Content-Type: text/html
Black, white and read all over:
Racial Reasoning and the construction of public reaction to the O.J. Simpson
Criminal trial verdict
Lauren R. Tucker
Assistant Professor
University of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
Phone: (803) 777-3347
Internet E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Submitted to:
Qualitative Studies Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Chicago, Illinois
July 1997
Ana C. Garner
Department of Journalism
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
Black, White and Read...
On October 3, 1995, the nation waited as the decision of twelve jury members
was read into history. For more than a year, Americans and the world followed
the murder trial of one of America's most recognized sports heroes, Orenthal
James "O.J." Simpson, and debated whether this powerful symbol of all that is
American could have brutally stabbed his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her
friend, Ron Goldman, the night of June 12, 1995. Simpson's trial was a crucible
for many of the ideas and ideals that structure United States society. Yet, as
the trial moved into its final weeks, race became the overarching issue as
Simpson's defense attorneys argued that a racist cop, a racist police department
and a racially biased criminal justice system conspired to frame Simpson for a
murder he would not and could not commit.
When the jury announced its not-guilty verdict, the news discourse defined,
interpreted and evaluated the reaction in terms of a national divide between
Black and White. Black Americans were reported to have responded to the verdict
with unmitigated glee while White Americans were said to be at once incredulous,
outraged and demoralized. This media frame employed the all too familiar themes,
stock phrases, and key words that evoke the images of racial strife endemic to
the American public's understanding of itself. At the heart of this frame lie
the common sense assumptions about the role race, racial difference and race
relations play in the U.S. social structure. This research offers a case study
in which frame analysis is used to deconstruct the media frame of the racial
divide as articulated by the Chicago Tribune, a prominent national mainstream
newspaper, and the Chicago Defender, a prominent Black-American newspaper.
The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Defender exist in a relationship that
reflects the history of race relations in United States society and articulates
specific common sense beliefs about the role of race in social relations. During
the course of its existence, the Chicago Tribune has evolved as the newspaper
of record for the midwest and, as a mainstream paper, reflects national policy
and claims a broad-based audience (Rivers, 1975). The Chicago Defender, like
other Black-American newspapers in the U.S., reports on events and issues of
importance to the Black community. Defined within and against a marketplace of
news dominated by the predominantly White mainstream press, the Chicago Defender
is positioned as an alternative to mainstream papers such as the Chicago Tribune
which historically ignored or trivialized the concerns of Chicago's
Black-American community.
These two newspapers exist in a relationship that articulates the conflicts and
contradictions of a society that struggles to reconcile the ideals of liberal
democracy with the realities of cultural and social diversity. This relationship
reinforces the consensus that journalism is a primary influence on the way the
culturally and racially diverse members of society think and talk about race,
racial conflict and race-related issues (Gissler, 1997). Given their origins and
current missions, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Defender are expected to
offer different perspectives on the case, perspectives that many argue reflect
two realities of U.S. social life D one White and one Black. However, this study
identifies some strikingly similar assumptions about U.S. race relations that
belie the superficial differences in their constructions of public reaction to
the Simpson verdict. Through their framing of the racial divide, both papers
advance common sense assumptions about the role of race in U.S. social relations
that truncate the reader's ability to make sense of the reaction to the Simpson
verdict outside of the Black-White dialectic.
The Trial of O.J. Simpson
The trial of O.J. Simpson became a media sensation before the accused ever got
to the courtroom. On the afternoon of June 17, 1995, helicopters armed with
minicameras recorded Simpson's white Ford Bronco, driven by friend Al Cowlings
with Simpson in the back, leading a slow-moving parade of police on a Los
Angeles freeway. Viewing "the chase" on television sets in living rooms, bars,
restaurants, offices and shops across the country, many Americans watched the
procession in astonishment, and "the trial of the century" was set into motion.
As the trial unfolded in the media, it became clear that the criminal justice
system, the press, gender relations, class relations and race relations were on
trial along with Simpson.
However, by the close of the trial, race and the tenuous nature of U.S. race
relations became the lens through which all the other issues were viewed. Within
the context of the Simpson trial, defense attorney's employed race as a means of
making sense of the prosecution's evidence against their client. The Los Angeles
police department's history of conflict with the city's Black citizens combined
with strongly held beliefs about the racial bias of the U.S. criminal justice
system provided fertile ground for the defense's argument that Simpson's arrest
was the result of a calculated attempt by racist cops to incriminate a famous
Black American. This theory D strengthened by revelations that one of the lead
detectives on the case, Mark Fuhrman, had lied about having previously used the
racial epithet "nigger" to describe Black suspects D promoted racial reasoning
as the "common sense" for evaluating the evidence against Simpson. In response,
the prosecution was forced to defend the integrity of the evidence against
Simpson, the integrity of the investigation and, ultimately, the integrity of
the American criminal justice system in terms of race.
This study examines the discursive tactics by which the media transformed the
racial reasoning evoked by the Simpson defense into a frame that promotes race
as means of interpreting and evaluating the public discourse about the verdict.
In general, frames are symbolic schemata individuals use to organize and
interpret the social and natural world (Goffman, 1974). As a sociological
concept, frames are defined as social structures which organize symbolic
material in ways that advance a specific perspective or spin (Gamson, 1992;
Goffman, 1974). Simpson's defense team used the frame of racial reasoning as a
symbolic means of organizing, interpreting and evaluating the evidence against
their client.
Media researchers have examined how frames and the framing process affect the
production, consumption and reception of media content. The concept of the media
frame has, until recently, been applied most often as an extension of the
agenda-setting model of public issue formation. Previous research on media
frames include investigations into how frames are constructed (Entman & Rojecki,
1993; Morreale, 1991; Tuchman, 1978), how frames are influenced by policy makers
and advocacy groups (Hertsgaard, 1988), and how frames affect media consumption
(Gamson, 1992; Graber, 1988; Livingstone, 1990). Recent research on media frames
takes frame analysis out of the traditional agenda-setting arena by examining
questions of how media frames produce and reproduce social power through the
construction of common sense (Tucker, 1996).
Despite the ideological power of gender and class formations in U.S. society,
race has been and continues to be the primary organizing principle of U.S.
social relations (Marable, 1992; Omi, 1986; Prager, 1987; West, 1992). While
social theories of class, gender and ethnic relations all play enormous roles in
structuring U.S. social relations, theories about the nature of race and racial
difference have historically dominated the way that Americans make sense of the
social and cultural differences and stratification that have played a central
role in national development during the twentieth century (Prager, 1987).
Common-sense notions of race operating in U.S. society D what it means to be
Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native American D implicitly or explicitly inform
the way in which social life is described, interpreted, and evaluated within
media content and public discourse. As the nation struggles to reconcile the
ideals of democratic inclusion with the realities of continued racial
stratification, two competing discourses of race D assimilation and nationalism
D have emerged to dominate the field of public discourse on U.S. social
relations. The assimilationist discourse, which has dominated public discourse
and U.S. policy on race relations for the greater part of the twentieth century
(Omi, 1986), specifies that the dynamics of a liberal democracy, a free market
economy and agents of modernization D industrialization, urbanization and social
and physical mobility D work to erode the traditional ties of race and
ethnicity that have been the primary barriers to racial equality (Myrdal, 1944,
1985). With the erosion of group ties comes the opportunity for the individual
to overcome his or her circumstances of birth. Success and failure will be
determined on the basis of individual achievement rather than racial group
membership in a competitive political economy which privileges the Protestant
work ethic and supports the dominance of the middle and upper classes.
Historically, the assimilation of non-White groups into American society was
largely dependent on their acceptance of mainstream values as articulated by the
White, Protestant middle classes.
Yet, Black nationalism, which gained ascendancy during the 1960s, poses the
primary challenge to the dominance of the assimilation perspective. The
nationalist discourse, espoused in various degrees by Black-American
organizations D including the Black Caucus, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored people and the Nation of Islam D specifies that
individual power is determined by group membership and group power rather than
individual achievement and merit (Metzger, 1971; Omi & Winant; 1986; West,
1992). As a result, racial stratification will continue as a persistent feature
of U.S. social relations.
The nationalist discourse questions the "ideals" of assimilation by defining
assimilation as a process by which all non-Whites, especially Black Americans,
are compelled social values and mores determined acceptable by the White,
middle-class majority (Cruse, 1967/1984; Metzger, 1971; Omi & Winant, 1986). The
monoculturalism encouraged by assimilationist philosophy threatens the racial
authenticity of Black Americans by defining racial difference as deviant and
ensures that racism will continue into the future. Ultimately, the nation's
racially segregated past makes skin color not only relevant, but a fundamental
element of the U.S. social structure (Fields, 1982; Omi & Winant, 1986; Davis,
1991).
Within the assimilationist perspective, Blackness is constructed as a racial,
not cultural, identity. Black Americans share essentially the same cultural
structures as White Americans. Once Blacks abandon their deviations from
White-American mores, they will be accepted into the cultural mainstream on
equal footing with Whites. According to this view, racial inequality is a
temporary social phenomenon in which cultural diversity, not racial diversity,
is the major culprit. As long as Black Americans meet the standards set by the
White cultural consensus, they will have earned the right to equality of
opportunity in the colorblind marketplace. Hence, racial diversity is tolerated,
cultural diversity is not. In contrast, the nationalist perspective defines
Blackness as a racial and cultural identity that encompasses a shared heritage
of social, political and economic subjugation and resistance. Racial inequality
is a persistent, if not a permanent, aspect of U.S. society, and cultural
difference is necessary to maintain group power. Hence, social liberation for
Black Americans can only be achieved with Black cultural solidarity and
collective self-definition.
Throughout the twentieth century, these theories of race have acquired the
force of ideological power that not only privileges certain constructions social
life over others but also advances specific meanings of race and racial
difference. Unlike gender and class formations, in which the very real material
differences (biological and financial) have been transformed into symbolic
representations of difference, the nature of race and racial difference has been
defined almost entirely in the symbolic realm in which the thoroughly arbitrary
meaning of skin color has had a determining effect on material relations and
existence. Hence, the ideological power of these theories of race must
constantly assert themselves through and within symbolic discourse, including
language, ritualized behavior, the media and other systems of representation, to
continuously produce and reproduce existing relations of power among the various
racial groups in U.S. society (Hall, 1988). As society collectively "forgets"
that the concepts of race and racial difference are purely social constructions
rather than natural phenomena, racial theories become transformed into racial
common sense in which their routine application to social conflict and social
organization become the taken-for-granted explanations of what many refer to as
"just the way things are" (Hall, 1985).
Cornell West (1992) extends this understanding of racial common sense in his
employment of the term "racial reasoning" (West, 1992: 26) to describe the
processes and implications of using the predominant discourses of race to
explain social outcomes and organize social networks. West's concept of racial
reasoning suggests that these predominant discourses of race have merged
together within the field of public discourse and often obscure alternative
explanations of the nature and direction of social relations in U.S. society.
Tucker (1997) suggests that the roots of cultural conservatism, as defined by
West, stem from the constant struggle between the predominant discourses of
race, assimilation and nationalism, as they work to gain hegemony over the
public discourse about the nature of social relations in the U.S. Tucker argues
that this hegemonic struggle between the competing discourses of race in the
U.S. produces a "discursive gridlock" in which the dialectical dynamic of the
struggle between the discourses of assimilation and nationalism works to
dominate the field of opinion regarding social relations in the U.S. This
dynamic pushes other discourses (e.g. gender, class,...) to the margins of
public debate about social relations as the Black-White dialectic shapes the
narrow confines within which society's members are compelled to make sense of
U.S. social life.
Against this background, the U.S. news media constructed the public debate
about the Simpson criminal verdict. News media frames are composed of familiar
signs, symbols and language that are encoded in media content by "active agents
with specific purposes" (Gamson, 1992: xi). Media frames employed by news media
organizations articulate common sense as public discourse, a specific type of
common-sense discourse in which loosely coherent sets of social narratives
advance "clearly privileged conceptions of what constitute public policy issues
and how they are defined" (Kosicki & Pan, 1996: 5). Embedded in the routines of
news gathering and dissemination, media frames perform specific functions of
problem definition, diagnosis, evaluation and prescription that serve the social
interests represented by elite discourses. Hence, the media framing process
provides a powerful discursive strategy that shapes the symbolic platform on
which members of society think and talk about public issues (Kosicki & Pan,
1996; Tucker, 1996)
This case study employs frame analysis to deconstruct the media discourse about
the public's reaction to the verdict found in the Chicago Tribune and the
Chicago Defender. Through the constant comparison of empirical insights within
the text of each newspaper, this research identifies the criteria each paper
uses to define, interpret and evaluate the nature and implications of the racial
divide. Through the comparative assignment of empirical incidents, including
consistent patterns of language, stock phrases, sources, routinized
characterizations, categorizations and themes, to relevant categories, common
sense discourses can be tracked (Lewis, 1992) as they organize the framing
elements within the media frame.
The unit of analysis is the body of discourse of each newspaper on the day(s)
following the jury's decision on October 3, 1995.1 This body of discourse
consists of those news reports that characterize some aspect of the public's
reaction, including civic leaders and educational leaders but excluding those
persons directly or indirectly involved in the case. The focus of the study is
on how each newspaper organization, through its reporters and staff writers,
used language to construct the public reaction within straight news copy. Hence,
the body of discourse analyzed excludes news service copy, editorial opinion,
commentary and photography. While news discourse technically consists of the
output of individual reporters and writers, the discourse is considered here to
be the product of an organization. As a result, each story is considered an
articulation or voice of the organization. Ideology, discourse and common sense
are defined within the literature as macro social phenomena that are used to
describe the social activity of a group, organization, industry or society. In
support of this approach, Mcleod and Blumler (1987) warn against the use of
concepts defined at the macrosocial level in analyzing phenomena defined at the
individual level and vice versa.
While society's common sense and ideological conflicts are assumed to inculcate
the individual reporter and writer, an individual's participation and behavior
in shared activities do not necessarily always correspond with his or her
particular position in the social structure. Therefore, the direct quotes from
the body of discourse are cited by the name of the publication rather than the
name of the individual(s) in the byline. This technique is used to discourage
the reading of the news as the product of individuals.
The following analysis addresses the following questions: How do the two the
Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Defender define the racial divide within the
public reaction to the Simpson verdict? How do they characterize the dimensions
of the divide? What causes and solutions are endorsed by the discourse of each
newspaper? Given the differing dimensions of the two papers, differences in
content are expected. However, an examination of the patterns of similarities as
well as differences in the news discourses produced by the two papers offers the
means by which the shared assumptions about race or common sense racial
reasoning underpinning the frame of the racial divide can be identified.
The Constructed Image of the Racial Divide
Both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Defender construct the image of the
racial divide as the central organizing framework for making sense of the public
reaction to the Simpson verdict. Each paper bases the frame of the racial
divide on shared assertion that as a television event, the Simpson trial and the
subsequent reading of the verdict constituted a "shared experience" on the
scale of the "aftermath of the Kennedy assassination" and the 1969 moon walk.
The Tribune's imagery emphasizes the communal aspects of the event:
Tens of millions of Americans dropped what they were doing and
gathered around TV sets in their homes, workplaces and other public
sites as a jury of ten women and two men delivered their sealed
verdict Tuesday morning. The long-awaited decision took on the
character of a national event, one of the most, one of the
most-watched TV broadcast ever, rivaling the aftermath of the 1963
Kennedy assassination... (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4, 1995)
The Defender 's discourse acknowledges the communal nature of the trial as a
media event, but takes a defensive posture which resists the sentimentality
evoked by the Tribune. The image of imminent confrontation inspired by the
Defender's use of the phrase "high noon ruling" belies the initial construction
of the trial as a shared experience:
Eyes and ears gravitated around television screens and radios
across the city to witness firsthand the jury's high noon ruling on
the high profile California murder case that has kept the country
riveted for more than a year. (Chicago Defender, October 4, 1995)
Yet, despite the Defender's less idyllic language, both newspapers evoked the
image of the shared ordeal which made the subsequent rift in public reaction
seem all the more startling.
Figure 1. Racial Divide Media Frame and Submotifs
Racial Divide
Chicago Tribune
y A Tale of Two Worlds
y Race T(a)ints Shared Experience
y Reform the System
Chicago Defender
y We "The People" Versus Racism
y Fear of a White Riot
y Need for Racial Healing
Chicago Tribune Submotifs
A Tale of Two Worlds
While the racial divide operates as the central organizing motif, the frame
contains submotifs that reinforce each paper's specific interpretation and
evaluation of the causes and impact of the racial divide. The Tribune discourse
uses the language of mathematical proportions, cultural indicators and source
identifications to support an image of the world divided in half along
Black-White racial and cultural lines. Throughout the sections of the Tribune
discourse specifically addressing public reaction, those quotes in which the
race of the respondent is identified are almost evenly divided between Black and
White. As, the following excerpt illustrates, the racial division between Black
and White is assumed to the point that the racial identification association
with each "half" goes without saying:
As the not-guilty verdict came to the crowd transfixed on the
television sets in the electronics department of Marshall Field's
State Street store, about half the people let out a jubilant cheer.
The other half looked stunned. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4, 1995)
In describing the nature of the reaction, the Tribune contrasts the shock and
"despair" of Whites with the joy and "elation" of Blacks. Yet the Tribune
globalizes and homogenizes the local response of Black Chicagoans to the verdict
by linking their response to powerful images of cultural nationalism. The stark
contrast between Black and Whites is underscored as the Tribune compares the
anger of Whites to the ecstatic response of Black Muslims in the South Central
area of a "wildly diverse" Los Angeles:
In one restaurant in the South-Central area, African-Americans
exploded in joy and shouted "Allah O Akhbar" D this Islamic
incantation of "God is great" D when they heard the verdict...."It
makes me angry," said Dolores Fozard, a 35-year-old white woman fr
om Santa Monica. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 1995)
By juxtaposing quotes from angry and incredulous Whites with those of elated
and relieved Blacks, the Tribune discourse discursively constructs two worlds D
one Black and one White. This structure is supported by the use of elite
sources, sociologists and political scientists, who underscore the Tribune's
assertion that "the rift in opinion shouldn't surprise anyone":
"This is another example of when many blacks and many whites
literally see a different social world," said Michael Dawson, a
University of Chicago professor who has studied the political views
of African-Americans. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4, 1995)
A quote from Philip Nyden, a sociologist from Loyola University Chicago, serves
to emphasize that the racial divide is a cultural divide in which Whites and
Blacks "live different lives" and make sense of the verdict in different ways:
"It definitely says something about race. Neither side
understands the other to some extent."...Whites may not understand
how blacks see the verdict because they have lived different lives,
Nyden said. Nor have they gotten close enough to blacks to gain a
better understanding. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4, 1995)
The motif of two social worlds is further supported by the Tribune's strong
tendency to counterpose the quotes of working-class Blacks with those of
professional-class Whites. With rare exception does the discourse give voice to
those members of the public identified as Black professionals or White
working-class. As a result, Tribune's discourse symbolically dismisses these
members of the public to the margins of the public debate while obscuring the
role of that class may play in structuring the response to the Simpson verdict.
"Race T(a)ints Shared Experience"
Another submotif within the frame of racial divide constructed by the Tribune
is the image of the spoiled community evoked by the headline "Race Tints Shared
Experience Reaction to Verdict Split into Black and White." The Tribune
describes lost faith in a system in which White can no longer believe in the
possibilities of a colorblind society. However, the Tribune defines skin color
awareness rather than systemic racism as the root of the problem. According to
the Tribune, "many whites...for the first time had to confront feelings that
skin color undermined justice":
Across America, a phenomenon occurred Tuesday that is as
difficult to face as it was impossible to ignore: Whether it
appeared that justice was served or denied depended largely, though
not exclusively, on the observers' race. (Chicago Tribune, Oct. 4,
1995)
Reform the System
The Tribune discourse describes the public's loss of faith in a system in which
"skin color undermines justice." The need for reform is defined within the
discourse as the remedy to restoring faith and, thus, repairing the rift. Though
the discourse acknowledges that for Blacks the Simpson verdict indicates that
the system is finally colorblind, the Tribune privileges the calls for reform by
Whites who see the verdict as a sign that the "scales of justice are out of
balance." Citing the swiftness of the verdict, the spectacle of television
cameras in the courtroom and the influence of money as evidence of "the system's
flaws," the Tribune discourse attempts to nullify its own premise that race is
the key to understanding how the system works.
Chicago Defender Submotifs
We "The People" versus Racism
The Defender relies on a rhetorical mix of civil rights and civic pride
discourse when defining the racial divide as not so much Black people versus
White people as Black people versus the institutions of White racism. This
rhetorical mix is essential to the defensive posture taken by the paper
throughout the discourse. The Defender' evokes the moral high ground of
resistance to racism by rhetorically counterposing the image of the Black
American's struggle for justice against the historically determined racism of
the criminal justice system. The discourse spotlights the voices of Black civic
leaders who hail the triumph of "the people's choice" over the historical biases
of the system. The lead story in the Defender's October 4, 1995 issue begins
with the following:
Stunned by the not guilty verdict for former football star
O.J. Simpson on charges of murder, local leaders here tendered
their own verdict Tuesday D that the jury's decision merely
reflected the "people's choice." (Chicago Defender, Oct. 4, 1995)
The discourse uses the language of fairness and civil rights to temper the
stark image of the racial divide. A chorus of elites D including civic leaders,
elected officials, government executives, ministers and police officers D
validate the jury's decision as a "fair" assessment of Simpson's guilt based on
the "evidence." This validation is constructed against the institutional memory
of the civic elite as they reference the history of a racist criminal justice
system in conjunction with the justness of the Simpson verdict:
"I could burst with tears of joy," Dr. Claudette McFarland,
executive director of the South Shore Commission, exclaimed over
the phone. "I am very sorry for the victims' families, but I feel
that justice has been served. The jury acted according to its con
science and to the evidence presented to it." (Chicago Defender,
Oct. 4, 1995)
Another member of the civic elite concurs:
"I feel that the American justice system has worked in this
case," King [a member of the committee for the Nation of Islam's
Million Man March] said. "In the '30s, '40s and '50s, African
Americans were not present in the courtrooms as they are today." (
Chicago Defender, Oct. 4, 1995)
As does the Tribune's discourse, the Defender's discourse obscures the role
that class and social position may play in structuring the response to the
Simpson verdict. The Defender's discourse presents the illusion of solidarity in
the Black community by promoting civic elites as the "the public's" proxy. While
these voices are characterized as speaking for the community, those members of
the Black professional class and the Black working class who are not "community
leaders" are marginalized to the edges of the discourse.
Fear of a White Riot
A central element of the Defender's construction of public reaction is the
"fear of the white riot." This submotif is another essential element underlying
the defensive posture taken by the paper as it negotiates the frame. Civic
leaders are quoted within the discourse as fearing a backlash by "whites who
refuse to accept the verdict from the jury":
The Rev. Jesse L. Jackson had an ominous warning for African
Americans over the weekend. He said with the level of anti-Black
sentiment rising after the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, he fears this
nation is "near a male white riot." (Chicago Defender, Oct. 5, 1995)
This image of confrontation, reinforcing the high-noon imagery inspired by the
lead of the Defender's first story in the series about the verdict, is
powerfully supported by references to previous conflicts surrounding racially
charged events:
Former Illinois Appellate Court Justice R. Eugene Pincham
said: "The world cannot ignore the race factor." ...He also
referred to the L.A. Rodney King case where a Simi Valley all-white
jury exonerated four white cops accused of beating King, a Black
motorist, and how that jury was shown the video of the beating." We
didn't hear cries of racism from whites then." (Chicago Defender,
Oct. 5, 1995)
Need for Racial Healing
The powerful images of racial unrest evoked by references to the riots
following the Rodney King verdict set the foundation for the submotif of racial
healing. The Defender discourse characterizes a public that feels threatened by
the "re-emergence of splintered race relations in America." The discourse uses
the statements of Albert Alschuler, a White professor of law, to voice the
threat of a White backlash:
"White Americans are now beginning to be afraid of Black
jurors and when that happens, they may be in a better position to
do something about it than African Americans." (Chicago Defender,
Oct. 5, 1995)
Within the discourse, Black leaders respond to this threat with the call for
"cool heads to prevail." While the voice of resistance to the White threat runs
throughout the discourse, the discourse endorses the remedy of racial healing as
the means repairing the rift.
Conclusions
The media frame of the racial divide promotes and sustains commonly held
beliefs about the role of race relations that compels the reader to makes sense
of U.S. social relations within the narrow confines of the Black-White
dialectic. Throughout the discourse of each paper are found the bits and pieces
of the assimilationist and nationalist discourses which compete to dominate the
structure of the frame. The features of this discursive struggle or gridlock are
captured and fixed within the patterns of dynamic contradictions articulated by
the submotifs. The gridlock works within the frame to essentialize the nature of
U.S. social relations along Black-White lines. While each paper begins by
constructing the foundation of the shared experience that is privileged by the
monoculturalist strains found within the assimilationist discourse, the
submotifs within the discourse of each paper reveal the tendency toward
group-based dynamics espoused by the nationalist discourse. Both the Tribune
discourse and the Defender discourse evoke images of colorblind justice, but
their construction of US. social relations ignore the voices of the members of
other racial and ethnic groups and marginlize the voices of those Blacks and
Whites who don't fit the frames criteria.
Yet, the often conflicting and contradictory beliefs about the nature of race
and US. race relations found within and between the discourses of each paper
leaves room, albeit very little, for readers to negotiate alternative
interpretations and evaluations of the public response to the Simpson verdict.
These negotiations are possible because the dynamic of discursive competition
provides gaps or windows of opportunity through which change can enter the field
of opinion. The occasional glimpse of alternative discursive elements found
within the frame suggests that a more diverse representation of social relations
is possible, a fact borne out by the later re-negotiation of the frame of racial
divide that before the Simpson civil trial.
Notes
1. Articles analyzed in the Chicago Defender were culled from the October 4,
1995 and October 5, 1995 issues in order to get a richer body of discourse from
this paper. References
Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and
media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication
, 10, 155-173.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Gissler, S. (1997). Newspapers quest for racial candor. In E. &. P.
Dennis E. (Ed.), The Media in Black and White (pp. pp. 105-112). New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the orgainzation of
experience. New York: Haper & Row.
Graber, D. A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the
information tide (2 ed.). New York: Longman.
Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation and ideology: Althusser
and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Media, 2
(2), 91-114.
Hall, S. (1988). The rediscovery of "ideology": Return of the repressed
in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J.
Woollacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media (pp. 56-70). London:
Routledge.
Hertsgaard, M. (1988). On bended knee: the press and the Reagan
presidency. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Kosicki, G., & Pan, Z. (1996). Framing Analysis: An approach to media
effects. In International Communication Association Conference, .
Chicago, Illinois:
Lewis, C. (1992). Making sense of common sense: A framework for tracking
hegemony. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9(3), pp. 277-292.
Livingstone, S. M. (1990). Making sense of television: The psychology of
audience interpretation. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.
Marable, M. (1992). Race, identity and political culture. In G. Dent
(Ed.), Black Popular Culture (pp. pp. 292-302). Seattle, WA: Bay Press.
Morreale, J. (1991). A new beginning: A texutal frame analysis of the
political campaign film. Albany, New York: State University of New York
Press.
Myrdal, G. (1944, 1985). An American dilemma. In N. R. Yetman (Ed.),
Majority and minority (pp. pp. 121-127). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Omi, M. &. W., H. (1986). Racial formation in the United States: From
the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routhledge.
Prager, J. (1987). American political culture and the shifting meaning
of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10(1), pp. 62-81.
Rivers, W. L. (1975). The mass media: Reporting, writing, editing. New
York: Harper & Row.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the consturction of reality.
New York: Free Press.
Tucker, L. R. (1996). Calvin Klein jeans advertising: Kiddie-porn or
media ado about nothing. In M. &. S. Pomerance J. (Ed.), Pictures of a
Generation on Hold: Selected Papers (pp. 195-204). Toronto: Media
Studies Working Group.
West, C. (1992). Race matters. Boston: Beacon.