Comments on: The Whore-ifying Impact of Media Misogyny

By: Jaiel

Jaiel — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 22:22:29 +0000

I choose to believe that Rather has more class than to insinuate that one of his collegues (regardless of personal feelings toward him or her) contributes to the “Dumbing Down” or “Tarting Up” of the news at CBS.

I believe, rather, that Rather may have been referring to the continual decline in integrity and quality of news as a whole and in particular at CBS.

Turn on your television. Any channel is fine. What do you see? Is it something that will increase and enrich your intelligence? (Intelligence here can be interchanged with quality of life)

Or is it just filler, junk, noise to fill minds that are already struggling to deal with the vast quantities of information they are subject to everyday?

To me these comments have nothing to do with women or sexuality. They have to do with a much more serious issue. I’ll call it the Content Issue – what kind of content are we creating for ourselves today? What kind of content do we subscribe to? How to increase the quality and integrity of the content I am endlessly subject to? Does anyone really WANT to increase the quality? Does anyone understand the effect it has on their lives?

I believe Rather has a point – he just didn’t express it in the right fashion. I see his statement as a kind of call to the public to stand up and say, Hey! I am an intelligent being here and I demand that you provide me with intelligent content!

In reading Rather’s words, the first place I look to for responsibility is myself. It is up to me to be responsible for the information/news/media that I allow to influence me. The next place I look to for responsibility would be the broadcasting companies/media conglomerates.

Why would they promote such a thing as “dumbing down” the news? Why, if they were broadcasting news in the interest of reporting relevant and important issues in people’s lives would they choose to “tart up” anything they present?

And why, if I am a discerning individual, would I wish to participate in such a spectacle?

By: Timber

Timber — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:24:35 +0000

If Rather had criticized the media in terms of corporate ownership, allegiance to nationalistic jingoism, and anti-intellectualism, would we even be discussing his statement?

Do we have our priorities straight when we feel outrage over the use of the word “tart” but yawn in the face of a culture that sexualizes and dumbs down young women to prepare them for the marriage market?

If you think Rather could have discussed the issue in the terms we discuss it here and still be acknowledged by the media or the American public, I must respectfully submit that you overestimate the integrity and intellectual capacity of both.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:41:18 +0000

Doubtful. Dan Rather needs to take a look in the mirror. He’s was a beneficiary of the “sexing up” of the news started by Roone Arledge (Wide World of Sport). It really doesn’t matter if it was Couric or anyone else. The news today is infotainment and propaganda. It is totally control by the corporations and therefore not meant to inform. Arledge altered the evening news so that it could become a profit center rather than an adhering to the networks public responsibility for leasing OUR airwaves

By: rosemarie jackowski

rosemarie jackowski — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:24:42 +0000

Dan’s use of the term, “tarting up” was probably a mistake, but I agree that Katie was a poor choice. I would have preferred Helen Thomas or Leslie Stahl – or a man. To me the gender of the person is secondary. Katie is a “news reader”. Maybe Helen Thomas would give the news a little depth and perspective.

By: Robert1014

Robert1014 — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:32:50 +0000

I have not watched the CBS Evening News in years…I barely watched it when Rather was on, and I haven’t seen a moment of it with Couric, but I take Rather’s point. I hardly think one can fairly say Rather’s “tarting up the news” comment has anything to do with Couric’s gender, but rather with the sensationalizing of the news that is taking place across the board in broadcast journalism. The focus by our broadcast media on the doings of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, et al, or the fascination with the (ultimately resolved) question of the identity of Anna Nicole Smith’s “babydaddy” is undeniable proof of Rather’s charge.

As to whether such gossip rag “news” is less or equally egregious when presented on the morning programs such as TODAY or GOOD MORNING AMERICA, and, if considered less egregious, whether that’s misogynistic because the presumed audience for these shows is composed largely of women,…this is a nonsequitur. The evening news programs were traditionally “hard news” programs, with some human interest features sometimes included, (such as Charles Kuralt’s ON THE ROAD segments); the morning shows, by contrast, were never presented as or considered to be hard news programs, but were, rather, more like broadcast magazines, featuring a mix of news, sports, weather, entertainment news, and interviews. Heck, the TODAY show used to feature a chimpanzee (J. Fred Muggs) as a regular accoutrement to their broadcasts when Dave Garroway hosted the program. Sure, featuring “tarted up” “news”(sic) on the morning shows is egregious, and is indicative of the overall lowering of broadcast news starndards and practices, but in the electic mix of news, gossip, entertainment and interviews always typical of the morning shows, the egregiousness is less overtly noticeable: it is easily misperceived as being merely the culmination of the trend of these shows’ longtime programming choices, rather than being the radical divergence from practice customary to the more narrow focus of the evening news programs.

This is not to say Rather himself is to be excused for his journalistic lapses, but merely to say: he has a point.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:51:17 +0000

I’m going to feel real sorry for Katie Courac who makes $50MM/year — yawn. It would be better to advocate the repeal of TV licenses for all the network who lied this nation into an illegal occupation that has killed 600,000 iraqi men, women, and children. Citizens access to the airwaves is the best way to deal with stereotyping. Take a look at Venezuela as a great example.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:10:58 +0000

Yeah so what’s new? The U.S media is full of hate. Misogyny and misanthropy. How many hateful images do you see of brown people — men and women. If you really want to go to the genesis of the “modern TV” news look to Roone Arledge who brought infotainment to the news room. After that then look to Reagan and the Democrats gutting the equal time clause and anti-trust. Also the weakening of the women movement splintered along race and class lines. I’m old enough to remember when ERA didn’t only stand for “earned run average”.

Rather also was in tears after 911 and ready to salute the flag and send young men and women off to die in an illegal invasion. Let’s get to the heart of what’s going on and find ways to get beyond identity politics to form coalitions that will address misogyny and racism and Zionism and Capitalism and Imperialism and …