During this past week, the ARMYverse has been shaken once again by the media’s misrepresentation of BTS. However, in this case, we’re looking at a different type of misrepresentation.
On August 15, 2021, a Dominican Republic radio show called “Esto no es radio” (the show’s title translates to “This is not radio” in English) posted a video on their YouTube channel entitled “COSAS QUE PARECEN RELIGIONES Y NO LO SON (NEGOCIOS PIRAMIDALES & OTRAS HIERBAS),” which translates essentially to “Things that appear [as] religions and aren't (Pyramid schemes and other herbs/weeds)” in English.
While at first glance, this would not appear to be related to BTS, when the show arrives at the topic of BTS (the third one in the episode), they start by discussing how BTS is a “religion” that “most of the girls” practice. The portion of the show that discusses BTS can be viewed in this translated clip provided by Liana on Twitter. If this were the extent of the issue, it might be something ARMYs could discount — after all, we’ve heard it all before. Even if it’s wrong and belittles us, it’s something that we can easily refute with numbers and some basic math. We’re tired of the discussion, but it’s one we’re familiar with and well-prepared to deal with.
However, the show doesn’t stop there. In fact, it doubles down. The hosts spend the next minute and a half talking about how BTS are the “Chinese Backstreet Boys” and insist that the members are Chinese, also alleging that BTS has undergone surgeries in order to make themselves look “North American but mixed with Asian.” One of the hosts tries to explain a bit about K-pop to the others and is cut off by her co-host, who again insists that BTS is “Chinese” and brushes off the explanation with a dismissive hand wave. It is not uncommon in some Latin American cultures to refer to all Asian people as “Chinese,” regardless of their actual nationality.
While xenophobia and racism are not new, even to the conversation around BTS, it is somewhat harder to stomach in the current cultural climate where hate crimes against Asian communities are on the rise. According to NBC and a report from the organization Stop AAPI Hate, hate crimes against Asians skyrocketed in 2021; the official data from that report indicates that the number of incidents that were reported increased from around 3,800 to over 6,300 — and these are just the incidents reported. Some have linked this rise to anti-Chinese rhetoric from former President Donald Trump, who referred to COVID-19 as the “China virus” or “Kung flu,” which likely furthered anti-Asian sentiment and increased often-unfounded mistrust.
Is this incident with the radio show directly linked to this? It’s difficult to say. However, there are some indirect paths that may be explored to provide understanding as to how this situation came to be.
Cultural “Status Quo”
Unfortunately, there are some underlying cultural “norms” at play. Latin American ARMYs have spoken out about this sort of “casual xenophobia” before: Back in April, a Chilean comedic television show called “Mi Barrio” aired a sketch portraying BTS in a derogatory manner. One of the characters was named Kim Jong-Un, like the North Korean dictator, and another one poorly imitated the Korean language. After backlash from ARMY, the television station apologized to those who may have been offended by the segment and noted that they had no intention to hurt any community.
This situation repeats itself over and over again; casual jokes aren’t perceived as harmful until they are called out, and apologies are usually belated and insincere. Unfortunately, it is not only Asian communities that are affected.
It is important to note before continuing that each Latin American country has its own challenges in this regard, and understanding everything about this sort of indirect, casual xenophobia is a complicated endeavor because the situation is incredibly complex. However, there are some general commonalities that can be spoken to.
In Costa Rica, for example, there is marked xenophobia against Nicaraguans, their northern neighbors, particularly when it comes to poor immigrants. This manifests commonly in the form of casual jokes but also as straight-up hostility since they are consistently blamed for crimes and stealing jobs. Another example that is persistent throughout the region is xenophobia against Venezuelans, who migrate because of their country’s political and economical instability. These prejudices have only become worse with the current pandemic because these immigrants are also perceived as carriers of the virus.
There is a generalized tolerance of these attitudes in Latin America, and attempts to call it out are usually downplayed, blamed on people being too sensitive or not able to take a joke. Controversial Marketing is a questionable but real marketing tactic used to attract people's attention with shocking words or images. This is one of the possible reasons for airing inflammatory segments like these ones, especially when the general public in Latin America would likely not be offended, and those who were would be mocked.
Taking this underlying, systemic behavior into account, along with an analysis of the evolution of journalism in the past few decades, a pattern begins to emerge.
Controversy Brings Viewers
Though it’s a bit different from the typical forms of journalism that we study in “Check Yourself: Facts,” “Esto no es radio” is a form of journalism and falls into a specific classification.
In The Elements of Journalism (now updated to the 2021 edition), Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel talk about “Argument Culture” in journalism, which was particularly prevalent in the 1990s and early 2000s. While Argument Culture originated primarily in television, the concepts have expanded to include anything with similar ideas.
To provide some context about Argument Culture, Kovach and Rosenstiel explain that “By 2000, in an average twenty-four-hour period, there were 178 hours of news and public affairs programming on television. About 40 percent of these hours were devoted to talk shows, many of them involving staged debates. Scholarly experiments at the time affirmed that if the same ideas were conveyed through heated argument, or through more civil and dispassionate exchange, audiences preferred the drama of the argument.”
Argument Culture eventually morphed into another type of journalism: Answer Culture, or the Journalism of Affirmation. Argument Culture is polarizing, focusing (as Kovach and Rosenstiel put it) on “subjects where there was a good fight to be had,” and Answer Culture arises out of that polarization, with social media as its primary conspirator.
“As people began to share more political content, they tended to like and share things that they already had strong feelings about,” Kovach and Rosenstiel explain. “We are less likely to share something new, about which we know little, but that we find interesting and might be on the lookout to learn more about.” Sites like Facebook and Twitter further this by creating a “filter bubble,” which uses algorithms to focus on things that it thinks we will like and engage with by liking and sharing.
Finally, they state: “The Argument Culture, in which talk shows invited antagonists from both sides to argue, was giving way to the Answer Culture, in which the appeal of the host was to provide affirming answers to an ideologically uniform audience. The Answer Culture is at the heart of the Journalism of Affirmation, that part of the news industry that now builds its audience by affirming its audience’s preconceptions rather than focusing on inquiry and reporting.”
From this, we can perhaps create a theory. If that sort of “shock value” infotainment of the Argument Culture and the lack of questioning from the Answer Culture come together, is it possible that some event like this recent episode of “Esto no es radio” could occur? The opinion might be controversial, but it gets people talking about the show and acts as publicity. And at the same time, if we take into account the possible cultural “status quo” of casual xenophobia, their opinions might be catering to the members of their audience that they already know or believe may feel this way about BTS and other groups like them.
In particular, the host’s statements that BTS underwent plastic surgery to look more “North American,” and their overall sensationalist take on the topic by comparing BTS to a religion can be interpreted as a focus on affirming preconceptions as opposed to a focus on reporting — these are their opinions, not verifiable facts, and yet they are presented as if they are the truth (though the hosts give no sources for their claims). “Esto no es radio” is effectively a talk show, and in it, we can see some of these patterns of both Argument and Answer Culture.
Challenging the Norm
There’s a lot to unpack here; multiple incidents are occurring as uncertainty about the pandemic continues to fluctuate. It’s difficult to analyze how and why we continue to see these issues in the media and determine how we can best discuss how underlying beliefs might be contributing to the end result.
What could have been the most impactful here, in this situation? It may be worth noting that many of these incidents occur in geographically similar regions. But how much of it is related to culture and how much is related to the overall mindset of the media and its role in society today?
Journalism is in a constant state of flux — it must reevaluate itself as the world around it shifts so that it can fill the role it needs to fill. Part of that reevaluation must include interaction with the people who consume the work presented. That’s us.
If we only seek news that will tell us what we want to hear, what are we accomplishing? We must ask ourselves what value it adds to only seek something that agrees with what we already think. If we find that something doesn’t meet our needs, it is our obligation to speak out about it constructively and remind news outlets that we are dissatisfied.
ARMY has mobilized around this issue, demanding an apology from “Esto no es radio,” and in order to create change, we will have to keep doing so, not just with this news outlet. This quote from The Elements of Journalism should sound familiar — “rights mean something only if they are viewed as non-negotiable.”
If your needs aren’t being met, keep reminding the outlets that you go to what those needs are. If you are dissatisfied and your feedback is being ignored, don’t give these news sites your views or shares, or clicks. It may be uncomfortable, but if we are passive, we will not get the information we need in a format we can use.
An important part of this is discourse — providing articulate, constructive feedback and receiving the same in return from journalists and news sources. If a consumer provides feedback and is met with insincere apologies or is brushed off, then that is worth noting and can provide a course of action for dealing with the site in the future (if they choose to interact at all). Both consumers and journalists should be open to sincere discussion about a topic, allowing both sides to explain their points of view and learn from the experience if a genuine lack of knowledge was the culprit for the behavior.
As we move through our day today, we find all different types of media sources, which, like everything, fall into a continuum: some sources are good, some are bad, and some are somewhere in the middle. As society evolves in this age of technology, so too will journalism and the relationship people have with it. When the peoples’ needs aren’t being met, they have a right to offer constructive criticism and open the doors to discussion.
It isn’t an easy path to walk, but it’s an important one. Keep questioning. Keep offering feedback. Discussing and learning is the best possible way for us — as producers and consumers alike — to move towards a media environment that gives us what we need.
DISCLAIMER: We do not own any audio & visual content in this video except for the editing. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. No copyright infringement intended.
Written By: Anna & Rebeca
Edit By: Aury
Checked By: Vera