This week, with the education "reform" propaganda machine roaring in the background - in the form of NBC's Education Nation and the debut of Waiting for Superman - I attended Open House at my child's high school. In this annual ritual, anxious and animated parents bustle through the hallways of their children's school, following in condensed form the sequence of classes and teachers that their children experience each day, eagerly collecting handouts from faculty, writing down contact information, and happily introducing themselves as "so-and-so's Mom or Dad."
I've attended these events for nearly twenty years, beginning with my oldest child's kindergarten, but I couldn't help but notice this year how the constancy of the ritual differs from the furiously unreal diatribe about education in the mainstream media.
You see, in "real-world" talk about education that's going on at Open House, standardized testing does not take center stage. Teachers introduce parents to the curriculum they'll be teaching. They explain their grading and assessment philosophy. They describe some of the instructional methods they like to use in class. And they ask parents to offer whatever kind of insights they have about their children's interests and learning styles. Parents don't ask to see the teacher's test scores from last year. They don't want to know what kind of incentives are in place to motivate the teacher. And they don't threaten to leave the school for a "competing" institution if the teacher's "results" don't measure up to snuff.
Despite what they're being told over and over, by politicians and pundits who eschew public schools for their own children and by a parade of education "experts" who've never set foot in the classroom, that our nation's schools are "broken" and populated with "ineffective" uncaring teachers, parents engaged in real-world education talk like their local schools and expect them to evaluate teachers, not to punish them, but to help them improve.
UPDATE 1: Apparently the blocks on the Education Nation Facebook page have been lifted and they are now allowing dissent. At the suggestion of OL commenter Gray, I'm urging you to log in there and make your voice heard. Tell them that more educators need to be included on the discussion panels. And ask why they weren't in the first place.
Can you imagine a major media outlet having extensive programming about the economy and inviting no economists? Would a news show doing an in-depth treatment about business ever fail to include spokes people from the business world?
Of course not. Yet later this week when NBC news rolls out its Education Nation extravaganza, what is by-and-large being left out of the programming are educators.
"there are many corporate executives, there are people from educational policy organizations, there are politicians, there are foundations. There are journalists. Many of these lack any real knowledge about education, or are well known for pushing a particular view of education to the exclusion of any other. There are more than 30 names. Of these two are from parent organizations, and there is one representative from the smaller of the two national teachers unions."
After scores of angry educators stormed the Education Nation Facebook page - which resulted in many of them being blocked - it appears that Diane Ravitch, a prominent critic of the Obama administration's education policies, will be interviewed - but not included in the panel discussions.
The Facebook "voice" for Education Nation consoles that there will be teachers included in a "Teachers' Town Hall" on Sunday September 26. But that's not the same thing as being included in the "panels of experts" as educator Nancy Flanagan notes in comments. Being "shuffled off into a 'Town Hall' while the headliner presenters - none of whom are educators and many of whom represent commercial interests" is a not-so-subtle attempt to show educators their "place" in the debate.
All of this falls in the midst of a full frontal assault on public education and teachers that is occurring this week in multiple venues. From Monday's ludicrous Oprah show playing up the debut of the movie Waiting for Superman, through the weekend's roll-out of Education Nation, this propaganda campaign is taking place with very little input from educators, unless they happen to work in charter schools.
And why should it? After all, we've all been to school. We all know what school is all about. And we all know what kind of schools we would like, right? Which begs a question posed in a blog post by the Learning First Alliance's Anne O'Brien recently, "Is teaching a profession or a public service?"
In other words, when we "the public" - which in the case of Education Nation means star journalists and representatives of big businesses, think tanks, and foundations - decide what we mean by a "good school" we basically just need to give educators their marching orders. I mean, when we decide it's time to re-engineer the city streets, do we go talk to the crews manning the bulldozers? If there's a problem with trash in our community, do we bother interviewing the garbage men to get their expertise? No. We just pay the taxes and make the decisions - cut this street through here, run the trucks every Wednesday - that will ensure we are being "well served" by the people who have to do the grunt work.
If indeed what we want is for educators to be public servants, then what we're going to get is education that is subject to those in the public who have the most power. And if you believe that's all well and good for those yayhoos down in Texas, then you don't know how the system works. Because Texas is the nation's second-largest textbook market, textbook companies and test makers that win contracts in Texas end up using the economies of scale of that contract to roll out their products across the country. So if you're okay with having the powerful control education, rather than those mean old teachers' unions, then you're opening the door to the potential for your kids or your neighbor's kids to be learning about Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority instead of reading biographies of George Washington.
Of course professional educators in the state of Texas are fighting these rightwing loonies every step of the way. Two of them have decided to run for the state school board to return textbook policy back to sanity. Tomorrow, the candidates, Judy Jennings and Rebecca Bell-Metereau, will appear at a hearing where they will do battle against the ridiculous contention that teaching kids something about Islam is un-American.
If you care at all about education and kids, you'd better hope the professionals win this one. And you should also toss them a few bucks to ensure the voice of reason, developed through being a knowledgeable professional educator, still has some say-so in our "education nation."
It certainly is a day of good news for LGBT couples. Thanks to your help in sending nearly 4,000 e-mails to NBC executives and tweeting @todayshow, after GLAAD's meeting (not to be confused with the legal services organization GLAD in the post below this one) with NBC executives today, NBC decided to open the contest up to same-sex couples.
Not only did NBC agree with "community concerns", but it said it will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12th, in order for same-sex couples to organize their submissions (it was originally tomorrow).
NBC's statement:
Over the past few days TODAY has received a considerable response regarding our wedding contest application. The rules stated that eligible couples must be able to be legally married in New York, where we will host the wedding, therefore excluding same-sex couple applicants. Our intent was not to be discriminatory or exclusive. In 2005 when the wedding took place outside of New York, the application process was open to same-sex couples. We have listened to every voicemail and read every email. We take this feedback seriously, and we will change our application process. TODAY is a longtime supporter of the LGBT community, and GLAAD considers us an ally. We are committed to keeping those relationships strong and positive. We have opened up the application process to same-sex couples, and will extend the deadline to Monday, July 12. Moving forward, we ensure that our future wedding contests will be inclusive of all couples.
If you're a same-sex couple who is engaged and planning to be legally married, you can read the other requirements and enter here. Finalists will be announced later this year and the wedding will take place live on the Today Show- a huge step forward for visibility of loving, committed same-sex couples.
Thanks for all the help, OpenLefters. Big wins today.
This afternoon I wrote about The Today Show's wedding contest and its exclusion of same-sex couples from entering. At the time 2,600 e-mails were sent to NBC urging them to reconsider, a number that is now just shy of 3,500.
This evening, some good news from GLAAD, which has been leading the effort to allow same-sex couples to enter:
Late this afternoon we received a phone call from NBC asking GLAAD to meet tomorrow with Today Show Executive Producer, Jim Bell and key NBC communications representatives.
We have accepted NBC's invitation to sit face to face and discuss the Today Show wedding contest. We will be standing firm in urging the network to do the right thing and open the contest.
What GLAAD wants is the same thing that the thousands of people who wrote to NBC want. We want committed same-sex couples to have the same opportunity to share our stories of love and commitment and to be considered for this exciting wedding competition.
We will report back to you with any new developments after the meeting.
Here's hoping sensibility and fairness prevail.
Again, two things you can do:
1) Sign the Change.org petition, which will send an e-mail to NBC executives, urging them to allow same-sex couples to wed.
After a decade-long slide into semi-irrelevance, it's now being announced that the major television broadcast networks are considering leaving behind the "free TV/advertiser supported" business model in order to turn themselves into something more closely resembling a cable operation; the idea being that they could create a second revenue stream from the same "subscriber fees" that are paid by cable and satellite operators to all the other channels those operators carry.
This has become necessary, according to the networks, partly because the market has become so fragmented...which, naturally, is cable's fault-and presumably the fault of the disloyal viewer, as well.
Another reason driving the change is related to the desire of the networks to have a source of revenue that's more reliable in times of economic downturn, when advertisers often try to husband scarce resources by cutting back on all their expenses, particularly advertising dollars.
Will this new change in the business model reverse the fortunes of the networks?
Is it possible that the networks are simply poor business managers?
And what about...Krystal Carey?
Tune in for the rest of the story-and we'll find out.
It's incredible. Just as 20,000 viewers signed an open letter to CNBC telling them to listen to Jon Stewart and hold Wall Street accountable instead of mindlessly repeating Wall Street talking points, NBC doubled down.
This morning, Meet The Press host David Gregory repeated what CNBC's Erin Burnett has been saying all along: The public is ignorant. If only the simpleton public understood what the Wall Street "experts" understand, we wouldn't be so populist and angry. See for yourself:
In these economic times, NBC needs to stop blaming the public and instead focus like a laser on holding Wall Street accountable. David Gregory, instead of calling the public stupid, how about saying on the air that there are, in fact, no "best and brightest" at AIG worth giving bonuses to if they threaten to leave?
That being said, CNBC is still the center of the fight to get the media to do their job. If we can get CNBC to truly start holding Wall Street's feet to the fire, that will have ripple effects throughout NBC and the entire financial news industry.
You can join leading economists, journalists, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and over 20,000 members of the public in signing the open letter to CNBC here.
One of the big journalistic lessons of the Iraq War was that "embedded" reporters who get one side of the story are not well suited to give accurate information to the public.
Americans now depend on the media for accurate information about the financial crisis. This Sunday's Meet The Press made something absolutely clear: Journalists who are "embedded" on Wall Street and depend on Wall Street execs for access on a day-to-day basis are ridiculously unqualified to give the public good information about the economic crisis.
Indeed, NBC has an Erin Burnett problem. Watch and see for yourself how Burnett consistently serves an an apologist for Wall Street's worst practices:
NBC even (accidentally?) admitted Burnett's pro-Wall Street bias. Just look at the headline they put up after the show, summarizing her main message: "Erin Burnett: We must help banks." Really?
At the end of this post, I'm going to ask you to email Erin Burnett (erin.burnett@nbcuni.com) and ask her to reform her ways.
Palin calls Obama 'naive,' 'dangerous' In the first part of the interview, which is airing Wednesday and Thursday on "NBC Nightly News," Palin also sharply criticized Obama for having said he would be open to direct talks with leaders of Iran and North Korea.
{...}
"It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a leader like [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadenijad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them," Palin said.
"You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad or [North Korean leader] Kim Jong-il, one of these dictators that would seek to destroy America or her allies," she said, adding that Obama's position was evidence of "ill-preparedness."
That is a very generous rearranging of the interview. It really went like this:
Brian Williams: What in your mind is a pre-condition?
Sarah Palin: You have to have some diplomatic strategy going into a meeting with someone like Ahmadinejad...
It's clear from the video that she doesn't know what she's saying. She thinks "no pre-conditions" = "no strategy."
Seriously, people, she thinks that "preconditions" are "strategies" one uses in a meeting.
And McCain just sits there. And the MSNBC write-up lets it slide. This attack line on Obama has been in her stump for months.
She has no clue that "preconditions" are concessions that one demands from one's counterpart as the price of your willingness to sit down at the table in the first place.
"You know, Obama, golly-willikers, he just wants to have meetings with Ahmadinejad without any plan, you know, beforehand, pre-"
That seems to be what she thinks she means when she gives the talking point.
It makes Dan Quale look like James Monroe. It's embarrassing.
Her ignorance firmly established, why didn't NBC mention in the story of the interview the actual definition of the words "pre-condition" and "ill-preparedness?"
According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.
Chuck Todd calls Moveon's latest ad, featuring a mother asking McCain not to kill her child with irresponsible warmongering in Iraq, 'shameless'.
I didn't notice any outcry from NBC when Progress for America aired this ad - one of the largest political TV ad purchases in 2004 - exploiting American deaths on 9/11 to promote Bush's reelection.
I get why discussing McCain's Iraq-related policy ideas and acknowledging that they will lots of people is impolite. But not discussing them, and worse still, a journalist on a TV channel that has access to the public airwaves in return for looking out for the public good actually suggesting that others should not discuss them, is, well shameless.
"It's fascinating: Nobody's been a bigger victim of the so-called YouTube moments than Bill Clinton," Todd said. "I think Bill Clinton was woefully unprepared for 21st Century media."
Although Clinton caught a glimpse of the digital future when he was president and a little-known Internet gadfly named Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky story, he was never subjected to the kind of unblinking scrutiny of today's media environment.
Ah, remember the 1990s, those glorious days when Clinton could speak unmolested by a restrained media environment. It's not like ABC News producers were pretty much advising the Starr investigators, that accusations that Clinton was a murderer were regularly thrown around with impunity, or that advisors of Clinton were accused of domestic violence with no evidence by Matt Drudge.
Bill Clinton is hated by the media in DC, he always has been. By pretending like this is new, like Clinton is just unprepared for technology, Todd exculpates his industry's role in 1990s and 2000s of undermining democracy through dramatic bouts of misinformation culminating of course in the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the remarkable deception around the war.
John McCain gets basically no scrutiny, Obama and Hillary are subjected to immense amounts of it. None of this justifies Bill, Hillary, or Obama's behavior, such as it is, but it is useful to notice how technological changes somehow allow people like Chuck Todd to maintain the illusion of their own lack of agency in politics.
The Jena 6 case, in which six black students in Louisiana were put up on basically fraudulent charges of attempted murder, has come up on the blogs from time to time as a good example of the flourishing racism still happening openly in America. The story, pushed early by black bloggers and Color of Change, and then by civil rights leaders and the NAACP, is now being covered by the traditional corporate media. How it's being covered is instructive.
Watch both of these reports, one from Brian Williams and one from an independent outfit, and note the difference in narration and the use of facts. It's really, well, stunning.
This is amazing to watch. As good as some journalists are in the corporate media system, obfuscatory reports like this from wingnuts (yes, Williams is well-known to be a dittohead) are counterproductive and dishonest. There is just no value in American corporate journalism as a system anymore.
A handful of sports leagues and media companies are trying to intimidate the public when issuing inaccurate warnings about making "unauthorized" copies of their work, according to a complaint expected to be filed with the Federal Trade Commission.
The complaint, expected to be submitted Wednesday by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group that represents such tech giants as Microsoft, Google and Yahoo, names the National Football League, Major League Baseball, NBC-Universal, Morgan Creek Productions, DreamWorks, Harcourt and Penguin.
An example of what CCIA is referring to is the little speech TV or radio announcers make during breaks in games. Most sports fans can recite at least a smidgen of the boilerplate.
"Any rebroadcast, reproduction or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited," is the MLB's copyright warning.
While the statements have become a tradition during professional football and baseball broadcasts, the CCIA claims such statements are false and are harmful to consumers and technology companies. Similar warnings can be found in books, CDs and DVDS, according to the CCIA.
"These warnings intimidate average people and hinder free expression," the CCIA in a statement. "They depict as illegal many legitimate and beneficial uses made possible by the high-tech industry, and cast a pall over the high-tech marketplace...These ubiquitous statements often include gross misrepresentations of federal law and characterize as unlawful acts that are explicitly permitted by law."
The site they've set up is DefendFairUse.org. The new economy is coming, and tech companies are getting a whole lot smarter about advocating for it.
So I'm reading Jamison Foser's usual excellent column at Media Matters discussing why John Edwards' $400 haircut is always in the news, and I come upon this really interesting nugget. According to the Providence Journal's Tom Mooney, apparently, NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was paid $30,000 to give a speech for the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, a speech in which he bashed Edwards for the haircut incident. Let's leave aside Miklaszewski's Bushnik 'the enemy is patient and America has a short attention span' wingnut rhetoric, and focus on a very specific practice going on here known in the industry as 'buckraking'.
STATE BLOGS
So I'm reading Jamison Foser's