On network television, there is a clear indication of a misrepresentation of race and gender contrasted with what one actually observes in reality. The history of media representations is not a progression from stereotypes to truth but a struggle to constantly “articulate the meanings of people's identities and the ways they can live those cultural categories” (Coltrane, 2000). However, critics of this seem to overlook the reasons as to why there is a blatant falsification of society, and focus, instead, more on the individual examples of how there is such. Through time, the mainstream media has lost its original purpose, which was to inform. Unfortunately, it has been perverted into a tool of manipulation and indoctrination. Television is a key player in drugging the masses, with countless soap operas during the day followed by one reality show after another at night. But what is the source of this primetime drug? Karl Marx, who once said that religion is the opiate of the masses, would probably extend that idea to television in the contemporary United States citizen, as he is asked to believe not in another world but in the mediated reality presented to them on television by pundits (much like priests) who seek ratings as the old religionists sought souls. While religion could offer comfort for people from the harsh world of real life, as Marx understood, (as can television) “it was no real guide to understanding the real world, except, in its institutional forms, to be both a buffer for and a representative of ruling classes” – a bit like television (
Media is a major contributor to the propagation of racism, sexism and stereotypes in our pluralistic society (Petrozza, 2002). Does the media reflect our culture? Well if the dominant culture in the west reflects that of white, male, affluent, heterosexuals, then this limited reflection can lead to a loss of the country's history and meaningful ideas. And if history has shown us anything, it is that those who essentially have the most influence on society match the very description I have laid out, which was the white, male, affluent and heterosexual type. Our country’s mass media is owned and controlled by just a handful of gargantuan corporations. They are, in descending order of power and influence: AOL Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corps and Bertelsmann (McChesney, 1997). All of these corporations are interlocked, in some way, with each other, which all have a major influence on what we, as everyday citizens, perceive as our “culture.” Consequently, under the pressure of their owners, television censors will reflect an image to the American public in permissible range with that of the multi-billion dollar white hetero-sexual man. Certainly it is not as guileless as I present it; rather, the messages and manipulative techniques are more discreet and clever.
Millions of people allocate several hours each week to watching people compete with one another to win the money they need, without having to work for it or to be participants in the capitalist economic system. So instead of taking action against an oppressive system, people are left only to dream about what they would do with all of that money. In other words, television does not encourage any kind of action or participation in society, besides consumption. Most reality shows are a kind of release for some viewers as a way to escape their daily lives. For some, these reality shows are a way to connect with the outside world and realize that their own lives are not as dysfunctional as they thought. Furthermore, the sheer amount of time spent in front of the television leaves little time for much insightful thought or reading, let alone action. The critics, on the other hand, are left with more trivial debates regarding television, such as race and gender instead of, say, a declining economy and on-going, dishonest war, both of which the news media has inadequately covered. Television critics are either dictated to by their superiors what the issues must be, or they are simply censored. Ironically, when one thinks of a “critic,” it is automatically thought that this is a person with the freedom to be completely forthright in criticizing the media. However, they, too, are captives in what Max Weber termed, “the iron cage” of capitalism, in which we are all essentially trapped and are treated as though we are puppets by aristocratic elitists who act as the puppet masters (Abukuma, 2000). Television and other mainstream mass media act as the strings by which our actions are controlled.
If we are presented with issues such as the misrepresentation of race and gender on television to criticize, then there is absolutely no threat to those that pull the strings. So why not instill inequality in terms of race and gender as a sort of decoy to mislead the public from an issue such as economic class? The idea of misrepresenting race and gender gives us something to talk about as we overlook, perhaps, what the real issues are – issues that could potentially pose a threat to the interests of the media corporate owners. In other words, if there is an issue that arises that might conflict with the self-interest of the board of directors, then those issues will never see the light of day. If they see even the least amount of light, then they will inevitably be hidden in some obscure, low budget channel that receives only a few viewers. Television ought to be a useful tool in reflecting the topics are on the minds of the people and what is considered socially important.
In essence, then, television does reflect society in the sense that it reflects that which has penetrated every other aspect of life that undergoes the same kind of manipulation for a similar agenda. We see the same kind of drug being fed to us in every dance club, every fast food restaurant, and, more strategically, in every workplace and school. In today’s post-modern world, we are expected to embrace decadence and become indifferent to the future of ourselves and others. Just as the upper class filtered drugs into the ghettos in the 1950s, the elite powers today find it necessary to feed us with drugs and porn, while the mass media covers petty theft and fires only to avoid issues such as Enron, globalization, a dishonest war, and a deteriorating economy. (Sullivan, 2001) This process of dumbing the public is done in order to divert the public’s attention of important issues so that the interests of the upper class are met without interference.
Thus, we see that race and gender, rather than a reflection, are used as instruments of deception from other facets of society. Concerning the problem of race and gender in today’s depleting work force, Affirmative Action is the only acknowledged possibility for a solution in America to solve the problem of discrimination. The problem, however, is much greater than whether or not to hire a black woman, for instance, as first preference – the bigger problem actually lies much higher up. We have, in the United States, a decline in employment, so if opportunity and more jobs were made available to everyone, then there would be no need for Affirmative Action. We see that middle class America is taking a back seat in the economy, leaving the top one percent in control of everyone’s future. In our most current hot topic, the concerns of race and gender surround the two democratic nominees, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Thus, we see a disregard of the coverage on the candidates’ individual stances on important political issues, which are what America ought to base their vote on.
