media fail

“Looting and Rioting”

First, people need to understand something about the “riots” in Ferguson: I get the feeling that a lot of White people are somehow thinking “Wow, those Black people just stood up in their living rooms and basically set fires to their own residences”

Not the way it works…

You know what neighborhood businesses typically get burned? The ones that aren’t Black owned. You’ve seen them — the pawn shops, the quick-marts, the pay-day loan stores, the liquor stores, the third tier rent-to-own stores…you know, the kind of stores you rarely see on every other corner in middle class White neighborhoods. In short, all the businesses endemic of profiteering and structural poverty…the same businesses that like to follow innocent Black people around in stores for no reason. The businesses that won’t hire many of the Black people living in the neighborhoods they’re profiting off of. The businesses that charge twice as much for the same goods & services that are half as expensive in White neighborhoods

THOSE are the businesses that typically get burned in impoverished neighborhoods. Now, while I’m not necessarily advocating riots, I will repeat the words of Martin Luther King Jr, I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard

Second, Other than corporate media outlets repeating what the police are telling them, I haven’t seen much hard evidence of honest to God unprovoked “rioting”…but what I have seen is lots of white police firing tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters. I’ve seen militarized police aim guns, tanks and sound cannons at unarmed civilians in their own neighborhoods. I’ve seen police not interviewing, but arresting key witnesses. I’ve seen people getting gassed in their homes—THEIR HOMES—for committing the crime of what, being Black at home?

The media goes on and on about “looting and rioting” without focusing too much on the police’s strong-arm tactics, they’re complicit in furthering the ratings meme of “unreasonably angry Black people” 

False media narratives: do the words match the facts?


(screencaps of @bbcnews story on 12 Years A Slave winning the TIFF audience award, the linked story, the original tweet from BBCNews’ feed, highlighted by me, and Steve McQueen appears to question the BBC’s life choices in this delightful cap from the TIFF press conference.) 

When did Benedict Cumberbatch become a black man by inference? When BBC News decided that naming him the star of 12 Years A Slave was a better idea than crediting the actual star, Chiwetel Ejiofor. 

ICYMI: During the premiere/press conference, I wrote a couple of posts about the unconscious bias being displayed by the media in coverage of 12 Years A Slave (link to follow-up post/press conference transcription, etc., is at the bottom of that linked post.) 

AGAIN, LET ME EXPLAIN YOU A THING, MEDIA: If a film directed by a black man, written by a black man, and STARRING a black man wins an award and your tweet/news story does not have a picture of a black man on it and doesn’t even mention a black man other than the director until WAAAAAAY down the page, you are being racist. I don’t care if you intend to be, you are. 

Why? Because you are putting a white man who has a supporting role (and not even the big supporting slot occupied by Michael Fassbender or Sarah Paulson) ahead of the STAR OF THE FILM and its director. 

Regardless of how well-known or talented, or what kind of person that white man is, (Don’t hate me, fandom, this is on the BBC and not Benedict Cumberbatch) it does not make him the star. 

Please join me in a loooooong moment of facepalming. 


ETA: IT GOT WORSE. GOOGLE. OH GAWD GOOGLE. Added a cap of the search result for “Author of 12 years A Slave.” Embiggen it. h/t to @laurakeet who found the result. Solomon Noethup. No. Nonono. 

public 2000 - 2008: hey why do you guys always have so many republican guests on?

corporate media: because a republican holds the white house and in fairness we want to accurately represent their views

public 2009 - today: hey why do you guys always have so many republican guests on?

corporate media: because a democrat holds the white house and in fairness we want to accurately represent the views of the opposition party

Do not ignore the problems in Agent Carter, complain, make sure you’re heard, but PLEASE do not boycott it. If Agent Carter fails, the media will not chalk it up to lack of representation, they will chalk it up to a show with a female protagonist that combats sexism. Agent Carter will likely be a step towards more representation in television - especially in the superhero genre.


Yesterday there were posts talking about erasure and how the media was failing to report the story of Leelah Alcorn accurately by misgendering her. I woke up today to find that the amount of articles referring to her as Leelah are vastly growing. We did it, we spoke out and we were heard, good job tumblr.


“The IRS turned over to congress most of Lois Lerner’s emails. You rarely hear that in news reports; they turned over most of her emails, including ALL of the emails from the period that congress is most interested in: the months preceding and the months during the last [2012] presidential campaign.

How many of Lois Lerner’s emails have been turned over to the House of Representatives?

The answer is 67,000 emails, but America mostly does not know that because the news media simply doesn’t have the time to add a sentence about those 67,000 emails in their IRS scandal stories.

Another fact rarely included in the news reports of the IRS news scandal is that not one Republican political group that applied for 501c4 status was denied 501c4 status. Not one Republican application was denied. The one political organization that managed to somehow get denied 501c4 status was a liberal organization called Emerge America. For most of the American news media that remains one of the secret facts of the IRS scandal.”

[Excerpts from The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell]

Now even journo-pundits in the “liberal media” are openly pondering: how is Obama going to "justify" securing the release of an AMERICAN SOLDIER? This is the inevitable result of the media repeatedly lending credibility to every single ginned up, Frank Luntz approved, Republican faux outrage. As though each new Fox generated “scandal” is always deserving of serious contemplation instead of outright ridicule. Even when it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that the simple truth is Fox just sent out it’s coordinated, bi-weekly “we’re outraged” email spam

Again, in case I’m not being clear→  Fox News immediately hired a P.R. firm to slander Bergdahl and many of the “facts” about his alleged desertion are already beginning to unravel, but because corporate media instantly dances to whatever tune the Ruphert Murdoch propaganda machine plays, more often than not, we’re drowning in RWNJ conspiracy memes instead of being served with actual facts up front. Lara Logan aside, Fox News mastered trolling journalists and bloggers long ago

And does anyone even believe that if Bowe Bergdahl were beheaded by the Taliban that the same hypocriticaloutraged” Republicans wouldn’t suddenly be calling for PBO’s impeachment? Specifically because he failed to secure the release of a captured soldier??? (hint: they’re going to try to impeach him to blemish his presidency no matter what –lacking a majority in the U.S. Senate is all that’s been stopping them)

At no other point in U.S. history would you hear journalists and politicians publicly deride a sitting president for committing the unforgivable sin of recovering a prisoner of war

The bad news: knowing that depending on the political party of the president, the credo “we leave no one behind” is actually a conditional slogan should do wonders for our ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY & military recruiters

The good news: maybe once enough people have second thoughts about volunteering, military spending will necessarily decrease and the U.S. won’t go traipsing into senseless wars for oil under the next (Republican) president

The Sun gives me more thingies to talk about

I want to take this opportunity to point at something that has absoluuuutely nothing to do with what’s going on right now but that I’ve had in the back burner for a few weeks.

Sunday’s edition of The Sun is out, right? At least one of the articles is. It’s now almost 4 AM on Sunday in the UK. The newspaper is probably out of the printers by now, being delivered  and unpacked in the news stands in all of England (they get the papers at 4/5 AM so people who get up early already have them when they wake up) as we speak.

It takes a while to print the amount of copies a newspaper like The Sun distributes daily (they sell a bit over 2 million a day, average, so I’d say they print quite a lot more than that). By the time the first print run the whole newspaper has to be completely done which includes:

  • Ads.
  • Planning.
  • The actual writing of the articles.
  • Every single picture there.
  • Corrections that have to be run through.
  • The layout.
  • Last minute corrections to the layout.

Keep reading

Canon or just headcanon?!

As a story writer I have been wondering about this for a long time: 

Is the headcanon of the creator canon or not?

For example: Let´s say that I write a story, and after it is all done and published, I later reveal that a character is diabetic. I, the creator, say this but when you go though the story from beginning to end there is not a single clue/hint to prove or support this statement. 

So my question is: Does this character have diabetes in canon?

Not only do I think it is an intriguing question regarding representation in creative media, but this is something that I personally struggle with in my music videos where the format limits me from exploring all the layers of my characters. So I would love to read what you guys think, no matter if you write your own stories or not. Real life examples are welcome! 

We feel you so much, anon. Thank you for your thoughtful messages and your support for Chloe Bennet.

Of course I (& I know the other mods agree) think it’s important to call out the ways media and fandom have tried to erase Daisy Johnson and Chloe Bennet, because it happens too often and it’s insidious and unfair - specially considering she has better storylines and is better written than a lot of white female protagonists that get praised as “revolutionary” when they are anything but.

The show was clearly about Daisy from the beginning and it always frustrated me how the media seemed oblivious to this fact - after episodes where the show spelled out “hey, this is Daisy’s story” like 1x12. I pretty much gave up hope when even a so-called feminist publication like The M/ary S/ue kept writing such anti-Daisy stuff and their reviews of the episodes talked about Daisy as if she were a mere supporting character. That’s when I decided not to give a fuck about what the press said about the show.

It’s still frustrating, of course. When media ignores Chloe’s amazing job depicting Daisy’s very emotional journey for years and then they ask that a Scottish white dude who plays a supporting role wins an award because he screams at a rock. It’s not something we should give a pass to. Chloe’s interview made it clear she notices and is hurt by this erasure as well.

Even today some outlets still try to make people believe this is Coulson’s show (yeah, right) or an ensemble piece. Chloe is clearly not treated the way Hayley Atwell or Krysten Ritter are, even though she was a protagonist of a Marvel tv show before they were.

This is not a reflection of what goes on in the show. Unlike other recent cases of characters of color mistreated by their shows Agents of SHIELD takes care of Daisy and puts her front and center and builds its mythology around her. Maurissa Tancharoen (and it’s no coincidence this show has a woman of color at the helm) and Jed Whedon have shown over and over how much they love Daisy Johnson - the writing in last week’s episode “Spacetime” was a good example. But both fandom and media keep erasing her or pretending she is not that important.

She is very important. She is the first female lead in a MCU piece. She is the first protagonist of color. I’m glad Chloe Bennet is speaking up about how amazing that is and how frustrating it is that media is not talking about it. Fandom and media acting like Agents of SHIELD somehow doesn’t belong to the MCU is gross and racist.

I’ve also seen some suggestions by social justice-minded fans that Daisy doesn’t count as representation because she’s biracial and that’s horrifying. That’s the kind of stuff the SWWers and the Skyeward shippers said to justify that shipping a woman of color with a Nazi wasn’t racist. Chloe has speaken about how proud she is of her Asian identity and also how hard it’s been for her to get roles. And fandom obviously treats her (or rather mistreats her) as a character of color. It’s offensive to suggest she has white privilege because she’s white because even though the show treats her like shows with white showrunners treat their white protagonists fandom and media evidently don’t give her the praise she deserves because she is not white.

Fandom can’t claim to want more diversity and then turn around and say that Daisy Johnson doesn’t count. You end up reading articles about anti-Asian racism in the MCU and about how awful the casting of a white Danny Rand is (which Chloe herself criticized) but then you ignore that Marvel has a show with an Asian American woman as protagonist and another one in one of the most important roles and another one as showrunner. It’s very insulting to Chloe, Ming-na and Mo.

I haven’t read the Vanity Fair article and I don’t think I’ll do. It just boils my blood too much. In general there are few media outlets that have been fair to Daisy and Chloe without letting prejudices about both her character and the show get in the way of actually understanding the story.

On the plus side I rather have the show and the crew treat Daisy and Chloe like she deserves and continue to give her the amazing storylines they’ve been giving her for three seasons and then have the media and fandom be jerks about it than the other way around.

That said, though the show treats Daisy very well, the promotion and the people at Marvel and ABC need to do a better job of promoting Daisy. There’s a lot of promos where it seems like she’s a supporting character and the way they set up interviews sometimes can be an act of erasure as well. They need to do better on this front.

Bottom line: yes, anon, it’s awful the way media and fandom erases a character as important and groundbreaking as Daisy Johnson and we should speak up against it.

We have to fight against the constant Daisy Johnson erasure.

- mod becketted