Salon: One Big Happy Channel?
But suddenly, without the FCC's input or any public hearings, the kind of sweeping deregulation that most broadcasters hadn't even fantasized about two years earlier was ushered in overnight....
One 25-year radio veteran, and current Clear Channel station executive, estimates the Telecom Act has eliminated nearly 10,000 radio-related jobs.
Bitch Magazine. "A feminist response to pop-culture." Beautiful layout, intelligent (not business focussed) writing, and not enough funding. I picked up a copy and ended up reading it cover to cover like I used to do with Wired. Since Wired (and Shift) seem to only focus on money (any coverage of interesting ideas is usually also framed in terms of how much money will be made), and Utne seems just a little too much on the byte-size side of things, there has been a need for an interesting magazine that is as critical as it is unpretentious. Bitch is just that (the issue I just read, anyway).
I also watched American History X for the second time. A fine, even amazing film... but what makes me a bit nervous is that it frames racism as a belief that is explicitly espoused, rather than a privilege that is exercised unconsciously on a daily basis. I guess I'd feel a lot more comfortable recommending this film if there was another film that examined white privilege as effectively. It's telling that there isn't. Actually, there probably is, except it's obscure enough that I haven't heard of it. That's telling.
Dru, you might want to see Traffic in the light of "White Privilege". While the movie tries to be about cocaine and drug trafficking and children and the war on drugs. I was more struck by how race played such an important part in the film. Having not seen it in a while, I can't really give a strong example of make a sweeping generalization about it, but I just recall leaving the theatre thinking that drugs was a small part of that movie.
Yeah, I saw Traffic a little while ago, and was a little dismayed. The Douglas "Drug Czar" character comes to the revelation that people who get addicted to drugs are (*ghasp*) real people, like you and me (i.e. they're white and rich), in addition to being these evil black drug dealers who sling guns around and rape our (white) daughters. There's nothing that mentions that black people are waaay more likely to do time for the same crime. 48 times more likely.
Seems to me it would be easy to make an insightful, critical movie about the war on drugs. Traffic wasn't that, though I guess it pretended to be.
Dru,
I find that The Progressive and Counterpunch are good magazines. Z is good too, but oftentimes academic and frankly, boring.
I'm probably going to start subscribing to anarcho-syndialist review soon.
"but what makes me a bit nervous is that it frames racism as a belief that is explicitly espoused, rather than a privilege that is exercised unconsciously on a daily basis."
But racism *is* a belief that is explicitly espoused *and* a privilege that is exercised on a daily basis (both consciously and unconsciously, and a couple other 'lys' :))
Now the line that to be racist you must have manifest, explicitly, self-reflectively, articulated, and expressed racist beliefs is completely wrongheaded and is probably closer to what you meant to critique :)
Goldhagen, in chapter...eh..2 maybe? of Hitler's Willing Executioners argues that the fluctuation of *manifest* anti-semitism (or explicit expressions thereof) can't be used to claim that *anti-semitism* waxed and waned.
I mean, imagine a county, somewhere, let's call it "Orange" county, is all white, purely "by chance" and rather parochial. They don't get outside the county much, most of them. They might rarely, if ever, even *think* about Blacks, much less villify them.
Does this mean that it's likely that they'll welcome a black family with open arms?
If the *manifestation* of their racism is to *eliminate* blacks from their lives so they *don't* have to think about them, then explicit thoughts won't be part of their exercise of privaledge.