Portrayal of Generation Y in the Media

Today we talked about what it means to be a member of the Millennials or "Generation Y". Dr. Hill pointed out that often, when there is a decline in a behavior among younger generations like newspaper-reading, journalists or lazy scholars will point to some intellectual or moral degradation among young people. In fact, this has probably been said about every generation before us "since people wrote things down" (to quote Mr. Wildridge) and instead usually just means that the young generation has changed in some unforseen way -- like turning to the internet or Jon Stewart for their news instead of Broadcast or print media.

This got me thinking about what other things people might get wrong about our generation. How is "Generation Y" portrayed in the media? Often, it's not positive. Here in an article called "The Entrepreneurial Generation", William Deresiewicz describes us as post-emotional and enterprising. In a tough economic climate, we've adapted to be able to sell ourselves -- and that means being nice, polite, and charmingly self-deprecating.

"...If they think you’re criticizing them, they won’t want to buy what you’re selling.That kind of thinking is precisely what I’m talking about, what lies behind the bland, inoffensive, smile-and-a-shoeshine personality — the stay-positive, other-directed, I’ll-be-whoever-you-want-me-to-be personality — that everybody has today.... They say that people in Hollywood are always nice to everyone they meet, in that famously fake Hollywood way, because they’re never certain whom they might be dealing with — it could be somebody who’s more important than they realize, or at least, somebody who might become important down the road. Well, we’re all in showbiz now, walking on eggshells, relentlessly tending our customer base..."

Does our generation feel like that to you?

Todd and Victoria Buccholz describe people our age as "sedentary and risk-averse" in their article, "The Go-NoWhere Generation". "Perhaps young people are too happy at home checking Facebook," instead of getting drivers incenses or jobs the authors offer. Because of the difficult times we've faced in our more formative years, we've become a "why bother" generation. Unfortunately, the authors offer an old school solution: they prescribe a road trip and some Springsteen tunes. While this would definitely rejuvenate me to get back on track and remind me to take more risks in life,, this doesn't seem like a solution for many people.

Some favorites of mine include Zadie Smith's " Generation Why" and Mark Greif's "What Was the Hipster?"

They are longer, but certainly worth the read. Though I don't agree with everything these authors are saying, at least they spend a longer time attempting to map out this complex generation. To borrow words from Edward Said, surely a great deal of "demagogy and downright ignorance" is involved in presuming to speak for a whole generation of peoples.

Do you know of recent examples of someone trying to characterize our generation in the broadcast media? What do you think of journalists negative portrayal of us? Are we all the things they say we are?

Satire in the NYTimes

Many of us in class adore The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. I'm sure we've all read an Onion fake news article recently and perhaps have even chuckled at the occasional New Yorker comic strip. What all of these have in common is a shared platform of comedy. We know to expect comedy from each of these sources. That is why I find it particularly delightful and surprising when the Opinion section of the New York Times gets a little sassy.

This week, the NYTimes writer David Javerbaum wrote a piece called "A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney", which expertly and cheekily deconstructs Romney's strange web of policy and declares him the first "quantum politician".

Alluding to the "Etch A Sketch" gaffe made by Romney's campaign adviser, Javerbaum comforts Mr. Fehrnstorm by assuring him that, the "impulse to analogize is understandable. Metaphors like these, inexact as they are, are the only way the layman can begin to grasp the strange phantom world that underpins the very fabric of not only the Romney campaign but also of Mitt Romney in general."

Javerbaum explains : "Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force — the Tea Party, say, or a six-figure credit line at Tiffany — compels him to alter his stance, at a speed commensurate with the size of the force (usually large) and in inverse proportion to the depth of his beliefs (invariably negligible). This alteration, framed as a positive by the candidate, then provokes an equal but opposite reaction among his rivals. But the Romney candidacy represents literally a quantum leap forward. It is governed by rules that are bizarre and appear to go against everyday experience and common sense."

He then describes how Romney fits into the quantum theory rules of probability, complementarity, entanglement, noncausality, duality, and my favorite, uncertainty ("...frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle...").

Is this cynical? A little. But every good comic knows that things are only ever funny when truth is present.

Do you know of other surprising examples of satire in serious periodicals like the New York Times? Please share!

We Need Blood

Chapter 27 of Doris A. Graber’s book “Media Power In Politics”  discusses Sean Aday’s article “The Real War Will Never Get On Television: An Analysis Of Casualty Imagery”. Aday’s article concerns a simple dilemma, the media will never portray war as it truly is: an “awful” endeavor. The concern is with the medias’ refusal to depict the gruesome carnage that is the result of war. What I want to focus on during the remainder of this article is addressing a claim found in Aday’s article by Walt Whiteman, “The real war will never get in the books.” A question that arouse to me after reviewing this article is: Should the media reveal the graphic nature of war, for the purposes of reporting the full implications of war as observed by the reporters? What I have determined to be my response to this question is: Yes, the media should in fact expose the graphic nature of war so as to adequately inform the public of what the “real war” is like. I believe that that the exposure to this graphic content a necessary to fulfilling the media’s role in a democracy of informing the public of what the “real war” is; so that we may understand the full implications of war in the future consideration in military involvement. If we exposed to war as it really is we may better understand what war is and may aid us in refraining from military action unless determined to be absolutely necessary. It is therefore that I have determined that this graphic content as absolutely essential information in the evaluation of whether or not military action is appropriate. Seeing that this information is essential to the objectivity of war coverage the media does have an obligation to expose us to the graphic nature of war, under its role of informing the public as a media serving a democracy. What implication’s this graphic content would have can range from: Increasing support for a war by displaying the state of the afflicted, to; lessening the support for war as a protection for all of humanity.

The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College

The New York Times reported on Rick Santorum’s recent campaigning leading up to the primary coming up this Tuesday.  The article is entitled “The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College.”  The tag line of the article says, “Mr. Santorum called President Obama “a snob” for urging students to go to college.”  The article reports that Rick Santorum criticized President Obama’s recent encouragement of students to attend community colleges to pick up specialized skills, for everyone to strive for some form of higher education, and to make college more affordable for everyone. 

My favorite lines of the article states that “As it turns out, Mr. Santorum is concerned that conservative students who attend a four-year college will emerge fully indoctrinated as liberals. He even called colleges “indoctrination mills.” “Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college,” Mr. Santorum said. “He wants to remake you in his image.”

“Mr. Santorum apparently sees students as easy prey to bearded professors and their dangerous ideas, but all ideas are subject to challenge in college. Some students may emerge more liberal, others more libertarian or conservative; some may lose their faith, or adopt a different one.”

“When his brand of ideas is put to the test, Mr. Santorum seems worried it might not hold up. If this new rant represents the current quality of conservative thinking, he is right to be worried.”

The New York Times does a great job reporting on the subject.  They let Rick Santorum’s word speak for themselves.  Our recent class discussions on socialization and political ideals leads me to see how wrong Rick Santorum is in his assumption that students can be so easily preyed upon when receiving a college education.  As we learned from the Michigan Model our socialization starts early in life with the economic structure, social divisions, and historic pattern we grow up with.  Over time these leads to our group loyalties and value orientations.  Our college years can be formative and can be time that values and beliefs shift and new perspectives can be learned but for student to lose their faith, values, and beliefs that they grew up with is not very likely.  

Who Decided That This Election Was Going to Be About Sex?

So anyone noticed lately that the election has turned from "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" to "Sex, Sex, Sex"? Who decided that? This is the question that David Brooks and Gail Collins of the New York Times set out to answer in this week's "The Conversation", a weekly opinion column that takes place in between weekly columns. (Anyone still worried that print media is having a hard time keeping up with the 24 hour broadcast media?)

Though they pose an interesting question, Brooks and Collins unfortunately never get around to answering it. They mull over the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, bemoan the theologically- driven arguments presented by presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and finally trail off into a discussion about birth rates amongst unwed mothers in different class settings and the advantages of waiting to have children until after marriage.

Brooks and Collins are sort of contemporary journalism royalty. They're well-respected, each have op-ed columns in the New York Times, are frequent guests on NPR's All Things Considered, and publish best-selling books. So it's curious to me that the two of them don't consider who is setting the agenda here -- the Media.

I would posit that there's a good possibility this issue is being driven by media outlets who know that "sex sells" and theocrat candidates such as Santorum can't resist weighing in. In class and in recent readings we've discussed how much influence the general media has in setting the agenda. In "The Conversation", Collins aptly points out that "Teenage pregnancy rates are down. Abortion rates are down. Crime is down. There are problems with the social fabric but they no longer have to do with the sexual revolution..." So it would seem to me that this was not an issue weighing heavily on the minds of voters until the Obama Care - Catholic church debacle allowed the media to run amuck over this particular policy. Could it be said that they moved sex to the top of the agenda? Or is the stereotype of "sex sells" in this case an example of zombie political (media) theory?

My Least Favorite Journalist

Though he's won three pulitzer prizes, Thomas Friedman has to be one of my least favorite journalists.

I say this not just because he once said this about the American intervention is Kosovo:

""Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation (the Serbs certainly think so), and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." (New York Times 1999)

Or because he said this regarding the U.S. war in Iraq:

"What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. ..We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth..." (Charlie Rose Show 2007)

Or even because he once said this: ".. sometimes it takes a 2-by-4 across the side of the head to get that message." (NPR's Talk of the Nation, 2003)

Thomas Friedman is my least favorite journalist simply because he's a really bad journalist.

The New York Times doesn't think so at all though; and in fact, has given him his very own op-ed column. Friedman has been reporting for them since the 1990s so this isn't terribly surprising or anything. Except for the fact that they totally seem to be ignoring the fact that he is not only cad, but also a terrible writer.

Recently, to my great consternation (and amusement), Friedman has been covering the protests in Russia. These protests have been wildly fascinating to watch unfold over the last couple of months -- hundreds of thousands of people have been showing up in public squares to protest the corruption of the December legislative elections and to demand a fair election in the upcoming Presidential elections in March. Some have gone so far as to demand Putin's resignation. For Russophiles, political junkies, human rights watchers, and yes, journalists -- there's a lot of information to feast upon and analyze.

Friedman's most recent and brilliant article concerning these events is called "Russia -- Sort of, but Not Really". And let me tell you -- it only goes down hill from there. His rich analysis of Russia's present state unfolds thusly (emphasis my own):

"But what will Putin do next? Will he really fulfill his promise to let new parties emerge or just wait out his opposition, which is divided and still lacks a real national leader? Putin’s Russia is at a crossroads. It has become a “sort-of-but-not-really-country.” Russia today is sort of a democracy, but not really. It’s sort of a free market, but not really. It’s sort of got the rule of law to protect businesses, but not really. It’s sort of a European country, but not really. It has sort of a free press, but not really. Its cold war with America is sort of over, but not really. It’s sort of trying to become something more than a petro-state, but not really."

Bu Friedman has done his due diligence as a journalist, covering these events from within Moscow. What sort of valuable information does he manage to wrangle from the protestors or from inside the Kremlin walls to add to his generous analysis?

"Russia has that potential. It is poised to go somewhere. But will Putin lead? The Times’s Moscow bureau chief, Ellen Barry, and I had a talk Thursday at the Russian White House with Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov. I left uncertain."

Friedman concludes elegantly: "Real reform will require a huge re-set on Putin’s part. Could it happen? Does he get it? On the evidence available now, I’d say: sort of, but not really."

Bravo, Friedman. And shame on you, New York Times.

One may argue that I'm participating in cold-hard bias right now. That I'm only presenting you with one set of facts. I'm not telling you about his prize-winning coverage of the war in Lebanon in 83 or highly regarded commentary on the world-wide threat of terrorism in 2002. What I do know though, is that there are better journalists equipped to cover Russia and the NYTimes should let them do it, like DeLand's own Michael Schwirtz who is their chief Moscow correspondent.

Maybe I'm being a snobby Russian Studies major, but I'd bet some of you would roll your eyes at his most recent op-ed piece, "We Need a Second Party" where Friedman manages to serve up some pretty snooze-worthy analysis of the state of the GOP. If you get a chance to read some of Friedman's work, let me know what you think.