzing politics, gender, race, and religion.

Stereotypes and mass media

Lippmann (1922) defined “stereotype” as a form of perception that imposes “ways of seeing mental pictures” in one’s head. Berg (1990 p. 288) further defined the term as a generalization used by the dominant or “in-group” about members of the subordinate or “out-group.” The dominant group or cultural elite use stereotypes to dehumanize other cultural groups that differ in values, beliefs, or physical characteristics to maintain its own political power and social control (Lassiter, 1979). Stereotypes often target a person’s race, ethnicity, gender, age, disabilities, and/or sexuality (Berg, 1990). Stereotypes precede reason, and thus unavoidably shape the story of the storyteller, that is, reporter, screenwriter, and author (Nachbar & Lausé, 1992). As such, stereotyping builds group solidarity and creates an “us versus them” mentality. Stereotypes are endowed with “great powers,” Berg writes, because people perceive them to be “real” (p. 288):

The in-group transforms the out-group into simplistic symbols by selecting a few traits of the Others that pointedly accentuate differences (Wilson, Gutierrez & Chao, 2003; Seiter, 1986). These negative-value differences form the basis for making “others” inferior, thus excluding them from the in-group. (p. 288)

Stereotypes persist because “they fulfill important identity needs for the dominant culture,” thereby maintaining the status quo and preserving hegemony (Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005, p. 112). U.S. news coverage of people of color has historically reflected and reinforced racial stereotypes by portraying them as lazier, less intelligent, less moral, and more prone to crime than Whites (e.g., Martindale, 1990; Bagdikian, 1969; Entman, 1992; Dates & Barlow, 1993; Wilson, Gutierrez & Chao, 2003).

Stereotypes often reflect the dominant group’s feeling about the targeted group at different points in history. For example, African slaves were forced to immigrate to the United States against their will. However, to help justify slavery, media historically portrayed them as happy servants who wanted to serve their White masters. Other stereotypes included the idea that Blacks are lazy, highly sexual, unintelligent, unrefined, savage, and passive. Although these stereotypes take on different forms, they are still prevalent in modern media representations.

Similarly, Native Americans were the first group of a different race or ethnicity to confront Europeans on the American continent. Silent movies and early talking films portrayed Native Americans as plotting to massacre White men and to exploit White women (Griffiths, 1996). Media messages also implied that settlers did not displace Native Americans. Instead, they were peaceful settlers suddenly under attack by brutes. From the first silent pictures showing frenzied, bloodthirsty tribes on horseback, to television programs of the 1950s and 1960s, the cultural image of the Native American did not change for decades (Rollins & O’Connor, 2003). Mass media recreated the historic conflict between cowboys and Indians dramatically (Carstarphen & Sanchez, 2011).

Likewise, Whites engaged in hostilities against Latinos during the war for Texas independence. Consequently, American literature often stirred up local sentiment for the overthrow of the Mexican government in Texas and New Mexico. Latinos have historically been confined to a narrow set of stereotypes in popular culture that include the criminal, the law enforcer, the Latin lover, the Harlot, and the comic/buffoon (see Wilson & Gutiérrez, 2003; Gonzalez, 2000; Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005). Likewise, Latinos remain underrepresented and often stereotypically portrayed by the news networks (Subervi, 2005).

Asian Americans began to immigrate to the United States after the Gold Rush in 1848. They helped mine gold and worked hard to save money and open shops. Media often lumped Asians into one group, depicting them as clannish, deceitful, nerdy, and skilled martial artists (Tierney, 2006). However, not all stereotypes of Asians are negative in comparison to other minority groups. Media messages often typecast Asian Americans as the “model minority.” The term “model minority” was first coined by sociologist William Peterson in 1966 in an article “Success Story: Japanese-American Style” published in the New York Times Magazine (Peterson, 1966). He suggested that although Asian Americans, as an ethnic minority, are marginalized, they have achieved much more success in the United States than other minority groups. Later that year, U.S. News and World Report published a similar article about Chinese Americans titled, “Success Story of One Minority in the U.S.” (Tachiki et al., 1971).

Why stereotypes matter

Stereotypes are of concern in communication studies because the media help citizens make sense of the world around them, especially for depictions of people of different backgrounds. Furthermore, readers, particularly White ones, often form their opinions on race relations based on the media (Domke et al., 2003). Critical race theorists are concerned with stereotypes because dominant ideologies serve to reproduce social relations of domination and subordination. Ideologies of class, for instance, celebrate upper-class life and denigrate the working class. Ideologies of gender promote sexist representations of women, and ideologies of race utilize racist representations of people of color and various minority group (Dines & Humez, 2011).

Audiences often form their opinions on race relations based on the media (Domke et al., 2003). Therefore, framing and stereotypes are critical concepts when analyzing news coverage of controversial issues that the average reader will likely encounter through the media. Accordingly, the studies in this text demonstrate how media framed the most popular racial and political events of the 21st century.

Hegemony and modern racism

Film, print, and broadcast news often reflect ideological positions and help reproduce dominant forms of social power whether based on race, gender, or economics. Scholars often apply Gramsci’s (1971) notion of hegemony to deconstructing mass media messages. Hegemony does not refer to a deceitful plan crafted purposefully by those in positions of power to manipulate the system to serve dominant interests. Instead, it is “manufactured consent” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988). The process aims at building consensus among the masses that a certain ideology is normal and that any contradictions to it are deviant (Gramsci, 1971).

Gitlin (1980) explicated that those in positions of power do not directly maintain the status quo: “The task is left to writers, journalists, producers and teachers, bureaucrats and artists organized within the cultural apparatus as a whole” (p. 254). Rather than using physical force, hegemony is psychological, requiring the approval of those ruled (Shugart, 2007). Consent is evident in the normalization of stereotypical, one-dimensional representations that under other circumstances would seem inappropriate. Examples include establishments such as religious institutions, education, and the mass media that serve to inspire consent to the dominant order (Woollacott, 1982).

As blatant stereotyping in mainstream media became less acceptable in the latter part of the 20th century, more subtle forms of “modern” or “enlightened” racism developed, whereby the framing of seemingly objective news stories located the blame for crime and poverty in the individual choices and behaviors of people of color, rather than in the institutions that systematically denied racial minorities equal access to quality education, housing, and employment (e.g., Campbell, 1995; Entman, 1992).

In modern media and political discourses, scholars typically avoid discussions of the structural reasons for racial inequality in favor of paradigms that blame the victim (e.g., Entman & Rojecki, 1993; Marchi, 2008; Omi & Winant, 1994). Marchi (2008) argued that a stock feature of modern racism is the prominent news coverage that focuses on people of color who have been able to succeed against the odds and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Such stories validate the status quo socio-political system by implying that anyone, regardless of race, can achieve the American Dream (Campbell, 1995; Entman, 1990, 1992; Lule, 1995; Jhally & Lewis, 1992; West, 2001; Wilson et al., 2003). Consequently, scholars classify “multicultural celebratory” news stories within the realm of modern racism (Campbell, 1995; Entman & Rojecki, 2000).

In both news and entertainment media, scholars find that post-civil rights media discourses continue to position Whites at the top of the racial hierarchy in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Many of today’s popular stereotypes and narratives of African Americans began during the antebellum era discussed in our next section.

Antebellum portrayals of African Americans

Based on Antonio Gramsci’s argument that ruling class alliances in modern societies maintain their power by cultivating a consensus among subordinate classes, we focus this section on how the antebellum representations of African Americans in the popular culture were embedded in the fabric of society with the tacit consent of African Americans. We believe that first slaves, then marginalized, disenfranchised, and segregated freedmen, and finally African-American citizens were the focus of negative imagery that was systematically developed and maintained by the White majority. Further, we argue that the images that were developed in antebellum America satisfied the needs of the majority, gave messages to the enslaved minority about their place in society, and became so much a part of American culture and folklore that they helped to legitimate the inequalities in class, race, and gender for centuries.

In the 19th century, what became standardized images of (enslaved) Black people were developed and exported from minstrel shows into the popular culture of the day. White actors applied burnt cork or other “Blackening” products to their faces—and with exaggerated features (lips, eyes)—began rendering their versions of acceptable Black slaves: they could be funny, subservient, villainous, dim-witted, buffoonish, or foils for demonstrating White superiority (Dates & Barlow, 1993). There were few, if any, depictions of Black people in minstrel shows or other theatrical productions as normal, capable human beings, with feelings, concerns, personal goals, or serious aspirations. Not until the turn of the 20th century did a few Black entertainers, who were not forced to fit one of the traditional molds every moment they were on stage, gain exposure and acclaim for their talents. Most famous of these was vaudeville’s Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, who went on to become the dancing sidekick to 1930’s White child star Shirley Temple.

The antebellum minstrel shows were designed to and usually gave comfort to White audiences. Their representations of Black people were designed to rationalize the enslavement of imported Africans and justify the institution of slavery itself. The performers were dressed to demonstrate and had demeanors that proclaimed the non-humanity of enslaved Black people. The shows allowed so-called “Black imitators” to mimic White emotions while disallowing them the ability on stage to achieve any personal goals or emotional satisfaction for the Black characters they were purporting to portray.

Minstrel shows were not confined to the South, for they were enormously popular in the north, as well, particularly among the White working class (Roediger, 2003). Beginning in 1781, all across the country Blackface minstrelsy dominated popular entert...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• 1 Film, Print, and Broadcast Representations of African Americans
• 2 Historical Stereotypes of Black Men
• 3 A Feminist Reading of Mass Media
• 4 Images of African Americans in Advertising, PR, and Social Media
• 5 Network News
• 6 New Media Systems
• 7 Conclusions
• References
• Index