The Racism In The Media

THE RACISM IN THE MEDIA

As a major institution in society, the media play a critical role. They provide us with definitions about who we are as a nation; they reinforce our values and norms; they give us concrete examples of what happens to those who transgress these norms; and most importantly, they perpetuate certain ways of seeing the world and peoples within that world.
Himani Bannerjinotes that the media provide us with images of prescription and description. They tell us how society sees us and at the same time, tell us how to behave in society. They promote a notion of consensus - that there is a core group of which we are a part, a core that defines the social order, and that it is in our interest to maintain. Through coverage of those that deviate from the consensus, we areconstantly presented with the threat of a lawless society where chaos could reign.
The notion of consensus - that there is a common value system binding us, obscures the hierarchies that are present in Canadian society. The media tend to portray all groups as having equal power - equal cultural capital. In other words, all groups who are law abiding have an equal say, and any conflict that existscan be resolved at the level of discourse - through words, and finally, through the socially sanctioned route provided by another central institution - the judicial system.
The media see themselves as the "fourth estate" -reporting on issues of concern to the citizens of the nation.The defend their position on grounds of neutrality, objectivity and balance. They are there to present the "facts"as these are played out in any arena of social life; as being objective by virtue of their distance and nonpartisan relations; and as providing "balanced" coverage by presenting the different sides to an issue. The media claim that they provide the best possible explanation of issues that occur in society. In that light, they draw from society and return to society, interpretations of events andissues that make "sense" - that fit the prevailing definitions of these issues. At the same time, the media tend to report most directly, the comments, statements and arguments of other powerful institutions, as for example, the government. Definitions articulated by these social institutions are seen as more credible and hence less open to interrogation. The positions of the elite, in this case,powerful institutions, thus get perpetuated over time and become part and parcel of our definitions of social reality.


The media do not stand in isolation from the society on which they report. In fact, they are an integral part of society. They utilize the same stock of knowledge that is part of that pool of "common sense" which informs all of our lives. It is common sense to expectpunishment if one has committed a crime; it is common sense to have a system of law and order; it is common sense that some people will make more money than others. This pool of common sense knowledge is a reservoir of all our unstated, taken-for-granted assumptions about the world we live in. It is filled with historical traces of previous systems of thought and belief structures.
An inherent part ofthat historical legacy is the way in which the media positioned and represented peoples who were different; different from what was considered acceptable in Canadian society. That difference covered the entire span of peoples - Aboriginal peoples, people of colour, Jews, Ukrainians, etc. Any difference was constructed as a negative sign and imbued with connotations of threat, invasion, pollution andthe like. People who were different were positioned as "others." "They" were the criminals; "they" were dirty, unkempt; "they" caused trouble and disease. "They" had to be kept out or contained in a separate area away from "civilized" society. Critical to the media discourse of the time was the opposition between "them" and "us." What "they" were, "we" were not and vice versa.
In her expansive...