ࡱ>  *  !"#$%&'()Root EntryZ O2pd`kA+CONTENTS PCompObjVSPELLING4 vB$-;2<<D==x>??(2"'( ) @S  "4"5%24 np66;<<2<<<<*=D=F=p==== >f>x>z>>??zzzz"  " "  "PS"  " ""  "  "PSS"  "PS"  QQ " "  tt?@?B(QTimes New Roman7 qQout  """ "Q8Qte  89 " " " "XXPCanon i950߁dBJDM,jjVT$mVT$mVT$mVT$mVT$mVT$mXX"DRAFTSample 1'dVT$mVT$mH  VT$mCanon i950߁ odLetter)|winspoolCanon i950USB001CHNKWKS PTEXTTEXT=FDPPFDPP@FDPCFDPCBSTSHSTSHDSTSHSTSHD2SYIDSYIDPDSGP SGP hDINK INK lDBTEPPLC pDBTECPLC DFONTFONTD<FTN FTN D^FTN FTN E^TOKNPLC :E4STRSPLC EHPRNTWNPR(FhFRAMFRAMNTITLTITLODOP DOP 0Oially stereo Targeting Minority Publics is an article written by Linda P. Morton dealing with  improving racial stereotyping among minorities in the United States.# She attempts to divide major minorities in America -- African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans -- into subgroups with new racial stereotypes for those subgroups. As you will discover in reading this report, she accomplishes a goal of getting people to think about her new stereotypes. However, she makes people realize how ridiculous racial stereotyping really is, regardless of how detailed the racial stereotyping gets, because in all instances, racial stereotyping has its inaccuracies, and has no place in our society. Linda P. Morton, in her attempt to break down broad racial stereotypes and turn them into numerous narrow racial stereotypes, actually creates more problems than she fixes. She says things like,  Another marketing study notes differences between Uruguayans, Cubans, and Panamanians. # Simply put, racial stereotypes are wrong, regardless of how detailed they get. Unless we are racially stereotyping individuals, defeating the purpose of racial stereotyping, which is generalizing a race of people, we are going to get part of the racial stereotype wrong, offending some people. It does not matter if we have one racial stereotype covering a large group of people, or if we have many racial stereotypes covering smaller groups of people, there are going to be people wrongly racially stereotyped, and this is wrong. With the one racial stereotype scenario, many people in one group are offended; with the many racial stereotypes scenario, fewer people in each group, but more overall groups, are offended, essentially doing nothing to solve the problem. Worse yet, with many racial stereotypes we have more problems to fix (getting rid of all of those racial stereotypes) compared to the one racial stereotype scenario (getting rid of that one racial stereotype), meaning Morton actually made the problem worse than before. Finally, even if increasing the number of racial stereotypes somehow decreased the number of people offended, it seems that adding so many racial stereotypes for so many groups and subgroups of races would noticeably increase the costs of advertising to these groups of people, negating the effect from better marketing to specific groups of people. Again, unless we are marketing to individuals through individual study, or unless we get rid of racial stereotypes and just market to general groups of people, I see these racial stereotypes as problems to society and the profitability of firms, as these racial stereotypes are offending people and increasing the marketing costs of firms. Continuing my focus on racial stereotyping, marketers do no better racially stereotyping minorities as they do Caucasians. In fact, it is probably the case that stereotyping Caucasians is worse than minorities, as there are more Caucasians than other groups of people, and Caucasians are just as diverse, if not more diverse, than their minority counterparts. Either way, racial stereotyping is wrong, whether it is racially stereotyping a majority or a minority. Taking a quote from Linda P. Morton, she says,  & photographs that portray the African American family as it is should fare better than ones that picture a father, mother, two children and a dog. # First of all, this is terrible stereotyping of African Americans, and should be eliminated for that reason alone. However, this actually supports Caucasian stereotyping flaws more than it does African American stereotyping flaws, because who decided that Caucasian families consist of a father, mother, two children, and a dog? Even in  perfect TV Land this stereotype fails, but in our real world today, there is no way you can tell me this stereotype holds for Caucasians. There are more divorces today than ever before, and with the introduction of gay marriage and families, the entire family structure is being broke down more than ever before. All racial stereotyping offends enough people, quickly becomes outdated, and is ineffective enough that it should not be used in public relations, and because of those reasons, Linda P. Morton actually gets a point across about racially stereotyping through her article, and that point is that racial stereotyping is wrong. Future testing against racial stereotyping can be done with a cumulative effects model against this article. Linda P. Morton attempts to pound racial stereotypes into our mind with numerous examples, using African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans, and breaking those groups down into subgroups, giving racial stereotypes for each group and/or subgroup. Because racial stereotypes have been around for centuries, cumulative effects models assume this pounding by Morton of racial stereotypes into our minds, regardless of whether or not they are new racial stereotypes or not, reinforces our beliefs in racial stereotypes. Luckily, society is beginning to realize that racial stereotypes need to be eliminated, and with continued support against racial stereotyping, cumulative effects models could predict that with continued support, racial stereotyping can be reduced and eliminated with additional media exposure and time. However, this article attempts to keep racial stereotypes alive, and good cumulative effects tests could test whether or not racial stereotypes are alive and supported by this article, or whether new perspectives on eliminating racial stereotypes have reduced public opinion on the use of racial stereotypes. In conclusion, Linda P. Morton s article,  Targeting Minority Publics , is a poorly conceived idea, and fails to win the minds of its readers. With a change in beliefs of racial stereotyping, people are being affected by the cumulative effects model by anti-stereotyping feelings, and this article does not do much to turn that momentum the other direction. Also, she digs herself into a hole with this article, because many questions come up after reading her article -- more questions than the questions she tried to answer. How much more effective are these new stereotypes compared to the old ones? Why did she stop stereotyping where she did, as increasing the number of subgroups she stereotypes would seem to support her logic in this article? Perhaps she wanted to stir up interest in racial stereotypes again, but I do not think she did it, as her article only brings up questions I feel skeptical about, and she does not even answer the questions she is trying to answer, bringing up even more skepticism. She says she is trying  & to keep us from offending minority publics or overlooking  important minority segments altogether . # Instead of taking several pages and using unconvincing support, I can answer that question in just a couple sentences and with much greater effect. If you want to keep people from offending minority publics or overlooking important minority segments, just do not racially stereotype people, and treat them for who they are inside, and not what they are outside. That will keep people from offending minority publics, and eliminate overlooking important minority segments. That makes for a better article entitled  Targeting Minority Publics , only I am attacking the minority of people that actually believe what Linda P. Morton has written. C&J 268 Paper #3 # Lisa Freitas Josh Shainin  Targeting Minority Publics II 03/25/2004 # Kimberly K. Massey, Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture, pp.244-253 # Kimberly K. Massey, Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture, pp.245 # Kimberly K. Massey, Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture, pg.250 # Kimberly K. Massey, Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture, pg.244 asing the number of subgroups she stereotypes would seem to support her logic in this article? Perhaps she wanted to F"d5 ""]"0]"` "``""A."@"d5 ""]"4"` "``"."cj268_3.wpsw (" attacking the minority of people that actually believe what Linda P. Morton has written. C&J 268 Z O2Quill96 Story Group Class9qy; y; y; y;