Consuming Media with a Grain of Salt
While working on the outline for this Tumblr post I decided to take a short, mindless break to browse my Quora newsfeed. I came across one question that asked, “What myths do we most commonly realize are false in our 20s?” For those of you who are unfamiliar with Quora it’s a website and app where you can ask questions and a community of users interested in the same topic as you can answer it; the most upvoted answer gets pinned as the official answer for others to see while browsing questions in the same topic. There was one answer I not only particularly liked, but also thought ended up relating to the content of this post in the most tangential yet significant way. Quora user Maggie Sutherland Cutter responded, “Myth: That the world is full of people who care. Actually, it’s full of people who don’t give a shit, and some truly evil people too. There are good people too, but the nasty ones make a lot of noise and the others are as quiet as a mouse.” Immediately after reading her take on “the nasty ones” that make a lot of noise and “the others” who are as quiet as mouse, I was able to tie together a few of my own and two of my classmates’ Tumblr posts for the below…
One of the purposes of ENGL2880′s weekly Tumblr posts was to continue the dialogue of Black Peril, Yellow Power outside of class, and one of the main ways we could do so was by writing out our thoughts on what we had read or seen in the media that week via various media sources. These media sources tended to be online news outlets but varied in “softness” and ”hardness” (From Twitter and YouTube videos to LA Times and The Atlantic Op Ed’s).
When it comes to talking about race in America, it becomes incredibly risky to fully rely on any news sources, whether soft or hard, as an objective source of information because first, there are powerful corporate media conglomerates that decide what news the public consumes – we’ll label these people as “the nasty ones” in relation to Cutter’s Quora answer above. All news is curated by what I like to view as gatekeepers (who often fail to be 100% objective, hence “nasty”), and so it becomes the public’s task to carefully trudge through a plethora of in order to form their own well-formulated opinions.
Within the realm of media, it is both a blessing and a curse that for the public today, word spreads at the speed of light in due to its digital aspect. In Keywords for Cultural Studies’ “Digital” section, Tara McPherson notes how computers, which were based on an analog computing system at its inception, have fully transitioned to digital computing; this transition from analog to digital “suggest that digital machines win out because they are more precise, have greater storage capacities, and are better general-purpose machines.” But I’m not sure that I can agree with this statement. I can easily pick out news articles from the digital news world that fail to account for or even acknowledge racial minorities in the ways that they want to be heard and represented.
Take Pat’s “The Racialization of Hanley Ramirez” post. Hanley Ramirez, a Red Sox player who at one point was considered to be the best prospect in the MLB, has been shut down time after time by Boston media. Both hard (The Boston Globe) and soft (Red Sox fans on Twitter) media have made constant, racially charged, and therefore unjustified jabs at Ramirez ever since he returned to play for the Red Sox in November 2014. What was supposed to a “welcome home; we’re rooting for you despite the many injuries you may incur this season” from the Boston media ended up materializing as a series of “fuck you; you can do better”-esque articles and Tweets. Everyone gets injuries, everyone player has rough patches… but wait, why does it even become necessary for me to defend Ramirez with these statements? Because as far as I’m concerned, Ramirez isn’t to blame for any of these situations that media likes to corner him into. What’s unfortunately at play here is the broader dominant stereotype of Latinos in America being reflected directly onto Ramirez, and what’s troubling about this is that absolutely anyone with a voice in the digital space, AKA anyone with access to the Internet, can freely and ignorantly apply the “lazy,” “unintelligent,” and “criminal” stereotypes without facing negative consequences.
Speaking of consequences, McPherson’s concluding statement in the “Digital” essay seems to rectify her initial statement regarding digital computing. She writes, “We must remember that the digital is embedded in an analog world even as it increasingly shapes what is possible within that world. ‘Digital’ emerges from and references particular histories, and these histories have consequences. By examining how these histories came to be, we will better understand and, perhaps, shape our present.” While McPherson manages to remind readers to keep “particular histories” in mind, her statement seems optimistic at best. Hanley is a “lazy slob” to the Red Sox team and fans because in the greater American culture, Latinos take up space and don’t contribute much else. Could the same be said about a White MLB player who underwent the same exact circumstances? Would the same patronizing tone in news article, same overly vulgar words in Tweets, have been used?
The jabs don't stop at Hanley; they are also directed at teammates Pablo Sandoval and David Ortiz, who, despite their huge 2015 contributions, share the racialized victim spotlight along with Hanley. Below, a Boston Globe article published just two days ago (December 9, 2015):
In addition to written bias and the consequences the authors of these articles don’t face due to the larger umbrella parent companies that protect them with a security blanket, there are also tons of public figures in media who can say and do as they wish without being reprimanded. Public figures (ex. actors, singers, athletes) have an unfathomable amount of power to influence the public in a positive way. Yet Matt Damon recently willingly put his foot in his mouth in the filming of HBO’s Project Greenlight. Matt Damon is a White and male actor (producer in terms of this show) who shut down Black, female, and (do I really need to insert) widely acclaimed, producer Effie Brown in the Project Greenlight clip below for not being familiar with his definition of (and apparently the standard definition of) diversity. In Darling’s “Separate But Equal” Tumblr post, she points out the visible hurt on Brown’s face as she is reprimanded by someone who, just by being a human being, should be respecting other points of view. Choosing to be ignorant about race and gender does not fall into the action of such respect. Damon is seen here telling Brown that diversity is fulfilled as long as it’s done through the casting of the film where actors and actresses are visible on-screen, and that it couldn’t be less of a priority if there was no diversity among the producers and directors behind the film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCHRaVXrB7E
This brings me to scholar Ania Loomba’s argument in the “Media” essay of Keywords and Cultural Studies in which she notes, “People of color, women, sexual minorities, and other subaltern individuals posess less power within the media system, which has often represented them in stereotyped, limited ways. In other words, mass media do not hail all bodies equally.”
But of course, all of this isn’t to say that all media is bad. As Quora’s Maggie Cutter notes, “There are good people too, but the nasty ones make a lot of noise.” Indeed, the nasty media make a lot of noise. In stark contrast to the Tweets bashing Ramirez we can see how journalist Shaun King recently used Twitter as a tool to not only further proceed with his inquires (to Chicago Police Department and city officials) regarding Laquan McDonald’s murder, but also to drive McDonald’s story to the forefront of the news agenda. His Tweets from the week of November 25 have interestingly all been deleted, which raises the questions: What is the media’s agenda really? And does a digital outlet exist in which one can voice the truth? One of King’s Tweets from the week of November 25 read, “5 new videos of #LaquanMcDonald. All 5 have faulty audio, seem edited. The police explanations are shady at best” and when you try to access the actual Tweet from a Google search, all you get is this:
Although, this Tweet from yesterday which reads as an objective statement has yet to be deleted…
Let’s not forget that there are also hard news outlets that help to alleviate the nasty side of digital media. Like this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-doctors-can-confront-racial-bias-in-medicine/
And this video by Slate: “This Is What Happens When Writers’ Rooms Aren’t Diverse”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/19/when_writers_rooms_aren_t_diverse_people_of_color_often_suffer_from_misrepresentation.html
Fresh Off The Boat and Empire are two shows that have managed to let Asian and Black communities have more agency in media, but there’s undoubtedly still a long way to go for completely unfiltered characters to be portrayed on shows written by more diverse writers’ rooms. Many of the racial minority families and communities being portrayed in these shows are, at the end of the day, shown because they are palatable to White writers’ rooms otherwise known as White standards.
But when digital media can be overbearingly painful to sift through, where else can we turn to? Forms of literature. Literature doesn’t just serve as an alternative to online news and long-form pieces, but is the gracious element in ENGL2880 that provided us with groundwork to form critical thoughts and opinions on anything we consumed through digital media. In Keywords for Cultural Studies, Sandra M. Gustafson is quick to point out that literature is not limited to poetry, drama, or books. Literature takes on oral forms and the oral genre is particularly important for ethnic-minority writers. But Gustafson also notes, “today, the rise of electronic media poses important challenges to print culture. Beginning in 1990, a series of books and studies has tracked the impending ‘death of literature,’ linking its demise to social trends such as the rise of the World Wide Web.” Speaking on behalf of the mainly print-based literature we’ve read in class this semester, it would be naive to accuse it of dying simply due to the a cultural shift to a digital network of information. Literature provides us with a critical discourse with which we can choose to digest or not digest the range of hard and soft news that is being churned out to us daily.
For instance, Stokeley Carmichael’s Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America looks into submission-aggression syndrome, the tendency for a Black employee/worker to “willingly” accept the strategies suggested by a White leader in a meeting room. After said meeting “the Negro precinct workers will tell you that they had to ‘go along with all that talk’ in order to make sure that they were represented.” In reading about this, I then can read and think about William Petersen’s “Success Story, Japanese-American Style” NY Times article through this new perspective. If Petersen is a modern-day, hypothetical, White newsroom head honcho/employee whose article has just been given the OK to proceed with, then we can easily picture the minority reporters in the same meeting room experiencing submission-aggression syndrome. Going off of Maggie Cutter’s answer on Quora, the “nasty ones” thus continue to make a lot of noise and “the others,” AKA minorities with valid voices are forced to be “as quiet as a mouse.” Boston Globe writer Nick Cafardo, Matt Damon, and White writers’ rooms resemble Petersen in that they all play off of integration in a non-problematic way.
So, there’s the good and the bad within the digital world of news, and it’s critical that we are tastefully picky about which sources to turn to. In consuming news, knowing the type of content a particular publication tends to lean towards can be known by looking at the history and ownership of the publication. But being that doing so takes some extra work, it can’t hurt to turn to scholarly readings to continue to confront oppressive norms, like the fact that news in America has and continues to convenience Whites over minorities through the Internet, arguably the largest medium of influence in America today.










