Down for the Count: America's Fascination With Royalty

 

 

By Walter Brasch

 

           In case you're in a funk because you think the reason you didn't receive an invitation to the royal wedding is because the Brits are still ticked off about that silly little skirmish back in 1776, the American media have a solution for you.

           The media had been pumping out news, features, and gossip about the wedding for more than three months. Almost every radio, TV, and cable network, except for maybe the Cartoon Channel, will be covering the wedding on Friday. All. Day. Long.

           Coverage begins at 3 a.m. EDT (8 a.m., British Standard Time) and finally ends before the bars close. In addition to extensive live coverage of the procession and wedding itself, ABC, CBS, and NBC are devoting five hours in evening prime time to reviews of the wedding.

           WE TV has four one-hour documentaries: "Prince William," "Kate: The New Diana?", "Will + Kate Forever," and "William & Kate: Wedding of the Century." Apparently, the cable network that brands itself as "the women’s network devoted to the wild ride of relationships during life’s defining moments," believes there won't be a royal divorce, and that the marriages of Charles and Diana (which did end in divorce), Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier, Elizabeth II and Philip, and Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson in the 20th century were only preliminaries. Lifetime, which bills itself as the cable network that "celebrates, entertains and supports women," has several one-hour documentaries, including "A Tale of Two Princesses," "William and Kate: A Love Story," and "Kate's Gown of Renown." The network is also cablecasting two two-hour docudramas, "Prince William" and "William & Kate."

           If you don't have access to a TV set, You Tube is transmitting the events live to computers and every handheld device known to technology. Add in all the newspaper and magazine coverage—look for multi-page photo spreads in all major entertainment magazines in the next week—plus a million or so blogs, and there's no reason why anyone shouldn't know important details, including how many canapés were ordered for the after-wedding reception.

           Americans have always had a fascination with royalty. Although we organized a revolution to overthrow a monarchy, and created a president not a king as head of State, we have spent more than two centuries trying to regain a royal image.

          Our fast food restaurants are called Burger King and Dairy Queen.

           Somewhere at any moment during the year, American girls (infants through senior citizens) are practicing their wave so they can become a beauty queen. Schools have prom queens and homecoming queens, each with their court of princesses. Every college football bowl game parade has a Miss Something and her Court. And, every winner wears a tiara.

           The media and the public dub almost every new celebrity singer a "pop princess." Just about any young ice skating star is known as an "ice princess," but the media in 1989 derogatorily dubbed Deborah Norville an "ice princess" when she took over for popular Jane Pauley on NBC-TV's "Today Show."

           Princess Cruises has the "Love Boat," but there was no love lost when Donald Trump sold his 282-foot Trump Princess for about $40 million in 1991 after he, mistress Marla, and wife Ivana had formed a Ménage a Tabloid.

           Among googobs of literary and movie princesses have been Cinderella, Snow White, and Leia who helped Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, and that giant furry thing make the world safe for high-tech special effects. And, of course, there's the Lion King that made the Disney company rich enough to devour all other media companies, and take on the corporate shape of Jabba the Hut.

           The greatest baron, pursued by ace aviator Snoopy, was the Red Baron. However, for some reason the media prefer to use the title "baron" to refer to evil "kingpins"--as in "drug baron," "robber baron" and, understandably, "media baron."

           The music industry abounds with royalty. Bessie Smith was the Empress of the Blues; Roger Miller was King of the Road. Among other kings are those of Ragtime (Scott Joplin), Blues (W.C. Handy), Swing (Benny Goodman), Waltz (composer Richard Strauss or bandleader Wayne King), Pop (Michael Jackson), and, of course, Elvis, the king of rock and roll. One of the best singers was Nat "King" Cole. 

           Aretha Franklin is the Queen of Soul. Rap singer Queen Latifah may think she's royalty, but British rock group Queen truly has a better shot at sitting in Buckingham Palace than she does.

           Among singing princes are the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, who doesn't do much singing or rapping any more, and Prince Rogers Nelson, who became known simply as Prince, and then the singer-with-the-unpronounceable symbol, who later regained a pronounceable moniker, and has the ability to predict purple rain.

           The most famous duke is the "Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl, Earl, Earl, Duke of Earl" who proved in the late 1950s that anyone can grow up and write song lyrics.

           Other less royal dukes have been baseball great Duke Snider and musical genius Duke Ellington who, had he gone to baseball games, would have had to sit in segregated seating in most ball parks. Sitting with him would be the Dukes of Dixieland. Upset there are no more segregated "colored" seats, drinking fountains, and rest rooms is David Duke who once cornered the market on pointy white hats and dull-witted Whites.

           Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat. But no royal monikers were attached to Roger Maris who broke Ruth's single season record or to Hank Aaron, who broke Ruth's lifetime record, and had to put up with numerous racist comments. So far, no one has given royal titles to Barry Bonds, the current leader in single season homeruns, lifetime homeruns, and steroid usage accusations.

           Nevertheless, the only royalty that matters are the Counts--Tolstoy, Dracula, and Basie.

 

[Walter Brasch is an award-winning journalist. His next book is Before the First Snow, a look at America’s counter-culture and the nation’s conflicts between oil-based and "clean" nuclear energy. The book is available at amazon.com]

 

 

 

 

 

Mainstream media take note, "The Good Wife" breaks stereotypes

From the Restore Fairness blog-

CBS has been in the news as of late about the troubled Charlie Sheen. While fascinating, we're more excited when mainstream media is used to shed light on important issues our country is facing today. But when CBS announced that 'Ugly Betty' star and Emmy and Golden Globe winner America Ferrera had temporarily joined the cast of their courtroom drama 'The Good Wife' as a nanny, we became curious and a little skeptical. And thankfully, we were pleasantly surprised. The creators of the show not only break free of common racial stereotypes about Latinos in the media, but they also shed light on the very pertinent DREAM Act issue that is a hot-button issue within the immigration debate.

Ferrera plays Natalie Flores, an undocumented immigrant who works as a nanny for Wendy Scott-Carr, a prominent politician on the show. Much unlike widespread negative stereotypes of Latina nannies as often uneducated, older women with little knowledge of English, Ferrera's character on 'The Good Wife' is portrayed as a sharp young woman who is working as a nanny simply to finance her graduate studies in economics, while at the same time trying to become a citizen. Ferrera, in her first TV role since the ABC comedy 'Ugly Betty' ended last year, says she feels close to this role. In an interview with TV Guide, Ferrera commented-

[Natalie] is sort of the anti-stereotype of what people imagine when they hear those labels. It felt like the Kings [the show's creators] would be really great people to explore that world in ways that could show their audience an alternative to general preconceived notions about illegal immigrants.

On the show, Ferrera's character even admits that she was not born in the U.S, but came here with her parents at the age of 2. The character sketch seems to be a realistic portrait of the millions of young DREAMers across the country fighting for U.S citizenship. The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC), who have praised 'The Good Wife' , stated-

America’s character on 'The Good Wife' captures the struggles of a generation of young, Latino men and women in our country who face obstacles because their parents brought them into this country as infants, in search of a better life. These men and women, who work so hard to better themselves and become productive members of the only society that they have ever known, are precisely the type of people that would have their lives changed by the passage of the DREAM Act.

Ferrera's character first appears in Episode 15 - titled 'Silver Bullet' - of the current season and her storyline has been continued since, including an episode where her father is wrongly arrested based on racial profiling for a crime he didn't commit, leading to the risk of him being deported by ICE. We won't give too much of the storyline away in case you plan to watch it, but such a narrative in a popular mainstream TV drama is a very positive sign and we applaud that. Here's hoping other major networks and TV shows follow suit.

 

Lara Logan Treated Just Like Any Other Rape Victim

The fallout over the sexual attacks and violent abuse of journalist Lara Logan continues apace. Several pusillanimous stateside journalists and pundits – who no doubt would go jelly-kneed on a quiet day as a war correspondent hanging out at the bullet-riddled revetment – felt compelled to tell Logan, “Well, it’s your own damn fault! What the hell were you doing in a huge crowd of wannabe Muslim terrorists anyway?”

Um, she would be covering the news – just like men and just like dozens of other women. Just like – oh God, I hate to say this – Fox News reporters. Going into danger is what war correspondents do. They do it so the folks back home have information. It’s the nature of their jobs and because of it you terrorist-trembling wussies get to know at least some of what’s going on in the world outside the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity Faux Terrordome.

Journalists in general have a bad rep these days. Some of it deserved, much of it not so much. Even covering the local election for the local waste district board is cause to call out the reporter from the Podunk Post as a slanted, biased asshat, despite the very words he reported appearing on the ubiquitous video machine for all to see. Being any kind of reporter is a thankless job and despite the whining of all the ideologists, an essential part of keeping democracy democratic.

War journalists have a tougher job. No matter how hard they try, it’s difficult to stay objective when they’re lied to a hundred times a day, getting their ass shot off, or suddenly finding themselves alone in a rampaging crowd.

It’s true Logan was in a place most sane people wouldn’t voluntarily be in. However, she was working for you – directly for you. Without her and her colleagues some of you couldn’t be as voluntarily and selectively stupid as you are now. Even those who care about what happens in the world would be flying blind – and that’s not good for anyone.

It would be a good and moral thing to at least treat her like any other human being who’s been attacked deserves. Give her support, or at the very least, STF up about it.

And don’t blame the ‘media’ for reporting her story to keep it alive either. It’s a valid story in its own right, having zero to do with her attractiveness, and should be reported to highlight just how bad conditions in war-torn countries can be.

Now is the time for the fraidy-frickin’ cats to drop their cowardly attacks on a woman who has gone through hell and back. They should treat her just like any other sexually and physically assaulted woman…or man.

Here’s to hoping the same misfortune doesn’t steamroll you one day.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

 

Sexual Assault Coverage by Media Shows Double Standard, Paternalism, and Sexism

 

 

by Walter Brasch

 

            Lara Logan, CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent, was beaten and sexually assaulted, Feb. 11, while on assignment in Cairo to report on the revolution that concluded that day with Hosni Mubarak resigning as president.

            Logan, according to an official CBS announcement, was attacked by a group of about 200 Egyptians and "suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers." The mob, probably pro-Mubarak supporters, but never identified by CBS—had separated Logan from her camera crew.

            About a week earlier, Mubarak's army detained, handcuffed, blindfolded, interrogated, and then released Logan and some of her crew after several hours. The government ordered her expelled from the country, probably for her on-air comments about the government intimidating and harassing foreign journalists. Logan returned to Cairo shortly before Mubarak resigned. She returned to the United States the day after the assault, and spent the next four days recovering in a hospital.

            The Mubarak administration at the beginning of the protests had expelled the al-Jazeera news network, and began a random campaign against all journalists, the result of the government believing that the media inflamed the call for revolution and the overthrow of Mubarak. There were about 140 cases of assault and harassment of journalists during the 18-day protest, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Ahmad Mohamad Mahmoud, an Egyptian journalist, was killed by sniper fire, probably by pro-Mubarak supporters.  Among American reporters physically assaulted were CNN's Anderson Cooper and photojournalist Dana Smillie, who was seriously wounded by what appeared to be a dozen BB-size pellets. Journalists displayed "admirable levels of courage as they—initially as individuals and small groups, and eventually in droves—made statements and took actions that exposed them to immense personal and professional risk," according to the CPJ.

            There can be no justification for the rogue gangs of thugs who attacked Logan, dozens of journalists, and hundreds of citizens. But, from the story of reporter and citizen courage against a 30-year dictatorship, no matter how benevolent it may have appeared, there emerged another story, one not as dramatic, nor as compelling, nor as important. But it is a story, nevertheless.

            Because of deadlines and a sense of having to get the story at any cost, news organizations sometimes become in-your-face inquisitors. Privacy isn't usually something the more aggressive news organizations give to those they want on air or in print. It's still common to see microphones stuck inches from faces of people who have suffered tragedies

            But when it comes to one of their own, news organizations seem to have a different set of standards. The brutal attack upon Logan occurred Feb. 11, but it was four days until CBS released any statement. After a brief review of the facts, CBS refused to make further comment or to respond to reporter inquiries. "Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time," the network said. A four day delay to give a basic statement is inexcusable by CBS; a statement that it did not give more information about the attack in order to protect the correspondent's privacy is hypocritical, and trumpets a double standard that the news media are somehow exempt from the reporting practices it demands of news sources.

            There is another factor in this mini-story. Judith Matloff, a journalism professor at Columbia University, told the L.A. Times, "Generally, female correspondents do not come out and talk about it [sexual assaults] because they worry that they won't get sent on assignments again."

            Paternalism in the news profession often has editors and news directors, most of whom are male, "protecting" their female reporters and correspondents. Journalists and news crews who go into dangerous situations, including riots, demonstrations, and war must be trained to deal with violence—and must be given every assistance by their organizations when they have been harassed or attacked. But, for news executives to discriminate on who to send because of the "fear" that women may be subjected to sexual assault, and for women not to report it to their bosses, is to acknowledge that they, and probably society, haven't come far in eliminating sexism within the profession.

            There is a further reality. The news media often don't identify adults who have been raped or sexually assaulted, a belief that somehow these crimes are more personal and more traumatic than any other kind of assault. However, sexual assaults and rapes are always brutal and vicious crimes of power and control. For the news media to continue to adhere to some puritanical belief that they are protecting womanhood by not reporting names and details perpetuates the myth that rape is purely a sexual intrusion, and not the brutal attack it truly is.

 

[Walter Brasch has been a journalist about 40 years. During that time, he has covered everything from city council meetings and music festivals to demonstrations and riots. He is the author of 15 books, most focusing upon history and contemporary social issues. You may contact Dr. Brasch at walterbrasch@gmail.com]

 

 

Sexual Assault Coverage by Media Shows Double Standard, Paternalism, and Sexism

 

 

by Walter Brasch

 

            Lara Logan, CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent, was beaten and sexually assaulted, Feb. 11, while on assignment in Cairo to report on the revolution that concluded that day with Hosni Mubarak resigning as president.

            Logan, according to an official CBS announcement, was attacked by a group of about 200 Egyptians and "suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers." The mob, probably pro-Mubarak supporters, but never identified by CBS—had separated Logan from her camera crew.

            About a week earlier, Mubarak's army detained, handcuffed, blindfolded, interrogated, and then released Logan and some of her crew after several hours. The government ordered her expelled from the country, probably for her on-air comments about the government intimidating and harassing foreign journalists. Logan returned to Cairo shortly before Mubarak resigned. She returned to the United States the day after the assault, and spent the next four days recovering in a hospital.

            The Mubarak administration at the beginning of the protests had expelled the al-Jazeera news network, and began a random campaign against all journalists, the result of the government believing that the media inflamed the call for revolution and the overthrow of Mubarak. There were about 140 cases of assault and harassment of journalists during the 18-day protest, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). Ahmad Mohamad Mahmoud, an Egyptian journalist, was killed by sniper fire, probably by pro-Mubarak supporters.  Among American reporters physically assaulted were CNN's Anderson Cooper and photojournalist Dana Smillie, who was seriously wounded by what appeared to be a dozen BB-size pellets. Journalists displayed "admirable levels of courage as they—initially as individuals and small groups, and eventually in droves—made statements and took actions that exposed them to immense personal and professional risk," according to the CPJ.

            There can be no justification for the rogue gangs of thugs who attacked Logan, dozens of journalists, and hundreds of citizens. But, from the story of reporter and citizen courage against a 30-year dictatorship, no matter how benevolent it may have appeared, there emerged another story, one not as dramatic, nor as compelling, nor as important. But it is a story, nevertheless.

            Because of deadlines and a sense of having to get the story at any cost, news organizations sometimes become in-your-face inquisitors. Privacy isn't usually something the more aggressive news organizations give to those they want on air or in print. It's still common to see microphones stuck inches from faces of people who have suffered tragedies

            But when it comes to one of their own, news organizations seem to have a different set of standards. The brutal attack upon Logan occurred Feb. 11, but it was four days until CBS released any statement. After a brief review of the facts, CBS refused to make further comment or to respond to reporter inquiries. "Logan and her family respectfully request privacy at this time," the network said. A four day delay to give a basic statement is inexcusable by CBS; a statement that it did not give more information about the attack in order to protect the correspondent's privacy is hypocritical, and trumpets a double standard that the news media are somehow exempt from the reporting practices it demands of news sources.

            There is another factor in this mini-story. Judith Matloff, a journalism professor at Columbia University, told the L.A. Times, "Generally, female correspondents do not come out and talk about it [sexual assaults] because they worry that they won't get sent on assignments again."

            Paternalism in the news profession often has editors and news directors, most of whom are male, "protecting" their female reporters and correspondents. Journalists and news crews who go into dangerous situations, including riots, demonstrations, and war must be trained to deal with violence—and must be given every assistance by their organizations when they have been harassed or attacked. But, for news executives to discriminate on who to send because of the "fear" that women may be subjected to sexual assault, and for women not to report it to their bosses, is to acknowledge that they, and probably society, haven't come far in eliminating sexism within the profession.

            There is a further reality. The news media often don't identify adults who have been raped or sexually assaulted, a belief that somehow these crimes are more personal and more traumatic than any other kind of assault. However, sexual assaults and rapes are always brutal and vicious crimes of power and control. For the news media to continue to adhere to some puritanical belief that they are protecting womanhood by not reporting names and details perpetuates the myth that rape is purely a sexual intrusion, and not the brutal attack it truly is.

 

[Walter Brasch has been a journalist about 40 years. During that time, he has covered everything from city council meetings and music festivals to demonstrations and riots. He is the author of 15 books, most focusing upon history and contemporary social issues. You may contact Dr. Brasch at walterbrasch@gmail.com]

 

 

Diaries

Advertise Blogads