With all of the changes FOX makes to their website, like eliminating the box where readers can inform them of errors in stories, they need to consider one more change. Take out "News" from the logo and every other part of the site. This revision might, maybe, alleviate the irony and dishonesty of their line: "Fair and balanced."
To get a balanced view of news, or what agencies are saying about issues and events, I read FOX, the Huffington Post, NYT, local papers, and various sites on the web. This morning while trolling for news, I read the FOX "News" story about the murder of news anchor Anne Pressly (FOX calls her anchorwoman, which is also problematic but is the subject for another blog).
The point of the article, I think, was to inform readers about how she was injured--she did not die until five days later. The title reads: "Arkansas Anchorwoman's Face Shattered 'Like an Egg' During Attack." Apparently, the title is part of how the coroner's description of her injuries, which proved fatal. The title and the content made me physically ill and completely disgusted in the opportunistic disregard FOX has for the victim, her family, readers, and even the accused, who is still on trial. He is, by US rights, innocent until proven guilty.
Is there a way to inform the public about a murder, even to give details, without coming across as a gruesome, "news"-before-ethics agency? Yes, and plenty of news agencies have figured out how to do this. They are not always perfect. Writing about the news need not supersede respect for human life.
FOX, this is not news. This is another of your gimmicks, and it makes me sick, sick, sick. Get real or get out of news.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Culture or not culture?
My significant other and I were talking about an Public Radio story about infanticide in Pakistan, and though we got off topic with "discussing" how we discuss, we raised an interesting question. Is infanticide part of a culture? My partner says yes. He says we cannot pick and choose between what is or is not culture because it is "right" or "wrong" in our (meaning my) eyes. I said that I was not willing to say that infanticide is part of culture.
Perhaps a better way than looking for a simple yes or no to this question is to keep questioning. If we can agree that culture is a group's beliefs and values, traditions, language, and then, also the more topical or behavioral aspects of clothing and music, then we can ask how the idea of infanticide fits in. Is it a belief? Is it a practice that stems from belief? From circumstances (which can, I argue, leave the realm of culture)? Is it a mixture of circumstances and belief? Is it also something we can ascribe to individuals? Is it maybe a change in cultural belief and practice? These are, of course, not easily answered, and there are issues of insider and outsider interpretations.
My opinion thus far is that ascribing actions to a culture is risky business because it gives a meaning to the action that may or may not have been intended. Is the action related to culture? Sure, because culture affects people's behaviors. But, is a choice always based on set cultural traditions? Are these ever really set.
Ugh. This does get into a mental masturbation. But, I still hold that ascribing actions solely to culture is dangerous, no matter who does it. I think that many times when we say something is cultural we also ascribe acceptance and a value, and that is not always the case upon further investigation.
Perhaps a better way than looking for a simple yes or no to this question is to keep questioning. If we can agree that culture is a group's beliefs and values, traditions, language, and then, also the more topical or behavioral aspects of clothing and music, then we can ask how the idea of infanticide fits in. Is it a belief? Is it a practice that stems from belief? From circumstances (which can, I argue, leave the realm of culture)? Is it a mixture of circumstances and belief? Is it also something we can ascribe to individuals? Is it maybe a change in cultural belief and practice? These are, of course, not easily answered, and there are issues of insider and outsider interpretations.
My opinion thus far is that ascribing actions to a culture is risky business because it gives a meaning to the action that may or may not have been intended. Is the action related to culture? Sure, because culture affects people's behaviors. But, is a choice always based on set cultural traditions? Are these ever really set.
Ugh. This does get into a mental masturbation. But, I still hold that ascribing actions solely to culture is dangerous, no matter who does it. I think that many times when we say something is cultural we also ascribe acceptance and a value, and that is not always the case upon further investigation.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Dr. Mr. Obama soldier
Dear Soldier,
You make some good points. People in Iraq, citizens there, and soldiers from numerous other countries have made sacrifices, have lost lives and limbs. Life under Saddam Hussein's rule was
not one of "freedom."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/youtubes-election-video-iraq-vets-mccain-endorsement/
I do not agree with your ideas about McCain being a good choice, based on his service or his status as a POW. Had we caught him, Hitler could have been a POW. I use this reference to Hitler NOT as a comparison to McCain but to make the point that anyone can serve and anyone can be taken prisoner. It does not follow that POW status makes one a hero or one who is capable of being president.
As for Iraq being a mistake. Your reasons are not good enough. We've had people from all sides of politics and military who have said that Iraq was not a threat, that there is more terrorism in the region since the war than before it. Yes, Hussein's dictatorship, and his sons and cronies, did not uphold human rights. However, that does not justify a unilateral declaration of war from the US. There are steps to take to correct genocide and human rights violations. And, though Bush, et al, claimed that they went in for said human rights and for "democracy," their actions later refuted these claims. They let people down, and they have no right to put their "democracy" on other nations.
Our country is not a democracy, first of all, and our form of government works (for the most part but not without flaws) for our large and diverse nation. Our representative republic and our constitution are individualized for our nation's needs. Iraq and Afghanistan are unique, compared to each other and to the US, and we cannot just go over and put the American "tablecloth" of "democracy" over these countries traditions, faiths, and needs. That is a human rights violation. If we (and I mean a delegation of nations following certain prescribed criteria) find that Iraq is violating human rights or is conducting genocide, then we should all follow the set rules of taking care of the issue to save people. We do have that obligation according to the treaties and laws we have signed. We do not have the right to take action first, without consent or plan, and then to apply our US form of government where it is not wanted or needed.
Thank you for your service. I have no way to repay you for your loss and for your experience. I cannot repay you with silence or with taking your word for what is "going on in Iraq." I cannot repay you by voting as you vote. As a citizen, it is my right and duty to judicate the information about candidates as best I can, to educate myself to make logical decisions, and, if I simply follow my emotions, then I do not do my duty. We are past the point of emotions. We are all tired, desensitized, confused, angry, and hopeful, and none of these are good enough reasons to vote for a president or other representative.
Yours,
Circe Berman
You make some good points. People in Iraq, citizens there, and soldiers from numerous other countries have made sacrifices, have lost lives and limbs. Life under Saddam Hussein's rule was
not one of "freedom."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/youtubes-election-video-iraq-vets-mccain-endorsement/
I do not agree with your ideas about McCain being a good choice, based on his service or his status as a POW. Had we caught him, Hitler could have been a POW. I use this reference to Hitler NOT as a comparison to McCain but to make the point that anyone can serve and anyone can be taken prisoner. It does not follow that POW status makes one a hero or one who is capable of being president.
As for Iraq being a mistake. Your reasons are not good enough. We've had people from all sides of politics and military who have said that Iraq was not a threat, that there is more terrorism in the region since the war than before it. Yes, Hussein's dictatorship, and his sons and cronies, did not uphold human rights. However, that does not justify a unilateral declaration of war from the US. There are steps to take to correct genocide and human rights violations. And, though Bush, et al, claimed that they went in for said human rights and for "democracy," their actions later refuted these claims. They let people down, and they have no right to put their "democracy" on other nations.
Our country is not a democracy, first of all, and our form of government works (for the most part but not without flaws) for our large and diverse nation. Our representative republic and our constitution are individualized for our nation's needs. Iraq and Afghanistan are unique, compared to each other and to the US, and we cannot just go over and put the American "tablecloth" of "democracy" over these countries traditions, faiths, and needs. That is a human rights violation. If we (and I mean a delegation of nations following certain prescribed criteria) find that Iraq is violating human rights or is conducting genocide, then we should all follow the set rules of taking care of the issue to save people. We do have that obligation according to the treaties and laws we have signed. We do not have the right to take action first, without consent or plan, and then to apply our US form of government where it is not wanted or needed.
Thank you for your service. I have no way to repay you for your loss and for your experience. I cannot repay you with silence or with taking your word for what is "going on in Iraq." I cannot repay you by voting as you vote. As a citizen, it is my right and duty to judicate the information about candidates as best I can, to educate myself to make logical decisions, and, if I simply follow my emotions, then I do not do my duty. We are past the point of emotions. We are all tired, desensitized, confused, angry, and hopeful, and none of these are good enough reasons to vote for a president or other representative.
Yours,
Circe Berman
Friday, September 12, 2008
Flags, God, and Nationalism
The memorials for Sept. 11 that are small US flags, stuck into playgrounds, tied to fences, and waved around worry me. This kind of nationalism seems blind. There are so many emotions--anger, hurt, love--and people express them with the flag. They use the flag instead of logic and instead of going to representatives and saying, "I am sad, and I think we need to do such and such." Children learn to display patriotism and emotion with flags, but do they learn how to take action to make things "right"?
There is a faith that goes behind the flag waving, that we are America and problems and corruption will work out BECAUSE we are a country that stands for freedom or stands for justice. But, the country does not work by itself and without people making decisions that things are no longer working as they used to work. The laws and actions of the US government do not support freedom or justice all of the time. The government is very inconsistent and dependent on a system that does not always have the "good" of the people (pork and lobbyists) in mind when it enacts laws and measures that restrict civil rights. Blind faith in religion is someone's choice, a choice they have under the US Constitution. Blind faith in the government and in the country as a whole is not a choice. Citizens must not "let things be up to God" in our government. God wasn't elected, nor are the elected officials answerable to God. They are answerable to the laws of the land and to the people who elect them.
We need to act, not wait and trust in the Lord. We need to vote. We need to protest, and we need to be careful of how we use the flag and nationalism. The adage of learning from history is one we need to keep in mind and in action.
There is a faith that goes behind the flag waving, that we are America and problems and corruption will work out BECAUSE we are a country that stands for freedom or stands for justice. But, the country does not work by itself and without people making decisions that things are no longer working as they used to work. The laws and actions of the US government do not support freedom or justice all of the time. The government is very inconsistent and dependent on a system that does not always have the "good" of the people (pork and lobbyists) in mind when it enacts laws and measures that restrict civil rights. Blind faith in religion is someone's choice, a choice they have under the US Constitution. Blind faith in the government and in the country as a whole is not a choice. Citizens must not "let things be up to God" in our government. God wasn't elected, nor are the elected officials answerable to God. They are answerable to the laws of the land and to the people who elect them.
We need to act, not wait and trust in the Lord. We need to vote. We need to protest, and we need to be careful of how we use the flag and nationalism. The adage of learning from history is one we need to keep in mind and in action.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Lipstick and Sambo--the issue is about the low standards of politics
There is a call for an apology from Obama for the "lipstick" comment. He refused after explaining why he need not apologize. We can see (if we bother) the whole context of Obama's comments. Now, one might bring up the "sambo" and "bitch" comments Palin made about Obama and Clinton. Oh, they aren't true? Where are the sources? We find that these cases turn, literally into "he said she said." Well, then maybe we shouldn't use either episode so indiscriminately as media fodder to pull down a candidate.
If we can't provide the entire context, use multiple, reliable, and credible sources, and we cannot get Q&A with both candidates on the issue, then the media and both campaigns need to forcefully and overtly say that they do not CONDONE any media coverage or disparaging remarks about their fellow candidates. And, they need to prove that they MEAN this.
I think the issue is that the candidates rely so heavily on no having to face the music or be accountable for their campaigns and supporters. They just want the support and to get the votes. This is dirty from all sides, people. Let's call for credibility and standards in the media and in the campaigns. I do not approve of my tax money paying for any of this, and I demand reform--from all sides, as well as better citizenship.
If we can't provide the entire context, use multiple, reliable, and credible sources, and we cannot get Q&A with both candidates on the issue, then the media and both campaigns need to forcefully and overtly say that they do not CONDONE any media coverage or disparaging remarks about their fellow candidates. And, they need to prove that they MEAN this.
I think the issue is that the candidates rely so heavily on no having to face the music or be accountable for their campaigns and supporters. They just want the support and to get the votes. This is dirty from all sides, people. Let's call for credibility and standards in the media and in the campaigns. I do not approve of my tax money paying for any of this, and I demand reform--from all sides, as well as better citizenship.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Saving the Children?
Who is saving th children? Again, we get a glimpse of hell, when we read about kids in war-torn countries, or where there is famine or political unrest, and the humanitarian aid workers who trade food for sex. These kids are growing up associating the word "humanitarian" with one who abuses, someone to fear.
Save the Children is calling for a global watch dog, for some group to overlook these aid associations. This is a positive step, but it should not be like buying an umbrella and not worrying about the rain. There also needs to be some backstepping to assist those children and families who have been abused and exploited for years, but I hate to think of yet another group going in with the intent to aid and then further abusing. I'm pessimistic, yes. But, in the case of child abuse, I think that dewy eyes and idealism are out of place because we (meaning all of those people who are living without war in our backyards, famine, and political unrest) need to see the hell, the dirt, and inhumanity of what it must be like to be hurt by people who are supposed to help.
Save the Children is calling for a global watch dog, for some group to overlook these aid associations. This is a positive step, but it should not be like buying an umbrella and not worrying about the rain. There also needs to be some backstepping to assist those children and families who have been abused and exploited for years, but I hate to think of yet another group going in with the intent to aid and then further abusing. I'm pessimistic, yes. But, in the case of child abuse, I think that dewy eyes and idealism are out of place because we (meaning all of those people who are living without war in our backyards, famine, and political unrest) need to see the hell, the dirt, and inhumanity of what it must be like to be hurt by people who are supposed to help.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Sam Adams (beer) is gay?
Last night, while enjoying pizza, and, ironically a Sam Adams Lager, with my partner, I overheard the following comment.
"Oh, nothing says gay like Sam Adams"
I asked A if he heard this comment, and he did. So, it wasn't my imagination.
So, in spite of living in a state with a mandated anti-bullying law that includes sexual orientation (since September 2007), this kind of language is something this man finds to be acceptable to shout out.
Across the patio, I sent dirty looks, but the guy didn't notice, and even if he did, it means nothing because he doesn't even realize what he's done. Similar to reprimanding a dog for eating a shoe an hour later. They just don't get it.
I told A that if we were sitting there with a gay child, I would have no problem with walking over and explaining that his comment is not only rude but hurtful and unacceptable. My statement makes me sad and disappointed in myself.
If we want to make change, we can't tell our selves, well, if a person from "that" group is around, then I will take action. That's not enough. Heterosexism needs to be addressed whether or not I perceive gay individuals to be part of the group or not. This is similar to the argument that a classroom teacher need not address race if there are not children of color in her class. We all have sexual orientations (and they are not as polarized as our society portrays) and we all have race.
Upon further research, I found that, indeed, Sam Adams IS gay. He's the new mayor of Portland Oregon, and he's openly gay. Maybe this guy was trying to discuss current politics, but I really don't think so.
Oh, congrats Sam Adams (the mayor).
"Oh, nothing says gay like Sam Adams"
I asked A if he heard this comment, and he did. So, it wasn't my imagination.
So, in spite of living in a state with a mandated anti-bullying law that includes sexual orientation (since September 2007), this kind of language is something this man finds to be acceptable to shout out.
Across the patio, I sent dirty looks, but the guy didn't notice, and even if he did, it means nothing because he doesn't even realize what he's done. Similar to reprimanding a dog for eating a shoe an hour later. They just don't get it.
I told A that if we were sitting there with a gay child, I would have no problem with walking over and explaining that his comment is not only rude but hurtful and unacceptable. My statement makes me sad and disappointed in myself.
If we want to make change, we can't tell our selves, well, if a person from "that" group is around, then I will take action. That's not enough. Heterosexism needs to be addressed whether or not I perceive gay individuals to be part of the group or not. This is similar to the argument that a classroom teacher need not address race if there are not children of color in her class. We all have sexual orientations (and they are not as polarized as our society portrays) and we all have race.
Upon further research, I found that, indeed, Sam Adams IS gay. He's the new mayor of Portland Oregon, and he's openly gay. Maybe this guy was trying to discuss current politics, but I really don't think so.
Oh, congrats Sam Adams (the mayor).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
