Five major scandals the media isn't obsessing about
Are these things more important than edits to talking points? Judge for yourself.
1. Carbon pollution reaches historic highs, threatening human existence
2. The devastating impact of sequestration on kids, cancer patients and first responders.
3. Massive cuts to food stamps for the most vulnerable.
4. 1,100 workers die in a Bangladesh factory collapse, and American retailers continue business as usual.
5. 4,150 gun deaths from gun violence since Newtown.
Stop Policing and Questioning Beyoncé's Feminist Credentials
policymic.comWhen white liberal feminists label Beyoncé as anti-feminist, they are simply perpetuating the same racist partiarchy they’re supposed to be combating.
Beyoncé is at the center of her own media empire, no small feat for a woman of color in a racist, patriarchal society. Equally important, she embodies empowered sexuality. When she dances, the passion and commitment exudes in her every step. Her body is her own; she owns it and uses it as she sees fit. When she wears a unitard or “skimpy” outfit, something many dancers wear, mind you, she is showing off her impeccable body, her temple, her source of strength, and all that it can do. She is forcing those of us who are clinging to our puritanical notions of propriety to sit down, shut up, and watch raw, unbridled talent and skill. And yes, she is a feminist while doing it.
When white women get to decide who is “feminist enough,” particularly around women of color, they are perpetuating racism. They are policing the boundaries of who is acceptable and who isn’t. This is nothing more than a tool of racist patriarchy wrapped in feminist rhetoric. Yes, racist. It is decidedly racist the way white mainstream feminist organizations police women of color’s feminist credentials, the way white liberal feminists reduce Beyoncé to a gyrating slut with a potty mouth.
If white feminists want to be seen as inclusive, as truly revolutionary, as working to end alloppressive power systems, they must stop perpetuating those oppressions themselves. Exclusionary boundaries of who is an acceptable feminist and who isn’t does nothing for feminism except perpetuate racism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, and other forms of bigotry and oppression. The incessant questioning of Beyoncé’s character and choices is simply a reflection of the latent bigotry that exists in feminist spaces.
Until white feminists stop policing women of color’s feminist credentials, they are doomed to repeat the same racist patriarchy we are supposed to be combating.
love this! recommend reading the whole thing at the source.
“Now I’m not saying you have to like ABC, CBS, MSNBC or CNN—I really don’t care whether you do or not. But Fox News is on a whole other level when it comes to worthless news coverage. Because where CNN or MSNBC might sing the praises of how great a blue sky is—Fox News tries to convince you the sky isn’t actually blue. And millions of people believe it.”
—Allen Clifton in Why Fox News if Total Garbage
“Most people's wild beasts live in the TV. What I mean is that, in my experience, most people are highly unlikely to come eyeball-to-eyeball with a large wild animal in their everyday lives, and much of their knowledge of wildlife comes from a screen. If you're North American or get US-produced satellite TV, you've probably learned a lot about wildlife from outlets like the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet and History. You might trust these channels because you've seen educational, factually accurate shows on them, unlike the 'trashy' material that dominates free-to-air network TV. But not everything on on these 'factual' channels might be as ethical or even as accurate as you might think, and the implications for conservation could be profound.”
—Bloodthirsty ‘factual’ TV shows demonise wildlife | Adam Welz | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Read the full article for examples of programs on each network that present wild predators as far more of a threat to humans than they really are. The details are gruesome, so I won’t repeat them here.
It is reasonable, even advisable, to maintain a healthy fear of wildlife and use caution when interacting with them. Don’t corner wild animals; don’t try to cuddle them; don’t pick up snakes (especially ones you can’t identify); don’t approach a mother bear with cubs; always keep a safe distance. But the truth is that most wildlife, including apex predators, would prefer to be left alone, and most will leave humans alone if left to their own devices. When wild animals do bother humans, they tend to do so as a manageable nuisance (like property damage or raiding trash cans) rather than as an existential threat like the television programs in question depict. Even the threat to livestock is far less serious and far more manageable than is often portrayed.
During the 20th century, the United States exterminated much of its wild predator populations. Some were killed off deliberately, with bounties for killing wolves, coyotes, eagles, mountain lions, and other beasts. Others were a side-effect of modern industry, such as DDT and other hazards. In the east the loss of wild predators, combined with the decline of hunting, brought an explosion in the white-tailed deer population, with detrimental results for native plant and bird communities. Similar effects have been felt elsewhere in the country.
Even in our more enlightened times, restoring and protecting wild predators remains a constant fight. Fanning irrational fears and reinforcing old myths about wildlife makes that job much harder. It is even worse, as in the examples given, when the fearsome behavior is deliberately provoked by humans, torturing and killing wild animals for ratings and profit. The cable networks in question (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and History) ought to adopt more stringent ethical standards for the treatment of animals in their documentaries and support conservation by presenting accurate programming about wildlife.
“We live today not in the digital, not in the physical, but in the kind of minestrone that our mind makes of the two.”
—MoMA’s Paola Antonelli, mastermind of Talk to Me: Design and the Communication between People and Objects, at a recent TED salon titled “Design Is Everywhere.”
“The bigger problem for us with Elementary is: What if it's terrible? What if it's awful? Then it degrades the brand. If there's this completely unrelated rogue version of Sherlock going around and it's bad, it can be bad for us.”
—‘Annoyed’ on BBC, March 2012
One year and 24 episodes later: Look at your show, now back to Elementary. Sadly, your show isn’t Elementary, so stay pressed!
