Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Rape Myths, Misogyny, Political Fanaticism Exposed in Nir Rosen's Twitter Response to the Sexual Assault of Journalist

The double standards of decency are now on full display. Even a light examination of the facts in the recent criminal and immoral behavior concerning the assault against L.  (HERE) shows clearly that the blaring horns of the mainstream media pick and choose which speech they will focus on, for example, as "hateful"--including
  • how they will choose to generalize statements from one person to entire groups- OR NOT
  • and the choice to use or NOT TO USE hateful speech to push an agenda, through repeated media stories. 
As is typical, a crime of assault against a woman brings from the media a focus on her appearance, pictures completely unrelated to the story which are centered on showing skin, and any information available about her sexuality.
[This case showed typical media and otherwise misogyny-
 I have never read a blog by
bonnie russell, but this post popped up with some spot-on points 
re Nir Rosen: why was he not instantly, publicly fired?
"Yet not for a second has
 our male dominated media turned its eye inward.
 The focus is instead,
on how one lawyer-reporter was a very bad boy." b russel)]

Nir Rosen laughs at assault on Ms. Logan because of her politics?


Examine, explore: Ask yourself
how the media would have covered this
story if

A) the crime victim was a male
______________ such as reporter Richard Engel
or
B) the person who tweeted hateful statements
was _____________ _______ (insert various choices here)
(Imus, Sarah Palin, Chris Matthews, etc)
C) the crime occured in a fraternity house
or
D)    the crime occurred during a sports "celebration" riot in the USA


double standard 101 question.
(Is violence against women as real, as violent as violence against men? After all, it's not like a she was stabbed or shot?
What would Sharia law say?)

Besides misogyny,
Politcal fanaticism is an obvious area of reporting bias in the media. No one likes to focus on the fanatics in one's own camp. But ignoring them simply makes the media appear either untrustworthy or irrelevant to large portions of the country.
 
Putting one's politics over the basic human dignity of women, and perpetuating the winks and nods regarding rape myths is a revolting bias; many women have had enough.
 
Have you read what nir rosen wrote about the assault of Lara Logan-His Twitter posts are HERE 
 

Read about Rape Myths:

media know
what is important for you??



http://www.k-state.edu/womenscenter/
 
http://www.k-state.edu/womenscenter/Violencework%20Advocacy/Womens%20Center%20Materials/women_center_materials.htm
 
http://marysbeagooddogblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/accidental-felony.html
 
Myths about Rape

Myth 1: Rape is provoked by the victim. Women invite rape with their appearance or behavior.
Women who are drunk are asking for it.
Fact: A study conducted in Philadelphia by Dr. Menachem Amir indicated that 60 to 70 percent of rapes are at least partially planned beforehand by the rapist; the victim is often threatened with bodily harm if she resists. The problem with this myth is the way it takes the criminal blame from the rapist and shifts the responsibility for the crime to the victim. Walking and dressing in a way that is socially defined as attractive does not give someone else the right to commit a crime. Buying someone dinner and drinks does not imply sexual consent. No person’s behavior, state of intoxication, dress, or agreement to date gives another individual any level of sexual “rights,” let alone the right to commit rape.

A Crime belongs to the criminal.

updated sexual violence stats HERE

Myth 2: It won’t happen to me; only other types of women get raped. Only “bad” girls get raped. Only young, beautiful women are raped.
Fact: A victim of sexual assault is a crime victim, a victim of violence. Victims are of every age, shape, race and social class; for example, 1 out of 10 adult men are sexually assaulted, 1 out of 7 boys are sexually abused (see http://www.raap.org/stats.htm). Read the newspaper: You will see stories of elderly, of handicapped, of male, of child victims. Women do not “ask” to be raped, regardless of what they are wearing or doing.

Myth 3: Women are raped when they are out alone at night, primarily in dark alleys, so if women stay at home they’ll be safe.
Fact: The majority of rapes are committed by acquaintances of the victim, in situations where the victim feels secure. Some rapes occur during home invasions. Any woman, regardless of place of residence, social or economic class, age, appearance, or other factors, can be a victim of rape. Among college women, most rapes occur in victim or rapist’s home. Most rapes occur in or around the woman’s house by someone she knows. Women are raped while engaging in everyday activities, such as sleeping, studying, working, shopping, or driving their cars. Regardless of activity, age, class, race, marital status, or occupation, all women are vulnerable to rape.

Myth 4: Sexual assault occurs only among strangers. If I avoid strangers, I will not be raped.
Fact: 1996 stats show: 67.5% of victims know their perpetrator. 1994: 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, 5% by other relatives (see http://www.raap.org/stats.htm). When considering these statistics, it is important to remember that a woman is more apt to report being raped by a stranger than to press charges against a friend or relative.

Myth 5: Any woman could prevent the rape if she really wanted to. No woman can be raped against her will.
Fact: About 1 out of every 16 rape/sexual-assault victims reported that a firearm was present during the commission of the offense. Most victims (84%) reported that the offender used no weapon. However, the primary reaction of almost all women to the rape was fear for their lives. In view of a rape victim’s fear of injury or death, the loss of control over her life and body, and the humiliation that she undergoes-- it is amazing that so many people still believe the preposterous myth that victims really enjoy rape or are responsible for being raped. The newest form of rape occurs with the use of drugs (GHB, ecstasy, Roofies etc.) which, alone or combined with alcohol, take away a person’s ability to function and greatly impairs ability to remember. Rape drugs are also very dangerous as an overdose can kill.

Myth 6: Rape occurs only in large cities.
Fact: Although the reported number of assaults is higher in urban areas, sexual assault does happen in every area of the city, the suburbs and rural areas. 1993 National Victimization Survey statistics showed that: 66% of rapes occur between 6 pm and 6 am, 60% happen in own home or non-stranger home, and 50% happen within 1 mile of victim’s home. On college campuses in the U.S. which are about the size of K-State—about 10,000 women—350 rapes typically take place in a year (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm.).

Myth 7: Most rapes involve black men and white women.
Fact: 1996 statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abtract/soo.htm) suggest that most rapes involve a rapist and victim of the same race and socioeconomic class. Among victims 18 to 29 years old, two thirds had a prior relationship with the rapist. Four datasets (the FBI’s UCR arrests, State felony court convictions, prison admissions, and the National Crime Victimization Survey) show a remarkable similarity in the characteristics of those categorized as rapists: 99 in 100 are male, 6 in 10 are white, and the average age is the early thirties.

Myth 8: Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification. Most rapes are spontaneous (that is, a sexually frustrated man sees an attractive women and just can’t control himself).
Fact: Amir found that 71 percent of all rapes were planned; the rapist had it in his mind to rape a woman (any woman) or he had a specific woman in mind. Eleven percent of rapes were partially planned; a rapist took advantage of a woman when she was alone, drunk etc. Only 16 percent were spontaneously or “explosive: rapes where the rapist had no prior intent to commit rape. Most rapists have access to consensual sex; rape is an act of power and control.

Myth 9: Rapists are abnormal perverts or men with an unsatisfied sex drive. Only “sick” or “insane” men rape women. The primary motive for rape is sexual.
Fact: Rapists have a normal sex drive, are generally sexually active and exhibit “normal” types of behavior, with the exception of a greater-than-average tendency toward expression of violence. Studies show the major motive for rape is aggression, not sex. Rapists can be married or have available sexual partners.

Myth 10: Rape is a minor crime, affecting few women. Its significance is over-exaggerated.
Fact: The FBI has reported that in 1994 rapes and sexual assaults in the US totaled 433,000. Some criminologists have estimated that only 10 percent of all rapes are reported. Therefore, one can assume that more than a half-million women are raped every year. Rape also affects all men—by lowering the level of trust women feel around men in general, and by injuring friends, family, and partners of men.

Myth 11: Women say “no” when they mean “yes.”
Fact: In order to have legal, valid consent to have sexual activity, an unintoxicated, clear, mindful “yes” must be communicated. Either party engaged in sexual activity has the legal right to stop at any point. There is no “point of no return.”

Myth 12: Women frequently cry, “rape” that is, there is a high rate of false reporting.
Fact: Studies show that only two--four percent of rape calls are determined false reports, which is no more than in the reporting of other felonies.

Myth 13: Date rape is not that serious; women get over rape quickly, with no lasting trauma.
Fact: Women and men are deeply affected by the invasion of intimacy and theft that is involved in sexual assault. Healthy, competent individuals are traumatized by assault and must deal with issues involving depression, anxiety, fear, relationship difficulties, physical illness, and other problems, both short- and long-term.

Myth 14: Rape is a natural, inherent part of the human condition.
Fact: Rape is not a natural act for men. A study by anthropologist Peggy Reeves Sanday found that in cultures with a high incidence of rapes, the economic, religious, and political structures are controlled by men. In Sandays study of 44 societies that were not patriarchal, there was virtually no rape.

Adapted by the K-State Women’s Center from: Myths and Facts About Assault by the Department of Social Services, Missouri Division of Health, Section of Maternal and Child Health, Jefferson City, M) 65101. Around 1985, material has been updated using US Dept of Justice Statistics 1996 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abtract/soo.htm and using statistics from http://www.raap.org/ststas.htm.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

First They Came for Fred Phelps; First They Came for the Mosque

   Just the thought of the Phelps clan makes me sad or sick to my stomach.
In Topeka, Kansas is a lovely gathering space, called Most Pure Heart of Mary. We were there because a man from Africa had come to thank the people of that church, who had collected monies and sponsored events and eventually had provided a Well --Water!-- for this man's village.

He had come to speak after the Catholic Mass, and the Eyes of the People there were all tear-filled as they listened to the man tell how the Well had changed his people's lives. But the topekans' lives were changed, too. Their hearts expanded and secreted good hormones as they heard of the fruits of their labors. Perhaps they were also grateful, as they realized what the  Need for Water  means.

I swear a beam of light filled that space at the end. The room was Gracefilled. Poor humble folk helping poor humble folk around the planet; how can one be happy while another is without malaria-free water for their infants? We left in good spirit.

A block or two down the road, I saw bright colors and a gathering of people--old and young, children--and as i was "not from here" i was curious and happy for the next moments in the gracefilled day.

phelpses at k-state graduation
The bright colors were the neon stripes that now carry a malignant conditioned response for many Kansans and Americans. As we approached, i blinked as i saw the obscene and stabbing words in the signs. My heart was blasted open when i beheld a young kid, 8 years old?--carrying a sign which was specifically designed to wound and hurt and degrade another person. I wanted to step in front of the sign in order to make sure the object of its hate could not see it. The idea of my college roommate or my friend or my cousin seeing such a revolting sign was too much.

I had moved from heaven to hell in 2 blocks.
 I had stepped out of grace and into malignancy.
If i would have been a saint, i suspect i would have detected a stench.
There i go, now it is i who am unkind.
See how violence begets violence!
I have since come to know who this group is and the silly mindless spewings they spear. They may be just the most visible, the easiest to despise; while the more dangerous may be the more subtle... The phelpses gained national prominence by "protesting" (harassing) at the funerals of American soldiers. ("divine punishment")
How can this be possible? Does every funeral home need to have an invitation only policy now? Lawsuits came.

click to enlarge
The lawyers i know knew that Phelps would get his free speech rights upheld in court.  "Fred Phelps is a civil libertarian's nightmare; his vicious, homophobic protests of military funerals, outraging liberals and conservatives alike, make censorship seem like a patriotic duty, as well as an expression of tolerance."..." (more quote below*) 

But the publicizing of Phelps may be the best way to disempower him.
There is a principle that we do not like to really  look at--
that Freedom to Speak does not stand alone, but is paired somehow with equality in media's treatment of speech (and avoiding this issue is a normal response to believing that we know best). It is wanting to silence those who promote something we think, believe, or know is a mistake, a wrong, a disgrace. It is the media only promoting the rich's ideas, or the powerful's thoughts, or the connected folks' take on things. It is the media deciding ahead of time that you don't need to know that or that these ideas are improper.

The press these days seem to think that by picking sides or offering lots and lots of opinion, that they will sway, for the betterment of society, how folks perceive things. That is a fallacy.
First of all, A Snake Sheds its skin at the rate that a snake sheds its skin.
 You cannot make a horse drink water, i don't care if it is freshly opened bottles of Evian. Instead, a backlash occurs. Why am i being patronized? Being treated as "less than" or "not as smart as" actually anchors folks in their views. Indeed, the recent lack of basic reporting about a Big Ol' Rally in D.C. prompted an out-of character column from a friend wondering why the media are not doing their who what where when why duties.

The second problem with this "helping us" know how we should hear the news or censoring it for us is that people will steer away from common sources (yes, there are still some). This will lead to as (Jay puts it) "Shoveling viewers to Glenn Beck's Website".--or, losing credibility and forcing people to go to a single place, or to unidimensional, isolated, or extreme information centers.

The Marketplace of Ideas is the place, ideally, where ideas are sifted through, selected, "censored" if you will. Events that are big, or that impact many Americans, or that are part of our national discussion should be given balance in reporting even (no, especially) when one side is unpopular with media, unpopular with government, out of favor with majority. Remember the rush into Iraq?

Are the press doing in-depth reporting on Phelps? Get his quotes. Treat him like any other. Let him be exposed. Where are the psychological profiles on 20/20? (surely we have heard enough family murder cases) Where are the details about his schedule, his plans, the groups who shield others from the view? His quotes may do more to end his cause than censoring him.

When do we give Cindy Sheehan a voice? When we agree with her? Who decides? What if Shirley Sherrod was not given equal time? Who decides? Is Code Pink dismissed as Too Left or are they given a chance to say all they want to say, For the Media, like John McCain is given? Because the Media is running the show. If the media holds the microphone, they must stick to good solid basic journalism.
(It feels good when they are, but They may not always be on your side)

Again, the Mosque.
Maybe there is a down side to building it near Ground Zero.
Maybe not. Maybe there is a HUGE downside to preventing equal treatment.
Let's Assume for a moment that the imam really is radical, that it really is a sign of conquest, that some will exult over its presence. OK, so?
What has that to do with me? My country is to abide by our principles and rules. If he is a criminal, arrest him. Otherwise, of course it is wrong to deny building it simply because "we don't want it there"--
google "ground zero mosque" or Imam Trade Center- many views. one view        another view!

What i want is the print and broadcast media to give it to me straight.
Interview everyone, not just those are "in the right" or correct, or progressive thinkers, or non-racists, or saints. Equal treatment is the fastest way to expose what needs exposing.
Equal straight journalistic professionalism will calm, (if not unite) certain groups or factions because there will be a great lessening of the feeling that they are on an uneven playing field.
It is the uneven playing field that i am sensing is the biggest complaint.
Fairness, as all who have experienced its lack, is the most Frustrating and Anger-producing factor.

These loosely connected thoughts are my musings
after hearing many folks complain recently and over the past year or two about how they feel Unfairness, feel cut off or cut out of the dialog. This feeling of inequality or separation is increasing.
I remember
when many k-staters and other manhattanites protested the Iraq war--they did not get the media treatment their constancy, their numbers, their seriousness merited.
I spoke with folks (Campaign for Nonviolence) who initiated and year after year at Bramlage shielded Graduating K-Staters and their Parents from the hatevision of fred phelps, who have
Never
    received
    a media story-
that made Me feel great frustration for them. The media need to step up, look at all sides, and do the reporting. Report!

This Division is becoming more dire, and will lead to Really Bad Things, i think, more than the original issues.



No trust, no believability, in our media will lead to very bad things.





* Albert Snyder advanced a series of tort claims against Phelps, including, most notably, intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the funeral protest and by subsequent internet rants about Matthew and his family, the sight of which allegedly made Albert Snyder "violently ill." The district court dismissed two of Snyder's claims (involving defamation and publicity) but allowed his claims of emotional distress, intrusion, and civil conspiracy to be determined by a jury. Guess who the jury found more sympathetic -- the visibly anguished father of a slain marine or the cruel, contemptuous, hate-mongering protester?


This is precisely the evil that the First Amendment was designed to prevent: submitting the right to express presumptively distressing or despicable ideas to a popular vote. Snyder's claims of emotional distress should never have been presented to the jury; they should have been dismissed, as a matter of law, by the trial judge. The district court's instructions to the jury in this case were also deeply flawed, and, in my view, more dangerous than any number of cruel, crazy, yet peaceful protests. The judge told the jury that "vulgar, offensive, and shocking" speech may only enjoy limited constitutional protection, suggesting, nonsensically, that the First Amendment fully protects only inoffensive speech that wouldn't be unwelcome in polite company -- and wouldn't need protection -- unlike the ravings of Fred Phelps."

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Glenn Beck and the Mainstream Media: After the Rally

My friends and some family along the east coast sent some reports about the Restoring Honor Rally in DC. Friend says, half a million there.
I remember once, Jim Lehrer came to K-State and spoke about the need for strict, professional reporting that allows viewers to see the basics and make decisions on the facts.
That came to mind when an irritated blogger friend sent this:   Media Shovels Viewers Away

 So-exactly what is it about glenn beck that is scaring people?


Glenn Beck and family pic from adoption website


Glenn Beck Rally


Glenn Beck Baby Pic
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Total Pageviews

Get Paid To Promote, Get Paid To Popup, Get Paid Display Banner