Prof. J. Levitin
LL. Law, Women & Popular Culture

Jarek SS Krysinski

Outline

PROPOSAL .
INTRODUCTION 2
A. ORIGINS OF TELEVISION RELATIVE TO “RACE”. 2
B. INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE MEDIUM 4
C. NORMALIZATION OF WHITENESS 4
C.A ANTI-RACIST THEORY RELATIVE TO SNSS: MULTIPLICITY IS IMPLIED. 4
C.B NORMALIZATION OF WHITE PEDAGOGY¾PERSISTENCE OF WHITE SUPREMACY 5
C.C SEX QUESTIONS/ANSWERS DON’T ADDRESS CONTEXT OF SEX QUESTION 5
C.D IMPLIED MULTICULTURALNESS IS NOT EXPLICIT 5
C.E MEDIUM OF TELEVISION & ANTI-RACISM (CAN TV BE ANTI-RACIST). 5
CONCLUSION 6

Introduction
This paper is a semiological-ideological analysis of the normalization of race on modern television. In simpler terms, it is a study of how meaning is constructed on television based on the dominant ideologies evident on the medium of television, particularly from an anti-racist perspective. More contextually, it is a short study of the unobtrusive, non-coercive, and seemingly neutral power dynamic in the Sunday Night Sex Show. Throughout this analysis I will employ particular examples to make my points, most of these examples are from either the show itself or from theoretical sources. I employ these theoretical sources because¾while the subject of “sex” is generally something that does not exist in a vacuum¾sex (or a sex TV show) cannot be talked about without addressing other very relevant variables. While I acknowledge from the outset that the SNSS does not claim to be anything other than a talk show about sex, concomitant with that purpose, they also don’t acknowledge that they are grounded in an inclusivist context that will strive to include a diversity of contexts that situated and modify sex as a subject for discussion: for instance, “black women never came up, even though they might have been considered”(Wallace 1993), among other contexts. This paper then, is an act to complicate that appearance of neutrality in the SNSS, particularly when the claim to a pragmatic aim to sex education must be complicated, an example could be Spivak’s view that “neutrality is itself a value-laden position”(Spivak, 1993). It is a study of the extent to which television lends itself to the aims of representing ‘reality’ to the viewer, or rather the reality of racisms, discriminations, oppressions, power struggles, among many realities. It is also a study of the constant minimization of racism in the name of pragmatism, wherein racism is minimized as the by-product of the hegemony of knowledge formation. It is necessary to say that this pragmatism is institutionalized in the medium of television, inevitably including the historical traditions it stemmed from “historically constituted relations of domination and subordination [which] are embedded in institutional structures of society”(Dei, 1995, 27), particularly when such relations are “entrenched and (un)consciously supported in institutional structures”(Simmons 1994, 27; E. Lee, 1994¾in Dei, 27). But how will I organize this paper? How will it make sense to the reader?

The structure of this paper will be as follows. This paper will quickly summarize the development of the medium of Television in order to show an origin story (part A) that already predicated the predominance of power groups over the subject matter addressed on the medium and, accordingly, always already precludes anti-racist programming or pro-feminist (among many other de-centering programming) from the mass media: “If television as it developed after 1945 became the poetry of the age, the stanzas got progressively shorter, less taxing, and more devoid of meaning”(Anthony Smith, 120). Then, in Part B, I will explain some additional limitations of the medium of television, so as to summarily open up the discussion for issues of Racism on Television in general. Then, in Part C, I will begin to furnish examples and a discussion about the SNSS, with particular theoretical positions and quotations to represent the limitations it occupies. To do so (moving from part C.a ¾ C.d) I will present some anti-racist theory, I will discuss the tendency for the normalization of whiteness on television to open a discussion about the canonization of white pedagogy, and then I will take issue with sexual pedagogy particularly when it excludes the context wherein sex obviously exists. One example is that a white woman is talking about sex, suggesting a racial dynamic that is already implied in a “white” person responding/answering to a multicultural community, but also suggesting that she can represent with her answers the diverse questions and answers possible about sexuality as a topic for discussion, and that such a subject is not associated to the diverse lived experiences her ‘mixed’ audience.

I can anticipate that studying the apparent racism of a sex show that is so loved and respected can, no doubt, pose some problems to the reader; but it is necessary to select a hard example like this one in order to present the reality of the symbolic racism (Kramer 1997, hooks 1992; Lyotard 1984) still inherent in the human subjects in the show itself. As I've already presented on Sue Johanson from a positive, respectful, as an awe-inspired viewer and fan, it is not unnecessary to look at the SNSS more critically for the purpose of this paper. I speak of the symbolism of the whiteness, since it reproduces a kind of power that one does not suspect: “Symbolic violence reproduces power by silencing the voice of opposition, and by violating the sense of self-worth, collective power, and integrity of individuals”(Kramer, 1997). The domination in the show is largely discerned by the manifested predominance of whiteness and the regulatory criteria that it represents by the constancy of its representation on the screen, by constantly seeing the speaker expunge knowledge. In short, while racism is not at issue in the SNSS, but because the audience (and crew) are necessarily culturally, racially, and ethnically diverse, the question of a potential symbolic violence arises: namely, are systems of domination and inequality occurring here while a discourse of pluralism and inclusivism is proposed? I will try to answer this question.

A. Origins of Television relative to “Race”
I will now present a brief three-paragraph history of the development of the medium of Television, this will be followed by an analysis of the limitations of the medium itself. Historically, Television (TV) has been quite vague about “race”. Television as a medium, taking Oprah’s shows for instance, is quite adamant about showing color and the representations of ethnicity, without so much as a concomitant use of the word “race” in the subject (Spigel 1997), or in the discussion about human differences in general. Representations of differences are present and sensationalized on the media, and Oprah, but with little explicit analysis and mention of “race” as a central point of analysis. Michele Wallace has a good point that, “while [one is] enjoying the increasing visibility of blacks on TV and in films as mush as anybody else, [one must] feel compelled to remember the downside: material conditions are not changing for the masses of blacks”(Wallace, 1993). It needs to be noted that Television has originated in the desire for commerce, communication, and, most importantly, warfare, as is evident in the development of Television technologies in the inter-war period (Anthony Smith, 1995, 13). I will elaborate the military and hegemonic aspects of the medium one paragraph down but, for now, what do I mean about the lack of the use of the word: ‘race’? But first, what was the origin story of TV, how did it come to be?

Well, before TV, messages used to pass on “ship, horses, birds, and shank’s mare…but these were slow, cumbersome, and subject to the whims of weather, terrain, or the endurance of animals”(Smith, 13) . When the signal could finally travel through wire, and electromagnetic impulses, “it soon became the quickest means of point-to-point communication”(Smith 13). The term Television was born in 1900, on August 25, by a gentleman called Constantin Perskyi “in which he described an apparatus based on the magnetic properties of selenium. This new term slowly supplanted the older names such as the ‘telephot’ or ‘telectroscope’ to describe the newly born art and science of ‘seing at a distance’(Smith 16). Over the next 30 years the TV would be developed, and when it was the "broadcast industry was to create a small group of extremely profitable station and network operators who quickly became powerful figures on the political and regulatory scene"(Smith 35). These figures subsequently ensured and inured that only a few powerful channels could be distributed through the technology at the time: “This quickly created a relatively small group of extremely profitable large-market station operators served by two dominant network firms, NBC and CBS, with the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)”(Smith 36). This resulted in a quite unique legacy wherein more far more inferior (or less pixelated) images were distributed in America which, in turn, resulted in a heritage of inferior imagery relative to the rest of the world, resulting in the limitation and simplification of everything that was represented on or with the medium of TV, hence reducing the complexity of every image that passed on the medium of TV.

Since we get a rough idea of the hegemonic aspect of TV, let’s return to the hegemonic and militarist aspects of TV: “Emerging from the late 193Os and World War II, radio broadcasting found itself in a curiously ambivalent position of strength and defensiveness”(Smith, 37). Ambitious spending resulting from post-war economies resulting in the development of multi-million dollar broadcast talent contracts, which would be broadcast on the elitist and mega-capital medium of TV to the masses (or at least those who could initially afford TV). Because these origins were reflected or located among the privileged classes and groups, the representation and ideas on their TV ¾ or early television obviously ¾ would and necessarily did reflect their ideologies and political stance. Indeed, at the time “only 8,000 sets were sold by the end of 1946”(Smith 40)¾as the industry was still unsettled from the FCC rules regulating the extent of Government control over the medium¾the growth was still staggering. Smith shows that “by autumn of 1947 there were still only 60,000 TV sets in the entire country, two-thirds of them in New York City, the result of set manufacturers' sales allocations to retailers in the nation's media and advertising capital, and TV programme-makers faced an unusual, if transient, audience demographic problem. In September 1947, 3,000 Of 47,000 sets in NYC were operating in bars; the rest were located in homes of high-income families; however, because the TV sets in bars attracted many more viewers per set than those in private homes, the overall audiences were roughly equal”(Smith 41). It becomes apparent why a NYC audience, along with their diversity, is a priority for the author of this paper, this is because I see a parallel between the old days, where a classed audience was evident, to the present days where an ideology of power is still in grasp of the medium and the ideas expunged thereon. In the first years of US commercial TV, the mostly male tavern audience represented a significant proportion of viewers, like this group at McCarthy's Steak House in New York City in 1951. The demographic shift eventually came to include the middle to working-class groups, serving as “due motivation for programming shifts”(Smith 42) which catered to the diversity of class: “'TV is becoming the poor man's theater', he noted. By January 1950 one observer pointed to 'the almost reckless abandon with which money has been invested in TV by the public even where ready cash was not available. . . Television is the poor man's latest and most prized luxury'”(Smith 43). But here, again, there is no mention of race. The split is only between the poor and the rich¾a more simplified and discrete look at complexity.

B. Inherent limitations of the Medium
I will now present what I feel to be some distinct limitation of the medium of TV. The medium of TV has, since its inception, been rather disappointing to its own industry as well as the majority of observers, and critics. This was for the most part because of its contrived nature in visual representation of reality and, as I said above, because of its reductive nature. TV programming 'is reminiscent of a junior high school graduation play', and Fortune in mid-1950 complained of 'program drivel that makes the worst movies and soap operas seem highbrow'(Smith 44). While TV, since its inception and through its proponents, has aimed to justify its role in extra-nationalistic ways, such arguments would undoubtedly serve to justify itself as a medium serving vested interests: “As contemporary media economists have noted, the peculiar combination of concentrated private economic power and ostensible public interest standard in American network TV led to sometimes tortuous justifications of oligopolistic privilege”(Smith, 49). TV has grown quickly but such a growth did not mean it has progressed toward social consciousness: “'television grew¾and behaved as outlandishly as an adolescent boy…”(Smith 53), particularly where the drives of capital took predominance over informative/educational programming: “commercial radio networks and stations dropped almost all educational programming in the rush to commercial television” since the mid 1940s. Where capital is at stake, both then and now. it is obvious that any alternative to it must be supplied by capital, and where it is not, the alternatives will be sparse: “it is absurd to expect commercial broadcasting either to meet the needs of schools and colleges or to stress culture rather than popular entertainment”(Smith 54). It is also found, in studies since the late 40s, that “advertising constituted 20 per cent of TV time, while educational programmes amounted to less than 1 per cent”(Smith 55). When TV set ownership reached ‘saturation’ in the USA, vast numbers of sets were popping up in Europe and Latin America: “In February 1955 there were 36 million sets in the USA and only 4.8 million in all of Europe, with 4.5 million of those in the UK; in February 1956 the number of TV sets outside the USA had more than doubled over the previous two years, to 10.5 million”(Smith 58). The importance of this is that quantity of TV sets and programs does not speak to the quality of programming, particularly to the lack of critical use of the medium for educational, or ethical reasons, without the primacy of capital interests. It could be concluded, at this point, that because the SNSS is on TV, it is always already (historically) situated on a medium that does not disturb the status quo and, furthermore, a context that does not challenge the colonialist discourses and practices of the medium. Also, to borrow from Gramscian thought, where TV “culture is a field of struggle[s] in which the processes of producing, legitimizing and circulating particular forms of knowledge and experience are central sources of conflict”(Borg, 1995)¾suggesting that the medium itself is always already distorting the complexity of the subject matter if addresses¾the aims of sustaining the production of ideologies of power are primary tasks for TV. So, how are complex questions existent on the medium of TV?

C. Normalization of Whiteness
The complexity of a subject like sex is not addressed on the Oxygen Channel (in the US), for example, where the second version of the SNSS is housed. When the Oxygen network invited Sue Johanson to talk about sex, and began playing reruns of the Canadian SNSS episodes, it was not evident to most readers in Canada (or in our Class) that the network is in fact owned by Oprah. George Dei would argue that “conventional modes of producing, questioning and disseminating knowledge and authority…is not questioned”(Dei, 128), even if the medium is owned by a ethnic, minority woman. Despite this position of power by Oprah, “’whiteness’ is still the privileged signifier”(hooks, 1992). It is a curious thing that Oxygen, in thus hiring of Sue for the “Talk Sex” show for their program, did not posit the importance of a black (or an other “other”) anchor or educator for their show. Particularly when such a figure could be evident in Oprah herself, or other racialized women. The point I am trying to make is that the normalization of whiteness on the SNSS, and Oxygen’s show “Talk Sex”, speaks to the linguistic and visual normalization of knowledge from a position of whiteness, where hierarchical power is implied in the image of whiteness: “In America, past and present, numerous attempts have been made to portray whites as socially, intellectually, and physically superior to other racial [and] ethnic groups”(Kramer, 68). The normalization of such actions results in the apoliticization of racism as unintentional but, at the same time, still (re) establishing and (re)asserting itself in the system. When the systems of domination are subtle , implicit, and naturalized, the “Claims of the system's unfairness or exclusiveness can be dismissed as sentimental, emotional, idealistic, and frivolous (hooks 1992). Issues and concerns regarding real, live, breathing persons are peripheral…”(Kramer 69). When Oprah (or, rather, her channel “Oxygen”) chose to hire Sue Johanson for their “Talk Sex” show, we have an example of persons of color which include but are not limited to Oprah ¾despite her power and status in this society¾again relegating herself to peripheral status, and therefore legitimately engaging in the white-dominated and prevailing TV talk-show context (a history that I outlined in the presentation as a highly “masculinized” and “white” story). So, what would anti-racist theory tell us about SNSS (in Canada), or Talk Sex (in the US)?

C.a Anti-Racist theory relative to SNSS: Multiplicity is implied.
For starters, one should not expect everyone to identify with human sexuality from a universal position, since the backdrop/context, which leads to sexual behavior in individuals, are as diverse as the individuals engaging in sexual behavior. I will put this more clearly. Because each and every caller comes from a unique matrix of identity and/or perspective¾economically, culturally, ethnically, racially, sexually, linguistically, etc. ¾these influences negate the universality of sexual behavior, and imply that sexuality differs based individual context. It becomes clear, as George Dei suggests, that “when a particular experience is universalized it is usually accomplished at the expence of making another experience invisible”(Dei, 38). So here I see the crux of my point about SNSS. Because of the exclusion of the subject of race in the SNSS, race is minimized or even dismissed, or as Teun Dijk suggests, “Race is also contested through the subtle, and [sometimes] not so subtle, de-racializing of texts and discourse, and in the ‘prevailing ideologies and educational practices underlying elite discourse in general”(Dijk, 1993: 196¾in Dei). It can be argued that diversity is excluded but that quantitative viewpoints of phone-in callers on the SNSS are welcome, even if these only constitute twelve callers on the air; but the limit of these call-in contributions are such that the real diversity behind the calls is excluded, in effect minimizing the extent of information: “Diversity and Difference mean a wealth of knowledge is available for the benefit of all…education must proceed from the understanding that everyone…has something to offer, and that diverse viewpoints, experiences and perspectives should be heard and valued”(Dei, 33). This does not exist on the SNSS primarily because diversity of callers is minimized, and differences of callers is not made explicit whatsoever, even though occasional gay callers are heard, this does not necessarily imply other othernesses. I’d also propose that Sue’s acknowledgement that her experience is merely one of many, as she often does on the shows, ought to suggest that a more dialogic knowledge formation should take place, just as Cameron McCarthy suggests that “intellectual and experiential limits points to the way in which ‘difference’ operates to [inform] us all”(Dei, 36). So I don see the fault of the SNSS to be entirely blamed on Sue Johanson. But, where Sue Johanson falls short¾in a most profound sense¾is that she hardly assists her audience to read up on the way dominant culture represents issues of sexuality and perhaps how these representations and answers may differ from culture to culture: “…how the dominant culture systematically skews a critical understanding”(Dei, 37) from the context of difference. In short, by assuming that the audience is formed of sexual beings and none other¾with no other identities based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, language and religion, etc.¾sexuality is reproduced as a central identifying category, one that is further defined by the show’s singular and institutionally reductive position. So, how else is the universalization of sexuality used to minimize difference(s)?

C.b Normalization of White Pedagogy--Persistence of White Supremacy
Well, I would propose that Sue, personally, as an image on the SNSS has something to do with it. The extent to which the white image is neutralized needs to be unpacked, particularly where the (Gramscian) hegemonic pedagogy is passed on from an obvious colonialist perspective, where one position “leads” another to construct a ‘predominant influence of one state over another”(OED). In the SNSS I see a conflation of experience and ability with whiteness, an unnecessary combination since alternative professionals in the sex field do exist, most particularly since Oprah herself can represent such a lady. Obviously there are numerous women Oprah could have consulted for the job, like Gloria Brame , Susie Bright ¾like some of the other Professionals we referred to in our presentation¾but ‘something’ led to Sue Johanson. Her inherited-wealth and financial independence notwithstanding, Sue is a woman who has always prioritized herself, her career, friends, and children. She falls under the commonly stereotypical virtuous woman who has given of herself to help others. Sue is of an upper-class upbringing, and she doesn’t recall her mother ever having a job. She hasn’t had a date the entire time in school, especially in Nursing college; when she married, it was to her first date (Ejnor Johanson), whom she met just before completing her studies. Despite the harsh or strict privacy with which she conveys history about herself, it was possible to find out that, sexually, she was a rather ‘conservative’ young woman. Professionally she has accomplished a lot : (1) In 1969 she decided to open a clinic in a high school, which would offer “any service that didn’t require parental knowledge or consent, such as birth control pills, pregnancy tests, testing for STD’s, and counseling. Sue ran it for the next 18 years”(Nocturnal Admissions, 55); (2) in 1995 Sue was invited for a one-time feature on WTN’s “Call us” show which also featured a call-in segment¾the director and the Managers were amazed with her and offered her a segment on WTN, now W. As they say “it was the beginning of our license and we needed some ratings”(75); when she was offered her own show, (3) for its first six seasons the SNSS averaged approximately 250,000 viewers, with 100,000 in its first night (Nocturnal, 75). In effect, the cultural and fiscal imperatives are clear, Sue is successful in the sex education context, but she is also white and thus speaks to the world; she makes the show money which speaks truth to the producers, board of directors, and the ratings. But, where ratings and capital prerogatives are prioritized, it is evident how “capitalist hegemony and [racialization] work in concert…[to] shape individual and group lives in specific historical contexts”(Dei, 133) without acknowledging the fullness or complexity of their situation aside from considering the context of sex. I will explain this a little deeper below, but for the time being it can be seen how capital prerogatives act as a hegemonic push that follows a formula for success, in effect relegating necessary aspects in the sex education arena as secondary to business.

C.c Sex questions/answers don’t address context of sex question
The problems that the SNSS faces is that they not only do not deal with relationship questions, which they acknowledge explicitly but also, on another and more deeper level, they do not deal with the context which arouses the very sexually-centered question(s) they are presented with on the air. I will explain this. The structural limits of being a sex educator, in my view, is that sexual answers are posited without attacking or addressing the structural reasons for certain difficulties some callers are having. The narrative or course of events which include sexuality are excluded by way of prioritizing and distinguishing (events and times of) sexuality, in effect severing it from its context. As George Dei suggests: “We cannot hope to transform society by removing only one forms of oppression. There is a common link between all oppression in the material production of society; all forms of oppression establish material and symbolic advantages for the oppressor”(Dei, 56). This quote implies that solving the callers sexual questions, of by suggesting some answers to the caller in a two-minute chat, may solve their momentary sexual query, but may at the same time imply a plethora of variables relative to their total situation which are not acknowledged nor addressed. Second, there are other exclusions taking place, on a cultural level.

C.d Implied Multiculturalness IS not explicit
Just because the SNSS addresses a Canadian (thus, implicitly multicultural) audience, does not imply that all differences and ‘othernesses’ are addressed. In short, just because different groups are addressed does not mean that these groups are in fact explicitly included or substantively included, not only in subject matter, but also in representation of the questions that concern different cultural or ethnic groups. Canada (as well as the US) has indeed been preoccupied with the nationalist uses of the TV medium, particularly when the linguistic division of the nation was as pronounced as it was and is: “Canada has long been aware of the potential of broadcasting to create a sense of nationhood in a society divided within itself and heavily influenced by its more powerful neighbor. Canada thus has been pushed, from decade to decade, sometimes towards free market 'deregulated' solutions (which end up leaving its audience in thrall to foreign stations) and at other times towards governmental, BBC-type solutions, which seem to be the way to solve its more geopolitical problems.”(Smith 65). In such a context, where a vast region like this is concerned, the importance of diversity, which is particularly implied in this vast country, was/is relegated to the primacy of nation-building. The agenda of TV’s quantitative inclusivism has usurped the importance of qualitative differences among people. This leads to an important question: can a medium that attempt to relay meaning to everyone at the same time relay meanings and messages from everyone. In short, by speaking to a diverse community (and subcultures, as we read in class), does the diversity of the audience become included in the message OR, rather, does some form of singularity or reductivism inevitably take place as we have come to see on SNSS, in this paper, or through our own viewing of TV?

C.e Medium of Television & Anti-Racism (Can TV be anti-racist)
It is necessary to ask a relatively clearheaded question: can the medium of TV be anti-racist when the representational form of TV requests the employment of commonly held stereotypes and beliefs which may reinforce conservative or over-simplified views of society. Particularly so when such representations play into the hands of subscribers or viewers who, rather quantitatively, make or break a show. Can it be imagined that approximately 10% of wall street trading can be the trading of TV commodities, and other TV wealth, relative to the rest of the physical world: “for one week in the spring of 1950, trading in the seven largest set manufacturers amounted to 10 per cent of total Wall Street trading”(Smith 43). Syndicated and pre-scripted shows sell so much more than anti-racist perspectives and exceptional live shows are merely included on paper but in actuality are excluded based on capital prerogatives: “Ironically, the network privileging of live TV came at the very moment when the three networks moved irrevocably into filmed programming in prime time in pursuit of booming syndication revenues which live programmes could not attain.”(Smith 49). At the same time as TV may aims to include differences and diversity in its programming, TV, Sarah Kozloff argues, “as critics have so often complained, is highly formulaic”(Kozloff 1992), in effect suggesting what Richard Dyer already told us: “entertainment is a type of performance produced for profit, perrormed before a generalized audience (the ‘public’) by a trained, paid group who do nothing else but produce performances”(Dyer, 1993). As he suggests in the same essay, however, and as I have labored to suggest in this paper is, namely: “the capacity of entertainment to present…complex [issues]…in a way that makes them seem uncomplicated”(Dyer 1993), and that while needs to looks at complex issues exist in society in contrast, at the same time on TV, “while entertainment is responding to needs that are real, at the same time it is also defining and delimiting what constitutes the legitimate needs of people in this society”(Dyer 1993). Hooks words sum this paper up in a sentence when she says that “evocations of plurality and diversity act to obscure differences arbitrarily imposed and maintained by white racist domination”(hooks, 1992) as is namely evident in the SNSS.

Conclusion
The conclusion of this paper is quite simple in that it stems from a semiological ideological analysis about the exclusion of the inevitable intersected influences that are situated in questions about sex. It is clear that where pragmatic reasons exist for sustaining the predominance of a single subject, like that of sex, in a discussion, this kind of structure always implies a detrimental exclusion of other issues that are concomitant with the discussion already being made. In effect, to talk about sex on TV implies a plethora of other problems like the exclusion of race, culture, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation (to name but a few issues), and the particularly individual context in which sex already exists in every single question on-the-air, which are no doubt already excluded by the SNSS. Further, the singular position of the educator is necessarily biased since it does not facilitate inclusivist knowledge construction on the show, despite the ability for callers to occasionally ‘comment’ on another caller’s question or problem. The identity of the educator is evident but not necessarily the end of an anti-racist analysis which poses the subtle limits of a good show, but albeit limits which suggest ideology that is always already exclusive of answering more complex questions about the society and culture and race and ethnicitiesi n which sexuality exists.

Works Cited

Abramson, Albert. "1 The Invention." Television An International History. Ed. Smith, Anthony R. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 13-34.

Bloom, Harold, ed. Alice Walker. New York: Chelsea House, 1989.

Boddy, William. "2 The Beginnings of American Television." Television An International History. Ed. Smith, Anthony R. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 35-61.

Borg, Carmen. 1995. “Hegemony as Educational Przactice.” PH.D Dissertation, Department of Education, UT Press.

Brunsdon, Charlotte and Julie P. D'Acci, eds. Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Callaghan, Karen A. "5 Symbolic Violence and Race." Postmodernism and Race. Ed. Kramer, Eric Mark. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997. 65-74.

Clark, Christine and James O'Donnell, eds. Becoming and Unbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1999.

Dijk, Teun A van. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.

Dunning, John. On the Air The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Freedman, Monroe H., and Eric M. Freedman. Group Defamation and Freedom of Speech: The Relationship between Language and Violence. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995.

Gramsci, Antonio. A Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916-1935. Forgacs, David, ed. London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1999.

hooks, bell. (1992). Black Looks: Race and Representation. Toronto: Between the Lines.

hooks. bell. (1990). Yearning: Race, Gender, And Cultural Politics. Between the Lines. Toronto.

Johanson, Sue. (2002). Nocturnal Admissions: Behind the Scenes of the Sunday Night Sex Show. ECW Press.

Kozloff, Sarah. Channels of Discourse Reassembled. Chapel Hill: U North Carolina P. 1992.

Kramer, Eric Mark, ed. Postmodernism and Race. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997.

Kurtz, Howard. All Talk, All the Time All Talk, All the Time. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Lee, Enid. (1994). “Anti-Racist Education: Panaccea or Palliative”? Orbit, 25:2.

Naylor, Larry L., ed. Cultural Diversity in the United States. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1997.

Ng, Roxana, Pat Staton, and Joyce Scane, eds. Anti-Racism, Feminism, and Critical Approaches to Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1995.

Simmons, E. 1994. “Sensitivity Trainers and the Race Thing.” New International 260: 26-27.

Smith, Anthony R., ed. Television An International History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Smith, Anthony. "3 Television as a Public Service Medium." Television An International History. Ed. Smith, Anthony R. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 62-91.

Spivak, Gayatri. (1993). Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge.

Squire, Corinne. "7 Empowering Women? the Oprah Winfrey Show." Trans. Spigel, Lynn P. Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader. Eds. Brunsdon, Charlotte and Julie P. D'Acci. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1997. 98-110.

--. Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising. Ed. Katherine Toland Frith. New York: Peter Lang, 1997.
Walcott, Rinaldo. 1994. “The Need for a Politics of Difference” Orbit, 25:2.