The Matter with the Media: TV edition

An election year TV series has come to a close on our screens. And this year someone on TV always seemed to be talking about the impact of the media. Too harsh on Sarah Palin, some claimed. Too soft on Barack Obama others accused. Sexist toward Hillary Clinton others shouted. Not friendly to John McCain others insisted. Free passes to Joe Biden chided others.

With all this ruckus about the media flipping channels has been like navigating through a conservative vs. liberal pass-fail course. But do any of these programs really pass? It seems like most shows have political leanings. In this environment how do you get non-bias, engaging news anymore?

According to a poll on this Majority Mind blog 66 percent of you said that the "mainstream media could do a better job," reporting on the news. (Please vote in the poll if you have not already)

With this being the case many people ages 18 to 34 get their TV news from sources like "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. These programs hosted by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert seem to have a humorous liberal slant. The Comedy Central duo is even held their own election night coverage in a program entitled "Indecision 2008."

On the other end of the spectrum Mike Huckabee, Republican Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential nominee, has a show on FOX with a more conservative vibe. After dropping out of race Huckabee has stayed in the news reel by becoming part of it. He has recently published a book that he will be surely cross promoting on his show.

And now CNN has a show, "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News" on which the comedian host a late night style show on socio-political issues. He is openly an Obama supporter.

Pundit and partisan press as news is becoming more prevalent, not just on these shows, but in media outlets in general. And there seem to be more analysts (who are normally permitted to lean left or right) filling segments with their partisan opinions. That seems cool, but then anchors and reporters on major networks seem to tilt too far off center that's not so cool.
That's just crooked.

Part of the solution is that since opinion seems here to stay in the media viewers should insert their voice into the discussion in order to heard. Ever been watching TV and started talking back to the anchor or reporter, disputing or agreeing with what they are saying?

Now TV show Web sites host blogs related to their programs and viewers can log on a post comments. One example is CNN anchor Rich Sanchez who uses Twitter, Facebook and MySpace as a conduit for dialogue with viewers. In the current media landscape, when viewers are going to get opinion with most stories, at least there are opportunities to share your stance.

In later posts we will address media bias in web content, newspapers and radio.
But in TV do you think news programs are turning bias? Why? And what would you like to see done differently?

Post a comment below

High schools for gay students a positive alternative?

Walking down the hallway or stopping in the bathroom countless students that identify themselves as gay have probably been harassed and ridiculed. Other gay students may feel scared to express their developing or developed sexual identity because they fear being judged by their peers. In years to come these students may have another option in Chicago.

The Chicago School Board will vote on the proposed School for Social Justice Pride Campus Nov. 19. Initially, this vote was to have occurred Oct. 22, but a decision was postponed because of the large number of other school proposals that the Board of Education must decide on.

What makes this vote significant is that this proposed school is being created to cater to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Officials say that the high school will not be a “gay high school” but rather an institution for students who find traditional schools non-conducive to learning because of their sexual orientation.

This would make Chicago the third city in the nation to have this type of school. The first two high school are New York's Harvey Milk and Milwaukee's Alliance.

The proposed Chicago school would enroll 600 students and would be open for anyone to attend. Officials are hoping the school would be open for the beginning of the 2010 school year.

Research and surveys have found that students who are bullied because of their sexual orientation are more apt to miss class, drop out and not graduate. Enormous percentages of students surveyed also report being harassed and physically assaulted at school.

Supporters believe that the creation of these schools would help tremendously in the academic and social development of high school students who choose to live an alternative lifestyle.

However, the creation of these proposed schools leads to other issues and more questions. By sending students to these alternative high schools, we as a society are not completely addressing the core issues.

Instead of teaching tolerance in our schools, maybe this implies view separation as a better solution. This may send a message to “normal” students that there is something wrong with their fellow classmates who live an alternative lifestyle and that separation is the only solution.

Majority Mind Question
Do you agree or disagree with creating high schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender youth? Why or Why not?
Do you think this will further stigmatize gay students? On the whole will it lead to more or less prejudice?
Post a comment below

Palin, Obama shake up presidential landscape

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama definitely stand for fresh, history-making perspectives in this presidential election year.

Palin has burst on to the 2008 presidential scene and in less than two weeks has established that she is a politician with the characteristics of an 'ordinary person.' As a Republican governor she has an 80 percent approval rating in her state, still few in the other 49 states knew her name.

As a relatively unknown Palin has assumed the role of attack dog (she would say 'pit bull with lipstick') in this race—her 'red meat' is Obama. With her acceptance speech the Republican Vice President nominee tore into the Illinois senator like a moose she has slaughtered and was preparing to dress. Since her speech she has repeated her slick one-liners on the campaign trail.

Palin had some interesting one-liners (this time as answers) ABC interview with Charles Gibson in her first non-scripted television appearance. Her foreign policy knowledge on NATO, Russia and Georgia relations and Bush Doctrine were the first litmus test on her expertise on international affairs. You do the math, did she pass?

Now it was Obama who burst onto the scene during the 2004 presidential race at the Democratic National Convention. His oratory skills and charisma was what made the first-term Senator stand out. But attack dog was never his style. His speeches and his demeanor have inspired, much like a motivational speaker, a preacher even (hmmm?).

But his speaking abilities were not Obama's only attributes or associations during this campaign. The issues of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (controversial remarks at Trinity Baptist Church), Father Pfleger (pastor at St. Sabina who made remarks at Trinity), William Ayers (co-founder of radical left organization with alleged associations to Obama), Tony Rezko (political finance mogul who is under federal indictment) and his association with notorious Chicago machine politics have made Obama's journey to the Democratic Presidential nominee a dramatic one.

What is interesting is these two politicians with very different paths share a lot in common. They both were virtually unknown (and in essence they are still politically mysterious). To many Obama and Palin have questionable levels of experience to be the No. 1 and No. 2 ranking political officials in the U.S. They are both relatively young, in their 40s (Obama, 47 and Palin, 44). They both represent historic firsts for their parties as nominees (Palin, first woman and Obama, first African-American man). Frankly the both are compelling speakers and personalities—different facets of the American Dream have gotten them to this point.

Alleged scandal plagues them both, as mentioned with Obama — for Palin the flip flopping on support of the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' media scrutiny around her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy and the pending ethics investigation of her firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan who did not dismiss state trooper Michael Wooten despite Palin's allegedly urging. Wooten is Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

The irony is these two are not battling it out directly. Obama's running mate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden is the Democrats' Vice Presidential nominee and John McCain is atop of the Republican ticket.

Biden and McCain have been friends, long-time senators working on opposite sides of the aisle in Washington, DC for over two decades. The are both entrenched and experienced in the political landscape domestically and internationally. With an unpopular incumbent president 'change' is the buzz word this election and Biden and McCain are not change as much as they may try to be. Their running mates, however, embody change.

The Democrats should be running away with this election many pundits say because of the failures of the Bush administration. But the forecast doesn't call for a landslide at this point. This seems like it is going to be another close one, 2000 and 2004 were down to the wire contests as well.

But this election is close for different reasons. Whichever party takes control of the White House is going to usher in change—historic and hopefully substantive. Whether Obama or Palin are sitting in the White House offices history will be made.

What is more exciting is the changes or reforms that will be made during the next administration. What direction will that lead the country in?

During this campaign so many have reminisced on the leadership of former presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Whether Obama or Palin reach the nation's office it is a wonder who they will inspire and what leaders will spring up that will call out their historic names as their role models.

What do you think? Sound off by posting a comment below.

Racism in the 'Eyes' of the Beholder

Spain lost to the U.S. in the gold medal game in Olympic men's basketball. But the Spanish squad, its players and its management have a tainted legacy for the 2008 Games that is mark by more than their silver medal. Tainted with their racist act of taking team photograph where each member of the team took their fingers and pull his eyes in order to look, well, Chinese.

"The advert for a courier company, which is an official sponsor of the Spanish Basketball Federation, occupied a full page in the sports daily Marca, the country's best-selling newspaper" according to The Guardian [United Kingdom publication]. Members of the federation have defended the photograph saying it was not meant to be offensive, that they were paying homage to the Chinese.

What makes this even more interesting is it has been reported that the "Spanish national teams are sponsored by Li-Ning, the footwear company owned by Chinese Olympic hero and torch lighter Li Ning," according to the New York Times. You would think this would given them a heighten sense of cultural sensitivity.

This makes me wonder . . . in 2008 is this offensive, is the acceptable?

Would an African-American trying to make their lips thinner to appear German . . .
Would a Chinese person putting black face on to appear Nigerian . . .
Would a Mexican wearing a turban to appear Afghan . . .
Would these be gestures of imitation as the highest form of flattery or would those being imitated enrage those races?

The thing is these types of things happen everyday, some are publicize like this, most are not. Most of these racy comments and actions occur around dinner tables, at churches or barber shops among other places — and typically the people in the conversation tend to look the same.

And that is fine, but maybe we can start having more constructive conversations about race, so we can see how these racy comments and actions can be turned into actually understanding each other better.

Color in America

CNN has aired its long form piece Black in America as reported by Soledad O'Brien. Tackling something like this is remarkable, yet foolhardy at the same time. Remarkable for trying to shed light on race issues the so often get swept under the rug on the cutting room floor of major TV networks. Foolhardy for trying to do more than scratch the surface by repeatedly setting off explosions in a field of stereotypical land mines.

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native American and Whites in America know what their experience is and members of these groups tend to know what the experience is like for others of their race who are in the same or different socio-economic, geographic and cultural groups. Oftentimes people of mixed race or those who have family members of different races have an understanding of navigating race in America from that perspective.

Series like CNN's Black in America try to explain race to those who do not understand and lack perspective, but it does so in a way that people may end up with a misunderstanding because the piece makes sweeping generalizations. But that is why we shouldn't depend on it too much. It goes back to the responsibility of parenting and other methods of socialization to shape our thoughts — not just the media.

At the UNITY journalist convention in Chicago on July 24 O'Brien said Black in America was done to start a conversation. Hopefully it has done that and hopefully the talking points draw from many references and sources other than CNN.

A lot of aspects of blacks in America were not covered in the piece. The best and most insightful interview O'Brien did in the piece was with Spike Lee. To get a more authentic, less staged insight into Black America don't forget that "good" art imitates life. I recommend Spike's movies, namely "School Daze" and "Do the Right Thing."

In "School Daze" Black men who are college students at Mission College are confronted by townies who question their "blackness" and they flip the question right back on them.

For more of the big picture on race in America "Crash" is a must see . . . a least twice.

The point is lets not wait until CNN does Hispanics in America, Middle-class White women in America, Homosexuals in America, Unemployed College Graduates in America for us to start trying to understand the intricacies of countless groups.

A Chicagoan's take on New Yorker Cartoon

As a black man who grew up minutes from where Sen. Barack Obama made his mark as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago— as someone who has gotten a haircut in the barber shop that Obama has frequented for years, I am not offended by the editorial political cartoon in the New Yorker.

If a reader/viewer is brash and reacts solely on emotions to the jarring nature of the illustration he or she has simply missed the point.

Obama dressed in "Muslim" garb, his wife, Michelle Obama, as a rifle toting rebel, an American flag burning in the nearby fireplace and their so-called "terrorist fist jab" illustrate the extremist caricature of the Obamas that SOME in the Republican party are hoping to draw up in hopes of leading to Obama's political demise during the 2008 presidential election.

I listen to the conservative talk radio hosts and I watch a certain news station to hear and understand the thoughts of journalists that are touted by Republicans. You have to have a varied perspective so you to understand political commentary. Some people, most people don't care that much to acquire this understanding and they have the right not to care.

But here is the deal on the New Yorker cover:

Does this editorial political cartoon mean the New Yorker supports this view?
NO. Upon closer look the magazine leans in the opposite direction.

Does the New Yorker have the First Amendment right to use this depiction?
ABSOLUTELY, YES.

Again, everyone is not going to understand this editorial political cartoon. If the Obama campaign is expressing their dismay because they are not sure that voters are going to comprehend the New Yorker cover then I can see their angle. They may want to appear proactive in their "Fighting the Smears," effort I can see that logic.

But if the Obama campaign is disturbed by this for any other reason then in my opinion they are off base.

1968 meet 2008

By 1968 Former President John F. Kennedy and Malcolm X had already been assassinated. The year witnessed the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. who had just proclaimed that he had “Seen the promise land!” As Robert Kennedy was gearing up a presidential campaign, he actually informed people of King’s death. Months later this Kennedy was also killed.

By 2008, 40 years later, another presidential election year has the making of another cast of prolific leaders. No, I am not comparing the current field of candidates to the legends of the sixties. Time will evaluate their significance.

What I do know is that after 232 years of white men running the White House maybe in the U.S. of A “melting pot” can bear some diversity in the Oval Office.

For President 2008: Religion, Race and Gender Diversity
Mitt Romney- potential first Mormon president
Hillary Clinton- potential first Woman president
Barack Obama- potential first Black president
Bill Richardson- potential first Hispanic president

Biblically 40 years is a time of probation or trial. King saw the promise land in ’68. I submit that it has taken a little while longer for the rest of us Americans to see it. Maybe 2008 is the year to get there.

Now the promise land is not a universal place, it means one thing to you and something else to me. Maybe you think we are already there, or you might think we still have a long way to go. But reaching the promise land would imply that we’ve reached a milestone, a turning point in U.S. History.

Having Romney, Clinton, Obama or Richardson in the running for the White House indicates a transition from one trial period to another. With such a crossroad at hand we have to beware of the socio-political landscape of the U.S. from the country cornfields to the suburban strip malls to the massive metropolises that make up the nation.

A look back at the sixties reminds us of the revolutionary leaders who lost their lives. We cannot fathom what our country would be like if they lived.

In 2008, the history-making presidential hopefuls are at risk for the same fate.
Hopefully, the red, white and blue has grown to accept that WASPs won’t always be the sole inhabiters of the White House. If religion, race or gender integrate the Oval Office in 2008 it will prove the nation is a ripe for change.

Majority Mind Questions
Do you think Romney, Clinton, Obama or Richardson will get to the White House this November? If so which one (or two) and why do you think America is ready for them? If not why do you think America is not ready for one of them?