![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
23/7/10
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.comSo, what is it and what can we expect of it?
"Call me Dave" seems to be saying that as the Government cuts back on spending, that the private sector will be doing more. That local groups like parents will be running schools, hospitals, public libraries and stuff like that.
Also that Private Enterprise will be allowed a bigger hand in things.
So, what might this mean , in terms of practical results? ( Read more... )
"Call me Dave" seems to be saying that as the Government cuts back on spending, that the private sector will be doing more. That local groups like parents will be running schools, hospitals, public libraries and stuff like that.
Also that Private Enterprise will be allowed a bigger hand in things.
So, what might this mean , in terms of practical results? ( Read more... )
tridus.livejournal.comThe Canadian Federal government is launching a review of their hiring practicies. This comes after a woman applying for a job online was asked a question about her race, and upon ticking the "white" box was told she wasn't eligible for the position.
Since this is actually a stated federal government policy, it's not surprising that it happened. It IS surprising that it made the news media. Public reaction has been entirely not-surprising: people are pissed off. The government's reaction is also not-surprising, as the Conservative party is known to be against the policy and really just needed an excuse to do something about it that they could hide behind when the inevitable calls of racism appear from the opposition (as the Conservatives are also the most white party in the country, they're very worried about giving people any legitimate reason to cry racism).
This is kind of a gift for the government, really. They're having a bad summer.
My personal view on this... many years ago, my wife was looking for work. I asked a friend of mine in government if his department was hiring. He replied "Is she a minority?"
For the record, I don't blame him for asking the question. He knows how the system works and needed that information to know if any jobs were open. The fact that he had to know that (as opposed to say her education or experience) to know if she was hireable or not illustrates perfectly just how bad a system this really is.
Institutionalized racism is not a solution for racism. The sooner they scrap it, the better.
Since this is actually a stated federal government policy, it's not surprising that it happened. It IS surprising that it made the news media. Public reaction has been entirely not-surprising: people are pissed off. The government's reaction is also not-surprising, as the Conservative party is known to be against the policy and really just needed an excuse to do something about it that they could hide behind when the inevitable calls of racism appear from the opposition (as the Conservatives are also the most white party in the country, they're very worried about giving people any legitimate reason to cry racism).
This is kind of a gift for the government, really. They're having a bad summer.
My personal view on this... many years ago, my wife was looking for work. I asked a friend of mine in government if his department was hiring. He replied "Is she a minority?"
For the record, I don't blame him for asking the question. He knows how the system works and needed that information to know if any jobs were open. The fact that he had to know that (as opposed to say her education or experience) to know if she was hireable or not illustrates perfectly just how bad a system this really is.
Institutionalized racism is not a solution for racism. The sooner they scrap it, the better.
futurebird.livejournal.comI was swept up about the drama of Shirley Sherrod. It is easy for me to get pulled in by a story that seems if it will hold answers about the "race question" in this country. I want to understand what, if any, progress we have made increasing the understanding in the minds of the general public about how racism functions in the United States. I want to know to what degree my views are those of an outsider, and to what degree am I in-setp with what average Americans believes about race and racism. But, when I allow myself to become emotionally involved in a news story-- I fear that I'm not learning anything of the sort- The story itself and its outcome just are not that important. Very few people watch cable news. Most who do watch do so not to have their minds changed but to have what they already believe confirmed. I want to suggest that the way that a story plays out in the land of the 24-hour news cycle is not that important in the end.
Ultimately story like the one about Shirley Sherrod is good for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck since it gets them all viewers. I don't have TV but I will watch short segments from TV shows on youtube from time to time. I still consider that watching TV. So, I have watched more TV in the past few days relative to Shirley Sherrod than I have since Christmas. The story got them one more viewer ... even if I didn't see the advertisers. But hey, maybe if there are enough news stories that I feel the need to "follow" I will beak down and get a TV and a cable connection. That would be a huge victory for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck.
I suppose that there is the influence they can have on the rest of media. The O'Reilly and Beck and Fox News have successfully incubated stories that later passed in to NBC, and ABC and local news and news papers. These have much greater viewership and could have some impact on public opinion. I don't think Maddow or Olberman have been successful doing that as of yet. So, some one needs to watch so we know where this stuff is coming from. (But that's what media matters is for.)
When each of these shows spends so much time rebutting the other Maddow takes down the right O'Reilly (tries) to take down Maddow. And on and on, some of the time it starts to feel like a WFF for politics. The body slams look real enough and they are satisfying to watch: but really who cares what these people think of each other? I just don't ever want to forget that these shows are "news entertainment" -- they do not reflect what average Americans think of feel. They can be fun to watch, but do they have any impact on the political discourse beyond drumming up hype and controversy?
I just want to try to stay aware-- and not start treating this like it is the real heart of the debate about American politics. The real debate is next to water cooler in forwarded emails, at family reunions, during happy hour and between children and their parents, husband and wives, you and that one idiot cousin. It is dangerously easy to become a member of a faction. A Beckeeteer on the Mickey Beck show. A loyal guardsman of the Amazons of Maddow. Maybe it's fun too but it not real politics.
Ultimately story like the one about Shirley Sherrod is good for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck since it gets them all viewers. I don't have TV but I will watch short segments from TV shows on youtube from time to time. I still consider that watching TV. So, I have watched more TV in the past few days relative to Shirley Sherrod than I have since Christmas. The story got them one more viewer ... even if I didn't see the advertisers. But hey, maybe if there are enough news stories that I feel the need to "follow" I will beak down and get a TV and a cable connection. That would be a huge victory for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck.
I suppose that there is the influence they can have on the rest of media. The O'Reilly and Beck and Fox News have successfully incubated stories that later passed in to NBC, and ABC and local news and news papers. These have much greater viewership and could have some impact on public opinion. I don't think Maddow or Olberman have been successful doing that as of yet. So, some one needs to watch so we know where this stuff is coming from. (But that's what media matters is for.)
When each of these shows spends so much time rebutting the other Maddow takes down the right O'Reilly (tries) to take down Maddow. And on and on, some of the time it starts to feel like a WFF for politics. The body slams look real enough and they are satisfying to watch: but really who cares what these people think of each other? I just don't ever want to forget that these shows are "news entertainment" -- they do not reflect what average Americans think of feel. They can be fun to watch, but do they have any impact on the political discourse beyond drumming up hype and controversy?
I just want to try to stay aware-- and not start treating this like it is the real heart of the debate about American politics. The real debate is next to water cooler in forwarded emails, at family reunions, during happy hour and between children and their parents, husband and wives, you and that one idiot cousin. It is dangerously easy to become a member of a faction. A Beckeeteer on the Mickey Beck show. A loyal guardsman of the Amazons of Maddow. Maybe it's fun too but it not real politics.
Let's Talk About JournoList
23/7/10 15:44badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.comI went back about a month and didn't find anything on this, so let's talk a bit. The Daily Caller, over the last three days, have been releasing stories based on the emails that they've acquired about Ezra Klein's JournoList, a listserv where liberal media personalities could discuss amongst themselves - or, as Klein put it, "a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”
The articles linked above show some of the tenor of the discussions - while much of it (perhaps most) borders on the mundane, there is a worrying amount of collaborative ideas as to how to shape stories, whether it be about Obama and Jeremiah Wright or how to discuss Sarah Palin. It ends up being an "inside baseball" look on how some of these ideas make it into the national discourse and how much of these very ideas that got kicked around became the narrative - taking Obama critics and "call[ing] them racists," "write that [the Palin] pick is sexist." For all the hubbub about Breitbart, this is a pretty significant amount of collaboration amongst media people who are already pretty insulated from views that are not their own.
It raises a lot of questions for me:
* Is this JournoList situation further evidence that we need to abandon the charade of an objective media and go back to the days where you knew where an outlet stood? It seems to work well for many European countries today, after all.
* Is the lack of diversity of thought in the newsroom contributing to the poor state of journalism in the US today? Keep in mind, not only does this sort of hive mentality clearly help shape the national discourse, but it also creates the sort of reactions where outlets like Fox News are created in order to provide a "fair and balanced" alternative, regardless of how successful they are in creating a neutral or partisan alternative.
* As a matter of future handling, should the media outlets that employ these reporters who involved themselves in this list be reprimanding their staff in any way?
* Does this sort of collaboration betray your trust in these institutions, regardless of your ideological stance?
Personally, I wasn't surprised at all that such a discussion group existed. But, then again, the reality of the liberal lean of most of the television and print media hasn't been a question to me in a long time, while many do want to continue to deny or wave it away.
Thoughts?
The articles linked above show some of the tenor of the discussions - while much of it (perhaps most) borders on the mundane, there is a worrying amount of collaborative ideas as to how to shape stories, whether it be about Obama and Jeremiah Wright or how to discuss Sarah Palin. It ends up being an "inside baseball" look on how some of these ideas make it into the national discourse and how much of these very ideas that got kicked around became the narrative - taking Obama critics and "call[ing] them racists," "write that [the Palin] pick is sexist." For all the hubbub about Breitbart, this is a pretty significant amount of collaboration amongst media people who are already pretty insulated from views that are not their own.
It raises a lot of questions for me:
* Is this JournoList situation further evidence that we need to abandon the charade of an objective media and go back to the days where you knew where an outlet stood? It seems to work well for many European countries today, after all.
* Is the lack of diversity of thought in the newsroom contributing to the poor state of journalism in the US today? Keep in mind, not only does this sort of hive mentality clearly help shape the national discourse, but it also creates the sort of reactions where outlets like Fox News are created in order to provide a "fair and balanced" alternative, regardless of how successful they are in creating a neutral or partisan alternative.
* As a matter of future handling, should the media outlets that employ these reporters who involved themselves in this list be reprimanding their staff in any way?
* Does this sort of collaboration betray your trust in these institutions, regardless of your ideological stance?
Personally, I wasn't surprised at all that such a discussion group existed. But, then again, the reality of the liberal lean of most of the television and print media hasn't been a question to me in a long time, while many do want to continue to deny or wave it away.
Thoughts?
(no subject)
23/7/10 18:20pastorlenny.livejournal.comI keep reading comments in this community about how the slavery ended more than a century ago or how the Civil Rights Act somehow eliminated de jure discrimination back in 1964. I therefore present for you viewing pleasure a sample study of racial discrimination in the workplace:
Now I somehow doubt that the interviewers in these cases would self-report as "prejudiced" or "racist." I am sure they are all quite lovely people. But the empirical evidence is that they treat minorities differently than they treat whites. This occurred -- drumroll, please -- in 2009. Not 1869. Not 1959. 2009.
I understand that black women are not as attractive and well-spoken as white women. And, if you're running an upscale Manhattan restaurant, the last thing you want is a nappy-headed woman with an oversize booty putting her brown thumb with her fingernails all did in the vichysoisse. So there are certainly legitimate reasons to show them the door faster. I just think we might need to own it.