BlogHer question of the day: WIMN asks Elizabeth Edwards about media policy reform
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner July 29th, 2007 |
In the coming days, I’ll likely be writing a bit more about much of what unfolded at BlogHer07, the conference for women who blog (during our WAM conference session on feminist blogging, Deanna Zandt made an astute suggestion about avoiding self-marginalization in language, and ever since I prefer to use “women who blog” rather than “women bloggers,” as the latter phrase implies that men are the “norm” in the blogosphere, just as “women doctors” and “women lawyers” implies the same for the medical and legal arenas).
For now, though, I encourage you to watch this video from the conference’s closing keynote with outspoken feminist blogger Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. At minute 6:11 in the video clip, I asked Edwards whether she knew her husband’s stance on media consolidation, and whether an Edwards presidency would take a strong stand on media policy reform to reverse the anti-democratic effects of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the free-flow of independent, non-commercial, non-corrupted information that we all need to function effectively as active members of a democracy:
Do listen to Elizabeth Edwards response, which included the following quotes:
“John is very clear that he does not want Rupert Murdoch as the gatekeeper of information that comes to the American people. But not only was the consolidation that occurred under the Telecommunications Act bad, but then we have the FCC of this administration who is further compounding the problem. It would be John’s desire to reverse all of that.”
[snip - Edwards discussing the importance of localism in news and the blanding out of news in her local paper once it became a McClatchy news outlet]
“It’s been very bad for democracy for precisely the reasons you’ve suggested, which has made your jobs even more important because you’re not subject to the same consolidations, which is another reason why net neutrality is so important. So we’re not allowing a single, powerful, well-financed voices to be the ones with the largest megaphones and everybody else to be drowned out. So, John has a very strong position on this. I don’t actually know whether it’s on the website but if it’s not on the website already for you to see I’ll make certain that it is, because I know it is his position.”
Edwards’ full response was more informed and more critical than I expected, as it is frankly all too rare for politicians and campaign staffers to know much about, or take a strong stance on, structural media problems.
But Elizabeth Edwards is not the normal spinmistress — in a telling moment during the Q&A, a BlogHer attendee wanted to know how many other people vet and edit her posts to her blog on the official John Edwards for President website. Edwards answer: no one edits or approves her posts — the outspoken, opinionated blogger writes what she believes, and that’s that. Remarkable in this age of candidates on both sides of the aisle relying on overly scripted soundbites, tired and typical talking points and “stay on message!” party-line spin.
No wonder the Edwards campaign originally hired feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan (who recently joined our community as a WIMN’s Voices blogger) to run their online presence (unfortunately, the campaign did not allow them the same freedom of speech afforded Elizabeth, ending in their mutual resignations).
Incidentally, at the post-keynote closing reception at a Chicago museum, Edwards and I spoke about the multi-tentacled beast that is structural media bias. I mentioned a study shelved by the FCC related to gender and race in media ownership, and she said she was especially interested in the findings and asked me to send it to her — which I will do when I get back to New York (I’m currently in Chicago for a speaking event and fundraiser for Women In Media & News at Chicago’s independent bookstore Women and Children First on Thurs., Aug. 2 — RSVP if you’re in the area! — and for the Yearly Kos conference which will take place next weekend, featuring various feminist blogger and media criticism panels and roundtables). Edwards’ interest in this topic was palpable, and seemingly quite genuine. She understands how essential free, unfettered, independent journalism is to successful democracy.
Until the Edwards’ campaign has a statement of purpose about media reform on their official campaign website I have no way to judge whether or not her husband is of similar mindset or would make media reform a priority. Fingers crossed, eh?
July 29th, 2007 22:51
[…] Mom 2 Amara went and discusses here why television journalists don’t blog and other topics raised at BlogHer this year. Women in Media and News were there and asked Elizabeth Edwards about media policy reform. Click on the link to find out what Ms. Edwards said. […]
July 30th, 2007 00:48
I think I like Elizabeth Edwards better than her husband.
Also, BTW, I believe the blogger who briefly worked for the Edwards campaign before the whole Bill Donohue smear campaign was Melissa McEwan.
July 30th, 2007 09:22
[…] Also, yesterday I promised to update my detailed post with video of Elizabeth Edwards answering my question about media reform at BlogHer 2007 . Done. For those of you who don’t go back and reread posts you’ve read previously, I thought I’d also add it here: […]
July 31st, 2007 01:01
[…] Elizabeth Edwards and me (as I said in a previous post, her response to my question about media consolidation was impressive): […]
August 1st, 2007 17:26
I understand your concern about not being recognized by the mainstream but don’t you think it’s a little selfish and “genderish” for you to complain about it when they don’t mention that if you speak out against the Iraq war that your property and assets can be seized based on Bush’s latest Presidential Executive Order. I mean what is truly important here. Selfish. You won’t even have a computer to blog on if you don’t stop worrying about being recognized as a woman and a blogger and start using your blogging skils to inform people about thier unalienable rights being stipped from them and thrown in the dust bin. If blogging about it won’t help then you better find another way and stop complaing to a bought and paid for candidate like Edwards and his wife. Imagine my surprise when one of the respondants said she liked Mrs. Edwards better than her husband who happens to be a man.
August 1st, 2007 23:37
Jeff: interesting that you use the words “selfish” and “genderish” to describe my critique of corporate media bias, when in fact I didn’t discuss sexism much in this post or in this question — if you watch the video, I clearly say that structural media biases of commercialism and consolidation have been problematic for people at every point on the political spectrum, and affect all issues we care about, not just those based on gender. I was talking about democracy — democracy, of course, being the core premise upon which our government and our society are supposed to be based. Yet you say I’m “selfish” because I’m not talking about Iraq. In fact, I have talked about biased media coverage of Iraq constantly on this blog, as have many of our other bloggers here — I simply was not talking about Iraq at this very moment, because there are actually many issues that are important simultaneously. And media, of course, is key to what got us into Iraq in the first place. (Know your history before you critique others - it will make your arguments more effective.)
Could it be that you just consider all feminsists selfish and you believe women don’t deserve or have a right to talk about sexism, and that’s why you reflexively called a post about Women In Media & News holding a politician’s wife and campaigner accountable to a media reform question to be “genderish” when, in fact, the only thing “genderish” about that question was that both the persons asking and answering it were women?