We often talk about the media and its portrayal of society. The book we have been reading seems to blame the media for the fact that the different sides of the feminine battle were not equally shown to the public.
Here, we come to a question. Does society cause media? Or, does media cause society? Who is calling the shots? After class on Thursday I went to the media and journalism department and talked with my professors about these questions.
The media gives the public (society) what it wants to see/hear. During the beginning of feminism, the sides of the battle were uneven. There were way more white powerful men than there were upset feminists. Therefore, the people who were intaking media were MOSTLY white powerful men. Therefore, the media chose to showcase what the white powerful men wanted to see, not what the feminists wanted. Why would the media choose to upset everyone by pleasing a minority of viewers?
Think of it this way. Nowadays, there are many news outlets that cater to different sides of politics. For example, some people HATE Fox News, and would never choose to watch it. On the other hand, some people watch it faithfully. During the time of the feminist movement, there was only one media outlet. People couldn't choose between Fox News and CNN. Not everyone can be pleased when there is only one option.
Or better yet, some people don't like Hoodie Allen. Some people do. No one is ever pleased with whom CAB brings in for a concert at USD. You cannot please the tastes of both the minority and the majority.
Not everyone in the late 60s was pleased with what the media was offering them. But, the majority was pleased.
The media only gives society what it wants. The media cannot be blamed for what society wants. If you want to blame someone for what the media shows, blame yourselves.
As someone who is studying media and journalism, it bothers me so much when people blame the media for everything. The media does have much power, don't get me wrong. But, the media can only do so much. Society also holds much power.
**I will note that yes, there are some media outlets that are absolutely bat poop crazy and release biased, unfactual news stories. BUT, by the professional definition of the word "news," these outlets are not news at all, and only sources of fiction.
You're raising some really important questions, Katrina, but I think that we need to be careful not to discount the structural factors that continue to contribute to what we see on TV and that belie a more simplistic idea that TV just gives society what they want. Different scholars have different views on this. But it is generally recognized as a very uneven process -- the power to decide what society wants is stacked against the public and towards the men and women (mostly men) in boardrooms and the advertisers who sponsor programming. One of the ongoing conversations in recent years is about the disconnect in the common sense driving many studios that you have to pitch a movie to men and boys and the girls will go whereas female-centered movies and movies marketed to women are niche not mainstream. Hunger Games and many other films have belied that conventional wisdom.
ReplyDeleteThere have also been some great articles about the race and gender politics of casting (that I cannot find - of course!).
Here are a few recent articles on some of these issues related to Hollywood directors :
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/movies/on-many-fronts-women-are-fighting-for-better-opportunity-in-hollywood.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/movies/in-hollywood-its-a-mens-mens-mens-world.html