site

1)

The video seems to put things into perspective and in an accuracy that is realistic to the process of social class bias and the working-class citizens. There are biases toward people who are poor who are the working-class, blue-collar workers that are the foundation of the working system that keeps our country and society running. These are jobs that many people either cannot do, will never do, because upper classed people look down upon them, when they should be thanking them for the jobs that they do that help everyone every day in some fashion of business and services that most provide the other classes of people. Without the working class, there would be no upper middle class or upper classes to speak of because I do not think it could be achieved. 

Regarding the overall bias or social agenda that I perceived, was that television did form a way to see into the working of other people in the lower to middle classes, seemingly like an example of what most would be biased against doing themselves, like the Honeymooner's and being a city bus driver. This one stick out because of the proverbial violence toward the wife when saying, "I'm gonna fly you to the moon," as the husband is shaking his fist at his wife, making fun of domestic violence before the term was ever coined. But this shows a side to the audience that was unbecoming of people who might drive buses, as an example, and as someone who bullies people especially his wife, hinting that those things are ok and accepted socially.

Did the segment examine the issue objectively? Yes, the feeling is that it was extremely accurately portrayed, and the objective was to show how society can be shaped negatively with collective biases against a whole class of people, not completely distinguished by color or race, but it was implied, as the poor who wanted better lives.

Do you perceive any social or political bias in the way the material is presented? Yes and no, because it felt that politically, being in a lower class of working people who are the backbone of everything and without it, that things would fail, setting a tone for violence such as with Bevis and Butthead, and the misguidedness of kids who are not supervised and will be the "leaders" someday in the future, hence, politically inadept having a better life.

If you do perceive any social or political bias in the segment (and understanding that most media productions will have some subjective points), how high is the level of bias?  The level of bias against the working class was quite high, as many of those shows that it presented were bad when it came to race/color such as with "All in the Family" which was extremely racially explicate in a negative way.

Why does it matter, in your opinion, and how would you change the segment to be more objective? I felt that it could have been more critical of the way those show depicted the working class, because it was more in a negative light rather than a positive on for the way these workers work hard, live simple lives, and like anyone, wants to work for a better life for themselves and their families.

Considering how such forces as media as an example can impact our own individual worldview and our expectations for social behavior and discourse is looking at the way media treats people good one day and bad the next. If media did not put out controversial programing, it might change some of the ideology about people who consider themselves above others, whether financially, educationally, socially, but it seems like controversial programs are or were more popular for different reasons to different people. In say this, media made fun of people who worked certain jobs depicting them as trashy, lazy, and satisfied with that they do and that is all they want out of life, without looking for prosperity and chances to be better off. It was an interesting show of how history did not fully grasp how important these low-level, low-paying menial jobs were to everyone, including those who are considered to be well-off and upper-middle classed, and anyone who might think they are above doing blue collar work.

2)

According to the video, social class bias is a widely used tool in the broadcasting industry that has evolved over time to frame the perception and abilities within social classes, especially the working class. I thought it was interesting that in the early days of television (tv), the shift from radio to tv, the depiction of the working class and immigrant families were diverse and present in the representation of the American dream (2021). The media’s transition on how to obtain the American dream and the view of the working class was hugely impacted by advertising companies, especially by the 1950s. As media outlets moved to profit from advertisements, the transition to the sale of products lead to the product(s) defining the level of social status and pathway to achieving success (2021). During this shift, media outlets became entangled with advertising companies and the depiction of the American lifestyle and family structure was shaped in the idea of material wealth and goods.

The video shed light on the overlapping agendas of the broadcasting industries and the advertisement industries, which are to bring in viewers based on viewer content and marketing goods for profit throughout the featured programing. This creates a double-edged sword, meaning the broadcasters must create content that will attract viewers and the advertisers must create marketing ads that promote and standardize the use and need for the products offered (2021). It was shocking to see in the Flintstones, which was a children’s cartoon that Wilma Flintstone (the mother) was smoking a cigarette (2021). I know that I must consider the time period and that the marketing pathway was driven towards parents of the children (hopefully), but morally it just did not seem right that a product for adults was promoted in a children’s cartoon. I believe this shows the length media companies and advertising companies will go to sell a product and it shows the ability of these companies to subconsciously manipulate our thoughts as viewers.

The full video defines three types of social classes such as: economic class, political class, and cultural class (2021), but claims there is no universal definition of social class (2021). The video was informative and hit on valid points of the media’s agenda in the depiction of the American dream and class structure. I do feel that the depiction of social class bias in the video was one-sided in shining a negative light towards the social structure of capitalism (political class) and the media’s influence on defining the idea of social structure (cultural and economic class). I am not saying the video was wrong but there was no opinion for the opposition or scholars that view the subject differently. Remember, many viewers choose to turn-on and watch these shows or news stations. One part of the video mentioned how women were portrayed on tv, which showed many of these women having jobs such as judges, lawyers, and other professional positions, which the video pointed out that was not a true depiction of the working-class women or mother (2021). I understand that it is not a true depiction, but it is a positive depiction of a woman’s ability to work hard and achieve success.

The most shocking statement made was at the end of the video, when the scholar stated that to change the reality of the media, society must first address and fix the social injustices that exists within everyday life (2021). The scholar then states that once we create changes (new people), we must create new media (2021). This statement was interesting because it showed that both sides of the social class arguments are okay with “creating” or leading the public’s viewpoints in their desired or favored position. As this scholar stated, new forms of media must be created for the new generation of thinkers and he was correct because today’s social media outlets form the new media that represents what the masses read, see, and normalize of proper and acceptable behavior (2021). A great example is the cancel culture m