Archive for September, 2009
Tuesday, September 29th, 2009 by Jordan Berg
When I see Glenn Beck’s face turn red, his fist hitting the desk in rage as he says the words “localism” and “diversity,” I can only think one thing: Why doesn’t Beck want my younger cousin to own a radio or television station someday or to have a voice in our media system?
That is the message that Beck and fellow talk show hosts deliver when they denounce localism and diversity. What they are saying is that they don’t want young Black women like my 11-year-old cousin to dream of owning their own media or of having a say over who speaks to and for our communities.
My cousin Brea Childs has had a future in media since she could first start moving around and making sounds. My grandfather used to call her the “walking ham.” She would bug the entire family to be her audience for a few minutes. Even when no one was watching, she would just sing out loud to the world.
But Brea doesn’t just perform; she has helped promote the arts in her community. Already, Brea has worked to put on theater productions, volunteered to set up events, and sought out opportunities to learn different aspects of performance art.
She has a knack for creating opportunities to showcase her talent where none already exist.
If Brea doesn’t succeed in becoming the next Oprah (or the first Brea!), she should be able to fall back on her natural management abilities. She should be able to own broadcast stations or the Internet broadcast stations of the future.
Under the current system, our airwaves are gifted to an elite few who get them for free. In return, broadcasters are required to provide news and programs that are both local and diverse. But broadcasters routinely skirt these rules, and the Federal Communications Commission has historically been lax on enforcement.
Recently, the FCC has expressed its intention to better enforce the broadcast rules. The agency appointed Mark Lloyd, a distinguished civil rights leader, acclaimed historian and successful attorney, as the FCC’s first Diversity and Localism Chair. Lloyd co-wrote a report outlining ways to make localism and diversity in the media a reality for all Americans.
This move was a red flag for media extremists who see the call for localism and diversity as encroaching on their media empires. Talk show hosts Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others have begun attacking Lloyd in an effort to discredit him, and have been misrepresenting localism and diversity as a way to get conservatives off the air.
But these broadcast principles are simply about injecting new voices into the media. Because when you ask Americans: Do the media reflect your community? Are they relevant to you? Are they as creative, funny, engaging and informative as they should be? The answer is always no.
The public deserves a vibrant, diverse, skeptical, adversarial media so we can have an informed and engaged democracy.
And my cousin deserves a chance to create and own media. As she continues to develop her passion and skills, no one should stifle her.
So when Glenn Beck attacks localism and diversity, think of your baby sister, cousin, son or daughter, the gifted child up the street, and ask,” Shouldn’t they have a means to own or be part of the media someday?”
No Comments »
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 by Megan Tady
It isn’t easy to pull together dozens of groups to support one issue, but in this case, we’re all in agreement: Attacks against localism and diversity in the media must be countered.
More than 50 public interest and civil rights groups, including Free Press, today sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission and congressional leaders in support of Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC.
Lloyd, an established scholar and respected public servant, was hired by the FCC to expand media opportunities for women, people of color, small businesses, and those living in rural areas. It’s a tough job, considering the abysmal state of diversity in mainstream media.
But his job has become even tougher in recent weeks as pundits on cable TV and radio have attacked Lloyd using misleading information and innuendo. They’re attempting to persuade the American people that localism and diversity is something to fear, and that Lloyd himself is an enemy of democracy.
In truth, these media extremists – Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and others – want to safeguard their media empires without new competition and new voices. Read my colleague’s blog to get the inside scoop on their scheme.
The FCC should stand by Lloyd and speak up to correct the record on localism and diversity policies. We need more voices in the media, not fewer.
The full text of the letter and a list of signatories is below:
To: FCC Commissioners and Congressional Leaders
We, the undersigned, ask you to speak out against the falsehoods and misinformation that are threatening to derail important work by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission on media and technology policies that would benefit all Americans.
In recent weeks, Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, has come under attack by prominent cable TV and radio hosts, and even by some members of Congress, who have made false and misleading claims about his work at the agency.
Mr. Lloyd is a respected historian, an experienced civil rights leader, and a dedicated public servant. He was hired by the FCC to “collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to participate in the communications marketplace.” His important work should not be hindered by lies and innuendo.
As the leading media policymakers in Washington, we ask you to speak out against these unfounded attacks, stand publicly behind Mr. Lloyd, and make clear your commitment to carrying out the core mandate of the FCC — as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 — to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media.
Let us be clear what “localism” actually means. Broadcasters get hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies in exchange for a basic commitment to serve the public interest. Broadcasters are expected to be responsive to their local communities. Localism has been a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as long as there has been broadcast regulation. It has nothing to do with censorship or interference with local programming decisions. Localism is simply about public service, not about any political viewpoint. Local public service programming and political talk radio, whether liberal or conservative, are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, as the Supreme Court has recognized, “Safeguarding the public’s right to receive a diversity of views and information over the airwaves is … an integral component of the FCC’s mission.” Diversity of media ownership is a crucial issue, and the agency must address the fact that women and people of color are vastly underrepresented among media owners using the public airwaves.
But diversity is also about closing the digital divide: People of color, the poor, and rural Americans are far less likely to have high-speed Internet access at home or share in the benefits of broadband. Diversity is about creating opportunities and broadening participation; it should go without saying, but it has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.
The third tenet of the FCC’s mission is competition. Those using their media megaphones to slander and distort the views of Mr. Lloyd and others may not want competition. But the FCC’s job, in its own words, is “to strengthen the diverse and robust marketplace of ideas that is essential to our democracy.” The overriding goal must be more speech, not less — more radio stations, more cable channels, and more Web sites.
At the core of President Obama’s media and technology agenda is a commitment to “diversity in the ownership of broadcast media” and a pledge to “promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints.” Now is the time to further that agenda, not to retreat from it.
We ask you, as leaders on these key media issues, to draw a line in the sand now, speak out against the unfounded attacks, and redouble your efforts to enact a policy agenda that will strengthen our economy, our society, and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Josh Silver
Free Press
Wade Henderson
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Winnie Stachelberg
Center for American Progress
James Rucker
ColorOfChange.org
Stephanie Jones
National Urban League Policy Institute
Brent Wilkes
League of United Latin American Citizens
Larry Cohen
Communications Workers of America
Alex Nogales
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Bernie Lunzer
The Newspaper Guild
Communications Workers of America
Kimberly Marcus
Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s Public Policy Institute
Malkia Cyril
Center for Media Justice
Andrew Schwartzman
Media Access Project
John Kosinski
Writers Guild of America West
Sandy Close
New America Media
Amalia Deloney
Media Action Grassroots Network
Angelo Falcon
National Institute for Latino Policy
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Gigi Sohn
Public Knowledge
Rinku Sen
Applied Research Center
John Clark
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
Communications Workers of America
Graciela Sanchez
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Mimi Pickering
Appalshop
Steven Renderos
Main Street Project
Hal Ponder
American Federation of Musicians
Tracy Rosenberg
Media Alliance
Terry O’Neill
National Organization for Women
Roger Hickey
Campaign for America’s Future
Andrea Quijada
New Mexico Media Literacy Project
Jonathan Lawson
Reclaim the Media
DeAnne Cuellar
Texas Media Empowerment Project
Chris Rabb
Afro-Netizen
Loris Ann Taylor
Lisa Fager Bediako
Industry Ears
O. Ricardo Pimentel
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Todd Wolfson
Media Mobilizing Project
Erica Williams
Campus Progress
Gary Flowers
Black Leadership Forum
Eva Paterson
Equal Justice Society
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr
Hip Hop Caucus
Cheryl Contee
Jack and Jill Politics
Dr. E. Faye Williams
National Congress of Black Women
Emily Sheketoff
American Library Association
Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters Action Network
Kathryn Galan
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Roberto Lovato
Presente
Joshua Breitbart
People’s Production House
Karen Bond National
Black Coalition for Media Justice
Tracy Van Slyke
Media Consortium
Shireen Mitchell
Digital Sisters, Inc
Media and Technology Task Force
National Council of Women’s Organizations
Ariel Dougherty
Media Equity Collaborative
2 Comments »
Thursday, September 10th, 2009 by Asma Uddin
The effects of a consolidated media system are far-reaching. When only a handful of corporations control the media, they largely determine the messages and images we routinely receive. This has a particularly harmful impact on media diversity, and especially on how people of color, women and ethnic groups are portrayed.
As we’ll see from Asma Uddin’s guest blog post this week, our media consistently depict Muslim men and women in a disingenuous light that stokes prejudice, racism and division. Instead of media in the hands of the few, we need media that help us combat stereotypes and that foster understanding and genuine discussion.
The Media’s Role in Demonizing Muslim Men and Women
In these times, when Islam is under tremendous scrutiny, there is probably no more contentious issue than that of gender relations in Islam. With the media constantly spewing out images of oppressed Muslim women and angry Muslim men, the world looks on with both fascination and disgust. The Muslim gender dynamic – supposedly a singular, unchanging construct – has become a spectacle for everyone to gawk at, to comment on, and ultimately, to use to ridicule the larger Muslim community.
At the core of media coverage of Muslim men and women is a shocking over-simplicity. Men are invariably depicted as angry and violent; women are always portrayed as subservient, oppressed and silent. Lost amid the mainstream coverage are average Muslim men – the hardworking, loving father, brother, son and husband who supports his daughter, sister, parents and wife in both tangible and intangible ways. Lost in the public discourse are the Muslim men who explicitly reject hyper-masculinity and misogyny and are driven by their faith to deviate from a patriarchal model of gender relations. And perhaps even more important, lost are the truths that the vast majority of Muslim women are strong and successful, and that many are independent enough to defy male control over their gender identity.
By erasing the complexity of Muslim men, women, and their gendered interactions, mainstream media inevitably dehumanize and demonize them. Especially in the post-9/11 era, Muslim women in hijab, or the religious head covering, have become central to the construction of Arabs and Muslims as the ominous “other.” Saving Muslim women from these purportedly oppressive garments became a cultural theme used to invoke support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, a war which was often justified through images of Afghan women wearing all-encompassing blue burkas, and sometimes being publicly beaten by the Taliban. The government’s construction of women in hijab as symbols of barbarism made them countercultural to American freedom. The localized effect of such a construction: Some Americans – self-fashioned “defenders” of American values – wanted to kick women in hijab out of their neighborhoods.
To be clear: The phenomenon of relegating Muslims to the “Other” did not begin after 9/11.“Orientalism,” a term coined by the late scholar Edward Said to denote a deprecating essentialism of the East by Westerners, was rampant long before then. However, the slippery slope between deprecation and demonization was most clearly and frequently realized in the immediate post-9/11 climate.
In the years since 9/11, media attacks on Muslim men and women have developed somewhat, but continue to revolve around the same simplistic conception of Muslims as belonging to a culture in which women are oppressed and incapable of exercising choice, and men are violent and misogynist (or, as Mona Eltahawy, an award-winning syndicated columnist, puts it: the “Angry Bearded Muslim Man” and his female counterpart, “Covered in Black Muslim Woman”). As more and more Muslim women have become publicly vociferous in their responses to such stereotypes, their religious devotion and commitment to things like the hijab have been co-opted into the stereotype of “devout Muslim woman as brainwashed and clueless about what’s good for her.” In many cases, defense of the hijab or burka, or even of Islam, by a strong Muslim woman is portrayed with an air of astonishment and a heavy dose of paternalism: The Muslim woman needs to be saved not only from Islam, but also from her own tragic naïveté.
Clearly, a media alternative is needed – one that explores gender in Islam in all of its nuance and complexity rather than demonizing or simplifying it. Because media distortion happens both through biased reporting and exaggerated, selective images, the counter-response must be similarly multifaceted.
Altmuslimah.com seeks to provide precisely this sort of in-depth coverage. Its mode of exploration is a combination of analysis and personal stories, as well as a visual campaign that highlights the literary contributions of empowered Muslim American women. Altmuslimah.com offers telling portraits of tenacious Muslim females, young and old; warm, loving Muslim men; the purity of spiritual devotion; and the dynamics of positive gender interaction in Islam.
By examining Muslim gender issues from various vantage points and through several modes of observation – ranging from the personal to the analytic, the journalistic to the academic, and the written to the visual – Altmuslimah seeks to give the whole picture.
Asma T. Uddin is an attorney and the founder and editor-in-chief of Altmuslimah.com
No Comments »
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009 by Jordan Berg
Despite the amount of ink spilled about health care reform, there is a surprising lack of critical analysis about the debate. Polls show that a majority of Americans are unaware of what the bills actually contain, and TV interviews show that many people fear provisions that don’t even exist in the legislation.
An NBC news poll revealed: “Majorities in the poll believe the plans would give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants; would lead to a government takeover of the health system; and would use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions — all claims that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue about the legislation that has emerged so far from Congress.”
The NBC poll also found that 45 percent of respondents think that “death panels” – government committees that would decide when to stop providing medical care to the elderly – are real.
Remarkably, the media blame the American people for being misinformed, never making the link between their own poor coverage of the debate and the public’s confusion.
But looking at how (and how badly) the media report on health care helps us understand why people don’t have the information they need to judge President Obama’s health care plan.
There are substantive questions about the health care proposal that many citizens have raised during the town halls. But you wouldn’t know it from the coverage in the news media. Corporate news media are more focused on the screaming antics than the important questions. But it’s the media’s role to take policy proposals and explain them to the public, to offer us critical analysis rather than just to serve up a blow-by-blow of a few raging people and pundits.
Besides ignoring the real questions, corporate media portray only two simplified versions of citizens involved in the health care debate: Those who question the plan are only screaming Neanderthals, intent on drowning out any dialogue and shaming their elected officials; those who support the president’s proposal are inept, unable to make a real case for health care reform to the American people, and are veering toward socialism.
What’s the result of reporting that misconstrues the issues, emphasizes noise and conflict, and omits important information? We need only look at the poll findings to see it: People believe that part of the health care plan is to put senior citizens to death. This misunderstanding says less about the people who believe it, and more about the failure of the media to disseminate accurate information.
And this is perhaps the most damning evidence: a complete failure by the media to explain a provision (proposed by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) in the current health care bill) that would allow for end-of-life conversations between doctors and patients to be covered by Medicare.
Beyond the media’s penchant for conflict, how else to account for the abysmal failure to adequately inform the public? Some analysts are offering an explanation. The Columbia Journalism Review suggests that corporate media do not want to thoroughly cover the health care debate because it “does not hold people’s attention.”
That argument, however, ignores the bottom line – the big profit motive to churn out cheap-to-produce celebrity news and infotainment, rather than public service journalism, which is expensive but important. The drive to pad their pockets explains why the big corporations that control nearly everything we read, see and hear will always be more interested in celebrity talking heads rather than on fulfilling their responsibility to explain complex legislation to the American public.
It’s critical that we work to take back our media system from the corporations that are harming us. Our health literally depends on it.
No Comments »
