TV tokenism has now become very apparent to me after Mr. Bolos' presentation and all of the presentations. Admittedly, I had never thought of how common TV tokenism is, and how the same patterns of characters appear in tons of shows. TV tokenism is the idea that having one or a couple minority characters will offset accusations of a certain network or show being racially biased towards casting white actors over minorities. This pattern is very alarming to me, especially since I had no idea that it was so prevalent. It made me wonder if tokenism was also apparent in other parts of our society.
As it turns out, there are tons of examples of tokenism in our society. The one I was most appalled by was in the National Football League (NFL). The NFL has a rule, the Rooney Rule, which mandates that every team has to interview at least one minority coach for a head coach position. This is very similar to a quota in a way. It is similar in the sense that each team has to interview one minority candidate, but different in the sense that they are not required to hire a minority person for that position.
I know what you're thinking - this is in no way similar to tokenism. Tokenism is, after all, "using" minority characters to avoid backlash. But the Rooney Rule is similar to tokenism because it forces teams to at least try to hire a minority coach. And that is where the controversy comes in.
As with quotas and tokenism, backlash is almost certain. For one, it is easy for some to say that if a minority coach gets hired, it could be that they were hired solely on the basis of race. Though it is almost always incorrect, and obviously offensive, those kinds of comments are pretty common.
But what I was more concerned with was if the rule was effective or not? In this current NFL off-season, there were 15 top coaching vacancies available. How many of those fifteen spots were filled with minority coaches? NONE. So perhaps I was incorrect with my assessment of NFL tokenism - it may be more of the NFL trying to be racially equal (and failing miserably).
Herm Edwards, an ex-NFL coach, hopes that the rule doesn't encourage situations where teams just meet the quota JUST to meet the quota: "It can't be 'who is the guy to interview to get this out of the way?'" But sadly, that is what it looks like it has come to, at least in this off-season.
I don't think that is a coincidence at all - I think that white coaches have the upper hand when it comes to hiring in the NFL. What do you think - is this just another example of tokenism? Is the Rooney Rule sufficient to try to be racially equal, or does it fail miserably?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
US-Israel Alliance
President Obama is scheduled to make a visit to Israel in a couple of weeks, his first in his presidency. Israel is a very important ally to the US, as the president stressed. But he also called the alliance "eternal". Obama's use of the word "eternal" is very rhetorically powerful, but also assumes that the US will eternally be a super-power. The reason Obama is being so reassuring towards Israel is because he wants to convey the message that he is on their side in the Iran nuclear facility events.
Iran has recently been making strides in their nuclear capabilities, supposedly. They claim that they are very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb, but many countries are skeptical of that claim. Nonetheless, Iran and Israel have a very heated relationship over land disputes.
But this brings up an interesting thought - why can the US have nuclear weapons, but deny other countries theirs? Though Iran may seem like an irrational actor, increasing economic sanctions to prevent the development of weapons may actually fuel the fire. This is similar to what Mr. Bolos said a while back - why does the US get to criticize Iran on its horrible treatment of women, when it took the US 200 years for women to get equal rights?
Though I do think Iran with nuclear weapons could be extremely dangerous. I do not know why the US gets to control them. What do you think - does the US have the right to boss around other nations? Why or why not?
Iran has recently been making strides in their nuclear capabilities, supposedly. They claim that they are very close to being able to make a nuclear bomb, but many countries are skeptical of that claim. Nonetheless, Iran and Israel have a very heated relationship over land disputes.
But this brings up an interesting thought - why can the US have nuclear weapons, but deny other countries theirs? Though Iran may seem like an irrational actor, increasing economic sanctions to prevent the development of weapons may actually fuel the fire. This is similar to what Mr. Bolos said a while back - why does the US get to criticize Iran on its horrible treatment of women, when it took the US 200 years for women to get equal rights?
Though I do think Iran with nuclear weapons could be extremely dangerous. I do not know why the US gets to control them. What do you think - does the US have the right to boss around other nations? Why or why not?
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Martin and the Media
Over a year after the controversial, fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on a dark, rainy February night, there has been no mass amounts of analysis of the situation, or live coverage, or even that many articles about the shooting. But the shooting, which was the biggest news story for the week or so after it happened, is no less important now than it was a year ago. The media, however, no longer prioritizes this important, almost monumental event in their news coverage. This, to me, is indicative of how the media shapes what news is and is not relevant - a pattern that has been the case for a while.
For those of you who don't know about the case, I will give a brief description that by no means is sufficient to sum up the story. One night, Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, was walking home from the store and was approached by a volunteer watchman. The watchman, George Zimmerman, thought Martin was acting suspicious is his wealthy, gated community. Zimmerman then fatally shot Martin (if you want to learn in more detail about the story, go here).
After the shooting, the news exploded with tons of different accounts of the story, supposed facts about the case, and certainly opinions about the motive of the shooting and if Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon. Though this case is very intricate and complex, I think that the media's response to the story is just as important as the story itself.
Dylan Stableford, Senior Media Reporter for Yahoo! thinks this case exposed the worst in the media: "The Trayvon Martin case has exposed some of the media's worst tendencies - selective editing, rushing to judgement, stoking anger for ratings and pageviews". The word "selective" indicates that the media only portrays certain parts of the case, in order to make the story seem more interesting to the audience. Tendencies like misrepresenting a story for "pageviews" and "ratings" are clearly horrible tactics the media uses to gain popularity.
And after a week, fua, as Oscar Wao would say. It is gone. No more constant coverage of the story, hourly updates, you will rarely even see any kind of story on it. Do you think that the media does a correct job covering all stories fair and equally? Is it legitimate for them to alter stories so they are more popular and make more money? I certainly do not think so, but please share your thoughts.
For those of you who don't know about the case, I will give a brief description that by no means is sufficient to sum up the story. One night, Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, was walking home from the store and was approached by a volunteer watchman. The watchman, George Zimmerman, thought Martin was acting suspicious is his wealthy, gated community. Zimmerman then fatally shot Martin (if you want to learn in more detail about the story, go here).
After the shooting, the news exploded with tons of different accounts of the story, supposed facts about the case, and certainly opinions about the motive of the shooting and if Zimmerman was justified in killing Trayvon. Though this case is very intricate and complex, I think that the media's response to the story is just as important as the story itself.
Dylan Stableford, Senior Media Reporter for Yahoo! thinks this case exposed the worst in the media: "The Trayvon Martin case has exposed some of the media's worst tendencies - selective editing, rushing to judgement, stoking anger for ratings and pageviews". The word "selective" indicates that the media only portrays certain parts of the case, in order to make the story seem more interesting to the audience. Tendencies like misrepresenting a story for "pageviews" and "ratings" are clearly horrible tactics the media uses to gain popularity.
And after a week, fua, as Oscar Wao would say. It is gone. No more constant coverage of the story, hourly updates, you will rarely even see any kind of story on it. Do you think that the media does a correct job covering all stories fair and equally? Is it legitimate for them to alter stories so they are more popular and make more money? I certainly do not think so, but please share your thoughts.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Obama Pardons 17
Our class discussions about racism and how it is present in the justice system sparked my interest in how apparent it really is in daily life. Although in class we talked about black protesters from the Civil Rights Movement getting sentenced to long prison sentences for trespassing, just recently Obama pardoned seventeen people for non-violent crimes. The crimes that the newly-pardoned people committed were far different from the "crimes" that protesters did during the Civil Rights Movement. But I think that it still shows that our country is at the very least trying not to make the same mistakes we made in the past.
Obama pardoned seventeen people recently after committing minor crimes from almost decades ago, such as "falsely altering a U.S. money order" or even "acquiring food stamps without authorization". I think that there is a consensus that these crimes are not big enough to the extent that the person who committed it is in jail for over a decade. That just seems outrageous. But that is a clear connection back to the CRM, when authorities would press charges on protesters for whatever charge they could press. For instance, since protesting was not a crime, they would charge them for trespassing on property.
But I don't think that pardoning people for acquiring food stamps falsely is anywhere on the same level as for protesting racial inequality. So although Obama is taking a step in the right direction by pardoning people for petty offenses, there is still a lot of work to be done to make the justice system equal.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Work and Wages
In the wealthiest nation on Earth today, there is debate over how much money people deserve for doing certain jobs. The current minimum wage requires that each person gets at least $7.25. Obama wants to raise the wage up to $9.00. What the raise in wage would signify wouldn't just be a physical increase in cash in people's pocket, it seems to me it would raise the value of people who work lower level jobs.
Before I get into that, it is interesting that the US didn't have a minimum wage until the end of World War II. Before then, the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional to impose a federal minimum wage because it infringed upon the workers' rights to determine the work they do. As the years went by, the minimum wage eventually got instituted after FDR instituted the minimum wage. FDR thought that the "government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages." The word "must" to me indicates an obligation to the people that the government must help them using this law.
As the years passed, the wage increased more and more. And now the debate is on again - to raise it higher. To me, without a minimum wage, it would show that the government has no problem letting people in the lower class who can only work at certain places fall into poverty. Without a minimum wage, hard-working Americans would make no money after hours of strenuous work.
But some think that not having a minimum wage would be helpful. The theory is that when you raise the cost of employment, there is less incentive for businesses to hire.
What do you think about a raise in the minimum wage? Would it have a positive or negative effect on the people and our economy? Or do we even need a minimum wage?
Before I get into that, it is interesting that the US didn't have a minimum wage until the end of World War II. Before then, the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional to impose a federal minimum wage because it infringed upon the workers' rights to determine the work they do. As the years went by, the minimum wage eventually got instituted after FDR instituted the minimum wage. FDR thought that the "government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages." The word "must" to me indicates an obligation to the people that the government must help them using this law.
As the years passed, the wage increased more and more. And now the debate is on again - to raise it higher. To me, without a minimum wage, it would show that the government has no problem letting people in the lower class who can only work at certain places fall into poverty. Without a minimum wage, hard-working Americans would make no money after hours of strenuous work.
But some think that not having a minimum wage would be helpful. The theory is that when you raise the cost of employment, there is less incentive for businesses to hire.
What do you think about a raise in the minimum wage? Would it have a positive or negative effect on the people and our economy? Or do we even need a minimum wage?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
False Progression in America
Recently, the trend of shootings, whether with a high or low death toll, has increased. The Sandy Hook shooting and the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas are two that were well covered by the media. However, what most of you probably don't know is that between January 10th and January 31st, there were eight shootings at different schools. The event that triggered debates about gun laws was the horrific Sandy Hook shooting. But months after that crisis, there is no resolution on curbing violence.
What people in America think is that our country is getting better. Our economy is improving, there are no imminent dangers that are being pushed to the public, and it seems as if people pay little attention to shootings. But this is all part of the false progression theory - the public isn't aware of certain issues, and they therefore think that nothing is wrong.
But clearly, there are major problems in the US when it comes to curbing gun violence. But since the public isn't getting these events shoved down their throats, they do not pay attention to it. Is this the fault of the media? Since the school shootings aren't as big as the Sandy Hook shooting, the media is not providing coverage on those issues. Should they be?
With media coverage aside, are Americans stuck in a mindset of false progression? Why or why not?
What people in America think is that our country is getting better. Our economy is improving, there are no imminent dangers that are being pushed to the public, and it seems as if people pay little attention to shootings. But this is all part of the false progression theory - the public isn't aware of certain issues, and they therefore think that nothing is wrong.
But clearly, there are major problems in the US when it comes to curbing gun violence. But since the public isn't getting these events shoved down their throats, they do not pay attention to it. Is this the fault of the media? Since the school shootings aren't as big as the Sandy Hook shooting, the media is not providing coverage on those issues. Should they be?
With media coverage aside, are Americans stuck in a mindset of false progression? Why or why not?
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Gun Paradox
Just today, the most prestigious US military sniper, Chris Kyle, was killed. The cause? Not an illness, or a car accident. No. He was shot by an Iraq and Afghanistan military veteran at a shooting range.
I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.
The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.
What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?
I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.
The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.
What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)