Media Images: Persistence of Stereotypes in Political Discourse

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V2b64RSE26w

Here’s a clip of an ad Kerry Healey ran in her ultra-negative campaign for governor against Deval Patrick last year.

I remember watching TV with my dad when this came on and how flabbergasted we were that someone could get away with this. We literally sat there with our mouths open, blinking – as if to say “did we just see what we thought we saw?!!??!”

The ostensible purpose of the ad is to point out Deval’s support for Ben LaGuer – an African-American many (mainstream politicians, celebrities, and journalists) believe was wrongfully convicted of rape in 1983 with a double-whammy combo of a highly biased jury and evidence-mishandling by law enforcement. Also run to show that, unlike Healey (being tough on crime was a key part of her image) Deval and Democrats are soft on the most brutal of criminals.

Now, I’m not sure if LaGuer is innocent or not. Although it does sound like he has a good case, which deserves to at least be heard. But that’s not the point.

The ad makes direct use of and attempts to gain leverage from the old stereotype that black men are insatiable, lustful animals who can’t be trusted around and will surely, if given the slightest chance, make sexual conquest of the ultimate prize – innocent, demure, white women.
School teachers, mothers, neighbors – your wife! The very same myth constructed by slave-owners to conveniently justify and obscure their own rampant sexual exploitation of female slaves.

In the scene, a professional (smart but feminine suit), innocent/intelligent (glasses) everywoman (every white woman, that is) soccer mom walks to her minivan after a wholesome day of shopping , or putting extra hours in at the office (up to the viewer to impose themselves in there).

As she does so, a shaky (implies deviant, uncontrollable, lurking lust) handheld camera follows her through the ominously lit parking lot. The same parking lot, with the dark corners, you anxiously tell your wife to avoid walking through alone at night - or one which would make any person feel unsafe. The camera is behind the woman, watching her, stalking her...

It is the rapist. The same one the voice-over is desperately trying to warn you/her about before it is too late.

As the voiceover/message builds to a crescendo (it’s about to tell you what Patrick said about LaGuer, i.e. reveal what Patrick is really like) the camera swoops in against the woman’s back. She’s almost to her car but it’s too late. Startled, she barely has time to dart her had back to see who it is - suddenly aware of the rapist behind her about to pounce and then…..

CUT! The rapist is revealed! And it’s Deval Patrick!! The stereotypically sexually deviant black man nonchalantly revealing his true feelings of praise for yet another black “convicted brutal rapist” - via a carefully snipped sound bite, of course.

Observe also the carefully ordered sequence in which the sparse (for more powerful effect) words appear on the screen – panning over Deval’s face:

“Rapist... Deval Patrick should be ashamed… Not governor”.

Close the gaps between these words a little, which everyone’s mind does subconsciously, and the message is clear.

All black men, like Deval, are rapists by nature and woe betide us all if we’re foolish enough to vote for one. Especially one who's openly proud to advocate for letting even more of his fellow black rapists out of jail to run rampant in dark parking lots…

F*ckin’ racist Healey. To do that to someone who’s intelligent and determined enough to have worked his way through the most prestigious schools in this country. Only to have someone who’s had everything handed to her use the color of his skin to shit all over him. I’m so happy Deval won.

And I was proud to see how it was the furor over this ad that helped put the nail in the Healey coffin…

…that was until the “watchdog” media broke the whole Deval-upgraded-the-governor’s-Lincoln to a Cadillac “scandal”. I think everyone knows what that was really all about. Just Google Cadillac and the N word and watch the hundreds of racist joke pages that come scrolling up.

How perfect for the media – they could take the supposed moral high ground of "protecting the taxpayer" - while confirming everyone’s suspicions: just look at what happens when you finally put one of "them" in charge, tsk, tsk - they go and blow our cash on a toy...

Always remember the media is in it for money. No white politician would ever receive that kind of scrutinty for such a minuscule part of the bugdget. Their are dozens of huge, important and expensive real issues the media could actually make a difference by addressing it. But that's not what sells million dollar TV commercials.

Because people desperately need to see their stereotypes, and foregone conclusions about the way things are safely confirmed. And the media better deliver and pander to this impulse or else people will get mad and switch the channel. And then it is a real issue cause it's ad money on the line. Trust me – I’ve seen it in full effect.

If your friendly idealistic reporter or do-gooder editor isn’t like that then the managing editor is. Or, if not, the editor-in-chief. Or someone else up the ladder. I.e. at some point in the chain of command someone who calls the shots is taking cues from the marketing guys and making sure only the right message goes to print.

In fact, the marketing guys don’t even need to say anything – everyone knows what’s expected. What they can and can not do. My favorite is the “highlighting the plight of minorities” pieces whose true aim is to show us that exactly what we thought of minorities (lazy and stupid enough to get in the situation in the first place) is nice and true…

I was watching the Deval-Cadillac piece with my dad too and I asked him why he thought no one was challenging it (in a meaningful way). And my dad (who is fond of reminding me that “black people always get the short end of the stick and don’t you forget it, Andy”) told me about the first time he traveled to the South for business. It was in the seventies, after the Civil Rights movement, and he turned on his hotel TV. And there was a politician in a state-wide election debate railing against the other candidate who if elected, will “let those n*ggers run wild and do whatever they feel like to us...” or something to that effect.

The point was that extreme prejudice against black people was a totally acceptable part of political discourse – a main plank in a candidate’s campaign. My dad says nothing surprises him after that. And he’s right. We like to pride ourselves on our tolerance and "just" liberal attitudes in the enlightened NorthEast. But is a sucker punch that’s cleverly hidden so you don’t see it coming any better than getting drilled in the face?