Gender Identity, Columnists, Made-Up News, and Pink Nail Polish, Oh My!

While researching my media bias project, I came across an article discussing the "controversy" over a recent J Crew ad campaign that featured artistic director Jenna Lyons playing with her 5-year-old son who was -- gasp!-- wearing pink nail polish on his toes. I laughed at the article, with its made-up controversy and just ridiculousness--and assumed that it would go no farther than that. Apparently the next day Fox news columnist Dr. Keith Ablow posted this column about the horrific pink nail polish incident, in which he compares Jenna painting her son's toenails pink (at his request, while playing dressup) to children undergoing sex change surgeries and black people dying their skin white. He writes, "These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that are actually part of the magnificient synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a lot more than any creative Force in the universe." Ok, one guy writes an inflammatory column with his personal opinion - fine. But it ends here, right? Or not. LA Times. New York Magazine. CBS News. Chicago Tribune. The Daily Show. All using words like "outrage" "controversy" "sparks debate" "panic" - all designed to make you think something outrageous was going on (Jon Stewart pointed out that one of the headlines was "See what J Crew director Jenna Lyons has done to her son" - which sounds A LOT worse than pink nail polish!) All of this from a few swipes of pink paint on a little boy's toes. To be fair, many of these news outlets were criticizing Ablow and the other people quoted in the original Fox report for making such a big deal out of it - but it was all done carefully to provoke maximum scandal attention and make it seem like a much bigger deal than the non-issue is really is. Before you know it, a week has gone by, the little boy has long since gone back to playing with his toy trucks and throwing things at his brother and the news cycle is still spinning itself into a frenzy over his precious gender identity.

"It's What I Do"

I recently came across this essay by NY Times photographer Lynsey Addario, who was recently captured by Libyan forces (she was in that video I posted last week.) In this essay, she talks about the controversy over sending female correspondents to war zones, especially in the Middle East. Just read it.

Addario calls the world of conflict correspondence a "boys club", seh theorizes that this may because women have a hard time giving up completely on having a personal life. And she emphasizes that the vast majority of her experience in the Muslim world has been positive, with people being kind and hospitable to her wherever she goes.

But she was captured by Libyan forces last week, and was beaten and groped by the soldiers. Addario asks, "But why is that more horrible than what happened to Tyler or Steve or Anthony--being smashed on the back of the head with a rifle butt? Why isn't anyone saying men shouldn't cover war? Women and men should do what they believe they need to do."

Do you agree with her that a female photographer/reporter brings something unique to the story, with her access to Muslim homes and the private spaces of women? Do you think it doesn't matter--that it's sexist to prevent women from doing the same jobs as men no matter what?

Do you think horrific incidents like what happened to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News who was beaten and sexually assaulted while covering the Tahrir Square revolution two months ago, change our view on putting female reporters into areas where they may not be treated with respect? Should the reporters themselves be the ones to make that choice? Whose responsibility is it to make sure the reporter is safe--and what do they do in a situation where one reporter will be more safe than another?

But I'm a Journalist!

Earlier this week, four NY Times journalists were held by Qaddafi troops in Libya. Although they were threatened and beaten, all four were handed over unharmed the next day. In this video, the four journalists talk about their experience. There are several aspects of this remarkable video that jump out at me as being worthy of discussion. First is the calm tone and detached way the journalists speak about their own, very recent, traumatic experience. They almost seem to be curious about the story, investigating and thinking about it journalistically the same way they would look at any other story. The first journalist notes the way his experience showed him the "three different Libyas" that exist in the rebel camp, on the Qaddafi front lines, and in the center of the country. The second, the only woman in the group, talks about how her being groped and mistreated shows her something interesting, journalistically, about what's happening in Libya. The second interesting point is the indignance of all of them have about this experience. Although they don't seem as traumatized as you would expect, they are a little taken aback at their treatment because they are journalists. It seems like they have some kind of expectation that their role in the conflict be recognized as apolitical and of importance to both sides. But I'm a journalist! they seem to say, why would I be treated this way? There has been so much talk in the last few years about how journalists will all be replaced with "citizen journalists" and bloggers in this glorious new post-newspaper age. But the crises of the last few months--both in the Middle East and Japan--have reminded the world that there are some things only a journalist can and will do. Of course, I don't think Qaddafi's forces roughed up these Times reporters because they were thinking about the irrelevance of the professional journalists in the Age of Twitter. (Although you never know...) But it is interesting to note that maybe now that the lines between producer and consumer of news has gotten so blurry, the argument for journalistic diplomatic immunity doesn't work the way it once was. So you're a journalist? So is every kid with a cameraphone and a Twitter account. If every citizen is a journalist, is every journalist just a citizen--and in this case, an American citizen in a hostile land?

Manic Semantic Antics

On Tuesday's episode of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart attempts to talk to his "senior Libya correspondent" Aasif Mandvi, about the war in Libya that the US is leading in an attempt to create regime change in.....except that Mandvi interrupts Stewart after literally every word. It's not a "war" its an "enforced no fly zone"...it's not "led by the US" its "enabled by the US"...it's not bombing, its "building-enrubblification"...it's not "regime change" its "encouraging leadership self-relocation." (The title of my blog post comes from Jon Stewart and his incredible writing team.) Finally, Mandvi explains why he can't call the Libya situation a war:
"We can't be at war. We never consulted Congress."
That got me thinking about the way the word for an action in a way defines it. We might be bombing Tripoli, but since "war" comes along with certain rules and expectations, let's just not call it a war.
So is it a war? NPR tackled this question in an article on its website, listing all the news publications (NY Times, CNN, etc etc) that are referring to "Operation Odyssey Dawn" (more on that ridiculous name later) a "war". But according to the professor of military history that NPR interviewed, the operation in Libya is at this point too limited in scope and intention to be considered a war. Right now, the US and its allies are officially only protecting civilians, not trying to overthrow the government or aid the rebels.
Officially, only Congress can declare war, and they haven't done that. But in the last fifty years, it's become increasingly uncommon for the US and many other countries to declare war at all. That's why wars like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq (both times) are not officially called wars at all.
Unofficially, though, it's considered to be a war when the US commits its official military forces against a clearly identified enemy political entity. (By this definition, Iraq and Afghanistan were over a long time ago.) Since that hasn't happened yet with Libya, we're technically not at war. Which is why the generals and government officials talking to the press have been using all these vague terms to describe the "military action" going on there.
However, NPR explains, if at some point the Ghaddafi forces hurt American interests and the goal of the action changes from just protecting the people to overthrowing Ghaddafi directly, what we are seeing now will retroactively have been considered a war from the very beginning.
Does that make everything clear and simple? No? Oh well...

NPR gets Punked

Last week, Ronald Schiller, an NPR executive was caught on hidden cameras calling the Tea Party racist and making other non-PC remarks while meeting with people posing as Muslim philanthropists. In this essay, Peter Catapano of the NY Times Opinionator blog asks: is James O'Keefe, the mastermind behind this "expose," a journalist? Should we call what he did journalism?

Catapano quotes many opinions on the role of "guerrilla reporting" in journalism, and he doesn't side definitively with one side or the other. On one hand, a little bit of deception is a natural part of journalism. For example, reporters often pretend to know less about a subject than they really know in order to get a subject to open up. On the other hand, it seems especially underhanded

and sneaky to create an entire fake organization and record a conversation via hidden cameras.

What do you think? Is this a legitimate form of investigation, or a sneaky prank? And either way, should the "expose" that's been uncovered be taken seriously or dismissed?

(note: I wrote this last week - for some reason the post never published...but I think the issue is still relevant.)

A small town girl...living in a global world.

Local political coverage is really important...right?

When I was younger, my family either subscribed to the local Morris County Daily Record, or the regional Newark Star Ledger (we switched to the Star Ledger because my mother liked their crosswords better.) So for old times sake, I visited the Star Ledger's website to see how it was doing.
Here are Monday's front page stories:
- an investigation into flight cancelation statistics
- a huge photo of the champion NJ high school wrestler
- an editorial on Newark's school system
- an article about a tax issue in NJ towns
- one AP article on Libya

At the Morris Daily Record, we have one article about a mysterious death in Parsippany, another about a guy who killed his wife in Washington Township, and a nice article about kids in Morristown who are pen pals with kids in Nepal.

Our world is so globally linked these days, that I honestly think people don't feel as connected to their hometowns as they once were. People are interested in reading about what's going on in the whole world, whether that means Hollywood or the Middle East. Either way, they don't care about local town politics, state legislation, or small-time corruption at the local level.

This is ironic and sad, I think, because this is the stuff that actually affects our lives. Petty small town politics make the difference between your town getting a new train station or not, the corrupt chief of police being prosecuted, or the school system getting reformed. This is the day to day stuff that really matters, and if people don't care to read about it, the reporters who want to do a public service by investigating and reporting on it, are never given that opportunity.

Here's a class poll - does anyone from a small town (or a city other than NY) keep up with local politics? Vote in local elections? Read the town newspaper?

Who is our Ha'aretz?

The New Yorker just did a piece on Ha'aretz, the far-left Israeli newspaper. It describes the way Ha'aretz reporters have lived in Ramallah and Gaza for years, to get to know the locals and try to write about life on their side of the wall a little bit. Ha'aretz has become well-known for their far left approach to Israeli politics, and to Palestinian relations in particular.
At the same time, though, Israeli society at large is said to be moving to the right, putting Ha'aretz in a strange position. Their readership is shrinking, but even people who don't read the newspaper themselves see it as having an important place in society. That voice of dissent, the newspaper with the really out-there opinions that few people agree with, is an important voice--and one that can't be provided by a mainstream news outlet. Think of it as the polar opposite of Fox News (except Fox is of course pretty mainstream in that it's hugely popular.)
Who is our Ha'aretz? Do we have any media and reporters that are willing to go through what the Ha'aretz staff goes through (ostracization, mockery, a pipe bomb attempt) to bring to light unpopular opinions so they too are included in the public dialogue? I somehow don't think so.

Jon Stewart Strikes Again!

On last night's Daily Show episode, Jon Stewart called out CNN for its choices in news presentation. With segments like "Random Moment of the Day" and "Reporter Roulette" CNN devotes significant chunks of airtime to playing ridiculous YouTube clips and leaves the real hard news in the hands of the viewers. He specifically mocks their complete lack of investigative reporting.
In "You Choose the News," the anchor literally announces three possible news stories--women's shelters in Afghanistan, an arms market in Abu Dhabi, and the plight of female homeless vets--and then instructs viewers to text the station with their choice of what topic the news should focus on that day. Is this just the next step in the progression of new media versus old? A silly stunt to try to garner some interest in a crowded news cycle?
The Daily Show...the ultimate source of media analysis.

No Media Zone

In a press release, the State Department has just announced that journalists who enter Libya without authorization will be considered terrorist collaborators by the Libyan government, who will arrest them if they are caught. The only reporters being allowed into Libya right now are CNN, BBC Arabic and Al Arabiya.
In the wake of all the violence towards the media that we've seen in the Middle East, the idea that the government of one of these countries in turmoil has officially declared itself off-limits is even more troubling. We may not know exactly what's happening in Libya right now, but it doesn't look too good.
Do you think the State Department is doing the right thing by warning journalists not to sneak into Libya illegally? How would you feel if an American journalist was arrested in Libya for trying to report on the developing situation there?

Will the other side of the story please stand up!

For my newswriting class, I am writing an article about a recent protest by anti-fur animal rights activists at Macy's. (You've all probably seen them there with their posters.) Trying to be a good journalist, I tried to get both sides of the story--the protestors think wearing fur is unethical, but what is Macy's view? What are their policies?

Of course, the protestors were happy to talk to me and explain their views, but it was basically impossible to get anything from the Macy's side. The salesperson in the fur salon told us she wasn't allowed to talk to us and basically kicked us out, and the emails I sent to the media relations person I was told to talk to went unanswered. A security guard supervising the protest chatted with me and Kim for a few minutes, but insisted that his comments be off the record.

So of course, my story is pretty one-sided. But how could I have done this differently? Is this inherently a one-sided topic (animal rights - good/ corporation - evil)? How do I fairly present the other side of the argument if they don't feel the need to address the issue at all?

My bigger question is - how often does this happen in the news we read and see? How often does a reporter present mostly one side of an issue because that is the side that embraced him and gave him good stories and quotes?

The weirdest intersection of media and politics yet?

So apparently Donald Trump is thinking for running for President in 2012, as a Republican. As Jon Stewart was helpful enough to point out, Trump announced his interest in the Republican nomination at CPAC by saying, "If I run, and if I win, this country will be respected again."

Really? I mean, I know Trump was a real estate mogul long before he had a seven-year run as a reality TV star and an even longer career as a hairstyling punchline. Is that what we mean by a relationship between media and politics? If Reagan and Shwarzenneger could move from show business to politics, why not Trump?

Apparently, it's not his first time running. New York magazine points out that not only did Trump run as a third-party Independent candidate in 2000, but his stance on many social issues, from abortion to health care reform, has changed drastically since then.

Is this a publicity stunt? Does Trump have a reasonable shot at the Republican nomination? Should his business experience be looked at as an asset, or should his contributions to American media's least thoughtful enterprise, reality TV, work against him?

Sex and scandal sell - but is it news?

Last week, Gawker.com broke the "story" that married Congressman Christopher Lee had apparently been soliciting contact with woman from the Craigslist personals section, and had even sent her a photo of himself shirtless. Later I read that the woman Congressman Lee had been flirting with had actually been the one to contact Gawker when she realized that he had lied about being single. The scandal forced Lee to resign.

What do you make of this kind of news-making? Ok, so the guy entertained the thought of cheating. Isn't that between him and his wife? He's not the President, he didn't do anything illegal, and I'm not entirely sure that something like this should have to ruin his career? Is it morally ok for Gawker to jump on an awkward shirtless photo and make a scandal out of nothing? How should the traditional media respond to this "tabloidization" of politics? Thoughts?

Crowd-Sourcing the Agenda

As I was dutifully copying the little circular chart Professor Adler drew on the board today illustrating the cycle of agenda-setting and news-creation--from the President's office down to the people and back around to Congress--I realized that there is another step being introduced to this process. Call it the Facebook effect, or "new media" exerting its power, or the WikiAgenda. I think that a lot of what people (especially those around my age) consider to be important to the agenda is set by other people like themselves, rather than the newspapers or a governmental PR office.

Take the NYTimes.com homepage. There is very clearly an agenda being set by the editorial board: the ongoing situation in Egypt is primary, along with responses in Iran and the rest of the Middle East. The budget takes precedence a little lower down the page, with local news and a report on New York Fashion Week closer to the bottom of the page. Once you "enter" the site by clicking on an article, however, the most direct link to the next article is via the "Most Popular" tab, which gives you a smattering of "high-priority" issues along with an expose on JC Penney's abuse of Google's search rankings, an article about the Grammys, and a progress report on Gabrielle Gifford's rehabilitation. All fascinating stuff (even the JC Penney article--read it!) and not junk or tabloid journalism, but not exactly the agenda that the NY Times wanted to set.

Moving beyond the news website itself, I think it's safe to say that many young people read serious news articles mostly when they come across them on Facebook (or Twitter - sigh). The way we process the news and the official agenda comes to us through our social networks and our friend's priorities. In fact, right now New York Magazine is telling me that I can be the first of my friends to "like" this article about the 1.65 trillion dollar deficit.

AOL buys Huffington Post

The NY Times reported today that AOL is buying the Huffington Post. What I think is interesting about this is not so much that a big, struggling company is eating a smaller, more successful one, but that AOL will actually be giving Ariana Huffington "oversight not only of AOL’s national, local and financial news operations, but also of the company’s other media enterprises like MapQuest and Moviefone."
Arianna Huffington is a left-wing icon and the Huffington Post is an unabashedly liberal news-aggregator and blog site. AOL, meanwhile, has been moving away from being an Internet-provider company and more towards being a content provider. They have been buying up successful blogs on all kinds of topics, like culture, food, and technology, to form a massive advertising-generating content network, like a giant Internet-based newspaper. So it makes sense, on one level, for AOL to want the Huffington Post as their liberal editorial page, just like they wanted Engadget as their technology page.
The problem, I think, is this: If the Huffington Post editorial staff has oversight of much more of AOL's content besides for just itself, they will be in a position to shape and influence much or all of AOL's huge content farm in acordance with their political views. Obviously, that's not a problem on a political opinion blog. But on Mapquest? I'm not suggesting that Ariana Huffington is going to use her new authority to start ruling the Internet, but I do think that the lines between editorial content and just plain information on the Internet are fuzzy enough--and they're just going to get fuzzier.

Military Mythmaking

In the context of our class discussions,I was reminded of an article from the New Yorker a few weeks ago.

This article discusses that famous photograph from the beginning of the Iraq war, of Iraqi citizen cheering while a statue of Saddam Hussein is toppled. Even at the time, it was suspected that the celebratory moment being celebrated in the picture may have actually been staged by the military and the news corps specifically for the purpose of taking the photo. It turns out that pretty much every detail of that iconic photo seems to have been set up very deliberately by a troop of Marines in order to convey a certain message about the reception of the American troops. However, the author of this article, Peter Maass, who was actually there at the time, says that the event wasn't simply staged; nor was it completely organic, but something between the two.

It's kind of like when you go out with friends and are actually pretty bored and not too excited, but then someone pulls out a camera and everyone poses like they are having the time of their lives. We all know that people act differently when there is a camera around--so I think we should take into account that people who are being filmed for TV know that they are and aren't necessarily acting the way they were a moment before the TV crews showed up.

As the article says, "Propaganda has been a staple of warfare for ages, but the notion of creating events on the battlefield, as opposed to repackaging real ones after the fact, is a modern development."