media narcissism

[Marta]

marta:

TIfany, what is THAT supposed to mean? It reads to me like "third world refugees" are bad but "displaced black folks" are good and are incidentally being mistaken for them. I am from third world and I find the analogy completely uncalled for and kinda offensive....How would you like it if, in discussion of poor white people, someone commented "I know they look like black slum dwellers, but they could use benefit of doubt."

imo,in america, there is general apathy to black third world countries, (it is not uncommon for brief blips of haggard haitain refugee families packed on a little dinghy or swollen-bellied african children experiencing drought to conjure comments like, "turn the tv to something less depressing" in our public halls).  i've witnessed this innumerable times in my own as well as the white community.  i apologize that this comment is offensive to you in its grittiness.  i was trying to drive home the point that we should not look at these media images the way we normally do when we see citiizens of other countries in peril.  i was attempting to tickle that honest, visceral impression that comes to mind when we (apathetic americans) think of black/brown third world refugees, and am challenging that we remember these images are of our own countrymen and deserve more than the typical sympathetic shrug. 

also marta, if someone said the comment you mentioned, i would be neither shocked or upset. unfortunately, i'm used to FAR WORSE than that here in Virginia, in the newsmedia and in daily life.

again, to marta and other citizens of third world countries, i apologize.

tif. 

I did not read an apology in here. I will never respond to your posts again.

[Portia]

Great thread Write.

Jordanspeeps/Tiffany:
i was trying to drive home the point that we should not look at these media images the way we normally do when we see citiizens of other countries in peril.  i was attempting to tickle that honest, visceral impression that comes to mind when we (apathetic americans) think of black/brown third world refugees, and am challenging that we remember these images are of our own countrymen and deserve more than the typical sympathetic shrug.

Tif, can you please clarify what you feel and think? Do you think African Americans deserve more of your sympathy than refugees of other countries?

I wonder if instead you’re saying that in general there’s a tendency to see all non-white people as one group, and it would be good if white Americans could see simply other fellow Americans, instead of seeing skin colour and therefore lumping all non-whites as ‘others’ and therefore different?

I think I can see what you’re driving at – changing how you think others’ see things, which is not necessarily how you see things? (I’m hoping so.)

Marta:
I will never respond to your posts again.

Marta, please don’t say ‘never’ until it’s too late (i.e. one party is dead). If we don’t keep talking, if we don’t think we just might be mishearing, misinterpreting, or that the other person isn’t speaking too clearly, well, heck. We might as well shoot each other or start a war. I can see how you might be very angered by Tif’s words but please allow/ask for more clarification? I always think if I am going to be really pissed off, I might as well gather all the other person’s opinions first and make sure I have a concrete reason for losing it completely. Then I generally lose it: at great length and with lots of counter-arguments. Expressing what I deeply believe in generally makes me feel okay eventually, even if I make factual mistakes and get really emotional. I.e. please say what you think and feel...

[Stormchild]

Hey, whoa. I've seen more than enough of this now. Marta, it looks to me as though you are bullying people here. I have refrained from commenting on most of the occasions when I have seen it, but I'm going to comment now, because I'm really getting concerned about it.

On the Narcissism and Shame-Dumping thread, a comment was posted which shamed one of the other contributors to the thread - for something entirely gratuitous - and also shamed the thread for even existing because you had no interest in it. Because you removed this comment, I won't go into further details. I'd like to think you realized it was inappropriate and understood why, and most of us have posted first and edited later at  some time or other.

On the Hurricane Katrina Apathy thread, when I inquired into the motives behind your post praising a single poster in terms that were quite critical of all the other posters and of the thread topic itself, your response to me was that you "meant applause for [that poster], not insult for [myself]."

This statement may actually have been meant as an apology on some level. However, it reframes the issue as being about one individual's hurt feelings, rather than addressing the real issue: that individual objecting to a social solecism committed towards an entire group of people having a conversation. SF's thread is not a competitive event, and the participants do not need their responses 'graded' by anyone. It was perfectly possible to applaud one poster without putting down all of the others and the topic itself.

Reframing the issue as being about somebody else's feelings, rather than your own actions, (a) puts down the person whose 'hurt feelings' are being substituted for the real issue, and (b) by doing so invalidates both them and the real issue. It goes beyond 'blame the victim'. It's 'invent a victim, then blame them'.

To have read that, and then see such umbrage being taken at Tiffany's explanation and apology, was the last straw. It's past time for this to stop.

Stop bullying people. Obviously it is something you can refrain from. You have posted supportively on many occasions. I am certain that you can continue providing support to one person while refraining from 'ricochet' putdowns and invalidations of others. This is the ideal place to learn how to do that. Nobody here is in competition with you for anything, and everyone here is more than happy to help one another grow.

I wish you well.

[write]

I too had wondered at the LOGOS/ incidental music and who designed them or thought it was appropriate.

( at first during the current Iraq war we saw sentimental music juxtaposed with dress photos of dead soldiers, it seemed so manipulative and thoughtless )

But very few people here in the US seem to call the media sources on these things and the way people's pain and suffering are quickly turned into mass entertainment.

Some of the more responsible reporters are now reporting the other side of things- the many many rescues and brave or thoughtful acts, the kindness from all over the country, all over the world.
But of course- good news paints white as they say, and will never sell as many newspapers or draw as many viewers as reports of horror or panic do.

I've seen many opinions this week, from it being people's own fault for not evacuating to it being George Bush's fault because of tax cuts and funding failures.
I don't think anyone can have predicted the extent of the flooding or inland storm damage though- 90 000 square miles of devastation.

There are many thoughts go through my head for the future- accepting climate change, applying ourselves to conservation and in particular fuel economy. Realising that half the world's population live in horrible conditions like this all the time with no clean regular water or enough food.

But first- is the time for giving essential items, money, our thoughts and prayers, and simply being grateful that we are are safe, and fed and free.

The the people I have admired the most this week are those workers and citizens who simply put their head down, bowed into the storm and got on with things- and I'm sure that was by and far the majority, and the fact we have been shown over and over the few hundred people who behaved badly or fell apart- is not representative of the thousands who patiently awaited rescue or helped each other get through a nightmare.

[Marta]

Hey, whoa. I've seen more than enough of this now. Marta, it looks to me as though you are bullying people here. I have refrained from commenting on most of the occasions when I have seen it, but I'm going to comment now, because I'm really getting concerned about it.

On the Narcissism and Shame-Dumping thread, a comment was posted which shamed one of the other contributors to the thread - for something entirely gratuitous - and also shamed the thread for even existing because you had no interest in it. Because you removed this comment, I won't go into further details. I'd like to think you realized it was inappropriate and understood why, and most of us have posted first and edited later at  some time or other.

On the Hurricane Katrina Apathy thread, when I inquired into the motives behind your post praising a single poster in terms that were quite critical of all the other posters and of the thread topic itself, your response to me was that you "meant applause for [that poster], not insult for [myself]."

This statement may actually have been meant as an apology on some level. However, it reframes the issue as being about one individual's hurt feelings, rather than addressing the real issue: that individual objecting to a social solecism committed towards an entire group of people having a conversation. SF's thread is not a competitive event, and the participants do not need their responses 'graded' by anyone. It was perfectly possible to applaud one poster without putting down all of the others and the topic itself.

Reframing the issue as being about somebody else's feelings, rather than your own actions, (a) puts down the person whose 'hurt feelings' are being substituted for the real issue, and (b) by doing so invalidates both them and the real issue. It goes beyond 'blame the victim'. It's 'invent a victim, then blame them'.

To have read that, and then see such umbrage being taken at Tiffany's explanation and apology, was the last straw. It's past time for this to stop.

Stop bullying people. Obviously it is something you can refrain from. You have posted supportively on many occasions. I am certain that you can continue providing support to one person while refraining from 'ricochet' putdowns and invalidations of others. This is the ideal place to learn how to do that. Nobody here is in competition with you for anything, and everyone here is more than happy to help one another grow.

I wish you well.

Stormchild,

You are entitled to your opinions, you are entitled to read what you like in my posts, you are not entitled to call me names. I hope that it will not happen again.

Marta

[vunil]

I've gotten all confused.  What name did Stormchild call Marta? 

I think that this breakdown, similar to some others on other threads, has to do with politics.  In the US, we have not learned to talk about politics in polite company (it's considered impolite by a lot of folks, in fact).  Maybe no culture does it really well. Actually, I don't know what culture everyone here is from, but I think that in general people get super-angry at the implication that someone else disagrees with them politically, when the same folks don't get so upset about other disagreements.  It is a little surprising because we know that there are strong political disagreements right now-- they will show up here, too.  I guess it is a little not surprising because politics are values and everyone's going to feel those pretty strongly.

I guess we should either stay away from the topic (or related topics) altogether or find a way to communicate with each other.  It seems like a lot of people's anger/whatever could easily be addressed by communication. 

[Stormchild]

Marta, labeling a person's behavior is not the same thing as calling the person names.

Whenever I see what looks to me like bullying or rudeness, I have the right to describe what I am seeing, explain why I interpret it a certain way, and ask the person doing it to stop. Everyone here has that same right. It's called "setting boundaries".

Consider your nephew. How did you respond when he protested your teasing? Not like this, based on what you posted about it to us in mid August.

I hope this helps clarify the issue for you.

[Portia]

Marta:
I will never respond to your posts again.

Marta, please don’t say ‘never’ until it’s too late (i.e. one party is dead). If we don’t keep talking, if we don’t think we just might be mishearing, misinterpreting, or that the other person isn’t speaking too clearly, well, heck. We might as well shoot each other or start a war. I can see how you might be very angered by Tif’s words but please allow/ask for more clarification? I always think if I am going to be really pissed off, I might as well gather all the other person’s opinions first and make sure I have a concrete reason for losing it completely. Then I generally lose it: at great length and with lots of counter-arguments. Expressing what I deeply believe in generally makes me feel okay eventually, even if I make factual mistakes and get really emotional. I.e. please say what you think and feel...

Hi. Hello. May I re-wind just a little? Thanks.

Marta, are you ignoring my earlier post? I'm just asking.

If yes, please say so (just once would be fine with me). I won't post to you again if you'd prefer me not to.

If no, let me know.

Either way, I don't enjoy feeling like I'm being ignored . Just my feelings of course. Thanks.

[Marta]

Marta, labeling a person's behavior is not the same thing as calling the person names.

Whenever I see what looks to me like bullying or rudeness, I have the right to describe what I am seeing, explain why I interpret it a certain way, and ask the person doing it to stop. Everyone here has that same right. It's called "setting boundaries".

Consider your nephew. How did you respond when he protested your teasing? Not like this, based on what you posted about it to us in mid August.

I hope this helps clarify the issue for you.

Airing opinions and disagreements are one thing, using my personal information about my life and family members I had shared in a different context to make your point about calling me a bully is quite another. That it should be done in the name of boundary setting. It destroys my very reasons for coming on this board.

Stormchild, you have consistently chosen to read what I did not mean in my posts, and you are entitled to do that. I do not believe that You have the right to call me a bully on a voicelessness board. I do not see that as boundary setting. I see what you are doing as boundary invasion.

Portia, I am from third world and I was deeply hurt when I heard the discussion. It is like being kicked in the belly. It is not something I can explain or wish to explain.

[write]

what is happening here maybe magnifies why we do not always take a collective responsibility for our world and the things which in essence we all share and agree upon- because everything so often reverts to the personal.

I started this thread because I can see narcissism at a higher than personal level- in our organisations and people who are supposed to represent and serve not only us, but our countries and our world.

I don't know how this degenerated into a personal argument, but maybe if we can start here and rein ourselves in and find what is important in this issue? maybe that is a way forward not only for each of us, but for all people.

Even when we hurt- we don't have to lash out, walk away or lose sight of the larger issues.

Love to you all.

[vunil]

I know it's late and I'm tired, but I didn't understand the last two posts.  I'm kind of a fan of specificity, which is tough when people are mad, I know, but...


Write, what exactly do you mean?  Marta, what exactly do you mean? 

I really do want to know.  I am just really lost now.  What do you mean "take responsibility for the world" and how are we not doing it?  Marta, what did Stormchild misread?  Did her tone really bother you and that's what's up here?  What did you think about the things she said in her first post?

I hope posting this doesn't make things worse!  I have this feeling it's all just a communication problem.  It's hard when we are just reading each other with no other clues to intention. 

[write]

I'm kind of a fan of specificity, which is tough when people are mad, I know, but...

that's exactly it- when people get angry they cannot see beyond themselves.

I was talking about narcissism on another level, but what is the blockage, emotional, communication, physical even which means we go back to personal individual arguments each time our emotions are engaged?

How does a debate about a national emergency degenerate into personal disagreements?

Maybe if we understand that we can patch up a whole host of political questions...and still retain enough goodwill for friendships!

[miss piggy]

Hello all,

I'm sorry to read the miscommunications.  Hope it can be sorted out.

I am joining a little late just to say to Write et al that when I read the title of this thread, I immediately thought of some of the reporters pausing to give their personal impressions and thoughts about the disaster etc.  They did alert the audience that they were taking their reporter hats off for a moment.  But in a poor attempt to convey the solemnity of the occasion, the lead reporter lapsed into self-congratulatory praise for himself and the others, saying what an honor, terrific human beings, blah blah blah, which seemed to make the other reporters uncomfortable.  Aren't we wonderful people just for being here and noticing that the people around us are human too?  Yuck.

Another yuck moment, although it was outweighed by the content of the story, was when a young couple was assisted by another survivor with a cell phone in locating their premature baby.  The reporter was acting like a game show host announcing a grand prize winner!!!  Truly weird, but I also got a give a benefit of the doubt that perhaps the reporter was just overcome with the joy of the moment in such grim circumstances. 

And though one was "whining" about cellphones etc. I think this communications professional really despaired at the lack of communication and realized that if people could just get in contact with their loved ones, their stress level and angst would reduce considerably.  I think he was hinting and begging for some charitable corporation to step up. 

Another thought on this issue: there are two kinds of journalists--those that want to be journalists and report stories and facts, and those that want to be talking heads and feed the machine for more airtime.  I've had a few J professors point this out to me to their own personal frustration.  You all can smell out which ones are which!

As for the prickliness on the board, let's chill and cut each other a little slack.    Given the circumstances and headlines, I think everyone deserves the benefit of a doubt right now.  Thanks, MP

[amethyst]

I have missed journalistic narcissism for the most part, I guess. It may be because I have been watching WWL, where the reporters seem to get their egos out of the way for the sake of the facts or the people they are interviewing, and I love reading the news and blogs. I have no desire to watch a talking head emote about how horrible this disaster is, as if we all need to be told how to feel. It would be much more educational to use that TV time giving us the facts without spin one way or another so that we can understand how more about what happened, how it happened and what can be done so nothing like this ever happens again. I relish what I call the back stories...like about the wetlands, the barrier islands, how NOLA has actually been sinking, how the levees work, why FEMA has not been very effective, and the economic importance of NOLA as a port and oil refining city. I also have learned a lot about the Mississippi gulf coast. For instance, until now, it never occurred to me that building right on the beach might not be a good idea. (Guess I didn't learn anything from the Tsunami...duh.)

Most of the issues are very complex and I hope that the more we educate ourselves as to what is going on, the better we will be able to write our congress people to maybe consider doing things differently than they have in the past. I am a firm believer in writing our elected reps. That's just as important in voting.

I didn't see the reunion of mother and baby, but I think elation on the part of the reporter would be a pretty healthy reaction. Smugness, on the other hand, would be sickening.

[Plucky]

I'm coming in a bit late to this but I wish to join in with my thoughts.  Maybe this is none of my business.  But I like everyone on this board and it just feels like a big barfight in here.  Is it a full moon or something?

Marta, and Tiffany, I did think that Marta's point was valid.  While I didn't pick up on it when I read it, once Marta pointed out how badly your comment reflected on 'third world' people (I hate that term) I did see her point.  In her shoes I think I would have been offended.

Tiffany, while your your intention was no doubt sincere, your apology was less than clear.  Is there any way you could think this through and see if there is any residual negative portrayal in your post?  If the details are not in sync with the blanket apology at the end, the apology seems to be lacking.

Marta, I can see why you are hurt but can we keep the lines of communication open?

Everyone else, Tiffany is a big girl and does not need to be protected against anyone's comments, I think.   If you think that because she is African American that she cannot have any bias, or that she needs to be protected from any criticism, that's.....simplistic and patronising.

Stormchild, I did think your post was pretty aggressive.  And I was a little surprised that you brought up personal details to whack Marta over the head with.    Was that fair?  If she did something that made you mad in the past, maybe you should have addressed it then, because now it is lumped together with this unrelated issue into a big ball of shit and thrown at her.

Please don't flame me.  I'm just trying from a more distant perspective to give a different take on things.  I'm being honest and not keeping safely quiet.

an upfront
Plucky