I read with surprise the article from FAIR about PBS’s supposed “balanced” reporting. When one thinks of neutral reporting, PBS is sort of first to come to mind. So the question I have is where is this liberal bias in the mainstream media that Fox News is always complaining about being the victim of? If even the most neutral of programs is still leaning right, where’s the bias?
This once again points out the importance of independent media. When even PBS was purporting Bush’s war without any opposition, going right along with the mainstream media, where can that opposition be heard? We can’t rely on what we thought were alternative sources of news, because contrary to what we think, they’re not alternative. Especially PBS, which receives government funding. We can’t trust them to be critical of the government when that’s where they get their livelihood.
We must search for our sources of alternative media in more remote areas because otherwise critical reporting in the mainstream media is impossible to find.
While reading the articles about the supposed Clinton love child scandal I couldn’t believe the chances the media took (the corporate media) to try to smear Clinton when the only source they had was the child’s mother.
But I think what made the most angry was when it was found out to be completely false. The corporate media barely corrected themselves, and if they did, they printed it further back than the actual story so less people would see it. This is poor journalism. They’ve already done so much to smear Bill Clinton’s name, but they’re not doing anything to try to make up for it. You can’t undo that kind of slander.
Great post about the position of the music journalist these days.
I recently wrote an article that got me some negative attention. This isn’t anything super new to me, I’ve gotten questions about articles I’ve written before, but nothing that garnered such an angry response, and definitely not from an educational administrator.
I’ve never been one to go looking for confrontation and I hate when people are mad at me, so this is a new feeling for me. Someone is definitely mad at me, but surprisingly, I’m not too crushed. I believe in what I wrote and that my opinion was justified. The hardest part is having someone who can have so much power over your life, education and future mad at something you wrote.
A lot of students at this school are friends with the administration. They’re “twitter buddies” with the Dean and are often exchanging 140 character quips with her, trying to get on her side and sway her opinion just in case she can help them get job or make a connection later. And that’s totally fine, I understand the power of networking, but what if we’re not happy with something? Can we still stay twitter buddies with our superiors then? Do we grin and bare it because speaking out would ruin that networking opportunity? Or do we say something and hope that speaking up will improve the school, even if it doesn’t improve our personal relationship with the administration?
I obviously chose the latter and now I’m seeing how I.F. Stone must’ve felt (though I don’t flatter myself to put our situations on the same level). Sometimes in journalism we have to make enemies to improve situations. We can’t all be the White House Press, golfing with the President. Some of us have to be Izzy, working alone but making journalism that matters.
This is only my first small taste of “stickin’ it to the man”, and it’s a little intimidating, but I know it’ll probably be the first of many similar run-ins in my career. I have to develop a thick skin and be able to defend and take responsibility for what I’ve written.
Good riddance. We can’t stand reading!!!
Boston’s Publick Occurrences Both Forreign and Domestick, AKA the first multi-page newspaper published in America, has been shut down before it could print its second round of newspapers. The paper did not have permission from the English Crown to be printed, so they banned it and destroyed every undistributed copy.
Thank God they shut down the dumb paper and not Perez Hamilton!!!!
America needs us!
PerezHamilton is a hilarious Perez Hilton parody website that copies the exact style of Perez Hilton’s writing, only they write about events in history! This is an entry about the closing of Publick Occurences. They even copy the way Perez Hilton writes inappropriate things on celebrities’ pictures. Check out the “d” they wrote on the title.
It’s so unbelievable to me that PerezHilton.com makes over $100,000 a month. The blog that I’ve been reading since about 10th grade (I’m ashamed, but I can’t help it!) is an explosion of pink and exclamation points and advertisements EVERYWHERE that practically give you a headache.
The most interesting part about the website, however, is the persona behind it. Mario Lavandeira, or as he’s more known, Perez Hilton, started as a faceless blogger, but he couldn’t stay out of the spotlight for long. Since Hollywood is such an incestuous place and celebrities wanted to get cozy with the man spreading the gossip, he started being invited to events and parties. Just as White House reporters got close with the President, Hilton got close with Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and other Hollywood hot shots. And of course, Hilton got the same bias as a result. He’s literally best friends with Lady Gaga, but has a “thing” against Jessica Alba. Of course, this isn’t serious journalism so it matters less but the parallel is there all the same.
Suddenly Hilton became just as famous as the celebrities he was reporting on. He was interacting with celebrities and getting into their circles, which of course means he was getting involved with their drama. In 2009 Hilton was involved in a fight with Black Eyed Peas singers Will.I.Am and Fergie after a concert in Toronto. Hilton, an openly gay man, called Will.I.Am a “faggot” after Will.I.Am approached Hilton, asking him to stop posting about the Black Eyed Peas on his website. There was a scurmish and Hilton posted a picture of his beat up face to his blog, as well as a video with his side of what happened that night.
So the question of course is- where is the line between celebrity reporter and celebrity? Perez Hilton has certainly blurred that line and he isn’t the first. Giuliana Rancic, a television host on E! News went from reporting on celebrity gossip to having her own reality show. Ryan Seacrest has very famously done it with American Idol. Perez Hilton is, however, a new case since he’s not on television. Nobody saw his face until he started going out with celebrities. So is he a celebrity now? The whole celebrity gossip business is a little weird and incestuous to start with, but Hilton takes it to the next level.
By now everyone knows about the Rush Limbaugh scandal- he called a college student a “slut” for defending birth control and ended up losing many of his advertisers. But many don’t know about the Republican counterattack- liberal comedian Louis CK lost his position as host of the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner after making derogatory comments about Sarah Palin during the 2008 election.
Louis C.K. Withdraws as Host of Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner
The comedian Louis C.K. has withdrawn from his role as the host of a dinner for the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association in Washington, a press representative for the comedian said on Friday.
No further explanation for Louis C.K.’s cancellation was given by his press agent, but the announcement comes one day after the conservative Fox News commentator Greta Van Susterencalled for a boycott of the event.
On her blog on Thursday, Ms. Van Susteren criticized the comedian for jokes that he had made about Sarah Palin, saying “he denigrates all women and looks to the crowd for laughs.”
Ms. Van Susteren wrote on her blog: “Another pig…. and a media association has hired the pig, Louis C.K., to be their headliner for the big media dinner? Really? I am not going. I refuse to go. Everyone in the media should join me in this boycott.”
She added: “The headliner of this year’s Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner is ‘comedian’ Louis C.K. Comedian? I don’t think so. Pig? Yes.”
The blog post went on to cite R-rated comments that Louis C.K. had made about Mrs. Palin, many of them appearing to come from posts made in September 2010 on his Twitter feed.
Louis C.K., a stand-up comedian and the star and creator of the FX television series “Louie,” was announced as host of the June 8 correspondents’ dinner – which is not the same as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner – in December. Last year, neither President Obama nor Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. attended the radio and television correspondents’ dinner. Mr. Biden attended in 2010.
Louis C.K. seemed to be something of an unknown quantity to many in the political arena. In a post on The Corner blog of The National Review, Kathryn Jean Lopez wrote of Louis C.K. on Friday morning: “I confess I had to look up who exactly he is. And then had to read some of the awful things he’s said about Sarah Palin. The kinds of things you just don’t say about a mother. Or her son. But apparently his is the ‘edge’ the dinner is looking for.”
On one hand, derogatory terms are disrespectful to women in any area. But are they okay for some people to use in some positions, and not okay in others? I would argue yes.
Louis CK is a comedian. A regular, stand-up comedian who has parlayed his stand-up into a TV show. He is not even a comedian pretending to be a newsperson, as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have successfully done with their shows. He is a comedian who presents himself as a comedian.
Rush on the other hand, is not a comedian. He is a political talk show host who presents himself as an all knowing source of information for his eager to listen audience. I definitely think there’s a difference and yes, while the White House Correspondents dinner probably wasn’t the best audience for Louis CK, I think that he’s not the best target for Republicans to try to counter attack the Rush Limbaugh blow. They’re two completely different types of people with different careers and different standards.
(Blatant brown nosing? Maybe, haha.)
Last week I got a call during my US Foreign Policy class. It was a number I didn’t recognize so I let it go to voicemail and then later excused myself to check it. It was a call from the director of interns at the Colbert Report. I immediately freaked out, calmed down and called her back. After the preliminary questions, she asked, “Why do you want to intern for the Colbert Report?”
I had actually been thinking about this question for weeks before, while applying and during Independent Media. To me, the Colbert Report represented everything we had talked about. It was the media’s watchdog, making fun of their obvious biases, what they chose to cover, and their blatant pandering to advertisers. I brought up I.F. Stone and how I thought that their paths were similar, except that as a comedian, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart gain more acceptability. Except for the comedy, what about their situations are different? They both attack the mainstream news and bring to light what the mainstream media is lacking. Of course, it’s important to note that the Colbert Report is on a cable channel that is owned by a media conglomerate.
The interviewer also asked where I saw myself working after graduation. I said I saw myself moving to New York City and either working for a news network, a magazine, or an independent outlet like Democracy Now. When she heard that, she got excited and said “Cool! Isn’t there an Ithaca College professor that works for them?” When I asked if it was Jeff Cohen, she said “yes!” and we chatted about you, Democracy Now, and the concept of independent media for a while.
So thank you! I definitely think my newfound knowledge of independent media helped my interview and showed that I have a deeper love of the Colbert Report besides, you know, that it’s hilarious, which I also mentioned.
Reading about the Free Love movement in the Victorian Age paralleled so many of the same issues happening today. So many of the Republican candidates for President say that allowing gay people to marry would ruin the “sanctity of marriage” as if the “institution” of marriage is this sacred, holy thing that is perfect and never flawed. Reading about the things the husbands did to their wives all out of the idea that women have to do whatever their husbands want them to. I definitely agree that the institution of marriage was broken and really, still is broken. If there isn’t equality and love in a marriage, it isn’t a marriage. It’s just a contract that was signed for the government.
I think that a lot of things the Free Love movement press did in the Victorian Age for media and talking about genitals in a totally straight forward way was incredibly ground breaking. Back then, words that are now commonplace were banned and censored. Words that are just parts of the human body weren’t allowed to be printed, even though they could be printed in regards to animals. Now those words can be printed and aired on television, because they’re not graphic. They’re just our bodies.
Before blogging was popular, anyone who wanted to “get into” fashion had to put in a lot of effort, especially if you don’t live anywhere near New York City. Fans had to wait months for magazines to come out describing and reviewing new lines, and even then the reviews were bland and professional. There was no place to look in your small fashion backward town for outfit inspiration.
With the advent of blogging, small town fashion followers finally had somewhere to look for fashion news, reviews, etc. Bloggers would watch live streams of the Fashion Week shows and post immediate thoughts. Some the best things to come out of blogging are “street style” blogs, which feature regular girls and their takes on the newest trends, and Do-It-Yourself tutorials on how to make designer looks for less. Now people didn’t need to live near the Fashion District OR be rich to enjoy Fashion.
Fashion bloggers have ripped the power in the fashion world away from the elite- the Anna Wintours- and given it to the “normal” people- the Tavi Gevinsons.
I’ve been following Tavi for a couple years now and her story is remarkable. She’s the antithesis of Anna Wintour really: young, bubbly, and enthusiastic. But her pull in the fashion world is now just about the same as Wintour’s. And it’s refreshing to see real reviews of shows and designers that aren’t rooted in any commitment to the designer. The relationship between fashion magazines and designers is similar to the relationship between political journalists and the President. When you’re so close to your subject, can you really give an objective view of their work?
That’s what’s so amazing about fashion bloggers, and I couldn’t be happier about the “de-gentrification” of the fashion world.