Written by: KyraDean
I think that in America today, there are distinct, yet illusional, social classes and the media’s exercised power of creating and destroying these classes in our minds is becoming more and more evident. The “make-believe” media leads us to believe that these are individual classes in the American caste system, and that most of us belong to the middle class. The well-known all-inclusive “middle class” is one that has been predominately created by the media, and the media presents the middle class as the majority of people in society. In the way presented by the media, there are distinct differences between the low-income “working class”, professional “middle class”, and powerful and wealthy “upper class”. On a personal level, I know that I have always thought that my family and friends were all on the same middle class level. Bus according to Barbara Ehrenreich’s definition of the working class, not all of my thoughts were correct. Ehrenreich states in argument, “The middle class, so defined, amounts to no more than 20 percent of the U.S. population” (73). The media makes us think we all belong to the middle class, whether we realistically are or not. Class bias definitely exists in the media, no questions about it.
I support Michael Parenti’s argument in his essay about the improper portrayal of the lower-middle class blue-collar workers. He says, “Other studies find that blue collar…workers compose sixty-seven percent of the U.S. work force, but only ten percent of television characters” (70). Parenti says, “Generally, workers are portrayed as good-natured…more funny and friendly than middle-class professionals, but also more foolish, less competent, less educated, less attractive, and less able to act as leaders” (71). To Ehrenreich, the stereotype of the hard-hat bigot lies with this middle perception that the working class is uneducated, moronic, inarticulate and crass (74). These stereotypes surfaced in the 1950s in television shows with the “laughable buffoon” like Ralph Kramden in “The Honeymooners” and reaffirmed later in 1971 with the loud-mouthed views of Archie Bunker in “All in the Family” (Parenti 71).
In her essay, “Working-Class Heroes No More,” Ehrenreich discussed the attention given to American blue=collar workers in the media. Her main point is that the working class is disappearing from the minds of the American middle class, leaving everyone with the impression that if they are not poverty-stricken, then they belong to the middle class. She discussed the circumstances of the coal miners’ strike as an example. The American coal miners’ strike, involving 50,000 Americans, for minimal media coverage, and the Russian coal miners’ strike received more attention, which she blames on the disappearance of a portrayed working class within the media (73). Ehrenreich refers to the “working class” and “all those people who are not professionals, managers, of entrepreneurs, who work for wages rather than salaries…60 to 70 percent of the U.S. population.” The “middle class” is referred to as the “professional middle class, the professional-managerial class” and she explains that they comprise “no more than 20 percent of the U.S. population.” She reinstates these astonishing statistics by explaining that it is the “American majority” that is disappearing, not the minority as we are made to believe by the media. This disappearance and the stereotypes of the working class have led to our nation’s growing class inequality (73). She pulled these realizations together when she says, “In the absence of real contact of communication, stereotypes march on unchallenged; prejudices easily substitute for real knowledge” (74).
After reading this and other essays and analyzing the portrayals of the working class, I am beginning to notice how the media sheds less light on the working class and when they are portrayed, it is often in stereotypical roles. I have observed this both in the entertainment and news media. I think that Ehrenreich makes a good closing statement when she writes that, “The less ‘we’ know about ‘them,’ the more likely ‘we’ are to forget ‘them’ altogether” (75). When it comes to TV, I have come to believe that the working class is misrepresented and underrepresented in not only the news, but in the media altogether. I agree with Ehrenreich’s statement, “Working class people are likely to cross the (news) screen only as witnesses to crime or sports events, ever as commentators or—even when their own lives are under discussion—as ‘experts’.” In the news today, workers are viewed as causing problems, for instance, during strikes, or they are shown as being oblivious to all problems in society. Union leaders, managerial staff, and bosses are all seen as being the ‘good guys” who are looking out for the best interests of everyone, as seen in “Roger and Me.”
In the case of television and movies, however, I believe that there is a line between reality and ideology, and that TV shows have and will always portray the ideal way of life, not the reality. In sitcoms, both working class and middle class people are misrepresented, but for the purpose of entertainment. I agree with Dan Cohen, in Parenti’s article, when he states,” Some people suggest that the reason for the death of the working class shows on TV is that people who work all day don’t want to come home and watch shows about work” (84). Honestly, who wants to work all day and come home to watch the same thing they’ve been doing all day on TV? It would be just like watching a documentary of their day, and let’s face it; documentaries don’t have the best reputation for being exciting and entertaining.
Both Parenti and Ehrenreich think the representation of the working class is unjust and wrong, to an extent at which I agree with them. But I think they, as well as others, must understand that this is just entertainment. It’s inevitable that media control will reign, and this is something the media has decided to give to the viewing public for entertainment purposes. The media thinks the viewing public does not want to see working class citizens like themselves on every sitcom or drama they watch on television. On the off-chance that’s what someone wants to watch, check out a working class individual make it big on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”
One thing that many view as a problem is that the media by today’s standards is only giving us what corporate ownership thinks we should be seeing, which more than nine times out of ten, is only one side of a presented issue. Discussed in class, it seems as though most of the time, television shows, movies, and magazines are simply setting up audiences for advertising benefits. And even when they’re not doing this, complimentary copy is overwhelmingly booming. Gloria Steinem knew back in the 1970s that this practice was unethically deceiving to the general populace with her struggles is Ms. Magazine (Steinem 157); however, these are some things even a group of feminists can’t control, and the media’s practices would be that thing. Instead of fighting for control of the irrepressible media, there is a choice in the matter. In a society today where a choice is available in absolutely every commodity and way of thinking, there has to be a substitute for the manipulating media today.
Alternate forms of media must exist in order to cater to that portion of our society not wishing to suffice to the only seemingly available types of media. Theonion.com is a daily, online satire newspaper delivering straight stories, but with twists, such as one headline which read “Husband Does Housework, Even Vacuums.” In the November 13 issue, the following story headlined:
NS/ND/C/DWF Wondering Why Shy Can’t Find Someone
MINNEAPOLIS- Susan Stenerud, a divorced, white, non-smoking, non-drinking Christian who has placed “countless” personal ads over the years, wondered aloud Monday why she can’t find someone special. “All I want is to find a D/D-free NS/ND/C/SWM who shares my strong morals and doesn’t waste his time going to bars and parties,” the 32-year-old said. “For some reason, no men seem to respond to that description.”
This is a completely valid quip on today’s society, however one customarily found newsworthy by today’s standards of what is and isn’t “news.” Theonion.com shows no regard for corporate influence, much like “Roger and Me.”
An influential corporation or advertisers cannot financially control an alternative form of media; however, if it is, it cannot give into the control. Aside from not catering to media and advertising control, there are other requirements to be an alternative media source. A form of alternative media should not only be critical, but it should stimulate thinking and in depth knowledge. Taking into consideration the public, as alternative media source paints a more realistic perception of the world and is more appealing to the public. Noam Chomsky says, “To serve the interest of the powerful, the media must present a tolerably realistic picture of the world” (93). His point is valid, although most alternative forms of media make conventional media look irritatingly fake and fictional. The final consideration alternative media forms envelope is that they present multiple sides to an issue, which is perhaps their greatest strength. In recent years, more and more innovative minds like that of Michael Moore have realized that people no longer have to take what’s fed to then as the “bewildered heard” (Chomsky 94). I believe that alternative media is not only up-and-coming, but is coming in to the light where the uninformed public will see, realize and slowly begin to stop the biased and controlling media.