A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Newsweek

Bachmann

by Leave a Comment

Official photo of Congresswoman Michele Bachma...
Image via Wikipedia

Having been delayed by start of the semester preparations, I only just got around to seeing the cover of Newsweek. I had heard about the Bachmann controversy, but hearing about it and seeing the horrible cover in person are two different things.

The intentional use of unflattering images is, of course nothing new. Using such an image is a standard rhetorical device and can be somewhat effective in slanting the audience’s perspective. As with all rhetorical devices, a critical thinker will be on guard against it and (hopefully) see through the rhetoric so as to determine if anything substantive lies behind it. To use this specific example, one way to approach this cover is as follows: “wow, what a horrible picture of Bachmann. Newsweek claims she is the queen of rage, but do they provide any actual evidence for this claim? Also, is that something that should worry me?”

In addition to the critical thinking aspect, there is also the ethical aspect regard such images. Such photos are easy enough to find-after all, no matter how attractive or intelligent a person might be, there is always some angle, lighting or momentary expression that will enable a really awful photo. Of course, better photos are also easy to find and, as most folks know, a professional photographer can make almost anyone look good (or at least okay).

As such, there is typically a choice to be made when it comes to images: a good one, a bad one, and so on. In some cases, a bad image can be justified. Obviously, if that is the only available photo, then it would thus be generally acceptable to use it. It can also be justified in cases when the image is relevant to the story. For example, if someone is arrested a photo of that event, even if the person looks awful, would seem to be acceptable. After all, a photo of someone being arrested seems perfectly appropriate for a story about the person being arrested. However, neither of these apply to the Bachmann photo. First, there are plenty of good photos of her that could have been used. Second, while a picture of her being angry could be relevant, the photo selected does not show rage. It is a bad photo that makes her seem, well, dull and a bit confused. About the only thing that can be said in Newsweek’s favor is at least they did not modify the image to make it appear worse (like what Time did to OJ Simpson).

As sort of a variant on the philosophical principle of charity, news publications should follow a principle of image charity: unless there is an adequate justification for a bad image, then at least a neutral one should be used. As such, Newsweek acted incorrectly in using this image.

Another possibility worth considering is that a bad image is used because the person selecting the image is lacking in aesthetic judgment. That is, they do not realize that they have picked a crappy picture. This does happen. Years ago when I tried my hand at Match.com I noticed that many women would have some very good photos and also some truly horrible photos that made them look awful. While I could be wrong, I infer that they did not realize that the photos were bad-if they did, they would not have used them.

Of course, the folks at Newsweek cannot seriously claim that they are incompetent when it comes to picking photos. Surely they were quite aware of the nature of the image and went with it anyway. The most plausible explanation is that it was intended (as noted above) a rhetorical shot at Bachmann to make her look bad. While this sort of thing is what can be expected in campaign ads, it is not what should be done by a publication that purports to be an objective purveyor of the news or a provider of objective and fair analysis.

Enhanced by Zemanta

And then I stopped Reading Newsweek…

by Leave a Comment

Cover of the May 13, 1940 issue of Newsweek ma...
Remember when Newsweek used real images?

I’ve read Newsweek for decades. As I recall, my mother subscribed to it and I also read it at school. I eventually subscribed to it myself and found it to be of reasonably good quality with some top notch contributors. Like much of the printed media, Newsweek began to fell victim to the rise of the internet and, although the magazine created a web page, it seemed to have difficulty keeping up with the times. Some of its top people moved on to other venues and the magazine struggled to remain relevant and profitable.

Since I have been involved in a home improvement marathon, I just got around to looking at the latest issue of the magazine. For some strange reason, they decided to add a computer-aged image of Princess Di to a photograph featuring Kate Middleton and used this as the cover. The feature story, by editor Tina Brown, is a counter-factual piece that speculates what Princess Di would be like now, if she had not died.

While such alternative timelines can be interesting as science fiction or as academic exercises in what might have been, they generally seem to be out of place in the context of the news. After all, fiction and speculation deal with what might have been. The news is supposed to deal with what is (or was).

True, there can be some merit in including some speculation about what might have been if certain things had been different. However, for the news this should remain a small part of the whole (specifically in the editorial realm), rather than a major focus of the story. Otherwise, it will cross over from being news to being science fiction. The fact that Newsweek is engaging in this sort of thing is a clear indicator of what the magazine has become.

This sort of speculative story could, perhaps be forgiven as a lame attempt to cash in on what would have been Lady Di’s upcoming birthday. However, creating a doctored image for the story certainly crosses an important line.

As noted above, a publication that purports to be a news publication needs to remain within the realm of news. This is supposed to be the realm of facts. As such, images used by a news source should be real images, not modified. While Newsweek did not stoop quite to the level of a tabloid (the level at which one might claim that Princess Di is still alive and offer up a doctored photo as evidence), this is certainly a step down from legitimate news.

This need not be a fatal blow to Newsweek, but recovering from this sort of thing will be difficult. Of course, this assumes that they want to remain a news magazine rather than descending into the realm of tabloids. That still seems to be a profitable realm, so perhaps it is worth going there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hotel Inconsequential

by Leave a Comment

Hotel in Regensburg
Image via Wikipedia

Strauss-Kahn made headlines for allegedly assaulting a hotel worker. The folks at Newsweek decided to follow up on the story with a bit of sensationalism. In “Hotel Confidential“, Bernstein and Ellison begin with “It’s the dirty secret about business travel. Many married men expect sex along with their room service, according to a NEWSWEEK poll.”

The poll asked about what the men did on business trips.  8% claim to have cheated on their spouse. 3% claim they made a pass at a hotel worker with a reported 55% failure rate and a 27% success rate. 9% claim they booked a massage via their hotel and 11% claim an attempt at sexual contact occurred. Interestingly, none of the men claimed to have initiated this. 2% claimed they had sex with a hotel worker, 6% claimed they had paid for sex and 21% admitted they had thought about cheating.

Now, let us crunch the numbers and subject the key claim (many married men expect sex along with their room service) to some critical thinking.

The claim itself could be taken at least two ways. One interpretation is that many married men expect sex while traveling on business. The other is that many married men expect sex to be provided sex by people associate with the hotel. This could mean that they expect sex from the people who provide room service or that they expect to be provided sex via the auspices of hotel employees but not with said employees.

Taking the numbers as presented, 21% of men thought about cheating. That cannot reasonably be taken as counting as expecting sex. The 8% who claimed to have cheated can probably be taken as expecting sex when they travel (but even that is an inference), but that hardly counts as many. The 11% of the 9% who booked massages in which sexual contact was attempted also does not seem to constitute a many. The 2% who claimed to have had sex with hotel workers is also not a many. The 3% who made a pass and presumably expected sex also do not seem to constitute a many.

Of course, it would be an error to take the numbers as presented. After all, polls have a margin of error that must be taken into account when considering the results. Assuming that the survey was done properly, the margin of error for a survey of 400 people is 4.9%. While this means that the percentages could be higher, it also means they could be lower (although not reduced to 0%). Given the small size of the survey and the rather small percentages, it would not be very reasonable to take much away from this survey. It certainly does not support the claim that many married men expect sex along with their room service (taken in any of the ways mentioned above). I have no doubt that some men do, but no evidence is given that shows that many do.

This discussion should not be taken as dismissing the harassment of or assaults on hotel workers. That clearly happens and is reprehensible. It is also good that the matter is getting media coverage. However, Newsweek seems to have rather dropped the ball on this matter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is the Media Over Sarah Palin?

by Leave a Comment

Sarah Palin in Savannah, Georgia, Dec 1, 2008 ...
Image via Wikipedia

Newsweek recently published “Is Sarah Palin Over?”  As Newsweek notes, coverage of Palin blogs and social media has dropped. From February to April there were a mere 235,032 blog posts about her and only 135,421 references to her in the social media. As Newsweek sees it, the value of that coverage dropped from $63 million to a mere $33 million. While this is a drop, it is obviously worth pointing out that this is still a great deal of coverage. It is also worth pointing out that a celebrity tends to experiencing both waxing and waning in their coverage. As such, to claim that Palin is over at this point would seem to be somewhat premature.

Rather than asking “is Sarah Palin over?”,  I think the more appropriate question is “is the media over Sarah Palin?” The answer seems to be that they are not-at least in the case of Newsweek. If the folks at Newsweek were over Sarah, perhaps because she were (in fact) over, then they would hardly devote an article to this subject. The best way to show that someone is over, one might imagine, is to simply stop covering that person. The absence of coverage says “s/he is over” far better than writing an article about it.

While Newsweek seems to have been rather Sarah focused, the folks there are not alone. The media, in general, has been rather obsessed with Sarah Palin and transformed her from a minor political blip to a major player (at least in their coverage). Given how important she has been to these media folks, it is hardly surprising that they would want to keep her going. As such, she will only truly be over when they are over her.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Once Great White Male

by Leave a Comment

John Quincy Adams Ward
Image by Smithsonian Institution via Flickr

Newsweek recently ran an article about the plight of the formerly great white male. The article reveals that as of early 2011 600,000 college educated white males in the 35-64 age group were without jobs. This is a 5% unemployment rate. The gist of the article seems to be that the white male is in dire straits. However, this claim does not seem to be supported by the available evidence. This is not, however, to say that it would be incorrect to be concerned about the plight of people in that demographic.

While the 5% unemployment rate is twice what it was prior to the economic meltdown, it is still far better than other demographics. This is not to say that the men who are unemployed are not suffering-they surely are. However, this hardly seems to be a clear sign that educated white males do not have a “freaking prayer.” Rather, it shows that the economic mess hit very hard-hard enough to impact even those in the upper tiers.

That said, it would also be a mistake to simply dismiss concerns about this demographic as being groundless. After all, to dismiss the plight of the unemployed white men because they are white and male would be comparable to dismissing the plight of any group based on the gender or ethnicity of its members. As such, it seems right to be concerned about these people because they are, after all, people.

It might be argued that even if these white males are worse off than before, this should not be  matter of concern. After all, white males have been doing very well at the expense of others for quite some time. As such, they certainly deserve to pay for these past injustices.

While this does have a certain appeal, there is the obvious concern about what is actually just. If those individuals who oppressed minorities and women are now paying for their misdeeds, then that could be seen as just. However, it would hardly be just if all white men were treated as interchangeable, so that the men losing their jobs now are somehow justly paying for the actions of their predecessors based on an inheritable white guilt.

It might also be argued that the plight of the unemployed white men should not be a matter of concern because the wealthiest people are still white males. As such, the white male hardly deserves any sympathy.

While it is true that most of the very wealthy in America are white males, it is not true that most white males are very wealthy. If it was reasonable to claim that because some people of type X are wealthy, then we need not be concerned about people of type X being unemployed, then it would follow that we would not need to be concerned about anyone. For example, Oprah is very rich, yet it should not be inferred that we should not be concerned about black women. Likewise, the mere fact that Trump is white, male and rich (maybe) does not entail that we should not be concerned about the white men who are unemployed.

I, of course, am well aware that white, educated men are still very well off relative to everyone else. However, this does not entail that all white men  are well off or that it is foolish to be concerned about those people who are unemployed, but also happen to be white men. After all, the fact that most wealthy people in the US are white males is hardly a big help to the white guy who cannot find a job.

My point is, of course, not that special attention should be paid to the white male. Rather, my point is that the white males who are not doing well should not be ignored simply because some white males are still doing very well indeed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ignorance, Revisited

by Leave a Comment

This political cartoon (attributed to Benjamin...
Image via Wikipedia

As Americans should now, folks who want to become citizens have to go through a process that involves taking a test consisting of 10 questions from a bank of 100 questions in 5 categories related to American history and government. To pass, a person must get 6 out of 10 right.

As is done every so often, folks at Newsweek decided to see how Americans would do on the tests. As always, a significant percentage (38%) of Americans failed the test. This did not surprise me at all. I have heard of other instances in which Americans were tested and I also have seen how lacking even college students are in knowledge of the basic facts of American history and government.

When looking at the breakdown of the results, there are some interesting numbers. 67% of men passed the test while only 58% of women did. This is, no doubt, due to the patriarchal nature of the questions. Joking aside, it is certainly interesting that men did significantly better. This could very well be due to a difference in interests. In general, men still seem to find history and politics more interesting than women do.

A rather unsurprising result is that 75% of those earning $100,000 or more passed while a dismal 40% of those making $20,000 or less passed. This most likely reflected the degree of education possessed by the people in question. After all, people who make $100,000 or more a year most likely finished high school and have at least a B.A./B.S. thus picking up at least some knowledge. There is also the fact that high earners probably have somewhat more interest in the subject material of the test. However, it is rather disappointing that the results were still rather poor.

One interesting set of results involves the success rate of people based on their political views. The Newsweek results found that the closer a person matched their party’s label (conservative or liberal), the better they did. In the case of Republicans, 70% of the conservatives passed followed by 61% of the moderates and 55% of the liberals. In the case of the Democrats, 62% of the liberals and moderates passed, while 36% of the conservative Democrats managed to pass.

These results seem to indicate that Americans who are more closely aligned with the professed ideology of their parties are better informed than those who are not. So, for example, while conservative Republicans seem vastly more informed (in this context) than a conservative Democrat, they are only somewhat better informed than liberal or moderate Democrats. This can be taken as indicating the the political middle is less informed than the left and right edges, with the conservative Democrats being the worst of the lot.  The results are, in any case, disappointing across the board.

In terms of voters, 68% of those who voted regularly passed the test. This indicates that a significant percentage of voters are making decisions that are likely to be poorly grounded in an understanding of American history and how the system works. Of course, this probably matches quite well with the ignorance of elected officials (nicely illustrated by Michele Bachman’s recent flub).

I have two main points to make about these results. The first is that they can be taken as a sign that a significant percentage of Americans are ignorant of our history and political system. Assuming that this knowledge is important to making informed political choices, this bodes ill for the country. The second is that this raises concerns about the fairness of the citizenship tests. After all, if 38% of the Americans tested failed, then it might be that the test is actually unfair when it comes to determining who is suitable to be an American citizen. To use an analogy, if 38% of the graduates of a school failed the admissions test to that school, this would lead one to wonder about the quality of the school or the fairness of the admission tests. Likewise for the citizenship test and the quality of American education (and the quality of Americans).

For those who might be wondering, I scored 100% on the Newsweek test. But, I majored in political science and philosophy, plus I am a history buff, all of which which gives me some unfair advantages.

Enhanced by Zemanta
%d bloggers like this: