Andrew on women and positions of authority

Good idea, Jessica! I'll follow suit, since it's still gross outside ... boo!

As our group's lone representative of the male population, I feel obliged to address the relationship between gender and leadership roles, a topic Amanda discussed thoroughly. Yes, it is unfair to think a woman couldn't do as good a job as a man in this business. I think it's a little ridiculous for any person -- male or female -- to suggest a man is inherently more adapt at handling office-related matters or leading a section in the direction management wishes.

People (notice I didn't specify gender) are shaped through their respective backgrounds, be it cultural or socioeconomic differences. In a perfect world, one's value as a professional, and more importantly, as an honorable human being, would dictate their rise up the corporate ladder. Past work would trump extraneous differences; character would tower over all.

However, as we are all aware, we don't live in a perfect world. By anyone's account, we experience/witness injustices daily. A select few are given 'breaks' in the workforce, while the rest of us scrounge to make ends meet. People are spoonfed opportunity; some have it easier than others. Gender discrimination is only a sample of the obstacles women may potentially face during their professional lives. But by no means is it the one and only. And by no means are they alone.

I found the quote below to be interesting. This comes from Kaylin's article, and it addresses a potential explanation for why women prefer to work for men:

But perhaps older women are less than kind to young women with ambition, a backbone and (heaven forbid) good looks. Maybe they resent young whippersnappers who don't want to pay their dues in the same way that older women had to.

Doesn't this happen anyway? Don't men treat 'boys' in the same manner? Aren't pups given the 'pay your dues' treatment by their editors or producers, no matter the gender of everyone involved?

I think it's faulty logic to assume women in management are more catty than men in the same position. Generally speaking, people who have risen that high are there for a reason. They're competitive, smart, driven, ambitious. They will do anything and everything to stay there. They will pull no punches.

This goes for both men and women. Perhaps, in the eyes of some, men fit the 'stereotype' of 'ruthless success' more appropriately. Is this a dangerous way of looking at things, especially for young female professionals? Perhaps. It is wrong? Not exactly, since everyone is entitled to their opinion.

This quote, also from Kaylins' article, echoes the point above:

The traits that people associate with leadership tend to be stereotypically masculine ones like toughness and decisiveness. Women, on the other hand, are expected to be gentle, kind and deferential.

Therefore, most likely, we will all experience some sort of injustice. Women may experience more obstacles along the path to success, but young male professionals will, also. This is how development works. This is how a business functions. Things won't change anytime soon.

links to husband's suicide

the article that appeared in the philadelphia inquirer
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/15010742.htm


the PDF of the 14 page email
http://therealestate.observer.com/Bartha.pdf

Andrew's post on religion coverage

Vinti made a great point during class. She said journalists are uncomfortable discussing/covering religion, because the subject of faith doesn’t lend itself to the concrete and ‘objective’ nature of journalism.

Journalists thrive on the will to understand; they embrace topics that have definite conflicts and/or resolutions. And obviously, religion isn’t a cut-and-dry matter that lends itself to easy answers. Journalists like simplicity. They like consistency. They like knowing, at the end of the day, their stories will have some semblance of structure, some reflection of fact.

However, religion isn’t based on absolute truths. It never will be. Its “touchy subject” mantra prevents it from being this way. For journalists, religion will never be as accessible to cover as, say, a town hall meeting or a political rally, because such events have indisputable, basic elements that are necessary to craft a story. Emotion isn’t involved in either case; personal beliefs aren’t put under the spotlight.

Therefore, most of the time, journalists take the easy way out. Religion becomes most prominent in the news when it’s tied to pop culture. The Da Vinci Code and “Passion of the Christ” gave the media an excuse to address religion in a secular way. But even then, most outlets chose to avoid potential “controversy” by sticking to the boundaries of pop culture. The media, generally speaking, didn’t delve into a scholarly debate about the Bible. They strayed from any discussion that the religious right might have deemed “offensive.”

It’s obvious journalists don’t cover religion the way they should, because they are uncomfortable doing so. Religion isn’t accessible to mainstream journalism, because religion’s potential for controversy is a turnoff to most editors and producers who don’t want to risk losing audiences or advertising dollars. They’re afraid of offending someone. Therefore, in the end, the “touchy subject” tag given to religion prevents the very coverage of it. Only if religion is tied to pop culture somehow, therefore making it more secular, will journalists begin to pay attention. j

Andrew on sexual orientation in the news

The question that caught my attention during class today was whether 'announcing' a person's sexual orientation is relevant to a story. As Mike alluded to, there are a variety of factors that can complicate this issue, chief among those being the question of sensitivity.

Where do we draw the line? What if a source wants their sexual orientation to become part of the story? Do we cater to their desires? Do we ignore such desires? How do we, as journalists, balance fairness with the 'shock factor' stories about non-traditional sexual orientation inherently contain?

I think it can be damaging to the industry if journalists become mouthpieces for gay and lesbian groups. Sure, we should handle these issues with care. We should be sensitive. We should be humane. But a person's sexual orientation should only be mentioned in a story, if and only if, society benefits from such defined attention. (I.e. The horrors of the Matthew Shephard story.)

The Web site we discussed in class today made an interesting point. It said journalists should make include a person's sexual orientation only if it's relevant to a story. "Relevancy", in my opinion, is a cut-and-dry issue. There should be no room for risking a PC foul, if you will. Most journalists have a dearth of knowledge about gay and lesbian relations to begin with. Therefore, if it's absolutely necessary to discuss the topic of sexual orientation in a story, I think it's imperative for a journalist to investigate the PC boundaries of reporting on such an issue. Otherwise, a reporter risks offending an entire population.

There seems to be parallels between the current state of gay and lesbian affairs and the early days of the Civil Rights Movement. Once more education -- and subsequently, understanding -- is gained about the topic, maybe journalists can move toward eliminating the 'shock factor' of reporting on gay and lesbian relations in America. Then, and only then, gay and lesbian individuals will begin to be viewed as peers rather than society's spectacle.

Andrew on target audiences

Wow, Amanda! You covered a lot in that short amount of time. I'm going to touch on one of your points in particular ...

I agree with you about the detriments of the strategy behind "tailoring" a news broadcast to fit an audience that might keep watching an Oprah-like production. Personally, I think this practice tacky. And if we were to look at this from a purely 'idealistic' perspective, we would begin to question the motives of producers, editorial directors, etc.

However, and we should all be aware of this by now, journalism isn't about idealism. It's about competition. It's a business. There are bottom-line winners and losers. There are decisions made. And at the end of the day, money, and money alone, drives enterprise. Those who have it win. Those who don't lose. If said strategy serves the public interest in the process, then that's an additional, but mutually exclusive, perk.

Therefore, I can't fault stations for doing "dovetail" stories about a topic discussed on Oprah, CSI, etc. I think it's a good marketing ploy. ("We're looking out for you!") It's a way to appeal to niche advertisers. It's a way to boost ratings and popularity. It's a way to win the battle for viewers, the battle for survival.

Is this necissarily a bad thing? Of course not. Until viewers change their habits or stop responding to such things, producers won't change content. Consumers dictate the direction of a station -- if that station is smart about its business practices.

But I DO think it's dangerous if a station directs its entire contect toward a niche audience in this way. There is something to be said for diversity in content. And I think a nightly broadcast is the proper place for a discussion about a variety of issues. Content should inform as well as satisfy. Content should attempt to serve some capacity of the "idealism" inherent in all forms of journalism: to serve the public. If stations don't balance "cookie-cutter news" with a healthy dose of "intellectual broccoli", then they aren't serving society's best interest -- no matter what the ratings numbers say.