Excuses, excuses

         The article “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy,” which discussed the media framing of the Matthew Shepard murder, reminded me a lot of the previous article/book we read about the Brandon Teena murder. In both of these cases, the media looked for motives behind why people could resort to killing another human being.  In the Brandon Teena murder, the media made it seem as though Brandon was dishonest, and “tricked” the poor women from that city. So it was only natural for the two men to do what was necessary to stand-up for those women. And what else could they possibly do but murder Brandon? He was different from them, and what is different is obviously dangerous. In the case of Matthew Shepard, the media explained that the men’s behavior had to do with their overall intelligence. The men dropped out of high school, which apparently makes them more likely to kill. It seems as though the media was setting up the argument that dropping out of high school equates to lower levels of intelligence, which equates to less responsibility for their actions.

The defense team for the murderers also tried to make the claim that the men were homophobic and were uneasy about Matthew being a homosexual. The fact that a lawyer would try to argue that in court, as if that makes it okay, is just mind blowing. The main point that I am trying to make is that the media makes an awful lot of excuses for the actions of those in power. The men who murdered Brandon Teena were rednecks from a small town who were trying to protect the women who Brandon took advantage of. The men who murdered Matthew were homophobic cowboys who were uncomfortable with someone who was different. In addition, Lynndie England, a soldier who helped carry out the scandal at Abu Ghraib, experienced problems as a child and was sexually deviant.

Why do any of these things matter? Someone who performs a brutal act should pay the price, no excuses. But the media needs to provide the public with some type of resolution and some type of answers. The public needs to know why these murderers deviated away from “normal” behavior. And yet, it is easy to notice what all of these aforementioned individuals have in common: they are white, and thus they have power. Brandon Teena’s murderers, Matthew Shepard’s murderers, and Lynndie England are all members of the white class. I wonder if these excuses would be made if these individuals were not white.

It is interesting to examine the way that the media frames stories and provides excuses for the behavior of certain individuals. But I ask, do individuals who have created such horrific acts of violence really deserve our understanding? Can their behavior ever truly be explained away? I certainly hope not, and thus I will continue to be a critical observer of media. 

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.