Thursday, October 20, 2005
yellow journalism in the 21st century
OK, not quite yellow journalism as the term was originally used, but USA TODAY at least practices tabloid journalism with a modern twist.
The paper is an absolute rag and I avoid reading it when I stay in hotels because of its bias and shoddy reporting. I took it up to the hotel restaurant this morning just to have something mindless to do while I ate breakfast.
The cover story is about the decline of male enrollment in colleges and universities and how some alleged "experts" see a need for what they call "affirmative action for men." There are so many things wrong with that phrase that my mind is still reeling.
The article does get points for at least mentioning the pay gap, but there is very little besides that in terms of actual research or reasons why fewer men are enrolling in degree programs. For example, might there be fewer men going to college now since so many of them are enlisted in the armed forces? Or perhaps it's rather obvious that men need less education to go farther than women and therefore why incur student loan debt when you can take advantage of the ole boys' club? The article would have been much better balanced if it had looked at Department of Labor data instead of relying solely on Census data.
The real kicker, however, is how the reporter decided to close with another "expert" who suggested that institutions of higher learning boost their male enrollment by "emphasiz[ing] male interests, such as sports..." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because sports are so poorly funded and underemphasized right now, especially at large public universities.
On the cover of the rag, right above that cover story, is a banner for an article inside the LIFE section. The title in the banner reads, "Movies with a cause." The text, next to a picture of Charlize Theron, reads, "From North Country to communist hunters, movies dramatize social issues."
In case you don't know, North Country is based on a true story about women coal mine workers in Minnesota who are sexually harassed and sue the company because the company did nothing to stop the harassment or prevent it from escalating, as sexual harassment usually does if left unchecked.
Why can't USA TODAY just print "sexual harassment" on its cover? It printed the subject of Good Night, and Good Luck ("communist hunters"). Sexual harassment is inarguably the more timely and relevant topic in today's world. Why is USA TODAY so intent on minimizing this civil rights violation?
Further inside the LIFE section is an article on a new book by Darla Shine, wife of FOX News programming executive Bill Shine (that ought to tell you all you need to know about where this is going). The book, entitled "Happy Housewives," is subtitled, "I was a whining, miserable, desperate housewife - but I finally snapped out of it...you can too!" Thank goodness for small lobotomies, I guess.
Shine says that modern women might be able to learn something from fictional 1950's TV housewives like June Cleaver because, "look at the girls in those shows: They look beautiful. Their houses looked beautiful." Um, Darla, that's because they're fictional women in sets built on soundstages, not like the beautiful women in beautiful homes on fictional Wisteria lane whom you deride so freely. The difference between June Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver" and Susan or Bree or Lynette or Gabrielle on "Desperate Housewives" is about 50 years, a second wave of women's empowerment and a sexual revolution.
This one is really the kicker for me:
This sounds eerily similar to the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women must "faithfully submit" to the will of their husbands. Women enjoying sex is a great thing, but not for the sake of keeping their husbands happy. Sex should be mutual, when both (or all) parties want it, not only when the husband is craving "attention".
I have the utmost respect for stay-at-home moms. Heck, I was raised by one and I think she did a helluva job. My problem with Shine is her obnoxious, derisive tone, as though anyone who is not 100% happy with her life is useless or a whiner. Of course, she also overlooks the fact that staying at home to raise the kids is just not an option for many many women, single or married.
I would not be surprised if Shine turned out to be a member of Concerned Women for America, the misleadingly named arch-conservative group (headed by a man, by the way), that frequently undermines progress on women's equality by attacking successful women who don't agree with them 100%.
In fact, the whole newspaper is just another arm of the right-wing noise machine. Unfortunately, it also has a wider circulation than any other paper in the country. It would be frustrating if it weren't also so scary.
The paper is an absolute rag and I avoid reading it when I stay in hotels because of its bias and shoddy reporting. I took it up to the hotel restaurant this morning just to have something mindless to do while I ate breakfast.
The cover story is about the decline of male enrollment in colleges and universities and how some alleged "experts" see a need for what they call "affirmative action for men." There are so many things wrong with that phrase that my mind is still reeling.
The article does get points for at least mentioning the pay gap, but there is very little besides that in terms of actual research or reasons why fewer men are enrolling in degree programs. For example, might there be fewer men going to college now since so many of them are enlisted in the armed forces? Or perhaps it's rather obvious that men need less education to go farther than women and therefore why incur student loan debt when you can take advantage of the ole boys' club? The article would have been much better balanced if it had looked at Department of Labor data instead of relying solely on Census data.
The real kicker, however, is how the reporter decided to close with another "expert" who suggested that institutions of higher learning boost their male enrollment by "emphasiz[ing] male interests, such as sports..." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because sports are so poorly funded and underemphasized right now, especially at large public universities.
On the cover of the rag, right above that cover story, is a banner for an article inside the LIFE section. The title in the banner reads, "Movies with a cause." The text, next to a picture of Charlize Theron, reads, "From North Country to communist hunters, movies dramatize social issues."
In case you don't know, North Country is based on a true story about women coal mine workers in Minnesota who are sexually harassed and sue the company because the company did nothing to stop the harassment or prevent it from escalating, as sexual harassment usually does if left unchecked.
Why can't USA TODAY just print "sexual harassment" on its cover? It printed the subject of Good Night, and Good Luck ("communist hunters"). Sexual harassment is inarguably the more timely and relevant topic in today's world. Why is USA TODAY so intent on minimizing this civil rights violation?
Further inside the LIFE section is an article on a new book by Darla Shine, wife of FOX News programming executive Bill Shine (that ought to tell you all you need to know about where this is going). The book, entitled "Happy Housewives," is subtitled, "I was a whining, miserable, desperate housewife - but I finally snapped out of it...you can too!" Thank goodness for small lobotomies, I guess.
Shine says that modern women might be able to learn something from fictional 1950's TV housewives like June Cleaver because, "look at the girls in those shows: They look beautiful. Their houses looked beautiful." Um, Darla, that's because they're fictional women in sets built on soundstages, not like the beautiful women in beautiful homes on fictional Wisteria lane whom you deride so freely. The difference between June Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver" and Susan or Bree or Lynette or Gabrielle on "Desperate Housewives" is about 50 years, a second wave of women's empowerment and a sexual revolution.
This one is really the kicker for me:
Shine also says women should pay more attention to their husbands.
"When the babies come along, we're tired, we don't want to have sex, we push our husbands away. You have to stop that. You'll be in a better mood at the PTA meeting if you're getting some action."
This sounds eerily similar to the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women must "faithfully submit" to the will of their husbands. Women enjoying sex is a great thing, but not for the sake of keeping their husbands happy. Sex should be mutual, when both (or all) parties want it, not only when the husband is craving "attention".
I have the utmost respect for stay-at-home moms. Heck, I was raised by one and I think she did a helluva job. My problem with Shine is her obnoxious, derisive tone, as though anyone who is not 100% happy with her life is useless or a whiner. Of course, she also overlooks the fact that staying at home to raise the kids is just not an option for many many women, single or married.
I would not be surprised if Shine turned out to be a member of Concerned Women for America, the misleadingly named arch-conservative group (headed by a man, by the way), that frequently undermines progress on women's equality by attacking successful women who don't agree with them 100%.
In fact, the whole newspaper is just another arm of the right-wing noise machine. Unfortunately, it also has a wider circulation than any other paper in the country. It would be frustrating if it weren't also so scary.
