$1 billion for fuel. $20 million for relief. What does that say to you?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Let me get this straight ...
Since 2004, the United States has supplied the Israeli military with more than $1 billion for 500 million gallons of refined fuel. Israel and Hamas duke it out in Gaza. 1,300 Palestinians die. There’s $2 billion in damage. The United Nations makes an appeal for $613 million in relief funds for the Palestinian people. The United States offers $20 million.
$1 billion for fuel. $20 million for relief. What does that say to you?
$1 billion for fuel. $20 million for relief. What does that say to you?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Voice for the Voiceless
There is one thing all leaders have in common. They’ve all stood in a room and were mocked for what they believed in. More importantly, they left that room and continued to believe.
In October, I attended a CNN roundtable discussion on the 2008 election. Naturally, the conversation led to the economy and its downturn. Toward the end, I mustered up the nerve to ask the respected panel full of news executives and respected journalists a question about over-reporting. My question, perhaps poorly phrased, was how to keep the audience interested in a story that was so over-reported. How do you get people to care?
And the laughter came. “I think people do care, you may be the only who doesn’t.”
“You can’t force someone to care, you can only tell them the story,” said the president of a popular political blog.
I wanted to scream at him, but the mic had already been passed back to the host. The panel full of privileged individuals from generations of wealthy families all agreed that you can’t force the audience to care about issues. I wanted to tell them that they were wrong. I wanted to lecture them on the responsibility of journalists to draw the viewers in and make them care. But I knew they would think I was naïve and perhaps blinded by foolish optimism.
After that morning, I believed that true change started with anger. I was so angry at myself, at that room, at that CNN president. I was angry at the ignorance and the audacity to just brush away my ideas as if they meant nothing. But only a few weeks later when I saw Barack Obama win the presidency, the anger faded and hope was reborn.
In my work as a journalist, I’ve met people who have tuned out politics and journalism completely. The two fields are remarkably similar in how they treat the average individual. In the words of Edward R. Murrow, "The American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe." If you treat the audience as if they have a valuable opinion, they will express it. Some may go overboard, but others will most likely appreciate being treated as thinking individuals. President-elect Obama certainly appealed to the average person. New voters turned up at the polls in record numbers. Citizens who couldn’t care less about politics were all of a sudden joined together in believing they could unite and change the norms that have been accepted for centuries.
I pray each day that the same thing will happen in journalism. Today, when we turn on the news, you don't see diversity. The reporters may be diverse, but the stories are not. As an Asian woman, I really can’t see this country with an Asian president. I can’t even see an Asian senator. Asians are the fastest growing minority next to Hispanics. Many go to college and make great lives for themselves. But many live in poverty. With lack of money comes lack of opportunity. That is why I chose to be a journalist. Giving a voice to the voiceless is how change comes about. I’ve done stories on Hispanic families whose lives are in such despair that they can never imagine what it’s like to own a home much less lose one in a bad economy. I met a black mother who lost her son in a gang-related drive-by shooting. When I pitched that story to a news station, they brushed it off as old news not worth reporting.
When everyone around you is telling you to give up, you hear a voice that faintly tells you to go on. There has to be a constant push to force the voice inside you to grow louder. The time has come for change in Washington. I believe the time has come for change in news.
In October, I attended a CNN roundtable discussion on the 2008 election. Naturally, the conversation led to the economy and its downturn. Toward the end, I mustered up the nerve to ask the respected panel full of news executives and respected journalists a question about over-reporting. My question, perhaps poorly phrased, was how to keep the audience interested in a story that was so over-reported. How do you get people to care?
And the laughter came. “I think people do care, you may be the only who doesn’t.”
“You can’t force someone to care, you can only tell them the story,” said the president of a popular political blog.
I wanted to scream at him, but the mic had already been passed back to the host. The panel full of privileged individuals from generations of wealthy families all agreed that you can’t force the audience to care about issues. I wanted to tell them that they were wrong. I wanted to lecture them on the responsibility of journalists to draw the viewers in and make them care. But I knew they would think I was naïve and perhaps blinded by foolish optimism.
After that morning, I believed that true change started with anger. I was so angry at myself, at that room, at that CNN president. I was angry at the ignorance and the audacity to just brush away my ideas as if they meant nothing. But only a few weeks later when I saw Barack Obama win the presidency, the anger faded and hope was reborn.
In my work as a journalist, I’ve met people who have tuned out politics and journalism completely. The two fields are remarkably similar in how they treat the average individual. In the words of Edward R. Murrow, "The American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe." If you treat the audience as if they have a valuable opinion, they will express it. Some may go overboard, but others will most likely appreciate being treated as thinking individuals. President-elect Obama certainly appealed to the average person. New voters turned up at the polls in record numbers. Citizens who couldn’t care less about politics were all of a sudden joined together in believing they could unite and change the norms that have been accepted for centuries.
I pray each day that the same thing will happen in journalism. Today, when we turn on the news, you don't see diversity. The reporters may be diverse, but the stories are not. As an Asian woman, I really can’t see this country with an Asian president. I can’t even see an Asian senator. Asians are the fastest growing minority next to Hispanics. Many go to college and make great lives for themselves. But many live in poverty. With lack of money comes lack of opportunity. That is why I chose to be a journalist. Giving a voice to the voiceless is how change comes about. I’ve done stories on Hispanic families whose lives are in such despair that they can never imagine what it’s like to own a home much less lose one in a bad economy. I met a black mother who lost her son in a gang-related drive-by shooting. When I pitched that story to a news station, they brushed it off as old news not worth reporting.
When everyone around you is telling you to give up, you hear a voice that faintly tells you to go on. There has to be a constant push to force the voice inside you to grow louder. The time has come for change in Washington. I believe the time has come for change in news.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Well, that's just silly
Was it really necessary for President Obama to take the oath of office again?
As I mentioned yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the whole swearing-in thing. It made everyone uncomfortable. But we got the point.
And, according to the U.S. Constitution, Obama became President at Noon yesterday, regardless. So, was the re- swearing-in really necessary?
Well, if you want to be picky, the Constitution also states:
Like I said ... silly.
As I mentioned yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the whole swearing-in thing. It made everyone uncomfortable. But we got the point.
And, according to the U.S. Constitution, Obama became President at Noon yesterday, regardless. So, was the re- swearing-in really necessary?
Well, if you want to be picky, the Constitution also states:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."So since Roberts took Obama down some winding road around the "faithfully execute" part, rearranged some words and replaced one preposition with another preposition of his own choosing, the Obama Administration felt it was necessary to bring the two men together to do the whole thing again.
Like I said ... silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
