Our Use of Language

Well, greetings all!  I finally thought I would write about something that has been bothering me off and on for sometime, and has recently been rekindled.

That is our use of language.  I remember being upset when the 'right' so demonized Liberals and really attacked even the term.  Now, I'm from the Liberal school, probably the more traditional Liberal school of folks such as Humphrey and the LaFollettes.  I suppost the more "in vogue" term today is "Progressive."  Now that's not so bad, the Progressive Era here in the U. S. gave us many social advances.  But I have to wonder how and why we let the term "Liberal" be so maligned.

There has been lots written about the misuse of the words "terrorism" and terrorist."  If those terms are to be used, they should be used consistently.  However, that is not the case.

Another case in point right now for me comes in watching the way "protest" and "protester" are sometimes treated.  I think one reason the DAPL protesters wish to be called "water protectors" is because they sense sometimes spinners give "protest" and "protester" negative connotations.  Of this we should be very aware, and not let folks get away with attaching negative spin to what are our First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Free Assembly.  

Then, there's the language which I have tried to protest by writing to The Guardian and also the editors of Commondreams (link to their site is in navbar...).  That is language such as "*****'s America" or "*****Land" or some such.  I have tried to get across that we should NOT give him the "brand", and also assert that this is OUR AMERICA, too.  And kudos to actress Viola Davis for not using such language.

When we have so many fronts to cover, you may wonder if language matters.  I believe that it does.  In this article, you can read of studies showing how language can affect our perceptions and even approaches to solving problems.  This piece talks about words and their use by media and possible effects on our thinking.  Finally, this op-ed from The Guardian talks about how we need to look at our use of language in our resistance efforts.

Thoughts? Would love to read them in comments!

So please remember, if this post or any here you find of value, do comment and/or share.  Thanks!

Related Post:

Whose America Is It? 

What We Need To Be (Poem) + Some Must Reads

Greetings again... anyone there?  Please let me know; comments are gold, you see!

You know, you never know where inspiration might come from.  I was reading an article at The Guardian about some Super Bowl (nope, didn't watch, don't care for either of those two teams) commercials which were - ah -slightly political.  One, from 84 Lumber actually had to be toned down for broadcast.  Just in case you missed it or haven't seen the ending, you can do so here .

And then it (inspiration, that is) hit me.  So here is a poem:

What We Need To Be

We need to be Joshuas
Who march, sound our trumpets and ram's horns, then shout
Until intangible walls dividing us fall
Until physical border walls no longer seem an option

We need to be Caregivers for our Mother Earth
As Native Americans continue to teach
For She has been entrusted to all of us,
Including future generations

We need to be Parkers and Kings
And bend arcs toward justice
For it must be available for all
If we are to live in true liberty

We need to be Champions of Democracy
Guarding gains achieved by generations of struggle
Then extending circles of inclusion
For more fully open participation

We need to be Diogeneses
Searching for those who are honest
And we must also follow the example of Aristides
Who was himself legendarily honest

We need to be Scanners Beneath Surfaces
To recognize we have common humanity,
To learn that we need each others' gifts,
And to see our differences as glorious
As we move toward acceptance with love

 *******
 Wondering about "Parkers and Kings?"  Check this out!

*******
 Now for the two must reads:

Der Spiegel in Germany had a controversial cover.  I think this is exactly the type of thing the media should be doing!

At The Intercept , there's a very troubling story of the FBI's "Rap Black" program which gives employers real time access to employee data that law enforcement gathers.  Why is this troubling?  Some of this data may be related to exercising First Amendment rights  (say, arrest at a protest).  Further, updates are not always given; charges may be dismissed and it may not be noted.  There may be other inaccuracies as well.  There are also very little limits on how the data may be used (and with Rap Black may be kept indefinitely) and what populations should be subject to this.  From the article:  Such a broad mandate could “provide employers with an unprecedented window into employees’ lives,” according to Jennifer Lynch, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

It is well worth reading and being alert to this troubling database.

Please do comment and/or share if you find this or any post here to be of value!  Thanks. 

Alert - Both Protesters and Journalists Under Threat (Updated)

I wasn't going to post again quite this soon, but I got an alert in my e-mail that journalists covering the protests at the DAPL have been charged.

Here's a link to a story about this at Amy Goodman's Democracy Now site.  I e-mailed the County Commissioner Chair and the county's State's Attorney to protest.  And their site ----- the front page - was mostly very negative headline links about protesters.  Horrible.

Here's also a report at The Guardian.

 Another interesting bit of reporting on this is found at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

Please folks, wake up.  We need to join together and demand that ideals such as Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Assembly - the right to peacefully protest - are honored ---- IN PRACTICE!  We need journalists to really do the jobs of informing us, holding decision makers accountable, and calling folks out who are not respecting what should be our rights.

UPDATE:  DAPL Protesters are still being unfairly treated, it seems.  I found this report (and video).  Am not real familiar with the source, but it's certainly worth considering and looking into.  We need to stand together


 And please, if you find this or any post of value, please comment and/or share.  Thanks!

Related Post:  Total Disrepect

What, AGAIN??? - Updated

I have to ask once again, is anyone actually reading?  Please comment; I could really use a boost here.

Anyway, when I saw this one new commercial I knew I had to do a post about it.  Anyone remember the AT&T commercial I wrote about as being racist?  Now Claritin has one as well.

Check this out.  In the link is the video for commercial - "Outdoor Carnival."  Look at how the African -American fellow is photographed/presented.  Certainly blackface or very close.  Very insensitive at best and racist at worst.   You can view the commercial here.

If someone told me about this and I hadn't seen it for myself, I would have said, NO WAY this would be happening in 2016.  But yes, racism is still around.  Consider that a pro-white rally was just held in GA.  Will some folks EVER LEARN?

Anyway, I will be calling the Claritin folks on Monday to complain.  I was going to use their online e-mail form, but it wanted too much information, and demanded that I say I bought it when I haven't.  I'll complain about that form, too.  I will update this post with my experience.

And don't forget, we could use comments on the "Positively Diverse" page; it seems we need all the good diversity news/blurbs/writings and all that we can find!

UPDATE: 

I did make the call; quite an interesting journey it was.  I called the main number given on the claritin website; when I finally got a human, told the rep I wanted to be connected to the advertising department. She said she'd connect me and also gave me another number just in case.  Well, when I got a rep there, it was no, wrong place to be calling....I think I got transferred to somewhere else and finally said, "I feel as though I'm being given the run-around."  That rep finally said, well, you need to call this number - the original one I called.  She said she'd try to find out why they transferred me out in the first place.  Well, finally got a gal who was nice and said she would pass on my feedback concerning this nefarious commercial.

So if anyone feels the urge to also protest this racist ad, call claritin at: 1-800-252-7484.  Let's let them know we don't appreciate insensitive protrayals! 

Related Posts:

•  AT&T: Image Fail (New Notes Added) 
•   Whoops, NBC 
• Equality Begins With Respect, And... (With Update)

Outrageous - Updated

I hate to move the previous post down.  I may move it back up after a day or so.

But I have to write this:  Trump is doing this "fundraiser" for Wounded Warrior Project tonight at the same time as the GOP debate.  And it's supposed to get tv coverage?  So basically, Trump throws a tantrum because he does't like the Fox Moderator and he gets REWARDED for it?  Any wonder why I'm outraged?  I just saw that C-Span has it on their schedule - to their SHAME.  I just e-mailed them to express my outrage.  However, I first wrote to WWP telling them they should be ashamed for having anything to do with this ludicrous candidate.  CNN phones should be open now, and I will call them.  I'll be right back to let you all know how that call progressed.

When I called CNN, the receptionist said there was no person available so I left a message with my e-mail in case anyone felt like getting back to me.   I didn't find their site very easy to navigate, and just checked my Verizon guide, but didn't see it on CNN schedule (or HLN either) - and I hope it stays that way! I will of course, update if I get any response from them, WWP, or C-Span.

I would advocate that you readers also let WWP and the media know this event is outrageous - skip the coverage!  Some Media contact info can be found here.   For some reason on the printout I actually use, I blocked out 'option 1' with the CNN# so I guess that's certainly not necessary. WWP can be easily searched out and C-Span has an online contact form. Why the media is pandering to that dangerous bigoted, extremist, is beyond me.  Or should be, as they should stop giving him free passes and a stage for every nasty remark he utters.  And I wonder if his supporters really understood the disdain he was showing for THEM with that "shooting people" remark.  BTW, has anyone heard any candidate or media person who actually condemned that remark?

Here's also something I found at The Guardian and their covering of this debate flap except the first link I have here may not be the one they referred to:

On the heels of news that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s luxurious, world-class retweets are disproportionately bestowed upon white supremacists, the billionaire presidential candidate has been called out as a latter-day fascist by none other than Anne Frank’s stepsister.
In an essay published by Newsweek, Eva Schloss, an 86-year-old survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp, decried Trump’s anti-immigrant policies as reminiscent of Nazi Germany:
"If Donald Trump become the next president of the US it would be a complete disaster. I think he is acting like another Hitler by inciting racism.”
The piece, written to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, compares the plight of Syrian refugees - and global resistance to aiding them - to the experiences of her family in the years leading up to World War II. “I was 11 years old when my family first immigrated to Belgium,” Schloss writes.
“We were treated as if we had come from the moon. I felt as if I wasn’t wanted and that I was different to everybody. It is even harder for today’s Syrian refugees who have a very different culture ... I was shocked that I wasn’t accepted like an ordinary person. I am very upset that today again so many countries are closing their borders.”

...Well said, Ms. Schloss.

UPDATE:

Saw a blub on I think it was Bloomberg news online that nasty Trump actually dominated coverage at CNN and MSNBC during time of GOP debate.  I left online feedback for CNN -  but will it help?  I'm sick and tired of this wacko being shoved in our faces and enabled to spew his hateful rhetoric by the media.  Are there any human readers out there?  And anyone even taking the time to phone or leave feedback for these media enablers?  We complain, but nothing ever seems TO GET DONE.  I do what I feel I can, mostly "armchair/online stuff" but I do make some sort of effort here.  Anyone getting the feeling I'm a bit frustrated?  Yup.  Seeing that ludicrous nutjob continually getting rewarded by the media  - and actually having ANY supporters will do that...

 

UPDATE!!! Reply From C-Span Re: "Afghanistan 1982" and MSF Hospital Bombing

Is anyone there???

Believe it or not I just got a reply from a C-Span journalist to the e-mail I sent them regarding their airing of the Reel America segment, "Afghanistan 1982"  You will remember from my older post, MSF Hospital Bombing - INDEPENDENT Inquiry Needed - Updated Again!     

This particular update: 
I was tuning in to a C-Span (American History TV) program and saw a blurb about one of their "Reel America" segments that is supposed to air a few times today (10/10) and the next day or so. I was stunned.  What do you all make of this?  Here is the description of "Afghanistan 1982" from their website:
"This U.S. Information Agency film chronicles events in Afghanistan from the 1979 Soviet invasion until the end of 1982, and includes a 1982 interview with a Doctors Without Borders official following the Soviet bombing of hospitals."

I don't know if I'm jumping to any conclusions, but the timing of this seems QUITE odd. It just couldn't be an effort to distract from the U. S.  bombing of a MSF hospital in Afghanistan, now could it?  I e-mailed C-span about this and will update if I get a response.  What are your thoughts, readers?  I have NOT so far heard anything from C-Span.  Anyone have a take on this?

I have just received a reply from C-Span's Richard Hall, a video journalist.  He indicated that the program was selected weeks in advance.  He also said they receive no government money and would have no interest in defending government actions.

I have sent the following follow-up e-mail to Mr. Hall.  And I will update if I get a response.

Dear Richard –

First of all, thank you for replying.  I appreciate you taking the time to do that.However, your reply does raise more questions in my mind.

The first one being:  if “Afghanistan 1982” was selected weeks before the Kunduz MSF Hospital bombing, why wasn’t it dropped from the schedule after that event?  In my mind, the timing was quite insensitive.

The second one being: you asked why c-pan would be interested in defending the actions of the government, as you get no government money.  I’m sorry to say that I wonder more and more about the coziness of the media and the government.  It was the part of the blurb about the show that really caught my notice – the part about the Russians bombing an MSF hospital.  I’m sure you’re knowledgeable about how things can very subtly be gotten across via media messages.  I have to wonder if this was some subtle way of saying ---- “Hey, someone else did something---- look at them!”  Maybe that was the case, maybe that wasn’t, but it surely raised the question in my mind. Again, I do appreciate your time.

Sincerely,

Your thoughts, readers???

 

MSF Hospital Bombing - INDEPENDENT Inquiry Needed - UPDATED AGAIN!

We cannot let the attack on the civilian MSF (Medicins Sans Frontieres)  hospital in Afghanistan just "go away."  If you have truly read the accounts, it should be clear that this was NO accident.  Let's remember that the GPS coordinates were given to both sides and  that the hospital was bombed precisely several times while the MSF staff called DC to plead for it to stop. Thanks to a gal commenting on TI for this tweet showing there were NO other targets in the vicinity of the hospital!

MSF has called for an independent, impartial, and transparent inquiry.  Sorry, but we CANNOT trust the U. S. military, NATO and all to investigate themselves.  And we must all denounce this. International MSF President, Dr.  Joanne Liu, has called this an "attack on the Geneva Conventions."  True accountability must be demanded and received (though maybe we shouldn't hold our collective breath).  

Read about  this reaction of the MSF.  I wasn't originally going to post this link, but here's Greenwald again, with another worthwhile read.  I felt it was worth including here when it occurred to me, why is the U.S. hemming and hawing about a real, independent investigation?  What is that old line again - "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear"?  So what is the U.S. afraid of?

We must stand with MSF and the victims.  We must add to the call for a real, impartial and independent inquiry.  We should accept no less.  MSF has a site and social media campaign going.  Since I'm not on facebook,instagram, or twitter, not sure how I can help in this ---- any ideas???


UPDATE !:

I was tuning in to a C-Span (American History TV) program and saw a blurb about one of their "Reel America" segmentsthat is supposed to air a few times today (10/10) and the next day or so. I was stunned.  What do you all make of this?  Here is the description of "Afghanistan 1982" from their website:
"This U.S. Information Agency film chronicles events in Afghanistan from the 1979 Soviet invasion until the end of 1982, and includes a 1982 interview with a Doctors Without Borders official following the Soviet bombing of hospitals."

I don't know if I'm jumping to any conclusions, but the timing of this seems QUITE odd. It just couldn't be an effort to distract from the U. S.  bombing of a MSF hospital in Afghanistan, now could it?  I e-mailed C-span about this and will update if I get a response.  What are your thoughts, readers?  I have NOT so far heard anything from C-Span.  Anyone have a take on this?

UPDATE II:

The International Humanitarian Fact Finding Committee is ready and willing to investigate, but would need the ok of the U. S. and Afghanistan.  But the U. S. is so far signalling they will NOT ok cooperartion. Can you believe it?  From the article:
At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest signaled that the administration would oppose an IHFCC investigation.
“The administration has confidence that the investigation that is currently under way by the Department of Defense will provide the full accounting of the situation that the president has asked for,” Earnest said.  It sounds to me as though this is a case of asking a fox to investigate that disappearance of some chickens from the coop.  I am ashamed of this incident and angry at the hubris that our government won't be fully transparent with international agencies.
 

AT&T: Image Fail (New Notes Added)

The first time I saw the commercial, I didn't really take notice of it.  Nor did I the second time.  I think it was the third time, though, that it hit me - as though it were a slap in the face from racism itself which seemed to say: "See, it's 2015 and I'm still around."

It was the AT & T "Life Simulation Facility" commercial to which I refer.  I could hardly believe it when I first became taken aback, but when I've seen it since, it still strikes me that the robot is a "blackface" one.  I even called AT& T; I can't say my experience was very satisfactory.  My concern seemed totally brushed aside and I was informed that my feedback wouldn't even be passed on. (One might ask why I even bothered to call.  If you visit their website, the only way to contact them online was to choose one of their products and I'm not an AT & T customer.)

Questions? I suppose the first one is this: "Is there doubt that the robot is blackface?"  Well, to me it sure looks as though that is indeed the case.  Note the oversized white mouth and huge white eyes. And what about the hat? Also, having seen it twice recently on tv again (to the same negative reaction), I believe it's more noticable on the tv screen (where we're not so close) than on a monitor or smartphone. Here's a primer on blackface if anyone needs a refresher.

The second one might be: "At & T - really?"  I did some online searching and found that this isn't the first time AT & T commercials have been suspect.  I found this blog post from 2013 which discusses their series of 'more is better'/'faster is better' commercials.  I'd totally forgotten about them, but do remember feeling at the time that the African-American children in them were not showcased on the same basis as the other children.

There also seems to be some evidence that the corporate climate of AT & T isn't all that friendly toward diversity.  The company is being sued by Knoyme King. 
There is also another lawsuit being brought by National Association of African American-Owned Media (‘NAAAOM’) and Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios.

The third question would probably be: "Why is this such a big deal anyway?"   Maybe it's not a question of say, war or peace, but the images that we're subjected to (and things like ads can affect us even when we're not paying full attention) can be offensive, hurtful, and even harmful.  I found a good article from 2009.  From this article by Mark Sawyer:  "Whether it is the original white "Amos and Andy" or white fraternity/sorority girls and boys, blackface is always about mocking black skin and presenting stereotypical black behavior. Minstrels always clown around, sing and dance and otherwise dehumanize the individuals they represent."  I think that sums it up. 

NOTES:

1) For some reason, the video of the ad in question at the previous link was made private.  I put in another link.

2) I called and sent an e-mail to Lifetime network about this commercial as I had seen it airing there.  I also called NBC as it's been airing during episodes of "Dateline."

3) I believe the ad was done by agency BBDO.  Shame on them!!!

4) Folks - am I the only one that sees a problem with this???

Revisiting "A Modest Proposal"

Almost exactly a year ago on my Daisies and Diamonds blog, I posted a small rant against commercials.

Well, as viewing would have it, I feel it's time to revisit. Just for now, my primary consideration is tv commercials; but internet ads are also far too invasive and ubiquitous.  It seems to me that the tv situation has probably gotten worse!  I haven't sat with a stopwatch yet (two would be good - one to track actual show time, one to track commercial time), but I've noticed that we're lucky to get ten minutes of show time between commercials.  It seems closer to around 8. This article has some Nielsen stats as of May of last year. 
guess what?  I just found some more recent stats - and commercial time has increased again!  And I read somewhere we allow more commercial time than does most of Europe. Then there's the matter of the commercials themselves.  Well, the aforementioned article says that there has been an increase in short (15 second) commercials.  Maybe.  But I also seem to notice some long ones -  those that run around FIVE minutes (think vacuum, weight loss system, the 'not shampoo' haircare line, and some creepy thing to wear over your eyes while sleeping).  All those overly long commercials are extremely annoying and quite unwelcome - to me, anyway.  Oh yes, and if you feel the networks are jamming in more commercials; you are correct!

What is this doing to us? First, a big item: this affects our democracy.  Really.  John Nichols and Robert McChesney, authors of Dollaracracy, have written this overview article.  Pay attention to their points about political ads found on page 2!

Second, what does it do to us to be so relentlessly subjected to sales pitches?  Although I'm not quite as negative as the author of this article, he did hit on a point I feel is very on target. From the article:  "It is not the cacophony of the commercial claims on our attention that has shortened our attention spans; it is the soullessness that the market economy demands that has sent us searching for self-medication."  He also has some great stuff about Neil Postman's prediction about entertainment conquering social domains and the fears arising from monetizing attention in the paragraph just following that quote.  There was also something I saw about a fellow who said that tv was now just a medium for getting us to pay attention to commercials - but I've even combed through my history several times and haven't found it.  But that observation does have the ring of truth, doesn't it?


But to inject a humorous vein and in an effort to shame the offenders, here are nicknames I propose for some of our tv networks, although rampant proliferation of commercials seems to be across the board:

• Americans Broadcasting Commercials
• Commercial Broadcasting Service
• Nothing But Commercials
• Greeting Card Channel Sales and Promotions
• Hawking Quite Zealously (think of the letters that are two before each starting letter alphabetically)
• Commercial Nirvana Nightly
• Totally Broadcasting Spiels
• Advertising Massively Channel
• Ultimately Serving Advertisers
• Every Sponsor's Product Network
• Advertisements & Endorsements

And the matter of those "Pledge Break Stations" is another discussion entirely!

If the commenters on some of these articles are any representation, at least some folks are disgruntled about this ad creep.  So - what can we do to scale these commercials, ads, and promos back to some reasonable level?  How can we push back about the relentless advertising - not just on tv, but on the internet and so many other places all around us?  Thoughts?

"Antiques Roadshow" Fails at Images of Women

Hello all -

Bless you tomeshew; your encouragement is greatly appreciated. I do hope to hear from more readers --- don't be shy!!!

Anyway, this came up this week.  On Monday, I was watching Antiques Roadshow on PBS as I often do.  But I was so horrified at one of the appraisals that I had to stop watching the show until that particular appraisal was over. 

What was it that made me react that way?  It was a poster - of a man roughing up a woman.  The woman's look was sheer cringing fear; the man just just oozed meanness and cruelty.  I have no idea if it was for a movie or for some pulp magazine,or whatever.  I couldn't even tell you now the gender of its owner.  I did get that the appraiser was Alsadair Nichol.  If you didn't see it and/or just have to see this for yourself (it's not too far into the hour), you can - here 

I thought it was really awful and not something I'd want to see anywhere, let alone on Antiques Roadshow.  What kind of sick psychology does such imagery feed into?  This is definitely NOT the way I'd ever want to see a woman - or man, either, be treated, even in 'mere' imagery.  It makes me wonder why in the world someone would want to own such a thing.  Creative freedom aside, I feel we should reject such images.  I've looked for some references as to the harm they may cause; however most centered on video games or film.  But I did find one article fairly on target.  You can read it at this link.

From the article:  "Whether the violence is real, reenacted based on real events, or fiction, when you witness cruelty and empathize with the victim, you experience the trauma vicariously."  I think Dr. Davis has good points here.  Also, her discussion of mirror neurons is enlightening.


I just totally failed to understand why this item was chosen for an on-air spot. I was so outraged about it that I e-mailed WGBH which produces AR for PBS.  I actually got a form reply from a lady in Audience and Member Services.  She did greet me by my name, though (and managed to misspell that!).  I also wrote to Liberty Mutual Insurance who is a sponsor of AR.  To date, I have had no response from them.  I will faithfully update this post if I do get a reply.

Conclusion: we need to be aware of the images we're surrounding ourselves with and presenting to others.  We need to be mindful of the effects they can have, positive and negative.  I hope we start creating and choosing to disseminate images that will enhance us positively.

 

This Must be Stopped

It was hard to come up with a title for this post. How can you rationally talk about torturers and apologists dominating the media?  How can you rationally talk about torturers, those who developed the programs, those who authorized these depraved acts, tried to rationalize them, and still defend them, NOT yet being held in any way accountable?

For starters, why has the media so obediently allowed torture apologists to dominate coverage?   And that article was even before Cheney was his despicable self on NBC's Meet the Press.  I have called ABC's World News Tonight and e-mailed the NPR News ombudsman about this.  Oh yes, and NPR as well as the Washington Post don't use the word torture here.  Shame on them for using euphemisms!  I told the receptionist at WNT that I objected to them having Brennan on to "defend the indefensible."

There is a new article up at The Intercept looking at the CIA officer in charge of one of the black sites operated by the CIA and the man who died there - frozen to death.  The death of Mr. Rahman is one of the worst cases uncoverd so far in investigations of CIA torture.

So let's get this straight:

• Detainees get tortured, with lasting effects I would imagine, and Mr. Rahman dies... but this CIA officer does well for himself
• Torturers, program architects and authorizers, and apologists for depraved acts walk around with impunity while John Kiriakou, the whistleblower, is the only one so far even prosecuted
• The msm, main source of news for many citizens gives plenty voice to torture defenders

While I'm left wondering...WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

I have been somewhat heartened by the diverse spectrum of citizens protesting police violence following the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III, and Tamir Rice.  We desperately need some of this adrenaline to spur some protests and action against torture.  We must fight to see that it never happens again. We must fight to see all those involved brought to justice.  We must fight to not let there be any argument about "if it works."  We must oppose it on absolute moral grounds.  We must fight the media who are by default, siding with torturers while they want to claim "objectivity."

So I do hope that you readers (if there are any!) will lift your voices against torture.  The FAIR article at the above link has some contact info for some major media outlets.  I also posted a list of phone numbers in the comments.  I'm also going to post that link here.  Let them know we are watching, listening, and oppose torture and its defenders.

media phone contact list

Women's Voices 2 - Another Outrage

Right now I'm steaming.  I'm steaming at a Mr. John Berman who let Mark O'Mara and another fellow talk all over the other guest in the segment (on possible mishandling of evidence in the Michael Brown case), a lady, a CNN legal analyst herself, Sunni (?) Hostin.  If you didn't see it, it may be available on demand or online - it was during the 8 p.m hour of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.  I immediately got online and sent CNN an e-mail and followed also with a voice message (yeah, just TRY getting a human with these voice messaging systems).  It anyone reading this is on Twitter and also feels outrage, I hope you send out a tweet or two!

This is NOT the first time I've witnessed such cavalier attitudes toward female commentators.  Ted Koppel was guilty of letting another MP talk all over a female MP on a segment of Nightline some years ago.  Yes, I was outraged then, but e-mail was probably just getting going around that time and I probably didn't think to do a phone call. 

I am really tired of seeing women's voices being treated so offhandedly.  This needs to stop!  Not to mention, I feel that letting one guest talk over another is quite bad form.  The host should see that all voices are treated more respectfully.

Raise your voices, sisters!!!

UPDATES:

I just remembered another, semi-recent  incident related to this topic.  Jill Abramson (former NYT Exec. Ed.) and Janine Gibson (a former Guardian editor were on a panel about journalism post-Snowden with two fellows (Cass Sunstein and someone I can't remember now). At one point, Ms. Abramson reminded the moderator that the gentlemen had gotten a lot of time in the discussion and the ladies needed some time to balance this out (can't quote her exact words, but that was the gist of it).  And the moderator was a woman!

And :-) to SH.

How Low?

In case you missed this...

The AP found in e-mails obtained by a FOIA request, that our U. S. NSA and intelligence apparatus had notice of the destruction of hard drives of The Guardian which held Snowden files - and celebrated the news! Remember that at the time of the revelation, the White House was distancing itself from the fray.

The Guardian story on this is here.  There is also a fine post on this at The Intercept, including reaction to other recent Intercept stories.

Every time I think the spooks can't descend any further, they seem to hit a new low.  How do we counter the mentality exhibited by their smug arrogance? Suppose we make them all write the First Amendment, by hand, 100  - no, that's not enough - 1,000 times.  Might it then sink into their minds somehow?  What will it take to get them to start respecting our civil liberties?

More on that Facebook Experiment

Hello there.  I hope sometime during all the holiday weekend observations, celebrations, and cookouts, someone will read this!

It's difficult to get that facebook experiment out of my mind. I am just gong to mention in passing facebook's non-apology apology which I would imagine most of you have read about.  Apologizing for poor communication?  Get real!  It would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating.

Today I received an e-mail from the National Academy of Sciences which published the study, which linked me to their statement.  I think a very legitimate question would be: why would they ever publish the study when they had concerns over practices of informed consent and opt-out?  I'm extremely upset at the suggestion that because facebook is private, their terms of service give them a pass to turn users into lab rats.  It was mentioned in the e-mail I received that the NAS would be allowing reader comments on that facebook experiment article in the next few days.  I'll update this post with a link to that. I think everyone should really let them have it!

The American Psychological Association posted a brief statement on their site just reiterating their policy on informed consent, supposedly in response to this study. That's it.  No specific concerns expressed,  no suggestion they might in any way review this.  

There has also been some discussion if this infamous study received government, specifically, Dep't of Defense, funding.  Seems at this point unclear, although: the Cornell author had received DoD Minerva Initiative research funding in the past and another Cornell researcher is currently receiving funding.  Here's a fairly decent overview, with a link to the Minerva Initiative site.

I know this will be hard to "hear", but I think it is probably time for users to leave facebook.  I know folks get hooked, but I really feel the only way to make a statement is to leave.  Fewer users, less advertising revenue MIGHT wake them up.

UPDATE 1:

You can find the full text of the study, the expression of concern - and now comments here.

But be warned, I think they're using Discus for comments and I believe it's a pretty notorious tracker. 

UPDATE 2:

EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a complaint about this study with the FTC. Thanks for the link, Lyra1!

The Infamous Facebook Experiment

I don't have a facebook account and the more I'm hearing about this "social network" the more glad I am that I don't.

I'm sure most of you have heard of  the so-called experiment run by a facebook researcher and some academic researchers (from U. Cal. and Cornell) in January 2012. they wanted to see if manipulating news feeds to some users altered their moods.  A follow-up article also discussed reaction and facebook's "defense."  Get this: the National Academy of Sciences who published the study is supposedly investigating if the experiment had even had an ethical review.

Most objections to the study center around the question of whether users had given informed consent, which is supposedly required by ethical guidelines.  Consider the fact that: facebook updated its data use policy to reflect "research" - months AFTER the infamous social contagion study.

While not the worst experiment ever done, I believe it was totally unethical.  There was at least one commenter at The Guardian who was concerned that some  already sad facebook user could have been emotionally manipulated into some potential act of self-harm.  Was there ANY thought given to any "unintended consequences" of this research?

 I contacted the National Academy of Sciences but have yet to receive a response.  I contacted Mr. John Lohse, Director of Investigations at Univ. Cal. and received a response!  He thanked me for bringing this up and indicated it had also otherwise been brought to his attention. He indicated there would be a review and possible determination of some action.

I also received a reply from the Director of the Institutional Review Board of Cornell.  He pointed me to this statement on their website.  I couldn't believe what I was reading.  If you haven't so far clicked on the link, please do so and read the statement.  Read the last paragraph a second time.  It indicates no review by the team overseeing human research is necessary.  Are they kidding?  I wrote back to the Director and told him I felt there should be some review of how any Cornell researcher got involved with such questionable research in the first place!

Unfortunately, unethical experiments have taken place in the past.  Although this may not be the most egregious one, it has come to light and we need to shame those involved.  We need to advocate for better reviews and more stricter adherence to ethical guidelines to prevent future abuses.  We have to look out for reach other!

Can This Supreme Court Ever Get it Right?

Well, the outrages just keep on coming, don't they?  The Supreme Court declined to review the case of James Risen, NYT reporter who might face jail for protecting a source.  This is especially troubling as it seems his testimony really isn't needed to pursue the case against the source!

In how many ways is this wrong?  How can a Free Press (yes, capitals are deserved) do its job without protecting sources which often might face retribution, prosecution, or even other dangers?  How can the press serve the public in making transparent government misconduct if sources are afraid to talk to the media?  How is allowing only government sanctioned reporting in the public interest?  And why do we have to keep fighting this battle?

As you ponder those questions, here are two quotes which are germane:

First: Justice Hugo Black in the Pentagon Papers case (NYT v. United States) -
"Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints."

Second: from James Alexander in the Weekly Journal printed by John Peter Zenger back in the 1730's -
"The loss of liberty in general would soon follow the suppression of the liberty of the press; for it is an essential branch of liberty, so perhaps it is the best preservative of the whole.  Even a restraint of the press would have a fatal influence.  No nation ancient or modern has ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves."
You can find out more about the Zenger trial here .

Now back to the case of Mr. Risen.  Many organizations have voiced support for him.  The Freedom of the Press Foundation has a fine post about his case on its blog.  In whatever ways we can, we need to support him.

The Sad State of Affairs of our "News Media"

Well, took a bit to get this into my blog, but it has really steamed me.  I first heard about it via Glenn Greenwald's twitter feed.


What happened was that on MSNBC, while interviewing a Congresswoman about the NSA and the recent critical report, MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell interrupted the interview with - news of Justin Beiber's arrest and court hearing.  Yes, that's right.  You can easily find the video online - here's a good one.


First - are Americans so apathetic and dumbed down that we actually consider Bieber to be more important than the NSA scandal?  Well, looks like MSNBC thinks so.  And look at most of the news programs... too much "pop culture", celebrity scandals (they were all over the 'Duck Dynasty' controversy) and such.  I don't know if there has been any dedicated program which has really looked at the issues involved with the NSA spying.  And as I may have said before on this blog, I can remember a dedicated news program about the Pentagon Papers with reporters giving  the arguments for both the NYT and WP and also the government.  Where is that coverage today?


Second - I wondered about this and some commenters on different uploads of the MSNBC video did as well - was this really to be a distraction from the issue at hand?  I wondered about this particularly since the report they were talking about was critical of the NSA. 


So people - wake up!  Demand decent coverage of this and other critical issues.  Search for good information.  I know that can be hard to find, but search we must.   And let's get our priorities straight and insist the news media get theirs straight as well. 

Whoops, NBC (Updated by a Memory)

What were you thinking, NBC?

What indeed were you thinking when you made that promo for your upcoming show, "Animal Practice?" 

When I noticed the image at the end - I couldn't believe my eyes.  The next time I saw it I still could barely believe what I was seeing. After seeing again, though, I was just dumbfounded and dismayed at that final image.  WHY would you have that dark face with the conspicuous white teeth - whether it's chimp or human (it seems to be a graphic image, not live) - above the sign with the show's title.

It immediately called to mind racist mages of African-Americans from years past.  It did not give me a good feeling.

Folks, it's 2012.  We need to respect each other, not be insensitive.  Which is what that final image is, intentional of not.  NBC, I hope you change the promo for this show; it definitely needs a remake.

UPDATE:

Years later now, when I wanted to highlight this as a related post in a newer post, I remembered what happened about the use of the said monkey (chimp, whatever...) which promoted an NBC show... During that Olympics, right after a gold medal performance by Gabrielle Douglas and a commentary by Bob Costas saluting her, the chimp, monkey  ---- whatever-- appeared next in a promo.  Well, there was an outcry about that as I remember.  And rightly so.  I think NBC tried to be a bit more careful after that, at least in some things.

This Time There's Some Noise

I'm referring to the outrage over the "Chimp" cartoon by Sean Delonas that appeared in the NY Post recently.

I found it highly racially insensitive and offensive. I also didn't like the violence (which we definitely don't need more of) shown by officers killing a chimp - who must be presumed to be the author of the stimulus bill (I wonder who that could be?). I don't know what they were thinking - how could they - the cartoonist, the editors - NOT know this was feeding into racial stereotypes? And how could he find that chimp attack which landed a woman in very critical condition food for "satire" in the first place?

An opinion writer for USA Today suggests we keep up the heat on the NY Post. There have been protests, people are boycotting (I never buy it anyway), and John Legend, the musician, wrote an excellent open letter to this paper. Doing my part, I just e-mailed the Editor of the page where these cartoons appear. He is Robert Johnson, e-mail: rjohnson@nypost.com

We must demand better public discourse than this.

The Slience was Deafening

All last weekend I was upset over that "Cold Case" episode. I couldn't believe that something so insensitive would actually be aired! When I mentioned it to some co-workers and others, no one seemed to have heard about it. Maybe CBS thought that on a holiday weekend, folks wouldn't be paying attention.

What also upset me is that there seemed to be little discussion of it - at least not that I could find on the Internet (and I heard nothing on tv about it other than those awful promos). That LeBron James Vanity Fair cover controversy seemed to generate more. I'd expected to see many organizations condemning it, some prominent individuals, too - but none that I could find reports of. I just couldn't believe CBS was getting such a free pass. Well, at least Sunday Night Football came out ahead of it in ratings. Thank God for that, I suppose.

The irony of it is that I never would have thought that this particular show would be guilty of something so inappropriate. I've watched it and enjoyed many episodes. They've had a good track record of dealing with racial issues on the show; have two African-American cast members. I wish the entire cast had stood together and just said "We won't be associated with this."

I find I can't watch this series and enjoy it anymore. I'm not sure what I'll watch after Sunday Night Football, but it won't be "Cold Case."