EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Wednesday, May 6, 2009 by Extra!
Hate Speech, Media Activism and the First Amendment
Putting a spotlight on dehumanizing language
In just over a month last winter, two Latino men were beaten to death
in New York state while their attackers shouted racial slurs and
epithets (Philadelphia Inquirer,
1/25/09). Such hate crimes, motivated by anti-immigrant prejudice and
other bigotries, have spurred a media justice campaign to reveal the
potential human costs of hate speech.
When the FBI reported that hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by an astonishing 40 percent between 2003 and 2007 (FBI: Hate Crime Statistics, 2003 and 2007), UCLA professor Chon Noriega began to ask “whether the media plays a role in the persistence of hate speech and hate crimes.” In a pilot study that attempts to quantify hate speech in commercial radio, Noriega tracked language on the Lou Dobbs Show, Savage Nation and the John & Ken Show (Latino Policy and Issues Brief, 2/09). On these programs he found “systematic and extensive use of false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language, and dehumanizing metaphors that are directed toward specific vulnerable groups”—which results, Noriega argued, in marginalized populations being “characterized as a direct threat to the listeners’ way of life.”
While deeply unsettling, Noriega’s findings should come as little surprise. Last August, San Francisco–based shock jock Michael Savage unleashed this xenophobic tirade (Savage Nation, 8/4/08):
Savage is hardly alone in advocating violence against immigrants in recent years. Montana radio host John Stokes said of non-English speakers (John Stokes Show, 9/1/07): “Romans 15:19 says that if they break into your country, chop off their leg. We have to forcibly get rid of them.” (Actually, the verse cited says nothing of the kind.) Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/27/06) cast all Mexicans as a “renegade, potentially criminal element.” MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson agreed on-air with radio host Mark Williams (Tucker, 10/16/06) that illegal immigrants are mainly “drug runners, human traffickers” and “people who engage in slavery and prostitution.” Meanwhile, in 2007 alone, Lou Dobbs connected crime to illegal immigrants on 94 episodes of his television show (Media Matters, 5/21/08). (For further examples, see FCC Petition for Inquiry: In the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, 1/28/09.)
This kind of racist rhetoric is endemic to the mainstream press and requires urgent attention, says National Hispanic Media Coalition president Alex Nogales. In response, Nogales and his colleagues filed a petition with the Federal Communica-tions Commission (FCC), asking the regulatory agency to investigate the scope and consequences of hate speech. (FAIR has signed on to this petition.) His organization believes that the issue must be identified and understood so that it can be addressed. “We want a spotlight put on this problem, on the people that are doing it…and the companies that are allowing it to go on.”
This has been a controversial move in some media circles. Opponents say that by its nature, an FCC inquiry leads to regulation and inevitably to a chilling of First Amendment rights. Moreover, argues University of Syracuse information studies professor Milton Mueller, “it seems to assume that there is some unambiguous, clearly defined thing called ‘hate speech’ and that we all recognize it when we see it. I don’t think that is the case.… Is it just expression that one group considers offensive or insulting? If so, we cannot regulate that without stifling all manner of expression.”
Nogales counters that hate speech is incendiary, comparing it to a person yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Scapegoating Latinos for the country’s social and economic problems in a time of crisis is deeply irresponsible on the part of commercial media and merits investigation, he says.
NHMC hopes that with heightened public awareness and criticism, media corporations will choose to distance themselves from the personalities espousing racist views. While the group also supports bringing a greater balance of perspectives onto airwaves and television screens, it does not want to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation—supported by FAIR—that required broadcasters to allow a limited amount of space for dissenting opinions on pressing public issues (Extra!, 1–2/05). Nogales said it led to “dull programming.” The group does not have a specific suggestion for what kind of regulation, if any, could take its place.
Another tool activists are using to combat the negative impacts of hate speech is media literacy—learning to decode how news is framed. “[The news] works to reinforce this idea that its ‘us’ and ‘them,’” says Andrea Quijada, executive director of the New Mexico Literacy Project. Those on the “us” side of that divide, she adds, get the message that they have no responsibility for finding solutions because vulnerable groups bring these problems on themselves, while those on the “other” side get the message they have no power to bring about solutions.
In her community, the news media have fallen under heavy criticism for their reporting on the bodies found in Albuquerque of 12 women, mostly women of color, characterized as drug-addicted prostitutes (KRQE.com, 3/2/09; AP, 4/3/09). The way the story has been told leads viewers to think, “That’s what happens when you’re a drug addict or a prostitute,” she says. Coverage has been so dehumanizing that Quijada and the members of a local women of color group, Young Women United, have begun media monitoring, writing op-eds and meeting with elected officials.
The corporate media’s continued sanctioning of programs that regularly broadcast hate speech is, at the very least, fueling racial animosity in an already volatile time. In Quijada’s words, “There’s no opportunity in the framework that [the news media are] using to actually challenge the system.… Instead, they’re turning it into a Law and Order Special Victims Unit episode every time we’re watching the news.”
When the FBI reported that hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by an astonishing 40 percent between 2003 and 2007 (FBI: Hate Crime Statistics, 2003 and 2007), UCLA professor Chon Noriega began to ask “whether the media plays a role in the persistence of hate speech and hate crimes.” In a pilot study that attempts to quantify hate speech in commercial radio, Noriega tracked language on the Lou Dobbs Show, Savage Nation and the John & Ken Show (Latino Policy and Issues Brief, 2/09). On these programs he found “systematic and extensive use of false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language, and dehumanizing metaphors that are directed toward specific vulnerable groups”—which results, Noriega argued, in marginalized populations being “characterized as a direct threat to the listeners’ way of life.”
While deeply unsettling, Noriega’s findings should come as little surprise. Last August, San Francisco–based shock jock Michael Savage unleashed this xenophobic tirade (Savage Nation, 8/4/08):
We need to get our troops out of Iraq and put
them on the streets of America to protect us from the scourge of
illegal immigrants who are running rampant across America, killing our
police for sport, raping, murdering like a scythe across America.…The
Statue of Liberty is crying, she’s been raped and disheveled—raped and
disheveled by illegal aliens.
Savage is hardly alone in advocating violence against immigrants in recent years. Montana radio host John Stokes said of non-English speakers (John Stokes Show, 9/1/07): “Romans 15:19 says that if they break into your country, chop off their leg. We have to forcibly get rid of them.” (Actually, the verse cited says nothing of the kind.) Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/27/06) cast all Mexicans as a “renegade, potentially criminal element.” MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson agreed on-air with radio host Mark Williams (Tucker, 10/16/06) that illegal immigrants are mainly “drug runners, human traffickers” and “people who engage in slavery and prostitution.” Meanwhile, in 2007 alone, Lou Dobbs connected crime to illegal immigrants on 94 episodes of his television show (Media Matters, 5/21/08). (For further examples, see FCC Petition for Inquiry: In the Matter of Hate Speech in the Media, 1/28/09.)
This kind of racist rhetoric is endemic to the mainstream press and requires urgent attention, says National Hispanic Media Coalition president Alex Nogales. In response, Nogales and his colleagues filed a petition with the Federal Communica-tions Commission (FCC), asking the regulatory agency to investigate the scope and consequences of hate speech. (FAIR has signed on to this petition.) His organization believes that the issue must be identified and understood so that it can be addressed. “We want a spotlight put on this problem, on the people that are doing it…and the companies that are allowing it to go on.”
This has been a controversial move in some media circles. Opponents say that by its nature, an FCC inquiry leads to regulation and inevitably to a chilling of First Amendment rights. Moreover, argues University of Syracuse information studies professor Milton Mueller, “it seems to assume that there is some unambiguous, clearly defined thing called ‘hate speech’ and that we all recognize it when we see it. I don’t think that is the case.… Is it just expression that one group considers offensive or insulting? If so, we cannot regulate that without stifling all manner of expression.”
Nogales counters that hate speech is incendiary, comparing it to a person yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Scapegoating Latinos for the country’s social and economic problems in a time of crisis is deeply irresponsible on the part of commercial media and merits investigation, he says.
We need to be able to discuss immigration and
all of us arrive at a consensus about what we’re going to do. But
that’s a far cry from just blaming a specific community for the ills of
this nation and, in many ways, creating an environment where hate
crimes are being committed against a community.
NHMC hopes that with heightened public awareness and criticism, media corporations will choose to distance themselves from the personalities espousing racist views. While the group also supports bringing a greater balance of perspectives onto airwaves and television screens, it does not want to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation—supported by FAIR—that required broadcasters to allow a limited amount of space for dissenting opinions on pressing public issues (Extra!, 1–2/05). Nogales said it led to “dull programming.” The group does not have a specific suggestion for what kind of regulation, if any, could take its place.
Another tool activists are using to combat the negative impacts of hate speech is media literacy—learning to decode how news is framed. “[The news] works to reinforce this idea that its ‘us’ and ‘them,’” says Andrea Quijada, executive director of the New Mexico Literacy Project. Those on the “us” side of that divide, she adds, get the message that they have no responsibility for finding solutions because vulnerable groups bring these problems on themselves, while those on the “other” side get the message they have no power to bring about solutions.
In her community, the news media have fallen under heavy criticism for their reporting on the bodies found in Albuquerque of 12 women, mostly women of color, characterized as drug-addicted prostitutes (KRQE.com, 3/2/09; AP, 4/3/09). The way the story has been told leads viewers to think, “That’s what happens when you’re a drug addict or a prostitute,” she says. Coverage has been so dehumanizing that Quijada and the members of a local women of color group, Young Women United, have begun media monitoring, writing op-eds and meeting with elected officials.
The corporate media’s continued sanctioning of programs that regularly broadcast hate speech is, at the very least, fueling racial animosity in an already volatile time. In Quijada’s words, “There’s no opportunity in the framework that [the news media are] using to actually challenge the system.… Instead, they’re turning it into a Law and Order Special Victims Unit episode every time we’re watching the news.”
© 2009 Extra! Magazine (FAIR)
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
15 Comments so far
Show AllImmigrant bashing has a long and dubious history in the USA, with the worst perpetrators being those whom are one to three generations removed from the recipients themselves (check out the surnames of those recently acquitted of a racial beat down leading to the death of a Latin man in Allentown, PA).
Michael Alan Wiener, stage name Michael Savage, fits into this category nicely.
It should also be mentioned that immigrant basing is a time honored strategy to deflect attention from the misdeeds and malfeasance of the elite, so it should come as no surprise that their hired shills are bleating louder than ever.
Considering that all folks who are not Native Americans are illegal immigrants on Turtle Island, pretty damn nervy of these guys.
I believe that the answer to hate speach is more speach. However, if the 'more speach' is never broadcast, how can that be an answer?
Right now, the haters are indeed screaming fire in a crowded theatre. Then they have the gall to call it 'entertainment'.
I had an interesting experience dealing with hate speech. Recently, for a few months, I was a regular contributor (via comments on articles) to "American Thinker," the conservative opposite number to CD. I had a good friend who wrote articles and had some editorial control for "American Thinker." I thoroughly enjoyed locking horns with the conservatives on the site. One day an attack article on Barney Frank appeared. Some of the people commenting wrote obvious threats to kill or help organize the killing of Mr. Frank. I objected to these comments, but my objections weren't printed. I did communicate with my friend and one other person who helped run "American Thinker," and the threatening comments were largely taken down (however, I saved them on my computer). But I hadn't asked that they be taken down. I wanted to see my comments appearing in rebuttal. In view of the censoring of my objections to the death threats, I started putting a disclaimer on my comments: "Disclaimer: my participation in AT must not be understood as acquiescence to advocacy by contributors of illegal acts, or to censorship of my objections to the same." Not only were my comments with the disclaimer taken down, but all other comments I had ever made -- probably a couple of dozen -- were removed. To be fair, there were a few liberal contributors to comments on the site, but due to the censorship, I stopped contributing. CD hasn't done this sort of thing, to my knowledge, and I hope it never does.
Sorry, on checking the AT site again, one of my comments was left -- one of the few in which I agreed with the person who wrote the article being commented on.
Our Public Airwaves, hijacked and saturated with "HATE SPEECHES".
It is a mistake to reject the Fairness Doctrine because of the complaint of "dull programming." The public needs to be able to rely on programming to be vetted for facts, to conform to standards of accuracy. Its liveliness or dullness should be the domain of program producers; broadcasters must be made accountable in support of the reliability of the claims they put forward as information.
Re ClassAct May 6th, 2009 1:45 pm
Sorry I don't have the citation (somebody v. Fox/Newscorp, I think), but a court decision held that adherence to the truth is not a condition of holding a broadcast license. Caveat emptor.
oxymoron, truth in advertizing. The airwaves are for the control of commercial interests. We need to steal it back.
"The corporate media's continued sanctioning of programs that regularly broadcast hate speech is, at the very least, fueling racial animosity in an already volatile time."
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, improved. Restriction on free speech is unconstitutional.
Scapegoating Latinos for the country's social and economic problems in a time of crisis is deeply irresponsible on the part of commercial media and merits investigation, he says.
"Commercial media", sometimes better known as the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media) or MSM, are a pack of whores who will do absolutely anything for a buck. Anything. There is nothing too low, too scurrilous, too stupid, too pornographic for these germs. It was the Republicans who wanted, for strictly mercenary, economic reasons, the enormous pool of undocumented workers. Ever hear the MSM talk about that, or economic and human exploitation?
Can anyone actually argue that there is a clear and agreed upon definition for what "hate speech" is?
How long would it take to get any criticism of Israel labeled "antisemitic hate speech"?
Hate crimes are wholly unnecessary. Prosecute actually crimes, not speech or ideology.
A L L
I posted on another thread a quite relevant distillation about this thread's subject
On Torture: Win One for the Gipper!
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/06-16
At time stamps : Luminous May 6th, 2009 __ 6:14 pm and 6:13 pm
I believe that the hate speech is just part of a upswing of potential violence brewing, as the battle lines are being firmed up by Faux News agitators and demagogues, and this is a crucial step in a progression to likely violent anti-govt reactions from the religiously propelled right wingers, like none ever seen before ( worse than Oklahoma City bombing ). DHS has validated this pernicious threat in a report released 7 April, 2009
See full article at :
The Far Right's First 100 Days: Getting More Extreme by the Day
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/183726-The-Far-Right-s-First-100〓snip〓
Paste below, at the end of truncated URL above:
-Days-Getting-More-Extreme-by-the-Day
The hate speech spewed forth by the elite's paid mouthpieces does definitely spill over onto their ordinary toadies and betrayers of their fellow workers.
I swear I'm about to get fired from my job. I got into it with a right-wing hired thug (aka military man) who had no problem serving under Dubbya yet has issues serving under a black man. He was singing the song "Shock The Monkey" as "Shock the Obama." Not that I am a fan of centrist Obama, but it goes to show how this virus can spread. He repeats these clowns, Savage, Limbaugh VERBATIM! Regurgitates rather.
I mean, this is a guy who was DISAPPOINTED that he wasn't sent to Iraq. All he wants to do is shoot people who don't share his skin color, language, and beliefs. And he hates my guts because he sees me as his opposite number. His brother died last year because he needed a transplant but didn't have health insurance, yet he's against USP! His stepdaughter isn't eligible under our employer's health plan, yet instead of being angry at our crotchety anti-worker boss, he runs down people on welfare!
This is all one example of how ugly identity politics are and who gets drunk on them only to get screwed 40 ways from Thursday by the frat boys selling them the booze.
What you COULD do, of course, is take the advice so hatefully spewing at Native Americans on this site and FORGIVE and MOVE ON.
And remember that WHEN ONE DOOR CLOSES, ANOTHER ONE OPENS.
Things are going to get uglier and uglier in the US--if this site is a microcosm for the whole, or even a small part of it.
Jokers that bought all the propaganda about The American Dream are now showing their true colors and building the Mother of All Nightmares.