Showing posts with label David Shuster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Shuster. Show all posts

Friday, April 4, 2008

WHAT HAPPENED TO DECENCY IN THE MEDIA

Apparently there are those who think that Howard Stern, the shock jock, is a model to emulate. They forget he is heard on a very protected venue. Do they not remember what Don Imus went through, nor the MSNBC guy, David Shuster, who is back on air again and who violated all decency with his remarks on Chelsea. I know that the Urban Dictionary allows a lot of things that John Q. Public would neither understand nor find acceptable, though some of us find it amusing. It would not be amusing at your grandmother's funeral, in church, grade school, or most state affairs. It seems that a few whose mouths are open on camera forget who is in their audience.

Randi Rhodes, an afternoon host for the progressive Air America radio network, was suspended Thursday after repeatedly insulting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event last month. Her network hadn't noticed until it was pointed out how badly she had behaved and what she had said. Then the network took action, probably in an effort to practice CYA, not because they found what had been said offensive. Michelle Obama's gaff got buried by the media, though the air is alive with tension over the negative feelings the media has for Senator Clinton and anything her spouse utters.

McCain has definitely been coddled by the media. Is it because some of them are nearing senior citizen status themselves? Bob Lobel might be a bellweather for those who are being asked to move over and make room for younger, lower paid 'stars'. "Tweety" and Russert, if you want to be remembered positively, start earning it again.

Monday, February 11, 2008

WHY THE WORLD FOR WOMEN CHANGES SLOWLY

In one common experiment, the Goldberg Paradigm, people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man. Since the provocative findings of an early study by Goldberg (1968), researchers have addressed the possibility that evaluations of others and their work may be prejudicial against women. Goldberg obtained evidence which appeared to indicate that raters of a series of articles (attributed to male or female authors) showed a degree of bias against the work of females. Goldberg's subjects were female students, and Goldberg's conclusion was that females are prejudiced against other females.

In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton ahead of Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less -- many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business's candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias.

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has a lot of fun with the clip featuring progressive writer Naomi Wolf and Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith. Shepard Smith talks over her, points a finger and says, "Don't go Fox on me!" There were then, on TYT, jokes made about the newscasters on Fox not giving news but giving propaganda and how frightened they would be to have to go look for another job which would actually require them to find and present actual truth and news.

Women are still underpaid in comparison to men. A recent study on ABC suggested the bias which exists against women being hired. Men and women being asked the same questions and giving the same answers were perceived differently.

It was very gratifying to see that MSNBC suspended David Shuster from further broadcasting because of his perjorative remark about Chelsea Clinton. While I did not read the NY Times chastising of Chris Matthews for his biased statements against Hillary Clinton, I understand that there was one. It is about time the media polices its own for perpetuating biases against women and, all I can say is, shame on the women who allow it and help keep it going out of their own fear that they will somehow be different if they are seen as equal and different from men. Remember, in the Stepford Wives, it was a women who turned all of them into robots, not a man! In A Knight's Tale, Rufus Sewell equates women to cattle. The brotherhood of men should be ashamed that their view of women has evolved so little in several centuries.