1 / 19

Comments on MMP report: “Revealing Race”

Comments on MMP report: “Revealing Race”. Guy Berger, Johannesburg, 16 April 2007. Points to be made. Scope and context History, object, omissions, definitions Troubling aspects Lose-lose options, media-centrism, race real or not, resource guide Looking ahead: complementary research

dashiell
Download Presentation

Comments on MMP report: “Revealing Race”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comments on MMP report: “Revealing Race” Guy Berger, Johannesburg, 16 April 2007

  2. Points to be made • Scope and context • History, object, omissions, definitions • Troubling aspects • Lose-lose options, media-centrism, race real or not, resource guide • Looking ahead: complementary research • Identity, being critical, generalising, audiences

  3. 1.Scope & context

  4. History • “Representation of R&/X after 12 years of democracy.” • History is essential to give meaning • From what, to what - Steenveld • What are we trying to leave behind? • What is our ideal to which we aspire? • And: from earlier research (HRC) – • What method & other lessons for this project?

  5. Object of study • Looking at R&/X explicitly treated (why?) • Not at implicit issues: • R&/X of sources • Class replacing race • = same people still shafted! • Qualitative image painted • Value of lives comparatively • Pictures • News agenda topics (eg. Matthews/Rusike) • Advertising

  6. Need to clarify! • Clarify: subject is R&/X OR media’s add! • Or BOTH: eg. X that is exacerbated by media. Or – all three? • Very unclear: p35 – support, challenge or neutral on propositions. • (page 35 only “10% challenge”; vs graph 3: “2% no place for racism”) • Not many articles in total in fact • good or bad? Are stories being missed? • Most being “features & opinion” (so?)

  7. R&/X by omissions? • Did not look at all crime articles, just those where R&/X mentioned. • Thus: problematic to isolate these and draw guidelines from whole coverage • Point of our history: R&/X still impacts on everything: subjects, sources, power language; perspective … (cf Swan letter) • So likely R&/X differences across board • = need guidelines that cover waterfront!

  8. Other side of coin • Proposition: “Africans are victims” 15% of content. • How does this compare to stories where this is NOT the case? Not cited. • Avoid ideology that victims are ALWAYS survivors. • Point: there are stories that should NOT have R&/X, and stories that SHOULD. Need to pinpoint the latter, not only former. • And how the SHOULD’s should be done!

  9. R&/X • Race, racism, ethnicity, xenophobia • Definitions? • Disaggregate? • Crime, politics, economics, justice, conflict = 60% of total no. of stories located. • Culture, schools, churches, Sport??? • Needs checking and comment!

  10. 2.Troubling aspects

  11. Damned if you, if you don’t MMP: • White on black crime – race mentioned • Black on ?? – race not mentioned • = impression that it’s common for Black to commit crime. (= tendentious inference) BUT: • MMP is also concerned when race is cited as if it were a relevant factor when it’s not. SO: • MMP want it both ways: raced and non-raced at the same time! Lose-lose scenario!

  12. Too media-centric • “It is through the media that people form, shape and make sense of their world” • This points to limits of text-only research. • Need to get to source – esp for politics of this kind of research, i.e. production.

  13. Race as “primary explanation” • =14% of stories. MMP implies this is a flawed proposition. • “Finding is made when no other reasons given, but race is.” • But: It could be true. 10% are about victims of racially-motivated crimes. • In them, point is: Race is not the only explanation, & also not “natural” but social. • Can say: Primary, not exclusive explanation. Race ID & racism = can be real causes!

  14. Resource guide • “Build tolerance” • “Embrace diversity” ANSWER: • Omission needs tackling • The grey areas are the difficult ones • Danger of political correctness – and R&/X going off radar – or into cyberspace.

  15. 3. Moving on: complimentaryresearch

  16. Identity at the heart • Racial ID and worldview ebbs & flows, so • A. How a journo feels addressed by a possible story • Is it experienced in racial terms? • B. How that journo responds to this • C. How in turn journo addresses the audience • A & B can differ; • C can be yet another thing • D – how audience reacts to address is another. • = Interview journalists about ID question!

  17. Critically- uncritically • “Media uncritical on racial polarisation by parties” • Unclear what the alternative is – and what and how handbook should address? • Is this a call for normative criticism? (Story should include moralising) • Or epistemological critique? (Story should problematise knowledge)

  18. Presumptious generalisation • “Impression: Blacks do crime.” • “Stereotype that whites are racist.” • But surely message is more complex: • Do people actually decode in such generalised terms? When race is or is not mentioned? • Don’t they add/subtract R%/X much of the time? • MMP needs audience reception analysis.

  19. Summing up & thank you • Define problem – and solution historically • Need to look at omissions • Need to case study journalists’ IDs • Need to do some audience research • i.e. circuit of text, production, consumption. • AND society’s state of racialisation, etc.

More Related