Media Activism #12

I attended a screening of a new documentary called Sir! No Sir! by David Zeiger with a Q&A session with the director and a special appearance by Jane Fonda, who is a strong supporter of the film. The documentary is about the GI protest movement during the Vietnam War. It was really amazing to learn about this movement since, as it explains in the film, this part of our history has been conveniently written out of the books. Soldiers were refusing to fight and being court-martialled for speaking out against the war. It is a very important film that everyone should see, so it is fortunate that it is also very well made. The high energy and entertaining use of archival footage and music make it easy to watch for all audiences, which helps the messages get heard.

To prove just how important and pertinent this film is, I came home from the screening, turned on the television, and the news was covering the Generals speaking out against Donald Rumsfeld. Seeing history repeat itself so clearly was actually pretty chilling.

Media Activism #11

After our field trip to the Ad Council, I explored their website to see the work they have done on different campaigns. Based on their model of working on issues that are non-political, non-commercial, non-profit, and non-denominational, I was very curious to see what issues qualified. I was particularly interested in the Modeling Non-Violent Behavior campaign. I have witnessed parents being violent and aggressive both in front of, and directly towards, their children on the subways, buses, and streets of New York. It is incredibly disturbing and upsetting, and I am so grateful for campaigns such as these that bring this issue to light. Through radio spots, magazines, newspapers and billboards, attention is drawn to the fact that children model their parent’s behavior, both good and bad.

To avoid the political side of gun control, the Ad Council has a campaign about reducing gun violence. This is an excellent example of framing the debate to focus on the realities of gun violence with a tagline of “Gun Crimes Hit Home” rather than getting involved in the legislative debate over the second amendment.

The Ad Council website is really impressive. You are able to search by issue and see who sponsored the ad, which agency created the ad, can view all of the posters, tv, and radio spots, and get factual information and statistics on the issue.
Overall, the Ad Council is a very impressive organization doing very important work. I am really glad we got the opportunity to visit their offices and learn more about them.

Media Activism #10

The last page of Ms. Magazine is a section called "No Comment" where readers send in advertisements that are offensive and degrading to women. This is an excellent form of media activism where the products, the advertisements, and the publications that run them are all called out and exposed for their bad taste. I love that it is called "No Comment", where the ad speaks for itself. Rather than get into an intellectual discussion about why it is insulting, it is saying, this isn't even worth discussing. The important thing is to be aware that these ads are out there, more than you may think, and it is important not to forget that.

Even if you don't subscribe to Ms. Magazine, you should pick it up at the newsstand just to see this last page.

The ad above says "THE LONGER YOU WAIT...THE BETTER IT GETS." The ad to the right says: "CHANGE YOUR PERSPECTIVE - VIEW THE OPPORTUNITY." Click on ads to see details.

Media Activism #9

I suppose the theme to these past few weeks has been about mothers and daughters, This week I participated in a project called Story Corps with my mother and interviewed her in a “StoryBooth” for forty minutes. StoryCorps is a nationwide project aimed at recording American lives through sound. For only ten dollars (more if you’re feeling generous), you can invite someone to interview and have access to broadcast quality sound equipment in a sound booth located at Grand Central Station. You receive a copy of the CD and it goes into the archives of the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress.

It was really a wonderful opportunity to sit down with my mom and ask her things about her life that wouldn’t normally come up in casual conversation. I’m getting married next year, so I decided to ask her questions mainly about her married life. She was married to my father for 33 years before he passed away and I always felt very fortunate to have them as my role models for a successful marriage. It is hard not to be cynical these days with so many people getting divorced, so it is comforting to have grown up in a house with two parents who loved each other so much.

I feel like this project is a good example of media activism. Obviously with so many television channels, radio stations, films, and publications, much of our society is being recorded, but how much of that is truly documenting the lives of everyday Americans? This is a chance to record the normal lives of people who are dealing with all kinds of issues that may seem highly personal and specific, but are very revealing about the world we live in. On the website are excerpts from interviews that you can listen to. It is amazing how a minute or two of the interview sheds so much light on people’s lives and can touch on many themes that are universal. I highly recommend inviting someone you know for an interview. It feels really great to participate in this important project and you get to take home a wonderful keepsake.

Media Activism #8

I attended a screening of a new documentary called Troop 1500: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars about a special program within the Girl Scouts of America that works with daughters of incarcerated women. The purpose of the program is to encourage the daughters to know their mothers and forge bonds now, so that they have a strong foundation to build on when the mothers are released. The philosophy behind the program is based on the strong bond between mothers and daughters that lasts a lifetime, and without childhood memories of times spent together, it becomes difficult to relate and feel that love later in life.

Part of the program involves the daughters bringing video cameras into the prisons to interview their moms. This way they have a chance to create memories and record them to reflect on and watch when they are apart. The documentary includes these interviews between mother and daughter and shows both the touching and heartfelt sentiments that are exchanged as well as the awkward moments between these young girls and their disfunctional mothers.

The documentary is well done as it follows enough mothers and daughters during a long enough period to show a wide array of experiences, so as not to simplify the program or the issues in general. Seeing these women with their daughters, we are able to see their sensitive sides, where they are on their best behavior and regretting all of their bad decisions that put them in prison to begin with. With more time, you are able to recognize the women who are still incredibly self destructive and disfunctional, from the women who may have made some bad decisions, but who are more likely to be rehabilitated. You understand why this program is controversial, because it is difficult to watch these young girls confronted with their unstable mothers. The troop leader who runs the program is really wonderful at standing by these young girls to make sure they have the support to deal with the aftermath of the highly emotionally charged visits.

The film doesn't try to answer questions and does not get political, but it does have strong messages. It is important to really understand the consequences and implications of incarcerating women and splitting up families. To see the effects on the children, it makes it apparent that we could use a lot more mental health environments and rehabilitation centers than prisons.

Media Activism #7

I attended an event last Tuesday at the Riverside Church in Harlem on the subject of sex education in schools (see here). What caught my eye the most about this event was that Shelby Knox and former Surgeon General Dr. Jocelyn Elders would be speaking. That was enough for me to jot it in my calendar. It didn’t occur to me that this event had anything to do with the church. I pictured in my mind a meeting room somewhere inside the church, probably in the basement. Upon arrival, I was really surprised to see that this was an official and well-attended convocation, taking place in the actual church with the backdrop of the dramatic gothic architecture and beautifully ornate details. It was stunning.

It was really very interesting to see Ministers and Rabbis together with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and the Director of Family Planning Advocates all in the same room, speaking on the same issues, and agreeing! I wasn’t familiar with the Riverside Church and I have since found out that they are interdenominational and known as a center for lively political discussion and for the promotion of social justice.

It was so refreshing and encouraging to hear the Minister introduce the CEO of Planned Parenthood with such admiration and respect, making it very clear that he was pro-choice and believed in family planning, using contraception, and comprehensive sex education. I am a little embarrassed to say, but I wasn’t aware that these two worlds could really come together like this. I suppose I am a victim of the media and political influence that makes us believe that Americans are much more polarized than we really are. Everything has to be so black or white and this was definitely a group of gray. We prayed (well, some people prayed), they sang, they quoted the bible, and spoke about God and abortion in the same speeches. It was fascinating and powerful. I hope that these Ministers and Rabbis tour nationwide to speak to churches in other states to let people know that one doesn’t have to sacrifice their religious faith in order to believe in protecting the health of teenagers.

Media Activism #6

In chapter four of Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning (Pearson Education, Inc, 2005) the issue of sexism in women's sports is discussed. The case study is about the Women's World Cup soccer game in 1999 when U.S. team member, Brandi Chastain, threw off her shirt in celebration after scoring the winning goal. The newspapers went crazy with the coverage of the player in a black sports bra swinging her shirt above her head. The question is: was the media sexist in their coverage of this story, considering the real news was that the U.S. team had just beaten their biggest competitor in the highest-attended women's sporting event ever?

The case study gives two contrasting opinions by Skip Bayless, Chicago Tribune sports columnist and Bonnie Erbe, host of the PBS program, To The Contrary. Surprisingly, Skip Bayless takes the position that men should respect these women as athletes and spend more time "cheering than leering", while Bonnie Erbe argues that women shouldn't be upset about the emphasis on sex appeal, "because it may be one of the key factors in finding advertising and financial support for a professional women's soccer league."

I only know Bonnie Erbe from watching To The Contrary on television and I think it's a fantastic program. She moderates a roundtable discussion of women from different political backgrounds and covers all kinds of current events. She is a great host who keeps the conversation on track, gives her panelists equal time to speak, and remains very calm and professional. She invites women who can clearly articulate their viewpoints in an intelligent way, successfully representing different sides of an issue.

I was really disappointed to read her comments on the Women's World Cup. First of all, in her introduction she states, "I don't pretend to speak for feminists, never having embraced that or any other mantel myself (labels make me nervous)." I am always wary of women who feel the need to place the "I'm not really a feminist" disclaimer before offering their viewpoint. What is it about the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes that they don't you agree with? It drives me crazy hearing women who are afraid of embracing this "label," but I will save that for a future posting. She argues that it may take sex appeal to lure men to the women's sporting events, but once there, they "cannot help but be impressed by the prowess of these same women as world class athletes." The problem I see with this argument is that when the recruitment and selection of women athletes becomes a beauty pageant, where they are not just highlighted by their sex appeal, but judged more heavily on their physical appearance and marketability than their skill, will their prowess be as impressive? I can see the headline now, "All Star Women's Soccer Champ Doesn't Make Team USA After FHM Magazine Claims She Doesn't Make the Cut." Once you blur the lines between the added benefit of corporate sponsorship based on sex appeal and the financial dependability on sponsorship based on sex appeal, there is no limit to how strongly physical appearance will play a role in the sport.

It would be a shame to have the prettiest team in the world never make it to the finals because they lost to the Chinese world class athletes in the first round.

I did some research on Bonnie Erbe and found some other points of hers with which I disagree. In her To The Contrary blog, she writes, "I'm all for breast-feeding. But breast-feeding in public? Call me a luddite. It makes me queasy. Please, go for it. But in the privacy of your home, a public bathroom, or perhaps even your van." Now, I don't have children, but from what I understand, breastfeeding babies eat eight to 12 times a day (or more) for up to 15 to 20 minutes a session. (source: FamilyDoctor.org). Telling a breastfeeding mother to stand in a public bathroom or hide in a van for this length of time because the sight of a baby attached to a nipple makes you queasy, seems like a pretty selfish and ignorant thing to say. As my mom would put it, "sounds like a personal problem to me." The facts supporting breastfeeding outweigh these unnatural, sexist, and distorted views people have of the act. So the next time you see a woman breastfeeding, Ms. Erbe, how about you go hide out in the public bathroom until she is done providing sustenance to her baby. I'm sure it's very comfortable in there; otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it, right?

Media Activism #5

This week Thaler Pekar came to our class to speak further about framing the debate. She spoke about the importance of using positive language to frame messages in order not to stimulate negative imagery. Hot button terms instantly conjure up a slew of feelings, memories, stereotypes, and ideas, therefore talking about what you are not going to do, and what you don'’t stand for, will still put your audience in that negative mindset and you will be working within the framework of your counterpart.

This reminds me of conversation I had with my father when I was a teenager. There was a plane crash and it was all over the news. I wondered if competing airlines use that opportunity to promote themselves and speak about their safety procedures and statistics and my father pointed out that other airlines stay quiet when this happens. Plane crashes hurt the entire industry, not just the particular airline. In the midst of all of the devastation and tragedy, any mention or imagery of an airplane will conjure up fear and negative response, no matter what. I don’t know if this is an actual communications strategy within the airline industry, but it made sense to me then, and it applies the logic described by Ms. Pekar.

Ms. Pekar also talked about communicating an idea based on an order of three levels: Values, Issues, and Policies. In order to frame the debate, you should introduce your message as it relates to values, like democracy, equality, opportunity, or education, to get people in the mindset where they are agreeing with you on a higher ground. Once we all agree, you can move from there to the issues, like women's rights, the environment, gay rights, etc. Once you have identified the issue, you can then begin to describe the policy you are supporting or promoting.


Ms. Pekar used a file-cabinet analogy to describe how each person has many files in their head containing positions, ideas, and opinions. In order to elicit a favorable response, you have to facilitate the listener in opening the appropriate drawer, locating the relevant file jacket and using the file folder you want them to use to make their decisions. If you start at the policy level, the listener could end up extracting from the wrong drawer, using the wrong file folder, and never seeing eye-to-eye with you. This explains why, for example, someone like a white supremacist who disagrees with your values of equality will not be able to even open that drawer in his or her head, and there would be no way to discuss policies, such as affirmative action or racial profiling.

The analogy also appropriately represents one’s position on a topic as a complex process of the consideration of a person’s overall values and the narrowing in of their individual opinions on each issue.

Not surprisingly, Thaler Paker was an excellent speaker and communicator. I am very interested in the work that she does. This lecture, as well as this Media Activism class in general, has really motivated me to learn more about the field of media consulting for progressive causes.

Media Activism #4

Loren Siegel’s “How to Work with Public Opinion Research” is a very useful guide. Siegel provides practical information for conducting research for a communications plan including key points to remember when conducting a survey or focus group, important characteristics to look for in a consultant, checklists for funders, and contact information for research firms, consulting firms, and other resources on the web.

The article provides case studies to give examples of strategies and key things to keep in mind when conducting a communications plan. A quote from this guide was very similar to George Lakoff’s argument that emotions outweigh the facts in people’s minds. Siegel writes, “Message development on a given issue, be it the death penalty, welfare reform, or the treatment of immigrants, will require more than marshalling facts, no matter how compelling they may be.” Like Lakoff, she also talks about reframing the debate.

Siegel emphasizes the importance of measuring ‘salience’ when conducting research. She writes, “Broad but passive support will not translate into action”. Using the case of decriminalizing marijuana use, she demonstrates that although there is only a slight difference between people who support and oppose decriminalization (41% to 51%), the people who oppose were much more adamant about their stance and therefore more willing to act on their position. This is a good lesson for polling and framing your questions for surveys to test salience.

The other interesting thing Siegle brought up in the article was to keep in mind whether or not your poll findings will be publicized. She says, “A competent reporter will want to know everything about the survey in order to make a judgment about whether or not it’s scientifically valid.” This is a very good point, however, in light of our discussions in class where we spoke about investigative reporting going down the tubes, I am sure that companies are not disclosing their full findings and reporters are not investigating. This contributes to statistics and polls being taken out of context in the news media and further resulting in the public's mistrust and constant skeptisism of seemingly factual information. Ideally, it is good practice to keep this in mind, allow your research methods to be transparent, and even encourage the reporters to see all of the information to emphasize the solid results of your study.

Media Activism #3

Reading George Lakoff's, Don't Think of an Elephant, was very exciting and inspiring. It answered questions that I have had in my head for a long time. I remember after seeing the documentary The Education of Shelby Knox and thinking, how did this high school girl from one of the most conservative towns in America with two republican parents turn out to be such a liberal? I viewed it as a testament to the liberal spirit that is present in some people despite their environment; a clear case of nature over nurture. Lakoff's description of the strict-father model made me look back at Shelby Knox and evaluate what her parents were really like. That's when I realized that even though Shelby's parents were Republicans, they were very much a dual parenting, nurturing mom and dad who truly respected their daughter's individuality and strong convictions. They nurtured her progressive and liberal values, even if they didn’t know it!


I also used a good friend of mine as a case study while reading the book. One of the only real Republican close friends I have in the city is one of the least likely. He is a struggling actor with no money who lives a very creative life surrounded by books, comics, music, and a big marijuana smoke cloud. I've always wondered why he is so conservative! I also knew that his father was a military man and worked for the government. I've never actually met his parents, but now I realize that he MUST have grown up in a strict-father modeled household. The idea of the world being dangerous, people being generally bad, the successful being deserving and the poor being lazy are definitely values I have heard him express. It all made so much sense!!

The one thing that Lakoff’s book doesn’t discuss is how someone who grew up with a strict-father family structure can get past that and see eye-to-eye with a progressive thinker. Basing everything on how we grew up during childhood does not leave me with a lot of hope.

We do have to work on framing the debate and not falling into the traps of using conservative language, which reinforces their ideas. I have always seen the value in choosing language carefully and this book, along with many other books I have read in the Media Studies program, have supported this idea.

After a conversation I had with my conservative friend about “supporting the troops” it became very clear to me that he didn’t support them at all. His viewpoint was that they signed the papers and if they didn’t think they’d ever get called to war, they were wrong. Tough luck, that’s what you get for signing your soul for college tuition. I couldn’t believe it. I told him that wasn’t very respectful of the troops and he shrugged his shoulders. So, I think that Liberals should claim the phrase “RESPECT THE TROOPS” and that means: be careful with their lives, protect them from unnecessary harm, supply them with the proper equipment, extend their benefits, and care for their families. Most of all, appreciate them for putting their lives in danger and volunteering to do a job so that others are not forced to. I show my support of the troops by respecting them.

Media Activism #2

I picked up a Ms. Magazine yesterday at Whole Foods and read an essay entitled “Jane Doe's Choice” by Lynda Zielinski. It was related to the issues from my previous posting, because again, this topic has been very much on my mind. Over the holidays I got in a heated debate with an older conservative man on the issue of parental consent for teenagers choosing abortion. His viewpoint was basically that the womb of a minor belongs to her parents. This man was a lawyer and he found ways to explain how this was completely constitutional and moral. He refused to accept the fact that young women will seek abortions no matter what, and if they can’t tell their parents, they will put their lives in danger.

The article by Zielinski was about her personal experience assisting women seeking permission from a judge to bypass the consent laws in over 30 states to obtain an abortion without notifying their parents. Judges decide if the minor is mature enough to make this decision – which already seems ironic, based on the fact that denying her permission could very well result in the immature minor becoming a mother. Zielinski explains how complicated the procedure is, observing that any woman who goes through all the steps necessary to stand before a judge has already shown a great amount of maturity. This is also disturbing to know that women who are unable to obtain consent from their parents and who lack the resourcefulness to figure out the judicial system of the bypass laws are more likely to have the unwanted baby. This means that the women who have no support from their parents and no guidance from informed adults will be the ones carrying a baby for nine months and figuring out their doctor’s appointments, nutritional needs and labor choices. How does this legislation make sense?

Media Activism #1

This past week has definitely carried a theme for me where it really felt as if everywhere I turned the same issue appeared. The topic was teen pregnancy and sex education. It began last week when the high school student [THIS PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN REMOVED AS IT CONTAINS PERSONAL INFORMATION NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ONLINE POSTING].

Feeling very frustrated and helpless, I decided that I had to get involved with an organization that is doing something about sex education in New York City. It blew my mind how little she knows about sex and health, especially since I had the impression that in New York City we don’t have the same conflicts that the rest of the country may have with the religious right insisting on preaching abstinence only in schools. I also decided that I am going to use this Media Activism class to figure out what else I can do.

I attended a panel at the New School last week called Promises I Can Keep: Poor Women, Motherhood and Marriage, sponsored by the Center for New York City Affairs. There was a very interesting presentation by Kathryn Edin, who is a sociology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of a book called Promises I can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. She conducted a very interesting study over two years looking into why poor women are more willing and ready to have a baby and less ready and willing to marry. Professor Edin’s findings showed that women are consciously choosing to stop using birth control after feeling that a relationship is becoming more serious. Not that they are fully planning a baby, but they are becoming less careful and “drifting into pregnancy”. The thing that resonated with me the most was a statement that she made regarding sex education. Her main finding was that women do not feel that their lives have much meaning beyond childbearing and don’t feel the opportunity costs of having a baby at a young age. She said we need less talk about ‘More Condoms’ and more talk about “More Meaning”. This made a lot of sense to me and has helped me widen my focus on the bigger picture issues and solutions, rather than simply more sex education in schools.

The same night as this panel, I attended a screening with my Documentary Film class of a documentary called Desire chronicling five years in the life of five teenage girls of various socio-economic levels and races in New Orleans. Through their lives, many of these same issues came up, including sex, sex education, abortion, STDs, hopes, dreams, and expectations of teenage girls. One quote from the film that resonated was a young African American teenager and mother of two said “Us as African Americans have struggled so hard, that we see every child as a blessing.” Which reiterated Professor Edin’s statement that the African American women involved with her study believed that abortion was a “white woman’s choice.”