scientists were more likely to be male than female and were more likely to be white than of other ethnic groups (761). They also found that scientists were more likely to be “good” (Dudo et al. 762),
White people and men dominate over women and pOc and they're more likely to be good most likely because being white and being a man is seen as being good
scientists were more likely to be male than female and were more likely to be white than of other ethnic groups (761). They also found that scientists were more likely to be “good” (Dudo et al. 762),
White people and men dominate over women and pOc and they're more likely to be good most likely because being white and being a man is seen as being good
e scientists in a posi-tive light, but these characters still failed to become as popular as other charac-ters on these shows
There can not be a good representation. If a character is shown in a positive light, they won't be as popular. Does the audience like negative and stereotypical characters?
these characters exhibited features of intelligence but overall re-mained less attractive, sociable, or warm when compared to other television char-acters
Shows make it to where a character can't smart and attractive
Talk shows continue this distrust of experts by downplaying intellectuals’ contributions while playing up individ-ual experiences
They develop distrust by discussing individual's experiences only, as opposed to something that can appeal to the public. I agree. I have seen many talk shows that do this. What's the reason though?
. While we might think that their increased use in news programs would affirm people’s views, instead, as their use in programs increases, the public trust in them de-clines
This paraphrase is saying that when doctors appear on talk shows, they are trusted less. Do people really not trust people the more they are on news programs? Why is that? Shouldn't the trust increase?