Advertising to Gays and Latinos

Gays and Latinos, according to the studies by Brett Chase and Richard Natale respectively, represent a significant market for major advertisers. In the instance of gay individuals and couples, Chase points out that Miller Lite, the Japanese carmakers Toyota and Honda, as well as at least one regional telephone provider, actively courts gay consumers. In the instance of Latino audiences, media producers and programmers recognize that the burgeoning Latino population in the U.S. (estimated to hit nearly 41 million by next year) represents a major opportunity to connect advertisers with movie and television audiences.

We will begin our discussion on Thursday by considering the marketing power of these two groups. What additional products or services can you find as illustrations of this trend toward advertising to gays and Latinos and why do you think those advertisers have targetted these groups, in particular, for their products?

Native Americans and Journalists: A Clash of Cultures

In "When Worlds Collide: Navajos and the News Media," Michael Haederle describe a specific case study in the 1990's when journalists descended on a Navajo reservation in New Mexico to cover a "mysterious respiratory illness." From the start, the reporters proceeded to interview tribal members about their lost loved ones. It led one tribal leader to remark that incidents like this one suuggest a "clash of cultures" between reporters and Native Americans. The Navajos responded with large signs reading: "No News Media Allowed." One could argue that the journalists were just doing their jobs, but, on the other hand, what can this case study suggest about the very different cultural values that exist between the reservation and the newsroom, if not the larger mainstream American culture in general?

The Invisible Majority

In the two articles you have to read for Tuesday, October 20th, there are some interesting observations one can make. First, I find it somewhat ironic that Asians in news coverage appear, from Wong's study, to be an "invisible minority," while women, according to the Women, Men and Media study are the "invisible majority." Another observation is that while the WMM annual study began in 1989, it appears to have ended with this last report in 1999:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?
documentID=6465

That year's study focussed on progress being made, especially in regard to economic coverage on the three main network newscasts — ABC, CBS and NBC. The results showed more women speaking as "experts" than it had10 years earlier. I ask myself why the WMM annual study is no longer being done; is it because so much "progress" has been made in terms of women's visibility and prominence in news coverage that this is an issue we no longer need to study?

In regard to coverage of Asian Americans, increased visibility, Wong suggests, might result from hiring, cultivating, and encouraging Asian American journalists "who bring special language and cultural skills" to our newsrooms. Toward that end, the Asian American Journalists Association exists to improve coverage of their community. Go to their website (aja.com), read about their mission, and check out the link under "news" where members and others can report perceived abuses in news reports involving Asian Americans. On the whole, would you agree this is a step in the right direction toward improving coverage of this race? Why? Why not?

Black Face, Nicknames, and Cartoon Controversy

Singer Harry Connick, Jr. recently appeared in Austraila as a judge on a televised talent show that featured a parody of the Jackson 5, in which the participants wore what's called "black face" makeup. Blackface harkens back to a time in 19th century America where white actors would dress like African-Americans and mimicked their speech and mannerisms in what would today be considered an insulting, if not humiliating manner. Connick sparked controversy when he walked off the TV show's set because, he said, he found the segment racially offensive. Here's a link to the segment on NBC's "Today Show."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/33221866#33221866

In some ways, this exemplifies issues raised in your two readings for Tuesday, the first on naming sports teams after Native Americans, the second on the decision by editors of a San Francisco newspaper to publish a racially charged cartoon.

Think about connections between all three and ask yourself: Where do we draw the line?

How do we decide when people are being too easily offended or when someone is being too offensive?

Choosing Words Wisely

Both pieces you have to read for next class deal with the power of words: one with so-called "isms,"words that Jean Gaddy Wilson defines as "authorative language diminishing the roles and lives of women and minorities." Sometimes using language that creates stereotypes about people of a certain race, age, gender, or sexual orientation rises to the level of "hate speech," as discussed in the second article by Joseph Hemmer.

A national dialogue about the role and responsbility of media took place in April, 2007 when "shock jock" Don Imus used language laced with "isms" on his nationally syndicated radio show (simulcast on MSNBC) when discussing the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Go to this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

After reviewing this story, do you believe that Imus' language (1) was racist and sexist according to the terms of Gaddy Wilson, or (2) rose to the level of "hate speech" as defined by Hemmer?

Letterman Admission Raises Gender Issues

David Letterman shocked his audience on Thursday when

he revealed he'd been the victim of an extortion scam.(CBS Photo)

Comedian David Letterman helped create a national discussion this week following his disclosure of an alleged extortion plot, a disclosure that also led to his admission of having had sex with female staff who work for him. While he was not married at the time (ironically lastyear he married a woman who once was a writer on his show, following their 23 year relationship) and no allegations have surfaced of sexual harrassment by Letterman, two issues, it seems to me, arise. The first relates to the manner in which Letterman revealed details of the plot itself.

Watch the clip embedded in the New York Daily News story: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/10/01/2009-10-01_david_letterman_reveals_extortion_plot_con_man_wanted_2m_for_sex_secrets.html

Is there anything in either Letterman's demeanor or the audience's reaction to his words that might suggest a subtext of gender bias toward those women with whom the comedian admits to having sexual relations? Do you feel Letterman handled what some might consider to be a serious subject using an appropriate tone? Of course, the second issue pertains less to the media and more to the workplace issue of whether it is ever appropriate for someone in a power position to have a relationship with a subordinate.

Finally, consider one of the articles you have to read for Tuesday titled "We're Gonna Make It After All," suggesting women have come a long way in media portrayals since the pivotal Mary Tyler Moore Show in the 1970's. Do media depictions of workplace romance like the one on the Letterman Show support that assertion or not?