Sex, Drugs & Tapas

(-_O) (-_O) (-_O) (-_O) (-_O)
Recent Tweets @mafaf_redux
Good Peoples
Posts tagged "media coverage"
‎Obama has been consistent in his refusal to confront the racism unleashed by his his candidacy and subsequent election that came atop post-9/11 Muslim-bashing and dehumanization of people of color inherent in warmongering abroad. […] In 2010, when he traveled to India, Obama refused to visit the main shrine of Sikhism, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, because he did not want to be photographed wearing a Sikh headcovering and be confused for a Muslim by illiterate Americans back home. […] ‎His reponse to accusations that he’s Muslim is never ‘so what if I were?’ but always along the lines of “No, no I’m a Christian like you.”

mehreenkasana:

God bless a country like the United States of America where you can be easily called a “fucking terrorist” for simply being brown, for wearing a hijab, a turban, a saari, a shalwar kameez, for not looking conventionally American (read: White) but where a white man, after killing people from an already harassed minority, is still given the generous benefit of doubt as to whether he is a terrorist or not.

God bless America, really.

(via dion-thesocialist)

While civil war rages on the Syrian battlefield between regime loyalists and myriad rebel factions, another battle is taking place in the media world. Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, the two Gulf-based channels that dominate the Arabic news business, have moved to counter Syrian regime propaganda, but have ended up distorting the news almost as badlyas their opponents. In their bid to support the Syrian rebels’ cause, these media giants have lowered their journalistic standards, abandoned rudimentary fact-checks, and relied on anonymous callers and unverified videos in place of solid reporting. 

When prominent Egyptian blogger Alaa Abd El Fattah was arrested during a protest in 2006, his friends and fellow bloggers from all over the world sprung into action, launching a multifaceted campaign to free the activist.

The campaign’s success was inspiring, and the techniques used would serve as a blueprint for future efforts.

As bloggers and netizens have increasingly become targets of repressive governments — see the Threatened Voices project — such campaigns have become almost commonplace. In many cases, the bloggers at the center of such an effort have stated the importance of the campaign in securing their release.

Azeri blogger Eynulla Fatullayev, for example, credited his campaign with saving his life. Similarly, Bahraini activist Maryam Al-Khawaja has credited media attention for once preventing the arrest of her sister, activist Zainab Al-Khawaja.

But while in Bahrain or Azerbaijan, the government may have been swayed by global pressure, the same does not hold true for a country like Syria, where Reporters Without Borders has claimed the number of citizen journalists killed and arrested increases daily.

That begs the question: What is the goal of campaigns for bloggers under such circumstances? 

(Continued…)

In case you’ve been away from your favorite media consumption outlets of late, Chick-Fil-A has come under fire for its president’s successful campaign to sound like a homophobic jackass.

Since the President/CEO of Chick-Fil-A openly admitted to focusing Chick-Fil-A ‘ethics’ efforts on anti-gay causes and organizations, it seems a small PR firestorm of varying stripes has erupted. While a great deal of the dialogue has been directed at rightly condemning Chick-Fil-A for promoting a culture of homophobia, a growing trend is emerging of ‘conservatives’ telling ‘liberals’ to be respectful of Chick-Fil-A and their principles. And often enough, to my amusement, the word ‘tolerance’ is used to in this discourse.

And then, I came upon this gem: “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." This failed attempt in playing the persecuted, again, brought to you by none other than Dan Cathy.

Why do I find these grammatical hijinks amusing? Namely, because most of these people wouldn’t know honest-to-god intolerance or discrimination if it bitch-slapped them with a giant black strap-on. You see, in a country where LGBT-focused crimes make up an estimated 19.3% of reported hate crimes, including everything from curb-stomping to sexual assault, I’d say tolerance is VERY much needed - but not by those angry with Chick-Fil-A. Want to know who could actually use tolerance and compassion? To start with the obvious, how about the LGBT community, that is so rarely discussed with dignity or respect? While we’re at it, how about migrants, who are treated as sub-human by everyone from press outlets to Border Patrol agents? How about individuals from the groups most often bearing the brunt of abuse resulting from the War on Terror or the War on Drugs, often in the form of unchecked police brutality and imprisonment? How about women demonized for simply desiring improved birth control access? You see ladies and gentlemen, THESE good folks could use some of your outrage and compassion. Not some fast food chicken chain that happily sponsors groups as inglorious as NOM.

However, apart from “Fun Times with Manipulating Oppression Discourse,” newer forms of defending the indefensible have come about in the form of righteous indignation at the masses for boycotting economically over a ‘political’ issue. I put this word in quotes, because it’s not political to people on the receiving end of that discrimination. It’s pretty goddamn personal. And it isn’t for that reason alone that this argument falls short of garnering support in any significant numbers. Allow me to demystify this: average citizens don’t usually boycott an entire franchise because they’re butt hurt over someone disagreeing with them. They boycott because they understand that their individual purchases support something they find morally reprehensible. Sometimes, that something is a company’s history of donating millions to WinShape and ex-gay ministries; sometimes it’s a company’s exploitation of the impossible situations of Palestinians within Occupied Palestine; and sometimes, it’s the antics of a colossally idiotic Fox News host making a living by exploiting racist myths to elicit fear. And before you forget, please note that we do tote this approach as a prized diplomatic tool on a regular basis at the international level. We call them “sanctions”. However, unlike when applied indiscriminately at the international level, they are far more likely to work as intended on a localized, national one. So allow me to sum this up: those making this argument don’t usually do so based on the desire for tolerance of a differing opinion – at best, it’s an attempt to cover up bigotry. At worst, it’s an attempt to justify apathy.

At the end of the day, tolerance is being a big enough person to recognize the basic humanity in others, even if they are very different from you. Tolerance is refusing to discriminate against a class of people in the name of preserving the status quo. Tolerance is NOT the right to go without criticism or accountability for your actions. But please, do invoke your right to piss and moan about how no one’s kissing your privileged little ass anymore.

anirishginger:

Terrorism has no religion

locamaniaco:

When America takes 1 million lives in Iraq for oil:

Not Terrorism.

When Serbs rape Muslim women in Kosovo/Bosnia:

Not Terrorism.

When Russians kill 200,000 Chechens in bombings:

Not Terrorism.

When Jews kick out Palestinians and take their land:

Not Terrorism.

When American drones kill entire family in Afghanistan/Pakistan:

Not Terrorism.

When Israel kills 10,000 Lebanese civilians due to 2 missing soldiers:

Not Terrorism.

When Muslims retaliate and show you how you treat us:

“Terrorism?”

It seems like the word “Terrorism” is only reserved for Muslims.

Spread this message and let the world know…

Muslims are not terrorists! Terrorism has no religion!

(via maghrabiyya)

"When Abortion Was Illegal" - an Academy Award-nominated documentary by Dorothy Fadiman

Emotions aside, if ever you wanted to understand why this right matters to so many women of so many different walks of life, this would be an excellent guide. It might appear a bit dated, considering when it was made, but it’s still just as powerful and relevant today as ever.

Settlers near Gush Etzion in Israel are offering tourists to Israel a chance to experience what life near the Green Line can be like by providing them an opportunity to “catch the terrorist.” 

Visitors can come to this site and listen to stories “from the battleground, 
watch a simulated assassination of terrorists by guards, and fire weapons at the range,” reported YNet News on Monday. 

“Move it!” the Israeli guide is quoted by the news agency as telling American tourists. “Destroy that terrorist,” he orders them. The tourists instantly aim at the cardboard targets with their loaded guns. 

I honest-to-God thought I was gonna be sick when I saw this. How this is not classified as news-worthy by western media outlets is beyond me.

Muslims today are young, sexually and politically frustrated. This isn’t the strapline of a new reality show, but the conclusions of stereotype-laden analysis from the Daily Beast.

(via halalsin)

Largely assigned the role of being either a victim or a housewife in her native homeland, the international media has overlooked a radical change in the face of revolutionary politics in the Middle East. Names like Wedad Demerdash, Asmaa Mahfouz, Mona Seif, Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakel Karman, and Zainab al-Khawaja have been largely overshadowed by western mainstream media attention on body counts, beards, and bombs. They are mentioned solely in passing as something of interest, but often pushed into the background by media seeking the more sensational story of how Islam is “coming to get you.” They, however, are leaders among thousands of women who are part of the same struggle for political and economic equality that has so enflamed the region.

(Continued…)

It is common for newspapers to use terms like “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” and “have sex” when reporting on sex crimes. Perhaps, though, it’s time that The Times and other news organizations take another look at the language they use. Victims’ advocates echo what the readers told me in their e-mails: language in news media reports — and, for that matter, in the court system itself — consistently underplays the brutality of sex crimes and misapplies terms that imply consent.

(Continued…)