Social Media Activism and the Baltimore Riots

Freddie Gray. If this name doesn't bring something to your mind, you've been living under a rock. For weeks. Freddie Gray, 25, died in April after being illegally arrested which resulted in fatal injuries. He was carrying a pocket knife, which was perfectly legal, made eye contact with an officer and then ran away. The officers arrested him, and threw him in the back of a cop van face down with his feet shackled and in handcuffs. Over the course of about an hour, they made four stops along the way to check on him. Freddie wasn't doing well and said he couldn't breathe, multiple times. But the officers did nothing, although they knew he needed medical attention. They stopped to "check" on him but didn't bother to actually check his condition despite his pleas. When they got to the destination, he wasn't breathing at all. They finally called a medic who determined that he was in cardiac arrest and had severe injuries. Freddie died a week later from spinal cord injuries.

This is one of many in a string of recent accounts of police brutality resulting in the death of an unarmed Black man. It keeps happening. Actually, it's always happened, but what's changed in recent years is the way we share information through technology and social media. Now we can post a video, image, or anything and it is instantly shared around the world where anyone can access it. In the case of Walter Scott,  the bystander video of the events changed everything. The officer reported that Walter took his taser and so he feared for his life. In the video, we see that Walter was running away from, not towards the officer, and he shoots him in the back. We also see him putting his taser next to Walter's body. He reported a completely false story, and if it hadn't been for the video someone recorded on their phone, the whole case would have been swept under the rug.

People are pissed about these cases of excess force and brutality. And rightly so. People have been protesting each time these cases come out, like for Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Michael Brown Jr, and more. In Baltimore, people protested peacefully for a week. But the second that a few people decided to burn down the CVS and it became violent, the media was all over it. They didn't cover the peaceful protestors or the community coming together to fight a bigger issue, they only covered the violence of a few. Outlets like Fox only focused on the rioting and talking about how the "thugs" doing so are wrong, not why they're doing it or what the bigger picture is. The coverage leads people to thing that these "thugs" are just being destructive and that they represent all of the thousands of people there protesting, but they don't. Most of the protestors in Baltimore are peaceful, and cleaning up the trash and debris, and even trying to stop the violent protestors. But that's not what we see on TV and in the newspapers. So how do I, who is not from Baltimore, nor do I know anyone from there, know about the peaceful protestors? Social media.

The protestors took to twitter and other outlets to try to get the real message across, and to display their upset in the lack of media coverage of the peaceful demonstrations and the community coming together. People have been using hashtags like #freddiegray and #blacklivesmatter, to get more attention to the bigger picture. It's not just about Freddie Gray, it's about inequality and the history of violence and oppression against Black bodies by law enforcement. Social media has given activists an outlet to let their voices be heard. It creates a space that transcends borders and allows discussion of important topics that we don't see in the mainstream. Resistance is necessary for survival, because without it there would be no change.


Since all of these cases have been widely viewed, there has been talk that police officers will all soon have to wear body cameras at all times. If that happens that could be really helpful, as long as the officers can't control the cameras. Many people now know about the peaceful protests and that the violence in Baltimore is not representative of everyone. People are starting to get that there is a bigger picture, and it's all thanks to social media and the online activism that's been taking over the internet.

Apple and multicultural advertising

Apple. The products are great, people all over the world love them. In the U.S. we wait in line for hours to get them. We just have to have the coolest new gadget all the time. But there are some problems I see with Apple. It's a huge corporation with an international market. That means, the little guys get forgotten. With so much demand for the products, they just had to go out of the U.S. for production because god forbid a huge company with soooo much money can't afford to spend too much on its workers or the production of their merchandise, it's gotta be cheap cheap cheap so they can keep making there billions. So they take it to other countries like China, just like all the other huge corporations and every other product we have in the states, and they get there product made at a way cheaper price via the use of slave labor in giant, dangerous factories. 

And many of us know that. We know that nothing is made in the states anymore because it's cheaper to do it somewhere else. Some of us might know the costs that come with that too and how it affects the people that make our products. And yet, we still buy all of our iPads and iPhones. I'm guilty of it too. It's a part of our consumer society and our instant gratification mindset. There needs to be more transparency with such corporations, and more research on the consumer end.

Now all of the accusations about terrible working conditions came to light a few years ago. Since then Apple has vowed to try to correct the conditions and make things better for their out-sourced employees. They were going to spend $100 million building a manufacturing factory in Arizona, to create jobs in the U.S. and what not. But they canceled it. In 2013, it was revealed that there were 73 underage workers at one of the apple facilities. In 2014, they found 23. That's better.... I guess..

But for all the things Apple isn't doing right, lets talk about one thing they are doing right. This advertisement for the iPhone 5c is pretty cool. It shows people from all over the world enjoying their new iPhone 5c.



So I like how they're incorporating different cultures and people, showing that their product is for any and everyone. They made the 5c a little cheaper than the other iPhones as well, so they could widen their market reach. But this wasn't long after all the backlash about the factory working conditions. So could it have been just a Public Relations ploy? It's possible. But I think it worked. I know all the allegations against apple, and yet I still prefer their products. And watching this ad, I loved it, it made me feel good. The ad team definitely did their jobs right.

Now, we can appreciate the good things Apple is doing, but we still need to be critical and know what's going on. We can't be blinded by our consumerism. We still need to be smart and recognize the bigger picture and how what we do is important.

"Rape: It's Your Fault" - Satire

So this video is ... interesting. It's a great example of using satire to get a point across. The purpose of satire is to criticize in order to shame a target, person, group, idea, attitude, institution, social practice, etc. into reform. This video is using satire to shame the victim blaming attitude towards rape in order to bring awareness and reform to the idea. Any rape victim, whether they identify as male, female, or any gender in between, is not at fault.

I think what slightly bothered me about this video was how extreme it went, but that was the point. You are supposed to be bothered by it, that's why they showed the women looking more progressively beaten up throughout the video and actual instances of being attacked.

An example the video begins with are examples of "clothing that could cause rape". The outfits vary from a shirt and shorts to a full on astronaut uniform. The commonality they point out is that all of those outfits were worn by women. This was to get the point across that what a woman wears should not be blamed as the reason for rape. Women should be able to wear whatever they want without anyone attacking them, verbally or physically. If someone gets raped, it's not their fault. Period. This video gets that point across, if you didn't get it in the first 3 minutes, it clearly states at the end, "Stop Blaming the Victim".

Juvenalian is a form of satire that is biting and doesn't necessarily make you laugh. It's angry and points out things that make us uncomfortable. This video definitely uses juvenalian satire. I didn't crack a smile while I watched it, but that's because I understood the point the creators were trying to make. I have also had education in women's studies and learned about sexual violence and victim blaming, so to me it is a serious subject that people really do need to be more aware of.

However, if someone has not spent time learning about sexual violence and survivors, they may not understand this video. They might get the fact that it's a satire, that's pretty obvious. But they might not get the full extent of the point being made, and they could agree with the reversal of the truth that is presented.

This is why I've always had a bit of a problem with certain satirical television shows, like South Park and Family Guy. They say that they make fun of everyone so it's even. But it's still offensive, and if someone doesn't understand that there's a bigger point to such sarcasm, then they buy into the often racist, sexist, classist, and homophobic "jokes" and stereotypes. Therefore, i'm not entirely convinced that certain showcases of satire are more helpful than damaging. But in the case of this video, I would say that the message is portrayed in such a way that it is successful.

Cultural Appropriation and Cinco de Mayo

Ohh Cinco de Mayo, how us United Statesians* love you. We wear sombreros and mustaches and drink tequila all day to celebrate our southern neighbor, Mexico's Independence. But what most people don't realize is that dressing up in those costumes and celebrating how they do is actually cultural appropriation. If you think that this is not important and "cultural appropriation is bullshit" (literally one of the suggestions when you google cultural appropriation) then please see my previous post about color-blind racism and the four frames used to justify discrimination. It should prove to be enlightening.

May 5th is not Mexico's independence day. It's actually celebrated on September 15th and 16th to commemorate an uprising against Spanish rule in 1810. But many people think it celebrates a Mexican victory over the French on May 5th, 1862. It was a very important and profound victory so it was celebrated over the years in the Chicano community and eventually became a national holiday. But in the 1980's the alcohol companies started to capitalize on Chicano movements that used May 5th and it's rich history to rally. Ohh capitalism, profiting off of a culture like that is not okay.

Cultural appropriation is taking elements of another culture, often sacred and symbolic, and presenting it in a shallow manner. It turns someone's culture into a trend or commodity, and it is an act of privilege. The alcohol companies profit off of someone's culture, and it in no way gives back to the Mexican culture. If a Mexican identifying person were to walk down the street in the U.S. wearing a sombrero and traditional poncho, they would most likely be ridiculed or stigmatized in some way. The stigma doesn't stay when it's someone of the dominant culture, they can take it on and off when it's useful. There's the privilege. It simply displays the unequal power balance between cultures.

 As this poster suggests, using a culture as a costume is just not okay. This is also a problem around Halloween. Using someone's cultural symbols to satisfy a personal need for self-expression is also a privilege. And it comes with many historical and social implications. So just don't do it.

Cultural exchange is a mutual understanding that embodies equality and respect for another culture that is not your own. It is a respectful engagement by a humble and invited guest. Spend time immersed in the culture, truly try to understand the history of the people and who they are today, educate yourself, it's not the responsibility of someone in the culture to be your bridge and teach you everything. If you are really interested in cultural exchange, you will do the work.

So in a month when Cinco de Mayo comes around, instead of going out and buying a sombrero, think twice. Think about what that day really is and maybe go do some research for yourself, or spend some time getting to know someone that is Mexican instead of appropriating Mexican culture and exercising your privilege in vein.


*I use the term United Statesians because to use the term American is a privilege that only those in the U.S. can seem to claim, although North America is more that the U.S. So why aren't Canadians or Mexicans also Americans or why aren't we all just North Americans? Food for thought.

Television, ethnicity and color blind racism

There has been a recent shift in casting in prime television shows this season. Cristela, Black-ish, Fresh Off the Boat, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, are a few of these new shows that have been some of the best, most watched, and critically acclaimed in a long time. The best part is there are more roles with actors of color who portray actually complex, multidimensional characters, and some of these shows even actually address issues of class and racism. As with any good thing, there has also been some ignorant backlash.  

This piece by Sonia Saraiya discusses the backlash and why it is ridiculous. Sonia cites a specific article written by Nellie Andreeva in which Nellie complains bout the amount of ethnic roles calling it unfair, and stating, "Instead of opening the field for actors of any race to compete for any role in a color-blind manner, there has been a significant number of parts designated as ethnic this year, making them off-limits for Caucasian actors." 

First of all, many people think that being color-blind is a good thing, but it's not. It's another form of racism. Ignoring the differences among and between races minimizes parts of a person's identity. You can't simply not see that someone is black. They can't ignore it on a daily basis, with the presence of institutional racism, so doing so is a form of privilege. People of color experience the U.S. differently, so thinking that everyone is the same is a flawed notion.

Second, TV shows with all white casts have been around forever, there are hundreds. So it's not unfair that the few shows we have today are all casts of people of color, its great, and very much needed. 

There are four frames used to justify the continued discrimination in color-blind racism. 

1. Abstract Liberalism- a focus on economics, the idea that everyone has the same chance, the "bootstraps" theory.

2. Naturalization - the notion that it's natural for blacks and whites to segregate and be with people that look like yourself. 

3. Cultural Racism - believing that the way people behave is attributed to their culture, creating a deficit. 

4. Minimization - believing that people talk about race too much, that the conversation is not important. 

Many people think that because we have a black president that we are in a post-racial society, but it's simply not true. People like Oprah and Obama are exceptional figures. Just because Oprah can do it doesn't mean any black person can just work hard and "make it". There is more to it that just pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. There is still racism today. It may not be necessarily as overt as it has been historically, but it is certainly still there, in our institutions, ingrained in our society and our structures. The only way you can ignore it is because you are privileged to not be faced with it on a daily basis, and in that case, you're too ignorant to see how important the conversation around racism is. 

Framing, Rolling Stone, and the Boston Bomber

According to Robert Entman, to frame "is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." So in other words, when something is framed a certain way it defines a problem, diagnoses a cause, makes moral judgements, and offers suggestions to remedy the problem.

Framing in journalism can be intentional or unintentional but it is most likely intentional. For example when Rolling Stone magazine put the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Many people were outraged by this decision, and stores even refused to carry the issue. The media had been overflowing with images of victims who had been hurt in the blast, and they were graphic. This was a huge upset as any act of terrorism would be, across the nation, so people said that Rolling Stone was glorifying the bomber and the act.

It may seem as though it was a terrible decision for the editors to make. Why would they do that, when they could focus on the victims instead? But the editors did this purposefully. As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is always a conversation in the newsroom about what is covered and how.

The editors of Rolling Stone wanted to put Jahar on the cover because he is "young and in the same age group as many of [their] readers," which "makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens." They wanted to point out that this could have been anyone.

In the article  the writer had interviews from those who knew him as well as outlining his arrest. His friends said he was 'just a normal American kid," and his high school wrestling coach who 'loved [him] like a son' was completely shocked.  Multiple interviews from friends framed him as a kind, normal kid who was a Muslim but also American.

The framed problem in this article is that Jahar committed this act. The cause is that he was probably influenced by his older brother who had recently found religion, become passionate about it, and completely changed his life. Jahar had also recently started college and was having issues of fitting in, as well as coping with his parent's divorce, so he was perhaps trying to find himself like his brother had.

The moral evaluation in this article is that the writer wants us to understand more about where Jahar came from and what could have influenced him. Readers can understand from his friends that he seemed like a normal kid but you never really know what someone is thinking. Don't get me wrong, the article in no way glorifies him or makes him out as a hero at all. The writer just wants us to see that it wasn't a simple story. As far as remedies for the problem, there aren't really any offered. The author just points out from professional interviews about how isolation can affect someone.

This is a good example of the media purposefully using framing to get a point across. The author took a different angle on the story in order to show that you never know what's going on with someone, and anyone can commit such violent acts.

Boko Haram, Journalism, Agenda Setting and Gatekeeping

Journalists are the gatekeepers of the media, meaning that they are the ones who filter all the information that is broadcast to the public. They are also the agenda setters, which means that they have the ability, as the media, to decide what is important enough to be pushed to the public. If a particular topic is covered more often and more notable in the media, then the viewers will begin to think that it is more important. 

Take for example the lack of news coverage of the terrorist group Boko Haram's attack that killed 2,000 people in Nigeria. It was about the same time as the Paris terrorist attack at a French magazine, but the Boko Haram attack received much less media attention from the states as well as in Africa. Simon Allison, a journalist for the Daily Maverick who covers African news wrote an article about the attack and stated that, "It may be the 21st century, but African lives are still deemed less newsworthy - and, by implication, less valuable - than western lives."

12,000 Nigerians flee to Chad after Boko Haram attacks in January 2015.  - Credit: Turkish Weekly

There are discussions in the newsroom about what is newsworthy and what should or shouldn’t be covered. If the personal biases of people get in the way of that line of thinking, then the news is skewed. Another example of this is the fact that Black bodies are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to issues of welfare and crime. I briefly mentioned this in a previous post about the show "Shameless". We always see black faces juxtaposed with those stories, and that leads to people thinking that all crime is done by people of color and that the only people on welfare are people of color. But that’s completely incorrect. We hardly see white people portrayed as poor or working class, but there certainly are white people in such situations. There are more white drug dealers than black, and yet we rarely see that represented. The lack of wide media coverage misleads the public and therefore when people shape their ideologies, they are again skewed. A study done by Travis Dixon showed that there are harmful psychological effects of overrepresenting white victims and black perpetrators in the TV news.

As gatekeepers, the editors and journalists have the power to change the way groups of people are represented in the media and the way stories are shaped. Many of those editors and those in the power positions are white and are affected by stereotypes so they may not realize the harm they are doing. They subconsciously portray people of color as criminals because they are the "other", outside of their privileged group. There needs to be more diversity in the newsroom and more discussion of how crime stories are presented and how not to racialize them.

Overall, I believe the bias lies in the individual, whether they are in the audience, the journalist, editor, or whatever they may be, it all comes down to each individual and their perspective that shapes their ideologies. As a journalist, you still have the duty to do your best at being impartial. And as consumers of the media we have to be critical of what we read and recognize our own biases.

Miss Universe Japan, stereotypes, perception and schemas

There is a three step process that makes up perceptions. The first step is selection. The countless stimuli we are exposed to daily, like advertisements, people you see on the street or on television, the news you read, etc. are subconsciously turned into decisions of importance. Step two is organization. Those stimuli that subconsciously affect us are organized in a meaningful way. Our mind categorizes what we see and creates a language. The third step is interpretation. The things we see are subconsciously organized in our minds are interpreted to attach meaning to people, situations, and objects, which allows us to interpret cultures. The way that we see these things presented, our upbringing, personal beliefs, and education can all affect our perception and knowledge about a group of people.

A schema is a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about objects, people, or situations. They organize knowledge, guide behavior and predict behavior of others according to our perceptions. They are active when cognitive load is high and mental resources are low. So if you don't have exposure to or education in different cultures, but you see them without a critical eye all the time as we do in media and on the street etc., then you may fall into believing the wildly held beliefs, or stereotypes about a group. A stereotype is a schema for understanding a group of people. It hinders communication by linking overarching beliefs about a group to an individual who many times will not fit into that stereotype.

Stereotypes function like habits. They are so ingrained in us from all the things we see in the media and the lack of knowledge of a lived reality. They can be unintentional and spontaneous, but these associations develop over time. After a while, without paying attention and being intentional in our experiences and how we perceive them, our stereotypes turn into prejudices. We can change our prejudices but it takes time, intentional effort and attention to gaining knowledge of different groups.  

Recently, Ariana Miyamoto, 20, from Nagasaki, was crowned Japan's first bi-racial Miss Universe. Her mother is Japanese and her father is African American. She's simply gorgeous just as a beauty queen would be, but she had received a lot of backlash since being crowned, with comments that she is not "Japanese" enough.
What does that even mean? How can you define what it means to be Japanese and whether someone is too much or too little of it? This is a loose example of ethnocentrism - negatively judging aspects of another culture by the standards of one's own culture. The Japanese community which is mostly japanese and not mixed race, think that she is not Japanese enough because she is hafu - the term for someone ethnically half Japanese or mixed, and they are judging her based on the fact that she is part of more than one culture. Not to say that every Japanese person feels that way, but the people criticizing her certainly do, with comments stating that it's a no-no to choose a Miss Universe Japan that is a hafu. People have let their personal beliefs, perceptions and stereotypes get in the way of seeing how great it actually is that a mixed race woman was chosen.

This is an important issue in Japan, one that is even the subject of a film titled, "Hafu: The Mixed-Race Experience in Japan". Huffington Post talked to the directors and producers of the film and they agreed that the choice to crown Ariana is changing the perceptions of beauty in Japan. The conversation needs to continue on these issues and people need to pay attention and work to change their prejudices, but this is a very good start.

Shameless and the working class

Showtime's "Shameless" follows a financially and emotionally struggling South Chicago family of 7. The father, Frank Gallagher (William H. Macy), is a drunk who spends all their money on booze and crazy schemes he gets himself into, while he leaves all the caring, literally all the caring, to his eldest daughter, Fiona (Emmy Rossum). She takes care of all her younger siblings, the house, the bills, and manages more than one job. The two older boys also have jobs, Lip "tutors" for money, but also receives sexual favors, as well as selling marijuana out of an ice cream truck. All the kids fend for themselves but help out by scrounging money any way they can, including stealing, conning and babysitting. No matter what, the kids can always pull together, because Frank is constantly off on a bender, so they have adapted, because that's all they've ever known. People of color, often black people are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to poverty and crime. The Gallagher family, all except for Liam, the baby, are white. It's nice to see that, for once, the portrayal of poverty and crime is without an overrepresentation of black bodies on welfare. What's refreshing about this show, is it's portrayal of the working class. The writers show the Gallagher's poverty-stricken and destitute environment and they're not afraid to actually talk about the nitty gritty details of it. We see the Gallagher residence, a nice looking house, but on the inside it's almost always dingy looking, with dirty dishes and clothes strewn about, and plenty of clutter. But that's expected when there are 6 kids in a house including a baby.

When Frank takes all their money and they can't pay the bills, their electricity is turned off, so the kids band together to find money wherever they can. Debbie starts a babysitting business, carl steals things to pawn, Lip starts taking fellow students' ACT's for them in exchange for money. The kids don't fit the stereotypical portrayal of the working class as being unintelligent and uninterested in education. Lip is basically a genius, Ian is hardworking and focused on school and Carl and Debbie are constantly coming up with complex little schemes.

It's a pretty dysfunctional family, but they are loyal to each other. When Lip finds gay porn under Ian's bed, he doesn't freak out, he accepts his brother. Fiona works her ass off all day every day for the other kids, with little to no time for herself. She takes on the mother role, and even takes care of Frank when he comes home and passes out on the floor. Frank even cashed the pension checks of a dead family member, and tried to cash on social security for little Liam, putting all his kids at risk for inordinate amounts of debt.

The show is hilarious with all the crazy antics but also very moving. We see the real struggle and emotional toll their lives take on them, and the humiliation of the kids from their father's inability to be a mature, responsible adult.

Zendaya and the Oscar Locs Controversy

So last weekend was the Oscar's. It was great. Awards were won, statements were made, fancy people did fancy stuff and the whole world watched. Actually, there were a lot of awesome and powerful movements promoted this year, even calls to action, which was refreshing. But on the red carpet, a controversy was sparked. Zendaya, 18-year-old, actress, singer, and dancer from the U.S., was stunning as she walked down the red carpet in a white flowy gown and luscious locs.

But as usual, we can always count on Fashion Police for some crap entertainment. In their Oscar recap, the host, Giulianna Rancic, made an offensive and racist comment about Zendaya's hair, saying that someone her age with locs must "smell of patchouli or maybe weed". Now, let me explain why this is problematic. She is associating weed and patchouli oil with a hair style prominently worn by, and meant to uplift and inspire Black people while society told them everything about them was unacceptable. Locs became more popular with the Rastafari and reggae movements, and especially after Bob Marley became popular. But wearing locs was never about looking cool and being hip. So Rancic's comment, whether she knew it or not was perpetuating a historically racist view.
Well after that, the twittersphere blew up. People were lashing out at Rancic attacking her body image, and even some death-like threats. But Zendaya also replied. She said in her statement that she doesn't feel the need to comment on every negative thing said about her, but some things can't go unchecked. She listed highly educated and accomplished people who also have locs, and then went on to say that none of them smell like marijuana.

                "There is already harsh criticism of African American hair in society without the help of ignorant people who choose to judge others based on the curl of their hair."

Her response was perfect, and the whole thing was all over the news. Then Rancic issued an on-air apology.

The way the media handled it was pretty straight forward, just showing the tweets and the interactions. But then the big story became, the fact that Kelly Osbourne was so upset by the whole thing that she threatened to leave the show, and ended up doing so. When I googled Zendaya in the news tab, most of the headlines were about Kelly Osbourne, rather than the actual news about the controversy. It's unfortunate that that is what the big conversation shifted to, but at least if someone was really interested, they could still get the whole story since there were recaps and links. I do think the way it has blown up is good because it opens up a very much needed dialogue. It also shows that people are holding the gatekeepers of media accountable, which wasn't as easy to do even ten years ago. Which shows that our society cares enough to know what kind of coverage they do and don't want, even if it is Fashion Police.

Computers as Journalists? NO, thanks.

There's this company, Narrative Science, and they specialize in creating computer generated narratives, articles, etc. With the help of the Northwestern University school of Journalism, they have been having computers write data-driven articles for Forbes and other media outlets. Whaaaaaaaaat?! A computer writing articles? This is crazy. But apparently, you can hardly tell when you read it. The Chief Product Officer at Forbes, Lewis DVorkin, says that it's actually been helpful to the journalists because they can focus on other things that they would rather write and let the computers do the other,  more data focused stuff. He says they attach the story arcs to the data, and they merge, creating a well written story.

The company has perfected the algorithms for finance and sports score stories, but here's the thing. What about human interest stories? A computer can be super smart and organize data into a written story, which is actually pretty cool. But a computer can't pick up on human interaction and be able to tell a story as eloquently as a writer, you know, someone who dedicated their life to observing humans and documenting it. I just don't buy it. But according to the co-founder of Narrative Science, Kristian Hammond, computers are projected to write 90% of news in the next 15 years. So people are freaking out because that means no more journalist jobs.
As gatekeepers to the media, human journalists can sometimes fail in being completely objective. They shape the way we see the world, and what's going on in it, but it's impossible to write about everything, so not all the important things are covered. But news outlets strategically plan what they will and won't cover, and how. I guess the computers could be helpful, in covering sections of the news, because humans simply can't do everything, and users can even customize the tone of the articles, from "breathless financial reporter to dry analyst". Narrative Science has also figured out that it could be helpful in analyzing huge data information. So if you are trying to look at hundreds of pages of spreadsheets, the computer can go through it and summarize it for you in a written paragraph. That's pretty cool. But as far as writing journalistic stories, I don't like it, even if you can customize it.
The algorithm learns from other published articles, and figures out the important aspects to include. But I worry that news stories will become cookie cutter, with no individuality, so that everything we read will be pretty much the exact same format and tone. Humans integrate their individual tone and sometimes personality in their writing, and it's enjoyable. Computers don't have experiences, and experiences are what shape us as humans. I also worry that, since the computers look at other articles and learn, they will continue to perpetuate the same issues with the media that we already have, rather than learning from it and changing it, because it learns and bases itself off of it instead. So since the media disproportionately shows Brown and Black faces when talking about welfare, crime, and poverty, wouldn't the computer do the same? I think we need more human journalists that are aware of these issues and doing what they can to change it, rather than a computer continuing to perpetuate prevalent stereotypes in the media.

Bill O'Reilly and White Privilege

            Racial privilege is the unearned benefits and entitlements that accrue to members of the racially dominant group. I am part of that dominant group. I am white and therefore my whiteness grants me privileges that are not really mine to claim. They are given to me just because I’m white. But are white people really the majority of this world? Or do we just like to think we are? How does one group of people have so much power over other groups? There are many systems in the United States that are rooted in racism and thus protect the status quo. Privilege allows for power, and such power is used to marginalize groups of people. 

            According to Bill O'Reilly, White privilege does not exist. On an episode of Talking Points he claims that "African-Americans have a much harder time succeeding in our society" because of education, not race. He backs up his claims with statistics stating that Asian Americans earn the most money and have the smallest unemployment rate because they have, "stable homes and an emphasis on education." He also argues that Asians have the highest graduation rate while Blacks have the lowest. He argues that because Asian American households tend to stay together more than Black families, and because of the push for education, that Asians succeed more than anyone, and he wonders if there is actually an Asian American privilege. All he is doing is perpetuating the Model Minority stereotype that Asians must be the better minority because they have assimilated and are submissive and successful. They don't cause trouble like the Black folks, trying to take our rights away. This line of thinking is racist and ignorant. He completely negates the long history of segregation (that was separate but definitely not equal) in the education system in the U.S. not to mention the history of structural and institutional inequalities that have marginalized people of color since the "discovery" of this country. 

"Instead of preaching a cultural revolution, the leadership provides excuses for failure. The race hustlers blame white privilege, and unfair society, a terrible country. So the message is, it's not your fault if you abandon your children, if you become a substance abuser, if you are a criminal. No, it's not your fault; it's society's fault."

          He basically argues the fallacy of the American Dream. Anyone can achieve anything in the United States as long as they try hard enough. And if they're poor, and in jail, it certainly has nothing to do with how the corrupt justice system or any historical implications, it's only because you haven't tried hard enough.  But the reality is that the American Dream does not apply to everyone, it's not even a real thing. The fact that Bill O'Reilly doesn't realize he has privilege is just an example of his privilege. He doesn't have to think about it because he's not affected by the lack of white people in the media and in power positions because, oh wait, he's one of them. No one ever tells him that he's quite articulate, for a white man.  He argues that personal responsibility and cultural change are needed, and that the federal government can't fix it. He just doesn't get it, and he makes these ignorant statements on national television, which do not help anyone.

Family Guy and Stereotypes

Shows like Family Guy, South Park, American Dad, and The Simpsons have grown in popularity in the past decade or so. As for me, I don’t really enjoy watching any of them, but I will occasionally watch Family Guy if there’s nothing else on TV. However, such shows are excellent for analyzing the media.

I flipped the channel to Family Guy the other day. This particular episode featured an elderly homosexual male character named Mr. Herbert. In learning more about the character, I discovered his nickname is “Herbert the Pervert.” He has a very high, raspy voice. It’s actually somewhat creepy. He seems to be middle class, living in a house by himself, uses a walker, and almost always wearing just a bathrobe. He also has a “crush” on Chris, the teenage son of the Griffin family. In this episode, Chris’ parents want him to find a new hobby, so after Peter tries to unsuccessfully introduce him to stamp collecting and drinking, Chris discovers a puppet shop and becomes friends with the elderly German man that owns it. Mr. Herbert tries to help and warn Chris that the man is actually a Nazi and he should stay away from him, but Chris doesn’t listen, pointing out when Mr. Herbert tried to help him by having him clean the pool with his shirt off, wash his car in jean shorts and bend over in front of him to clean the rug. He then states that Mr. Herbert is only about free labor. This shows that Chris doesn’t see Mr. Herbert as a “pervert” as he is insinuated to be, by the show. But by listing such jobs he has had Chris do, tells the audience that Chris is too naïve to see what is really going on and that Mr. Herbert really is a pervert who preys on Chris.

This kind of representation is very stereotypical and homophobic. Mr. Herbert’s high-pitched voice and “feminine” qualities represent him as the stereotypical “swishy” gay man. This makes audiences think that all gay men are super flamboyant and no other representations are plausible. If that stereotype wasn’t bad enough, Family Guy goes even further, giving Mr. Herbert the predator stereotype as a gay man pedophile. The way he acts around Chris and treats him, by making inappropriate sexual comments could very well be classified as sexual harassment. No, scratch that, It's definitely harassment. Every time Chris leaves, Mr. Herbert’s comments become even more aggressive and sometimes almost like he wants to hurt Chris. He squints his eyes and his voice gets harsher, saying things like, “Get your fat ass back here,” and, “Please, I just want to smell his hat, that’s all I want,” then suddenly when the wind blows Chris’ hat off and into Mr. Herbert’s hands he sniffs it he says, “Now I need more.” Another example is when Mr. Herbert was talking to some kids including Chris, that were fighting with each other and he says, “We can settle this like reasonable and sexy teenagers. Whoever can swallow the most Tylenol p.m. wins,” insinuating that Mr. Herbert wants all the young boys to be unconscious in his presence.

These stereotypes have been around since the early 1970’s, when the first few representations of gay men even surfaced. A lot of the early representations were horror movies or thrillers, where the psychotic killer was a gay man, telling the audiences that gay men are bad and will probably kill you because they are pedophiles. Other early representations were gay men depicted as extremely feminine, or that all gay men had AIDS. This is the first step in perception, Selection. Watching shows like Family Guy and most media begin to shape the public's perception. We see things in the media, we organize them in our minds based on the ways they are represented, like appearance, social positions and behavior. We relate to what we see, and it becomes meaningful. Then we organize the meanings and interpret them according to what we have been socialized to see. These representations and stereotypes shaped the public’s views on homosexuality, making them think it was something to fear. This has affected society negatively, especially since these stereotypes are still around. People have feared queer people because of these representations, allowing them to be dehumanized, and therefore being able to strip their rights, not allowing them to get married, taking away opportunities because of discrimination in the work force, and thinking it’s okay to treat queer people like dirt simply because they don’t fit into their hetero-normative sexist roles that they have been socialized to believe is the only way to live in this world.     

Fighting the hegemony with love

As I nonchalantly scrolled through my Facebook feed, looking for something to pique my interest, I came across a compelling article featured in the Huffington Post by author, columnist and blogger, Shawn Burcaw. The title, "Laughing at My Nightmare: Strangers Assume My Girlfriend Is My Nurse" grabbed my attention immediately.  Shawn, 22, is living with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and has been in a wheelchair since the age of two. In the post, he talks about a night he went out for dinner with his girlfriend. Someone came up to their table, complementing his work, and then asked if Shawn's girlfriend was his sister. Shawn explains that they are used to such things, and have witty comebacks prepared like, "He's my dad" or "I pay her to be my friend". If you saw two youngsters out for a nice meal, wouldn't you think they were on a date? The wheelchair, obscures such a thought. 

"The mindset that causes a stranger to automatically assume that any female in my presence is my nurse, or family, is one that ignores the reality that people with disabilities can and do have "normal" romantic relationships. I place normal in quotations because I'm not sure there is such a thing when it comes to Iove." 

He's completely correct. Such an ideology (system of meaning that defines and explains the world) ignores the reality and normalizes certain social relations, ultimately serving the status quo and the hegemony (the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group). It's all about power relations, but the hegemonic (middle class, heterosexual, white, male, able-bodied, Christian) ideology becomes a staple as the dominant group view becomes the worldview that is accepted and seen as the "norm", and is often perpetuated in the media. Therefore, the public doesn't see someone in a wheelchair as "normal" because they hardly ever see them on TV or in movies in romantic relationships, so they wouldn't think that the person with them is their partner, because the hegemonic mass media avoids the unpopular and unconventional. The show "Friday Night Lights" follows the ups and downs of a Texas high school football team. One of the main characters is Jason Street. He was the best player and the top ranked quarter back in the nation. But in his senior year on the first game, he tackles a defender in a game-winning play, and severely injures his spinal cord, making him paralyzed from the waist down. But here's the thing about how his story line was portrayed: it's not all about his impairment. Of course it is a part of his story, but it's not the entire story. While he is in the hospital, his girlfriend, Lyla cheats on him with his best friend Tim. He finds out, leaves her and punches his friend. Eventually they get back together, but this time he cheats on her. Now if you ask me, this sounds like a pretty "typical" high school love triangle storyline. The only thing out of the "norm" is that Jason is paralyzed. He still has romantic relationships, he plays rugby, he works, he helps coach, he even eventually has a baby. So, what even is "normal"? The idea of the "norm" is socially constructed through the hegemony. If someone is not educated in Ethnic or gender studies, or doesn't have a personal relationship with someone with an impairment, they  wouldn't necessarily know this because they are most likely seeing the world through a hegemonized view. There needs to be more visibility of non-able bodied people in the media, and they need to be portrayed in various relationships, classes, ages, genders, sexual orientations and different situations because everyone and I do mean everyone has multiple facets to their individuality. No one is one-dimensional, and no one can be or should be defined by one aspect of themselves, because people are not their disabilities.