MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has some advice for the White House about reacting to conservative media stories: “Believing conservative spin about what’s so wrong with you and then giving into that spin, is not an effective defense. In fact, it makes it worse.”
The Obama administration had asked for the resignation of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after a heavily edited video surfaced Monday on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government website that appears to show her describing how she had denied help to a white family trying to save their farm. The story was quickly picked up by Fox News as an example of racial discrimination by the Obama administration.
The NAACP condemned Sherrod and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked her to resign. After obtaining the unedited video, which showed that Sherrod had been describing an incident 24 years ago in which she did successfully help the white farmers, the NAACP apologized and Vilsack said he is willing to reconsider her firing.
Considering the rapid collapse of the original Breitbart story, Maddow had some tart comments to make on the Obama administration’s hasty response.
“What is not really interesting about this whole situation is that Fox News is doing this,” said Maddow on Tuesday. “This is what Fox News does. This is how they are different from other news organizations. This is why the White House argued months ago that Fox should be treated as a media organization, but not as a normal news organization, because they don’t treat news the way a normal news organization treats news.”
“What is interesting about this story is that the Obama administration inexplicably keeps falling for it,” she continued.
“Dear White House, dear administration, believing conservative spin about what’s so wrong with you and then giving into that spin, is not an effective defense against that spin,” Maddow advised. “Just buying it and apologizing for it and doing whatever they want you to do doesn’t make the problem of them lying about you go away. In fact, it makes it worse.”
One conservative commentator theorized the administration acted in such haste because it fears the rathe of the far Right noise machine. i tend to think the Obama White House suffers from the same kind of bend over backwards to be fair syndrome from which journalists were affected during the Clinton years. Obama is so adverse to the public impression that anyone in his administration might be perceived as being too partisan that he over compensates. During the Clinton years, journalists has had be brow beaten by the incessant and shrill accusations of OMG – being too liberal – a stained blue dress became the an issue so large that public policy issues about education, energy, the environment got smothered ( at one point 500 news stories in one day) in the never ending obsession. Thus allowing the press corps to show, see we’re not so liberal after all. Otherwise bright professionals manipulated by conservatives who knew what buttons to push.
Maybe because we live such busy lives and catch snippets of information and often rely on the impression of what’s going on via retelling of the news by a friend over lunch. Impressions rather tan facts with context become the community narrative. Even faced with hard evidence that contradicts our beliefs many Americans – Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger
The AolNews article quotes “fashion expert” Toni Love, a cosmetologist and certified barber: “For some, going bald is for fashion, and for others it is medical. Many people lose their hair due to chemotherapy, radiation and other medical conditions, so there is an advantage to these patients who are suffering because, with this new trend, they fit in, not being self-conscious of their looks.” How convenient! Your chemo-induced hair loss will blend right in — no need to worry about wigs or scarves. It really fits with the whole “beauty is pain” mantra, now doesn’t it?
But the pain of losing your hair to chemo is about more than just blending in (plenty of cancer patients are visibly sick before they even start the therapy) — it’s about the loss of a body part, a part of your body. Sure, it isn’t a limb — but, for women, it’s the loss of a major part of their feminine identity. And when you lose your hair because of a terminal illness, as in my mom’s case, it can feel like a major step toward the end (even if it is in fact part of a measure to forestall the inevitable).
This is an interesting insight into self perception, beauty, feeling whole, along with fashion changes and societal pressures. Though it would have worked better as a blog post to compare and contrast a rather long blog post made recently here at WordPress by a feminist blogger who felt so freed by finally working up the courage cutting her long and “sexy” hair. But I lost the link. Anyway polar opposite ideas about hair and how it relates to personal identity and happiness.
My example to go with this, How To Give Your Photos a Cool Retro Analog Effect
Back in the days of analog photography imperfections were part of the job. Colour washes, light leaks, vignettes and blurs were all common problems that appeared during the processing of your film, particularly from cheap cameras such as the Holga, or simply down to human error. While these problems don’t affect digital cameras, we can recreate the cool effects in Photoshop to give our shots that cool lo-fi retro effect.
Mine is a little different from their example. For one thing the composition of my picture would have suffered with edge coloring. And I went with less reddish-orange tones because they diminished her jaw line and cheek bones.