Jovana Lukic

Magdalena Tesanovic

Milica Copic

Aleksandra Milunov

Professor Greta Goetz

American Cultural Studies

23 January 2019

The Conflict Perspective of Mass Media’s Impact on American Culture

Faculty of Philology, University of Belgrade

 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to depict the conflict perspective of mass media in American culture.

Mass media has a great influence on people’s lives and apart from disseminating information, it

is used for shaping one’s opinions as well. Mass media can take many forms, but we can divide it

into four large categories based on the method of information dissemination: broadcast media,

outdoor media, digital media and print media. The conflict theory regards the problems of

inequality presented by mass media. The inequality may take various forms and mass media uses

it to control large audience. We tried to analyze various aspects of conflict theory in order to gain

the better understanding of how mass media uses its power to distract masses. We covered

themes such as gatekeepeng, historical aspect and pop-culture aspect of conflict theory and

tackled the issue of how the media should fulfill their role as being a critical watchdog. In order

to find credible information, we relied on a variety of polls, research papers, statistical records,

critical reviews and books on the subject matter. We expect to gain insight into how mass media

can lead to a state of conflict in the society by distributing information unequally and acquire

deeper knowledge about the way media functions as well. Furthermore, we believe that this

research will provide a clearer picture on the correlation between media and other aspects of the

society.
Jovana Lukic

Professor Greta Goetz

American Cultural Studies

23 January 2019

The Evolution of Gatekeeping in Mass Media: The Philandering President

1.1 History of Gatekeeping

The very term “gatekeeping” was coined by Kurt Lewin, an experimental psychologist, back

in 1947. It was, originally, described in less than a sentence, but has proliferated throughout the

years. He described gatekeeping as blocking out things that are unwanted, by using some “gate”

or a filter. He, initially, used it for food, i.e. to describe women or housewives, who decide which

food makes its way from a garden or a supermarket to a diner-table, acting as gatekeepers by

electing which food passes through the “channels” and which stays behind. He, later, came to

realize that the term had much wide applicability range and it became an imperative theory in the

field of communication and media.

David Manning White, who was Lewin’s dear friend, was the first one to focus on the

decision-making process. He conducted a study back in 1949, which is said to be the first one of

its kind. He explored the reasons why a wire editor at a small-town daily newspaper chose to

include or exclude certain stories. As the answer to the White’s study, which focused on the man

who makes decisions, there was Walter Gieber’s study, which focused on the process

surrounding those men, claiming that gatekeepers are powerless and passive. The rush to meet

the deadline makes it even more challenging.

 Afterwards, Bruce Westley and Malcolm MacLean teamed up to publish a more superior and

complex research and came up with the Westley-MacLean model. Basically, “A” representes a

source, “B” denotes a receiver for “X”, which denotes objects or events in the environment;

together they introduced a “C” to stand for a gatekeeper or a filter, which modifies the massage

“A” is sending to “B”. These were some of the most prominent springboards to the gatekeeping

theory and others have only worked as to build upon these already existing ones.

John T. McNelly was the first to fundamentally improve those early theories by pinpointing

the role of reporters in gatekeeping, instead of focusing on editors solely, as they are perceived to

be the first gate of many.

Even though each of these theories has been widely criticized for various reasons, they

represent the stepping stone to the gatekeeping we know today. The latest theories present those

early theories ameliorated and modified so as to conform to our lifestyles, considering the

Internet has changed traditional news gatekeeping beyond recognition.

1.2 Definition of Gatekeeping

“Simply put, gatekeeping is the process by which the billions of messages that are available in

the world get cut down and transformed into the hundreds of messages that reach a given person

on a given day” (Shoemaker 1). Gatekeeping represents the way a massage passes through the

“gates”, i.e. filters, whereas gatekeepers are people who allow certain massages to pass, leaving

others behind. Gatekeepers scan through information and deliberate which information is

diffused into society. The content passes through many gates before it reaches the audience- “ By

content, we mean the complete quantitative and qualitative range of verbal and visual

information distributed by the mass media—in other words, just about anything that appears

there” (Shoemaker and Reese 4).

 It is common knowledge that gatekeeping is a highly controversial topic. Many believe that

the public has the right to know everything, therefore making any censorship unwanted.

Nonetheless, others feel that the public should appreciate gatekeeper’s unique roles and selection

process in choosing the best information to present to the public. However, can censorship be a

negative thing? Should the public know it all? What if “the Internet has turned solid “gates” into

little more than screen doors” (Roberts 2)? Nowadays there isn’t much censorship left, owning to

the wondrous mushrooming of the Internet. Hence people shouldn’t worry about being kept in

the dark anymore “as the Internet has made it easier for anyone to publish on nearly any topic

without the traditional gatekeeping of traditional mass media” (Roberts 2). The media

environment in the United States has changed almost beyond recognition due to the world wide

web, cable and satellite television, and Williams and Carpini state that information is easily

obtainable and at the much greater speed, whereas the public is usually entrusted with the role of

a gatekeeper (65). These blurred boundaries have largely contributed to the difficulty to

differentiate between proper news and facts from mere entertainment and opinion. In addition,

the news is now easily accessible at any given moment and just as easily ignored. However, the

citizens’ abilities to refer to diverse sources or critically evaluate are highly contradictory and

alarming.

1.3 The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal

One of the best examples of the lack of media gatekeeping is undoubtedly the Clinton–

Lewinsky scandal. “The Clinton–Lewinsky scandal illustrates a fundamental change in the

contemporary American media environment: the virtual elimination of the gatekeeping role of

the mainstream press” (Williams and Carpini 61). Attempts to both control and understand the

scandal itself speak loudly on the change of the role of press at the threshold of the 21st century. I
find the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal to be the prime example of the gatekeeping in mass media

and I’ve, therefore, opted to describe how gatekeeping has changed and the repercussions of its

malfunction.

Starting from the very beginning, the first accusations about Bill Clinton were made back in

1991 by Connie Hamzey, who insisted she had been propositioned by then Governor Bill

Clinton. The result of this was Clinton’s senior advisor screaming at the CNN employees, which

caused CNN to drop the story after a single mention, with no other networks picking it up. The

second allegation made was by Gennifer Flowers, who claimed she had been having an affair

with Clinton for 12 years. Once again the anticipated reaction wasn’t present. However, due to

the existence of tape recordings of the conversations between Flowers and Clinton, the story

wasn’t easy to disregard. Bill and Hilary decided to address the issue and in spite of CNN’s live

coverage of Gennifer Flowers’ press conference, during which she’d played several tapes, the

public stood by Clinton as a politician, choosing not to focus on his personal life. Afterwards,

Paula Jones’ story ensued and managed to stay under the radar for quite some time. Since there’d

been no doubt about the legitimacy of the story, the question at hand was the true core of

gatekeeping-should the public know about it? Then, Matt Drudge appeared to the scene and

bombarded the public with the insider tidbits about the rich and famous on the Internet, which

helped further undermine the gatekeeping ability of mainstream journalists and political elites. In

addition, Drudge also ended up leaking the Kathleen Willey’s story. While other journalists were

familiar with the story earlier and waited to make sure the story would hold up, Drudges move

proved the times had changed. Afterwards, another sex scandal threatened the now President’s

career, involving his young White House intern-better known as the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

This one was by far the most substantial one. Williams and Carpini claimed that during those last
10 days of January 1998 there was more newspaper stories coined than all the articles from

Connie Hamzey to Kathleen Willey combined (74). The media had truly transformed from 1991

and those first allegations, where only a call was sufficient to quiet down any story, to 1998,

where they didn’t even bother checking its sources and legitimacy. The new system was in place

and the importance of the story and validity played second fiddles to the publicity. Everybody

was keeping up with the story, voluntarily or not. One could hear the stories everywhere around

the country, in comedies, on the Internet; news was brimming with Bill’s philandering and the

tapes Linda Tripp had made of her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. Outside the national

borders, the story became a laughing stock and was used in various contexts. The year ended

with the House voting for President Bill Clinton’s impeachment on two charges, one of perjury

and one of obstruction of justice. The impeachment was subsequently acquitted.

1.4 Conclusion

All of these indicated the magnitude of the situation. The emphasis was, indubitably, on

publishing the news first, instead of publishing it properly. Rather than focusing on the real

issues and questions, the entire public was infatuated with the true soap opera story that reached

world-wide proportions. Even though this scandal resulted in President Bill Clinton’s

impeachment, his ratings went through the roof. The public perceived him as immoral, but they

were able to draw the line between his personal life and his duties. Majority of people recognized

this scandal as personal, which goes to show that gatekeeping can be both beneficial and

utilitarian. Although we have the right to know everything, there should be a clear line between

news and entertainment. Private life should stay private.

Magdalena Tešanović

Professor Greta Goetz

American Cultural Studies

23 January 2019

The Watchdog Role of Mass Media and Watergate

1.1 The Watchdog Role of Media

Ever since its formation, mass media has been a major source of information to the citizens of

the U.S. With that being said, it is important to note that since mass media has such an influence

on the society, there has been a notable amount of cases where authorities have tried to

manipulate people’s opinion for their own sake or hide controversial information. However, a

handful of mass media outlets have decided to take up the role of revealing the abuse of

information and protecting the rights of the U.S. citizens. We often call this the watchdog role of

media. These “watchdogs” carry out their role by investigating a person or an institution, and

expose information to the public if they believe that any wrongdoings had taken place

beforehand.

One of the most controversial cases, which I will thoroughly cover in this paper, is the

infamous Watergate scandal. It is considered as one of the seminal moments in the U.S. history

because the President himself tried to hide controversial information. It has shaken up the

concept of the First Amendment and led to a revolt against the abuse of power. As a result,

Richard Nixon, the then President of the U.S., was forced to resign from office in 1974.
1.2. The Watergate Scandal

Watergate is considered to be one of the biggest political scandals in the American history. In

order to explain how the scandal occurred, we need to turn back to the mid-1971, when the

Pentagon papers were leaked. The Nixon administration panicked and formed a group that would

stop any further leaks from the government activities. John Ehrlichman, who was Nixon’s

advisor at that time, formed a group that would carry out this role and they called themselves

“plumbers”. It included former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt and former FBI agent G. Gordon

Liddy. Before the 1972 election, the Republicans created the Committee for the Re-Election of

the President. John Mitchell was appointed as chair of that committee. The CRP used

questionable means to achieve their goal. Ultimately, they coined a plan to bug and steal

information from the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Complex.

On June 17 1972, during the second of these break-ins, the burglars were arrested. Five intruders

were captured inside the offices of the committee in Washington. The FBI quickly linked those

arrested with Hunt. Because of Hunt's connection to the plumbers, Nixon ordered his chief of

staff, Bob Haldeman, to instruct the CIA to block further FBI investigation into the finances

behind the Watergate break-in. That is when Nixon’s cover-up began.

His administration then officially denied that they had any involvement in the burglary.

However, more conflicting clues emerged. It was found out that one of the burglars was a

Republican Party aide and a paper trail led to the CRP. On June 20th, the Washington Post

journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein reported on the Hunt connection with

confirmation from their anonymous source Deep Throat. This team played the most important

part in unraveling the Watergate case and in implicating the Justice Department, the FBI, the
CIA and the White House. In 2005, it was revealed that Deep Throat was the former FBI deputy

director Mark Felt. By September 1972, Hunt and Liddy were indicted by a grand jury.

However, Nixon was reelected that November. The burglars pleaded guilty before Hunt and

Liddy went to trial in early 1973. In April, four of Nixon aides lost their jobs because they were

involved in the cover-up: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, attorney general Richard Kleindienst and

White House lawyer John Dean. Senator Sam Ervin and special prosecutor Archibald Cox

started official investigations in mid-1973. John Dean stated that Nixon knew about the cover-up

and Alexander Butterfield, Nixon’s assistant, revealed that Nixon had recording devices installed

throughout the White House. Although the tapes were subpoenaed, Nixon stated executive

privilege and refused to release them. He dismissed the Attorney General, his deputy and Cox in

the event that came to be known as the Saturday night massacre.

After this, the public opinion started to shake and consequently, Nixon delivered his infamous

speech in which he denied any involvement in the cover-up. By March, seven people involved in

the scandal were indicted. The Watergate tapes were finally released in July of 1974. It was

revealed that some involved in the break-in had received money to stay quiet. Furthermore, the

infamous smoking gun tape proved that Nixon knew about the cover-up since mid-1972 and he

was forced to resign. In August 1974, Nixon resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford.

When it comes to how the mass media helped reveal the scandal, it is most important to

mention Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, The Washington Post reporters. When it was

revealed that a team of burglars had been arrested inside the offices of the Democratic National

Committee in the Watergate complex in Washington, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward were

appointed to further investigate the story. Woodward soon found out from the police that the

arrested men came from Miami, wore surgical gloves and carried thousands of dollars in cash.
Bernstein went to Miami and found out that a $25,000 check for Nixon's reelection campaign

had been deposited in the bank account of one of the burglars. Further investigation led to

Washington Post publishing a story that a check had been given to Maurice Stans, the former

Secretary of Commerce who served as Nixon's chief fundraiser. The burglary was, therefore,

linked to Nixon campaign funds. Later on, Woodward started meeting in secret with Mark Felt,

an FBI associate who had access to FBI reports on the burglary investigation. Woodward agreed

to keep his identity a secret and referred to him as “Deep Throat”. Woodward and Bernstein

found out that Attorney General John Mitchell had a secret fund that paid for a campaign to

gather information on the Democrats and that Nixon's aides had been spying on his political

enemies. Eventually, more information was revealed to the public and the state authority’s abuse

of its position became evident to the public.

However, it is important to note that Woodward and Bernstein were not the only “watchdogs”

who helped solve this case. Television played an essential role too. As the scandal was

constantly covered by the media and the congressional hearings were televised, Watergate was

always in the mind of Americans.

1.3. Legacy and the Impact on Public Opinion

Watergate reporting also left a significant impact on how American citizens view their

government as well. This can be clearly seen in the polls conducted by the Pew Research Centre.

First of all, when Nixon won his reelection in 1972, research showed that 68% of American

citizens approved of this. However, after Ehrlichman and Haldeman resigned from their

positions, the approval ratings fell to 48%. Then, in May 1973, televised hearings began. This is

when the approval ratings fell to a surprising 31%. When the public found out about the bugging

scandal, 71% saw Nixon as culpable to a certain extent. In July 1974, the House Judiciary
Committee recommended that Nixon should be impeached and 57% of Americans agreed with

their suggestion. Nixon then resigned. However, the public was still furious. After his

resignation, 58% believed that Nixon ought to be tried for criminal charges.

Furthermore, Watergate has left a trace in a variety of different spheres of life. One of the best

examples of its impact on the American culture is the influence the cult movie “All the

President’s Men” had. It won four Oscars and received thirteen other awards. However, there is a

significant number of other movies that are worth mentioning: “Secret Honor” (1984), “Nixon”

(1995), “The Assassination of Richard Nixon” (2005), “Frost/Nixon” (2006) etc.

Watergate also left an impact on the language itself. One of the most famous examples is the

usage of the suffix “-gate” to indicate a scandal. For example, Bill Clinton and Monica

Lewinsky’s scandal came to be known as “Monicagate”, and the Russian alleged interference in

the 2016 U.S. elections is commonly referred to as “Russiagate”

Watergate has led to several legal reforms. In 1973, the War Powers Resolution was passed

and it enabled the Congress to control the President’s power more easily. A year later, The

Freedom of Information Act was passed, and it requires the disclosure of previously unreleased

information and documents controlled by the U.S, government upon request.

In conclusion, the watchdog role of media has played a significant part in revealing the abuse

of position and information by the state authorities and changing the U.S. citizens’ perception on

their government in the long run. It has shown what the media’s purpose should be – to

disseminate information equally and allow transparency and insight into the government

intricacies to the public. Owing to the watchdog reporters, the Watergate scandal has forever

shaken up the bond between the White House and Americans and left an impact on many

different spheres of American life.

Milica Ćopić

Professor Greta Goetz

American Cultural Studies

23 January 2019

Toxic Masculinity in TV Shows from the 1950s

1.1.Introduction to Toxic Masculinity

With the rise of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, certain

issues that went largely ignored in previous years, started to gain more traction among the

general public. Many young people began to share their stories regarding bullying, depression,

gender identity, while simultaneously bringing awareness to these subjects that were for the most

part dismissed or trivialized by previous generations. Among these discussions was also the

debate surrounding the topic of toxic masculinity, a seemingly recent term which gained

prominence during the #MeToo movement which started in October 2017(Robinson). Terry. A.

Kupers defines toxic masculinity not only as an implementation of strict gender roles but also as

a “need to aggressively compete [with others] and dominate others”(qtd. in Parent, Gobble and

Rochlen 2). Martin Robinson states that the term ”toxic masculinity” was first coined by

Shepherd Bliss, an activist of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement. According to Robinson,

Shepherd “originally came up with the phrase to identify behaviours that were toxic to

masculinity, bad for men in other words: shame, disassociation and avoidance of emotional

expression, extreme self-reliance, extreme aspiration for physical, sexual and intellectual

dominance, devaluation of women’s opinions, body and sense of self, condemning anything

feminine within another man”. It was initially supposed to be a way for people to recognize the
characteristics related to society and culture “which are the enemy of men, not just

women”(Robinson). The author further argues that toxic masculinity could also be seen as a

form of hegemonic masculinity, or at least “one of the more extreme aspects of it”(Robinson).

Francesco Maria Morettini in his article “Hegemonic Masculinity: How the Dominant Man

subjugates other Men, Women and Society” defines this type of masculinity as “an idealised,

dominant, heterosexual masculinity, constructed in relation to women and to subordinated

masculinities, and closely connected to the institution of marriage” In other words, in order for a

man to be considered “masculine” he must be aggressive and violent without showing any signs

of vulnerability such as sympathy or compassion(Morettini). Besides those characteristics, he

should also “exhibit strength and toughness, and be competitive and successful”(Morettini).

Aditionally, the writer mentions how men feel pressured to conform to these ideals and those

who are unable to are belittled and ostracized. As a result of these toxic ideals “a range of gender

forms and sexualities that are not ‘dominant’ are subordinated”(Morettini). However there has

been some opposition to this phrase, particularly from doctor Gad Saad who argues that “there

has been a relentless ideological attack on masculinity, stemming from radical feminism, the

most recent example of which is the bogus term “toxic masculinity.” It literally seeks to

pathologise masculinity in ways that are profoundly harmful to the existential sense of self of

young men…most of the traits and behaviours that are likely found under the rubric of “toxic

masculinity” are precisely those that most women find attractive in an ideal mate!” Peter

Robinson in his article also relates the words of Thomas Page McBee who gives his own

thoughts regarding toxic masculinity and how it “relates to the schooling of kids in the Man

Box”. He claims that ““Just to define what sociologists call toxic masculinity: that’s not

masculinity broadly, that’s not an adjective for masculinity, it’s a socialised set of behaviours
that we teach boys in our cultures about what it means to be a man. That’s best illustrated by the

idea of the Man Box.Which if you ask boys what ‘a man’ means they can tell you: men are

strong, men don’t cry…and they put all these descriptions in this box, on purpose, because it’s

very constricting. And then if you ask those same boys to think about a man in your life that you

love, your dad or your coach, ‘how does he behave that doesn’t fit into this box?’”

Looking at these definitions and features concerning toxic masculinity, it is clear that

there have been discussions regarding the true nature of this term since long before social media

became a permanent aspect of our lives. However, when discussing its presence and influence in

American culture, I found it best to focus my attention on television shows from the 1950s

( considered by many Americans to be the pinnacle of American television) and their portrayals

of toxic masculinity as well as compare the way American media depicted this type of

masculinity in the past to the way they are portraying it now.

1.2.Portrayals of Toxic Masculinty in 1950s tv shows

According to the article “Masculinity, Gender Roles, and T.V. Shows from the 1950s”, the

1950s were a time where the image of the perfect nuclear family first appeared on television

screens across America and later on became a staple of that time period. This family consisted of

a “bread-winning, rule-making middle-class father, the doting housewife who was thrilled to

wake up every single day and clean the house and cook all of the meals, and their children who

never seemed to get into any sort of trouble that could not be fixed”( “Masculinity, Gender

Roles, and T.V. Shows from the 1950s”). Although these television shows were immensely

successful among the general public, they also established numerous toxic tropes concerning the

roles of men and women in society that would plague similar shows in the years to come.
 The writer of the abovementioned article states that throughout the 1950s men in tv

shows had to follow “rigid norms”, similar to the ones mentioned in the introduction paragraph.

Some of the most popular shows of this decade such as “The Adventures of Ozzie and

Harriet”, “Leave it to Beaver”, “Father Knows Best”, and “I Love Lucy” heavily relied on

these traditional norms in order to best portray the idealistic picture of the nuclear family. The

fathers “were not depicted as frequently as the rest of the family” since their storylines usually

revolved around their jobs, they just ”left in the morning and came back at

night”( “Masculinity, Gender Roles, and T.V. Shows from the 1950s”) . A great example of this

is the character of Ward Cleaver from “Leave it to Beaver” who is absent from most of the

show only appearing at the beginning of the episode, when he leaves for work and at the end

when he comes back home. The author of the article “Masculinity, Gender Roles, and T.V.

Shows from the 1950s” argues that “it is the absence of the men in the home in these television

shows that reinforces that boys and men simply do not belong there”.Emily Neville in a

transcript about gender roles in television has provided another example of toxic masculinity in

the form of the show “The Flintstones” stating that” even a carefree and comical cartoon like

the Flintstones has gender stereotyping”. She mentions how the males are described as

“huskier with a gruff look to them” as opposed to the women who are “have a small waist with

curves and are always wearing frilly dresses”. Like the women from the live-action tv shows,

the women in “The Flintstones” are depicted as housewives whose plots revolve around the

home, while the men are the ones that are allowed to go on adventures.(Neville) Emily Neville

claims that “I Love Lucy” also conforms to gender stereotyping. Ricky is depicted as “ not only

the provider but the problem solver as well” as opposed to Lucy who is portrayed as foolish

damsel in distress. In relation to this, instructor David White in one of his lessons claims that
“being the sole provider for the family gave men a significant amount of power in their homes

and contributed to feelings of male superiority”. They were the ones who were presented as

career-focused and the ones who prevented the family from succumbing to poverty(White).

However, this portrayal of the “perfect family man being the breadwinner of the family” may

have caused a number of cases of domestic violence. According to the author of “Masculinity,

Gender Roles, and T.V. Shows from the 1950s”, “violence against women is directly connected

to hyper-masculine socialization”. They argue that if a man from the 1950s felt that they had

not fulfilled the expectations set by this idealistic tv show character, it may awaken feelings of

worthlessness and inadequacy inside of him and may lead to him being abusive towards his

wife or other women. Violence makes them feel like they are the ones in control of the

situation, “as their gender role prescribes that they should be”( “Masculinity, Gender Roles, and

T.V. Shows from the 1950s”).

1.3.Conclusion

Even though the term toxic masculinity has only gained prominence in recent times, it’s

clear that it has existed for quite a long time. While society as a whole has come a long way

since the 1950, it still in some ways relies on a lot of tired stereotypes and clichés reminiscent of

that time period. Media still uses various mediums to manipulate the masses into conforming to

gender roles and as long as that continues, society itself won’t be able to achieve full gender

equality.
Aleksandra Milunov

Professor Greta Goetz

American Culture Studies

23 January 2019

The Representation of Marginalized Groups in 90th Academy Awards Ceremony

1. Introduction

One of the important issues within the Conflict perspective is the issue of tokenism i.e.

representation of minority groups in television and other technologies intended to reach the large

audiences. While many may argue that mass media is there to disseminate information and get

messages across, the conflict theory studies another aspect of media's influence, such as the

creation of inequality”. Shalini Shanker, American anthropologist, states that: “Studies of mass

communication indicate that, while mass media does not tell us what to think, it does shape our

unconscious biases and how we prioritize what is important to us. They influence how we think

about society and how we respond to diversity in our workplace, college, campuses and everyday

interactions.” (Shalini Shanker)

“According to social identity theory and self categorization theory people cognitively

organize their complex social world into fewer, hierarchical categories and they derive a sense of

identity from the social categories and groups they identify with.” (Jiin Jung, Michael A. Hogg

and Hook-Seok Choi 2) That said, it is important to emphasize that tokenism is quite ubiquitous

nowadays. The lack of diversity became a serious problem in this era of political correctness, by

including tokens, media creates the impression of diversity to avoid external pressure, however,

its simultaneously creating stereotypes since one cast member cannot represent the entire
community and therefore it does not reflect the reality.

Consequently, it is of paramount importance how we represent members of minority

groups in media. According to Stuart Hall “It is participants in the culture who give meaning to

people, objects and events. It is by our use of things, and what we say, think and feel about them-

how we represent them- that we give them a meaning.” (3)

1.1 Statistics

Accurate minority representation may also benefit the US economy. The film industry

has the major impact on American culture. According to IBIS World, over the five years to 2018,

industry revenue is estimated to grow an annualized 3.1%, reaching $17.8 billion in 2018,

including revenue growth of 2.1% over 2018 alone (ibisworld.com).

The Academy Awards grant the most prestigious award in American cinematography. The

ceremony promotes quality program, sets examples for the future filmmakers and actors and it is

one of the most influential ceremonies in its domain. Nevertheless, in the last couple of years the

Academy has been criticized for the lack of diversity both behind and in front of cameras.

Namely, in 2015, internet campaign “Oscars so White” emerged due to absence of people of

color in the ceremony. Since then, the Academy has been making a fair amount of effort to

compensate for the exclusion of minorities in previous years. The Academy of Motion Picture

Arts and Sciences is the organization comprised of more than 7000 members and the

organization that is in charge of awarding Oscars. It predominantly consists of Caucasian

middle-aged men who used to make approximately 72% of the total number of voters. In 2017,

the Academy included 774 new members from 57 countries (Anne Cohen), since 2015 the

number of people of color plunged from 8% to 13%. The Academy’s goal for the future is to

double the digits and include more members of racial, gender and ethnic groups.
1.2 Premise

Considering the harsh criticism the Academy faced over the years for the lack of diversity

and their attempts to appear more respectful and accepting of the marginalized groups, I decided

to analyze the 90th Academy Awards in order to depict the methods Academy takes in order to

include more minorities and whether their “inclusion game” had gone too far.

90th Academy Awards Ceremony

“In language we use signs and symbols- whether they are sounds, written words,

electronically produced images, musical notes, even objects- to stand for and represent to other

people our concepts, ideas and feelings” (Hall 1). According to Halls citation the Oscars

ceremony may, in its entirety, be considered as a medium for conveying ideas. Since the motion

pictures are often used to convey messages the ceremonies like Academy Awards use their

popularity to raise awareness about current issues on conscious and subconscious level,

influencing viewers’ minds by conveying subtle messages during the ceremony via the host,

presenters, videos, even choice of words.

The ceremony from last year focused heavily on the concept of inclusion. The difference

from previous year was the fact that the Academy focused on several aspects of inclusion e.g.

ethnic, racial and gender inclusion, with the stronger emphasis on the position of women.

Therefore, the Academy promoted women’s rights and their capability to do anything primarily

focusing the first female nominee for cinematography- Rachel Morrison. The Academy gave

their best in the attempt to include numerous presenters of all ages, since there had been certain

criticism directed towards Academy for discriminating against elderly people.

Unfortunately, the Academy failed in its effort to avoid racial stereotyping and achieve
equality, this time in favor of African-Americans. Namely, instead of balancing “both sides” the

stress of the entire ceremony was on “black superiority”. As a society we have come a long way

in accepting differences and while it is clear that the organizers intended to compensate for the

years of racial undermining the Academy chose to address the issue of stereotyping with rebukes

directed towards Caucasians, creating even more stereotypes.

Finally, the most attention was given to ethnic inclusion; the stress of the entire ceremony

was clearly on immigrants who succeeded in film industry. While presenting the nominees for

the best film in foreign language, Rita Moreno stated the following “Regardless of the country of

origin or dialect a great film conveys a story that speaks to the one condition we all share, human

condition” (90th Academy Awards). Similar comments could be heard every now and then

throughout the entire show. Interestingly enough, the most awards went to the representatives of

Latin America. Even the most prestigious award for the best picture, went to a Mexican director

Guillermo del Toro. In five previous years this award went to a Mexican director four times

which raised some concerns of whether the Academy gave their awards righteously or in order to

distract masses from real issues in the American society such as, in this case, Tramp’s “wall-

building” politics. Many would agree that the Shape of Water might not have been the best

candidate for the Oscar but it checked all the boxes with both characters and plot. If we take a

look at other nominated movies it might be noticed that many of those addressed the issues the

Academy is trying to raise awareness of. Therefore, in 2018, some of the topics of nominated

films were for instance about LGBT community, women struggling in the male world etc.

The aforementioned examples depict the Academy’s impact on conscious level but how

does the Academy influence the subconscious mind of a viewer? According to statistics, most

people do not pay close attention to the content of the Academy Awards; hence it gives the
organizers the opportunity to disseminate intended information. As Hall says “It is by our use of

things, and what we say, think and feel about them- how we represent them- that we give them a

meaning” (3). Bearing that in mind, whenever the Academy wanted to stress the inclusion of

women the presenters would use a phrase e.g. “Women and men”, emphasizing the word women

and placing it first so as to give away the impression of power. Whenever a woman’s success

was mentioned, the sentences would be filled with abundance of epithets, further stressing

female superiority e.g. “Nominated for this category are four men and one trail-blazing woman”

(90th Academy Awards).

Additionally, it could not go unnoticed that the applauses were significantly louder

whenever the name of a member of the African-American community was called out, which may

subconsciously have an impact on person’s opinion.

Ethnic minority groups, on the other hand, often spoke their native languages on the stage;

their speeches were lengthy and conveyed emotional messages. During the ceremony the

speeches on ethnic inclusion had prominent emotional tone as well.

Conclusion

The Academy’s struggle to compensate for years of Caucasian, male dominance cannot

go unnoticed. The figures show significant improvement in the number of minority

representatives who appeared in the ceremony. For instance, the number of women presenters

increased by 24 % since 2015 (Oscars.org). The number of African-Americans and Immigrants

participating in the ceremony increased dramatically as well. While it is appreciative that the

Academy is making an effort to appear diverse, the overall impression gained from the preceding

analysis is that the Academy is trying too hard. The insistence on political correctness may
appear too overwhelming at times, giving the impression of a mere performance meant to satisfy

the public and avoid further criticism on the subject.

Conclusion

Throughout this project we have gained insight in the ways mass media influences the public

and how it has changed its form and purpose throughout the history. Since our focus was on the

role mass media plays in creating a state of conflict and inequality in the American society, our

research has given significant insight into how it conveys ideas and shapes the public opinion by

using different strategies to appear more subtle. Even though media states that the public ought

to know everything, we have presented several cases where the reality turned out to be different.

What we found was that while making attempts towards appearing reliable and inclusive of

everyone’s differences, media still has to come a long way into being a reliable source of

information and a valid 'shaper' of reality.

 Works Cited

“90th Academy Awards.” ABC, Hollywood, Los Angeles, 4 March 2018.

Anne Cohen, “How Many Women are Actually Voting for the Oscar Winners”, Refined 29, 15

February 2018, www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/02/190829/academy-members-women-oscar-

voters, accessed January 2019.

Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. www.oscars.org/, accessed January 2019.

Bzukovich657. “Masculinity, Gender Roles and T.V. Shows from the 1950s.” The Artifice.

18.Oct.2014, https://the-artifice.com/masculinity-gender-roles-tv-1950s/

Clark, Matthew. Gatekeeping Social Media in Today’s Newsrooms. 2015. Gonzaga University.

Master’s thesis.

Coronel, Sheila. "Corruption and the watchdog role of the news media." Public sentinel: News

media and governance reform (2010): 111-136.

“Gender Roles in 1950s America” Study.comhttps://study.com/academy/lesson/gender-roles-

in-1950s-america.html

Genovese, Michael A. The Watergate Crisis. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999.

Gieber, W. Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph Editors. Journalism Quarterly, 1956.

Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Vol. 2. Sage,

1997.
Jensen, Klaus Bruhn, ed. A handbook of media and communication research: Qualitative and

quantitative methodologies. Routledge, 2013.

Jung, Jiin, Michael A. Hogg, and Hoon‐Seok Choi. "Recategorization and ingroup projection:

Two processes of identity uncertainty reduction." Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology,

www.researchgate.net/publication/327840553_Recategorization_and_ingroup_projection_Two_

processes_of_identity_uncertainty_reduction, accessed January 2019.

Kohut, Andrew, “How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon”, Pew

Research Center, 8 August 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/08/how-the-

watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/, accessed January 2019

Men, Women and Society.” Global Policy Journal.27.Oct.2016

https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/27/10/2016/hegemonic-masculinity-how-

dominant-man-subjugates-other-men-women-and-society

Morettini , Francesco M. “Hegemonic Masculinity: How the Dominant Man subjugates other

“Movie Theaters Industry in the US.” IBIS World, Oct. 2018, www.ibisworld.com/industry-

trends/market-research-reports/information/motion-picture-sound-recording-industries/movie-

theaters.html, accessed January 2019.

Munestri, Salieg Luki. Watergate Scandal Reassessed: Mass Media's Watchdog Role and Its

Impact on American Political System, Jurnal Komunikasi Massa, 2014.

Neville, Emily. “Gender Roles in Television Shows”

Prezi.comhttps://prezi.com/gdmjdg3utfwl/gender-roles-in-television-shows/ 28.Nov.2012
Pamela, Shoemaker J., and Reese D. Stephen. "Mediating the message: theories of influences on

mass media content." (1996).

Parent, Mike C., Teresa D. Gobble, and Aaron Rochlen. "Social media behavior, toxic

masculinity, and depression." Psychology of Men & Masculinity (2018).

“Perspective on How Closely Adults Follow the Academy Awards in the United States as of

February 2018”. The Statistics Portal, www.statista.com/statistics/538314/following-academy-

awards-usa/, accessed January 2019.

Roberts, Chris. Gatekeeping theory: An evolution. 2005. The University of South Carolina, PhD

dissertation.

Shalini Shanker, “Our Racially Diverse Present (and Future) Deserve Better Than Tokenism,

The Guardian, 29 December 2014,

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/29/interracial-present-and-future-better-than-

tokenism, accessed January 2019.

Shoemaker, Pamela J. "Gatekeeping." (1991).

“The legacy of Watergate: Five ways life changed after the scandal”, National Constitution

Center, 8 August 2017, www.constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-legacy-of-watergate-five-

important-changes-after-the-scandal/

“The Post Investigates.” The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

srv/politics/special/watergate/part1.html, accessed January 2019

Visser, Anna. Richard Nixon and the Watergate Affair in American Popular Culture. MS thesis.

2013.

Westley, B. H., and M.S. Jr. MacLean. A Conceptual Model for Communications

Research. Journalism Quarterly, 1957.

Williams, Bruce A., and Michael X. Delli Carpini. "Unchained reaction: The collapse of media

gatekeeping and the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal." Journalism 1.1 (2000): 61-85.