Media & Media Literacy – Page 44

Even in pretend-life, you need the McMansion

First I read this article and was like, dude, these people are pathetic.

Then I was like, dude, you’re a blogger.

Then I wuz sad.

What do you want to talk about?

I’m hoping to submit a session proposal for the WAM!2008 conference, and while I have some ideas bouncing around in my head, I tend to focus on the same things over and over again. So I’d love to hear from you all — what kind of sessions would you want to attend? Which topics need more attention? What do you want to talk about?

Media for women: what will we support?

It’s not just indie magazines that are at risk for folding these days (as discussed in a previous entry here). It seems that any non-mainstream mass-male-produced media is destined to either dissolve or not be profitable and have to work at a not-for-profit level. Why can’t women make a go of it and be a financial success?

On August 17, Greenstone Media aired its last radio program. For those who don’t know: Greenstone was a radio network founded by Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda et al and lasted all of 18 months. Stations wouldn’t pick up their programming. They have wondered publicly if it was seen as too feminist. The funny thing is, among feminists, there was nothing particularly feminist about it. It was talk radio “the way women want it”, or so they thought. They produced about 63-hours of programming each week and only a dozens radio stations carried it. They had call-in shows with few callers. The shows were fairly average. I listened online, not because I loved it but because I wanted to support them while they grew and found their true niche. They say it takes two years to find your market in radio, but their financial backers were impatient. They couldn’t see how talk radio for women could ever fly. Apparently, we’re satisfied with the morning drive-time program format that includes two frat boys and a woman paid to laugh at their penis jokes.

Were the backers right? Is there no room for women’s media or are we just not willing to support it in its infancy. It truly is in its infancy at this point – we need to get women out there and then help grow media to empower women.

The question has been asked many times in feminist circles – is it enough to get behind women and support them just because they are women and then hold them to higher standards, or do we set the bar so high now that we’re not getting anywhere, and then complain when we’re not represented?

Can We Talk About Porn Without Having the Same Fight Over and Over?

Here’s hoping we can.

Like the other stuff I’ve been posting about, I bring this up because I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately and because my opinions are shifting and I’m not exactly sure where they’re headed.

I don’t want this to be about anyone’s personal habits and what they mean and whether they’re defensible from a feminist POV. ‘Cause that’s been done to death and frankly, it’s boring. But obviously it doesn’t make sense to start this kind of discussion without laying out where I’m coming from, so I’ll dispense with it quickly: I am a fairly regular user of porn (upcoming links probably NSFW). Not generally the kinder, gentler material that’s made “for women” and called “erotica.” And not always the feminist, binary-questioning, politically aware stuff or the let’s-objectify-nekkid-hipster-boys thang either. Sometimes I like some mainstream smut (/NSFW links).

However, I’m not interested in pretending that there’s no conflict between this and my fervent belief that media images matter. If I think it’s necessary to consistently interrogate what pop culture in general says about women and femininity (and I do, duh), I can’t ignore that porn is—to put it mildly—problematic. As is true regarding a lot of things I love but have (mostly) given up for health and many other reasons, I’m willing to trade pleasure for living more closely aligned with my values. Nor am I interested, though, in arguments that porn as a category is inherently evil, or destructive, or antifeminist, simply because it involves women’s bodies in a sexual context.

Whither Independent Print Media?

I’ve always loved everything about words put on paper with ink. Not just the way I could carry them on public transit and hand them to my friends, but the way they look and feel and, yes, smell. (I realize I’m exposing myself as a bit of a weirdo here. But, well, work as a magazine publisher for almost your whole adult life and you’ll develop some strange habits. I gotta tell ya, there’s nothing like opening up the first box of the new issue and taking a whiff.) When people started making noises about the death of print back in the late ’90s, it was easy to scoff. Sure, the interwebs were overflowing with all sorts of content and community, but the print world was also thriving, from zines on up.

That was a decade ago.

What with the recent rash of magazine foldings, distro troubles in the book and magazine worlds, and more trouble on the way, it seems the coming death of print might not have been so greatly exaggerated after all. (More interesting items here, not that this is by any means an exhaustive list.)

Making Blogs Necessary

Nothing like a little self-congratulation to get a blogger going in the morning.

Amanda’s got a post up at Pandagon and Offsprung bemoaning the horrendous job the MSM does addressing or qualifying the false claims made by the wingnuts in interviews, op-eds and other appearances. Case in point: An 8/20 article in the Denver Post about a new Planned Parenthood clinic planned for the Denver area.

Amanda points out the most egregious quote, which the article’s author, Karen Augé, leaves flapping in the breeze:

Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, said her organization will continue its opposition to Planned Parenthood and likely would fight efforts to build a clinic.

“Let’s face it, they’re in the business to kill babies for profit,” she said. “First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don’t work,” Hanks said.

And then nothing. There is so much wrong with this quote that it’s hard to know where to begin. First, Planned Parenthood does not “kill babies for profit.” If I have to explain why that’s wrong, you’re probably reading the wrong blog. Second, the quote equates birth control pills (BCP) with an addictive drug with no legit purposes. Given that BCP is neither addictive nor useless, it’s a BS move. Third, BCP does work. I can testify to that myself, as can the hundreds of millions of other women around the world who use it. It’s not foolproof, but then again, neither is abstinence, really.

Amanda has some praise for the MSM on this issue, though it’s short-live and tongue in cheek (at least the first sentence):

It’s good that reporters aren’t helping anti-choicers conceal that they are opposed to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies through contraception, which does serious damage to their strange claims that they’d like to reduce the abortion rate. (Note to idiots: You don’t reduce abortions by increasing the main cause of them, unwanted pregnancies. That’s like trying to reduce the auto fatality rate by banning seatbelts.) Still, the fact of the matter is that this he said/she said style of reporting that’s fact-free creates the wrong impression that it’s all just a matter of opinion, and since these ridiculous, fact-free claims are being trotted out in articles from reporters that are supposed to be trustworthy, it’s all too easy for some readers to think there must be some truth to them.

Bloggers aren’t perfect (ahem), but I am sick of all the O’Reilly style invective calling us name-callers and flame throwers (oh the irony). At a time when it has become abundantly clear that the MSM too often leaves behind its mantle as the fourth estate, it’s bloggers who can fill the gaps.

“Fair and balanced” reporting (something I make no claim to provide) is a good thing, but only when it takes form as something other than a place for people to air their opinions unmediated by the journalist.

(Also at LGM)

Answer the WAM!2008 Call for Proposals

As the Conference organizer, I’m a little biased, but I gotta say it anyhow: the Women, Action & the Media Conference kicks ass. And we’ve just (like, as in, five minutes ago) released our 2008 Call for Proposals, and I couldn’t resist the opportunity to share it with you.

I’ll quote myself:

At Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) 2008, we’ll share facts and ideas, develop skills, build collaborations, and create action plans to amplify progressive women’s public voices in society. We’re bringing together more than 400 participants to exchange observations, ideas, experiences, opinions, and tools for change—and plan together for action.

What questions, issues, and concerns do you want to hear debated? What thinking, strategizing, planning or skill-sharing work should happen at WAM! as a step forward in building the movement? What should we know, what should we be doing, and what should we be preparing for?

We invite you to submit a proposal for a workshop, panel, strategy meeting, digital multimedia presentation, or other conference session. We want to hear your ideas whether you’re a media producer or a PR strategist, a journalist, an activist, an academic, a community organizer, a funder or philanthropist, a “citizen” media watchdog, a media policy advocate, an alternative-network-builder, a blogger, writer, teacher, artist, technology trainer, cartoonist, deejay, (etc!) — we especially encourage proposals from women of color, women under 25 and over 65, low-income women, professionals/producers working in broadcast and online media, and students.

In other words: if you have something to say about women & media, and want to help us make change for the better (and, well, to get into the Conference for free), we need your proposal. Questions? Ask ’em in the comments or shoot me an email and I’ll be happy to answer ’em. The more excellent proposals we receive, the better the Conference can be.

Get creative and get proposing, kids!

UPDATE: We’re having some web troubles at the CNW site today. If you want to get your hands on the CFP as a pdf, just email me at jaclyn at centerfornewwords dot org, and I’ll send it on.