Why Lie in a Memoir?

I know this blog is a little late...I was a little out of it from having my wisdom teeth pulled, but this morning I came across a story about an author, Constance Briscoe, who is defending her autobiography. Her book, called Ugly, is about her childhood growing up with her abusive mother and father. She writes that her mother used to starve her and abuse her physically and her stepfather once put a cigarette out on her hand. She then writes that her mother abandoned her at the age of 13. Briscoe's mother, Carmen Briscoe-Mitchell is suing for damages against Briscoe and her publisher Hodder and Stoughton.
Now my question is why would someone write such an awful autobiography and it not be true? I mean allegations of abuse from her parent's are crucial. Perhaps because, as gory as it is, the public responds to painful and hurtful autobiography as opposed to a happy and peaceful one. I mean if you think about what's in the media right now, it's not that surprising that IF Briscoe is lying about her childhood being so awful, it's because she wants it to sell. I think most people know of the story about Jennifer Hudson, the American Idol runner up. Her family was practically slain. The story is so sad and awful AND very popular. It has people talking about her and how she must feel.
Perhaps what Briscoe was thinking when she wrote her autobiography, if it isn't true, is that people would respond more towards a sad and painful life and not a normal and happy one. While there are all types of stories, happy and sad, in the media, its the ones that tend to have a more painful side to them that I pay more attention to. If my mind is like that what would make me think that an author who wants to sell a book doesn't have the same mind set as well? I'm not saying that her book isn't true, I'm just saying that I can see both sides to this case between Briscoe and her mother. There are also other cases in which authors have said to have written their autobiographies but it turned out to not be true.
"One of the most notorious cases involved Belgian-born, U.S.-based writer Misha Defonseca's 1997 book, "Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years," an extraordinary story of a child's survival during the Holocaust that was translated into 18 languages and made into a French feature film.
Earlier this year Defonseca admitted that she had never lived with wolves to escape the Nazis, as the book claims, had not walked 3,000 miles across Europe in search of her parents -- and isn't even Jewish. "
I feel as though the media picks up on the fact that the public is more interested in reading about struggles and hard times(as much as they won't admit it) and authors pick up on that and may write about fake hard times to make a dollar.

Is the Foreign Press Not That Important???

I came across an article in the Columbia Journalism Review. Obama held a rally in Chicago at Grant Park. Apparently the foreign press wants to be apart of this historic event, and as well they should be. The president and CEO of Eurovision Americas Inc. “All major television networks in European countries are hosting special overnight election programs”, Mr. Dunlop said, adding that “the entire European press corps” is in the United States right now, with correspondents in Washington, Phoenix, and Chicago.
Countries like Spain, Germany, Italy, etc wanted to part of this event that was taking place in Grant Park but were told it was somewhere else. “We applied for eight positions on the riser,” which holds eighty positions in total, at $1000 per spot, Dunlop said, “and we were told by the Obama campaign last Thursday, five days before the event, that we were given only one. Obviously we cannot possibly rotate forty-five correspondents on one position.”
When Obama's camp was asked about why the foreign press was told that the rally was going to be somewhere else other than Grant Park, they declined to comment. While I think that our press is first and foremost right now when it comes to telling myself about what is going on, I also think that if other countries want to let their own public back home know about what is going on in this historic time, then they should be given that right.

Boycotting the New York Times

A Pew Research Center Survey showed that 70 percent of people surveyed thought that the New York Times was biased towards Barack Obama. This has led to a boycott against the New York Times led by Don Feder, editor of AIM.com which stands for Accuracy in Media. He believes that the New York Times has been manipulative and misrepresenative of the McCain campaign. “As bad as The New York Times has been before, it’s nothing compared to the way the paper has managed, manipulated and mangled coverage of the 2008 campaign,” Feder observed. “Not a day goes by that The Times doesn’t misrepresent John McCain, ridicule Sarah Palin, refuse to report a revelation that reflects badly on the Obama-Biden campaign, or rationalize Obama’s radical past.”
The Pew survey found that a mere 9 percent of voters think the media favors McCain and 70 percent who think that journalists favor Obama. This same survey found that in 2004 50 percent of voters thought that the press favored John Kerry and 22 percent of the media favored George Bush. What's extremely interesting is a study of media coverage of the candidates six weeks after the nominating convention. The Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that there were 4 times as many negative stories about McCain than there was about Obama.
A Rasmussen report showed that only 24 percent of Americans have a positive view of the New York Times. That's not a lot.
I know that I have said this before in another blog but I just want to say it one more time. While I am not a huge fan of McCain and Palin I think that both candidates should be given the same coverage(which I know will never happen in any campaign) and I think that the public should be given information plain and simple. There should not be any type of bias coverage in any article. I personally would like to think that when I read an article or watch the news on television my own mind is being made up by reading facts and not being influenced by a journalist being biased towards one candidate and showing their own opinion.

What Does the First Lady Really Do?

I ran across an interesting article on USA Today.com. This article spoke about the role of the First Lady and how many don't quite understand what that role is...even the First Lady sometimes. There is the ceremonial role as First Lady, hosting White House dinners, hiring the staff, and keeping up with the decorations during the holidays. Or the First Lady could be like Eleanor Roosevelt, a strong woman who wrote a daily newspaper and magazine column, hosted a radio show, and held news conferences. I found out in this article former First Lady Bess Truman said that her role was to "sit quietly on the podium next to her husband and make sure her hat was on straight." She never held a news conference and just wasn't that productive.
Perhaps that media has something to do with what we, as the public, expects out of the First Lady. I know that I personally have no idea of what the "true" role of the First Lady really is. There are no real offical duties of her. I think that there should have been a First Lady debate so we can see what the woman are about as well. After all they are probably the closest people to the potential Presidents. However, the path of a strong First Lady has kind of already been drawn. What with Jackie Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Laura Bush. Even though Laura Bush was considered a low-key First Lady she still made literacy one of her projects.
I for one think that the role of the First Lady is a strong role and I do expect a lot out of any First Lady, especially now. I certainly hope that her only concern is not fixing her hat when it falls.

It's Just a Word...

I had a little trouble finding an article that I wanted to write about and had nothing to do with the election, or the candidates, or the debate. This one definitely stood out to me. The new movie that is being released called Zack and Miri Make a Porno, has some newspapers, television stations, magazines, and cable channels saying I don't think so to advertising the movie because of the title. In Philadelphia, posters advertising the movie are not allowed at bus stops or on billboards. Also some of the similar posters have caused complaints with child care professionals in Boston. Billboards and posters used to have picture of Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks(the stars of the movie), but because of so many negative reactions regarding the title of the movie, new posters now have pictures of stick figures. Also the MPAA rated Zack and Miri Make a Porno, with a NC-17, which is a death sentence because audiences view this rating as an "adult only" film and mostly likely will not let their kids see it and may not see it themselves.
I don't understand why having the word Porno in the title would be a huge deal and cause television companies to pull the ad from their stations. What about the movie, Kill Bill? I personally would never think that that movie title is offensive but some might, what with the word kill in it. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially when it comes to censoring what their kids can and cannot see. I suppose I wouldn't want to explain to my young child what a porno is because they saw it on a billboard ad. It is kind of an "iffy" topic but I personally don't think that it is a huge deal but at the same time I can see how others would. Yet this movie does seem to be getting a lot of attention, negative or not. Isn't the phrase... sex sells? While this title isn't blatantly about sex, it does have the word porno in it which is making heads turn and causing a lot of ruckus among parents and marketing execs. Maybe this is what the director wanted... to cause people to tip their head to one side and say to themselves, I wonder what this movie is about? I had never heard of this movie before this article and now...I want to see it.

Can the Canidates Be Too Accessible to the Media?

How accesible do we want our canidates to be to the media? I would think pretty accessible considering the media is where we get the majority of our information about them. In an article on cnnnews McCain is said to be one of the most accessible canidates if not the most at this point. He holds "availabilities" on his bus and sometimes after speeches or meetings. I feel as though I always want to hear what the canidates have to say... all the time, and I like that McCain tries his best to provide that. This article also says that part of McCain's charm with the media is that he jokes around with them and has playful chit chat. "Some of these same critics also suggest McCain gets more favorable press because he is so accessible, and because he so clearly enjoys both the serious exchanges and playful banter that punctuate his relationship with the media," says John King, CNN Chief National Correspondent.
However this type of media availibility can also counteract with itself because while this helps one put their voice out there, their voice is ALWAYS out there. Things that McCain, or any politician for that matter, can be twisted and taken out of context leaving the person shaking their head saying to themselves, I never meant it like that.
McCain's wife made her addicition to painkillers public and of course that left her vulnerable to the media. In McCain's home state of Arizona, The Arizona Republic, his hometown newspaper published a cartoon of his wife taking pills from an infant. While I think that this was wildly inappropriate and in bad form, especially from his hometown newspaper, the media did not care about him being polite with them and allowing him and his family to be put out there and let the public know what is going on. This is an example of how the media can turn on someone in a heartbeat, regardless of playful banter and easy accessibility.

Is It the Media or Is It Palin?

I came across an interesting article on the New York Times website and it was about Katie Couric's interview with Sara Palin. Couric's personal ratings had been low but were higher than most expected with the interview with Palin. The public wanted to see Palin and having Katie Couric interview her was a good move for CBS.
Sean McManus, who is the president of CBS News, commended Couric's interviewing skills but had to acknowledge Palin's presence in the higher ratings for the interview. America wanted to see this interview, we wanted to see what she had to say. There is more to come for Wednesday and Thursday night as well. Couric has interviews for each canidate for a special series during the primary season. Couric will ask Palin and Obama's running mate, Joseph R. Biden Jr., the same questions. I'm happy that Couric's ratings went up but it bums me out that they went up on Palin's coat tail, even if that coat tail is a negative one. CBS has had a number of complaints from the McCain campaign for Palin's interviews with Couric but no complaints had been made on CBS or Couric herself.
I feel like the media has already set a path for Palin. There have been many posts, blogs, newspaper articles, daytime television hosts, etc, that openly speak negatively about her so when she interviewed with Katie Couric, many minds were already made up. While I'm not the biggest fan of Palin I wanted to watch the interview with an open mind and actually listen to what she had to say without pegging her with things that I had already heard from the media around me. Unfortunately, I feel like few people did that but that's just my opinion. I'm sure the same thing will happen with Biden but for some reason I get the feeling that it won't be as overwhelming as Palin's aftermath. We'll see.