The Real Bums Live Upstairs

Homelessness is bad. This is one of the few takes in today’s society that virtually everyone can agree with, regardless of what side of the aisle you are on. But somehow, homelessness has been and continues to be one of our country’s greatest struggles ever since the first Europeans set foot on American soil. As enthusiastic as the public may seem about putting this societal issue to rest, taking proper action is something our leaders have struggled with since the very beginning. According to the Texas Homeless Network on August 13, 2021, increased homelessness in any era of our nation’s history has almost always been met with criminalization and victim blaming, rather than outreach and support. As we approach the two-year mark of the coronavirus pandemic, it is becoming maddeningly clear that nothing has changed; and if anything, our government’s poor handling of COVID-19 has only exacerbated the issue. A study conducted by the National Alliance to End Homelessness on March 18, 2021 found that between 2019 and 2020 chronic homelessness increased by 15%, and unsheltered homelessness grew by 7%–the largest jump since this documentation began. To make matters worse, Spectrum News 1 on October 11, 2021 reveals that the average price of homes in California jumped 11% from 2019 to 2020 and a whopping 20% from 2020 to 2021. The combination of the pandemic, impossible real estate prices, and hundreds of years of apathy towards this issue have created the perfect environment for the homelessness crisis to flourish.

To create a more substantial understanding of this multilayered societal problem, I have selected a report from San Francisco CBS local news called: “San Francisco Luxury Condos Overlook City’s Worst Squalor; ‘I Don’t Want To Be Afraid To Live Here’” as my artifact. Documented by local news journalist Betty Yu, the story takes place on Willow Street in San Francisco–the street with the most tents in the entire city. What makes Willow Street especially interesting is that it is located just feet away from The Artani: a luxury condominium complex with units selling for over a million dollars. While this striking juxtaposition of these neighboring communities could make for a fascinating story about wealth inequality, Yu instead takes this time to interview the residents of The Artani to see how the homelessness crisis is affecting their lives. Not only was this a missed opportunity for compelling journalism, but also a huge slap in the face to those who are actually struggling.

The blatant ignorance and casual dismissal of such a tragic circumstance is what drew me to this artifact in the first place. While I assume the goal of this news report was to shed light on the ever present growing problem of homelessness, the rhetors unintentionally ended up doing something much more interesting: exposing the backwards and cruel ways we treat homeless people. This underlying message makes the artifact a perfect canvas for ideological criticism since what is being said explicitly does not reflect the message that is being promoted implicitly. By using “tackling the homelessness problem” as an ideograph in which everyone can agree on, it saves the rhetors the trouble of having to clarify how and for who this effort is being made. While hiding behind vagueness, they throw away the needs of the people who are without the proper resources to survive, and simultaneously uphold the idea that the only needs and voices that matter are those with money.

The Silent Counterpart

This news report presents viewers with two very distinct groups of people who are in direct opposition with each other: the wealthy residents of The Artani and the homeless people who occupy the surrounding streets. Even though this might sound like a simple dichotomy, the way these two communities are represented is anything but equal.

Ironically, while the story’s main objective is to cover the worsening homelessness crisis, we only get to hear personal testimonies and anecdotes from those who are housed. The very first sentence the rhetor utters sets the scene perfectly: “A one-way one block alley has neighbors living in constant fear” (0:00-0:05). This immediately clarifies that the story is about how homelessness affects rich homeowners, not the actual homeless. Even though the interviewees are in positions of immense privilege, the gentle and sympathetic tone at which the news reporters talk to them pushes those characterizations aside, and instead merely portrays them as frightened, innocent victims.

The homeless folks, on the other hand, don’t get to have their voices heard, and therefore have to leave their characterizations solely in the hands of the rhetors. By excluding these people from the dialogue entirely, they begin to shift the understanding of “the homeless” from an unfortunate group of people, to a mere inconvenience that must be done away with. Residents of The Artani are shown repeatedly referring to their neighboring community of the unhoused as “criminals”, and find the very sight of their living situation not as a devastating tragedy, but as a filthy menace to their community. To add to this illustration of what living near “the homeless” is like, shots of garbage and people who appear to be under the influence of drugs fill the screen as the reporter speaks. By only presenting audiences with images that evoke fear and disgust, the rhetors construct a situation that is filled with danger and bad people--assuming that the issue is a result of these people failing morally, not the system failing them.

The objectionable characterizations of unhoused people showcased in this news report are informed by the rhetorical devices of the first, second, and third personas. The first persona is pretty obvious since most news reporters don’t even see themselves as rhetors, and are instead trying to assume the role of an unbiased messenger of information. Just by taking note of who is interviewed and which voices are valued, it is also made abundantly clear that the second persona is wealthy Americans–that homeowners are the only real intended audience. But what really rattles the moral foundation of this news report is their construction of the third persona: the homeless. Despite being the sole subject of the news report, they are excluded both from the narrative itself and the ideal audience. The rhetor’s decision to frame the story in this way helps the audience distance themselves from this everyday tragedy and view the homeless as a topic of conversation, not a real group of people.

The Nation-Wide Empathy Shortage

The clear characterizations of The Artani residents and the homeless are mainly informed by attitudes of selfishness and a refusal to put oneself in the shoes of someone else. This is immediately showcased not only by the reporter’s dismissal of the unhoused perspective entirely, but also by the way she frames her questions for the residents: “What would you say is the most egregious part of that alleyway?” (1:00-1:05). Rather than asking this to an actual homeless person or even just asking The Artani resident for their thoughts on the matter, she basically holds their hand and takes them step by step to say exactly what negative discourse she needs about the homeless to fit her story. By asking the wealthy condominium residents what they find egregious about homelessness, the reporter reveals that how egregious living in those conditions isn’t even something that has crossed her mind. This particular use of terministic screens by means of leading questions is one of the oldest tricks in the book, yet the reporter’s seamless execution demonstrates just how skilled she is at constructing any situation she needs.

Not only has this epidemic of selfishness caused the reporter to lose her inability to look beyond herself, but the interviewees also can’t seem to understand that homeless folks are real people with needs. For example, when addressing the various complaints of the condominium’s residents, the reporter turns our attention to a man who “regularly urinates. The smell permeates the entire garage” (1:40-1:46). This line from the reporter struck me as especially odd since everyone regularly urinates. Their decision to list this as one of the residents’ many grievances speaks to just how ridiculous it is to have any of these complaints at all. It is obviously not the actions of the homeless that the residents have a problem with (considering they urinate regularly as well), but instead their sheer existence. While I understand how the lingering smell of urine could be a bit irritating, it surely isn’t as bad as having a parking garage as your only bathroom option. This one complaint alone is definitive proof of just how unempathetic these people are. Is the problem really a man taking care of his necessary human bodily functions? Or is it that major cities like San Francisco don’t have enough public bathrooms? If those trying to tackle a societal problem can’t even try to look beyond the interests of themselves, the odds of it being solved are slim to none.

Public Enemy #1: The Unhoused

In addition to selfish attitudes and an overwhelming empathy deficit, the characterizations made in this artifact are rooted in a deeply misguided understanding of homelessness as an experience. Rather than acknowledging homelessness as a failure of our governing systems, the residents featured in this report, as well as an unfortunately large portion of the public, view homelessness as a deliberate crime that should be met with discipline. One woman declares, “I, myself, have called the cops a number of times” (2:02-2:05), as if to brag about her contributions to keeping the neighborhood in good shape. This desire for police intervention demonstrates how the public sees homelessness as criminal activity, instead of a tragic circumstance where their neighbors just need a helping hand.

Some manifestations of these underlying attitudes are presented more subtly. While sharing some of the previous attempts at solving the issue, the reporter states, “the city came and did a complete sweep of the street. . .but by the next day, the tents and the trash had returned” (2:07-2:17). While this may seem like an objective reporting of events, the word choices perfectly convey the public’s true feelings about the homeless population. She uses “tents and trash” in place of “people” as not only a dehumanization method, but also to emphasize just how disgusting the ruling class finds these struggling people. By saying “tents and trash” instead of “the homeless”, the reporter goes one step further than comparing them to trash, but implicitly upholds the shared idea that they are the trash. Rather than being bothered to think about how these people ended up in this situation or how difficult it probably is for them to just make it through each day, those who are housed see them merely as an eyesore that has destroyed their happy little community.

Another resident lists her grievances by starting with, “the garbage, first of all, that’s a huge health concern” (0:47-0:52). Once again, complaints about “the garbage” are used as thinly veiled dehumanization: acting as if the literal trash is what they have a problem with, while the “trash” in question are actually just the unhoused people. This is also a prime example of how oblivious these people are to their own lack of compassion. While the homeless folks on their street are busy trying their hardest to survive, this woman’s main concern is the trash she has to live near. The fact that the people who have to live in that garbage aren’t even mentioned or alluded to displays just how disconnected these people are from the reality of so many others--and they clearly have no intention of changing that.

Capitalism: The Puppeteer

Whether the reporters and residents of The Artani realize it or not, the feelings they have about this situation are influenced by several hegemonic ideologies. When filming the newscast, rather than approaching the people who are the subject of the story, the reporter decides to speak with a local business owner to see how the issue is affecting him: “the crisis has driven away customers” (2:50-3:15). While this might just look like lazy, inconsiderate journalism, it is also a major function of capitalism. In a time where record numbers of human beings are stuck sleeping on the streets, whether or not businesses are able to make money is still what’s considered newsworthy. Our country’s ridiculous obsession with money and economic growth has become such a normal part of our everyday existence that we don’t even realize when we are upholding these values--even when we lose our morality along the way. The capitalistic society we live in already does enough collateral damage to Americans; promoting it while actively withholding compassion is beyond cruel.

The news report also promotes the idea of “out of sight, out of mind”. This is illustrated when a resident of The Artani recalls, “there was a guy passed out in front of our door with a needle hanging out of his arm all day long, and our children had to walk past that” (1:23-1:32). This is explicit proof that it is not the existence of these societal issues (homelessness, addiction, etc.) that society has a problem with, just the public nature of it all. Say this man had passed out with a needle in his arm alone and in private–would that have prompted this much outcry? Of course not. The National Center for Health Statistics on November 17, 2021 reveals that drug overdose deaths in the United States have topped 100,000 annually; but as long as none of us have to see it, who cares, right? As much as these folks, and Western society in general, pretend to care about the tragedies and injustices of the world, that care unfortunately only extends as far as it affects us. Additionally, the sentiment expressed by the woman in the video also speaks to the way who and what our compassion is reserved for. While she is clearly caring for her children by wanting to protect them from such a disturbing scene, she spares none of that same care for the person who actually needs help. In reality, the resident’s child witnessing her apathy towards a person in dire need of help will be much more damaging than the sight of the poor man in question.

Macro-Level Consequences

While this news report is clearly out of touch with reality and is grounded in some questionable guiding ideologies, the scariest part of this artifact is its ability to influence the audience's perspectives. Since the rhetors are mainly just reinforcing our society’s existing ruling ideals and values, it is unlikely that this one artifact alone will drastically change the minds of the viewers. But still, this is just one example of the endless pieces of hegemonic rhetoric that flood our everyday experiences without us even being aware of it. While this artifact may seem like just a drop in the bucket, it is actually a zoomed in snapshot of the various ways our media is constantly promoting these damaging ideologies.

Even though the values upheld in this news report are already mainstream, the rhetors use a variety of techniques to reinforce them. Every time a dehumanization tactic is used (equating the homeless to garbage, not letting them have a voice, treating their very existence as a crime, etc.), the audience gets to relieve themselves of some of their guilt for how poorly we treat this already wildly disadvantaged group. Even though we are governed by all of these principal ideologies that value profit over people, compassion for other human beings is an intrinsic part of what it means to be a person. So, by subtly (and not so subtly) planting seeds in the minds of the audience that the homeless are not human beings, but instead an inconvenience, the rhetors are able to create a loophole around this essential part of the human experience. While this news report certainly is not unique, it speaks for itself and the plentitudes of artifacts like it that are working to decrease compassion on a much larger scale.

Conclusion

While KPIX local news reporter Betty Yu may have ran this story just to fill air time, she ended up exposing one of our society’s greatest pitfalls. As much as we all can say we care about helping the less fortunate and can agree on vague ideographs like the sentiment of “ending homelessness”, if and how we actually take action is where the waters get muddy. By examining this artifact through the lens of ideological criticism, it has been made overwhelmingly clear that what we say isn’t always what we mean, and that the ruling ideologies that govern our world can often guide the way we understand (or misunderstand) our own existence. While unfavorable characterizations of the unhoused are certainly not new, the information age and constant discourse surrounding this group has desensitized us to such issues–causing our society to lose its compassion. Through ideological criticism and unpacking the ways fundamental American ideals like capitalism and meritocracy silently influence our ways of thinking, it is clear that our nation’s lack of empathy and compassion is a vicious cycle: we don’t give marginalized groups a voice, we mischaracterize them, lose our empathy since the story we’ve crafted isn’t one we deem deserving of our care, and then we don’t feel bad about not giving them a platform in the first place.

After uncovering the sick truth of our society’s intentions with handling homelessness in a time where economic disparities are at an all time high, it definitely doesn’t look like substantial action will be taken any time soon. But still, I remain hopeful. While we clearly still have a lot of work to do destroying the ridiculous ideological pillars this country was built upon, having these opportunities to think critically about the things we’ve been conditioned to just accept is a major step in the right direction. As more and more people begin to wake up to the lies these hegemonic structures have been feeding us, the easier it will be to get our thinking caps back on, and hopefully, put the empathy back in our hearts.