Abstract
Sociologist Karen Sternheimer considers the opportunities and challenges of presenting sociological concepts in the news media, particularly when our ideas are edited or interpreted by others.
Recently, I was asked to comment about the fear of clowns for a national news organization. And while, by coincidence, I had a mild fear of clowns as a child, my research does not now, nor has it ever, addressed the fear of clowns. I declined the opportunity, much to the dismay of my university’s media relations department.
Public sociology takes on many forms, including adding a sociological voice to a variety of public issues in the news. I’m always a bit flattered when asked to comment on a story, and have felt a sense of responsibility to cultivate the sociological imagination among a wider audience whenever possible. But after the clown request (and numerous others including the importance of Friday the 13th and the sociological meaning of people who don’t flush toilets in public bathrooms), I began to re-evaluate whether I wanted to continue to comment on infotainment stories. Was this even public sociology? Most concerning, would my participation in these stories trivialize sociology?
Many sociologists writing for the public share the experience of having their work taken out of context or used in forums in which they are not given a chance to comment or correct the record.
Our ability to communicate the importance of sociological perspectives in the news is mediated: by editors of news organizations deciding what stories to assign, by journalists’ choice of quotes, and by the context in which they discuss our work. Anytime we speak to reporters we run the risk of having our ideas misquoted or placed out of context. Once when commenting on issues of gender in a reality show franchise, I mentioned that the shows are cast to stoke conflict and give the impression that women “naturally” can’t get along. I went on to say that portrayals of women as inevitable enemies were anti-feminist, making the possibility of women’s collective action seem impossible. When my comments appeared in the nationally syndicated article, I was attributed with saying, “women naturally can’t get along.”
Format vs. Content
In cable news, a program’s format will likely trump content. For instance, conflict-oriented programming pits us against “opposing views.” We might have legitimate methodological or theoretical debates with others on the show, but any chance to dialogue is eclipsed by a heightened emphasis on the conflicting sides. Often the “opponent” is expressing opinion (usually very colorfully) rather than empirical data and is likely to “win” the argument in the end.
Often we don’t even have the chance to talk with journalists or pundits when they publicize our research findings. This is especially challenged when our work is used as a straw horse for dramatic effect. Recently, Frances Fox Piven received death threats when conservative commentator, Glenn Beck, used her as fodder on his show; he accused her of being an “enemy of the Constitution” who was attempting to collapse the U.S. economic system. This case may be extreme, but many sociologists writing for the public share the experience of having their work taken out of context or used in forums in which they are not given a chance to comment or correct the record.
Of course, there are many instances where sociologists add valuable insights to stories in the news, and it remains important to share our research and apply sociological perspectives to everyday events, perhaps even stories that seem banal. I was once asked by a local call-in radio show to discuss why teens might hug hello at school. I had not studied this topic, but I agreed because I thought it would be a chance to discuss some of Erving Goffman’s work on impression management and front stage/back stage behavior. When one teen called and protested that when he hugged someone it “wasn’t just for show,” it was an opportunity to talk about how our social actions don’t make us “phonies,” but instead are often purposeful acts meant to communicate information about ourselves to others.
Corey Fields
As Michael Kimmel wrote in “Good Sociology Makes Lousy TV,” our work can be difficult to communicate. “Talk shows thrive on complacency; we offer critical perspectives,” he noted. Our discipline seeks to challenge what appears to be common sense, to explore why and how in a broader context. We seek to complicate the experiences of everyday life, while pundits and journalists often—although not always—seek to simplify these experiences.
The Public Sociologist’s Dilemma
The penchant for sound bites puts those of us hoping to engage the public with sociological insights in a tough position. Do we learn to play the game of the infotainment age, slipping in our sociology lessons when the opportunities arise, no matter how bizarre the story or angry the argument? Getting on journalists’ radar often means commenting on many small stories so your name comes up when someone does a Google search for a sociologist. But our participation may give the impression that sociology is as meaningless as the stories we comment on, and these mediated comments, no matter how pithy, certainly do not clear up that fundamental question that many of us are often asked: what exactly is sociology.
But reporters who seek our input are rarely seeking sociological insight. For instance, my research on celebrity fan magazines has led to many calls for comment on celebrities in the news, especially from reporters looking for a pseudo-therapeutic take on why a young star has acted out and what effect this may have on young fans. In many instances, a sociological analysis is the last thing the reporter is looking for, and it becomes clear that my not being a psychologist is a real disappointment. “Can’t you just answer the question?” an annoyed British reporter asked me during an interview about a celebrity who had recently died, as though surely I could—and should—make something up because she was on deadline.
The online environment can be hostile, to say the least, but we have the chance to present the topics we feel are important to a more diverse audience than traditional publications might reach.
As Kimmel notes in his essay, sociologists study things that most people don’t want to hear about, like poverty, racism, sexism, and other forms of inequality; stories that seldom get reported on except in the case of a compelling incident that makes national headlines.
Is it possible to become “unmediated” public sociologists who share our work with a general audience? As sociologists who call for people to think critically about the purpose of social institutions, we recognize that the interests of commercial news media may be directly at odds with some of our findings, which means these venues might not be the best channel through which to share our work in the first place. Maybe this explains why so much of what we do is obscured, rather than illuminated, by traditional media outlets.
In the age of social networking, we no longer need to rely on traditional gatekeepers to tell the public about our research. The online environment can be hostile, to say the least (even blogs, tweets, videos, and other posts can be re-posted and repurposed in ways that we hadn’t imagined or intended), but we have the chance to present the topics we feel are important to a more diverse audience than traditional publications might reach. While a well-placed op-ed in The New York Times or an interview on a national news outlet will likely get more attention than tweets or blog posts, these new media are useful and potentially more in-depth venues for sharing our sociological imagination in smaller-scale public discussions.
Corey Fields
I remain conflicted about whether to participate in the next story about a celebrity divorce or arrest. My participation is influenced by the fact that I work in a university that encourages and values public scholarship, but I’m also mindful of sociologists who disparage “dumbed down” media contributions. In the end, I consider it is a good sign that sociology has made its way into the public discourse at all, but continue to grapple with the very sociological insight that our contributions are always mediated.