How we view the anniversary

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You all know what anniversary I'm talking about. Don't deny it! Everyone is aware that tomorrow is the anniversary of the CIA-assisted Chilean coup d'etat 9/11. How could we forget? Cable news and online outlets alike are so gaga for terrorism retrospectives that the very idea of responsible journalistic restraint is a pretty funny joke.

When is the news not the news, but telling us things we already know? Here, I think it can be important to honor the memory of those who died, but to lose track of bigger issues (like, say, the next big legislative agenda item) in favor of a retrospective on the loss of national innocence is irresponsible. It magnifies an event that's already affecting the entire American economy, budget, morale, and policies, even if we never mention "9" and "11" together again except when we need the fire department. It's strange, almost masochistic to spend so much time and energy wallowing in a national tragedy, analyzing things everyone already knows. Nobody is going to say anything that anyone older than ten doesn't already know, or that anyone younger than ten will listen to. But then, how that differs from the normal news cycle, I don't know, so perhaps I'm just getting worked up over today's "must-see" story, when there are a dozen others just as uninformative and distracting waiting on the horizon.

Sexism in media.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

"What Does An Important Person Look Like?" That's the question Jennifer Dalton poses in her new "Cool Guys Like You" exhibition, opening Friday at New York's Winkleman Gallery. And in case you hadn't guessed, the answer is: a dude.
As Dalton explains in her statement about the installation, an open letter to talk show hosts "Bill/Brian/Charlie/Jon/Leonard/Rachel/Stephen/Terry": "When I looked closely at whom you interview -- the people you collectively decide are the most important of the moment -- I was very surprised…. In 2010, the most lopsided show among you featured only 17.5% female guests. The most balanced among you still only featured 34% female guest s…. If I may be so bold, WTF?"

From Salon.com : Does "The Daily Show" still have a woman problem?
BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS Posted on FRIDAY, SEP 9, 2011 14:10 ET 

Whenever anyone tries to talk about sexism the one frequently seen reflexive response is to say something along the lines of "there is a very good reason why there are more men than women" then reasons are given that range from the blatantly sexist (women are not funny) to the systemic (not enough women who can fit these roles, women don't want to do these things in large enough numbers) These responses can be found in the comments of the salon.com article --the trouble is all of these responses are cop-outs and they are rarely supported by data.

A quick internet search will tell you that women outnumber men in journalism schools, and women outnumber men in drama schools. This is a hard indication that women WANT these kinds of jobs and they WANT to be in the industry and they are studying and working toward that goal in large enough numbers that it should not be hard at all to find one good woman suited to a given job. Of coure, a degree doesn't make one qualified or good, but the idea that there isn't a sufficient pool of women seeking these positions is nothing more than a comforting myth that helps us ignore the 10,000 gorilla in the room:

That even funny, awesome, compassionate liberals can be sexist.

My challenge to you: Don't try to explain this away. Instead think of something, however large or small it might be, that you can do to change it. Do you need an incentive beyond simple justice and fairness? Well, think of this: When we tap in to all of those silent female voices we will have better media and funnier comedy, that's just what happens when you select from a bigger pool without sexist blinders on.