Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Welcome to the Show
So... I was on NPR's Talk of the Nation today.
Nope, I wasn't working the show. I was on the show.
I was a guest... on Talk of the Nation.
HOLY CRAPCAKES, BATMAN!!!
I don't think I can understate how nervous I was. Little young thing, sitting in the studio with Neal Conan and Ron Elving, dudes who have been in the game for years. Not to mention, I was trying not to make any noises while the mics were on.
But, nerves aside, it was pretty friggin' cool. I talked about the last piece I wrote for TheRoot.com. And my cute Puerto Rican friend who works on the show gave me a thumbs up -- two actually -- when I was finished. So I was good.
But hey, stop watching me yammer about it and just go listen... here.
And just for the record... this TOTALLY made my day. :o)
Labels: broadcasting, diversity, political coverage
continue...Thursday, May 01, 2008
Do It Big, then
I was searching through the newsletter for the Chips Quinn Scholars program (of which, I'm an alumna) and look who I found:This guy.
He may have told me before, but I have a horrible memory.
So, anyway, congrats to Aaron and the rest of the Chipster class of 2008!
And he shouted out the blog in his biography. Gotta love him.
Labels: diversity, fun, inspiration, journalism, seminars/workshops
continue...Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A Rainbow of Talking Heads
If the New York Times is reporting it, then it isn't just my imagination -- networks have been pulling in a noticeably more diverse crop of commentators this past year.The Times suggests the Techicolor shift could be attributed to the presidential race, what with its black and female candidates and their courting of the Latino vote.
Whatever the reason is, here's one newswatcher that's thrilled about it. For the first time, I've been able to look at the television and listen to people who are saying exactly what's in my head. It's a welcome change from becoming frustrated at so-called "experts" who, really, in most cases, have no idea what they're talking about -- especially when it comes to issues of gender and race.(I remember last year when several networks had all-white, all-middle-aged panels talking about Don Imus' comments and the implications of hip hop. Maddening.)
My personal favorite in all this: Roland Martin. Hits the nail on the head every time. And leaves everyone else without a leg to stand on in the process.
Some say the diversity isn't enough, that TV needs more, and you know, that is true. As Aaron mentioned a few posts ago, there's still a noticeable dearth of color in terms of actual reporters and journalists on the ground. But I am glad at where this is all starting. Let's just hope it continues well past the November election.
Labels: broadcasting, diversity, election, the industry
continue...Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Is it just me, or is anyone else uncomfortable?
Ever been somewhere covering something and you are the only one there of your race, age, gender or sexual orientation?I have. And I have several journalist friends that have too. Most recently, a good Vietnamese friend of mine covered an event where a group of white people dressed up as geishas and talked in Asian accents for a community theatre performance. They assumed that because she looked Asian that she would automatically be offended. But that's missing the point. They billed this event as Asian-themed. Geishas are Japanese. And there were some other cultural nuances in the show that had origins in specific ethnicities.
She wrote a column about that experience. Here's a snippet:
Read her full column, here.As the actors piled out of the dressing room, one cast member stopped me. Aside from the caterer, I was the only ethnically Asian person there.
She warned me that she would be speaking in an accent and assured me that it was not intended to be offensive. She was just playing a role. The jokes I would hear were also meant to be harmless.
I am Vietnamese, but to most people I am simply Asian. That label, in a sense, reduces me to whatever people think of as Asian. It omits the nuances of my history, my culture and my identity. It makes me a thing, in a sense, not a person.
My question is: in what way would you have conducted yourself if you were faced with the same dilemma?
Labels: diversity, race issues, respect-just a little bit-yeah baby
continue...Friday, January 18, 2008
I Wonder...
A question for all you fellow journos.How many other people review your work before it's published or put on air?
Do you have an editor, a copy editor and a section editor?
Or is it a line producer, followed by a supervising producer?
Here at the wire, it's a deputy editor, followed by the national editor. And that's for every piece of copy that's put out on the wire -- as many as ten stories in an hour.
So humor me this... how many people do you think saw this...
...before it went to press?
Apparently no one who in the offices of GolfWeek saw a problem before the issue hit newsstands. But now? Well, now that folks are crying foul, GolfWeek is doubling back -- issuing an apology, removing the graphic from its site and reportedly firing the editor at the helm.
But clearly, Dave Seanor wasn't the only person to have seen cover before it went to print. Has anyone talked to the cover artist? The guy in charge of the cover artist? The guy in charge of the guy in charge of the cover artist?
No one saw an issue here?
No one said, "Umm, dude... this is a noose"?
*sigh*
I'm just wondering.
Labels: controversy, dismay, diversity, lessons, musings, the industry
continue...Monday, December 03, 2007
A Lesson in Journalism ... from an Athlete
It's been one of those days where it's easy to forget that you're a journalist, and just as easy to be irritated with your industry. No, scratch that, this whole week has been that way.Today was the funeral of Sean Taylor, aired live on several local stations. I watched as his family, his teammates, his longtime girlfriend fought to get through the three-and-a-half hour service without breaking down. Some were successful. But most weren't.
Tears stung my eyes, while some spilled onto the cheeks of a coworker. It was hard. It was heartbreaking. A supervisor said she wasn't watching specifically because she didn't want to end up sobbing at her desk. And I wanted to turn away myself at times.
But what was keeping me glued in? The fact that for once, in this terrible, terrible week, Sean Taylor was being remembered for what he truly was, by people who truly knew him. Not being analyzed by desk-dwelling anchors. Not being examined by columnists who didn't know him personally. And not being dragged into the tired news narrative that implies everytime a young black man dies, it must have been because of the nature of his "thug" lifestyle.
Luckily, for Sean, his family and his memory, I wasn't the only one choked with frustration. With a bit of a swarm of media people at the service, those who had the opportunity took the chance to bite back at everyone who "reported" on Sean's "thug lifestyle" throughout the week.
Otis Wallace, the mayor of Florida City summed up the sentiment -- saying the media should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions merely on speculation. And he added that he hopes "the media gets a small lesson in grace and humility" from it all.
At my desk, I nodded in agreement and said a quiet "thank you." And an arena-full of mourners stood to applaud, loudly.
But I couldn't help but wonder -- how many times will that quote show up in tomorrow's papers? Will journalists be willing to examine themselves, just as critically as they examined Sean?
I did a Google search. The Washington Post's Jason La Canfora is the only one so far to do so, in his Redskins Insider blog.
I hope it won't stay that way.
When Sean was first wounded, journalists found it necessary report legal woes from years ago, stemming from an incident where he allegedly brandished a gun while trying to keep men from stealing his property. Some, in Sean's death, found it necessary to recount the times he got in trouble on the field. Their implication -- that Sean fell to a lifestyle that, as his loved ones say, he actually wasn't involved in.
So will those same journalists feel the need to report on the open criticism of their work (used loosely) at Sean's service? Will they note that Wallace's words, and the same sentiment from other speakers, drew the some loudest, most earnest applause?
I hope so. We're supposed to report the full story, right?
Labels: 24-hour news cycle, broadcasting, diversity, frustration, industry analysis, journalism, prejudice, sports, the industry
continue...Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Our Future Newsroom Leaders Revealing Their True Feelings...
In the Thursday, May 17, 2007 issue of the Golden Gate [X]press the editorial staff conducted an audit of the diversity of the main subjects in published photographs. With the results of the audit, the editorial staff ran an editorialized analysis and the incoming editor-in-chief ran an analysis of his own. His ideas have caused a bit a concern inside and outside of the newsroom community at the [X]press. Just below is the incoming editor's entire article as it ran in issue 16 of the [X]press.Please read it and let Ten95 know if you agree or disagree with Maher's take on diversity.
Note: The following article was run in the [X]press without the consent of Ian Thomas, the out-going editor-in-chief. Thomas has openly expressed his own outrage to the article's content and to the fact that he was left out of the loop.
Discussions of diversity always make me squeamish, chiefly because the discussion is usually based on presumptions that fundamentally reinforce the bigotry such conversations are meant to combat. The [X]press staff addressed in this issue a proportional discord between the recorded ethnic makeup of the campus population and the perceived ethnicity of individuals in published [X]press photography. The article begins by stating our paper’s goal to represent the multi-cultural population that makes our school “what it is,” and goes on without transition to explain how we’ve tested thatrepresentation by auditing our photography. The auditing process seems to be no more sophisticated than looking at people in the photos and concluding, "That's a black guy; that's a Chinese girl," and so on. I appreciate this is not an exact science. Diversity of coverage is a tricky thing to quantify, largely because there is so much disagreement on its definition. And our auditors must tread cautiously, carefully navigating the incredibly provocative waters diversity issues often churn. My heart goes out to them for the enormity complexity of their task, and I admire their devotion to the idea that diversity is so important. But setting aside even the absurd conclusion that skin color and bone structure are the defining elements of one's cultural identity (remember, at the moment we were targeting the importance of representing cultures, not races), I'm astonished we're accepting this particular definition of diversity with so little scrutiny. After all, I've always struggled to maintain belief in the idea that what defines us as people are our thoughts, our feelings, and our actions. What makes a community meaningfully diverse is a wealth of individual beliefs, perspectives and behavior, not a bunch of different-looking faces. When we define diversity primarily in terms of what people look like, we give credence to the idea that a person is defined by those appearances. We accept and assume that societal forces are beyond each individual's control to absorb and react to in his or her own fashion, and in so doing we demean and discourage individuality and help create the stereotypes we intend to dispel. Skin color and gender are often important in determining the experiences that shape our believes and the way we behave around others, yes, and this does often result in groups of people with comparable ideology and behavior who look similar to each other. To that extent, I agree that our paper this semester has left room for improvement in portraying the true diversity of our community, and I pledge to work towards correcting that in the coming months. At the same time, I must make clear that my first priority will always be to promote a diversity defined by ideas and perspectives, above and beyond the aesthetic differences that have for so long afflicted our efforts to join together. Like everybody else, I’m only one person, and have only the benefit of one personal perspective. Our team next semester will work diligently and passionately towards providing as inclusive and accurate a portrayal of our community as possible, but we will need help. I strongly encourage our readers to speak up, and less us know when we are missing out on important perspectives and angles. The true power of the press lies in its close communication with the people. With an engaged and scrutinous audience, I am confident we can build a newspaper of true diversity and integrity.
For further analysis of this article:
Double Consciousness (DC) co-founder and blogger Jack Stephens, who was a staff photographer for the Golden Gate [X]press this spring, breaks down the editorial written by Maher. Christine Joy Ferrer, a contributing blogger to DC and a reporter for the [X]press, also gives her own analysis of Maher's article.
Labels: diversity, student press
continue...