An open letter to the president of Harvard

Ok, so maybe this is a bit late...but I just really had to say something...

Dr. Lawrence Summers,

What do you have against women? Who would have thought that someone as educated and refined as you would make such an outrageous claim? Okay, here's the given: men and women have different cognitive abilities. One of the few differences is that men have better spatial reasoning. But that definitely does not mean that women cannot excel in the fields of science and engineering! Women can crunch numbers with the best of them. Newsflash, buddy...this is 2005. Women don't just belong in the kitchen anymore like one of those print ads in the 50's. I'm sure you've seen many such ads in your lifetime - a woman wearing an apron, a fresh-baked pie in one hand and the laundry basket in the other. Yet, for some strange reason, she still smiles and still has enough time to make her hair look perfect! Women nowadays juggle a whole lot more, yet you still find a way to undermine our accomplishments. I do have much respect and admiration for stay-at-home moms who pretty much put their lives and careers on hold to care for their families, but society needs to shake off the mental picture of the traditional woman. And to think that I actually wanted to go to Harvard...

Of course, you wouldn't admit that all this has nothing to do with the fact that during your presidency, the jobs offered to women in your beloved university dropped from 36% to 13%. Not to mention that only 4 out of 32 tenured job openings were offered to women. It's not that we can't, it's because you won't let us! It is the preconceived gender roles that limits what we can truly do.

You can apologize all you want. But the beauty and the beast of the spoken word is that you can never take it back.

More info:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/18/421599f7efe11

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/20/MNG9RAT84I1.DTL

Novocain

On my my way to work today, I was listening to a song by one of my favorite bands, Olivia, called Novocain:

2 hours later and the movie it's over
Painted pictures of murder and slaughter
But no tear falls from my eye
No pain deep down inside
Feels like novocain is running through my veins
Why do I feel nothing?
Why can't I cry?
Bleeding victims I watch die
Filtered through my eyes
Blood turns white.

Desensitization. That's what happens when we see enough of something that it doesn't bother us anymore. Here's a statistic that really got my attention: The average child has seen 8,000 murders on TV by the time he/she has finished elementary school. What's even more discouraging is that these acts of violence are dramatized and glamorized in Hollywood. We have become so used to seeing people being shot, stabbed, blown up...guts and blood everywhere...that it doesn't trouble us anymore.

So where does that take us? To the point that whenever we hear a traffic report on the radio about a deadly accident on the highway, our first thought is: I need to take a different route to avoid the traffic. To the point where a soldier's death is just another passing news. To the point where stories of war are romanticized into made-for-TV movies.

Well, at this point, I really can't suggest anything that we can do to fix it. We've gone so far into this entertainment blunder that there is no turning back. How hopeless did that just sound? This is so depressing.

On media and diamond rings.

Why are we letting the media dictate how we live our lives???

For example, deodorant and shaving your legs is an American thing. Why? Because companies sell deodorants and razors...someone's gotta buy them. I mean, I can sit here and argue that those are really good things, but then I have been conditioned by our society, mostly through the media, to think this way. Conditioned. That's a scary word to describe us. Reminds me of Pavlov's dog experiment. Ok, totally getting off topic...

Anyway, advertisers and large corporations are constantly trying to find something wrong with us so that they can sell us a product to "fix" us. Or they try to appeal to our "wants" by turning them into "needs." Another example: one of the most interesting things that I have learned this week is that diamond engagement rings are nothing but an advertising ploy. The rings that guys used to give their beloved women are usually family heirlooms because they mean a whole lot more. But DeBeers, a diamond mining company based in South Africa, wanted to sell more diamonds. So, they hired an advertising firm to come up with a brilliant advertising strategy. Enter the phrase, "A Diamond is Forever." You know, like people's love should be. So, in order to show your girl that your love for her is "forever" give her a diamond! Now, this was back in the 1910s, I believe. And now, it has become a major tradition in our society...an advertising strategy!

The media sets the standards on how we are supposed to conduct our lives. And we sit here like mindless zombies and simply smile and nod our heads at their command. Fight the system! Watch commercials or look at ads with a critical eye. Ask yourself who is presenting the message and what their primary intentions are. Hint: it's the money they care the most about, not the people.

The Chernobyl Reminder

I'm not usually a big fan of the the Fox show "24," but this season's topic is very interesting. It is about terrorism and the nuclear plants. The show's primary character, Jack Bauer, played by Keifer Sutherland, is an FBI agent (I think) who is on the hunt for the terrorist who was planning to override the controls to a nuclear power plant. The whole incident happens within a 24-hour period, hence the show's title. Perhaps the biggest reason as to why I'm even a slight bit interested is because of a documentary that I saw not too long ago about the ongoing effects that the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl still has after almost 20 years. The documentary is called "Chernobyl hearts" and is about the people who are physically and mentally affected by the disaster.

Nuclear energy is one of the most powerful resources that the world has. It is a good source of inexpensive, clean power that may be a practical energy alternative to the use of fossil fuels (Grolier 1995). However, the radioactive material that is used to make it is hazardous to both humans and the environment. The Chernobyl disaster continues to be a devastating reminder that when tampering with a power of this magnitude, it should be carefully done.

The world’s worst nuclear disaster took place on April 26, 1986. A reactor in the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine exploded and sent 190 tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere (Grolier 1995). Thirty-one people died immediately and many of the 600,000 people who were involved with the cleanup, called “liquidators,” are either sick or dead (World Book 2001). Wind and rain carried about 70% of the radiation to neighboring country, Belarus, in which it presently remains. According to Chernobyl Children’s Project International (CCPI), Belarusians have been exposed to radioactivity ninety times greater than that released by the Hiroshima bomb – the highest known exposure to radiation in the history of the atomic age” (2004). The incident has long-term effects that continue to plague the Belarusian people. CCPI also goes on to report that doctors identified large increases of health problems in their country, including a 250% increase in congenital birth deformities, 100% increase in the incidence of cancer, and 1000% increase in suicide in the contaminated zones (CCPI, 2004). Many children, who were born with physical deformities or mental illnesses, are abandoned by their parents who do not want to pay for medical treatment. The food and water supply are continuously contaminated as rain and forest fires move radioactive dust (CCPI, 2004). Thousands of towns and villages were bulldozed and most of the country’s farmlands are now toxic wastelands. On the economic level, Belarus spends 25% of their annual budget on the Chernobyl relief (CCPI, 2004). Suffice to say, all of Belarus is still on the slow road to recovery from a disaster that happened eighteen years ago.

The United States has the world’s largest nuclear energy program in the world (Grolier 1995). It is home to more than a hundred nuclear reactors that are spread throughout thirty-one states. After the September 11th attacks, many wondered what would have happened if the terrorists targeted the New York nuclear reactors instead and caused the same devastation as that of Chernobyl. There is a reason to think about that possibility because according to President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address, “We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants” in the possession of the terrorists (River keeper 2004). I think that American nuclear power plants should be secured and protected. There is just so much at stake. I think that the terrorists do know the power that these plants enclose within and the devastation that it could cause if that power is disrupted. I also found it interesting that Disney parks and the Super Bowl are claimed as no-fly zones and nuclear power plants are not (King, n.d.). If we have learned anything from the Chernobyl accident, it is that nuclear energy is dangerous and millions are still suffering from its effects. The government should take action upon this matter, because regret only comes in the end.

Nuclear energy can be both beneficial and destructive. The radiation that emitted from the reactor on that unfortunate April night is still affecting millions of people, not just in Belarus, but in Ukraine and Russia as well. In the crazy world we live in, we could never be too careful as to make sure we do not have the same end.



Sources:

Chernobyl Children’s Project – International (2003). Chernobyl: The Facts. Retrieved September 24, 2004 from the CCPI website: <http://www.ccp-intl.org/facts.html>

Grolier Incorporated (1995). The Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge. USA: Grolier
Incorporated.

King, Rita J. (2004). Danger of nuclear plants portrayed in films. Retrieved September 26, 2004 from the North County News website: <http://www.northcountynews.com/archives_2004/9-8-04/news3.htm>

River Keeper (n.d.) Indian Point: The Facts. Retrieved September 26, 2004 from the River Keeper website: <http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indian_point/the_facts/21>

World Book Inc. (2001). World Book 2001 Standard Edition. USA: World Book Inc.

A Commentary about "Control Room"

The power of the media has always fascinated me. As a broadcasting major, I am starting to learn about and acknowledge the role that the media plays in the shaping of the present society. "Control Room" is a documentary by Jahane Noujaim that gives viewers a chance to see the Iraqi war from the Al-Jazeera network perspective. Al-Jazeera is the most watched network of the Arab world, and therefore have much power over what the Arabs know (and don't know) about the war. When I watched it, I thought that there were several truths conveyed and that the Al-Jazeera network, in its effort to remain objective in bringing the news, is seen as a major player in influencing the public opinion on the war and the parties that are involved.

I found it interesting how both sides (the American and Iraqi) claimed that Al-Jazeera is biased toward the opposition. Americans see the network as a medium of Iraqi war propaganda – the images of the brutal, occupying U.S. soldiers killing the innocent Iraqi children. The Iraqis, however, think that Al-Jazeera gets their information from the U.S. military and use the war propaganda in favor of the United States. So, where does that leave Al-Jazeera? Right in the middle of the conflict. As Samir Khader said, “You cannot wage a war without rumors, without media, without propaganda.” That’s Al-Jazeera’s purpose: to be the medium upon which the war is fought, using words and images as weapons.The other thing that jumped out to me while watching this documentary is when then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Al-Jazeera as being biased towards the Iraqis. I have a one-word reply for that: “Duh!” As a resource for information to around 40 million Arabs, Al-Jazeera has to appeal to their target audience. If they have any intention whatsoever of keeping their network afloat, they need viewers. In order to keep those viewers, they need to share their viewers’ perspective and report from their point of view. Although Al-Jazeera claims that their reporters are capable of being objective even with their position of the war, their opinion will affect the way they deliver the news in one way or another. As Joanne Tucker, manager of AlJazeera.net said, “Objectivity is almost a mirage.” Of course, there would be a sense of nationalism on their part, because those are their fellow Arabs. They feel a sense of kinship with these people and I, for one, don’t blame them for it.

On this note, perhaps the biggest idea that struck me from this movie isn’t in the movie at all. It was left in the cutting room floor, only to be seen as a “deleted scene.” In the clip, Lt. Josh Rushing was talking about how Arab nationalism means almost the same as anti-Americanism. However, American patriotism isn’t seen as anti-Arabism. He said that, in part, it’s because of American ambivalence. I thought about that statement and I can’t help but think that it’s true. I’m definitely not saying that American nationalism should mean anti-Arabism. I’m just saying that we just stopped caring about other people because we are so self-absorbed. It’s almost as if we are desensitized from everything that is going on. We live in our little comfort bubble, enjoying our position as the most powerful nation in the world. Even some of the soldiers that are there admit that they don’t know what they are doing there – they are simply “following orders.” Here in the home front, we see a death of a soldier as passing news. We watch the destruction of cities on television while eating our fast food dinner. What we don’t see are the piles of dead bodies rotting on the streets and the suffering that takes place, not just of the Iraqis, but of our troops as well. It is as if we are in a whole other world. This is actually what makes Al-Jazeera a controversial network. They are not afraid to show the unromantic notion of war. It is sad that we can bear to see fictional gory images in the latest Hollywood flick, but we cannot force ourselves to see that these scenes have become a part of our reality. However, these images have no place in American network television, as censors would argue. And that’s why we have eye-opening documentaries as the “Control Room” that screams, “Wake up!’

The Money Behind the Media

I'm hoping to be a news reporter someday...I just love the warmth of the light when it first gets lit in the studio...adrenaline pumping as the director counts down...5...4...3...2...1. All eyes are on you as you report the events that are important to those who hear. This I remember from the 4 years that I was an anchor for my high school's live daily news show. Now, a year and a half into college, I still haven't lost that passion for doing this that I love. But, unfortunately, the thoughts that I initially had about the wonderful world of the media were all but an illusion. It is about advertising, making money, and control (which is very paranoid, but bear with me). Many people rely on the television news to inform them of the current events that may affect their way of life. Sadly, some of us may not realize that the information that they receive has been shrunk, tweaked and commercialized.

Media conglomerates make the media a less diversified whole, which has adverse effects on the media content and news coverage. During the past two decades, the world has seen several mergers by large companies who have control of most of the media. This means that many network stations and most of the small TV stations that cities have are owned by or affiliated with one of these companies. The result is a reduction of equal and diverse opinions that are necessary in a democratic society. When there are only a few owners of the mainstream, there are fewer perspectives to sort through, which gives the people fewer choices. With cable or satellite television, the media industry creates an illusion of assorted perspectives to choose from at every click of a button. If only a handful of companies own most of these stations, the public is not receiving the varied amount of views that they should be receiving in the vast number of channels. However, does the public actually have a choice? It costs millions of dollars to own and operate television stations, not to mention to obtain licenses and programs to broadcast. Therefore, only those who have the money to pay for the expenses can own television stations. The airwaves are controlled by the privileged wealthy few, who are allowed to buy more stations and each other. Not only are the conglomerates getting richer, they also have the ability to control the media and censor information that could potentially harm their companies.

Since the primary goal of television news stations is to make money, they will choose to air the information that pleases their investors and distort the ones that do not. Self-censorship allows the news stations to withhold information that they consider objectionable, which robs the American audience of the full and unhampered truth. This not only applies to news stories that the stations deem as inappropriate for network television – which, by today’s standards does not seem to be much – but also stories that may lose them valuable stockholders and investments. I was reading through this article by Chris Shumway, a former local TV news reporter, as I was taking this class called Media Literacy last spring and he has really interesting things to say. According to him, the contracts signed by news reporters includes an agreement to suppress stories that presents their station in a negative way:

Take one of my own TV contracts for example, a clause in it actually reads: Employee shall not make any statements or remarks about or concerning [the station] or its affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, sponsors, or any network with which it may be affiliated, that are disparaging or derogatory or that tend to discredit or reflect unfavorably on [the station] or said affiliates”. It goes on to state that I cannot subject the station (or its officers, directors, sponsors etc.) to “disrespect or criticism.”

TV news reporters are pressured to say what is politically correct or risk dismissal. Acting as the intermediary between the people and current events, news reporters should claim the responsibility to deliver the truth regardless of its consequences. The interests of the American audience should weigh more than that of the investors. Sadly, it does not always work this way. Therefore, news stories are distorted to appease the parent company, because the news media is just another business.

As all other businesses, the news business needs money to keep afloat. Television sells its time in seconds and minutes to the companies who can afford them. Therefore, a second’s worth of a news story may be regretted as what could have been a second’s worth of advertisement. It is frightening to think that people who intended to watch the news for information are unknowingly being sold by the news station to advertisers who pay a dear amount for the opportunity to hook these potential consumers. Shumway suggests “it’s foolish to think that TV news programs serve primarily as vehicles for the delivery of news and information to the public. First and foremost, they are vehicles for the delivery of commercials to audiences." Increasing advertising revenue becomes a higher priority than delivering news.

Time constraints distort the news through the careful selection of stories to air – important stories are compressed to nothing but seconds. Neil Postman wrote, “The average length of any story is forty five seconds.” He goes on to say that it is impossible to imply a sense of importance and seriousness to an event that is given less than a minute in an entire newscast. The audience has barely enough time to translate the information in their brains and much less time to contemplate over the news, as serious or important as it may be. Depth and thorough analysis are sacrificed for brevity. I analyzed a local nightly broadcast for the Fox network and found out that within the full hour of the newscast, only a little less than sixteen minutes are allotted for the “real” news – pertinent information that does not include sports, weather, gossip, or other gimmicks. About as much time is allotted for advertisements, which unfortunately includes the several frequent attempts of tactless advertising for the station, used as innocent-appearing transitions from one story to another. Other students in my class also analyzed news broadcasts from different stations and found similar results. With only a few minutes to cover the day’s important stories, long stories are cut short and some stories do not make it at all. The result is a reduced quality of journalism. This all comes back to the role of the corporate giants. Not only are the contents of the news program carefully selected and edited for their bank account’s sake, time that should be spent for the news is wasted on selling their products that in turn, funds the insipid newscast.

The news is not just about journalism anymore. It is about putting money in the pockets of the wealthy few who took over the reins of the public’s media. All the public ends up with is a watered-down form of whatever is left of the real news. Hopefully, people will start to realize this and educate themselves about the ever-growing influence of major companies.
After this revelation, I still refuse to give up my dream. Maybe doing something about this may just be the little mark that I leave the world with. If not, then the least I could do is try.

Here are my sources (if you want to look it up):
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985.
Shumway, Chris. “News Media, Corporate Power and Democracy.” June 2000. 25 Mar 2004. <http://chris.shumway.tripod.com/newsmedia.htm>