Pink Books Are For Girls.

INQUIRER COLUMNIST Karen Heller tackled feminine stereotypes in her column yesterday. Specifically, she said that the lame book designs on books by female authors were insulting to the entire gender.

"Women's literature has moved beyond the pale - all matter of pinks from pale to insistent - to dismemberment," she wrote. "These days, publishers are partial to flashing body parts, specifically women's body parts, often legs and exquisitely shod feet, on book jackets."

She points to books by popular writers like Jodi Picoult, Julia Fox, Jennifer Weiner and Alice Munro.

She continues:

These covers scream to men "Please don't read me!" while to women they coo "Here's more of the same!"

The thinking, or so I imagine, is that readers will look at these women's body parts or backs and identify. "Why that's me!" or "That looks just like my old friend Susie!" In other words, they think we're stupid.

Is she just being cranky or does she have a point? Have women been demeaned by this marketing scheme?

Money Talks ... But Should It?

SOME OF THE PEOPLE who appear in a new documentary about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal received cash for their time.

Specifically, those who received cash were the lower-ranking military members who were convicted of crimes.

“I paid the ‘bad apples’ because they asked to be paid, and they would not have been interviewed otherwise,” filmmaker Errol Morris told the New York Times.

But traditional journalism doesn't pay for interviews. According to the Times article:

American newspapers, magazines and television news divisions do not generally pay subjects for their interviews; their caution is rooted in a belief that the credibility of interviewees diminishes when money changes hands and that these people will provide the answers they think are desired rather than the truth.

Is the filmmaker in the wrong or have journalistic standards changed?

By the way, the image above is from a 2006 Philadelphia Weekly cover story about the Philadelphia attorneys who are handling the civil lawsuit on behalf the tortured Iraqi prisoners. Your journalism teacher wrote it.

Philly Showdown: "Pat's vs. Geno's

ENJOY!

Ventriloquistic Journalism?

RUPERT MURDOCH'S News Corporation empire may be growing: he's trying to buy Newsday, the dominant newspaper on Long Island.

The problem is that he currently owns the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, as well as New York television stations WNYW and WWOR. The Federal Communications Commission says that you aren't allowed to own two newspapers and two television stations in the same market.

Murdoch is trying to get a waiver from the ruling. The Senate Commerce Commission may stop him.

“It’s exactly the kind of consolidation I would hope the commission finds is not in the public interest because the free flow of information in this country is not accommodated by having fewer and fewer voices determine what is out there,” North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan told the New York Times. “They try to argue that there are all these outlets — the Internet, television, radio, newspapers and so on. It may be more outlets, but it’s the same ventriloquists. You have five or six corporate interests that determine what most Americans see, hear and read.”

Larry Mendte might have said he didn't see pressure from corporate honchos but the fact of the matter is that the messages are being controlled by fewer people.

Is that really a problem? Or is this just capitalism in its purest form?

Bill Clinton says, "I don't think I should take any s*** from anybody about that, do you?"

AFTER A RADIO interview with WHYY, Philadelphia's public radio station, former president Bill Clinton said, "I don't think I should take any shit from anybody about that, do you?"

He was referring to a line of questioning about Hillary Clinton losing ground among African-American voters. Specifically, the Hillary campaign for president lost potential black support after Bill called Barrack Obama, "the black candidate."

Here's the tricky part: the interview was over when Clinton said, "I don't think I should take any shit from anybody about that, do you?"

Did the radio reporter screw the former president by running his statement which was made when he thought the interview was over? Or is he fair game at all times since he is a public figure?

Live With Larry Mendte!

CBS3 ANCHOR Larry Mendte will be in class on Tuesday. He'll talk about anything and everything, so please arrive with questions in mind.

Above is a package he directed. Below is another goofy clip from back in the day (sorry ... it's all I could find on YouTube!).

Government's Goal? "Information Dominance."

THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on Sunday that the government has been feeding the media information through retired military leaders who work as consultants to media outlets. Here are a few sections from the amazing story:

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

Did the media drop the ball by not checking the backgrounds of the military consultants they interviewed on air?

Is there a danger in the government infiltrating the media like this? Or is this no different that allowing a government official to speak their mind on air?

Was The Debate A Public Service or Simply Television Programming?

MEDIA CRITICS HAVE come down hard on ABC for their questions asked during Wednesday's Democratic debate. The 90-minute debate featured the first 45 minutes focusing on minor controversies rather than issues.

Debate hosts Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (a former Bill Clinton senior advisor) have stood by their line of questioning, which focused on issues like Barrack Obama not wearing a flag pin, and Hillary Clinton lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Some people have accused ABC of trying to put on exciting programming rather than provide a public service (the day after the debate, ABC bragged that 10.7 million people watched).

Longtime 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt, who also produced the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon, acknowledged to the New York Times that there was a great deal of show biz and appealing to the audience in the debate.

"When you’re in television," he said, "that’s your job."

Is there anything wrong with that?

Did the Debate Enlighten You?

PLEASE PASS ALONG your thoughts on the Democratic debate, which took place here in Philadelphia 6-days before the Pennsylvania primary.

If you missed the debate, the transcript is here.


Or watch this response from Governor Ed Rendell (a Clinton supporter).

Cheney to Hillary: Meet Me In The Woods (NOT!)

THE BOSTON HERALD ran a simple correction in Monday's paper:

An article in today’s Herald regarding comments purportedly made by Vice President Dick Cheney was inaccurate and should have noted that it was based on a blogger’s satire and was not provided by the Associated Press.

What exactly did they get wrong? Check out this quote from their original story:

“To be frank, Hillary Clinton’s stories about her adventures with guns don’t exactly pass the smell test,” the vice president told host Tim Russert. “If she really wants to show that she knows how to handle a rifle, there’s an easy way to do that: meet me in the woods.”

Turns out the quote and the entire story were false, a bit of satire from humorist Andy Borowitz.

Who is at fault here? Did the Boston Herald goof up in not realizing this was a hoax? Should Borowitz be blamed for duping the Herald, and later the public? Do either the Clinton campaign or Cheney have the right to be upset?

Is this just the product of the modern cyber-journalism, and if so, how do we avoid such things, especially when they involve important matters like a presidential race?

Feeling Blue? This Will Make You Feel Better.

ENJOY!

Subsets of Voters: Good Journalism or Widening the Divide?

OVER THE LAST few weeks, the Philadelphia Inquirer has profiled gay voters, evangelical Christian voters and Jewish voters in connection to the presidential race.

Is this good journalism? Or does this just increase the divisions in our society?

Does The Media Hate Hillary? Or Do They Just Love Obama?

ON FRIDAY, the Clinton's released their tax records dating back to 2000. Turns out they've been doing pretty good: they earned $109 million over that period.

So the New York Times wrote this in the Saturday paper: In what proved to be an awkward juxtaposition, the disclosure of the records — which revealed the Clintons to be in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent, or roughly 14,500, of all taxpayers — came on the day that Mrs. Clinton called for the creation of a cabinet-level post to tackle poverty.

Is it necessary to point that out?

The same edition of the Times has only one longer story about Hillary Clinton's competitor, Barack Obama. The Obama story is a campaign journal that follows the candidate on campaign stops - watching him eat onion rings, debate the usefulness of the penny, and bowl. Oh, and we learn that Obama wears a size 13.5 shoe.

Is that fair? Does it have to be?

Sam Katz says, "The Press Get Caught Up In The Theater of Politics."

PLEASE SHARE YOUR thoughts on today's guest, Sam Katz, and his views on the media.

Was he on target? Did he inspire you? Scare you? Depress you?

What about his thoughts on the way the media handled the bugging scandal?

And how did his appearance differ from our visit from Mayor Street? Were there similarities?

What Qualifies As Good Journalism?

I DON'T WANT to influence you either way. But leave your thoughts on this clip in the comments section below.

News for Women: Dieting Secrets, Make-up Tips and Other Info Relevant to Your World!

AS THE DEMASSIFICATION of the media continues, niche media becomes increasingly more prevalent. In recent years, there has been a massive push toward attracting female viewers. I call it the other "Oprah effect."

The View launched in 1997. Fox29 began a 5:00 PM newscast last year targeting women. And six months ago, the Today Show added a fourth hour to their morning program. It's dedicated to women.

"It is an hour dominated by extreme weight-loss stories, ambush makeovers and recipes for carrot cake so good that it will make a man propose," according to a story in Sunday's Washington Post.

The article continues: By the time the fourth hour hits the airwaves at 10 a.m., the content not only becomes so diluted that it is readily understandable by a 10-year-old, it also harks back to another era -- a time when, say, the idea of a woman being a serious contender for the White House was unthinkable.

Which evokes the question: By pandering to women, are you insulting their intelligence? Aren't you assuming that all women are vapid, superficial and, well, stupid?

Should the audience be considered when journalists are deciding what news should be presented and how it should be provided?