Overall, what is Gregory Mantsios's argument? Do you agree, disagree, or a combination of both? Which parts of his argument are convincing? Are there any problems with his argument or any way you might complicate it?
Also, which texts or real world instances can you see Mantsios's ideas at work?
What are some larger implications of Mantsios's claims about how the media represents certain types of people? How might his ideas foster bias and assumption amongst individuals in society?
Respond to at least one other student and extend their comment.
I do agree with Mantsios's claims about the media's representations of certain groups. However, in many parts of his essay he jumps to conclusions and uses many fallacies that take away from his argument, as well as the fact that he seems to have lots of bias against corporations and people with wealth. However, i can see instances where this is true. People often ignore homeless people or are very very wary of them, and those who are poor are kind of looked down on. At the same time the poor are recognised by humanitarian efforts to help them, even if they have a home and a job.
ReplyDeleteBut larger implications of what he's saying is that he's directly targeting certain groups of people and still making assumptions, which is quite hypocritical of him to be doing. He's carrying a bias and an assumption in everything he's saying and it tints everything he says.
Regarding, how media represents the disadvantaged, I agree that it persuades people to other and ignore the less fortunate. Media representation, and the lack thereof, has such a vital effect on society; media has the influence to completely alter the way one thinks about things and can be highly detrimental if social and ethnic groups are not accurately portrayed. Mantsios claims that media creates stereotypes when covering poverty and creates false realities for middle and upper class people, evoking resentment, disgust, and fear. The media does a very good job of misrepresenting impoverished communities and displaying them in a negative light, appealing to racism,sexism, and classism. I found it very interesting when Mantios used evidence stating that the majority of the poor consist of Caucasian people, opposed to presupposed African-American and Hispanic minorities. This is due to media's failure to avoid prejudice and properly evaluate social groups.
DeleteOverall, Mantsios' claim is that the media (large corporations) purposefully misrepresent certain classes in a fashion that suits them. I agree with his claim, however, I think that he jumps to some hasty generalizations at the end of the text. Not all corporations or people of the "1%" are as bad as he says. Furthermore, by attempting to characterized all of the wealthy corporations in the media, he is ironically doing the same thing he argues the corporations do to other classes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Claire that Mantsios jumps to conclusions without giving enough suffiencent evidence to back up is claim. Another example of Mantsios giving a hasty generalization is when he remarks that when the media covers stories on the poor, the poor are "presented in the eyes of the middle class." No evidence is given to backup his claim.
DeleteMantsitos claim is that through its biases towards the wealthy class, the media constructs society's opinion on other social classes that are not necessarily true. Although the media has the responsibility to control how they convince their audiences to understand the information given, it is also one's decision to perceive or not perceive these social classes the same way that the public sees them.
ReplyDeleteMantsitos infers that most of his readers are of the middle class, and addressees his readers and himself as "us" throughout the document. Ironically, because of his bias towards the middle class, he begins to do what he argues the media should not do: speak lowly about other classes that the speaker is not apart of. For example, since he considers himself to be a part of the middle class, he talks about how the wealthy class's main concerns revolve around their lack of security and body guards and their children's private schools, demonstrating their ignorance toward more important issues in the world.
I agree, the media tries to establish common ground, referring to everyone as an "us". He points out flaws in the media' portrayal of social classes, while, ironically, contributing to those flaws himself. He lacks qualifiers and evidence in his arguments.
DeleteI agree with Miranda's argument because while society, social media try to label everyone as the other like what Jessica previously said he is ironically doing the same for himself. He doesn't provide enough evidence for the reason to his fallacies and generalizations.
DeleteMantios claims that media has the most influence in molding and manipulating public opinion on social class. He also argues that media portrays classes subjectively, and depict false realities. He implies that members of the media belong to the middle class, therefore they portray upper and lower classes in a negative light at times. For example, Mantsios says the media portrays the wealthy as fortunate and lead an interesting life. He also believes that the media depicts the poor as an eyesore, or as ignored by the rest of society. Mantsios lacks qualifiers in his claims, because not all people conform to media's ideologies on class.
ReplyDeleteA text where his claim is applied is "Ghetto Bitches, China Dolls, and Cha Cha Divas", where Jennifer Pozner argues that media sources such as America's Next Top Model are contradictory to their philosophy of embracing flaws, yet they tear down and judge women for their traits. Many other competitive reality shows do that as well.
Parts of Mantsios' claim is convincing, because he makes a point, and the point registered with my brain, and I could see his point of view. However, upon further review, more logical fallacies are revealed in his claim, therefore they complicate his argument.
I agree on all statements and claims you have brought up within your paragraph. I really do agree on how media representation isn't just seen within Matios writing but also within the other texts you've mentioned. His article in extremely convincing and is able to steer his audience away from complete media representation of lower socioeconomic statuses.
DeleteJessica, I agree with your statement that he implies that he lacks qualifiers for his claims. I noticed that a lot when I was reading as well. I also think that the media's manipulation of classes can lead to more of a divide, contrary to his claim that the media forms a middle class that is generally agreeable to the public. Also props for including Pozner's article :)
DeleteI agree with you that his lack of qualifiers and his logical fallacies make his argument less convincing. His hasty generalizations of the media also reveal he has a slight bias. However, his initial argument makes logical sense to me as well. I have seen how the medias portrayal, or therefore, lack of portrayal of the lower class. This however doesn't conclude that this is because the media is made up of bitter middle class members.
DeleteMantsios claims that mass media influences individuals how to think about social classes through misrepresentation and manipulation. I strongly agree that the media creates bias among poor, specifically minority, communities and chooses to portray impoverished individuals as an inconvenience or burden, if represented at all. Media feeds on fear and personal interest to further create divisions between social classes. Mantsios uses very strong evidence to back up his opinion on how media distorts reality to maintain status quos. Though his claims are very compelling, Mantsios is quilt of fallacious reasoning. In trying to prove that media represents the wealthy class in a positive light despite their wrongdoings, he hastily generalizes that corporate America caused many workers' deaths and accidents, even though they could have occured for a multitude of reasons. Fallacies, like these, directed towards the wealthy class, complicate his argument and present several underlying biases.
ReplyDeleteIs Strongly agree. While he does a good job of proving misrepresentation in the lower classes, his hasty generalizations make one wonder about his reliability and bias.
DeleteMantios throughout his essay creates a bias of how media represent a certain group of people. But further on he creates hasty generalizations about certain group without providing enough proof or evidence on his choices. Therefore we see a noticeable bias towards the rich corporations and his use of fallacies toward certain groups.
ReplyDeleteMatios explains to his audience how mass media is able to influence the minds of millions to resent or have indifferent opinions of people within a lower socioeconomic class through many different misrepresentations. In my opinion, media is the key factor in defining ophow all classes, gender, and races are viewed in the eyes of the worldly population. It creates lies built on top of lies and causes misdirection and bias ideas upon socioeconomic classes. Media feeds on the topical things going on and what they can portray as extremely amazing or the worse thing known to man. Mateos uses numerous pieces of evidence for his reasoning behind media's representation although the come out to be filled with fallacies in reasoning. Although his argument was quite compelling, his illogical reasoning gave the argument a little bit less credit for convincing. Overall it perfectly described media and the struggles we face as a society through media.
ReplyDeleteMantsios' argument is that in American media, the rich and the poor are opposing archetypes; the rich make good money and give to the poor, and the poor make no money (and it's their fault) and take the rich people's money. The media misrepresents both classes because, first of all, neither the rich nor the poor got to where they stand by a stroke of fortune or misfortune—often times, poor people, especially minorities, are poor because of systemic issues and general oppression, and rich people, primarily white, are rich because of familial and acquainted connections that make it hard for middle class "outsiders" to become rich and part of the upper class.
ReplyDeleteHe claimes that through the media's bias towards the upper class, it alienates and misrepresents the lower class. Personally. I agree with his argument, though I believe some of his examples also included bias or fallacies. He argued that if all of the money in the US were evenly distributed, then there would be no poverty. While he is correct, that contradicts the fundamental american principle of a free market. This is an accurate claim, but not realistic nor possible for the United States. Similarly, he argued that the media is aimed towards the small percent of the US which is the upper class. Again, I agree, but his argument wasn't accurate. He used the newspaper as an example, explaining how they devote a lot of time and space into the stock market, when in reality a very little percentage of people care about the stock market (arguable mostly the upper class.) However, one could argue that the newspaper does this because it's what their audience wants. A huge audience for the New York Times is those on wall street, which have great interest in the Stock market, therefore devoting a lot of space to it is only logical. A better example could've been how TV shows and Movie characters are always portrayed as the upper class, even if they aren't the "rich" girl in the show. You still see them with the nicest clothes and a beautiful house. For example, in Friends they are never portrayed as rich. The characters are regularly struggling for money. However, they live in an amazing apartment and are always buying things. SImilarly, the only time someone from a lower economic level is portrayed in a show or movie, they're the "poor character". The media represents the "average" person as upper class, though realistically the "average" american is not of the upper class. Although his arguments and caimes were thorough, his examples were not. Overall, the author argues that the media inacurrately constructs our beliefs of socioeconomic levels in the United states.
ReplyDeleteMantisio argues that the media negatively portrays groups in the lower class. He claims that the media who is run by members of the middle class, who depict those who are not part of the middle class as an inconvenience to society. These members of the media are supposedly creating these fallacies and generalizations to benefit their own agenda. I agree with Mantisio's claims, but due to his lack of concrete evidence to back up his claims, the piece itself is not very strong. While fighting against generalizations, Mantisio himself creates some hasty generalizations about the media and members of the upper class
ReplyDeleteMantsio's article has strengths and weaknesses. He supports his statistics and facts with citations, and most of his arguments are well supported. However, some of his claims, such as the paragraph "The Wealthy Are Fascinating and Benevolent," need more evidence to back them up. I can see the counterargument coming up that the author's claims about the wealthy, such that they own a disproportionate share of the country's wealth, are not supported well enough, and that they make the assumption that the wealthy earned their money in an unusual way that many Americans could not achieve. I believe that this argument could be better supported if the author qualified "the wealthy," using "many of". I agree with parts of his argument.
ReplyDelete