Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Friday, August 24, 2012
HATEFUL MESSAGES ADD TO SORROW
HATEFUL MESSAGES ADD TO SORROW
Three children die - and some readers' depraved responses to the tragedy create an evil all their own
by ANDREW MALEKOFF* (originally published on March 3, 2008)
I made a disturbing discovery the Sunday afternoon of Feb. 24 when the murder of three innocent children, the youngest named Innocent, allegedly at the hands of their profoundly troubled mother, was first
reported on Newsday's Web site. Few details were available at the time.
The headline on the Web site read: "Sources: Mom Kills Three Kids in New Cassel." My stomach dropped. I couldn't recall a story quite like this since I moved to Long Island in the late 1970s.
When I scrolled to the end of the story, there was a place to click to "Read all 40 comments." This link, which appears in many online stories in Newsday and other newspapers, takes you to a "Forum," a place for the public to comment.
I clicked into the forum, and amid readers' expressions of shock, dismay, sadness and sympathy, I found a significant stream of depravity. The forum, for the most part, consists of anonymous writers who tag their reflections with a range of nicknames. Here is a sample, exactly as the notes appeared:
Typical wrote: "The savages at it again ... "
The Pusher wrote: "New Cassel should be nuked."
Shoot Me Twice wrote: "The kids didn't put on a convincing performance at the Department of Social Services for mommy to get more free goodies. Maybe Tom Suozzi can use them as extra help at his mansion on the North Shore."
Senseless wrote: "Where O Where could my Daddy be? In jail most probably . . . planning to get out and commit the next robbery."
Booker wrote: ". . . These are unstable people with weak genes, she did society a favor. Animals kill their young when they know they are too weak to make a go of it, why are we so different?"
Comments like these continued throughout the week. On Feb. 27 someone identifying himself as Bruce wrote of the murdered children: "three less drains on society. good riddance."
Sprinkled in were a number of counter-responses like this one by Disgusted, I am sickened by this sad story and sickened again by all of these disgusting comments ... it's really pathetic that some of you have nothing to do but spew hatred."
Sometimes one response would specifically engage another. Right after the children's funerals, I found: Tookie (Huntington Station): "da lil nappi headed **** are in heaven now!"
To which SadSadness AOL responded: ". . . heartless cold person, 3 innocent children were killed regardless of race. If your not feeling sad over this your an evil person. those children did nothing wrong and def did not deserve that, May they Rest in peace respectfully."
It's one of the great benefits of the Internet to offer instant access to news, along with a chance for the audience to instantly share comments about it. But in this situation, even with certain incendiary remarks slapped right down, this seemed like a mixed blessing.
Newsday, like many media sites, has guidelines to try to keep the online conversation civil and constructive. Yet, after reading messages on the murder of three small children, I am discovering feelings of sorrow that I did not think I would ever experience for the mother who is alleged to have carried out the horror of all horrors, killing her own. Strangely, and I am sure unforgivably to some, I find myself feeling more of a human connection to Leatrice Brewer than to Typical, The Pusher, Booker, Shoot Me Twice, Senseless and their gang.
*Andrew Malekoff is executive director of the North Shore Child & Family Guidance Center in Roslyn Heights.
Newsday link to article: http://www.newsday.com/opinion/hateful-messages-add-to-sorrow-1.597624
Monday, October 13, 2008
THE ADVERTSING OF EVERYDAY LIFE
The Advertising of Everyday Life
Andrew Malekoff©
In the afterglow of the New York Giants heart-stopping victory in Super Bowl Forty-Two, here is a sobering thought: according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly half of all traffic fatalities during last year’s Super Bowl weekend were caused by impaired drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.08% and above. Super Bowl Sunday has become one of the deadliest days for drunk driving crashes. It has also become a banner day for alcohol advertisers.
On the eve of the Super Bowl, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) traditionally calls on alcohol beverage marketers to avoid advertisements that appeal to young people. Who can forget Budweiser’s animated lizards Walter and Louie? The use of cartoon characters to promote brand loyalty at an early age is one of the more blatant marketing approaches. There are of course, more subtle and sophisticated approaches that play on the emotional lives of viewers of all ages.
I distinctly recall a televised beer commercial that posed the question, “Why ask why?” The ad portrayed a young man in a bar frustrated by his search for romance finally discovering a “true friend.” As the young man set out on his journey, viewers observed in him a sense of futility and resignation. The voiceover mused rhetorically, “Why ask why...while love isn’t easy…refreshment is.” The ad ended with the young man hoisting a bottle of his favorite brew to his lips.
What this commercial and many like it tell young people is: don't think, don’t feel, numb your senses, and recognize that relationships are hard work and hardly worth the effort. The ad says that although you cannot really depend on others, alcohol is dependable and delivers every time.
Advertisers are clever. Since their goal it is to sell products, it is only logical that they are going to present positive messages about drinking. According to a report issued by The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) at Georgetown University, from 2001 to 2005, underage youth were almost 250 times more likely to see an advertisement selling alcohol than one of the alcohol industry’s “responsibility” ads, designed to educate young people about the dangers of underage drinking. “The primary messages kids get about alcohol on television are from alcohol product ads that not surprisingly promote their use and enjoyment,” according to David Jernigan, executive director of CAMY.
One of the goals of advertisers is to try and establish brand name loyalty at a tender age. According to addictions experts, by the time our children are 21 years old they will have seen an average of 100,000 alcohol commercials. Since about ten percent of all drinkers consume about fifty percent of alcohol it’s clear that they’re targeting the most vulnerable of our young.
How do you suppose ordinary folks that don’t have the deep pockets of the alcohol industry can contend with this multi-billion-dollar bully pulpit? Have you ever heard the Texas Ranger creed? “No man in the wrong can stand up to a fellow in the right who keep on a –comin’.” Perhaps a corny saying from days done by, but this is just one example of what I refer to as “the advertising of everyday life.” We all know about this.
The advertising of everyday life is comprised of those homespun messages that parents and grandparents and other caregivers pass along to their children. Almost everyone can think of one or two from our growing up years. I believe that parents, and other caring adults, can be just as clever as Madison Avenue.
My mom was an antiques dealer known in the business as Antique Evelyn. She was a businesswoman first, but she loved collecting old signs and tins with interesting advertisements. When I was about 12-years-old Antique Evelyn brought home an old sign that read: None of us in our business or social life can coast along on a reputation of past performances. It’s the good job we do today that counts.
She framed the sign and placed it in a strategic place in the bathroom – just behind the toilet. This way my brother and I (and our dad) would come eye-to-eye with the sign several times a day, every day, year in and year out. According to my own calculations I zoomed in on that sign at least 5,000 times during my youth.
Coaches have slogans, preachers have sermons, teachers have lessons and my mom had signs. These are the advertisements of every day life. Some people might refer to this as imparting values. It is the collective commercials of everyday life that represent the “fellow in the right who keeps on “a-comin’,” a counterforce to the multi-billion-dollar bully and the rest of his gang.
Oh, and about mom’s sign; it is hangs in my office today.
Originally published in the Anton chain of newspapers, Long Island, New York.
Andrew Malekoff©
In the afterglow of the New York Giants heart-stopping victory in Super Bowl Forty-Two, here is a sobering thought: according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly half of all traffic fatalities during last year’s Super Bowl weekend were caused by impaired drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.08% and above. Super Bowl Sunday has become one of the deadliest days for drunk driving crashes. It has also become a banner day for alcohol advertisers.
On the eve of the Super Bowl, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) traditionally calls on alcohol beverage marketers to avoid advertisements that appeal to young people. Who can forget Budweiser’s animated lizards Walter and Louie? The use of cartoon characters to promote brand loyalty at an early age is one of the more blatant marketing approaches. There are of course, more subtle and sophisticated approaches that play on the emotional lives of viewers of all ages.
I distinctly recall a televised beer commercial that posed the question, “Why ask why?” The ad portrayed a young man in a bar frustrated by his search for romance finally discovering a “true friend.” As the young man set out on his journey, viewers observed in him a sense of futility and resignation. The voiceover mused rhetorically, “Why ask why...while love isn’t easy…refreshment is.” The ad ended with the young man hoisting a bottle of his favorite brew to his lips.
What this commercial and many like it tell young people is: don't think, don’t feel, numb your senses, and recognize that relationships are hard work and hardly worth the effort. The ad says that although you cannot really depend on others, alcohol is dependable and delivers every time.
Advertisers are clever. Since their goal it is to sell products, it is only logical that they are going to present positive messages about drinking. According to a report issued by The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY) at Georgetown University, from 2001 to 2005, underage youth were almost 250 times more likely to see an advertisement selling alcohol than one of the alcohol industry’s “responsibility” ads, designed to educate young people about the dangers of underage drinking. “The primary messages kids get about alcohol on television are from alcohol product ads that not surprisingly promote their use and enjoyment,” according to David Jernigan, executive director of CAMY.
One of the goals of advertisers is to try and establish brand name loyalty at a tender age. According to addictions experts, by the time our children are 21 years old they will have seen an average of 100,000 alcohol commercials. Since about ten percent of all drinkers consume about fifty percent of alcohol it’s clear that they’re targeting the most vulnerable of our young.
How do you suppose ordinary folks that don’t have the deep pockets of the alcohol industry can contend with this multi-billion-dollar bully pulpit? Have you ever heard the Texas Ranger creed? “No man in the wrong can stand up to a fellow in the right who keep on a –comin’.” Perhaps a corny saying from days done by, but this is just one example of what I refer to as “the advertising of everyday life.” We all know about this.
The advertising of everyday life is comprised of those homespun messages that parents and grandparents and other caregivers pass along to their children. Almost everyone can think of one or two from our growing up years. I believe that parents, and other caring adults, can be just as clever as Madison Avenue.
My mom was an antiques dealer known in the business as Antique Evelyn. She was a businesswoman first, but she loved collecting old signs and tins with interesting advertisements. When I was about 12-years-old Antique Evelyn brought home an old sign that read: None of us in our business or social life can coast along on a reputation of past performances. It’s the good job we do today that counts.
She framed the sign and placed it in a strategic place in the bathroom – just behind the toilet. This way my brother and I (and our dad) would come eye-to-eye with the sign several times a day, every day, year in and year out. According to my own calculations I zoomed in on that sign at least 5,000 times during my youth.
Coaches have slogans, preachers have sermons, teachers have lessons and my mom had signs. These are the advertisements of every day life. Some people might refer to this as imparting values. It is the collective commercials of everyday life that represent the “fellow in the right who keeps on “a-comin’,” a counterforce to the multi-billion-dollar bully and the rest of his gang.
Oh, and about mom’s sign; it is hangs in my office today.
Originally published in the Anton chain of newspapers, Long Island, New York.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
HATEFUL MESSAGES ADD TO SORROW
Hateful messages add to sorrow: Three children die – and some readers’ depraved responses to the tragedy create and evil all their own
BY ANDREW MALEKOFF
March 4, 2008
I made a disturbing discovery the Sunday afternoon of Feb. 24 when the murder of three innocent children, the youngest named Innocent, allegedly at the hands of their profoundly troubled mother, was first reported on Newsday's Web site. Few details were available at the time. The headline on the Web site read: "Sources: Mom Kills Three Kids in New Cassel." My stomach dropped. I couldn't recall a story quite like this since I moved to Long Island in the late 1970s.
When I scrolled to the end of the story, there was a place to click to "Read all 40 comments." This link, which appears in many online stories in Newsday and other newspapers, takes you to a "Forum," a place for the public to comment.
I clicked into the forum, and amid readers' expressions of shock, dismay, sadness and sympathy, I found a significant stream of depravity. The forum, for the most part, consists of anonymous writers who tag their reflections with a range of nicknames. Here is a sample, exactly as the notes appeared:
Typical wrote: "The savages at it again ... "
The Pusher wrote: "New Cassel should be nuked."
Shoot Me Twice wrote: "The kids didn't put on a convincing performance at the Department of Social Services for mommy to get more free goodies. Maybe Tom Suozzi (County Executive) can use them as extra help at his mansion on the North Shore.
"Senseless wrote: "Where O Where could my Daddy be? In jail most probably . . . planning to get out and commit the next robbery.
"Booker wrote: ". . . These are unstable people with weak genes, she did society a favor. Animals kill their young when they know they are too weak to make a go of it, why are we so different?"
Comments like these continued throughout the week. On Feb. 27 someone identifying himself as Bruce wrote of the murdered children: "three less drains on society. good riddance."
Sprinkled in were a number of counter-responses like this one by Disgusted, "I am sickened by this sad story and sickened again by all of these disgusting comments ... it's really pathetic that some of you have nothing to do but spew hatred."
Sometimes one response would specifically engage another. Right after the children's funerals, I found: Tookie (Huntington Station): "da lil nappi headed **** are in heaven now!"
To which SadSadness AOL responded: ". . . heartless cold person, 3 innocent children were killed regardless of race. If your not feeling sad over this your an evil person. those children did nothing wrong and def did not deserve that, May they Rest in peace respectfully."
It's one of the great benefits of the Internet to offer instant access to news, along with a chance for the audience to instantly share comments about it. But in this situation, even with certain incendiary remarks slapped right down, this seemed like a mixed blessing.
Newsday, like many media sites, has guidelines to try to keep the online conversation civil and constructive.
Yet, after reading messages on the murder of three small children, I am discovering feelings of sorrow that I did not think I would ever experience for the mother who is alleged to have carried out the horror of all horrors, killing her own. Strangely, and I am sure unforgivably to some, I find myself feeling more of a human connection to Leatrice Brewer than to Typical, The Pusher, Booker, Shoot Me Twice, Senseless and their gang.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
BY ANDREW MALEKOFF
March 4, 2008
I made a disturbing discovery the Sunday afternoon of Feb. 24 when the murder of three innocent children, the youngest named Innocent, allegedly at the hands of their profoundly troubled mother, was first reported on Newsday's Web site. Few details were available at the time. The headline on the Web site read: "Sources: Mom Kills Three Kids in New Cassel." My stomach dropped. I couldn't recall a story quite like this since I moved to Long Island in the late 1970s.
When I scrolled to the end of the story, there was a place to click to "Read all 40 comments." This link, which appears in many online stories in Newsday and other newspapers, takes you to a "Forum," a place for the public to comment.
I clicked into the forum, and amid readers' expressions of shock, dismay, sadness and sympathy, I found a significant stream of depravity. The forum, for the most part, consists of anonymous writers who tag their reflections with a range of nicknames. Here is a sample, exactly as the notes appeared:
Typical wrote: "The savages at it again ... "
The Pusher wrote: "New Cassel should be nuked."
Shoot Me Twice wrote: "The kids didn't put on a convincing performance at the Department of Social Services for mommy to get more free goodies. Maybe Tom Suozzi (County Executive) can use them as extra help at his mansion on the North Shore.
"Senseless wrote: "Where O Where could my Daddy be? In jail most probably . . . planning to get out and commit the next robbery.
"Booker wrote: ". . . These are unstable people with weak genes, she did society a favor. Animals kill their young when they know they are too weak to make a go of it, why are we so different?"
Comments like these continued throughout the week. On Feb. 27 someone identifying himself as Bruce wrote of the murdered children: "three less drains on society. good riddance."
Sprinkled in were a number of counter-responses like this one by Disgusted, "I am sickened by this sad story and sickened again by all of these disgusting comments ... it's really pathetic that some of you have nothing to do but spew hatred."
Sometimes one response would specifically engage another. Right after the children's funerals, I found: Tookie (Huntington Station): "da lil nappi headed **** are in heaven now!"
To which SadSadness AOL responded: ". . . heartless cold person, 3 innocent children were killed regardless of race. If your not feeling sad over this your an evil person. those children did nothing wrong and def did not deserve that, May they Rest in peace respectfully."
It's one of the great benefits of the Internet to offer instant access to news, along with a chance for the audience to instantly share comments about it. But in this situation, even with certain incendiary remarks slapped right down, this seemed like a mixed blessing.
Newsday, like many media sites, has guidelines to try to keep the online conversation civil and constructive.
Yet, after reading messages on the murder of three small children, I am discovering feelings of sorrow that I did not think I would ever experience for the mother who is alleged to have carried out the horror of all horrors, killing her own. Strangely, and I am sure unforgivably to some, I find myself feeling more of a human connection to Leatrice Brewer than to Typical, The Pusher, Booker, Shoot Me Twice, Senseless and their gang.
Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
HEADLINE HATCHET JOB
Headline Hatchet Job
By Andy Malekoff © 2007
Early in December, 2007 there were several news stories about a man with a long history of mental illness who took hostages in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in New Hampshire. A headline on the front pages of the New York Post read: LOONY SEIZES HOSTAGES IN HILLARY’S OFFICE. For two consecutive days the New York Daily News printed headlines that read: WACKO BOMBS AT HILL’S OFFICE and NUT’S LIFE FROM HELL.
By now you know that the headlines were referring to an individual with a known history of serious mental illness. Had there been no such history then the derisive terms “loony,” “wacko,” and “nut” would have been a way of highlighting the lunacy of a desperate criminal act versus employing insulting stereotypes to label an individual with a mental illness. Although these headlines are about one man’s criminal act, the effect of the language in the headlines is to discredit all individuals with mental illness.
So, you may be wondering, what is the big deal? Or, you may be thinking that you are reading another tired diatribe promoting political correctness. After all, the man did do something undeniably crazy. Nevertheless, although juicy headlines sell newspapers, there is collateral damage when stigmatizing language about individuals with mental illness is used. The headline writers cannot hide behind the crime. Language that appears in the headlines of popular newspapers does influence people’s perceptions, attitudes and behavior. In this case they promote an undesirable stereotype and reinforce discrimination. The headline writers who write such headlines are the equivalent of schoolyard bullies except, in this case, the schoolyard is the entire New York metropolitan area and beyond, and the headline writers are more sinister and have more sway than the typical schoolyard bully.
Stigma experts Bruce Link and Jo C. Phelan from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, offer insights on how stigma evolves. First, human differences are labeled and assigned undesirable characteristics that lead to negative stereotypes. Labeled persons are then put in distinct categories in order to separate “us” from “them.” Finally, labeled persons lose status, and experience discrimination that leads to unequal outcomes.
Many individuals suffering with mental illnesses - children, teenagers and adults alike - have long histories of being at the butt end of cruel and stigmatizing taunts and jokes. Most people with physical illnesses, on the other hand, are beneficiaries of widespread understanding, sympathy and support. This is the reality despite the fact that neuro-imaging studies show physical changes in the brain are associated to mental disorders. Headlines that use terms like “loony” and “wacko” reinforce the notion that mental Illness is a sure sign of dangerous and irrational behavior, versus a disease with a biological basis. Headlines that employ such language also reinforce the idea that mental illness is something that is “all in one’s head” and can be controlled only if one has the moral fiber to do so.
It is shameful that the editors of major metropolitan newspapers choose to exploit isolated criminal acts to promote negative stereotypes and reinforce stigma in people with mental illness. Clearly, simply telling the truth and informing readers about a desperate criminal act is less important to them than taking the opportunity to exploit and discredit people suffering with mental illness, through malicious name calling that reinforces fear, mistrust and stigma.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
By Andy Malekoff © 2007
Early in December, 2007 there were several news stories about a man with a long history of mental illness who took hostages in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in New Hampshire. A headline on the front pages of the New York Post read: LOONY SEIZES HOSTAGES IN HILLARY’S OFFICE. For two consecutive days the New York Daily News printed headlines that read: WACKO BOMBS AT HILL’S OFFICE and NUT’S LIFE FROM HELL.
By now you know that the headlines were referring to an individual with a known history of serious mental illness. Had there been no such history then the derisive terms “loony,” “wacko,” and “nut” would have been a way of highlighting the lunacy of a desperate criminal act versus employing insulting stereotypes to label an individual with a mental illness. Although these headlines are about one man’s criminal act, the effect of the language in the headlines is to discredit all individuals with mental illness.
So, you may be wondering, what is the big deal? Or, you may be thinking that you are reading another tired diatribe promoting political correctness. After all, the man did do something undeniably crazy. Nevertheless, although juicy headlines sell newspapers, there is collateral damage when stigmatizing language about individuals with mental illness is used. The headline writers cannot hide behind the crime. Language that appears in the headlines of popular newspapers does influence people’s perceptions, attitudes and behavior. In this case they promote an undesirable stereotype and reinforce discrimination. The headline writers who write such headlines are the equivalent of schoolyard bullies except, in this case, the schoolyard is the entire New York metropolitan area and beyond, and the headline writers are more sinister and have more sway than the typical schoolyard bully.
Stigma experts Bruce Link and Jo C. Phelan from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, offer insights on how stigma evolves. First, human differences are labeled and assigned undesirable characteristics that lead to negative stereotypes. Labeled persons are then put in distinct categories in order to separate “us” from “them.” Finally, labeled persons lose status, and experience discrimination that leads to unequal outcomes.
Many individuals suffering with mental illnesses - children, teenagers and adults alike - have long histories of being at the butt end of cruel and stigmatizing taunts and jokes. Most people with physical illnesses, on the other hand, are beneficiaries of widespread understanding, sympathy and support. This is the reality despite the fact that neuro-imaging studies show physical changes in the brain are associated to mental disorders. Headlines that use terms like “loony” and “wacko” reinforce the notion that mental Illness is a sure sign of dangerous and irrational behavior, versus a disease with a biological basis. Headlines that employ such language also reinforce the idea that mental illness is something that is “all in one’s head” and can be controlled only if one has the moral fiber to do so.
It is shameful that the editors of major metropolitan newspapers choose to exploit isolated criminal acts to promote negative stereotypes and reinforce stigma in people with mental illness. Clearly, simply telling the truth and informing readers about a desperate criminal act is less important to them than taking the opportunity to exploit and discredit people suffering with mental illness, through malicious name calling that reinforces fear, mistrust and stigma.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)