It turns out that I joined the WMUA news team just as big changes were beginning to get put in place. It just so happens that up until this year, the news you may have heard on WMUA was the journalistic equivalent of a chop shop. The stories were put together from bits and pieces of the New York Times, the Gazette, al-Jazeera… The attributions were fishy, and the licensing non-existent. It was, in short, Very Bad Journalistic Practice. Continue reading “Radio Reinventions (Adventures at WMUA pt 1)”
I’m new to reading the newspaper. I’m new to watching the news on TV. I’m new to The Daily Show and periodicals. I’m particularly new to business news. We don’t get any of the business oriented newspapers at my house, and I wouldn’t even look at the front page of the business section of the New York Times, because I was positive, as someone who has the privilege to dismiss the value of money, that the economy was full of statistics and lies and other unpleasant things. (I’m not entirely sure that assessment was wrong, however…) Continue reading “And then suddenly, business news! (Quartz)”
I’m still new to the news. If I was an inconsistent reader of the newspaper, and thus new to things like the coverage of political speeches, it has nothing on my alienation from TV news. No one watches the news in my house, we only read it. So it was sort of weird to sit through a news broadcast. I’m used to the cinematic nature of documentaries, TV shows and other kinds of movies; not the everything-in-focus camerawork of the news. It’s rude to tar everyone in TV news with the same brush, but it’s never been held in high regard in my house. Continue reading “60 Minutes: Drinking Age”
It has taken a long time for me to get my thoughts in order on the subject of the Innocence of the Muslims video. I have a natural sympathy for the Middle East, after my 1500-onwards Middle Eastern history class last year. (The ultimate feeling one came out of that class with was: much of the hatred and dislike for the “West” is fully justified. From traditional colonialism, to economic colonialism, to plain, old embroiling itself in politics that aren’t their business, the West has been treating the Arab world badly for centuries.)
I was having difficulty reading the reactions that many of the newspapers were printing saying, “It’s not about the video” or otherwise writing off the effect of the video and of the history of “us” and “them”. Yes, ultimately, I think a lot of it is political, and I think it got out of control the way it did because of the political instability in the region. But I could not get out of my mind one of the pictures from the Atlantic:
In comparison to many of the other signs (the American flags ripped away to reveal Stars of David with the centers twisted in swastikas, in Iran, come to mind) this one seems to be delivering a completely isolated message, but it’s not an unreasonable one.
To me, this comes down to a very serious question: When are we going to address the rampant Islamophobia that exists in the West?
(Please note that while “islamophobia” is in the dictionary, and has its own Wikipedia article, when you type it out, it shows up with the red “spelling error” line underneath.)
I couldn’t bring myself to watch the entirety of the video, partially because my computer had a hard time streaming the HD video, but partially because it was so blatantly hateful and purposefully incendiary I could feel myself becoming insulted; first, the idea that someone would take the time to make something so purposefully vile, and then, the idea that it would be written off as “mockery” rather than “hate speech” were equally reprehensible to me.
The Onion‘s (NSFW) satirical response seemed to me not so much funny, but rather an instance of unchecked privilege.
Someone posted to our Wiki the Al-Jazeera article The Fallacy of the phrase, ‘the Muslim World’ which picks apart the concept of there being a unity across all Muslims, which when phrased as 1.5 million people seems completely ridiculous. I particularly liked her comment about the Libyans who protested the violence against the American embassies,
They gave the rare apology that Western commentators often encourage Muslims to make on behalf of others who commit violence in the name of Islam. But while the sentiment of the protestors is appreciated by many Americans – and the photos likely assuaged some prejudices – such explanations should not be necessary. Ordinary people should not be assumed to share the beliefs of violent criminals who share their faith.
If the world were truly equal, and we demanded that everyone of a faith apologize for the actions of their madmen, far more Americans would be marching in apology for the actions of fundamentalist Christians in this country, perhaps even over the video posted to Youtube (it pays to remember that the man who made it was Coptic, which is a sect of Christianity).
Finally, I’d like to draw people’s attention to the article that finally helped me feel calm enough to write this entry: Islamophobia, Left and Right. In it Jeff Sparrow, compares the outrage felt by Muslims, as an oppressed group, to the actions of the sepoy, in 1857, against their British officers, that lead to the Great Indian Rebellion.
It’s not really about the video, the New York Times is right, but it’s not really about current politics, either. It’s about a long standing tradition of fear, hatred, and colonialism.
I’m new to the world of political speeches. I’ve never much trusted politicians to present the facts fairly or clearly. This is mostly because I’m easy to reach on an emotional level; there were times during Obama’s speech that I was moved to tears. With regards to that quest for truth and even-handedness, I must admit to not having seen Mitt Romney’s speech. I’m clueless about how the other party is choosing to present themselves.
Much of the dialogue that I’ve been a part of surrounding the candidates has had to do with their varying opinions on the matter of women’s reproductive rights and the glass ceiling. As such, it stood out every time Obama made the point to use female pronouns to describe his hopes for the future. And when it came to abortion, he didn’t say the word or even go into details.
Sociologists talk about the importance of making the personal political as a motivator for people. Obama’s illustration of his successes, the young girl in Pheonix, for example, made them seem more real than the statistics that have been thrown around and argued over.
However, despite how much I felt myself agreeing with what he said, there were times and topics that left me, as ever, questioning the bipartisan system (voting for the lesser of two evils, it so often seems). His promise to promote democracy in the Middle East continues the sense of imposition and colonial influence that has shrouded the interactions of the West with the Arab world.
At the heart of it, it seems that politics is about showmanship. It’s about thanking the adoring fans who come out to listen to you speak, and giving them time to work themselves up. It’s about jokes, and sharp dressing. Obama asked his audience not to give into the cynicism that would hold us back; I’d still appreciate it if politics felt less like a beauty pageant than it does.