Wednesday, May 6, 2015
White House Correspondents’ Dinner - Gender
This past week, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, Cecily Strong stole the show. She had the best jokes and zingers, and became an internet star seemingly overnight. But my favorite joke, and the one i want to write about tonight was when she assembled member of the media to repeat a pledge:
“I solemnly swear not to comment on Hillary Clinton’s appearance, because that is not journalism.”
You can view her entire set here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/26/the_best_joke_of_the_white_house_correspondents_dinner_and_11_runners_up.html
The joke rattled the audience more than any moment of the night, since the entire audience was the media. To Strong, she was just commented on what she saw, which is that commentary and coverage over the years about Hillary's changing hairstyles, her penchant for pantsuits and other assorted appearances are the direct result of Clinton being a woman. A man running for president would never be subjected to similar treatment. The media was making her gender too big of an issue, and I agree. Clinton has dealt with more scrutiny for how she looks for the past two decades more than any male, and that's not fair.
In terms of the CDA, the media was using appearance and looks to judge a candidate, regardless of their politics. Googling clips of Hillary Clinton and her looks will give proof of this. What is refreshing, especially at an event full of the media, and a clip that has now gone viral, is that Strong called out the media for this. And it seems like the American people agree. The overwhelming support of Strong and her set is proof of that. The American people are tired of the media using their influence and ideology to speak on gender and appearance, especially when it unfairly targets women. In the past, the media would use their ideology to target Hillary and her appearance, and people, through their exposure to this content, would agree. But in 2015, it seems the tide is turning. Why? I think our society is more informed of these issues and care about them more. Women aren't fully treated equally yet, but we are more accepting. And those who disagree with women's rights are in the minority. It's refreshing to see the media held to more accountability. Especially when gender is going to be a big part of the 2016 election.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Money Man and Woman Beater
Last night, Floyd Mayweather fount, and won, the largest and most money generating boxing match in history. Before even stepping in the ring, Mayweather was set to make hundreds of millions of dollars. He's easily the face of the sport, and his personality is eccentric. He does whatever he wants, anytime he wants.
But I'm not here to write about boxing. Instead, I take issue with the exploits of Mayweather outside of the ring. Mayweather is a convicted woman beater, and not just once. He has threatened to kill the mother of his children, beat his children, and has been convicted three times of violence against women (going to jail for one).
The details of the encounters, taken from court records, are hard to ignore
"At 4 a.m. on Sept. 9, 2010, Mayweather and a friend came into the house of Josie Harris, mother to three of his children. He was not affectionate. Mayweather questioned Harris about dating another man (Mayweather at the time was himself with another woman). He threatened to make her disappearThen, with those leaden fists, he struck with a champion’s ferocity in the back of her head. He pulled her off the couch and twisted her left arm. All of this comes from court papers. Mayweather’s preadolescent sons, Koraun and Zion, heard their mother’s cries and ran into the room. Pretty Boy growled at Zion: You call 911 or run out of the house, and I’ll “beat you.” He also threatened to beat Koraun.Koraun wrote a statement for the police in block letters: “I saw my dad was on my mom said go to the office he was hiting my mom.”" (New York Times).
With a conviction from domestic violence, and a history of run in withs the law, how is Mayweather still around? This is the same day and age where Ray Rice was stripped from the NFL in a matter of minutes after a video was posted from his singular incident. A single, one time video of Rice beating his then fiancee. Rice wasn't even taken to jail that night. Mayweather has been convicted three times, pleading guilty and serving time. The same kind of accusations that Rice faced as he was publicly shamed and taken out of his sport. Rice, to this day, still hasn't been signed to a new team. How is Mayweather any different? Why is he still making millions of dollars? Why is this history and ugly charges not part of the larger conversation during the upcoming days of the fight? Where is the media powerhouse and its ability to take down any athlete they want on a whim?
Or what about the Adrian Peterson fallout? After Peterson was found of beating his children, he was taken out of the NFL as well and suspended. The public labeled him a child beater, and he still hasn't been forgiven or signed to a new team. Mayweather told his children he would beat them in the court papers. Where is the public outcry? The fact that similar athletes have committed similar offenses, in the same media climate, and were held to a standard makes this issue even more confusing.
Floyd, for his part, defends his actions of abuse by saying there are no pictures or video proof of him attacking a woman. And that he is black, rich, and outspoken, which is argues are three strikes against him in today's media.
Race and gender are not issues in this case, because all three people that I mentioned are black males. Nor is nationality or religion. Personality could be a factor, but if anything, Floyd's personality makes him even less likable, as he is loud, cocky, and rude. He doesn't come off as quiet and peaceful, like Peterson. There are articles about Floyd's abuses, and it has been talked about as the fight came up, but it didn't stop the juggernaut that was the event. It didn't even slow it down. It is still one of the most profitable sporting matches of all time. And made Floyd the highest paid athlete in the world. All while we knew who he is and what he has been convicted of. In the same day and age when athletes are seemingly held to more responsibility for their actions and the medias role in exposing their mistakes.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4.7 million women experience physical violence by an intimate partner each year. Nearly one in four women have been a victim of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Yet the media and us as an audience celebrate him in his winnings? Where is the morality that we saw in the Peterson and Rice incidents? Where are the boycotts and outcries from audiences and sports journalists alike? It seems like the media and journalists pick and choose their battles, and Mayweather is either too powerful or too influential to touch. Although to that point, Peterson was the most popular running back in the most popular sport in America.
Floyd will cash in millions as we won the fight, and that's not even counting the pay per view sales he will get. I don't write this post as an attempt to answer why Floyd is still walking the streets and all over our television. Because I personally don't understand how it's possible.
I close with a quote from a blog post on CNN, which wrote "At its best, a boxing match can be thrilling, artistic and mesmerizing. Unfortunately Mayweather's longstanding domestic abuse issues tarnish both the sport and the fans that choose not to hold him accountable for his behavior."
But I'm not here to write about boxing. Instead, I take issue with the exploits of Mayweather outside of the ring. Mayweather is a convicted woman beater, and not just once. He has threatened to kill the mother of his children, beat his children, and has been convicted three times of violence against women (going to jail for one).
The details of the encounters, taken from court records, are hard to ignore
"At 4 a.m. on Sept. 9, 2010, Mayweather and a friend came into the house of Josie Harris, mother to three of his children. He was not affectionate. Mayweather questioned Harris about dating another man (Mayweather at the time was himself with another woman). He threatened to make her disappearThen, with those leaden fists, he struck with a champion’s ferocity in the back of her head. He pulled her off the couch and twisted her left arm. All of this comes from court papers. Mayweather’s preadolescent sons, Koraun and Zion, heard their mother’s cries and ran into the room. Pretty Boy growled at Zion: You call 911 or run out of the house, and I’ll “beat you.” He also threatened to beat Koraun.Koraun wrote a statement for the police in block letters: “I saw my dad was on my mom said go to the office he was hiting my mom.”" (New York Times).
With a conviction from domestic violence, and a history of run in withs the law, how is Mayweather still around? This is the same day and age where Ray Rice was stripped from the NFL in a matter of minutes after a video was posted from his singular incident. A single, one time video of Rice beating his then fiancee. Rice wasn't even taken to jail that night. Mayweather has been convicted three times, pleading guilty and serving time. The same kind of accusations that Rice faced as he was publicly shamed and taken out of his sport. Rice, to this day, still hasn't been signed to a new team. How is Mayweather any different? Why is he still making millions of dollars? Why is this history and ugly charges not part of the larger conversation during the upcoming days of the fight? Where is the media powerhouse and its ability to take down any athlete they want on a whim?
Or what about the Adrian Peterson fallout? After Peterson was found of beating his children, he was taken out of the NFL as well and suspended. The public labeled him a child beater, and he still hasn't been forgiven or signed to a new team. Mayweather told his children he would beat them in the court papers. Where is the public outcry? The fact that similar athletes have committed similar offenses, in the same media climate, and were held to a standard makes this issue even more confusing.
Floyd, for his part, defends his actions of abuse by saying there are no pictures or video proof of him attacking a woman. And that he is black, rich, and outspoken, which is argues are three strikes against him in today's media.
Race and gender are not issues in this case, because all three people that I mentioned are black males. Nor is nationality or religion. Personality could be a factor, but if anything, Floyd's personality makes him even less likable, as he is loud, cocky, and rude. He doesn't come off as quiet and peaceful, like Peterson. There are articles about Floyd's abuses, and it has been talked about as the fight came up, but it didn't stop the juggernaut that was the event. It didn't even slow it down. It is still one of the most profitable sporting matches of all time. And made Floyd the highest paid athlete in the world. All while we knew who he is and what he has been convicted of. In the same day and age when athletes are seemingly held to more responsibility for their actions and the medias role in exposing their mistakes.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4.7 million women experience physical violence by an intimate partner each year. Nearly one in four women have been a victim of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Yet the media and us as an audience celebrate him in his winnings? Where is the morality that we saw in the Peterson and Rice incidents? Where are the boycotts and outcries from audiences and sports journalists alike? It seems like the media and journalists pick and choose their battles, and Mayweather is either too powerful or too influential to touch. Although to that point, Peterson was the most popular running back in the most popular sport in America.
Floyd will cash in millions as we won the fight, and that's not even counting the pay per view sales he will get. I don't write this post as an attempt to answer why Floyd is still walking the streets and all over our television. Because I personally don't understand how it's possible.
I close with a quote from a blog post on CNN, which wrote "At its best, a boxing match can be thrilling, artistic and mesmerizing. Unfortunately Mayweather's longstanding domestic abuse issues tarnish both the sport and the fans that choose not to hold him accountable for his behavior."
Monday, April 20, 2015
Comedians and Giraffes
Comedian Ricky Gervais started controversy this week when he tweeted a picture of American hunter Rebecca Francis with a dead giraffe to his 7.9 million followers with the caption:
"What must've happened to you in your life to make you want to kill a beautiful animal & then lie next to it smiling?"
In the picture, Francis lays next to a dead giraffe she hunted and killed. The photo was retweeted more than 40,000 times. The resulting firestorm of criticism has turned into a vicious back and forth between Gervais, his supporters, and the hunting community, who claim he is singling out female hunters for abuse. Francis responded to this controvert herself, writing:
"When I was in Africa five years ago I was of the mind-set that I would never shoot a giraffe. . . . He was past his breeding years and very close to death. They asked me if I would preserve this giraffe by providing all the locals with food and other means of survival. He was inevitably going to die soon and he could either be wasted or utilized by the local people. I chose to honor his life by providing others with his uses and I do not regret it for one second."
In a follow up post, Francis said "Ricky Gervais has used his power and influence to specifically target women in the hunting industry and has sparked thousands of people to call for my death, the death of my family and many other women who hunt. I repeat I will never apologize for being a woman who hunts as I know that my passion for hunting and conservation is making a direct difference on the ground for wildlife."
After researching and reading about this controversy, I'm left confused by Francis's response and the change in topic. Why did she believe that Gervais was targeting her as a woman? Where did he "specifically target women in the hunting industry"? No where in his post or response did he make gender an issue. While it may be true that others have posted these sorts of threat to Francis, Gervais has never been quoted using sexist language. I found it confusing that Francis would automatically shift the focus of topic to gender, rather than the actual issue at hand, which deals with hunting trophy animals for pure sport. The language Francis used is particularly interesting and worthy of scrutiny. Gervais did not ask Francis to apologize for being a woman, he wanted her to apologize for killing for sport. Francis made herself the victim, even though in the original and actual story, she was the hunter.
This also goes for the media's coverage of the issue. When I read about this issue this week, it wasn't about hunting or the morals of killing animals, but instead if Francis was being attacked because of her gender. The media was manipulating the topic and spinning it into a gender debate. While I do agree with equal right's for women, I don't think this issue needed to be changed into a sexist argument. What if Francis was a male (the dominant face of the sport)? Would the sex argument even have been made? Almost certainly not. It's unfair that this important issue got changed to an argument about gender, masking the actual hunting problem. It's also interesting the it took five years for the photo to go viral. With the 40,000 retweets, there are certainly a number of people who care about this issue. Why did it take a comedian to make them aware of it? Are they not researching it on their own? If they care so much about the issue so much, and allow it to cause controversy, one would assume they do. What if Gervais had never tweeted this picture to his millions of followers? Would Francis still be without world news controversy?
Gervais, in his typical sarcastic tone, responded to the sexism comment with the tweet: We need to stamp out this terrible sexism in the noble sport of trophy hunting. The men & women that do it are EQUALLY vile & worthless."
A long time supporter of animal rights, it is not uncommon for Gervais to support such issues. He also wrote: "These psycho trophy hunters always have stuff about their family being everything to them on their profiles. Elephants love their family too." He later added, "The trophies I'm proudest of are the memories of all those times I didn't kill a beautiful, majestic, endangered species for no reason."
I'm glad this issue is getting more attention, even with the gender distraction. People need to be aware how the media and the language used can change issues and our motivations/ideologies.
"What must've happened to you in your life to make you want to kill a beautiful animal & then lie next to it smiling?"
In the picture, Francis lays next to a dead giraffe she hunted and killed. The photo was retweeted more than 40,000 times. The resulting firestorm of criticism has turned into a vicious back and forth between Gervais, his supporters, and the hunting community, who claim he is singling out female hunters for abuse. Francis responded to this controvert herself, writing:
"When I was in Africa five years ago I was of the mind-set that I would never shoot a giraffe. . . . He was past his breeding years and very close to death. They asked me if I would preserve this giraffe by providing all the locals with food and other means of survival. He was inevitably going to die soon and he could either be wasted or utilized by the local people. I chose to honor his life by providing others with his uses and I do not regret it for one second."
In a follow up post, Francis said "Ricky Gervais has used his power and influence to specifically target women in the hunting industry and has sparked thousands of people to call for my death, the death of my family and many other women who hunt. I repeat I will never apologize for being a woman who hunts as I know that my passion for hunting and conservation is making a direct difference on the ground for wildlife."
After researching and reading about this controversy, I'm left confused by Francis's response and the change in topic. Why did she believe that Gervais was targeting her as a woman? Where did he "specifically target women in the hunting industry"? No where in his post or response did he make gender an issue. While it may be true that others have posted these sorts of threat to Francis, Gervais has never been quoted using sexist language. I found it confusing that Francis would automatically shift the focus of topic to gender, rather than the actual issue at hand, which deals with hunting trophy animals for pure sport. The language Francis used is particularly interesting and worthy of scrutiny. Gervais did not ask Francis to apologize for being a woman, he wanted her to apologize for killing for sport. Francis made herself the victim, even though in the original and actual story, she was the hunter.
This also goes for the media's coverage of the issue. When I read about this issue this week, it wasn't about hunting or the morals of killing animals, but instead if Francis was being attacked because of her gender. The media was manipulating the topic and spinning it into a gender debate. While I do agree with equal right's for women, I don't think this issue needed to be changed into a sexist argument. What if Francis was a male (the dominant face of the sport)? Would the sex argument even have been made? Almost certainly not. It's unfair that this important issue got changed to an argument about gender, masking the actual hunting problem. It's also interesting the it took five years for the photo to go viral. With the 40,000 retweets, there are certainly a number of people who care about this issue. Why did it take a comedian to make them aware of it? Are they not researching it on their own? If they care so much about the issue so much, and allow it to cause controversy, one would assume they do. What if Gervais had never tweeted this picture to his millions of followers? Would Francis still be without world news controversy?
Gervais, in his typical sarcastic tone, responded to the sexism comment with the tweet: We need to stamp out this terrible sexism in the noble sport of trophy hunting. The men & women that do it are EQUALLY vile & worthless."
A long time supporter of animal rights, it is not uncommon for Gervais to support such issues. He also wrote: "These psycho trophy hunters always have stuff about their family being everything to them on their profiles. Elephants love their family too." He later added, "The trophies I'm proudest of are the memories of all those times I didn't kill a beautiful, majestic, endangered species for no reason."
I'm glad this issue is getting more attention, even with the gender distraction. People need to be aware how the media and the language used can change issues and our motivations/ideologies.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Naming Names: Indiana and Apple
Recently, Indiana became the state of national controversy after
passing a religious freedom law. While some may see this as a non-issue, a lot
of Americans are concerned. In the law, businesses in the state now have the
ability to refuse services to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs. For
example, and florist could refuse to do a wedding for a gay couple by citing
their religious beliefs. Here are some details on the law:
While a lot could be written about this,
from a variety of perspectives, I want to focus on a recent op-ed published by
the Washington Post that was written by Tim Cook, and openly gay man and the
CEO of the one of the most valuable and progressive companies in the world:
Apple. Here is the op-ed:
From the title I was already thinking
about CDA. The title is "Tim Cook: Pro-Discrimination 'religious freedom'
laws are dangerous. I found it interesting that the title used Cook's name, and
not a more attention grabbing signifier, like "Apple CEO." Surely a
lot of Americans know the name Tim Cook, but its no question that more people
know of Apple products rather than their CEO's name. If The Post were to
want to catch more headlines, it would seem that they would reference him as
Apple's CEO. In the title, Tim Cook is seen as an individual. Judging from the
title alone, a reader would assume that this is just his personal opinion,
rather than the company's opinion. If the title were to say "Apple:
Pro-Discrimination 'religious freedom' laws are dangerous" it would be
more collective than individual.
There is also the issue of nomination and
functionalisation. Again in the title, Tim Cook is not named the CEO of Apple
until the article is actually opened, where it is listed in italics above the
start of the article. It's interesting why it wasn't just put in the title.
In the actual article, Tim Cook also does not use anyone's specific names.
The law that was just passed in Indiana was signed by governor Mike Pence.
However Cook never mentions him by name, even when he is talking about the
law's recent passing. Why does Cook not call him out directly Cook is certainly
not happy about these laws: These bills rationalize injustice
by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the
very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo
decades of progress toward greater equality." But he doesn't name the man
who signed it into law. it almost seems as Cook is purposefully utilizing anonymisation when
talking about the laws passing and the the other states that have passed
similar laws. There is no doubt Cook knows the name of governor Mike Pence, so it's
perplexing to me as a reader why he avoids him name altogether.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
A Tiny City and a Small Gym Represent a National Debate
Being born and raised from Midland, Michigan, my ears perked up when I heard my hometown city, which I'm often very proud of, was making the news:
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/midland_lawmaker_planet_fitnes.html
The news all started from a local Planet Fitness in Midland. There, a transgender woman (who was born a man, but now identifies as a woman) was using the female facilities in the locker room. Another female customer walked into the locker room and saw the individual, and complained to Planet Fitness that there was a man in the woman's locker room. The employee told the woman that the individual identified as a woman and that there was no problem. The complaining woman was not satisfied:
"After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness' corporate office and returning to the Midland location to tell other women in the locker room about her experience, she was told by the company that she was violating its "no judgement" policy. After she refused to drop the issue, her membership was canceled."
Hooray Midland! While often right leaning, white, and strictly Christian, it appeared that the city was turning a new leaf towards progressive equality.
However, that's not the end of the story.
A state representative from Midland weighed in on the decision:
"State Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Larkin Township, called the company's stance an "in-your-face policy" that threatens the safety of its female customers.
"Planet Fitness obviously should rethink its anti-woman, anti-reality policy," Glenn said. "If they don't, they shouldn't be surprised in a conservative family-friendly community such as Midland if they lose more female members.""
The elected official called the policy "anti-woman, anti-reality"! How can it possible be anti-woman, when its protected someone who identifies as a woman? Are other women in danger when a transgender person is in their locker room? And how is the policy anti reality? Is he claiming that in reality transgender people do not exist? What planet is he coming from? And how was he elected? The debated waged on as the representative continued his anti equality statements:
""My wife has been a member at the Planet Fitness in Midland," Glenn said. "As she characterized the situation, Planet Fitness has made clear it does not offer a family friendly environment, and she said she will not be going back, and I imagine they'll lose other customers as well.""
How is planet fitness not providing a family friendly environment? Why is this an issue that will lose the company business? The elected official was also quoted in saying that the companies policy "violates the privacy, comfort and peace of mind of women."
Luckily, Planet Fitness stuck with their beliefs and even the corporate office reiterated what the local branch said, supporting their decision.
This case brings up a number of issues, and can be looked at from a number of perspectives. The lawmakers, as an elected official, is the voice of his district. His job is to spread the ideology of those who elected him. Is Planet Fitness in the minority of their opinion, or are they in the majority? Is the elected official meeting his requirements by voicing the honest opinions of his district? Power and ideology are at play in a number of instances here. While the story is still developing, I hope to see how Midland weighs in on this issue. I also appreciated the reporting of Mlive as to not appear biased one way or the other. They presented both sides equally and seemed fair in their reporting of the case.
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/midland_lawmaker_planet_fitnes.html
The news all started from a local Planet Fitness in Midland. There, a transgender woman (who was born a man, but now identifies as a woman) was using the female facilities in the locker room. Another female customer walked into the locker room and saw the individual, and complained to Planet Fitness that there was a man in the woman's locker room. The employee told the woman that the individual identified as a woman and that there was no problem. The complaining woman was not satisfied:
"After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness' corporate office and returning to the Midland location to tell other women in the locker room about her experience, she was told by the company that she was violating its "no judgement" policy. After she refused to drop the issue, her membership was canceled."
Hooray Midland! While often right leaning, white, and strictly Christian, it appeared that the city was turning a new leaf towards progressive equality.
However, that's not the end of the story.
A state representative from Midland weighed in on the decision:
"State Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Larkin Township, called the company's stance an "in-your-face policy" that threatens the safety of its female customers.
"Planet Fitness obviously should rethink its anti-woman, anti-reality policy," Glenn said. "If they don't, they shouldn't be surprised in a conservative family-friendly community such as Midland if they lose more female members.""
The elected official called the policy "anti-woman, anti-reality"! How can it possible be anti-woman, when its protected someone who identifies as a woman? Are other women in danger when a transgender person is in their locker room? And how is the policy anti reality? Is he claiming that in reality transgender people do not exist? What planet is he coming from? And how was he elected? The debated waged on as the representative continued his anti equality statements:
""My wife has been a member at the Planet Fitness in Midland," Glenn said. "As she characterized the situation, Planet Fitness has made clear it does not offer a family friendly environment, and she said she will not be going back, and I imagine they'll lose other customers as well.""
How is planet fitness not providing a family friendly environment? Why is this an issue that will lose the company business? The elected official was also quoted in saying that the companies policy "violates the privacy, comfort and peace of mind of women."
Luckily, Planet Fitness stuck with their beliefs and even the corporate office reiterated what the local branch said, supporting their decision.
This case brings up a number of issues, and can be looked at from a number of perspectives. The lawmakers, as an elected official, is the voice of his district. His job is to spread the ideology of those who elected him. Is Planet Fitness in the minority of their opinion, or are they in the majority? Is the elected official meeting his requirements by voicing the honest opinions of his district? Power and ideology are at play in a number of instances here. While the story is still developing, I hope to see how Midland weighs in on this issue. I also appreciated the reporting of Mlive as to not appear biased one way or the other. They presented both sides equally and seemed fair in their reporting of the case.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Brian Williams is in Trouble - Does It Matter?
This past week, Brian
Williams, the anchor of NBC Nightly News, has announced that he is taking a
leave of absence. He released a press statement announcing this:
In the midst of a career spent covering and consuming news, it
has become painfully apparent to me that I am presently too much a part of the
news, due to my actions.
As
Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News, I have decided to take myself off of my
daily broadcast for the next several days, and Lester Holt has kindly agreed to
sit in for me to allow us to adequately deal with this issue. Upon my return, I
will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who
place their trust in us.
Williams official address to the matter (while on the air) can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW6AbX2q0fM
This
development is all stemming from an incident that occurred a decade ago, in the
Iraq war:
"NBC
Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a
helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003,
a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.
Williams
repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New
York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground
security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied
him. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, he said he had misremembered the
events and was sorry."
Williams had even previously gone on David Letterman recounting
the story, in the now infamous interview:
Considered
the "golden boy" of nightly news, this is surprising. The beloved
anchor has all but always avoided scandal since taking the mantle from Tom
Brokaw. The once close allies are apparently not feuding, with reports that
Brokaw now wants Williams to be fired
While this is more
speculation than fact, it is an interesting development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that I am
wondering is why is this such a big issue? When have news networks now become
the beacon of truth? I certainly can name a few news anchors that publish and
run misleading, or even completely fake stories. Turn on FoxNews at any point
of the day for evidence. The news in general follows the ideology that big
stories get the most money, and the juicier the details, even if
fabricated, present the highest viewership. Jon Stewart often mocks
this ideology. Since news networks distort facts on a daily basis,
why is Williams getting in trouble when he's the only guy to ever admit it?
Through the "controversy,"
Williams has gotten all the attention. The news he lead is now being plotted
against him. He is singled out. The vessel for which gets all the blame. As
Machin and Mayer discuss, "Van Dijk (1993) has shown that how the news
aligns us alongside or against people can be thought of as what he calls
'ideological squaring'. He shows how. . . choices to create opposites, to make
events and issues appear simplified in order to control their meaning"
(78). The media has controlled this story and made it all about Brian Williams.
Why are they not taking this opportunity to look are more individuals and
instances of news fraud? Why are they not coming together and holding everyone
accountable? It seems that Brian Williams is being thrown under the bus by his
own colleagues. Brian Williams is the individual that is being attacked, rather
than the news as a collective, an idea that Machin and Mayer elaborate on.
This issue has been touched
on, but not to the extent that I would like to see. Geraldo Rivera, a man I
don't often quote, is one of the few to come to the aid of Williams:
There is definitely a lot
to unpack on this issue, and a number of different angles that could be
elaborated on. The media and its portrayal of others. The power of the media
and how quickly they can destroy a man's career when they choose to. Another interesting point was that the Geraldo piece used the verb "attacking" in its title. This is ironic, given that this whole situation stems from an actual terrorist attack on an American helicopter. I've only looked at the tip of the iceberg, and there is more
discussion to be had in the future.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Discourse Journal - Jason Stafford - Paris Sues Fox News
Main Ideas at Work:
Power - The media and its control. Power over people. Power over information.
Ideology -- influencing people on what to believe
Iconography -- leads to the idea that the “world is on fire”
Summary:
On January 20, 2015, Christinae Amapour reported on CNN that the mayor of Paris, Anne Zhidalgo, was planning to sue Fox. Through a critical discourse analysis of the original video as well additional blog and news reports, I consider this to a case where power and ideology are at play.
CNN Link:
CNN report on Paris Mayor suing Fox News
“Paris Mayor Plans to Sue Fox News for 'Insulting' Her City Over Muslim 'No-Go Zones'”
Mayor Anne Hidalgo mentioned “the image of Paris” and “honor of Paris”
Police see this as a “wild west”
Iconography of Paris - images in the background.
Fox News clip:
Terms:
- caliphate
- no-go zone
- shock
This is a case of power and access. As Machin and Mayr discuss "Through power, people, or groups, are able to control others." This can be done in a number of different ways, including education, wealth, and information. Through the media, power is used by putting ideas in people’s heads. They are given the information and internalize it. Through viewing this piece, they are aware of the issue and have an opinion of it. People could have a negative opinion of Fox News by seeing and reviewing this piece, since the story is a negative outlook on the network. Even in my situation, I misread what actually occurred with this story by misleading headlines. This is ironic, because the actual piece I am writing about, in terms of power and ideology, was internalized by myself through the medias tricky headlines. They were able to use their power to influence my ideology and what I thought was happening.
Bloggers also picked up on this story:
Wemple: “After all the aspersions, insults, vitriol, sniping, jeering and just general nastiness directed at Paris and at France over the years not only from Fox News but from many other U.S. precincts, THIS is what triggers a libel claim from the city of Paris?”
- Here is a place to connect to Machin and Mayr -- this is a lack of specific detail
- Making an attack on Fox News (literal and figurative)
“When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed,” said Hidalgo to Christiane Amanpour of CNN. “The image of Paris has been prejudiced, and the honor of Paris has been prejudiced.”
It is ironic that the blog was using language that dealt with attacks, because the original event that caused this uproar was an attack in Paris. I do not believe the blogger used this type of language accidentally.
Also:
Jardin: “Does "The Streisand Effect" not translate into French? The best antidote for Stupid Speech is Smart Speech, not criminalizing Stupid Speech. Congratulations, Mayor Hidalgo, just weeks after the Charlie Hebdo massacre you managed to become a globally-celebrated foe of the free press.”
- Questions to think about:
- Satire? Serious? Does it matter?
This blog was much more satirical, and less professional than the first. But it shows how many people have opinions on this story. Because this story has been circulated and many people are writing about it, it further exemplifies the power of the media. They are the controllers of information and how we see and learn about world events. Through their headlines and writing, they can influence what we see and why. This is a very powerful tool, and can direct our ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)