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?