A Bit on Knocked Up

This gets at why I don't like what I've seen of the movie:

Meghan O’Rourke tackles the stereotype of women in comedies, especially romantic comedies, as joy killers, after Katherine Heigl got pissed on in the media for telling the truth about how Knocked Up fed off the standard trope of men as fun-loving (if irresponsible) and women as responsible but tedious and boring. It was hard not to be defensive of Knocked Up, and not just because it was so funny, but also because Apatow at least tried to show the parallels between men’s fears and women’s fears about adulthood. He grasped that women do have inner lives, but he just failed to write the female characters with the same understanding he brought to the male characters. He showed a glimmer of understanding that the endless rotation of work in a woman’s life is not necessarily something that women want but have embraced because they feel they don’t have a choice, whereas most movies and shows and commercials that position the men as boisterous children and women as disapproving authority figures seem to think that women are mysterious non-human creatures who get off on being fundamentally unlikeable.

An Anecdote about Editors and Technology

From a reader who wishes to remain anonymous:

The last journalism conference I went to was at PSU and it was for editors only. One of the workshops was on journalism and technology, and there was a guy from a Redmond, Wash. paper who was leading it and told his audience that his newspaper's entertainment guide now had its own MySpace page and it was getting a lot of comments, critiques, blah, blah, and that it was really reaching the younger audiences.

A balding, middle aged guy shot his hand up: "What's myspace?"

Every balding, middle-aged male editor (yes it's a stereotype but it was a true one at this conference!) shared the same question. This was less than two years ago.

It's going to take a new generation to make switch to technology-based journalism. And that's... going to take awhile.

Sidebar: That conference WAS odd though because the stereotypical "editor" was there and when I walked in it felt like... I was a complete outsider, or the person that should've been getting them their coffee. One of those things you'll never forget.

This reminds me of the new comment system instituted at the Albany Democrat-Herald, Lebanon Express, and Corvallis Gazette-Times: It would have been neat in 2002. Too bad it's almost 2008.

This conversation started as a result of this post.

"Recent Comments" Section Added + RSS Reader Notes

At the request of a reader, I've copied LT and added a section that notes the most recent comments. It's on the top of the sidebar to the right.

Also, y'all should get an RSS reader like Bloglines or Google Reader (which requires a Gmail account), or for Mac users, Vienna - they will allow you to subscribe to comments as well as blog posts, thereby eliminating the need to constantly visit the blog's URL to check for new posts.

The Rise and Fall of TV Journalism

I wish I had the time (or the caffeine) to add some commentary....

As is, just check out this video... it' s a great bit of satire.



Found via Notes From a Teacher: Mark on Media, a great sight for keeping up with emerging trends in journalism.

Also found at Adrian Monck's place.

Forest Grove News-Times Column on Anonymous Online Speech

via bz, kind of a funny story....

“Truthful” was part of an on-line exchange concerning the U.S. role as global policeman, part of which has been reprinted on these pages.

In response to a comment by Alana Graham, “Truthful” said he/she couldn’t use his/her real name because of “liberals.”

Liberals (a category which apparently includes me) “have a venomous side that makes them seek you out to personally harass you.” The liberals will label you a bigot or “anti-this or anti-that,” go after your job, send “protesters in front of your residence or work,” according to “Truthful.”

Wow. If us liberals were that organized, we’d all be debating how to elect Vice President Edwards to the Oval Office.

Sorry “Truthful,” but the real reason you don’t use your name is that you’re a chicken.

I think Truthful was playing the martyr in this case.

That said, it's good to see the columnist defending the ability of people to leave unsigned comments on the newspaper's web site. It's a practice that I support.

On the other hand, the suggestion that it's only cowardice that causes people to choose to leave unsigned comments is, um, not correct.

John Schrag should check out some of the comments made at LCSD Board meetings and online news stories about same.

Consumerism and Commercialism in Schools

I wholly agree with this post; just go read it (also, it explains why I despise Channel One.)

An excerpt:

My concerns with the commercialization of childhood have to do with the damage done to kids by socializing them to be not only consumers, but consumerist, to define themselves and others by what the clothes they wear, the cache of their cell phone, the bag they carry, the gaming system they have, the sneakers they own, and/or their MP3 player, instead of their talents, interests, behaviors, and insights.

Before reading Juliet Schor’s Born to Buy, I thought this made them shallow and spoiled. I thought it created disturbing parameters of social exclusion. I thought it made a lot of work for parents. I thought it was used to promote lousy brands that harm kids rather than help them. All true.

But reading Schor showed me three things that made me go crazy:

1. that involvement in consumer culture actually causes emotional and mental health problems for children - depression, anxiety, low-self-esteem, psychosomatic problems.

2. that advertisers explicitly use techniques that undermine parental and teacher authority, to ally themselves with children. The adults in your life are controlling morons, but fruit by the foot understands you. Think about the consequences of this — sure, brand loyalty, but more broadly, if your parents are clueless dorks why should a child look to them for guidance or insight? Why should they share their most deeply held concerns? If teachers are oppressive and stupid, then, by implication, so is school. Not good.

3. that marketing, the vehicle that pulls children into consumer culture most directly is everywhere. Parents make the mistake of thinking that our children experience the advertising that they experienced. Not even close. Take the advertising you knew, up it’s emotional pull by adding insights from neuromarketing and ethnographic market research, put it on steroids, and then insert it everywhere from schools, to church, to friendships, to media, to conversations with “friends” in chat rooms, to youth clubs, to public effing space. Yes, yes, I’ve said this before.

I have encountered #2 all of these in spades at LHS. It's incredibly depressing.

Like I said, read.

My God, Hasso - Just Stop Now, Please (aka Bad Editorial Writing 101, pt. 2)

A commenter at the DH gets to this before I did, so I'm just going to quote them rather than do the legwork.

Hering, in regards to the grandmother of Gabriel Allred's willingness to adopt him:

It is a tribute to her grandmotherliness that she’s eager to take him and bring him up.

Hering a mere five lines later:

People who care for a child are eager to take him in and willing to raise him and make sacrifices for him — that ought to count at least as much as biological relations by blood, or even more. (hh)

Commenter John Puma:

" The editor writes himself into a corner. He first concedes that Gabriel's grandmother is "eager to take him and bring him up" but a few words later suggests she does not fit his criterion of worthy parent who must be "eager to take him in and willing to raise him and make sacrifices for him." If that eagerness "ought to count at least as much as biological relations by blood, or even more" then ALSO being a blood relation should seal the decision, in favor of the grandmother.

Seriously - does Hering not run his editorials by anyone before printing them? WTF?

PIE Asks LCSD to Rush Negotiations Over Contract Renewal

Update: In response to the first commenter, as far as I know the LCSD has not agreed to direct negotiations. That said, I would not be surprised if they end up occurring based on the possibility of Debi supporting them. But thus far, nothing has been decided that I know of.

This was in the DH today.

As a rule, I really like the stories Jennifer Moody writes on the Lebanon School Board.

This one, however, I have one tiny - minor, really - quibble about.... and even then it's not really her doing.

What is it?

Well, the entire basis for the story is the fact that PIE wants to meet with the LCSD School Board as soon as possible - before the next scheduled School Board meeting, in fact. Multiple people are quoted in the story as being critical of Chair Sprenger's inclination to wait. This comment is particularly great (that would be sarcasm, people) since it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion:

Braunberger criticized the decision, writing, “Why is it so hard for the Lebanon board to sit down with the PIE board and start the discussions? There is already an existing charter in place that could be used as a starting point. Come on people this is not that complicated.”

It does, however, illustrate something that's not present in the story (and this is where my quibble with Moody comes in):

Simply put, there is no reason given in the story to explain why the PIE Board is being so insistent on immediate negotiations (and doing so in such a hostile manner, like it's their right or something). None whatsoever.

I understand that a large part of the reason for this is due to the fact that no one from PIE ever actually gives anything resembling a reason for the rush, but still. Moody could have either asked Jackson or Braunberger (or Alexander) about the need to rush things, or she could have noted the lack of reason in the story.

But why doesn't anyone from PIE ever give a reason? I don't know, not for sure - but I suspect there are a few possible reasons:

1) The longer the wait the less likely PIE is to get what it wants. Pushing through the immediate and unconditional renewal was a victory, and following it up by hurrying the district through negotiations is likely going to limit the changes that are made to the charter, something that is in line with PIE's desire to avoid accountability and oversight (never mind that the changes will be necessary to bring PIE in to compliance with the law).

2) PIE might want to hold the negotiations over Christmas break, during a time when people don't have as much energy or attention to devote to the subject as they might normally. This is definitely related to #1, as it's another way for PIE to slip under the radar and get what they want. It's also very un-Christian of them (but then again, so is just about everything else they've done thus far).

I should say as well that I cannot think of one good reason to rush the negotiations. The only thing that comes close is the 90-day requirement present in state, but I would very surprised if a) the negotiations take 60 days, or b) there is no provision in state law to extend the time period.

Like I said above, I generally like Jennifer Moody's coverage - but in this case, I just wish she would have noted the lack of given reason in the story, that's all. I think that piece of context is both important and very telling.

Hering, Journalism, and Ethics (Which One Of These Does Not Belong?)

I know the Society for Professional Journalists is not a mandatory organization for journalists to join, but I thought I'd post an excerpt from their Code of Ethics to further illustrate why I tend to get annoyed with DH Editor-in-Chief Hasso Hering. (See this post for a specific reason.)

This is too easy - from the first sentence of the frackin' preamble...

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

Got that? Public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.

Advocating the destruction of records runs directly counter to public enlightenment, I would think. Not to mention "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues."

Next (heck, the section is even called "Seek Truth and Report It"):

— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Nope. Can't say advocating the destruction of public records and "that government records are open to inspection" are anything alike. In fact, they seem run directly counter to each other.

Moving on (from the section entitled "Act Independently"):

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

I don't really know what interests Hering was advocating for when he approved of the destruction of the records, but it certainly wasn't "the public's right to know." (Shades of Civic Journalism!)

Finally, we get to the one section that I think might have provided Hering with his best argument, had he chosen to make one.

From "Minimize Harm":

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

This is where Hering could have made an argument for keeping the records under strict lock and key, since their public release will undoubtedly cause harm to the detainees in the videos (not to mention the CIA and military folks who carried out the alleged acts of torture).

But he didn't. He didn't really make an argument at all, actually; he just sort of asserted the claim, almost like he expected us to believe him because he's Teh Editor, didn't you know?

Certainly Hering wasn't about to make an argument defending the rights and humanity of the victims of torture at the hands of the U.S.

Worse, as it stands, the people who were tortured at the hands of U.S. officials just lost a compelling piece of evidence that would allow them better access to justice - and Hering supported that.

Anyway - the point here is that Hering's editorials show an amazing lack of concern and respect for a sensible code of ethics for journalists.

One can make the argument that an editorial is not the same as a news story, and strictly speaking, that's true. But it doesn't excuse his behavior, especially since the SPJ's Code of Ethics speaks of the actions of a journalist, not the medium they are working in.

I ask again: Can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper? Of course - he is undoubtedly qualified and has years of experience.

Should he be?

No.

I Give Up; Hasso, You Win [Especially For Folks Who Tune Out When They See the Words "Hasso Hering"]

I can't compete with Hering anymore - after all, I am just some dude with a blog... who apparently is more of a journalist than Hering.

Why do I say that? And how am I so full of myself as to be dead serious?

This:

Michael Hayden, the new chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, is trying to explain to Congress why the agency under his predecessors destroyed videotapes it had made of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Congress wants to know. But why?

According to testimony Tuesday, the questioning in 2002 produced immediate results in the capture of the 9/11 mastermind. Suppose those tapes showed waterboarding or any other normally indefensible way of interrogating suspects? It would not do the country any good to have them lying around, to be leaked and played on YouTube worldwide.

Whoever destroyed the tapes saved the country a lot of additional and needless grief. (hh)

To quote the person who sent this to me: "When does a journalist ever advocate the destruction of records?"

I agree completely.

Real journalists don't advocate the destruction of records - especially records almost guaranteed to show criminal acts up to and including violations of the Geneva Convention. That's the role of Republican Party operatives. REAL journalists value the truth.

Hering is actually very clear here: When it comes down to supporting the U.S. (my country, right or wrong!) or supporting the rule of law, Hering has no interest in supporting the rule of law.

Which is shameful, and kind of sad, and a whole long list of things that aren't fit to say in public.

The question is not can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper, it's should he be?

The answer is clearly no.

UPDATE: Apparently there was a standing court order against destroying the tapes.