Reply #18: "To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered..."

[omega minimo]

Thu Jun-16-05 07:02 AM Original message
"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered...
Some say missing minority cases ignored (poster comment: Gee, ya think?!?)

"To be blunt, blond white chicks who go missing get covered and poor, black, Hispanic or other people of color who go missing do not get covered," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. "You're more likely to get coverage if you're attractive than if you're not."

   Replies to this thread
 
Thu Jun-16-05 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'd like to see them comment on who doesn't get covered
rather than hear more "missing blond girl" comments. Seems hateful, and rather cruel to the families of these missing women, to belittle and objectify them, when what we are really upset about is the media, not the women.
Why don't these people say missing minority people get covered less, than "blond white chicks" get covered more?

Thu Jun-16-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. "Some say missing minority cases ignored"
"Some say missing minority cases ignored" is the actual title of the article (I chose that quote as an attention getter for DU)

-------"SOME SAY MISSING MINORITY CASES IGNORED" IS THE ACTUAL TITLE OF THE ARTICLE (I CHOSE THAT QUOTE AS AN ATTENTION GETTER FOR DU)"--------

Response to Reply #6
10. This is flamebait and so is the use in the media, which you acknowledge
is intended to grab eyeballs.
""Some say missing minority cases ignored" is the actual title of the article (I chose that quote as an attention getter for DU)"
Using a monosyllabic derogatory slur against females gets the juices flowing, don't it!
This new meme dissing women has now infected DU and shows up in threads with no context-- "just" another slur. Anyone who hasn't seen these sensationalized pseudo-journalistic puff/hit/pieces doesn't know WHAT this is supposed to mean.
We have enough challenges on DU getting smacked in the eyeballs with all the old, standard cliche slurs against women. Why do you want to introduce and reinforce new ones?
BTW-- don't you feel just a bit smarmy allowing yourself to be manipulated with such obvious BS sensationalism? Less valid in any sense than a healthy interest in the Michael Jackson verdict.
This new slam against "attractive only" "blond white chicks" is intended to be divisive and direct male anger at women AND IT SUCCEEDS.

Response to Original message
5. Did he actually say "chicks"?
Oof. He needs to work on his vocabulary.
(I'm not complaining about the message, but for cripes sake - he's a professional speaking in a professional capacity, and he should damn well sound like one.)
alternatives:
woman
women

Response to Original message
8. On the front page of usatoday.com too.

Thu Jun-16-05 07:40 AM
OP Response to Reply #8
9. GOOD. I've been so tired of Congress and our Gov't looking
so disproportionately white and rich -- once we get the press to notice this country is a melting pot -- maybe we can get our government to look representative of it's people!

Thu Jun-16-05 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. So you think scapegoating women is a step forward?