Girls Gone Litigious

Joe Francis is in legal trouble yet again.

Four girls are suing the "Girls Gone Wild" producer claiming they were exploited in the videos. And the fact that all the girls were all between the ages of 13 and 17 when the footage was shot.

That's right, they were all underage. Oh, and did I mention that he has a conviction for prostitution in the state of Florida after he coerced one of the plaintiffs into being filmed with a reward of $50.

What a fantastic human being. You go, Joe Francis.

And it's no longer just a simple civil suit. When the suit was first file the girls' used only their initials to file the lawsuit. However, an appeals judge denied a request to file the court case without revealing the names of the plaintiffs.

Not only that, but this led the Florida Freedom Newspapers Inc. and the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association to contend that they had the right to know the names of the plaintiffs.

So far, this AP article is the only thing I've been able to hunt down, but with a story this new with this many complicated components I think this is sure to get more attention as time goes on.

As far as newsworthiness I feel like this story is about as good as it gets. Between the underage girls, a controversial court case, numerous freedom of speech issues, and the face of well-known douchebag Joe Francis to flash up on the screen; how could it get much better? What I'm waiting for now is to see how the media outlets are going to handle it.

While I'm sure it will be tempting to play on the more sensational elements of the story, will there be a way to treat it with the humanity it deserves? The reason that these girls are filing suit is because they were reportedly harassed and ostracized at school. Could a lot of media attention cause the same kind of thing?

The freedom of speech implications are fascinating as well. It would be a tough editorial decision whether or not to reveal the names of these girls, but the fact that editors aren't even being given the choice is distressing to say the least.

No matter what happens with this story, I hope that the media is careful in its treament of the girls. This is a tricky place where the lines between private and public individuals overlap and the potential for harm is immense to say the least.

As for the media itself, there's no doubt that choosing what to run in a story like this is tricky. Ultimately, I hope they are given that chance to decide.

Breast Cancer Awareness: Accessories Sold Separately

There's probably no way to say this without sounding like a jerk, so I'll just come clean. I'm sick of seeing pink everywhere I turn.

It feels like I can't go anywhere without running into a store begging me to buy something to support breast cancer victims.

There's no denying that breast cancer awarness is a good cause. I like the "Fight like a Girl" t-shirts, and I respect people who start their own homegrown charities such as the Thomas James hair salon in Michigan which is donating the money they make from selling pink hair extensions.

What bothers me is the sheer volume of merchandise on the market right now. You can get breast cancer themed rubber duckies, pins, scarves, hats, Barbies, and even breast cancer nail care kits.

There's even a new Vera Wang collection of breast cancer clothing, because what better way to support breast cancer survivors than wearing a pink, plaid two-piece outfit. Is it a swim suit? Boy shorts? I really have no idea.

Then there's the NFL. I'm sure everyone's seen the pink coins, footballs, and outfits the players have been sporting at games as well as pink-tinted jerseys, caps, and shirts they've been selling online. No matter how much they end up donating, it's inevitable that the NFL will be making a lot of money at the same time.

Also, since when has the NFL been a great bastion of womanhood anyway? Coming from a corporation that recently had to send out a memo to remind its players to respect female reporters, it's hard for me not to suspect ulterior motives.

There's no denying that breast cancer is a horrible disease and everyone should be aware of the signs and procedures used to treat it, but seeing the market flooded with pink merchandise like this makes my skin crawl.

No cause should be merely stylish or trendy. There has to be a better way to get this message across without turning it into a massive marketing opportunity.

Media Mashup: Coverage of Women and Islam

A few weeks ago, I was planning on comparing the way that CNN, FOX, and MSNBC were covering the recent burqa ban in France when I found something odd. Aside from a two minute feature from CNN, there was very little original coverage from any of these organizations. While they ran Associated Press stories, they didn't report or write anything original themselves.

Intrigued, I decided to look at what kind of coverage these stations were giving issues involving women and Islam. I looked over five or six articles from all three places, and tried to rate the coverage by content as well as how difficult the search engines were to us.

This is what I found.

CNN:
Content Quality: A-
Content Quantity: B
Search Engine D-

CNN had by far the most extensive original coverage of Muslim women, though I had to scroll through pages and pages of AP stories to find it. One article that I liked in particular had Muslim women explaining their choice to wear a burqa, something I haven't seen much of elsewhere in the media.

Another story CNN ran featured a slides how and a story about a company that designs fashionable headscarves in Belgium. While it's a fun article and has great visuals, I would have liked to know if there was any controversy over the origin and nature of these designs. Whether or not this is a problem I do not know, but I would have liked to see it addressed one way or the other.

As far as the opinion section, there was a fantastic piece by Fatemeh Fakhrai, who runs a blog about how the media portrays Muslims. In the piece, she discussed how the media is obsessed with the way that Muslim woman look. It was easily the best written opinion piece of any I came across on any of the three sites.

FOX
Content Quality: B
Content Quantity: D
Search Engine: F

I ran into the same problem FOX as I did with CNN, scrolling through over ten pages of content before I located the first original stories dealing with Islam and women. While the actual articles I did find were of good quality, there were very few of them.

One of the first articles I came across discussed a controversy raised by Muslim women sitting behind President. While it wasn't just about Muslim women per se, it was an interesting well written article about the process of creating a crowd of people at a presidential speech. Though it could have probed further into the issues.

A second article was an expose about Muslim women in America and domestic abuse. Interviewing Muslim women about such a sensitive topic is probably no easy task, so I applause them for finding these women to talk to. However, its statistics about domestic abuse were mostly taken from an advoacy group. While I know these numbers were hard to obtain because of the low rate of being reported (which the article acknowledged), relying on an advocacy group for numbers isn't always a great practice in general. Overall, it was well written and well reported.

I fond only two editorials discussion issues involving Muslim women. One, a blog entry about high profile women in Britain was interesting, but written so poorly it made me wonder where the editors were. The other an opinion piece about the burqa ban, was well written and researched. So they kind of canceled each other out quality wise.

MSNBC
Content Quality: C
Content Quantity: F
Search Engine: ?



MSNBC was the one news station that surprised me by having incredibly disappointing results. Whether or not this is the fault of the search engine, is debatable. I could only come up with two non-AP stories involving Muslim women. With the AP stories, it brought this to a whopping total of five.

One was a brief article of  controversy involving the Muslim women who worked at Disney. It was pitifully short, only have a page, and opened with a quote from the Chicago tribune which I find disturbing.

The other discussed Muslim women and finance. Overall the reporting, writing, and ideas were good. However, that doesn't change the fact that the list of articles is very surprisingly short. Once again, I'm not sure if this was a problem related to the search engine.



Conclusion:
It seems to me that stories covering the issues of Muslim women is few and far between. I would have to agree with something Fakhrai's said in her opinion piece on CNN. I would love to see more the media strive write articles that find out these women really are and what is important to them.

If the media can't do that for the people of the world, what is the point of having it to begin with?

Are Women the New Swing State?

With a Republican upset of the Democratic control likely in the election, candidates of both parties are scrambling to connect with voters.

In the media's scramble to cover every angle of this position it's seems there's one vote that may be up for grabs. The women vote.

In a recent article, the Washington Post said that while women are typically more likely to vote Democrat, they may be more susceptible to change in this election given the recent discouraging economic news.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Republicans can count on the W-vote on election day. A few weeks ago, the New York Times released an article saying that the populist anger expressed at President Obama's administration is predominantly male with women less likely to rush out to the polls to overturn Democratic control.

There was one word both articles used to describe women; despairing. Both articles pointed out that women are less likely to vote come November 2 for the sheer reason of being burnt out on terrible economic news. This has also manifested in one writer's plea on the blog Politics Daily, for women to  turn out and vote Democrat.

One thing's for sure. Though it's tempting to curl up in a ball and never turn on the TV again, rise above it. As people of a democratic nation, all men and women have a duty to vote.

Even if it's a decision between the lesser of two evils, make the choice.

Female Republican Figureheads + Science= Not So Much

With politicians such as Michele Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell, and Sarah Palin it seems the Republican party has a new face. The face of pretty, outspoken women. While I must immediately admit my bias by saying that I am not  Republican, it's not the politics of these ladies I'm interested in. Rather, it's their relationship to science.

Or lack thereof.

Fox News correspondent Sarah Palin already established a shaky relationship with science by claiming the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and people and dinosaurs coexisted soon after she was elected the mayor of Wassilla, Alaksa.

Believing in creationism is one thing, but I find it terrifying that an elected official refuses to acknowledge scientific  findings of the last 200 years or so. The inherent coolness of man hunting dinosaurs aside.

Next comes Sen. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann established her own personal break from science (on Earth Day no less) by saying that carbon dioxide was "naturally occurring" as well as "good for the earth." She went on to say that not one scientific study could prove carbon dioxide was bad for the environment.

But neither of these is anything compared to Christine O'Donell, the Republican candidate running against Democrat Chris Coons for the Senate seat in Delaware. Oh, Christine O'Donnell. Crazy, dabbling in witchcraft, Christine O'Donnell.

O'Donnell and science never really saw eye to eye.  She has said that evolution is a "myth" and has posed the question, "if evolution is real why can't we see monkeys evolving into people today?"

She's also anti-condom. That's not to say she's anti-premarital sex or pro-choice, she's just actively against condom use, calling them "anti-human" and saying they "will not protect you from AIDS."

But my personal favorite has to do with homosexuality. She believes that homosexuals suffer from an "identity disorder". They were created in the image of God, but their identity was adopted through societal factors making them psychologically defective.

But hey, who am I to judge? O'Donnell probably knows better than the entirety of the mental health community that removed homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM-III in 1973.

So, to review, CO2 is good for you, humankind fought with dinosaurs to assert themselves on the planet, and gays suffer from an identity disorder. Or, in summation, three of the most prominent women in the Republican Party seem to have a pretty precarious grasp on science,

What really bothers me, however, is not the complete and total disregard for facts. The question that keeps me awake at night, tossing and turning, is this: Would these women be getting any attention at all if they weren't attractive?

Putting aside their policies, politics and talking points, these are stupid human beings. They have failed to grasp simple, middle school-level scientific facts. Come on, I thought we were done letting the pretty, dumb girls win popularity contests back in middle school.

Science, you're 0 for 3. You best start making baby dinosaurs pronto if you hope to get people back on board.