I don’t care for fashion magazines. Maybe this is because I do not like my own ideas of fashion and beauty to be constructed for me. Or perhaps I am reluctant to inundate my eyes with visuals of paper-thin models and misogynistic advertisements intended to sell liquor or clothes I can’t afford.
But this last month’s edition of Vogue caught even my attention. Featured is a King Kong motif gone very, very wrong: Supermodel Giselle Bundchen, smiling and looking effortlessly beautiful, is being held by basketball star LeBron James, photographed as angry and fierce.
Now, critics are crying racism because of the cover’s depiction of a stereotypical, angry black man. Considering that LeBron James is the first black man to appear on the cover of Vogue, the fact that he is depicted in such a beastly way has understandably provoked massive outrage.
Yet, this racial insensitivity doesn’t surprise or disturb me. Why should the fact that he is black not allow him the freedom to express himself whichever way he desires? Why should he necessarily be representing his race rather than himself?
What does disturb me is the reaction of many of my fellow students of journalism. Many, while acknowledging the potential to offend, found this picture to be good exposure and publicity, as though a photo-op was a justification for racial stereotyping. “It is the people that look too deeply into this,” said one girl, “who promote racial stereotyping.”
At first, I was disappointed in my peers. Should our obligation to an employer trump any ethical responsibility to the public? Does our obligation to respect our audiences pale in comparison to the importance of a paycheck? My disappointment was soon replaced with a fleeting sense of panic as I began to realize that these same students would one day be integrated into our own media. They will one day have the power to influence us, to shape our culture and to construct our own perceptions of what is normal and desirable.
To communicate with the public carries a great potential for both harm and benefit because the media are inextricably linked with our culture, norms, behaviors and values. It is why courses on media ethics should be required within the university’s J-School curriculum, classes that are meant to cause us to analyze how communication affects the public and to raise our moral consciousness.
Yet, despite the existence of communication ethics, much of what we see and read is designed to manipulate us. The words and visuals that we internalize – magazines, newspapers, the Internet, advertisements – tend to reinforce an idea of normal that is anything but. As a result, our most self-destructive tendencies are considerably exploited: dissatisfaction with ourselves, a constant desire for more, the need to supersede each other on society’s hierarchical ladder.
Why is it that we are so quickly roused to action by the supposed racial stereotyping of another, yet we are unconcerned with our own misrepresentation in the media? We should be concerned with the equal weight given to both consumerism and ethics. We should be upset for being conditioned to aspire toward such an unattainable standard of beauty and success. We should be furious for being awash within these fabricated ideas of beauty and success that work to fuel a self-indulgent, materialistic society. The media know that they have the power to influence us, and this power is being abused so consistently and we have simply become numb to it.
It is no wonder that America is both the richest and apparently one of the most depressed countries in the world. While the media have the potential to help us lead fuller, happier lives, the interest in profit trumps their concern for the welfare of their audiences. A more humanistic approach to mass communication is needed. Our own positive, constructive values should be served rather than undermined. Constantly exploiting our own self-hatred should not be the dominant marketing strategy.
[email protected]