Showing posts with label Reasons why I didn't go into Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reasons why I didn't go into Journalism. Show all posts

Friday, January 18, 2008

Chris Mathews Apologises for Coverage Of Sen. Clinton, Hell Freezes

But then thaws out after hearing one of the finest non-apology apologies this side of George Allen.

Were Married...With Children still on the air, Tweety could be the patron saint of NOMA'AM. But Mathews's asinine remarks were not the scripted words of satirical blue-collar buffoons and a modern-day Archie Bunker, but the actual thoughts and words of a cable TV newshost.

Media Matters has the exhaustive count, which includes such gems as:
*Actually pinching Sen. Clinton--a fully-grown woman, Senator, lawyer and in no way someone anyone should confuse with say a 4-year-old child--on the cheek. And let's be honest, kids hate getting their cheeks pinched too.
*"According to a Media Matters study, Matthews made 10 negative remarks about Clinton for every negative remark he made about Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and nearly three times as many positive remarks about the former New York City mayor as about Clinton, despite his professed neutrality."

And of course, Mathews's misogyny is in no way limited only to Sen. Clinton. And that's what pisses me off about his "apology." Where are the other apologies, to Sen. Pelosi, Michelle Obama, and well, pretty much an entire gender that Tweety either openly has loathed or lusted after based 100% on their physical appearance?

I'm not holding my breath waiting on that on.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

That's Debatable (II): On Voting, and How We Should Be More Like The French

I was going to backtrack completely and follow-up with a detailed rundown on the Democratic primary debate, but too many blogs have already hit that, so it's time to move on.

Instead I'm going to bring up for discussion two ideas Haley had while watching (one good, one almost frighteningly bad) and tie them into the recent French election.

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first: while I figure she's got the best intentions in wanting to "modernize" the political process, I think dumbing down the level of political debate--especially concerning the man or woman who will be in charge of the country for four years--is a horrible "snap decision."

Yes, more Americans voted in last year's American Idol finals than in the last election: that's not a good thing. But worse, turn the Presidential election into a popularity contest/reality show knock-off and we're asking for the political equivalent of Clay Aiken. And generally, Clay and co. seem like music for people that don't really care about music. It's bland, it's calulatingly the least offensive, broadest appeal. When the country desparetly needs change--major change--bland isn't going to cut it. Plus, my gut tells me that since early polls had too many people saying "well, Romney looked the most Presidential," the 2008 election would result in another GOP President. If soundbytes and style with no substance is enough to get elected, Rudy can sit back and have "9/11" repeating on endless loop from now until he's sworn in. Or, look at John Edwards. He didn't raise his hand at the debate when asked if he believed in the Global War On Terror, and the instant judgement of many: oh no, he's soft on terrorism. Dig deeper than some hand-raising though, and you get a naunced, intelligent answer:

And I don't know how many of you even noticed this or how many of you
watched the Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina, but I suspect
some of you did. But a question was asked whether you agree with the language -
the Bush language, which is what it is - "Global War on Terror." And I did not.
And I said, I took that position at the debate...
[Applause]
This is a
political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they
do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify
Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal
spying on the American people.
[Applause]
It is time for us to quit
kowtowing to these people. We have to say what we really believe. Now, are there
really dangerous people in the world? Of course there are. We need to be smart
and aggressive and intelligent, use intelligence - did I say dangerous people? -
we have to use intelligence to fight them and stop them. Everybody recognizes
that. But the one thing that's been proven beyond any doubt as a result of
what's happened in the last six years is raw power alone will never make you a
leader. You actually have to have the moral authority. (HT: DailyKos)


If we go on snap judgements and soundbytes, Edwards is either "out of touch with the reality of the threat we face" (pick a GOP candidate to make that accusation) or "in denial" or who knows. If anything, as the debate is available as streaming video, and the all candidates have speeches all over YouTube and extensive websites/MySpaces/Facebook groups there really should be no excuse for not educating ourselfs about the choices out there--and in depth. I work 40 hours a week while attempting to land a better job, updating this blog, keeping up with UGA football, Red Sox baseball, reading several blogs/websites daily, and working on my book, so there is likely time for most of us to get at least semi-informed. (What I've learned today: Mike Gravel does seem like a crotchety old dude, but some of his thoughts about getting the US out from under the thumb of the Military-Industrial Complex are spot-on, whereas Ron Paul has way too many statements blaming crime on black men to be a "safe" GOP alternative, his progressive stances on the Internet and ending the war nonwithstanding.)

But Haley's 100% right in that our current voting system could use an overhaul. The problem here becomes: who handles it? Ask some Ohio voters how much they trust Diebold, just get your guard up first. For starters (as in, something we could do in time for 2008) is to spread the word about absentee ballots. I voted twice via absentee ballot (in 2000 and 2002) as there were some pressing issues back in the home county and I was struck by how easy the process was. (And why wasn't I registered in Athens Clarke-County? Well, let's just say that my middle years at UGA were a black hole as far as dating was concerned, and up until let's say November 2002 you couldn't get me out of the state of GA fast enough.) If you anticipate a long day at the office for the primary or the election, sign up for an absentee ballot. If you need another reason, claim you have agoraphobia or even whatever Latinate construct would approximate "seeing too many 'Bush/Cheney' stickers on cars makes me vomit" (Ryan, I'm looking in your direction here...just give me a long Latin phrase, then -osis can be added to it and: instant disease.)

Online voting should be the wave of the future (or even texting of voting)...the issue here is security. American Idol had voter fraud issues last year (I think, I'll Google this later to make sure my mind isn't pulling a Geto Boys song on me) and it has big corporate sponsors. Super SSL-encrypted sites and online voting look, to me at least, as the best option. The other plus we could shoot for? No more Super Tuesdays.

France had over 83% turnout in their election, and coincidentally it was held over the weekend, not on a random weekday. Neal Boortz, in a bit of specious reasoning that I surmise was more about radio ratings than truth, claims democrats will never allow this (because, he claims, no one with a steady, demanding job would ever vote democrat) and that a 24-hour Tuesday is the answer. It's better than what we've got now sure...but how do you staff the polling places for 24 hours? Move it to Saturdays, less folks have to work=more volunteers, more time to vote.

So my quick hopes for 2008 and beyond: we all do our damndest to actually resemble and informed electorate (I don't want to hear "he looked cute," "seemed like a nice guy to have a drink with," or "because she's a woman," as reasons for voting unless there's some solid stuff to go with them). We get off our asses, TiVo HOUSE or whatever must-see Tuesday show is on (yes ladies, even if it's Dr. Addison's new show and Taye Diggs is going to be McHalf Naked) and vote in truly record numbers. And then we work towards Saturday elections and secure online voting options. But, even if we get suckered into a Duncan Hunter/Tommy Thompson presidency (the "Hunter S.lash Thompson" stickers fool a surprisingly high--pun intended--number of younger voters) it's probably better than the crap we have now.

Friday, April 13, 2007

Screaming loudly at the media bandwagon

I didn't want to write about Don Imus. I really didn't.

(For those of you living under a rock, or in a cave, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears, Google "don imus").

The guy (who really has a face for radio) is a dumbass, made a statement that removed all doubt that he was a dumbass, and...all manner of media hell broke loose.

I'd resist the "chumming the water for sharks" metaphor here if weren't so apt. World News Tonight had a feature on it nightly (the Iraq war I don't think got every night coverage, or if it did, not as much). Al Sharpton was involved.

And once the hype got to a certain level, it was a relieft Imus was fired. Because the alternative was that this level of hype for Imus (who I wouldn't have recognized if he walked up to me on Peachtree Street two weeks ago) would be used as a ratings stunt and legitimize dumbass statements.

What's left is that it does seem to legitimize blowing things out of all proportion. If the media hadn't picked up on the story, or say, if it was Joe Sixpack on a Kansas AM sportstalk station, odds are the Rutgers team wouldn't have even heard of the comments. Of course if any of them were Imus listeners, my whole theory here's shot to hell, but I kind of doubt it.

Call me cynical, but I agree with Jason Whitlock's column in that Rutgers is using the whole thing for postive PR/recruitment that they wouldn't have had the oppurtunity to do otherwise. Again, not saying they weren't hurt by the comments, and the private meeting with Imus was good policy, a 30-minute speech from the coach seems straight from the marketing and PR deptarment, not the heart to me. Will the extra coverage mean Rutgers gets a girl who was dead set on UConn or UT? Well, probably not. I guess the whole thing is a bit unnerving.

And as for Imus's remark being sexist...well, perhaps I need an updated OED, because I don't see it. At no point was he espousing a superiority of men angle. Racially-charged? Sure. But the gist of the thing seemed to be Imus found the Lady Vols attractive and the Rutgers ladies: not as much so re hott. And if it's sexist to consider some women more attractive than other women I'm afraid I'm guilty of it too. It was a dumbass thing to say, and superficial as all hell...but so are all the comments about football/baseball players' butts made by straight women (well, superficial...those comments only reach dumbass territory if say the comment comes after the nicely-posteriored player screws up royal.)

I don't really doubt Imus does think deep down that women are in some way inferior to men (he just gives off a kind of "things were better in the 50s" vibe to me) and I'm not saying there aren't serious issues in the country worth discussing...but let's do it the right way. Let's not label the superficial as sexist, because that way lies a messy and slippery slope.

And lastly, folks, if you have an idea for a story, no matter how half-baked it is, send it to the national news folks and the AP. And tell them you want to see a variety of stories, not the same issue blown out of proportion and hyped beyond belief (see also: the Anna Nicole nonsense that's still ongoing, Britney Spears's hair and panties updates etc.)

Again, I'm not denying Imus is a world-class douchebucket (Atlanta traffic has resulted in me inventing new invectives to swear at people, "douchebucket" is one), but is the story of his dumbass comment really more newsworthy than say:
1. Troops being told they get an extra 3 months in Iraq?
2. The supposedly impregnable Green Zone housing the Iraqi Parliment getting suicide-bombed?
3. Former Bush crony Paul Wolfowitz giving a brobdingnagian pay raise to his mistress (possibly as a silence payment)?
4. Genocide in Darfur?
5. _______?


(Side note: I also figured, somewhat cynically, that it wouldn't be long before this whole thing made its way to tshirts...And I was right Give it a day before Tshirt Hell has one with Imus's face on it...)