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?
I do not think it would be fair to say that there has not been some raise in the percentages since 1999. That does not mean I think the change was signigicant, though. Especially when it relates to topics of business and economy, women are not often seen reporting, or seen as sources. The most striking thing from the study was that when women did appear as sources "they tended to be of lower socio-economic status than male sources." I think this is because of the idea that when women within the same status as these men have something to say they are looked at as though they are complaining or too aggressive. It is not in the image that society has of them to be anything but "emotional." I am not justifying this or saying it is always the case. The women in these fields probably had to struggle more to get where they are because of the "image" associated with a woman's capability to put her emotions aside. I think that when it comes to issues that relate to poverty or family finance it is a sort of incognizant racism when looking for sources. I think unknowingly people still relate women as being less capable then men on some aspects, however as it pertains to media staff, I think that women are represented in a fair amount. When it comes to sources represented I think that women are definitely approached more for comment depending on the story topic. In the chapter the study explains there was a severe drop in coverage of women. Women are the invisible majority because at the time of the study there were not seen as "nesworthy" but make up a majority of the population. What was most interesting to me that women who were the mother, wife, or daughter of someone were portrayed that way in coverage and that is what made up most of the coverage that included them on the front page. Richard Harwood's belief that expanding their intellect will happen when they expand to a broader mix of opinions. Informed reporting happens when the reporter understands their subject and their audience; this understanding will make for a more diverse society being represented in a fair way.
ReplyDeleteI think that without the creation of aaja there would be less Asian American and Pacific Islander journalists. Although, there are still not many now, I think without this informational organization that supports and encourages Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to pursue journalism careers, there would be an extreme drop in how many journalists are Asian American or Pacific Islanders. The website also makes it seem as though they will respond to a report of unfair coverage to discuss it, and also make it known through media outlets that the unfair coverage took place. It is because of organizations like this one that the idea of "changing one person at a time," is effective. If an organization is addressed for unfair coverage, and it is made known to the public then their credibility becomes questioned. By aaja contacting one editor or publisher, or even a few people within an media organization, change can begin. The important question is: Will it be a genuine change, or will the change happen because it has to? These are the types of questions that are hard to answer because the answer might hint that in fact there is no change or progress at all. The study in the chapter does give credit to the fact that the active "anti-asian" coverage has changed for the better, but the reasons for this are because of more Asian American journalists that put forth more informed coveragem, and because of the growth of the Asian American population. The same is that has been observed for other minoritiy groups remains true here. It is a double edged sword because they are either invisible, or represented in a way that evokes images that keep us from moving forward as one society.
Although women "experts" have come a long way over the past decade, I do not think that this issue is anywhere near being completely fixed, and I think that there is still a great deal of research to be done.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically in financial and economic topics, I do not think that women are taken as seriously as men, even when they have comparable (or even better) backgrounds and qualifications in the subject matter. I do not recall seeing any women speaking about the economy in the last few news shows I have watched.
While many women provide the same (if not more than their husbands) financially, and are often in charge of household budgets and finances, the economy is still viewed as a "man's world" in the media. (See any story discussing Wall Street)
In regards to the AAJA, I think that the organization is a positive way to unite and under-represented population to work towards the common goal of equal, accurate coverage in the media.
I do not think the media even comes close to showing a representative population of all Asians living in the United States, and I can certainly see why they are referred to as the "invisible minority". Like other journalism organizations, I think the AAJA is working towards a positive goal for the media as a whole.
Despite what gains have been made, I still feel that Asian Americans appear more as caricatures than real people on TV. The kung-fu fighting gang member, the child prodigy, the science whiz in grade school, all of these roles have been mostly attributed to Asians, and as a result, the contributions of the Asian community go unappreciated or unrecognized.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the mission statement on the AAJA site, I found myself wishing more people knew about it. The four statements encompass what Heider talked about being the main issues with news coverage and minorities: education, opportunity, and access. Accomplishing this with the Asian community, I think, would impact other minority groups.
Good for the AAJA, because the notice and change of underepresented and mis-portryaed Asian Americans wasn't going to come from the white dominated media. The recognition has to come from the people that the problem affects before any change is to come about. Then, once others outside of that particular demographic are made aware of the problem they have a choice to get on board to help bring about change or they can sit ideally on the sidelines (that dosen't necessarily mean they don't care though). And that is what's great about an interactive world. 60 years ago the grievences of the Asian American community, or any ethnically diverse community or gender, for that matter, would have fallen on the deaf ears of the hegemonic media, but today they can be heard loud and clear by all.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is great that there isn't a group that encompass all that are under or mis-represented into one association/organization, but that these groups are specialized, like the AAJA. Would they be "louder" if they were all one group, maybe. But, they would also be muddled and less effective. Specialization just makes sense, its been proven through all aspects of modern society, whether it be unions, factory work, journalism or armies, they are all set-up according to varrying specialities, all while working towards a common goal or task.
It is no different with groups like the AAJA, IWMF(International Women's MEdia Foundation) or NABJ(National Association of Black Journalists). They all work for the betterment of their demographic and the media independently but with a common goal in mind, equality.
Change takes time though. Most know this but, we still get frustrated when we don't see it in our lifetime. We are faced paced and forward moving society. We have evrything we could want at the click of a mouse or a car drive or flight away. But the call for social change, which is often times deeply rooted in problems from the past that are still present today, is someting that has not caught up with the rapidity of the modern day. Change will come about, even if it is not fully corrected for generations to come, because we are a forward moving people, even with the occasional setback. People just need to be patient. 300 million Americans and counting are a lot of minds to change.
When exploring the AAJA website, I found it interesting that mainstream media still think it's acceptable to make insensitive comments about Asian or Asian American people. There is the derogatory comment from the BBC. There is Kathie Lee Grifford speaking with a "mock Chinese accent." And of course there is the cliche "Asian Invasion." Perhaps people don't really think about it. Maybe it's just one of those things that just becomes ingrained in mainstream society. I think that perhaps they feel they can get away with it. That's why I think the efforts of the AAJA are helpful in making others aware that what they say may be hurtful. I think it is a good way for Asians to voice thier opinion, which has been ignored for too long.
ReplyDeleteAs far as women in the media, I do not think the study wasn't updated because we've come so far in coverage by and of women. I think it would be interesting to see new figures. I'm not sure if they would be much different, maybe a little bit higher.
I think the AAJA is doing the best they can to raise awareness and sensitivity when it comes to Asian Americans, because like Lindsey said above, they are almost "cartoonized" in the media. It may sound trite to the white person that receives a grievance letter from AAJA, but at least there's an effort put out from an organization. They're doing the best they can to eliminate or at least create awareness of the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think that AAJA is definitely a step in the right direction. Problems that the media have when covering minorities, I believe, stems from a lack of knowledge and understanding. That's why it's so easy for journalists, and people, to resort to stereotypical language and ideas when talking about minorities. That's all they know. Any organization that helps teach people about that which they are unfamiliar can only help the situation at hand.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder why the WMM study is no longer being done. We have not made THAT much progress to no longer be evaluating the media in terms of their coverage of women in business and economy. I was not surprised by the statistics that I read in the study. Although I don't read those publications, (Time, Business Week, Newsweek)I watch enough news on TV to notice that women aren't nearly as often experts as men are on this subject. Like the study said, I think women are much more often related to poverty and lower-level income stories. And this study was done in 1999. If I can see the same observations 10 years later, we have a long way to go.
The case of women being experts in business and economics deals with the notion of quantity is better than quality. We sit here and say, well there are more women reporters and experts in comparison to later years, but that means nothing if they are only given the inferior work compared to men.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Asian portrayol in media, I still feel like because they don't have people fighting for their rights who are mainstream, such as Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse jackson, the issues that Asian face may not be addressed, because no one hears about it. Look at the AAJA website. There are accounts of police and political officials slurring Asian culture, but no one seems to hear about it.
To say that we have "progressed" enough as far as women's visability in the media today to do away with the WMM annual study is to say that we live in a perfect world. After reading the article in the book, I could understand and agree with a lot of what Bridge was saying, even though this article is over 10 years old. While Bridge discussed the covered of former first lady Hillary Clinton in the 90's and the focus on her image more than her substance, it reminded me of this past election and the focus on Palin and Hillary's imagine, more so than their policy. I constantly heard about Palin's family, hockey-mom lifestyle, and lip stick, more so than her policy or plans for this country. So, this is just one example, of the WAY in which women are covered.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with the statement of "invisible majority" because the statistics and facts are not matching the media representation. For instance, according to the readings in the book, female-owned businesses currently employ 35 percent more people in this country than the Fortune 500 companies, and they generate $1.4 trillion in sales. This alone is enough to "qualify" a woman as a source, a face, and a voice for a news story.
As far as the mission of the AAJA and their efforts to increase the coverage of Asian Americans in the media, I do believe it is a step in the right direction. By providing scholarships to Asian Americans hoping to one day become journalists, it is encouraging these young people to go to school, get their education, and one day have an opinion in the news room and have that voice. By pointing out when news media goes astray from accuracy and fairness is a terrific way to slowly but surely make an impact. the AAJA sees the problem and is trying to fix it from the inside out, and to me, this says a lot about what this group of people represent and what they are willing to do to get that message across. The AAJA is a stepping stone in the right direction, and it seems to be providing the support, funds, and encouragement to begin change.
I'll have to cite the beauty machine for the increased presence of female experts in the news, especially tv news.
ReplyDeleteThough women are in the journalism workforce in multitudes, the front-and-center journalists still have to be stereotypically beautiful. I look at Maria Baitromo of CNBC news specifically for heralding the shift in economic experts in the news. She started out as spunky/cute Dow Jones reporter to full-on anchor with a book deal. It wasn't just the glasses. She appealed to the largely male demograpic and with her whips-smart delivery, quickly rose to the top.
I think this is another reason why female experts are on the rise on Fox News. Since little coverage is spent on actual news, they'll have "experts" duke it out to chew up airtime. Sure these are strides for women but are they actually covering news or simply spouting opinions like they were on The View?
I think the studies need to shift to the types of stories women are covering and how much they are getting paid to do it. The economic imbalance in salaried work between men and women is staggering. This is something that needs to be addressed not just in journalism but every type of work where equal work means equal pay.
That leads me to another speculation: are women experts in the news more affordable than their male counterparts?
Finally, it is shameful that Asian Americans are lumped together as a single demographic in this country. Often their news is ignored or stereotypical festival coverage.
I think that Heider's topic of access is of prime importance regarding the lack of coverage. The community presents the same challenges to outsiders like the Indian reservation culture.
In regards to Aaron's comment about the lack of mainstream protest, I think it's because Asians are in that catch-all category. The plight of Indonesians dealing with earthquakes is not the same story as Chinese dealing with earthquakes. Nor do economic choices of the Vietnamese have anything to do with Japanese consumers. It's like asking Canadians to comment about Argentine politics or sports.
The diaspora of Asian immigrants and native Americans has produced plenty of fighters and heroes. I think of Sen. Daniel Inoyue of Hawaii as a sublime example of what being of Japanese (or any) descent means in this country. His story is the American dream, from WWII hero and Medal of Honor recipient to the Senate.
When the Media Coverage of Women and the Economy study ended in 1999 women did only 31 percent of the economic stories, that is 141 out of 451. Which is not a significant jump from when the study started. With this being said, I can not imagine why the WMM would have stopped their study, especially after it lasted nearly 20 years. I mean, yes women as journalist have covered a larger number of stories then they once did. But the pattern of stories has somewhat stayed the same. Example, poverty stories and lower-level income stories; these forms of stories are vulnerable stories that need warmth, so they have a women cover the story with emotion, and the pattern continues to stay the same. In other words, women continue to report on the same type of stories, which promotes political and financial stories to be told by men, as if women are not capable of covering these stories.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea that AAJA has promoted and I give them kudos. They are definitely heading in the right direction. Especially because mainstream media has taken their Asian stereotype into account everytime they cover an Asian story, in all media outlets. And like someone said above, Asians somehow always fit in to the caricatures mold, they do karate, they are aggressive, they own Chinese restuarants and they make for good comedy. But by creating a website designed to bring about the negativity of the stereotypes and address the issues associated with them can only constitute change.
In regards to the coverage of Asian American visibility in the news, I believe the AAJA is taking a step in the right direction. The best way to destroy stereotypes is to make yourself known to those that perpetuate the stereotypes. Encouraging Asian American journalists to bring "cultured skills" to the newsroom environment will certainly educate others in the environment and at least gain a perspective and a place at the table at morning meetings. While it's a step in the right direction, I don't think it's going to do very much (or at least not very much in a short period of time). As we've already discussed, the rules in the newsroom are relatively age-old and take a while to bend. One of the reporters at ABC is proud to be one of two Asian American women in the Tampa market and sees being the "token Asian," as she puts it, as job security. Still, though, she feels that while she is important to have in the newsroom, she's put to little use and many of the stories she pitches about issues in Asian American communities are shoved aside before she's done pitching. So, in short, I think it's a great effort by the AAJA, but like the cases of other minorities making a place for themselves in the newsroom, it seems that they're receiving more opportunities to report the news, yet little coverage in the news itself.
ReplyDeleteGo AAJA! I do think this is a step in the right direction as far as awareness goes. I'm glad they're generating awareness for the community and offering scholarships for students. I don't think this alone will solve the issue of "Asian Americans" being under-covered but it is a step. I think it's important that part of their mission if to point out when/where news media organizations stray from accuracy and fairness in the coverage of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder why WMM isn't continuing their study. Maybe they feel that since women are more visable in media that they don't need to spend time, money and energy tracking their progress. I've noticed that there are more visible women "experts" these days but I wonder what the motivation is behind it. Makes me think about Nancy Grace.
I think another study about the inclusion of woman as sources in news coverage needs to be done. Inclusion of women in the media was mediocre ten years ago. I'm interested in how much that has really changed.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the disparity in quoting women in business stories has to do with the fact that men hold the majority of high ranking positions in the business world. If that is the case, then it would make sense for men to appear more frequently (if the news is reflecting reality). It would not make sense for a reporter or news organization to collect interviews in proportion to the population (where women are the majority) for the sake of balance (okay, I have two men, two women, good, done); rather, the question that should be asked is, am I representing this fairly?
If news coverage is reflecting reality, then the larger issue is that the glass ceiling still very much exists, and women still are not treated equally in the workforce.
There is an issue with Asian Americans being invisible in media coverage. However, I'm not entirely convinced that groups such as the AAJA will be able to improve the situation. William Wong makes the argument that more Asian American journalists will not necessarily translate into better coverage of Asian Americans. The study about women in the media determined that female reporters did not interview any more females than male reporters. Perhaps the same thing would happen with any other group.
I think there is always a need for awareness and conversation about what is wrong with media coverage of various groups. The AAJA has a section on its website that points out inaccurate and unfair coverage. My concern is that groups like this, while serving to include one group, exclude others. Separate can never be equal. I think a better way to approach this would be as a group of people, not as women, men, black, white, Asian, etc. People should not be further separated as they try to work through problems.
I think that I cannot make a fair arguement withour further researching further into Asian American and Pacific Islander history of the abuses against them in the news, but I would agree that this is a step in the right direction. I think that people need a common ground in which they can relate, and that helps them learn and discover how to deal with these abuses. I think that the public can learn something from the News section of this site. The news section can have the ability to help people who don't see their unknowingly insensitive voices and actions be aware of them and help to stop racism of every kind.
ReplyDelete