Making News

 [SOURCE: AlterNet, AUTHOR: Ariel Dougherty] 2/11/11

Three feminist media principles described by Dr. Donna Allen in the 1970s provide a framework and inspiration for helping America move beyond our current media landscape.

A “sting” video targeting Planned Parenthood was released by the anti-choice group Live Action on February 1st -- and declared a lie the same day by media watchdog group Media Matters for America. Planned Parenthood, whose clinics were the target of at least 12 visits by a two-person “sting” team, one of them posing as a pimp in a sex trafficking ring, was way ahead of the story. The group’s leaders issued a press release on January 24, in which they underscored that they had contacted the FBI and that they believed they were the victims of a hoax carried out by anti-choice activists. That release was reported by the Washington Post.

Still, since the beginning of February, well over 600 articles covering the bogus “sting” video have appeared in media across the U.S. Many of them failed to fact-check the story at all.

Wading through such lies, especially those fanned by the vastly greater proportion of air time given to conservative media figures, becomes a monumental challenge.

---

Mere hours after the January 9 mass shooting in Tucson, in which six people were murdered and thirteen others, including Congresswoman Garbielle Giffords, wounded, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik spoke out against violent rhetoric in a national news conference, launching a long overdo public conversation about dangerous language and imagery in the media. “I'd just like to say that when you look at unbalanced people, how they are -- how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said Dupnik.

But is the mainstream media allowing for a full and accurate discussion about the depth of this problem? There seems to be unsubstantiated acceptance that such foul, derogatory and inflammatory, and deceitful language comes equally from the political right and left. Melissa McEwan of the blog Shakesville wrote an excellent piece, reprinted here on AlterNet, debunking that myth:

There is, demonstrably, no leftist equivalent to Sarah Palin, former veep candidate and presumed future presidential candidate, who uses gun imagery (rifle sights) and language ("Don't Retreat, RELOAD") to exhort her followers to action....

There is no leftist equivalent to Rush "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus—living fossils—so we will never forget what these people stood for" Limbaugh, nationally syndicated radio show host and invitee to the Bush White House.

There is no leftist equivalent to Pat "Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path" Buchanan, a regular MSNBC contributor and syndicated columnist.

There’s been significant push-back against this notion from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who said in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, “The sheriff of Pima County has made a fool of himself. I don't know if he knows it yet or not. Most in the State-Controlled Media, the Drive-By Media, are illustrating why we call them ‘the Drive-By Media’….Hold your heads high and turn this back on the media.” Then there was Noel Sheppard of the blog NewsBusters, who attacked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos for “doing the same thing,” i.e., using the word “target.” Sheppard even implied that a bulls eye graphic that he pulled from HillBuz was actually Moulitsas’. Very deceitful.

Hot to deflect the flames from herself and her fellow conservatives, Michelle Malkin quickly wrote a piece called “The Hate Speech Inquisition”, in which she suggested that Democrats are trying to silence political speech (rather than simply make it more civil and non-inflammatory).

The reality is that hate speech and imagery are used specifically to stir people up and vilify individuals or groups. Such speech, which detaches people’s human authority, is antithetical to public dialogue.

Commercial, mainstream media have a sordid history of victimizing women with imagery, having made the sexualization of women a “normal” part of our culture. This type of irresponsible visual or verbal rhetoric has helped foster a culture in which hate speech is commonly used against doctors, staff and patients at abortion clinics over the decades. Terms such as “baby-killer” have prompted zealots who feel justified in murdering. Eight people have been killed to date, and according to data collected by the National Abortion Federation, there have been: 17 attempted murders; 416 death threats; 184 incidents of assault or battery; and 4 kidnappings committed against abortion providers in the U.S. and Canada since 1977. That is a lot of violence, all stemming from hate speech.

Interviewed on MSNBC last March, Congresswoman Giffords called out Sarah Palin for using an image of cross-hairs on Giffords and other left-wing politicians. That would have been the appropriate moment for the former vice-presidential candidate to act responsibly and condemn violent imagery. Instead, Palin waited until after the Arizona representative had been shot through the head to lamely claim the cross-hairs were actually surveyor marks.

Clearly, the time has come to tone down violent verbal and visual rhetoric. But how do we achieve that? We no longer have a Fairness Doctrine requiring broadcasters on the public airwaves to provide equal airtime for differing views. Not coincidentally, hate speech-filled talk radio has become more common since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Today, conservative talk radio makes up 91% of weekday radio programming time (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-study-finds-extensive-use-...) -- that is a huge proportion of the public airwaves, filled with a lot of vitriol. A study by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center examined hate speech in talk radio in July 2008, finding an incredible 334 instances of hate speech in just 80 minutes of air time. That is over four hate comments per minute.

The FCC has some rules and some jurisdiction in this arena. But do they have moxie and teeth? Limbaugh has already laid into this possibility, noting that someone “in an FCC bureaucrat's office” is “just waiting for the right moment for a clamp down.” A number of groups under leadership of the National Hispanic Media Coalition requested the FCC investigate hate speech once eighteen months ago and a second time in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. (Malkin vehemently attacked the coalition in her January 19th blog post.)

There is also some legal precedent for quashing dangerous hate speech. A website targeting abortion doctors, which some maintained was protected by the First Amendment, met the “true-threat” standard and was ordered to be shut down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002.

And finally, there are three feminist media principles that are worth some examination in this context. Laid out in the 1970s by Dr. Donna Allen, a feminist communications theorist and the founder-director of the Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press, the principles include:

1. “No attacks on people.” In a culture predisposed to violence (such as the U.S.), this principle turns the common communication process on its ear. Reasoning and negotiation become more essential, and citizens are required to listen to others.

2. “More factual information.” The staccato of unsubstantiated facts and the flow of single-minded opinion that make up a great deal of today’s talk radio content lead to this second principle. Nothing underscores this tenet better right now than the Tea Party’s mantra that “the American people have spoken” about wanting the health care bill repealed, when in fact polls show that the majority of Americans support health care reform or want to make it more progressive. Despite this and other deceptions, the Tea Party commands significant media attention. Meanwhile, last June over 15,000 people gathered at the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit to share community development strategies, and no mainstream media reported the meeting.

As the Live Action incident demonstrates, professional newsrooms clearly need to do a better job of fact checking before releasing stories to the public. Their persistent failure to be more publicly accountable only serves to de-legitimze their role. Greater media literacy among the reading, listening watching public is warranted more and more daily.

3. “People should speak for themselves.” It is a tragedy that the voices of more people are not heard in the public arena; the persistent economic crisis is a horrific example of this. Until her death in 1999, Dr. Allen was an outspoken advocate for having a much wider range of viewpoints voiced in the public sphere to inform better, healthier, more lasting and viable decisions.

In Media Report to Women, which Allen edited for fifteen years, she chronicled anything and everything relating media, from the release of the first Olivia Records album to the sex discrimination settlement with New York Times, extensively covered in the 13th issue in 1978. Hundreds of feminist media today are inheritors of this emblamatic history. Uprising radio, GRITtv and Women’s eNews represent more traditional daily news outlets. But teaching organizations like Chica Luna and Beyondmedia Education provide critical skills building while bringing the voices of low income women of color or disable girls into media production.

Then, there are dynamic and original activist groups like Hollaback. Dr. Allen would be proud of this young organization and its dedication “to ending street harassment using mobile technology.” In particular, because laws about street harassment are so limited, in the spirit of changing violence, Hollaback is using the cell phone to make this “gate-way” objectification against women no longer culturally acceptable. This is what we need with hate speech; it should no longer be culturally acceptable to viciously attack people.

These working principles provide a common framework. And inspiration! They allow the public to understand parameters for discourse, to take a more active role in speaking on behalf of themselves and to participate in the exchange of opinions and comments.These principles provide civility, based on non-violence, while respecting our First Amendment rights.

The responsibility to end the rancor and vitriol lies with us all. It will take a large public with vigilance and continued dedication to see this change. But let us begin. This is not political. It is a matter of morality. In his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California in 1927, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

Ariel Dougherty works to expand the resources available for a broad range of women's media through Media Equity Collaborative. She is a producer on Lynn Hershman's !Women Art Revolution now circulating at film festivals.

 [SOURCE: The Huffington Post, AUTHOR: Alex Nogales] 1/20/11

On January 8th I watched in horror as news broke on the senseless shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona. Over the past two weeks, we have joined in the national prayers for the victims and their loved ones. I have also witnessed a national debate emerge regarding the severe tone that has come to accompany American politics and media. I have gladly observed prominent figures -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- call for a softening of extreme rhetoric.

Regardless of whether you think that rhetoric instigated this shooting or not, I believe it is high time that we have a national conversation about the impact of the demonizing and violent language that has become all too common over mainstream media. I have thought so for some time and I am saddened that it takes a tragedy of this nature for the media and the public to notice that we have a serious problem in this country with extremist rhetoric and activities.

This month marks the second anniversary of NHMC's call to action on hate speech in media, whereby NHMC made two requests. First, that the Federal Communications Commission open a public docket to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and consider non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds. Second, that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration update its 1993 report, The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes.

Because NHMC works on behalf of the Latino community, our petition for inquiry focuses on the pervasiveness of hate speech against Latinos, but of course we all understand that many other groups have been the targets of hate speech in media. This is true, in particular, for the last several years, as calls for and legitimization of violence has become more prevalent over broadcast, cable and the Internet. The petition cites various social science studies, explaining the power of the media to influence an individual's perceptions and behaviors, and how children and teenagers are uniquely susceptible to media messages. Finally, the petition calls on the FCC to open a public docket to study the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and explore non-regulatory solutions to counteract its negative impacts.

As many in the press have already noted, NHMC is not calling for laws and regulations. As a former television producer, and someone who greatly values First Amendment freedoms, I strongly believe that government censorship is not an option any of us should consider. We can resolve this issue by compiling examples of the hate speech throughout the country and allowing communities to share their thoughts and concerns about the impact hate speech has in their communities and then have a national debate of whether the media has gone too far. If we the people have the information, we the people will hold our media accountable to a higher standard of conduct. That much I know. But without this information, we cannot even have an honest debate. The dirty laundry has been tucked away in the back of the closet. Our country is already in the midst of this debate, yet it is without all the facts that an FCC examination and update of The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes could afford.

So far, the head of the NTIA, Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, agreed to update The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes, but said that NTIA needs funds for such a report. The President of the National Association of Broadcasters, former Senator Gordon Smith, agreed to distribute to his constituents any information that we collect about the relationship between hate speech and hate crimes so that broadcasters may self-regulate as necessary. All four FCC Commissioners would allow NHMC to present its case, and each of them was open to the idea of conducting an inquiry. Incidentally, the only one who I have yet to get a straight answer out of is the Chairman, Julius Genachowski.

NHMC has also collaborated with a collection of individuals and organizations dedicated to finding the truth about the relationship between hateful rhetoric and hateful acts. One of the most notable is Dr. Chon Noriega of the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center, with whom NHMC has joined forces to produce several groundbreaking scientific studies about hate speech in media and its effects. Two of those studies will be released next month.

Recent events have set the table for the FCC and the NTIA to help this country have an informed national discussion about the impact of our spiraling rhetoric. These agencies must act now so that we understand the link between hate speech and hate crimes, so that we may prevent any acts of rhetoric-induced violence. Inaction would greatly disserve the people of this country, including our members of Congress, who must be able to interact safely with their constituents in their districts so that they may represent them on the Hill -- a fundamental tenet of our democracy. The tragedy in Arizona demands much more than a couple of weeks of debate on the rhetoric in this country. It must result in specific actions that will assuage the vitriol that has become all too common in our media. We owe the victims of this tragedy this much.

[SOURCE: The New York Times, AUTHOR: Julie Zhuo] 11/29/10

THERE you are, peacefully reading an article or watching a video on the Internet. You finish, find it thought-provoking, and scroll down to the comments section to see what other people thought. And there, lurking among dozens of well-intentioned opinions, is a troll.

“How much longer is the media going to milk this beyond tired story?” “These guys are frauds.” “Your idiocy is disturbing.” “We’re just trying to make the world a better place one brainwashed, ignorant idiot at a time.” These are the trollish comments, all from anonymous sources, that you could have found after reading a CNN article on the rescue of the Chilean miners.

Trolling, defined as the act of posting inflammatory, derogatory or provocative messages in public forums, is a problem as old as the Internet itself, although its roots go much farther back. Even in the fourth century B.C., Plato touched upon the subject of anonymity and morality in his parable of the ring of Gyges.

That mythical ring gave its owner the power of invisibility, and Plato observed that even a habitually just man who possessed such a ring would become a thief, knowing that he couldn’t be caught. Morality, Plato argues, comes from full disclosure; without accountability for our actions we would all behave unjustly.

This certainly seems to be true for the anonymous trolls today. After Alexis Pilkington, a 17-year-old Long Island girl, committed suicide earlier this year, trolls descended on her online tribute page to post pictures of nooses, references to hangings and other hateful comments. A better-known example involves Nicole Catsouras, an 18-year-old who died in a car crash in California in 2006. Photographs of her badly disfigured body were posted on the Internet, where anonymous trolls set up fake tribute pages and in some cases e-mailed the photos to her parents with subject lines like “Hey, Daddy, I’m still alive.”

Psychological research has proven again and again that anonymity increases unethical behavior. Road rage bubbles up in the relative anonymity of one’s car. And in the online world, which can offer total anonymity, the effect is even more pronounced. People — even ordinary, good people — often change their behavior in radical ways. There’s even a term for it: the online disinhibition effect.

Many forums and online communities are looking for ways to strike back. Back in February, Engadget, a popular technology review blog, shut down its commenting system for a few days after it received a barrage of trollish comments on its iPad coverage.

Many victims are turning to legislation. All 50 states now have stalking, bullying or harassment laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication. Last year, Liskula Cohen, a former model, persuaded a New York judge to require Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who she felt had defamed her, and she has now filed a suit against the blogger. Last month, another former model, Carla Franklin, persuaded a judge to force YouTube to reveal the identity of a troll who made a disparaging comment about her on the video-sharing site.

But the law by itself cannot do enough to disarm the Internet’s trolls. Content providers, social networking platforms and community sites must also do their part by rethinking the systems they have in place for user commentary so as to discourage — or disallow — anonymity. Reuters, for example, announced that it would start to block anonymous comments and require users to register with their names and e-mail addresses in an effort to curb “uncivil behavior.”

Some may argue that denying Internet users the ability to post anonymously is a breach of their privacy and freedom of expression. But until the age of the Internet, anonymity was a rare thing. When someone spoke in public, his audience would naturally be able to see who was talking.

Others point out that there’s no way to truly rid the Internet of anonymity. After all, names and e-mail addresses can be faked. And in any case many commenters write things that are rude or inflammatory under their real names.

But raising barriers to posting bad comments is still a smart first step. Well-designed commenting systems should also aim to highlight thoughtful and valuable opinions while letting trollish ones sink into oblivion.

The technology blog Gizmodo is trying an audition system for new commenters, under which their first few comments would be approved by a moderator or a trusted commenter to ensure quality before anybody else could see them. After a successful audition, commenters can freely post. If over time they impress other trusted commenters with their contributions, they’d be promoted to trusted commenters, too, and their comments would henceforth be featured.

Disqus, a comments platform for bloggers, has experimented with allowing users to rate one another’s comments and feed those ratings into a global reputation system called Clout. Moderators can use a commenter’s Clout score to “help separate top commenters from trolls.”

At Facebook, where I’ve worked on the design of the public commenting widget, the approach is to try to replicate real-world social norms by emphasizing the human qualities of conversation. People’s faces, real names and brief biographies (“John Doe from Lexington”) are placed next to their public comments, to establish a baseline of responsibility.

Facebook also encourages you to share your comments with your friends. Though you’re free to opt out, the knowledge that what you say may be seen by the people you know is a big deterrent to trollish behavior.

This kind of social pressure works because, at the end of the day, most trolls wouldn’t have the gall to say to another person’s face half the things they anonymously post on the Internet.

Instead of waiting around for human nature to change, let’s start to rein in bad behavior by promoting accountability. Content providers, stop allowing anonymous comments. Moderate your comments and forums. Look into using comment services to improve the quality of engagement on your site. Ask your users to report trolls and call them out for polluting the conversation.

In slowly lifting the veil of anonymity, perhaps we can see the troll not as the frightening monster of lore, but as what we all really are: human.

Julie Zhuo is a product design manager at Facebook.

Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits
A false sense of Internet security can mean legal quagmires for critics who are careless about facts.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau] 8/23/10

The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

"It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet," said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously.

Some postings have even led to criminal charges.

Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges "deserve to be killed" for having rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge to the city's handgun ban in 2009. Turner, who also ran his own Web-based radio show, thought it "was political trash talk," his lawyer said. But this month a jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In western Pennsylvania, a judge recently ruled a community website must identify the Internet address of individuals who posted comments calling a township official a "jerk" who put money from the taxpayers in "his pocket." The official also owned a used car dealership, and one commenter called his cars "junk." The official sued for defamation, saying the comments were false and damaged his reputation.

In April, a North Carolina county official won a similar ruling after some anonymous bloggers on a local website called him a slumlord.

"Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online," said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University. "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks.' "

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster's identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

Calling someone a "jerk" and a "buffoon" may be safe from a lawsuit because it states an opinion. Saying he wrongly "pocketed" public money could lead to a defamation claim because it asserts something as a fact.

"A lot of people don't know how easy it is to track them down" once a lawsuit is filed, said Sara J. Rose, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in Pittsburgh.

The Supreme Court has said that the 1st Amendment's protection for the freedom of speech includes the right to publish "anonymous" pamphlets. But recently, judges have been saying that online speakers do not always have a right to remain anonymous.

Last month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Nevada judge's order requiring the disclosure of the identity of three people accused of conducting an "Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings" against Quixtar, the successor to the well-known Amway Corp.

"The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited," wrote Judge Margaret McKeown.

Quixtar had sued, contending the postings were damaging to its business. The judge who first ordered the disclosure said the Internet had "great potential for irresponsible, malicious and harmful communication." Moreover, the "speed and power of Internet technology makes it difficult for the truth to 'catch up to the lie,' " he wrote.

Media law experts say lawsuits over Internet postings are hard to track because many of them arise from local disputes. They rarely result in large verdicts or lengthy appeals to high courts.

Goldman, the Santa Clara professor, describes these cases as the "thin-skinned plaintiff versus the griper." They begin with someone who goes online to complain, perhaps about a restaurant, a contractor, a store, a former boss or a public official. Sometimes, one person's complaint prompts others to vent with even sharper, harsher complaints.

"There's a false sense of safety on the Internet," said Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. "If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment" before posting a comment, she said.

Not surprisingly, the target of the online complaints may think he or she has no choice but to take legal action if the comments are false and malicious.

"These can be life-changing lawsuits. They can go on for years and cost enormous amounts in legal fees," Goldman said.

He is particularly concerned about teenagers and what they post online. "Teenagers do what you might expect. They say things they shouldn't say. They do stupid things," he said. "We don't have a legal standard for defamation that excuses kids."

Media law experts repeat the advice that bloggers and e-mailers need to think twice before sending a message.

"The first thing people need to realize, they can be held accountable for what they say online," Baron said. "Before you speak ill of anyone online, you should think hard before pressing the 'send' button."
 

[SOURCE: The New York Times, AUTHOR: Kirk Semple] 7/30/10

Police officers patrolling by foot, car and helicopter have turned Port Richmond Avenue, a busy commercial strip on Staten Island, into something like an armed encampment. Reporters have descended en masse. Community leaders dash from crisis meeting to crisis meeting.

A spate of attacks in the past four months on Mexican immigrants has upended Port Richmond, a working-class neighborhood on the borough’s north shore that is more accustomed to being ignored.

But amid the show of force by the Police Department, which deployed teams of officers to the area this week in what it described as a temporary move to protect residents and defuse tensions, local leaders are taking a longer view.

“The question is, what happens when everybody pulls up the tents and leaves?” said the Rev. Terry Troia, an activist and Staten Island native who has been at the center of the hour-by-hour civic response to the unrest.

This is not the first time Latinos in Port Richmond have been victimized in bias attacks. Ms. Troia, executive director of Project Hospitality, an interfaith organization that serves the poor of Staten Island, said the violence dates back to 2003. In one attack, a Mexican immigrant who worked as a cook at an IHOP restaurant was killed by three assailants in 2006, according to local activists and the Mexican Consulate in New York.

Some of those earlier episodes attracted news coverage, but then the neighborhood fell back into its usual fraught rhythms. Now its Mexican population, Ms. Troia said, is particularly concerned about what might happen next. “They’re worried that as soon as the police leave, they’re going to be set upon,” she said.

The Rev. Dr. Tony Baker, pastor of St. Philip’s Baptist Church in the neighborhood’s heart, said the attacks pointed to deep-seated problems. “I think we’ve gone to sleep on the conditions we find ourselves in,” he said. “And we woke up in the midst of a racial war.”

The police said Friday that nine men — all of them Mexican immigrants — had been attacked since early April, all by young black men. Six suspects have been arrested in connection with three of the beatings, but a grand jury turned down prosecutors’ requests to indict them on hate-crime charges. Two men have pleaded guilty to robbery in two of the cases; the third case is pending.

The most recent attack was on July 23. Fidel González, a 31-year-old Mexican immigrant walking home after playing soccer in a park, was set upon by several men yelling anti-Mexican epithets, the police said. The men punched Mr. González and hit him with a scooter, breaking his jaw and cutting open his head, then stole his backpack, which contained an iPod and two cellphones, the police said.

On Tuesday night, after appeals by the consulate and local leaders, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly announced he was sending an emergency contingent to Port Richmond, including about 130 additional officers, a 15-member hate crimes investigative team, horse patrols, helicopter flyovers and mobile observation towers at key intersections.

Mexico’s consul general, Rúben Beltrán, sent a representative on Monday to set up a neighborhood office and directly assist the Mexican population. The representative drives around in a car emblazoned with the phone number for a 24-hour, toll-free hot line and a message in Spanish that begins, “Mexican, know your rights.”

Since the representative arrived, several more Mexicans have told consulate officials that they, too, were victims of attacks but had been too fearful of deportation or retribution to come forward sooner, consulate officials said.

“There are all kinds of beatings that aren’t recorded,” Ms. Troia said. “People talk casually about this: ‘Oh, I got a dislocated shoulder’; ‘I lost my eye.’ ”

Civic leaders and police officials say they are exploring many possible reasons for the violence: anti-immigrant fervor, racism, gangs, the boredom of idle youth during the summer, joblessness, overcrowding and even the notion that attacking Latinos acquired a cachet in the neighborhood this year, prompting copycat assaults. But in the past few days, all conversations about motive have eventually turned to a dynamic familiar to many neighborhoods in New York: demographic change.

In the mid-20th century, Port Richmond was heavily populated with Eastern European Jews and Irish immigrants, who owned many of the businesses along Port Richmond Avenue. But after the Staten Island Mall opened in 1973, stores closed, property values fell and many longtime residents moved away.

Blacks became the dominant population in the 1980s and ’90s, but the number of Latinos also grew. After 9/11 and the imposition of tougher immigration and travel rules that impeded the flow of migrant laborers around the country and across borders, the Mexican population planted deeper roots in Port Richmond and grew quickly.

In 1990, according to census statistics, 950 people of Mexican descent lived in the 120th Police Precinct, which includes Port Richmond. By 2008, that number had grown to 8,400. Before 9/11, there were only three Mexican-owned businesses in Port Richmond, Ms. Troia said; now there are more than 50.

The student body of Public School 20, once mostly black, is now nearly all Latino and predominantly Mexican.

That growth among Mexicans has unsettled members of some other minority groups, including Puerto Ricans and Dominicans, and especially blacks, many residents say. Black religious leaders and community activists say they often hear constituents complain that Mexicans and other Latinos have taken jobs that should have been theirs. “That’s a conversation that’s been going on,” Dr. Baker said. But, he added, some who have complained “are not going out to get jobs.”

Rogelio Vasquez, 48, the victim in one case that has been resolved, said he feared that he might be attacked again for cooperating with the authorities. Still, he said he harbored no ill will toward his assailants; the attacks, he said, were “the errors of young people.”

Port Richmond’s leaders are searching for solutions. Some want to address the lack of community resources, including jobs, housing and recreation. Others are looking for ways to bridge racial, cultural and even generational divides through initiatives like a gathering of mothers from different ethnic groups, or a midnight basketball league.

“What it calls for is work,” Dr. Baker said. “The Latino community, the African-American community, the Caucasian community, coming together and saying, ‘Enough is enough.’ ”

Al Baker contributed reporting.
 

In January of 2009 NHMC filed a petition for inquiry, asking the FCC to examine the extent of hate speech in media, its effects on communities, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract any of its negative effects. In May 2010 NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding about the Future of Media in the Digital Age. In that proceeding NHMC responded to a very direct inquiry: describe the current media landscape. NHMC’s comment explained that speech advocating violence against Latinos and others is prevalent in our media. NHMC then asked the FCC to grant its petition for inquiry to examine the issue further.

Over the past couple of weeks, the nature of NHMC’s campaign to combat hate speech in media has been misconstrued or downright misrepresented. Despite that NHMC has been crystal clear that it is not – and WILL NOT – seek content regulation of hate speech in media, others have suggested otherwise. People have also insinuated that NHMC wants the FCC to censor hate speech. Such claims are false.

To be plain, NHMC has simply asked the FCC to study hate speech in media and whether or not it may lead to violence. Nothing more and nothing less. It is completely appropriate to ask the FCC to conduct such a study, as the agency has a history of examining the role of media in society. There is no doubt that the issue of hate speech may cause uncomfortable conversations for all parties involved, but that fact alone should not foreclose the discussion – indeed having the discussion is the very essence of what the First Amendment is all about.

[SOURCE: Tech Reviews, AUTHOR: arstechnica] 6/1/10

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on “hate speech” and “misinformation” in media. “Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news’,” they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.

As for the Internet, it “gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before,” they charge. “Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.”

The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission’s Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.... Full article.

[SOURCE: Stop Big Media, AUTHOR: Jessica Gonzalez] 5/24/10

Arizona’s recent passage of “SB 1070″ is spurring controversy and causing some to go so far as to urge that “all good patriots” should “protect themselves against the dangerous invaders” and “lock and load.” Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric, which repulses most people regardless of their feelings toward immigration, is growing all too common in new and old media alike.

At the National Hispanic Media Coalition (“NHMC”), we have been tracking hate speech against Latinos and other vulnerable groups for several years now. In January of 2009, prompted by an FBI-documented 40% increase in hate crimes against Latinos, we filed a petition for inquiry on hate speech in media with the Federal Communications Commission. Our petition urges the FCC to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts.

For over a year now, the FCC has failed to address NHMC’s concerns on this very serious and important issue. In the mean time, countless people have suffered violent, and sometimes deadly, hate crimes. Hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise, and even more so in the past few weeks as some around the nation have spread hate through media in response to Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history. On May 6th Juan Varela was killed by his neighbor in Phoenix, AZ, reportedly due to the tensions surrounding SB 1070.

To address the mounting hostility facing the Latino community, earlier this month NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age. Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, including Free Press, we reiterated and reinforced the need for the FCC to act on our petition.

NHMC’s comments explain how the current media landscape is a safe haven for hate and extremism. People do not have the information they want and need to meaningfully engage in our democracy, and this shortage of information is exacerbated by the vast media consolidation that has unfolded over the past two decades. Studies show that media consolidation diminishes ownership opportunities for people of color and leads to less diversity of voices; this yields a media in which people of color are under and misrepresented. As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve. In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio programs and cable television masquerading as “news.”

Although the Internet gives the illusion that news sources have increased, in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before its inception. Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye. Even worse, sometimes anonymous Internet speakers hold their information out as news, leaving the public with the difficult job of discerning fact from fiction.

For these reasons, NHMC and its allies urge that as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, that it consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects on our safety and democracy.

NHMC’s comment can be read at NHMC et al.’s Comments on the Future of Media, and its petition at NHMC’s Petition for Inquiry on Hate Speech in Media. NHMC is on the web at www.nhmc.org.