swan_tower (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
swan_tower) wrote2007-06-21 02:04 pm
swan_tower) wrote2007-06-21 02:04 pm
stopping hate
I wish my motivation for a non-writing-related post were more cheerful.
Came across two things today. The more recent is this post about a murder that took place not too far from where I live. A couple of guys spent literally hours beating a man to death, dragging him out into the middle of nowhere, leaving him to die, then coming back to find and shoot him, and so far their defense for this has been "he was gay." Which he wasn't. But his actual orientation is in a sense irrelevant; what's relevant is that it's being claimed as a justification, that Indiana has not passed any anti-hate-crime legislation, and that this story has been buried. Almost nobody reported on it when it happened. Not nationally; not locally. Just a couple of smaller, more independent papers. But when a ten-year-old girl was killed, it made news everywhere.
Turning to gender, I'm sure many of you read Joss Whedon's . . . I don't want to call it a rant, or a diatribe, because those words invite you to dismiss his words as undirected anger. Nor was it a manifesto, per say. His post -- a bland word -- about Dua Khalil, a young Iraqi woman who was beaten to death in a so-called "honor killing," and about how spectators stood around and filmed her death on their cellphones, doing nothing to try and stop it. (Those videos are online. I have not gone looking for them. I'm sure you can find them if you try.) Skyla Dawn Cameron and others are putting together a charity anthology of essays, short stories, poetry, artwork -- anything relevant to the issues Whedon raised, regarding misogyny and violence against women. I don't think they've specified yet which charity the proceeds will go to, but it's not for profit.
I figure both of these are issues near and dear to the hearts of some of my readership here. Both links contain information on how you can take action. If you're an Indiana resident, you can particularly help out with the Hall case. Either way, I hope these efforts can do at least a little bit of good.
Came across two things today. The more recent is this post about a murder that took place not too far from where I live. A couple of guys spent literally hours beating a man to death, dragging him out into the middle of nowhere, leaving him to die, then coming back to find and shoot him, and so far their defense for this has been "he was gay." Which he wasn't. But his actual orientation is in a sense irrelevant; what's relevant is that it's being claimed as a justification, that Indiana has not passed any anti-hate-crime legislation, and that this story has been buried. Almost nobody reported on it when it happened. Not nationally; not locally. Just a couple of smaller, more independent papers. But when a ten-year-old girl was killed, it made news everywhere.
Turning to gender, I'm sure many of you read Joss Whedon's . . . I don't want to call it a rant, or a diatribe, because those words invite you to dismiss his words as undirected anger. Nor was it a manifesto, per say. His post -- a bland word -- about Dua Khalil, a young Iraqi woman who was beaten to death in a so-called "honor killing," and about how spectators stood around and filmed her death on their cellphones, doing nothing to try and stop it. (Those videos are online. I have not gone looking for them. I'm sure you can find them if you try.) Skyla Dawn Cameron and others are putting together a charity anthology of essays, short stories, poetry, artwork -- anything relevant to the issues Whedon raised, regarding misogyny and violence against women. I don't think they've specified yet which charity the proceeds will go to, but it's not for profit.
I figure both of these are issues near and dear to the hearts of some of my readership here. Both links contain information on how you can take action. If you're an Indiana resident, you can particularly help out with the Hall case. Either way, I hope these efforts can do at least a little bit of good.
no subject
That's a more acceptable, reasonable and rationed argument than most I've heard for anti-hate-crime legislation. I have more problems with it than the one's I've listed above (exactly who is supposed to receive the protection, what real effect it's supposed to have on hate crime, the frequency of individuals who support it not being in support of stronger anti-terrorism laws), but that is a sufficiently effective reasoning that I can see the purpose in bringing up the topic of such legislation in this context. Zomg Eric concedes point ^.~
The media point...well...newspapers don't have good cause to care that folks are offended, particularly when it's not their main readers. Your last point is spot-on in a lot of ways. It doesn't hurt the odds of the HT staying afloat if someone who isn't a subscriber or really even in their main target audience is ticked. Most college and grad students...as well as a good number of the more liberal folks in town (those who would be the absolute most offended by media blackout)...aren't really of importance to them. Those people either seek alternate media sources, use teh intrawebs or do something else that is not paying a paperboy. More importantly, because of this lack of subscriptions, the HT has to look at what this will do for its advertising; the largest source of its wealth. It could lose sponsors publishing an even slightly inaccurate or biased story for any variety of reasons. Churches are not uncommon advertisers with them, for example (so are Masons for that matter). If you've heard of this, it's likely that you look at alternative media a lot...which probably means you don't have a ton of interest in the HT...which means it's not really worth it to them to tick off their regulars (or advertisers) for you. While some kind folks might respond to better coverage by supporting the paper with monies, most won't. They like their internet news and alternative sources. But newspapers just can't afford to try to cater to those people over thier regulars. Activism doesn't help nearly as much as dollars do. This isn't meant at all as a personal criticism or anything...I just tend to rush to the defense of the media because it's often much more helpless to solve some of its problems than people believe.
I am a bit surprised that bigger papers like the Star or even the Tribune haven't picked up on this though. I guess the Tribune is a bit far away and the Star...well it does just blow.
no subject
It's hardly the only factor contributing to the problem, but it is a factor. And it's also worth spreading this information so that people who are subscribers hear about it, 'cause I bet some of them would be upset, too. My understanding is that the subscriber/non-subscriber divide runs more along age lines than any other factor like political orientation or race: they've failed signally to recruit a new generation of readers.
(I hear you about them being helpless; several of the online sources I read are actually maintained by people whose day jobs involve working for newspapers, which is where I get my understanding about the pervasive problems they face.)
There's only one thing I'd argue with:
It could lose sponsors publishing an even slightly inaccurate or biased story for any variety of reasons.
Inaccurate and biased stories happen all the time. The thing that will lose them sponsors is being inaccurate and biased in a way that offends the sponsors -- which is why depending so heavily on, say, advertising dollars from churches can really limit them. If their revenue base was broader and more diverse, offending any one group wouldn't hurt them as badly. But I say that "if" in the recognition that they're hardly doing this on purpose; they'd love to have a broader and more diverse base, if only they could manage it.
no subject