Media Justice

I've got one word for you.

Wow.

It is so good to be amongst old friends and colleagues here at the 4th National Conference on Media Reform.

Where to start?

I am fired up.

I am sitting in the Best Western hotel room here in Minneapolis (I like this town, and affectionately refer to it as "Minny") with my old friend - ACME co-founder and co-president Bob McCannon.

We are preparing for ACME's first-ever TEACH-IN at the National Conference on Media Reform.

ACME has attended all four of Free Press' National Media Reform conferences, beginning with the one in Madison back in 2003, running workshops and an exhibit booth advocating the importance of media education for media reform.

So hard-working White Americans voted for Clinton last night.

What I find increasingly repugnant about the entire Clinton enterprise is not so much that she is willing to practice racially divisive politics. This should be no surprise. After all, her husband, the so-called "first Black President," made an art of this. (A random attack on the rapper Sister Souljah, reactionary approaches to social justice programs, a racially inspired crime bill, etc.)

On Fox News, ABC, and most other mainstream media outlets, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been cast as an anti-American spouting hate speech, a racist, a threat, and/or a lunatic. Yet what is missing from most of the “analysis” of his sermons is one crucial point: Much of what he says is simply factual.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama have put race in the news. This is long overdue in my estimation because Americans are usually so reluctant to talk about race in any meaningful sort of way. Unfortunately, much of the recent commentary by media pundits is marked by both ignorance and hysteria. I'll post more about this in the weeks to come, but meanwhile, to coincide with March Madness, here are a few thoughts on race and a huge and important part of our media and popular culture environment-- the world of televised sports:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJwOXzO8Vw

From ACME Co-President Rob Williams on YouTube:

"What happens when you bring together 10 young Jordanians and 10 young Vermonters for eight months of cross-cultural conversation, media education, leadership training, digital storytelling production, and reciprocal three-week home stays in both countries? The answer: so much. Take a look..."

Counting is so simple, so basic, so important. We counted the numbers of boys and girls on sugary cereal boxes, on the covers of board games, in the action section of toy aisles, in Newbury Award winning books, and we reported studies that counted the number of boys and girls in G-rated films, and other forms of media. This was our way of showing where the girls aren't, sure, but more importantly we did this because numbers give a clear and present message to girls (and boys) about who should be doing, wearing, listening to, reading, and playing with what.

The crux of Tom Regan's thesis (article below) is: "The reality in today's world of online journalism is that both old and new views count, and traditional journalists ignore this at their own peril."

He defines "new" news views as youth interests such as stories about the iPhone and "old" views as NY Times stories about the Iraq war. I see it as more than youth vs aged.

Here's a question. Should the news try to be objective? There is no doubt that Olbermann is a brilliant, articulate, analytic genius whose passion tends to agree with mine, and I love him. But, should we evolve toward a news environment that is totally composed of competing one-sided shows (like Olbermann and O'Reilly)? That seems to be the direction we are heading.