Why do the poor/working class accept media that negatively represents them?

Throughout this blog's look into how the media generally represents the poor, several conclusions have been drawn: most of the time, those living in poverty are erased from mainstream media, but when they're not, they are represented in a very negative light, that stereotypes them as lazy, argumentative and raunchy beings that are anything but multifaceted.

Given that the lower class holds a large portion of users of social medias and consumers of traditional media such as television, I began to ask myself, how come people in this social group seem to not think much of being reflected negatively in the media they watch, why do they continue to view and support media creators that erase them from most of the product out there?

One possible explanation is that lower classes such as the poor and the working class idealize and romanticize those who are socially or economically superior. "To some degree this seems to reflect a universal sociological law. Feminists have long since pointed out that those on the bottom of any unequal social arrangement tend to think about, and therefore care about, those on the top more than those on top think about, or care about, them. Women everywhere tend to think and know more about men's lives than men do about women, just as black people know more about white people's, employees about employers', and the poor about the rich." When connecting this to media representation, it helps understand where and why those who are of lower income seem to have fascinations for celebrities (film, television, music), tabloids, and why overall the poor do not mind being bombarded with media that celebrates glamour and materialism. People living in poverty are interested in and care about the lives of those "above" them, and so media content producers can profit off of constant representation of upper middle/high classes and celebrities, much more than what they would make frequently depicting/properly representing the poor in the media.

"Working-class people may be, as we're ceaselessly reminded, less meticulous about matters of law and propriety than the "betters", but they're also much less self-obsessed. They care more about their friends, families and communities. In aggregate, at least, they're just fundamentally nicer."

If this is the case and those in the lower class are made to be kinder and passive, then it is safe to think that is a part of the reason of why the poor allow themselves to be misrepresented/excluded from the media. As a collective whole, they are okay with stories covering and revolving around people with high incomes and high social status and are much more interested in them than vice versa.

For this reason, it is even more important to create media that shows the lower class for what they are, real human beings just like celebrities/those of higher class. Including them in media's representation of the world and focusing on more than their stereotypical negative attributes, media could be a tool in improving how the poor view themselves and increasing their political efficacy. Sadly, those living in poverty have been raised to believe that their dreams, talents and visions are not as valid as those with more economic stability, but nothing could be further from the truth. The stories and lives of the poor are not only a staggering and common reality, but they are often genuinely heartwarming. Poor people truly are "the spiritual reserve of the world", and their voices need to be heard.

SOURCES: Graeber, D. (2014, March 26). Caring too much. That's the curse of the working classes. The Guardian Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/26/caring-curse-working-class-austerity-solidarity-scourge

"El Rumor de las Piedras" : what proper representation of the poor looks like

This past Wednesday I was lucky enough to attend a screening of a Venezuelan drama film called "El Rumor de las Piedras" (The Rumble of the Stones) at Florida International University, that was followed up by a Q&A panel session with the director, assistant director and two producers. It was all part of a program set up by the Latin American/Caribbean studies department of the university, and all the films they were screening had to do with the struggle of women in Latin American society. Needless to say, it was extremely interesting, especially being able to have a discussion with the filmmakers themselves after for reflection.

This particular movie is essentially about a woman called Delia, who lives in the slums in Venezuela, and how she tries her best to prevent her two teenage sons from falling into violent/illegal gang activity, how she works multiple jobs, and how she does this all alone, there is no "man" in this house. Being a woman anywhere in the world is already difficult, but if there is anything harder than existing as a female in this life, it is being a female living in extreme poverty. Nearly all of the problems in her life and those around her, be it her sons or the people in her community, stem from the financial troubles in their lives.

I really enjoyed this movie because it gave proper representation to the poor. This film did an excellent job at creating and establishing low income earning characters that were multifaceted. Of course, falling into gang violence, stealing, substance abuse issues are all undesirable effects of extreme poverty, but the film was effective in contextualizing these characters so that the audience did not merely see them as lazy, drunken parasites. Moreover, the movie delved into possible reasons why Delia and her family fell into poverty, specifically in her case, the 1998 landslide that swallowed up entire homes and left thousands of people in Venezuela without any assets overnight.

This is what proper representation of the poor looks like, and I think it testifies to the idea that fiction film can be interesting and cinematic while also being impactful in changing the way the poor are portrayed in media. It does not mean that those living in poverty should be written as characters that are either overwhelmingly good or bad people, rather, they should represented as the complex individuals that they are. Below I am linking the trailer for the film.


SOURCES: "Furzan, F. (2011, March 1). Movie review: El rumor de las piedras."

Where are the poor, and what connotations does their representation convey?

As I previously mentioned in last week's introduction to the blog shift on analyzing how the poor are represented in media, when this social class isn't blatantly erased, they are portrayed in a very negative light. So where do the poor fit into our representation of the world in our media?

Low-income people are found most often in media on "reality" television shows, talk shows, or "reality-based crime shows", rather than having consistent roles in fictional programming. Unsurprisingly, their representations on either "real" or fake programming is overwhelming negative and derogatory. As for "reality" television shows, a perfect example is something along the lines of Judge Judy, Maury, or Divorce Court, programs that mainly feature the poor but only to shine a light on their unhealthy personal relationships, adultery, promiscuity, abundance of unwanted pregnancies, or their reliance on welfare programs (therefore perpetuating stereotypes such as "The Welfare Mother.) Of course, it goes without mention that these types of shows that are supposed to be a mirror image to real life (when in actuality they are extremely scripted and planned in order to achieve as much shock value as possible,) are inaccurate representations of the poor in general and present the false perception to consumers of media that this is the only way in which poor people are and it's the only way in which they go about their lives.

Something very similar can be said for talk shows (i.e Rickie Lake, Jerry Springer), where the poor are often part of the programming in very shallow ways, either in the audience or interviewed as people who are interested in material items or raunchy tabloid news. Again, this type of media creates the false notion that all people living in poverty cannot go beyond the scope of banal topics/entertainment.

As for reality based crime shows, they consistently reinforce the stereotype that most people involved with drugs are low-income men of color, when in actuality, in the U.S "the typical drug consumer or dealer is an employed, high-school educated European American man." And while it definitely can be argued that these crime shows (i.e Cops) are accurately presenting the disproportionately high amounts of drug related arrests of Black or Latino men in real life, they are still promoting a stereotype that is simply untrue.

All this negative representation culminates together into creating the most undesirable depiction of the poor. While these representations may be correct in showing one side of those who live in poverty, low-income people are just as multifaceted as any other social class. They have hopes, dreams, and many even hold true potential despite the financial troubles in their lives.

Personally, I think it says a lot about our civil society that we create such regimented, constricting roles for people in poverty in our media- how we as a whole are unwilling to be compassionate and empathetic for the majority of the poor that worked hard but was ultimately unable to find employment, and earn enough for what is considered a "desirable life."

SOURCES: Bullock, H., Wyche, K., & Williams, W. (n.d.). Media Images of the Poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229-246. Retrieved from http://www.owr.ca/pdfs/MediaPoor.pdf

How the poor are largely erased from media: an introduction

The poor is a social group that suffers in two large ways from media representation: either they are negatively ridiculed or they are erased from the picture entirely. While this blog will explore both of these avenues within the next four weeks, this post will focus on how low-income people in the United States are disregarded by mainstream media. 

All sorts of media, especially television, aid in the blurring of class lines and create the sense that the middle class is the norm. By consistently centering shows around a predominantly white middle class (Friends, The Office, The Wonder Years), the media helps to perpetuate the idea that the United States is essentially a "classless society", when in reality, nothing is further from the truth. The widening gap between the rich and the poor has continued to grow from the 1980s to now without haste. 

More specifically, the media disregards the notion of increasing poverty rates by "presenting the interests of the well-off as general concerns (stock, financial portfolios, leisure time), downplaying structural economic concerns (job, security, income), and emphasizing shared interclass concerns (safety, crime). By downplaying economic insecurity and representing the "middle" as a "state of mind," the media encourage working-class individuals to identify with a politically neutralized "universal" middle class. Thus, the poor are left as an outlier who deviate from the middle class' values and norms. 

We have to wonder why we would erase such a large portion of the population that is growing as we speak. Even though poverty is one of the United States' biggest concerns, the poor are also rarely covered in the news. "Direct references to poverty in televised news programs are particularly uncommon. Consistent with the relative lack of open public discourse about social class in the United States, only 36 stories of the 197 news programs analyzed by Entman made overt references to "poverty" or "the poor," and few stories documented poverty and income distribution." 

This is a problem. As Entman theorizes, the lack of exposure of poverty in the media may cause people to believe that "inexplicably, some people choose to live in deteriorated neighborhoods where they frequently either commit or are victims of crime, or have trouble receiving heath care or finding adequate schools", rather than understanding that poverty is caused by a true lack of finances. 

The absence of proper representation and exposure that contextualizes this social issue has a negative impact on how the poor are viewed, so it can be argued that the opposite case, where the poor are discussed and portrayed would have a positive effect on U.S society. 

Like any problem, it is better to talk about poverty and communicate the concerns it brings rather than omitting it from the media. With information out there, it is easier for the U.S population to understand rather than blame the poor for their economic hardships. 

SOURCES: Bullock, H., Wyche, K., & Williams, W. (n.d.). Media Images of the Poor. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 229-246. Retrieved from http://www.owr.ca/pdfs/MediaPoor.pdf

Community Media: how it preserves culture and promotes pride

When beginning this radio concentration endeavor, I initially wanted to focus on the differences and characteristics of both public and privately funded radio stations in Venezuela, analyzing the role they played on shaping Venezuelan politics and culture. Of course, I am still striving to do that, but during my research, I have discovered another type of media that breaks away from both of these categories that is very prevalent in Venezuelan radio: community media. 

Community media by definition is media that is "community oriented, non profit, non commercial, citizen and volunteer run". This is a crucial aspect to the democratization of any modern country, where freedom of expression equates to having access to means of communications that one can interact with. Well put, political analyst Diana Ray states, "the technology of communications has to be made accessible to all, not merely as consumers but as participants and creators." 

So what constitutes as community media in terms of a radio station? The main requirements according to the Organic Telecommunications law (passed in June 2000) are that at least 70% of programming must be produced within the community, there must be a separation between the station and the programmer (leaving only 15% of media to be produced by the station itself), and the station should provide training for its community in order to ensure that they are able to create their own work. Additionally, no government officials should contribute to the media making process. 

This all sounds beautiful in theory, but the reality is a different one. Many community radio stations are government funded, such as ECOS (for Barrio Pueblo Nuevo in Mérida), and because of this financial aid, the news and political stories they release tend to be heavily biased. If one adds the fact that the majority of the Venezuelan people are uneducated and were brainwashed into glorifying the Chávez regime, then most likely all hope of accurate political accounts are lost. 

However, there is another interesting prospect community radio has delved into, and that is cultural pride and awareness. For example, there is a community radio station titled Paraguaipoa, and it was the first indigenous radio station created in Venezuela. Due to its success, there are now nine total indigenous radio stations in the country. All the programming on this radio station is in Wayuu, the native language of the people in the area, and many other indigenous radio stations broadcast in their native languages or have bilingual programming, which helps preserve and promote native languages. 

Paraguaipoa has even begun working with a nearby primary school, creating programming that embraces the traditions and cultures of the area with two weekly radio shows run by students of the school. 

"Our children turn on the radio, and they hear their aunt, their friend's mother, their older sister and her friends. They hear stories from the mouths of those who know the community and what we need. And they hear our language. All of this makes the children proud and eager to participate, and it gives our own community some of the power we lost to the lies of the media stations.", says Ángela, a citizen who works on the radio station.

In all, community radio streaming from the midst of a corrupt regime may not be entirely accurate politically, but it still holds tremendous value. By allowing citizens to be on the producing side of programming, meaningful cultural pride flourishes and a sense of political efficacy is embedded unto younger generations.

Here is a very short documentary on the Paraguaipoa radio station: 

SOURCES: http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4678

Radio Caracas Radio: how privately owned stations protect basic freedoms

No matter where in the world, media ownership affects the content released, and there is a general understanding that public/government owned media tends to be more censored, especially in illiberal democracies or authoritarian regimes, while privately owned media is usually less restrictive with their content, releasing controversial information or creating risqué entertainment.

These tendencies are just as true in Venezuela, and a prime example within the radio medium is Radio Caracas Radio (RCR). Owned by Empresas 1BC, a private Venezuelan media corporation, their first air date was in 1930 and they have a television counterpart, Radio Caracas Television, respectively.

Originally a radio station that had times dedicated to all subjects, it switched to a news exclusive station in 1992. It was because of this change in dedication to the news that Radio Caracas Radio became important in ensuring uncensored information was given to Venezuelan citizens.

When the Chavez regime began in 1998, Radio Caracas Radio became well known for their constant opposition to the unjust regime, constantly stating information or news that contradicted what government controlled media spread, calling out the corruption in the parliament and with the President, saying truths that the regime wanted to hide, such as rising poverty levels, disregard for human rights, and economic troubles.

Of course, this created lots of tension between the station and the government, as they became a platform that strengthened the Venezuelan opposition. When it came time for the government to renew their media licenses in 2007, the government decided to not renew their contracts, accusing them of instigating the failed coup to overthrow the regime in 2002. Thus, RCR was taken off the frequency on May 27, 2007, 11:59pm.

A violation on the freedoms of expression and speech, many citizens were deeply angered by the shut-down, with protests all over the country. Unfortunately, the government still refused to renew their contract, so soon after RCR simply streamed El Observador which is Radio Caracas Television's daily new cast.

Still an oppositional force, RCR's recent transmission on January 12, 2015 featured presidential candidate/opposition leader Henrique Capriles as he spoke on organizing their efforts to defeat the regime by mobilizing protests and working together against a common enemy.

Even after arduous obstacles, a private radio station's struggles are worth it, helping to band together to dismantle an oppressive government. 

SOURCES: http://www.lanacion.com.ve

César Miguel Rondón: Using his voice in radio to represent the sentiments of many.

Throughout the years in Venezuela as the opposition against the increasingly authoritarian regime, it has become a dangerous risk to speak out against the government, as freedom of speech and expression are not respected or tolerated by the regime. For this reason of remaining under the radar and not making a target of themselves, many citizens keep their controversial and critical opinions of the government to themselves.

However, there is one man, César Miguel Rondón, who has only gotten louder as things worsen, using his hit radio show on Unión Radio to openly talk about his oppositional feelings toward the regime and by interviewing key revolutionary political leaders who are actively fighting against the injustices in Venezuela.

Rondón began working in radio in 1974 with a set radio time that was purely for entertainment. But in 1991 when he got his permanent radio time on Unión Radio, Rondón expanded the topics explored on his show to more serious and current events. Finally in 1998 when Chavez came into power and as things quickly worsened politically in the country, Rondón's show shifted tremendously to the country's political, social, and economic problems. Currently Rondón's show is a citizen-driven show, where political figures and pivotal witnesses are interviewed live on-air while listeners tweet/call in to contribute their sentiments. In this way, Rondón has created a platform for the opposition in Venezuela that is legitimate and respected by educated individuals around the world.

Here, I am linking one of his most interesting and current interviews with María Corina Machado, a Venezuelan (ex)congresswoman who is among the most important faces and representation of the opposition movement. Rondón interviewed her the day of her indictment trial, as she was accused by the government of "conspiracy to murder Nicolas Maduro", the current puppet president in Venezuela that took power after Chavez's death, a charge that has been verified by experts to be false. Toward the end of the interview, listeners are called in to directly speak to the congresswoman, and Rondón reads several tweets that were sent in throughout the show.

Although the government has consistently tried to silence all forms the controversial voices, he is on a private radio station and has continued his radio show without hesistation. It is this kind of bravery that ensures the perseverance of basic liberties in a country where the constitution is constantly ignored.