Rosie vs. Ellen

Blog Post #4

Amy Yount

Shugart’s article was particularly interesting for me because I had a completely different reaction to Rosie O’Donnell announcing that she was a lesbian. The focus of the article was discussing reasons why O’Donnell’s coming out did not see as much media attention as Ellen, and why Rosie saw a great deal of support for her announcement. The author discussed how Rosie was loved by much of her demographic because she was seen as a nurturing mother, even though she was very politically active. However, I have a completely different memory of the events that surrounded her announcement.

I am from a small town that has traditional small town values. Growing up, I remember hearing so much negativity surrounding O’Donnell and her political views. When she came out as a lesbian, that only provided fuel for the fire. There was no focus on her nurturing side, or even her comedy. The majority of the talk revolved around her “liberal politics” and her being a lesbian. So it was interesting for me to read what the majority of Americans thought about her coming out as a lesbian, and how the media portrayed her.

The author argued that even though Rosie came out publically as a lesbian, the majority of Rosie fans were still accepting of her. This was mainly because a lot of her viewers were mothers who could identify with her along the lines of motherhood and raising children. To me, the author is saying that her viewers could almost overlook her being a lesbian, as long as she put her children at the forefront of discussion. However, it honestly surprised me that her fans had such a neutral reaction to her coming out. Especially because, at the time, it wasn’t quite as popular for celebrities to be so open with their sexuality. Therefore, views about homosexuality were still pretty negative in some demographics. With Rosie being a mother, one would think that people would be even more opposed to her homosexuality and have an even stronger reaction. I just know that in my corner of the country, I heard things such as “I feel sorry for her children” and “She just uses her show as a platform for her politics.” So as I was reading this article, I had a hard time identifying with a lot of the points made by the author, because it was not consistent with my lived experience.

Another aspect of the article was that of the “poster child.” This discussion reminded me of the article from last week’s class about Ellen and her almost unwanted status as a poster child for homosexuality. Ellen consistently made it noted that her show was “not a gay sitcom” and she did not feel the need to use her homosexuality as a ralying cry. Rosie, on the other hand, seemed to want to fight to become a poster child. It is my opinion that Rosie wanted to be seen as a poster child for gay adoption, and she turned herself into one. The article discussed numerous examples of when Rosie would discuss her children on the show, and even fought for the rights of homosexuals to be able to adopt. Her show allowed her the opportunity to discuss these issues on a public forum, thus almost catapulting her into the status of a poster child. I think this is one of the biggest issues that sets Rosie and Ellen apart.

But again, it is interesting to examine why Rosie and Ellen received different amounts of attention from the media upon their coming out. Rosie is much more political than Ellen, at the time of Ellen’s coming out. Rosie has a much more “in your face” attitude, so it would make more sense for Rosie to receive more attention upon coming out, even though the opposite actually happened. I know that people around me were more shocked when Ellen came out than when Rosie did, so again I state that reading this article was very interesting for me, because I saw how the majority of the public actually felt about Rosie vs. Ellen’s coming out and how it differed from my lived experiences.

Ellen, Matthew, and Lynndie as Scapegoats and Poster Children

The media relies on shortcuts, as exemplified by the three readings for this week. Throughout these readings (which, it has to be said, I thoroughly enjoyed), various media outlets used the stories of Ellen Degeneres, Matthew Shepard, and Lynddie England to create scapegoats and poster children for various social problems. I will explore the roles scapegoats and poster children play in larger culture.

In their article, “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy: Media Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder,” Ott & Aoki view Matthew Shepard’s killers as scapegoats. While the Ott & Aoki article explicitly utilizes Kenneth Burke’s theory of scapegoating, Gronnvoll also sees Lynndie England, and to an extent, all of the women at Abu Ghraib, as scapegoats in their own right. England, and really all of the Abu Ghraib guards, were also scapegoated, allowing the American public to ignore pressing social issues—should there be a more strenuous screening process for prison guards? Does the military encourage the feminization of prisoners, and what does that mean for gender constructs? Scapegoating cleanses the public of any blame. Laramie, Wyoming did not have to confront its discriminatory attitudes, and the U.S. Army did not have to face its gender discrimination. Furthermore, the American government and larger public were able to avoid their larger prejudices. 

Scapegoating is infuriating, and it also appears in the film Boys Don’t Cry and helps articulate my biggest problem with the film. By making Brandon Teena’s killers visibly psychotic, the film absolves its audience and the larger public from any blame for Brandon’s death. The portrayal of Brandon Teena’s killers is comparable to the media framing of Matthew Shepard’s killers. Ott & Aoki wrote, “Hatred and homophobia… would come to be framed primarily as character flaws of the chief antagonists, rather than as wide-scale social prejudices that routinely result in violence toward gays and lesbians” (488). Our culture’s discomfort with gender ambiguity was not Brandon’s killer—these two violent, mentally unstable men were. Case closed. Furthermore, since the film clearly presents Brandon as an all-around great guy, the public is not disturbed by him nearly as much as they are disturbed by his killers. Once again, the American public does not have to examine its own beliefs and prejudices.

            In addition to scapegoating, all three articles deal with media-imposed poster children. By coming out at the same time as her fictional character, Ellen Degeneres became the poster child for lesbians. Dow notes that “she is, in fact, the ultimate user-friendly lesbian for television purposes,” and she still is, along with her gay male counterpart, Neil Patrick Harris (127). Matthew Shepard became the poster child for hate crimes against gay people, and Lynddie England “went on to become the poster child for bad behavior and a cautionary tale for thousands of women soldiers on active duty,” through the media’s portrayal of England as simultaneously aggressively over-sexed and submissive to authority figures (Gronnvoll, 375). Why does the media rely so heavily on poster children?

Scapegoats serve a clear narrative purpose—after their punishment, they restore social order. Poster children, however, are less functional and serve as testaments to the power of the media. They allow the media to generalize. Poster children simply allow the media to create shortcuts. They become archetypes for the cause or personality trait that they represent. In terms of narrative functionality, though, poster children add nothing other than a face to a cause. Ellen Degeneres makes lesbians look friendly and non-threatening. Matthew Shepard makes gay people look innocent and reminds the public that hate crimes can happen anywhere. Lynddie England makes female soldiers look oversexed and malicious. They have symbolic power more than narrative power; however, they can stir up intense emotions. Interestingly, poster children can only be created by the media, which need shortcuts to help show their viewers how to feel.

Scapegoats and poster children are both utilized regularly in pop culture. While scapegoats serve the narrative function of cleansing and restoring social order, poster children serve as shortcuts and symbols. Both can be used for manipulation or to shed light on social issues. It’s up to the media to choose wisely.