Presentation of Forms of Bias in Media

Presentation of Forms of Bias in Media

Introduction

Presentation of forms of bias in the media can be subtle and often derived through perceptions held by authors of the media. Numerous studies have examined the existence and impact of various forms of bias in society. Such forms of bias include discrimination against race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or even physical able-ness. However, in carrying out studies that center of social bias, these authors bring froth ideas and perceptions that further propagate bias in society. According to Black and Stone (2005), the notion of social privilege stems from the unmerited inclusion of certain personal qualities as norms by a dominant group in society. However, the authors argue that the action of observing the element of social dominance with detachment is what results in oppression.

According to Prilleltensky (2008b), the well-being of migrants, or the minority in any social setting, is value dependent on social justices and access to resources availed by society. Therefore, the existence of a migrant or minority group in society gives a new responsibility to the dominant group of ensuring that resources are accessible (Black & Stone, 2005). Oppression of minority groups, therefore, begins when the dominant group in a society abdicates this responsibility or begins to view it with detachment.

According to Black and Stone (2005), the dominant grouping demonstrates detachment through a failure of involvement in the eradication of the privilege. The dominant group can demonstrate this responsibility by identifying and giving solutions to eradicate oppression. One way of demonstrating this responsibility is through authoring articles and studies that identify the existence of oppression and give solutions to society. However, the majority of media on social oppression identifies but fails to make efforts to eradicate the privilege in society. Therefore, these media end up demonstrating some form of bias against a minority group, which is sometimes not easy to notice or examine.

The Occurrence of Oppression or Bias in Media

Bias is a form of discrimination against or advantage rendered to a particular group of people by the society within which they exist. Bias is a resultant of a power imbalance between a privileged majority and an oppressed minority (Prilleltensky, 2008a). According to Black and Stone (2005), the oppression of a minority group of people occurs through two modes, which are force and deprivation. First, by using force, a dominant group can impose conditions or experiences on a minority group, which causes unnecessary pain or dehumanization from a state of physical or psychological well-being. The use of force tends to make the minority group feel unwanted and less than equal by the dominant group. However, the dominant group can also use a deprivation mode to impose the same feelings of unwanted-ness and being less than equal. Deprivation is a mechanism of removal, withdrawal, or making resources inaccessible for the minority group. One example is the establishment of segregated schools in the USA during the 20th century, where children of color had to school separately from white children.

Oppression or bias in society, therefore, is possible because the majority exercise their power of social dominance over a minority group. According to Prilleltensky (2008a), the definition of power must include both a political and psychological aspect, and neither of the two aspects can solely define power. Prilleltensky notes that power is the privilege that results in the oppression of a migrant group. Power stems from the normalcy of behavior by the majority of a dominant group. This group tends to oppose any behavioral changes that propose a change in the society’s norm. Therefore, the dominant group uses both political and psychological tools to resist these behavioral changes by targeting the minority in that social setting.

The political aspect of oppression stems from the existence of institutions and social constructs that govern society’s functions. In an oppressive society, social constructs become a product of what the dominant group views to be their norm. Consequently, these social constructs impose or deprive certain experiences of a minority group, which hinders them from acquiring social justice (Grant-Thomas & Powell, 2006). Examples of such forms of oppression include institutional racism, state discrimination against certain religious minorities, or policies that deprive people with disabilities’ opportunity to access services. For instance, an organization develops policies that, in turn, make it difficult or dehumanizing for disabled persons or black people to access the organization’s service.

On the other hand, the psychological aspect of oppression originates from the interpersonal relationships between the dominant and minority group. The psychological aspect again stems from what society accepts as normal human qualities. Individuals from the dominant group will detract those of an oppressed group by disapproving of their state of being. The dominant group often expresses this disapproval through microaggressions, such as derogatory and hostile communication. According to Lorenzo-Blanco et al. (2016), psychological oppression can occur more in communities that are already subject to societal discrimination. For example, gay black people may experience higher levels of microaggressions, especially from others in the black community, than white gay individuals may.

Oppression, especially in North America, is a well-documented aspect of communities existing with both privileged and minority people. Oppression and bias may take various forms. Such forms of bias and oppression include sexism, racism, homophobia, discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religiosity, etc. However, in most cases, individuals experience more than one form of bias, which can either be intersectional or multi-sectional oppression (Nadal et al., 2015). Nadal et al. (2015) admit that the majority of media tends to focus on a single form of bias. The majority of researchers often examine the existence of a form of bias as a cause of an unwanted social state. However, by linking forms of oppression to bad social outcomes, the majority of media often displays bias against the state of these minority groups. Therefore, these studies demonstrate a form of subtle support towards the oppressed. Therefore, the continued reference to such researches by future political institutions and psychological norms tends to develop into oppressive actions against the minority group.

Subtle Forms of Bias in Media

The existence of bias in media, especially research studies, is often unclear and hidden. The reason is that such studies focus on the impact of the bias instead of the manifestation of it in society. These authors acknowledge the existence of bias in society, which forms the basis of their investigation. However, by having a predetermined perception of the minority’s experiences, these studies often conclude that the experiences result from the state of this minority group. These predetermined perceptions of the authors can only be clear after close examination of the manner that they present their hypothesis for the study. Authors generate study hypotheses from their presumptions or conclusion from other researchers. Therefore, the following are some of the most common forms of bias presented in media, especially in investigative articles.

Sexism

Nadal and colleagues (2015) begin their article by stating microaggressions are often subtle, unintentional, and unconscious acts of discrimination. Nadal et al. (2015) borrow from a previously developed theory on microaggressions, which argued that minorities experience subtle expressions of microaggressions because of their social identity. However, in developing a testing theory, the paper makes several assumptions on sexism. First, the article claims that women more vulnerable subjects to sexist microaggressions than men. According to the authors, women were more likely to experience sexist derogatory language, where the social setting expects them to maintain a traditional gender role. The authors also claim that Latino women are more likely to experience overt sexist microaggressions than Latino men do. These two claims become the basis of developing the hypothesis, which leads to the development of a theory of exoticization of women. However, these assumptions are sexists because they borrowed from studies that had focused on women participants alone.

The second sexist claim from Nadal and colleagues’ (2015) paper is that Asian men are more likely to experience desexualization microaggressions. The article uses the Queer theory to argue that the American Society discriminates against sexist orientations, which “do not conform to their traditional conceptualizations” (Nadal et al., 2015 p.149). However, the authors show prejudice by selecting Asian men to be the dependent variable in testing this theory. By selecting Asian men, the researchers imply that these groups of men are least likely to conform to American society’s traditional concept of masculinity. However, the generalization of all Asian men as less masculine than other races is inaccurate. There is no empirical evidence used to support this claim. On the contrary, there is also a high chance that a substantial percentage of any other race can be less masculine compared to a large percentage of Asian men.

Inzlicht and Kang (2010) examine the behavioral change of women participants based on stereotypical claims about their perception towards situational threats. The research aims to evaluate how situational predicaments can affect behavioral changes. However, Inzlicht and Kang (2010) make a couple of sexist claims in their research. The first sexist stereotype is that women are less capable of tackling math tests than men. The second sexist assumption is that women cannot deal with situational threats in a controlled manner. The researchers develop two hypotheses to investigate how women participants would react to situational threats. However, these hypotheses do not have empirical support. The authors, therefore, show bias against women by suggesting that they are less capable of controlling their actions under threat. Additionally, the research uses the findings from the women participants to conclude that social identity is a deviation from mental privilege and can cause uncontrolled actions. This conclusion is also sexist because it generalizes the behavior of women to represent that of men.

Homophobia

Platt and Scheitle’s (2008) research investigates the relationship between sexual orientation and mental health. The research examines psychological distress scores from participants of various sexual orientations. The research finds that gays and lesbians are more likely to show psychological distress than heterosexual people are. However, this finding gives a homophobic conclusion because it assumes several things. One, the authors assume that psychological distress results from sexual orientation. Secondly, they conclude that gay orientation yields more psychological distress than heterosexual orientation. The assumption that sexual orientation does result in psychological distress has no empirical support in the article. It is, therefore, inaccurate to conclude that homophobic sexual orientation or any other can contribute to psychological distress. The findings of the paper can propagate homophobia in society by associating it with an unwanted condition of mental illness.

Nadal et al. (2015) also centered their research on the presumption that LGBT individuals experience disapproval experiences from the other minority groups, which they exist. According to the article, the research team borrowed from previous literature on LGBT’s experience of disapproval. The study, therefore, used the previous authors’ view to develop the hypothesis of evaluating LGBT’s discrimination on three other groups, which are race, ethnicity, and religion. By developing this proposition, Nadal et al. (2015) assume that religion, race, and ethnic groupings are more likely to oppress members within their grouping. The authors of the research paper do have a religious, racial, and ethnic background. Their assumption that these groups would be less likely to accept LGBT persons shows that they consider these groups more rigid than others, such as people with disabilities. Therefore, in developing their LGBT hypothesis, Nadal et al. (2015) showed prejudice over race, religion, and ethnic minorities.

Transphobia

Brown, Kucharska, and Marczak (2017) researched on the discrimination by health practitioners on transgender individuals. The article notes that previously written literature had inferred that transgender individuals are more likely to experience “physical and mental health inequalities” (Brown, Kucharska & Marczak, 2017 p. 1). The article also indicates that discrimination against transgender individuals occurs on multiple levels, including religion, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. The research concludes that transgender patients do experience discrimination from mental health practitioners.

Also, the authors note their dislike of this form of bias against transgender. However, the article does not give recommendations of ways that would reduce or eliminate the occurrence of transgender discrimination. According to Black and Stone (2005), privileged people demonstrate discrimination by showing no sense of responsibility to alleviate its effects. Therefore, by pointing out the existing and failing to show ways of eliminating transgender discrimination, Brown, Kucharska, and Marczak (2017) create a social problem in the mental healthcare sector.

Sterzing, Gartner, Woodford, and Fisher (2017), on the other hand, investigated intersectional discrimination against transgender women. The authors use the minority stress theory to develop their hypothesis for the research. According to the theory, minoritized individuals are more likely to experience additional individual stressors. Also, the research develops its study theories from the intersectionality theory. This theory defines minorities’ microaggressions experiences as multi-sectional yet interdependent discriminations. However, the research focuses on the experiences of black transgender women. According to Sterzing and colleagues (2017), the history of slavery and the emasculation of people of African origin exacerbate microaggressions against black transgender individuals. However, the assumption of black as emasculated has no empirical support in the research paper. The authors, therefore, suggest that transphobia is more frequent in African American settings than any other setting. The findings of the paper, therefore, portray African American families and communities as the most transphobic in American society, which the paper does not empirically support.

Racism

Gee and Ford’s (2011) paper evaluates the impact of the political aspect of racial discrimination through structural racism. Gee and Ford begin the article by noting that communities with racial minorities do experience higher rates of morbidity and mortality. The authors use previous health records and quotes from health professionals to support their statement that minority groups have higher morbidity and mortality rates. However, there is no evidence in the article to show that the morbidity and mortality rates in racial minority communities result directly from racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is not a factor that influences disease and death levels in any community. The increase in diseases and deaths can only result directly from the increase in pathogens spread or other social factors such as drug abuse, prostitution, and crime. Although structural racism can deteriorate other social elements of a community, this presumption that structural racism can lead to more death and diseases is less accurate compared to other social factors. The theory, therefore, indicates that the authors are using racism to justify morbidity and mortality rates in these minority communities, which is a form of bias against the communities.

DiAngelo (2011) explores the idea that white people are less tolerant of racial discrimination because of their fondness to social privilege. This idea is also a form of bias because it implies that black and other people in American society have a social advantage of not experiencing social privilege. There is no empirical evidence to support that white people enjoy isolation from racial discrimination. The assumption of DiAngelo (2011) is that racial discrimination is a unidirectional experience with white people being the only perpetrators. However, racial discrimination is an interpersonal experience (Grant-Thomas & Powell, 2006). Racial discrimination can take numerous forms, from skin color to other bodily features. Also, social privilege is a membership to a privileged group with universally desirable attributes. White people do also experience a lot of racial discrimination based on their other features. For instance, a white man can experience racial discrimination comments linked to his masculinity just the same way as an African American man would. It is, therefore, a form of racial profiling to infer that white people are less resilient to racial discrimination.

Nadal et al. (2015) research also developed the theory that black men are more likely to be victims of criminal profiling than any other group of men. The authors developed this hypothesis after reviewing previous qualitative research on African American men. However, previous research had only focused on African American men. There is no research data to compare African American men’s profiling with the likelihood that men from other racial backgrounds experience the same. It is, therefore, racist for the authors to assume that African American men are most likely to be criminally discriminated,

Bias against Cultural Orientation

Lorenzo-Blanco et al. (2016) investigated the relationship between Latino youth’s behavioral health and the significance that Latino family structures play in shaping these emotions and behaviors. According to Lorenzo-Blanco and colleagues (2016), Latino communities have higher rates of suicide, aggressive behavior, and substance abuse. The researcher then developed a family stress model that hypothesis that acculturated stress is the reason behind these negative social behaviors in Latino communities. However, the authors do not use any pragmatic information to support the idea that immigration causes acculturated stress.

Also, the increase in aggressive behavior and substance abuse can result from numerous other social factors other than parenting. Such factors can include assimilated cultures, political factors, and the availability of drugs in the community. It is, therefore, inaccurate to assume that parenting is the sole reason for youth behavioral changes. Consequently, Lorenzo-Blanco and colleagues’ (2016) hypotheses indicate a form of bias against the family setting of Latino minorities in the USA. Besides, there are many other family settings with increasing violence and drug abuse incidences, where the communities are neither first nor second-generation immigrants. An example of such communities is the African American community, which has recorded high numbers of violence and drug abuse cases.

Conclusion

Bias is a form of social privilege given to a privileged group, which the group has not earned through merit but by dominance. Research media often evaluate the impact of these social privileges on the minority group. However, these media embed in studying these forms of bias without basing their hypotheses on realistic theories. The researches often draw presumptions from their perceptions of the bias, which can often be inaccurate. In the end, the media draw the conclusions to support these authors’ views, which make such media to be a propagation of bias. Therefore, identifying these forms of bias requires reviewers to examine the author’s perceptions more keenly.

References

Berry, J. (2017). Mutual Intercultural Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Black, L., & Stone, D. (2005). Expanding the Definition of Privilege. Journal Of Multicultural Counseling And Development, 33(4), 243-255. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.trident.edu/docview/235986579/fulltextPDF/B18B61BAB2CC4308PQ/1?accountid=28844

Brown, S., Kucharska, J., & Marczak, M. (2017). Mental health practitioners’ attitudes towards transgender people: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal Of Transgenderism, 19(1), 4-24. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2017.1374227

DiAngelo, R. (2011). White Fragility. International Journal Of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 54-70. Retrieved from https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

Gee, G., & Ford, C. (2011). Structural Racism And Health Inequities. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research On Race, 8(1), 115-132. doi: 10.1017/s1742058x11000130

Grant-Thomas, A., & Powell, J. (2006). Toward a Structural Racism Framework. Poverty & Race, 15(6), 3-6. Retrieved from https://prrac.org/toward-a-structural-racism-framework/

Hoffman, L., Cleare-Hoffman, H., Granger, N., & St. John, D. (2019). Humanistic Approaches to Multiculturalism and Diversity. London: Routledge.

Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. (2010). Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 99(3), 467-481. doi: 10.1037/a0018951

Lorenzo-Blanco, E., Meca, A., Unger, J., Romero, A., Gonzales-Backen, M., & Piña-Watson, B. et al. (2016). Latino parent acculturation stress. Journal Of Family Psychology, 30(8), 966-976. doi: 10.1037/fam0000223

Nadal, K., Davidoff, K., Davis, L., Wong, Y., Marshall, D., & McKenzie, V. (2015). A Qualitative Approach to Inter-sectional Microaggressions. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147-163. doi: 10.1037/qup0000026

Platt, L., & Scheitle, C. (2018). Sexual orientation and psychological distress: Differences by race and gender. Journal Of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 22(3), 204-225. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2018.1437583

Prilleltensky, I. (2008a). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: the promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal Of Community Psychology, 36(2), 116-136. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20225

Prilleltensky, I. (2008b). Migrant Well-Being is a Multilevel, Dynamic, Value Dependent Phenomenon. American Journal Of Community Psychology, 42(3-4), 359-364. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9196-6

Sterzing, P., Gartner, R., Woodford, M., & Fisher, C. (2017). Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Gender Identity Microaggressions. Journal Of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity In Social Work, 26(1-2), 81-94. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2016.1263819

Wegmann, K. (2015). Measuring Social Support and School Belonging in Black/African American and White Children. Research On Social Work Practice, 27(5), 582-593. doi: 10.1177/1049731515584065