| This study was an ideological analysis of newspaper coverage of the 1992 Los Angeles riot in five newspapers.;Using textual analysis as the primary method, this study examined two mainstream newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times; and three ethnic newspapers, La Opinion, the Los Angeles Sentinel and The Korea Times. The study focused on the narrative and ideological elements of each newspaper in an attempt to understand the hegemonic function of media in different ethnic and racial groups. Specifically, research questions asked what constituted the ideological problematic of each newspaper, as well as the degree to which racial and class ideologies were present within the ideological problematic.;The study found a wide range of possible ideologies within the media texts, leading one to believe that the texts exhibited ideological plurality. However, within the ideological problematic of each media text, racial ideology and racial hierarchies were the most prevalent systems of meanings and beliefs. In addition, class ideology and relating discussions about economic opportunity and the American Dream, were exhibited in most of the texts as solutions to the riot problem, not as underlying problems contributing to the riot itself. Discussions about systemic inequalities in a capitalist economy were almost non-existent.;These preliminary and interpretive findings led the researcher to propose that there may exist an ideology of ideological plurality--a system of beliefs proffering the idea that ideological plurality is, in and of itself, an acceptable characteristic of American society, when in fact, this very plurality allows for the maintenance of certain ideological elements (e.g., racial ideology) and the silencing of others (e.g., critiques of capitalism). It may well be that in late 20th-century American society, a capitalist hegemony is maintained by dominant and subdominant groups--including ethnic and racial minorities--through the appropriation of an ideology of ideological plurality which allows for varying degrees of ideological flexibility within a framework that punctuates race and discourages any thoroughgoing discussion of class or economic inequality. |
