70's Sitcoms

My blog partner and I have been looking at 70's sitcoms as a genere. I was struck by the fact that in family dramas, white families live in houses with lawns, and african-american families live in apartments in the city. This was made really clear to me as I was looking at "The Brady Bunch," and "The Jeffersons." These representations are important because they are part of what creates individual views of a particular group. It's seems easier to see how particular representations have operated to create stereotypes when I'm looking at a 70's sitcom from my perspective here in 2006; but it's that much more difficult to get a handle on how the present representations of particular groups by the media are shaping the next
thirty years of stereotypes.

A Media Ethnography of My Dear Mother-in-Law

I interviewed Pat, my mother-in-law, about her television watching habits. The assignment suggested watching a person watch a program or otherwise consuming media, but that kind of voyeurism didn't sit well with me, so an interview it is.

We discussed how watching a program alone is different than watching a program with her husband. Pat says that she really likes to talk about what she's watching as it goes forward--from my experience, she doesn't wait for the commercials before beginning the conversation. Pat almost always sits down to watch TV while doing some other task with her hands--crocheting, knitting, etc. When she looks away from the screen for a moment to attend to her knitting, she sometimes misses key information and is unable to follow the plot line. Her husband, Dave, is very patient about answering her questions and filling in the gaps. Her questions (and constant getting lost) create social opennings.

Pat particularly enjoys watching the prime time crime dramas because they "open up dialogues" with Dave. These dialogues are often tangential. For example, a recent episode of CSI that included a character who was a single-mother led to a conversation about what it might be like to be a single-mother and what challenges a single-mother must face. Pat also feels that television programs offer good examples to be used in later conversations about a variety of topics.

She hasn't been watching as many crime dramas of late because "the weird story lines turn me off. With each show the crime has to be more outlandish than before because people are becoming so desensitized."

When I asked what she does during commercials, Pat said that she often reads a short article from a magazine or the paper. If these are not available, she closes her eyes and "ponders life." Dave, her husband, on the other hand, gets a kick out of seeing the new products and constantly asks her after impressive commercials, "Did you see that?"

Pat uses television to create conversation, and not as a substitute for 'having to engage' with others. She does her best to ignore commercials. She enjoys prime-time dramas mainly because they include "serious" content that can be used as fodder in later conversations. Watching is more of a shared activity than it is watching for its own sake or for pure entertainment.

Media Representations of Asian-Americans

Let's take a look at some images that reveal something about how Asian-Americans are depicted in the Media.

In this first picture we see what I think are the post typical images of Asian-Americans. We have images of highly sexualized Asian females--they are being portrayed as exotic. We also have the image of Bruce Lee--Asians as martial artists.

In the "Secret Asian Man" comic strip, we see the 'Asian as martial arts' motif yet again, although in this case it is being resisted. Added to this a revelation that others see so little of what it means to be 'Asian' in the media that they may think that what they do see--Anime, Yu-Gi-OH--is characteristic of all people who have "your eyes."

Here's our hero again dealing with the "realities" of being Asian in America. In the first frame, the first thing that comes to my mind is the orientalist conception of Asian females as submissive and accommodating. The white man is motivated to ask her out probably by a mix of thinking she's exotic and the belief that she will accommodate him. Her silence, how can I explain that? Embarrassment? Discomfort? Not wanting to make a bad situation worse? She clearly looks uncomfortable, but she doesn't actively resist. Maybe she's practicing what I've heard called "infrapolitics," in which case her resistance is fashioned out of what looks like compliance?

In the second frame, we are confronted with the Asian-as-martial artist motif yet again. And, in the third frame we get the motif of the "Asian Professional," also known as the "all Asians are good at business" motif. Our hero S.A.M. is uncomfortable when placed in contact with all of these situations which involve stereotyping of Asians as submissive, exotic, and all the same.

Audience Analysis of FLAME advertisement

In this post, I look at the same advertisement that I examined in the previous post (Semiotic Analysis of FLAME Advertisements) but through the lens of audience or Rhetorical Analysis. You can view the advertisement in question at http://www.factsandlogic.org/pdf/ad_101.pdf.

Richard Beach has defined audience analysis as the examination of "how media texts use language, signs, and images to position audiences to adopt certain desired responses, beliefs, or practices" (teachingmedialiteracy.com, 34). Beach identifies the following essential questions:

• Who is this text being written for?
• How am I being positioned by this text?
• What beliefs or attitudes is this text asking me to accept?

Let's look at the advertisement.

The advertisement is written for someone who believes the following three things:

1. Israel occupies the West Bank and other Palestinian territories.
2. This occupation causes violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
3. If Israel withdraws, life will improve for Palestinians.

These are all things that I tend to believe. They sound reasonable. To my mind, they accurately describe what understand to be the current state of affairs, and the best possible future. This ad was meant for me.

How am I being positioned? What am I being asked to believe? The advertisers take each of the three statements above and go about trying to debunk them. The ad asks why Israelis are considered occupiers when others in similar situation are not. They then go on to claim that Israel isn't occupying because they are the winners, "The oldest rule of warfare is that to the vitor belong the spoils."

In the next section ("Israel's 'occupation' of those territories is a myth") the ad makes the claim that all Israeli soldiers have been withdrawn from Gaza and Lebanon, and that this withdrawal only led to more violence directed at Israel from Palestinians/Lebanese sources. Since the violence continues after the withdrawal--so goes their argument--the occupation can't be the cause of the violence. This line of argument doesn't work for me, because Israel sits on land that once belonged to the people around them--their whole country can be considered (from some perspectives) to 'occupied,' just as all the land in the US can be thought of as having been stolen from native peoples.

Finally, in regards to more withdrawal leading to a better life for Palestinians, the author claims that in the areas from which Israel has already withdrawn, Palestinians have destroyed the infrastructure. Made more explicit, they are claiming that Palestinians can't take care of themselves, when Israel withdrew they damaged themselves.

Ultimately, I find the argument made in the ad unconvincing. I think it fails because it doesn't admit that there is an equally valid opposite side. They would win my support by showing a bit more empathy for the Palestinians, and acknowledging that Israelis and Palestinians have valid conflicting needs, wants, desires. They position me--or try to position me-in a way that intentionally hides other points of view, which makes me feel like they are trying to put one over on me.

Semiotic Analysis of FLAME Advertisement

An advertisement created by the pro-Israel organization, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME) appeared in the September 4, 2006 edition of U.S. News and World Report. See the advertisement at http://www.factsandlogic.org/pdf/ad_101.pdf.

Semiotic analyses focus on the meaning of signs and codes. When you look at this 'advertisement,' you may not immediately recognize it as an ad. In fact, this ad looks like an article. The font color, size, and style match those used by US News for a real article on the opposite page. The advertisement page includes a bolded headline centered at the top, two colums of text, and a quote box in the upper middle of the page between the colums. These are devices used by publications that are reporting news. FLAME is an organization with a particular interest in the Middle-East, and they are presenting their point of view as news. US News deadens the effect a bit by placing the title "Advertisement" in the upper right hand corner of the page--the magazine editors want us to know what it is we're reading.

observations

Although the way this text is presented initially says to me, "This is news," with a bit more thought, I realize that these visual/presentation formulae don't necessarily signify "news/fact" as much as they signify that a text is to be thought of as an "article" that an authority (the magazine, newspaper, journal) saw fit to print. The editors of the magazine realize this and therefore clearly label it "advertisement" so as not to confuse people, and in order to avoid having the opinions/views expressed attached to the magazine.

I have to admit that I resist this kind of double-packaging. I get annoyed that the advertisement poses as an article and, in general, refuse to read it. I feel like someone is trying to trick me.

And yet, I'm also reminded that I'm willing to read opinion articles that are officially sanctioned and published by established publications. Why the double standard? Maybe this is a group that has a valid opinion that they can't get media to sanction?