Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


September 3rd, 2015

No description

Tim Klein

on 6 September 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of September 3rd, 2015

Introduction to Mass Media
September 3rd, 2015
Finish up Tuesday's lecture
1. Walter Lippmann on stereotypes (finish up)
2. Discussion of This American Life: "Cops See It Differently"
3. Crime perceptions vs. crime statistics
3. Discussion of "Revenge Killing" by Rachel Aviv
1. Different ways of knowing.
2. Principles of the scientific method
1. Check Moodle for your grade for Quiz #1. If you took the quiz and didn't get a grade send me an email (we have a few quizzes we couldn't find in the grade book). If you want to go over your quiz, come to my office hours.
2. Look for email from me about scheduling your first Exam (Sept 18th - 23rd)
Lippmann believed that the real world is too complex, vast and beyond our full comprehension, that the only way we can deal with the world is by reconstructing it in our minds as a simpler model of the world - this is where the stereotype develops.
If what we experience, corresponds with what we anticipated, the stereotype (or expectation) is reinforced. If the stereotype is not fulfilled, we either dismiss it as the exception to the stereotype or we modify our stereotype.
If we recognize stereotypes and we notice when our ideas started, where they came from and why we accept them, we are more open to seeing an individual distinct reality.
"It is only when we are in the habit of recognizing our opinions as a partial experience seen through our stereotypes that we become truly tolerant of an opponent" ... "Without that habit, we believe in the absolutism of our own vision, and consequently in the treacherous character of all our opposition."
"To see all things freshly and in detail, rather than types and generalities, is exhausting" but with friends, close associates and matters of great importance, then we are less likely to take shortcuts in thinking, and instead favor an individualized understanding.
Cont. from Tuesday lecture:

What were some of Lippmann's ideas about stereotypes that we discussed in Tuesday's class?
Discussion of
This American Life:
"Cops See It Differently"

1. Whose perspective is shared in this podcast? How do the authors of "Cops See It Differently" frame information?
2. How is this piece of journalism an example of "agenda setting"?
3. What is implicit bias? How is it different from explicit bias? What is the difference between gang units and regular police? Why? (What about Milwaukee officer who worked night shift?)
Crime portrayals in the media
vs. race statistics
“Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies.” by Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D., - a synthesis of 20 years of research.

1. A study in Los Angeles found that 37% of the suspects portrayed on television news stories about crime were black, although blacks made up only 21% of those arrested in the city.
2. Whites represented 43% of homicide victims in the local news, but only 13% of homicide victims in crime reports. And while only 10% of victims in crime reports were whites who had been victimized by blacks, these crimes made up 42% of televised cases. These disparities exist in news coverage nationwide.

(“Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies")
3. Crime coverage also betrays subtler racial differences. A study of television news found: Black and Latino suspects were also more often
presented in a non-individualized way
than whites – by being left unnamed – and were more likely to be shown as threatening – by being depicted in physical custody of police.
(“Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies")
A study on how Columbus, Ohio’s major newspaper reported on the city’s murders – which were predominantly committed by and against black men – examined whether unusual or typical cases were considered newsworthy. The researcher found that journalists gravitated to unusual cases when selecting victims (white women) and to typical cases when selecting perpetrators (black men). Yet reporters did not choose to cover the most infrequent murders, of blacks by whites or of white men by white women.
This peculiar focus suggests that newsworthiness is not a product of how representative or novel a crime is, but rather how well it can be “scripted using stereotypes grounded in White racism and White fear of Black crime.”

(“Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies")
Another study in Florida found that the white respondents regularly overestimated the percentage of black people who commit crimes, saying 50 percent of criminals involved in violent crime were black when the actual percentage was closer to 20 percent.
Washington Post
But the statistics in Florida also showed black people committed about 40 percent of gunpoint robberies and represented 35 percent of those selling illegal drugs, in a state where about 16 percent of the population is black.

So those who believe in systemic racism could note that white people consistently overestimate the criminality of black people, while those who resist that notion could argue black people still were committing crimes beyond their population levels.”

How does this relate to Lippmann's ideas about stereotypical thinking? When someone cherry picks the data, what is this called?
Discussion of "Revenge Killing" by Rachel Aviv in
The New Yorker

1. According to the article, how did Caddo parish Assistant D.A. Dale Cox "frame" Crawford to the jury?

1. Different ways of knowing.
2. History and principles of the scientific method
3. Studies and evidence for priming, agenda-setting and framing.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief?
How do we know what we know?
What makes a justified belief justified?
What are some different ways of knowing?
1. Personal experience/senses/anecdotal evidence (or memory of our experience)
2. Popularity/experience of others (we may trust widely held, popular ideas)
3. Authority (books, parents, a doctor, a teacher tells us something - if we trust the source as an authority, then we believe what they say is true.)
4. Revelation (truth is revealed to us by a higher power)
5. Tradition (we believe something because we've always believed it)
6. Logic (syllogism ex: if all men are mortal and John is a man, then we know that John is Mortal). Truth is base on premise being true.
Four different ways of knowing:
1. Intuitive (belief, faith, intuition - it makes sense in your head based on what you feel)
2. Authoritative (The strength depends on the strength of the source)
3. Logical (correct reasoning. if A = C and B = A, then B = C)
4. Empirical (based on demonstrable, objective facts (which are determined through observation and/or experimentation).
Other aspects of scientific method:
1. Rule out alternative explanations - you must be able to rule out all possible alternative explanations
2. Not about authority but evidence
3. Peer review process (other experts look at your experiment, data, logic and try to poke holes in it and reproduce it) - Ii it holds up to scrutiny, then it is published in a scientific journal
4. placebo/control group - you compare results to control group because just testing something changes the result (placebo effect)
5. double blind experiment - the person administering the experiment doesn’t know whether participants are part of the control group or the test group.
6. keep open mind - because you can never truly rule out all alternative explanations
7. falsifiability - a scientific idea must be able to be testable or it must be able to be proved wrong. Theoretical physicists Wolfgan Pauli: "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong."

Einstein: 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Scientific method - (applies to social science as well as natural sciences)
1. You observe something
2. You make a prediction about it (also caused a hypothesis)
3. You test the prediction (by creating an experiment that test one variable)
4. You (and others) must be able to reproduce your results.
Assistant DA, Dale Cox's frames for the jury that found Crawford guilty:
1. bruise above baby's eye and cut on his lip (signs of child abuse)
2. bruises on the baby's bottom (more signs of abuse)
3. Crawford's arrest record: open warrant for marijuana possession, battery of past girlfriends,
4. Crawford didn't finish high school. Cox questioned the mother of Crawford's daughter, asking him "During the one year of Roderius's life, did Crawford ever work?" "No" "Did you know he was he a habitual user of marijuana?" "Yes"
Cox also asked Crawford's younger brother if he thought smoking marijuana was wrong? Brother said "no."
Questions continued to focus on marijuana use and Crawford's lack of work.
Alternative frames that were presented to jury that go against guilty verdict
1. Caddo pathologist found pneumonia in baby's lungs, but didn't mention it to jury
2. Pastor at church said Crawford was proud to be a father and wanted a little boy badly
3. Pathologist from Michigan (who authored a widely used textbook) found baby's blood has sepsis and concluded he died of pneumonia, and thought there "wasn't enought evidence to even put this before a jury. You didn't have anybody who thought this guy commited murder except for on pathologist who decided that it was homicide on what seemed like a whim"
4. Caddo pathologist based his finding of suffocation "based entirely on the bruises on Roderious's lip" but he never sampled tissue to date injury on babies lip. This could have proved if fall happened earlier in the bathroom.
5. Caddo pathologist misstated science, saying baby's brain swelled from suffocation, but brain doesn't swell from suffocation because person dies too quick and swelling only happens when someone dies slowly and blood keeps pumping. Brain can swell from pneumonia with sepsis.
6. Crawford never testified in court to defend himself.

Possible "frames" that influenced Rachel Avivi's article

1. Busts of Confederate generals in front of the courthouse.
2. Stone slab with Confederate flag and a tribute to "the deeds and valor of the men who so gallantly, nobly, and conscientiously defended the cause"
3. Caddo was the last capital of the Confederacy
4. Had more lynchings than all but one county in the south.
5. Juries in Caddo parish sentence more people to death per capita than juries in any other county in US.
6. 77% of those sentenced to death over last 40 years have been black, and half of the sentences were for killing a white person. No white ever put to death for killing a black in Caddo Parrish.
Questions about Assistant DA Dale Cox
7. Avivi asked Cox if "he worried about the possibility that the parish's fraught racial history and its approach to capital punishment were related" Cox "didn't see the connection."
8. Former prosecuting attorney in Caddo wrote editorial in response to innocent man who spent 30 years on death row, saying they are "simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death. Cox's response to article was "I think we need to kill more people"
9. Rumors of Assistant DA Cox having a brain tumor
10. Rumors that Cox's divorce and bankruptcy mad him bitter
11. DA "culture" where large portrate of Nathan Bedford Forrest, leader of KKK was on wall
12. Jury had 9 whites and 3 blacks
13. Assistant DA Cox was described by opposing attorney as "the greatest trial lawyer I've gone up against" ... "he is very effective, lke Darth Vader"
14. "the jury can see past the code"
15. Assistant DA Cox wrote probation department "Crawford deserves as much physical suffering as it is humanly possible to endure before he dies"
16. When Avivi met with Cox, he couldn't remember details of case and got details of another case confused with Crawfords case.
17. The lack of motive didn't bother Cox - "It was more of a reason to seek the death penalty"
Alternative evidence
18. Crawford's appeal had three doctors who concluded independently that original autopsy was deeply flawed. El Paso coroner said "there was no scientific evidence to support the diagnosis. They called it homicide before they knew what was going on."
Pathologist from Minnesota said about the Caddo pathologist "To be really honest the pathologist did not seem willing to consider the actual facts of this case."
19. Crawford's lawyers in appeal wrote that "racial and geographic arbitrariness of the death penalty in Louisiana confied predominantly to African-American men prosecuted in Caddo Parish" ... Crawford's fate depended far more on where he was prosecuted than his ultimate moral culpability."
Review quiz

5. Assistant D.A. of Caddo Parrish, Dale Cox was prosecuting another black man accused of killing his son (Crawford may have reminded Cox of other case)
6. Cox had theory that the destruction of the two parent household was liked to every person he put to death (the "destruction of the nuclear family and a tremendously high illegitimate birth rate" have brought about an "epidemic of child-killings"
7. Lott's family testified against Crawford
8. Michigan pathologist's credibility was destroyed by Cox. Judge wrote that "any veracity that he had was destroyed"
2. How does author Rachel Aviv frame Crawford's story? How does Aviv frame the overall story of the death penalty in Caddo parish? How does her frame differ from Cox's framing?
3. How does Aviv persuade the reader? What evidence does she use to make her argument?
4. Draw a connection between the media portrayals of violence, public opinion, stereotypes, and the jury's sentencing of Crawford.
Full transcript