Educational Equality and the President’s Cabinet
Posted on May 15, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Why is it that the Obama administration has spent so much energy trying to prevent lobbyists from overrunning government, but spends little time on the fact that most (more than 50%) of the Cabinet is made up of ivy leaguers?
The President is someone who genuinely cares about equal opportunity. He is aware of class-based problems in education, like persistent achievement gaps, that have kept most Americans out of so-called “top” schools–he wasn’t always the best student. But what the administration has not done such a good job of is appointing a cabinet that truly reflects the educational diversity of the nation. And since educational diversity correlates with overall diversity–the entering classes at these schools are still very far from mirroring the population-at-large–this is an important omission.
Without casting aspersions upon the individuals who are currently serving on the cabinet, or even ivy leaguers, generally–wasn’t it ivy league elites who were at the helms of our financial institutions and government agencies when the entire American way of life all but collapsed? Why is it that the mere fact of being able to say that one went to a particular school is still essentially a license to run wild in Washington?
The American people also have a responsibility to question presidential appointments. We rejected lobbyists who were wreaking havoc on public policy–the President responded with a cocktail of rules that govern the way lobbyists are able to influence government. We should be making a similar inquiry into other institutions that wield so much power but which really have only been dubiously effective at doing what is best for the majority of the American people.
If the President is serious about hiring equality in the federal government, he should work with state and local university systems, especially those in rural and urban areas, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Native American Serving Institutions, to identify quality public servants from all walks of life. But that is not what is reflected on the current cabinet.
Cabinet members and schools are listed below. Traditional ivy league schools are listed in bold. There are several other schools listed below that are not in the ivy league but which are well ensconced in the hegemony . But rather than getting into the business of what U.S. News and World Report does, which is to identify which schools it thinks those are, I leave that to you.
Joe Biden, Vice President: University of Delaware and Syracuse
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State: Wellesley, Yale
Tim Geithner: Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins
Robert Gates: College of William and Mary, Indiana University, Georgetown (has lectured at Harvard and Yale)
Eric Holder: Columbia
Ken Salazar: Colorado, University of Michigan
Tom Vilsac: Hamilton College, Albany Law School
Gary Locke: Boston and Yale
Hilda Solis: Cal Tech, Pomona, University of Southern California
Kathleen Sebelius: Trinity of Washington, University of Kansas
Shaun Donovan: Harvard
Ray LaHood: Bradley University
Steven Chu: Rochester, UC Berkeley
Arne Duncan: Harvard
Eric Shinseki: National War College, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Duke, United States Military Academy (on Advisory Board of the Center of Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.)
Janet Napolitano: Santa Clara, University of Virginia
“Cabinet Level” Posts
Christina Romer: William & Mary, MIT, UC Berkeley (Assistant Professor at Princeton)
Lisa Jackson: Princeton, Tulane
Peter Orszag: London School of Economics, Princeton
Ron Kirk: University of Texas at Austin, Austin College
Susan Rice: Oxford, Stanford
Rahm Emanuel: Northwestern, Sarah Lawrence
U.S. Media Companies Should Employ More Asian Talent, Before Seeking Expansion into Asia
Posted on May 4, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
It’s not news that large U.S. media companies have a deplorable record when it comes to hiring and promoting people of color. While Asians have made some strides in television dramas, there is a persistent dearth of Asians working in television news and in high level management posts.
Still, as the New York Times reported, these media companies are ramping up efforts to export their product into Asia, even though it comes nowhere near to representing the demographics of the U.S. population, much less that of the rest of the world.
In some cases, news reports on large media networks have been unapologetically xenophobic. Take CNN’s Jack Cafferty for example, who went so far as to call the Chinese (as a proxy for Asians, generally) “the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last fifty years.”
Jack Cafferty and others continue to rail against the Chinese for producing inferior products and exporting them to the U.S. However, the standard is much lower when it comes American media companies exporting their racism.
Asian media executives should continue to deny American media companies access to their markets, until American television progamming, especially its news programming, begins to sound more inclusive and less like the same endangered American species that gave us backlash conservatism and who, for one reason or another, have never quite been able to evolve out of the cul de sac.
Radiohead to Testify Against RIAA in File-Sharing Case
Posted on April 4, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Something we need to see more of–actual artists standing up for themselves against RIAA’s disingenuous claims that it cares about artists more than it cares about deep-pocketed record labels. According to Radiohead’s legal team at Harvard Law School led by Charles Nesson, the band will testify against RIAA in RIAA’s lawsuit against Joel Tenenbaum–the Boston University student who was a teenager at the time of his alleged copyright infringements. More here.
So What if Facebook Fails?
Posted on April 2, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Facebook is in the unique position of being able to change the entire online ecosystem–if it hasn’t done so already. The five-year-old company expects to register its 200 millionth user this week, making it equivalent in size to the sixth-largest country. But despite its massive growth, Facebook is still lagging in profits. While the number of Facebook users surpassed the number of Newscorp’s MySpace last June, MySpace earned an estimated $606 million in revenues in 2008, compared to Facebook’s comparatively paltry revenue target of $300 million. So why hasn’t Facebook been profitable? And, from a public interest standpoint, does it really matter?
Edmund Lee over at Slate reported that Facebook is unlikely to succeed unless it changes its ways. MySpace’s model has always been advertising-focused. Facebook’s model has always been focused on building its user base. Previous attempts by Facebook to change the ways in which it relates to users have caused users to rebel by creating groups–within Facebook–that protest Facebook’s new Terms of Service, say. Users have essentially taken control of the company, making it very difficult for Facebook to figure out ways to make money. Lee suggests that Facebook is landlocked–it either needs to figure out a way to wrest control away from users, without pissing them off, or it needs to focus on traditional revenue models, such as the one used by MySpace, the very non-existence of which is Facebook’s primary competitive advantage.
But the social value of Facebook cannot be denied. The NY Times reports that Facebook has facilitated communication between a woman who wishes to locate relatives who were displaced by the Holocaust, and between a local teacher and the Prime Minister of Denmark. Lee’s analysis focuses almost entirely on the impending doom of Facebook from a profit-making perspective. But as the growth of National Public Radio has illustrated (the average daily audience size of NPR’s “Morning Edition,” which stands at around 7.6 million, is 60% larger than ABC’s “Good Morning America”), the potential for member-supported, public-interest oriented media outlets is clear.
Further, the users who are most likely to make large online donations to nonprofit causes are the fastest growing Facebook demographic. The number of Facebook users over age 35 doubled over the 60 days preceding March 25th, 2009. 3/4ths of Facebook’s users are older, wealthier Americans over age 25. A recent Mashable survey illustrates the power that social media companies wield in attracting donations. According to the Mashable survey, 20% of web-savvy survey respondents, between the ages of 30 and 49, gave donations of $5,000 or more–41% gave $1,000 or more. 47% of survey respondents age 50 and older gave more than $5,000 to social causes via the internet.
The philanthropic potential of Facebook cannot be overstated. Rupert Murdhoch’s other brands, such as Fox News, helped lead us into an unjust war and to enforce a decade of virulent backlash conservatism, culminating in February with a Jim Crow era cartoon, in the New York Post, depicting a chimpanzee–what social value can we expect from MySpace? Facebook’s future is bright–let’s keep them honest.
Univision Fights to Survive
Posted on March 30, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Univision reported a 7.8% drop in ad revenue for the fourth quarter today, bringing the company’s net 4Q08 loss to $1.99 billion. The company has been mired in declining ad revenues, lawsuits, and longstanding debt obligations.
While automobile advertising at Univision fell 41%, revenues from retail advertisers were up 3%, with telecom and fast food advertising each increasing their ad spending on Univision by 8%. Univision CFO Andrew Hobson acknowleged a difficult first quarter and expects sharp declines in retail and further declines in automotive ad spending throughout the rest of the year.
The company is still tied up in litigation with the Mexican media behemoth Group Televisa, despite a $610.8 million settlement in January stemming from a lawsuit in which Group Televisa alleged that Univision underpaid programming royalties tied to advertising revenues. The two companies face a second round of litigation over which company owns the rights to distribute digital content which didn’t exist when the long term programming contract was signed in the 1990s.
Univision’s long-term debt obligations stand at more than $10 billion.
More here.
Things McDonald’s Can Teach Us About How to File an FCC Complaint
Posted on March 5, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
OK we get it — calling 911 over a McDonald’s incident isn’t an emergency. But if it’s not an emergency, then why does big media need to devote valuable airtime to reporting on this woman’s call to 911, UNLESS they want to draw some strange, tongue-in-cheek reference to black people and fried chicken? I won’t give the perpetrators the dignity of linking to their reports, but here’s a link to the search results.
It’s staggering how under-exposed most media executives are. Rather than reporting on the positive things that are happening in our communities, they often decide that perpetuating stereotypes, on the public airwaves, is somehow in the public interest.
Contrary to what media companies would have you believe (by not reporting on it), you do have a say. The FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is the office to which you should direct ANY AND ALL COMPLAINTS. You can file complaints here. Their mailing address is:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Be sure to clearly and concisely state:
Why the NY Post’s Advertisers are Today’s Racist Lynch Mob
Posted on February 21, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
A few weeks ago, I discussed five reasons why the media reform effort is the civil rights movement of our time. In one example that I gave, I pointed out the similarities between the way Flavor Flav is depicted and the blackface tradition of vaudeville. Apparently, it’s not the only negative depiction of black people that still resonates almost a century later, and practically half a century after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Note the festering outrage over the New York Posts’ suggestion, in the form of a political cartoon, that President Obama is a chimpanzee who should be shot on sight.
Freedom of the press is a bedrock principle, but implying that the President of the United States is a chimpanzee and should be killed–literally shot to death–isn’t that a threat to national security? It depends on how we read the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which Justin Stevens, rejecting a petition to hear the case, wrote “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected speech unless “such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action.” So the question is, was the NY Post cartoon directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action? Was it likely to produce or incite such action? In Watts v. United States, the Court specifically held that a federal statute prohibiting threats against the President could be applied only against speech that constitutes a “true threat,” and not against mere “political hyperbole.”
This seems airtight. It’s so airtight, that it seems like the editors over at the Post spent a lot of time thinking about what they were about to print. It’s interesting that, through all of that, the thought never crossed their minds that African-Americans have been depicted as primates for many years. Remember the guy who showed up at a McCain/Palin rally holding up a stuffed monkey doll, with an Obama sticker on its head? Here’s what he said before the event:
But in a disingenuous apology, the newspaper, on the one hand, apologized to “those they offended,” stating that it was not their intent, but on the other hand accusing those who spoke out against the cartoon as being opportunists, saying that the backlash against the Post was revenge.
Let me me tell you something, NY Post, the revenge that you think you experienced is nothing like what we’ve got in store for you.
Netflix is Taking Over
Posted on February 10, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
How much do you pay for cable? Exactly. Diane Mermigas, over at MediaPost, wrote on the factors that have created a perfect storm that is allowing Netflix to take an increasing share of business from subscription-based services and other traditional content distributors. Among the circumstances contributing to Netflix’ growth:
- Slowing growth of pay t.v.–from 11% in 2008, to 5% projected for this year.
- 9.4 million subscribers have already signed up for Netflix’ streaming service, even though it has not yet been completely rolled out.
- More older Americans are using internet and wireless services, thereby expanding the market for Netflix’ streaming services.
More here.
Trouble in Big-Media Land
Posted on January 30, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Media consolidation didn’t work.
For all of their lobbying efforts to consolidate 95% of our media experiences to a handful of companies, now look where we are. If it ended there–just with the failure of these companies that have been hell bent, for decades, on silencing smaller players–the situation would be merely abhorrent. But these media companies employ thousands. It’s barbaric.
Here’s a summary:
- Analysts predict local advertising revenue to decline anywhere from between 10-20%.
- Sony Pictures’ revenue has declined by 22%.
- ABC/Disney eliminated 400 jobs yesterday.
- At least one analyst has downgraded Newscorp from “buy” to “sell.”
- Revenue at CBS Radio is expected to decline by 17%.
- Fourth quarter DVD shipments declined by 32%, further threatening the profits of Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, and Newscorp.
Do you think the economic decline will lead to more or fewer opportunities for new entrants?
Georgetown/UCLA/NHMC Sound Death Knell for Hate Broadcasting
Posted on January 28, 2009
By Joe Miller | Comments
Back in November, I wrote a post on hate speech in broadcasting and discussed some of the known examples of hate speech being broadcast on The O’Reilly Factor, on Fox News Network, and Clear Channel’s Savage Nation, which is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks. Today, The National Hispanic Media Coalition held a press conference, along with UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center and the Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., announcing that they will be filing a petition for the new FCC to initiate a Notice of Inquiry, to investigate some of the linkages between hate speech and hate crimes.
This election is about the 12 million people living in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands…they’re counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves, rise above the fear and demagoguery, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.
- Barack Obama, September, 2008
Up to now, evidence of the effects of hate speech on hate crime is purely anecdotal. Hard data is desperately needed to demonstrate a causal connection and to persuade Congress to introduce appropriate legislation. The UCLA/Chicano Studies Research Center is spearheading that task and the results of its pilot study are available here. According to the UCLA report:
- 61.7% of hate offenses in 2007 were based on Anti-Hispanic bias.
- 64% of Latinos report that the immigration debate has negatively affected their lives.
- Hate speech in conservative hate radio manifests itself in four ways: (1) false facts, (2) flawed argumentation, (3) divisive language, and (4) dehumanizing metaphors.
This may be the beginning of the end of the proliferation of hateful broadcasts that masquerade as fact, but which in reality have no redeeming social value whatsoever, serving only to incite violence against members of minority groups.
Here’s the petition.
-
Blogroll
-
Search
