The toxic wasteland
0 comment Monday, June 30, 2014 |
A while back, I blogged about certain biased TV commercials, among them the Brinks Home Security Ads, one in particular involving a young woman at home alone as a White male attempts to break into her house. There are several such ads involving White male lawbreakers. The most egregious one lately depicts a thirty-something black woman, obviously representing an upper-middle-class single woman, who casually throws away documents into her recycle container. A thirty-something White male, who does not look like the 'criminal' type, but rather like your average middle-class White guy, jogs by and slyly steals the documents from the black woman's recycling. The commercial warns about 'identity theft.'
What are the messages of ads like this? Obviously that crimes are not infrequently perpetrated by White men, even by average, innocuous-appearing White men.
As the commenters here mention, it could be said that the Brinks people don't want to alienate minorities or be accused of 'racism' in depicting nonwhites perpetrating crimes --- even though many people are aware that statistically, nonwhites figure in more than their share of crime, proportionately speaking. No, there's no excuse for these ads. If the advertisers are so worried about the reaction of Jesse Jackson or other racial grievance-mongers, they could simply make the criminals vague, shadowy figures, who are racially unidentifiable. They could simply show the criminal in silhouette, or show his shadow, or a portion of him without indicating his race. But no; they give us a good look at the perpetrators, making sure we see that they are White, and rather ordinary-looking White guys at that, the type you would not edge away from if you met them on a darkened street. It seems that, whether or not the advertisers intend it, they are putting across the message that White men are not to be trusted, and that if you are victimized, chances are it's some Joe Average White Guy who has done it.
Another ad in the same vein, actually a 'public service announcement' about child abuse. I've searched for it on the Internet and it seems no longer to be available. But some of you may have seen it. In it, a little girl of 10 years old or so gets on an elevator with a man, presumably her father. The only other passenger on the elevator is an older black woman, of the type so often seen in commercials: the ultradignified type. The White man looks at the black woman and makes some small talk, 'how ya doing?' or something, and she looks warily at him, then at the little girl, who seems very subdued. As the man and little girl leave the elevator at the next floor, the black woman sees, emblazoned on the back of the man's jacket, the words ''Child Abuser." The little girl looks pleadingly back at the black woman, as if to say ''help me, save me from this man.'' The elevator door closes, and a voice-over says something like ''trust your instincts'' or something of that nature.
Some of you may have seen it; if so, please correct my description of it if I am remembering it incorrectly.
In any case, I don't think it's any accident that they chose a White man to be the evil child abuser, or that the 'good citizen' in the video is a black woman, just as the good citizen and victim of identity theft in the Brinks commercial is a black woman.
One of the most objectionable things about political correctness, to me, is that it lies. It turns reality on its head, and asks us to believe that this is a reasonably accurate reflection of the real world. Some will say ''people know that TV is not reality, and vice-versa." Well, some people do, but there have been a number of studies showing that people often base their view of reality on what they see on TV, whether on the news or in fictional programming on TV and in movies.
For instance it's been shown that those who watch a lot of TV (and thus, by definition, spend less time actually interacting with the real world out there) have a skewed perception as to how much violence occurs. And these ads misidentify the likely perpetrators.
This article actually acknowledges how the public's perception of the justice system is influenced by 'court TV' shows.
I am surprised that they admit that there is an overrepresentation of black judges on these ''reality'' courtroom shows.
During the 2000-2001 television season there were nine reality court shows in syndication, The People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, Divorce Court, Judge Hatchett, Judge Greg Mathis, Curtis Court, Judge Mills Lane, and Moral Court.
Six of the nine judges were male, two were white, and four were black. Three judges were women, one white woman, Judge Judy and two black women, Judge Hatchett, and Mablean Ephraim on Divorce Court. When the 2001-2002 television season began, there were eight daytime court shows, and none of the judges were white males. In January 2002 Larry Joe Doherty, a white male, aired on a new show entitled Texas Justice. When the 2002-2003 season began seven shows remained with three male and four female judges. The fourth woman was Judge Marilyn Milian, a Cuban American, who took over The People's Court. Of the seven current television judges, only Judge Doherty is white and male.
In real life, however, most judges are white and male. Only 3.3% of all judges in the United States are black, and the percentages are even lower for Latinas/os and Asian Americans. Women comprise only 7% are of all federal judges and 9% of all state judges. The percentage of black women judges is even lower than the percentages for blacks and women generally. Thus, it is surprising that two black women, one Cuban American woman, one white woman, two black men and only one white man preside over the seven reality court television shows that air daily in most major cities.
Perhaps the overrepresentation of women, blacks and black males on TV reality court shows simply reflects network attempts to reach targeted viewing audiences. Yet this over representation is not only a distortion of actual judicial demographics in the United States, it also is a distortion of demographic make-up of the television population generally. A recent survey of the small screen by Children Now found that only 17% of the prime time television population is black; 75% of the prime time television population is white. Women account for only a third of prime time television characters.
The Children Now study concedes that increasingly women are portrayed on television as professionals like lawyers and doctors, and whites and blacks "appear with about equal frequency as physicians, attorneys and in service/retail/restaurants jobs." Thus, television creates the impression that women and non-whites, primarily black male lawyers, are well represented in the legal community.
Whatever the reasons, the over representation of women and non-white judges on reality court shows, coupled with the perceived over representation of black judges on television in general, is problematic in the highly racialized society in which we live. The over representation of women and black male judges on television not only sends an erroneous message about the extent of their representation in the judiciary, but may actually undermine popular support for increased racial and gender diversity on the bench by suggesting that our nation's benches are already diverse, or that blacks and/or women have taken over the courts.''
Of course the writers turn this around to demonstrate how reality does not measure up to the fanciful world of TV in this respect; obviously, as they see it, blacks and women are underrepresented and White males overrepresented in the real-life judicial system, as lawyers and judges.
On television the court room is integrated. On the shows the race of the bailiff is always different from the race of the judge. Also male judges tend to have female bailiffs and female judges tend to have male bailiffs. Since all the shows share this feature, clearly race and gender are factors considered by snydicators. Perhaps syndicators realize that integrated courtrooms with women and black judges appeal to television audiences. The presence of women and non-white judges in integrated settings reassure viewers that justice in the United States is meted out impartially. While there are positive aspects to this portrayal of the courts, there are negative aspects as well.
One political scientist speculates that white's misperceptions about blacks' standing in American society make be the result of the success of some blacks. "As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods," and the increased sense of competition these observations engender in white Americans. It is no surprise that whites with the greatest misperceptions about the socio-economic status of blacks are less educated and affluent. Since less affluent and educated viewers are some of the same people who watch more daytime television, the possibility of the distorted information about the gender and racial composition of the judiciary is increased.
When virtual integration actually occurs, it easy for this group of whites viewers to doubt claims of the under representation of women and non-whites in the judiciary and the need for American society to make meaningful steps to address this problem. The fantasy of a racially integrated society keeps many whites from confronting how little contact they have with non-whites, especially black Americans, in real life.''
So they admit that there is a desire to change reality by means of presenting these skewed, inaccurate images to viewers, thus influencing them towards more 'egalitarian' attitudes.
Far from showing viewers a more equitable and realistic picture of life in the real world, and of minorities as individuals and as a group, TV shows us a make-believe world in which virtually the only blacks are those who are affluent, educated, upscale, and urbane. And of course they are usually shown as the ''good guys'' in contrast to the depictions of Whites as nerds, incompetents, slobs, or criminals.
If we didn't know better, we would assume that all the stories of high crime rates or other social 'dysfunctions' in the ghetto are mere stereotypes created by 'racists' who have it in for blacks. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what is alleged all the time by black 'activists' and politically correct advocates for minority groups.
And many Whites who have no real-life experience of blacks believe the TV stereotypes; it's those people who constituted the pro-Obama White voters. Sure, there are a certain number of self-hating far-left Whites who voted for Obama, but there are a lot more who know nothing about other races except what they see on TV and in the movies. These people are the targets of the advertisers who are busy creating a make-believe parallel universe in which middle-class White guys steal black women's identities.
Just as this writer says, TV and the media generally foster anti-American, anti-White attitudes. And I suspect that is what they set out to do, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Television entertainment is mostly boring, immoral and disgusting. Content is so disgusting and unreal as to be a factor in anti-American hatred and anti-American terrorism around the world. A people whose main or only contact with American culture is the crap they see on American television programs would, reasonably, develop a strong anti-American attitude based on what they watch on U.S. television and not based on the reality of American culture. If my only contact with American culture were American television, I also would hate America.
For decades, television and the media in general have been throwing at us an unending stream of weird, violent, smart alecky and perpetually enraged Hollywood Negroes, glorified homosexuals, sexually irresponsible urban women, assorted terrorists and criminals, unethical business people, and anti-American, anti-family, anti-White, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-personal-responsibility, anti-achievement, and anti-American-culture messages.''
Just as the writer concludes above, TV is more than ever a 'vast wasteland.'
Whenever the subject of media bias and the general worthlessness of television comes up, the usual cries of 'kill your TV' are heard. But is that the ultimate answer? If you overhear somebody slandering you, insulting you, lying about you, even threatening you, is the answer just to stop your ears and ignore it?
I think we have to be aware of what the public in general is being told and being fed, and we have to be cognizant of the effects of the pernicious propaganda in the media, and try to counter it, rather than attempting simply to shut it out.
Many of us, in more optimistic times, thought that if we wrote letters to the media or to advertisers, or boycotted sponsors or networks, our voices would be heard. Now, I am not inclined to place much trust in those methods. The advertisers, sponsors, media executives -- they all seem to be ideologues with an agenda over and above either informing or entertaining, or even selling products. They are propagandists, on a mission which only incidentally concerns selling products or entertaining people.
When you have true believers in charge, I don't think there's much hope that they will be interested in placating dissatisfied viewers or readers.
I don't think the ''just change the channel'' or ''just use the off button'' approach is sufficient. We still, unfortunately, have to live among people who are consuming the toxic waste that is purveyed by the advertisers and the media generally. We have to live with the consequences of the campaign to dumb down and indoctrinate our neighbors and families.
What is the answer, if any?

Labels: , , , , ,