Marginalized People

This study is a qualitative research. The study aims to analyze the roles of public media in negotiation process of meanings for Rohingya refugees and to analyze the contents of public media programs in negotiation of meaning for Rohingya refugees. This study employs an indepth interview to get information by interviewing these kinds of people; 1) group of human rights and sociology and anthropology scholars and 2) group of administrations and producers of Thai Public Broadcasting Service (ThaiPBS). Moreover, this study also analyzes the contents of television programs produced by ThaiPBS which present the Rohingya refugees issues, broadcasted in 2013-2015 and were documentary, news documentary, news magazine, citizen news and conversational program. The results of the study reveal that public media had the negotiation process of meanings for Rohingya refugees by several steps, which include the determination of vision, mission, objective, program planning, agenda setting and production process. The public media program’s contents still reproduced the same dominant meanings of Rohingya refugees as “victims of violent from religious bias and ethnocentrism”, “economic migrants”, “stateless or nationality-less”, “Islamic fundamentalist or terrorist” and “burden".
However, the public media had negotiated meanings for Rohingya Refugees by using narrative structure and ideological practice, i.e. “equal human”, “victims of human trafficking”, “victims of poverty”, “asking-for-help person”, “protected person”, “Muslim brethren” and “Islam believer”

(THE FULL TEXT IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)

Throughout her life, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) remained deeply involved in religious movements, feminist causes, and the most divisive political and moral issue of her time: the abolition of slavery. From the time she wrote her first and most famous novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, controversy surrounds her portrayal of slavery and gender issues. While it is called a powerfully feminist book and one of the causes of the abolition of slavery, it is harshly criticized by some black and feminist scholars. New historicism’s belief in the mutual constitution of the text and the context justifies the controversy. As the feminist writer consciously tries to undermine the dominant discourse of patriarchy of her time, she is involuntarily and treacherously under the influence of and, to some extent, reinforcing the dominant discourse. This is true regarding the issues of the blacks.

Full-text contained in Cadmus is protected by copyright law and may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the copyright holder (s).