This is an important and well-researched study of the image of African Americans as presented in the media (mostly TV and Movies). Indeed, it is a "must read" for anyone interested in white attitudes regarding African Americans. The authors begin with a nice review the dominant survey research approach to gauging change in racial attitudes. They also discuss their own survey and qualitative study of Whites living in the Indianapolis metro area. The findings of the in-depth qualitative interviews are particularly interesting and valuable for folks interested in the validity of survey research on racial attitudes.

Rightly reserving the use of the counterproductive term "racist" for those who feel Blacks are a "lower order of humanity," the authors develop a framework for categorizing White American views of the African American population from "low denial" (enlightened) to "high denial" (overtly racist) (chapter 2).

In their view, most whites fall between these poles--termed by the authors as "ambivalent" (a mix of positive and negative views about Blacks.)

Unapologetically integrationist (assimilationist?) in their views, the authors see "low denial" whites as those folks who view African Americans sympathetically and empathetically, (as brothers/sisters), who share fundamental interests, but who suffer unique barriers to equal opportunity.

What seems to differentiate the "low-denial" whites from their well-meaning but "ambivalent" peers is that low-denial whites uncritically accept the victimization explanation for the social problems of the Black community.

This is where the trouble begins...

According to the authors, enlightened Whites see the Black community as largely helpless in the face of White dominated society. Hence, for example, high rates of crime and non-marital births stem from forces external to the Black community. These "enlightened" Whites appear to believe that if anti-Black stereotypes and discrimination were to end, the social problems experienced by African Americans would be resolved.

On the other hand, the mass of "ambivalent" whites is less likely to let struggling Black folks off the hook. They tend to see each person as a moral agent with the freedom to make choices even in the face of discrimination and inequality. They also feel that the stereotypes of Black folks have a grain of truth to them--e.g., that blacks do tend to be, say, less educated, more violent, more likely to bear children out of wedlock than Whites or Asians, as evidenced by empirical evidence reported in the media. These folks wonder (rightly in my opinion) whether current discrimination is really so powerful and dehumanizing as to engender the social problems of the black community.

The weakness of this morally laden framework is that it perceives folks who have honest questions about the role of individual choice and moral responsibility (i.e., character) in shaping life chances as somehow unenlightened ("in denial"). With the huge social problems associated with the Black community, I think it is fair to say that "ambivalent" attitudes towards blacks are justified. Indeed, survey evidence suggests that African Americans also share ambivalent attitudes towards their own racial group. (Even Jesse Jackson has made public his personal ambivalence towards young black men, admitting that he often has felt relieved to discover that the stranger walking towards him on a darkened street is not Black.)

If the majority of African Americans also recognize that endemic social problems exist within poor black communities, does that mean that they too are "in denial?"

Later in the book the authors go on to encourage the media to construct positive images that encourage "racial comity." They frame this as an ethical and political responsibility. But because the authors emphasize IMAGE over REALITY, the book often takes on an Orwellian tone. In my opinion, if the media seeks honest portrayals of African Americans, it will often reflect the reality of difference.

The authors seem to assume assimilation as a valued goal by finding flaw with any racial differentiation in fictional portrayals in movies and television. While multiculturalism celebrates group differences, the authors find problematic any racial differentiation whatsoever. This is a flawed perspective. African Americans are have a distinct history and culture and are not simply white folks in dark face. I suspect the authors would erase expression of these existential differences from the media if given the chance.

So while the book is a valuable contribution (as discussed by the previous reviewer), it suffers from a naively self-righteous and assimilationist perspective.

This is a very important book of research. Though written in sociologist language (lots of statistics and repetitition claims), this is one work that provides meticulous reserach about how the media help perpetuate racial stereotypes and prototypes in this society.

As a teacher who is studying widely literature about the media, I found Entman and Rojecki's work useful for providing a lens to better analyze media representations of Black and White people. The authors contend that "Blacks now occupy a kind of limbo status in White America's thinking, neither fully accepted nor wholly rejected by the dominant culture. The ambiguity of Blacks' situation gives particular relevance and perhaps potency to the images of African Americans in the media."

They show that though representations of Black people are quantitatively better than in the past, these representations still convey stereotypical or ambiguous images of Blacks. For example, though there has been sharp increase of Black male actors in movies, their roles still revolve around plots that focus on sports, crime, and violence. In the area of news media, Blacks are usually presented as sources of disruption, as victims, and as complaining supplicants. These type of images, they contend, help to maintain a gap in what they refer to as comity on the part of Whites toward Blacks and other racial minorities in this country.

They provide a well known but much needed reiteration of why the media maintains these stereotypes and marginalizations of racial minorities: largely it's eoncomics."Media workers," they argue, "seek to make money for their organizations and advance their own careers. That means that they must stay vigilantly attuned to the presumed tastes of their target audiences. These creators operate in a professional culture and organizationl milieu that transmits lessons about what attracts and sells, what upsets and repels. Ratings and market research increasingly inform decisions, whether about news coverage or entertainment plots." They argue that political and White ethnocentricism play an equal role as well

Though critics may disagree with some of the authors'analysis and conclusions, this book deserves wide reading in media studies, communications, ethnic studies, and sociology courses. It should be read as a useful resource by concerned teachers and media activists.