[an error occurred while processing this directive]
RADAR is Scanning for Media Bias
posted by Matt on 11:52 PM January 14th, 2005
RADAR Project Over the past 10 years, the American public has been fed a steady diet of negative depictions of men by the mainstream media. We see it on the Oprah Winfrey Show, TV sitcoms, advertisements, movies, and even Hallmark greeting cards.

At best, men and fathers are portrayed as inept and confused. At worst, men are presented as the object of derision and scorn.

There is no better example of these negative portrayals than how the media covers the issue of domestic violence.

Over 100 studies have analyzed the nature of domestic violence. These articles consistently report the same result: domestic violence (DV) is an equal opportunity problem. Women are just as likely to initiate partner aggression as men. Anyone can review these studies by visiting the online compilation of Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., professor of Psychology at California State University at Long Beach.

Click "Read more..." for more.


But the mainstream media see things a little differently. Playing fast and loose with the truth, the media routinely portray men as the aggressors and women as the victims.

Biased media depictions of DV are a particular problem for fathers. Eventually those false stereotypes become translated into unfair laws and law enforcement procedures. And those stereotypes give rise to false allegations, which are used to evict fathers from their homes and remove them from their children.

The media misrepresentation goes far beyond what anyone could reasonably call sloppy reporting or inadvertent bias.

Editors and reporters have been repeatedly informed of the bias, both by letter and direct telephone conversations. But the calls for balanced and fair coverage remain ignored. The unspoken -- and arrogant -- message is, "We don't care what the truth is. We know what information you need to hear. Now go away."

Four weeks ago the Washington Post ran a sensationalistic three-part series on Maternal Homicide. The full-color articles were splashed across three pages. The series attracted withering criticism from websites representing the full political spectrum: the liberal Slate, ifeminists.net, libertarian LewRockwell.com, and the men's rights site Men's News Daily, and elsewhere.

On December 24 the DC chapter of the National Coalition for Men sent a five-page letter of complaint to the Post. And what was the official response? A seven-sentence dismissal that ended with the absurd claim, "In no way does our coverage of this issue stereotype or vilify men generally."

That's exactly what CBS did when it responded to the recent Rathergate scandal: deny, dissemble, and stonewall.

This deplorable state of affairs is about to change.

On Sunday, January 16, a concerned group of men and women from around the country will launch a domestic violence media watch. The effort is called RADAR. RADAR stands for Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting. The purpose of RADAR is to assure the media, especially the major newspapers and other national media, provide fair and balanced coverage of the domestic violence topic.

The issue is timely, since the current Violence Against Women Act is set to expire later this year. Advocacy organizations soon will be introducing renewal legislation. To support passage of the VAWA renewal, gender advocates at media outlets will no doubt begin to "plant" stories that cater to the scurilous gender stereotypes.

So how will RADAR teach the old media dog new tricks?

Simple: Every time a biased article is published, RADAR will generate hundreds or thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters from concerned readers. The letters will be factual and reasonable in tone, but will drive home the basic message: DV is an equal opportunity problem. By ignoring male victims, our society will never solve the problem of domestic violence.

Those e-mailers, telephoners, and letter writers will be people like you, persons who are sick and tired of being maligned and vilified as a batterers and abusers.

But how will we learn about those biased articles?

Actually, that's the purpose of this messge. RADAR is currently searching for Media Monitors across the country. The Media Monitors are persons who read their newspapers on a regular basis - either online or the paper version.

When the Monitor spots a biased article, he or she will have two possible courses of action, depending on whether the source of the biased story is a national publication (like the New York Times) or a local media outlet (like your hometown newspaper):

1. Major national paper: The Monitor will send an e-mail to the RADAR Coordinating Team, which in turn will put out a general alert via internet websites, listservs, and the RADAR website.
2. Local paper: The Monitor will write a letter to the editor, make a friendly call to the reporter, or other appropriate action.

RADAR currently has a number of persons who have signed up to bird-dog their local media. But we want to exponentially expand that network.

Are you game?

Contact Mark Rosenthal, the RADAR Media Monitor Coordinator. Send the following information to him at info-at-mediaradar.org (use a @ in place of -at- in the actual e-mail address you use):

-Your name
-Media outlet you want to track
-State (like Illinois) where the media outlet is located

Join the RADAR campaign, assure fairness in the media, and make a difference. If not now, what are you waiting for?

Maureen Dowd: Men just want mommy | RADAR – How Can I Help?  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Something else (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:49 AM January 15th, 2005 EST (#1)
One of the other truck signs I'm still working on is:

MALE-HATING
NEWSPAPERS
HARM US ALL

I need to get more plywood, cut them in stripes, and write on them: EDUCATORS, CURRICULUM, COLLEGE CLASSES, POLITICIANS, LAWMAKERS, COPS AND JUDGES, TV COMMERCIALS, MOVIES, ADVERTISEMENTS, TV SHOWS, ETC., ETC.

Then I just bolt each strip over the center line and I have a whole new meaning. Do you think it would be okay to park this sign in front of a Newspaper Office, College, State Capitol that engages in forns of male vilifyication.

I like this form of protesting, because it gets noticed, and is a lot easier than walking around for hours. It's large enough to get seen, and you can just sit in the truck, read a book, or eat a sandwich.

On sunny days I take along a paper sign (30" X 40") and put it on the windshield.

The "rainy season" is usually over by March.

Ray


Re:Something else (Score:1)
by MAUS on 05:32 PM January 15th, 2005 EST (#2)
I have two workmates who think I am nuts to think that the DV myth is not true. I found a question to ask people that makes them doubt the big lie. First, ask them how old they are. Then ask them to name the names of men in their circle of aquaintence who they know for a fact have battered their wives. Then point out the absurdity of that if the big lie is true.Then point out the fact that they themselves are wife beaters by the feminist criteria, and that is what has popcorned the statistics. It is now politically incorrect to use the imperative tense when speaking to or about women or feminism because that is being "authoritarian". In other words if you have ever said "eat a peach" you are a wife beater (to which I say "GO WASH THE DOG!!")

My favourite come back to the "spousal verbal abuse"thing is to remind them that the average married man is nagged, henpecked, bitched, browbeaten and belittled into alcholism and impotence in the first half dozen years of marriage and that is hardly a military secret....subject usually changes.
Re:Something else (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 06:15 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#3)
Does anyone know just WHY the media is hiding the truth? If I were a journalist I'd be interested in informing the public of the truth, no matter what. I mean that is their JOB, right? to inform people of the TRUTH!
What do they have to GAIN from this kind of deception?

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
Re:Something else (Score:1)
by Ragtime on 07:51 PM January 16th, 2005 EST (#4)
"What do they have to GAIN from this kind of deception?"

Sales.

The 'news' is not about portraying the truth; it's about creating a marketable product -- an emotionally compelling or exciting story that sells.

So they play to their audience's perceived wishes and publish what they think their market wants to consume.

The media make money by drawing readers/viewers and exposing them to the media outlet's advertising.

In most cases the stories covered are 'true' in and of themselves. They just only cover the stories that they believe will sell better -- and then spin and sensationalize them for maximum emotional intensity.

Creating crises, demons, and boogy-persons, and nurturing them is very good for business (and government).

It's very easy to create a crisis by consistently reporting only one side of an issue

The 'truth' is simply a tool to be manipulated to make money. Most media outlets are thoroughly corrupt.

Ragtime

The Uppity Wallet

The opinions expressed above are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.

Re:Something else (Score:1)
by Tom on 08:16 AM January 17th, 2005 EST (#5)
http://www.standyourground.com
Great post Ragtime. I would humbly add that one additional variable is chivalry which creates a climate where women's needs are catered to and men's are ignored. It is so ingrained that people don't even know it is there.


Do we have True Equality?
Re:Something else (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 07:54 AM January 18th, 2005 EST (#6)
Yeah.
I kind of figured it had something to do with money.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]