Writing in the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson revisits the news media's addiction to missing white women:
Someday historians will look back at America in the decade bracketing the turn of the 21st century and identify the era's major themes: Religious fundamentalism. Terrorism. War in Iraq. Economic dislocation. Bioengineering. Information technology. Nuclear proliferation. Globalization. The rise of superpower China. And, of course, Damsels in Distress.
Every few weeks, this stressed-out nation with more problems to worry about than hours in the day finds time to become obsessed with the saga -- it's always a "saga," never just a story -- of a damsel in distress. Natalee Holloway, the student who disappeared while on a class trip to the Caribbean island of Aruba, is the latest in what seems an endless series.
Robinson notes that the type of women who are featured tend to fit a certain profile:
of course the damsels have much in common besides being female. You probably have some idea of where I'm headed here.
A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as "petite," and it also helps if she's the kind of woman who wouldn't really mind being called "petite," a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive -- also nonnegotiable. Her economic status should be middle class or higher, but an exception can be made in the case of wartime (see: Lynch).
Put all this together, and you get 24-7 coverage. The disappearance of a man, or of a woman of color, can generate a brief flurry, but never the full damsel treatment.
Why does this happen? Marginal viewers! Young white women are the most attractive demographic group for advertisers, and especially common among marginal viewers -- the infrequent viewers whom news shows hope to attract. For the full analysis from Jay Hamilton's All the News that's Fit to Sell, see this post.
You can apply a similar analysis to the widely mocked New York Times editorial about how people making $100,000-$200,000 are getting screwed by the Bush tax cuts.
The sociological analysis of the editorial (offered, oddly enough, by economist Brad DeLong) is that Times reporters and the people they know are in that income range. But the economists' answer might be that a substantial percentage of the affluent consumers who subscribe to the Times -- or whom the newspaper would like to attract -- are in that income bracket. The median household income of a Times subscriber is $135,000. The idea that the Grey Lady is bowing to capitalist incentives is a little crass -- but it might just be true.
Comments