This paper is a book report about the intricacies of race as it relates to the media. The structure is an examination of whether the author does a good job of presenting the topic or, according to the paper writer's opinion, something was left wanting. The findings are that there are inherent flaws in the message mainly because the writer seems to be too close to the topic.
Race and Media
Larson, Stephanie Greco. (2006). Media & Minorities: The Politics of Race in News and Entertainment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Print.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees, among other rights, that Americans will have the right to free speech. It is based on the premise of this right that there is also a free press in the U.S., and solidifies the fact that they are able to report without any fear of repercussion from an oppressive government. Unfortunately, this does not guarantee that everything that the media does will be unbiased. Many cases can be put forward that demonstrate this, but in the book Media & Minorities: The Politics of Race in News and Entertainment Stephanie Greco Larson looks at how the free media has treated racial diversity in the United States.
The basic premise of the book is that both the news and entertainment media have been biased for the entire history of the U.S. In the conclusion to the book, she makes the three points that the media's "representation of race serves to protect the racial hierarchy in America…[that] there is more similarity than difference in the ways that the media represents the four racial-minority groups…[and that] there are similarities between how racial minorities are represented in news and entertainment" (268). This thesis is well-supported by research documentation and practical example, but it is difficult to say that the author proves her point. As a matter of fact, a truly unbiased reader of this biased writer would say that she does not prove her contention.
From the very beginnings of the work, the author has a very strict idea of what is and is not bias and racial inequality. She does cite research to back her statements, but all of the evidence she gives is antiquated. There is a small acknowledgement in the conclusion in which she agrees that she has used old examples, but she also tries to explain this away.
The structure of the book shows the completeness with which studied the topic and the effort she made to make a solid argument, and she also looks at all phases of media, but generalizes by splitting it into two manageable divisions -- news and entertainment. She states that "Entertainment media, as well as news, teach us about society by repeatedly showing us certain types of people in certain types of roles" (14). Because she believes that it is important to examine how "the four minority groups" have been portrayed in all types of media Larson looks first at entertainment, then the news in papers, electronic media and as it pertains to candidates. During this review one of her main issues is that minorities are underrepresented in the mainstream media in all facets. She says that "The racial status quo is one of inequality with whites at the top of the racial hierarchy. Racial minorities are underrepresented in government, education and corporations; they are overrepresented among the poor and in prison populations" (2). Again, this is a statement that she often repeats and seeks to justify with evidence.
Her examples come from the world of so-called "reality" television, film and television, news coverage of minorities, and the coverage of candidates for political office. She actually makes many god points while trying to prove her overall conclusion. In one instance she says,
"…racial minorities often appear in crime stories. This suggests or reinforces the idea that minorities are dangerous to whites. Even when acting within the law, racial minorities have been treated as threatening and suspect in American society and the media's coverage of it" (82), which is true. The fact that many times crime shows show a minority as the perpetrator (especially black or Hispanic individuals) is well stated in her evidence. But she counters this with statements such as "Media coverage of campaigns focuses on style over substance, strategy over ideals, and people over processes…Candidates who are actually outsiders, not just campaigning as such, are given less and worse coverage than insiders" (196), which are seem more opinionated and have less to do with the broader topic.
It is easy to see the strengths of what the author is trying to do. The book is obviously well-researched due to the numerous examples that are both well-documented and carefully explained. The author also relates her thesis in a controlled and concise manner, and then works systematically to prove her statements. Larson has written a scholarly book that does what she intends, but she does have a few issues also.
The problems in the book do not actually refute all that she has to say, but they do detract from her message. One major problem is an obvious bias. The author does not state her position in a clinical manner that allows readers to take in the information and then decide for themselves. She has a definite side that she represents and she wants to have it known that it is the correct side. She also uses sources that are far from current. If the book would have been presented as one that followed media racial bias throughout U.S. history, it would have been more appropriate to discuss the movie Birth of a Nation and its obvious racial issues. However, she uses a film that is more than one hundred years old to prove the point that film is biased against minorities. As stated above she does make a cursory attempt to appease the reader who believes that she is misstating current media, but this seems contrived. The fact that society has changed is greeted with the assertion that racism has not been dispensed with just made more subtle. While this may be somewhat true, she fails to recognize the improvements that have been made.
Larson has created a book that discusses the nature of racial inequality in the United States. It is no secret that many types of people have faced racial injustice at some point during U.S. history. She talks about native Chinese working on the transcontinental railway (but fails to mention the Irish who were treated just as badly) and some of the laws that were created in the state of California to slow their immigration. She lists the many injustices that have faced African-Americans in the U.S. from their forced extrication from their homelands to the extreme depredations of chattel slavery. American Indians (erroneously termed "Native Americans" a name which has long been rejected by the people themselves) have been forced off of their lands, and when they could have been accepted as full members of the American melting pot were still relegated to poverty and alcoholism rather than full status as citizens. The group of people from Central and South America that she groups together as Hispanics have lost land to the imperial whites of the north and been forced to live lives as menial laborers if they venture into the U.S. All of these ideas are true, and add to the strength of the book, but the method she uses diminishes the book as a whole.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.