Advertisement

“Hillbillies,” “Welfare Queens,” and “Teen Moms”: American Media’s Class Distinctions

  • Diana Owen
Chapter

Abstract

Diana Owen focuses on the US media’s framing of social class in an historical context. After discussing the theoretical concept of media frames and its relevance for the analysis of media depictions of class, she addresses US-Americans’ self-identification with social class. The middle class, and the values associated with it, remains the central reference point of social respectability. Owen focuses her analyses on three negative stereotypes of the poor: The welfare queen, the teen mom, and the hillbilly. With a keen eye for the function of these stereotypes, Owen builds on the framing class approach to expound on its political portend. Such images, she reminds us, no matter how constructed they are, inexorably impact the social realities of the USA’s precariat.

Keywords

Middle Class Lower Class Public Assistance Negative Stereotype Reality Television 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Berns, Nancy S. 2004. Framing the Victim: Domestic Violence Media and Social Problems. Livingston: Aldine Transaction. Print.Google Scholar
  2. Davis, Richard, and Diana Owen. 1999. New Media and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Print.Google Scholar
  3. DeParle, Jason. 2004. American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare. New York: Viking. Print.Google Scholar
  4. Dugan, Andrew. Americans Most Likely to Say They Belong to the Middle Class, Gallup Politics. Gallup, Inc. 30 November 2012. Web. 12 August 2014.Google Scholar
  5. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(1): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ——— 2003. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Entman, Robert M., and Andrew Rojecki. 2000. The Black Image in the White Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Print.Google Scholar
  8. Gamson, Joshua. 1999. Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Print.Google Scholar
  9. Gilboa, Eytan, ed. 2002. Media and Conflict: Framing Issues, Making Policy, Shaping Opinions. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Print.Google Scholar
  10. Gilliam, Franklin. 1999. The ‘Welfare Queen’ Experiment. Nieman Reports. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 15 June 1999. Web. 12 June 2013.Google Scholar
  11. Gilman, Michele E. 2014. The Return of the Welfare Queen. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 22(2). University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014–16. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2423540. Web. 12 January 2015.
  12. Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World is Watching. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Print.Google Scholar
  13. Glynn, Kevin. 2006. Tabloid Culture: Trashing Taste, Popular Power and the Transformation of American Television. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, Allison. 2001. Framing the South: Hollywood, Television, and Race During the Civil Rights Struggle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Print.Google Scholar
  15. Harkin, Anthony. 2004. Hillbilly: A Cultural History of an American Icon. New York: Oxford University Press. Print.Google Scholar
  16. Heider, Don, and Janet Blank-Libra. 2004. Class and News. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Print.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. 2004. News Narratives and News Framing: Constructing Political Reality. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Print.Google Scholar
  18. Kendall, Diana. 2011. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Print.Google Scholar
  19. Leistyna, Pepi. 2005. Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class. Documentary Film. Prod. Loretta Alper and Sut Jhally.Google Scholar
  20. Levin, Josh. 2013. The Welfare Queen. Slate, December 19. The Slate Group LLC. Web. 2 January 2015.Google Scholar
  21. McCombs, Maxwell. 2005. A Look at Agenda-setting: Past, Present, and Future. Journalism Studies 6(4): 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McEwan, Bonnie. 2011. Working Press: An Analysis of Media Coverage on Low Wage Work July 1, 2005–June 30, 2006. The Ford Foundation: For an Economy that Works for All.Google Scholar
  23. O’Brien, Matt. 2014. The Middle Class is Poorer Today than it was in 1989. The Washington Post, October 1. Web. 2 January 2015.Google Scholar
  24. Rendall, Steve, Emily Kaufmann, and Sara Qureshi. 2014. Even GOP Attention Can’t Make Media Care About Poor, Extra?: Fairness and Accuracy and Reporting, June. Research Report.Google Scholar
  25. Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication 49: 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schudson, Michael. 2003. The Sociology of News. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Print.Google Scholar
  27. Shipler, David K. 2005. The Working Poor: Invisible in America. New York: Vintage Books. Print.Google Scholar
  28. Terkildsen, Nayda, and Frauke Schnell. 1997. How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An Analysis of the Women’s Movement. Political Research Quarterly 50(4): 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thussu, Daya Kishan. 2007. News as Entertainment. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Print.Google Scholar
  30. Tirado, Linda. 2014. Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Print.Google Scholar
  31. Tuchman, Gaye. 1980. Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: The Free Press. Print.Google Scholar
  32. West, Laurel Parker. 2002. Soccer Moms, Welfare Queens, Waitress Moms, and Super Moms: Myths of Motherhood in State Media Coverage of Child Care, MARIAL Working Paper 16. MARIAL Center, Emory University.Google Scholar
  33. White, John Kenneth. 2002. The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Print.Google Scholar
  34. Wright, Erik Olin, and Joel Rogers. 2010. American Society: How It Actually Works. New York: W.W. Norton. Print.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Owen
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations