Archive for the ‘Kathleen Parker’ Category

A Bloody Valentine

Posted on December 17, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker in her piece titled “Michelle Obama’s valentine to men” writes of the First Lady’s speech during the first night of the Democratic National Convention. A striking point brought up by Parker is that toward the end of Obama’s speech there was emphasis placed on fathers, both on her own and President Obama, essentially marginalizing those that do not fit into the traditional family frame. This point is striking because, as Parker mentioned, there has been rhetoric of promoting the exceptional when it comes to people who grew up in single-parent homes (i.e. Obama and the Castro twins). They did not fit the “traditional” families that the GOP has so pushed with the phrase “traditional family values.” But even so, the Obamas were now a traditional family.

Why is this important to recognize? I point this out to highlight the fact that the Democratic Party has more recently pushed for and endorsed marriage rights for same-sex couples. Most notably was President Obama’s personal endorsement back in May. Although it has gained much publicity, there is still a need to continue the conversation on the issue. This is because people unknowingly offend a group they have so proudly defended simply by word choice. Or even ignoring the issue has the same effect.

Parker, in her article, argues for the necessity of a mother and father in a family stating “More often, young males (and females) without fathers wind up in trouble.” While that is the case in a great deal of cases, it ignores those same-sex couples seeking equality. What happens to them? How would they respond to the Zach Wahls’s out there?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Until then, the “traditional” family it is. But what is truly “traditional”?

Technology and the “Age of Twitteracy”

Posted on October 10, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

I’ve got thoughts on Kathleen Parker’s speech from last Thursday, which I will post here after my exam this evening.

Until then, though, our discussion in class yesterday made me think of a column I wrote for my other JED class last week. The column topic was up to us, and I was getting annoyed by all of the pictures going up on Facebook and Twitter last week from Instagram of our beautiful campus, ruined by some kind of cheesy filter. That inspiration helped me apply my frustration to other social media, until I suddenly found myself in a full-on rant (which, by the way, can be read here: http://www.notjustanothersportsblogg.blogspot.com/2012/10/techonologically-advanced.html).

There were things Parker said last Thursday that I agreed with, and things that I disagreed with. I guess my biggest takeaway from the speech is that we need to be selective in how we interact with this media, because if used effectively, it can be very powerful. But, if used for trivial and vain reasons, it just creates confusion as to what news really is, and furthermore, what news really is necessary.

Cheers to Kathleen Parker

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Throughout the course of this semester, I have solidified my belief that journalism cannot and should not try to always be objective. Pulitzer Prize winner Kathleen Parker champions this view in many of her weekly columns we took a look at this week. Her take on the news in general, as well as the public’s understanding of the events going on and the major actors who affect them, is refreshing, frank and candid. To say the Parker’s style of writing is unique is an understatement. In a media world so bogged down by constant, superficial reports presented as a series of facts mixed with commentary, Parker’s articles offer a rational, encompassing yet simple look at what is happening in our world.

This simple and informative tone that Parker takes is perhaps best exemplified in the article about Romney’s recent 47% comment, entitled “Cyborg Mitt Speaks Out.” In this article, she addresses the callous comment made by Romney, with a nod to people’s frustrations with his character in general. However, rather than simply berating Romney for the duration of the article, as many others have done, and continue to do, Parker takes a step back and adds a healthy dose of reality and perspective to the conversation. She tells us, “What he meant was he doesn’t plan to focus [campaign] resources on voters who will never embrace his message.” She further goes on to say, “If only Cyborg Mitt had said it this way,” writing an eloquent, relatable and understandable paragraph, both explaining what he meant by the comment in a more tactful manner, while addressing plans to help those dependent on welfare for the future – the unspoken other half of what Romney meant.

Kathleen Parker seems to be the candid, passionate, and informative sort of journalist I have been searching for this semester. Her topics range from the personal to the highly political, all the while remaining understandable and engaging. Salud, Ms. Parker.

Honesty in Journalism

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker has a sure amount of style and voice when it comes to her pieces in the Washington Post. She brings a lot of honesty to the table, and it makes for a sure set of intersecting articles for the reader. She not only challenges people in her articles who work at the public sphere, such as Romney, Obama, their wives, and other political figures; she also challenges the reader with their own actions and thought processes.

Parker will be here on Thursday, talking about the news in an age of twitter and social media. When I first signed up for twitter about a year ago, I worried about one main thing. I thought people would judge me for having a twitter and being too self-involved, and in particular I thought older people would just see me as another example of a younger generation, who only cares for their own life and self. Parker mentions this aspect of narcissism in The likability trap’ when she writes, “This ridiculous matrix for assessing a candidate’s qualifications for office is the inevitable offspring of the cultural coupling of narcissism and attention-deficit disorder, otherwise defined as an inability to think for more than two minutes about anything more complicated than oneself.” In this piece she writes about the apparent importance of likability in a presidential candidate, and I thought it was such an interesting quote just because it made me as a reader think about my own thoughts on this topic. And paired with my own narcissistic tendencies due to Facebook or twitter, I thought this quote to be a little true. However, with this new use of twitter for use of the news, I believe twitter can actually help people to care more about others and the news, if they use twitter in the right way. I suppose we will have to hear from Ms. Parker herself on this matter.

Kathleen Parker: A Recess from the Normal

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

To put it simply, Kathleen Parker rubbed me the wrong way. I understand that opinion columns must be taken with a grain of salt but the triviality of Parker’s subjects overwhelmed me. I couldn’t find any importance attached to the appeal to men in Michelle Obama’s speech and there was nothing new or novel being expressed in her assessment of the “likability trap” of politics. The likability factor has been around for awhile and she writes about it as if she is condemning some major social problem that has only recently developed. And don’t get me started on the Notre Dame piece.
There were points at which I agreed with her but even then I found myself asking “Who cares?” Her voice is clear and her opinions are strong but they carry no weight. It was like hearing the ramblings of my abrasive friend at 2 a.m. Op-eds are a curious aspect of the news. There is a presence of voice and a blatant bias but the authors somehow maintain credibility as well as an audience. I do enjoy reading them every once in awhile. But Kathleen Parker didn’t connect with me.
As Sharon Grigsby points out in a comment about Parker, “She’s an independent thinker and her viewpoint is often so fresh and original, you can’t help but be moved even when you disagree”. I think Grigsby is right when she points out the unpredictability of Kathleen Parker. My opinion is that it hurts her credibility. There is no pattern, no support to her thoughts. They seem random, disjointed even. The points she makes can be clearly argued but she moves forward with a defiant march.
However, even with my disagreements on everything she writes I have to respect her. The provocative language and style does move me, even if it is in the wrong direction. She is humorous and entertaining and I get lost in the piece, trying to figure my way through her “interesting” rhetoric. And maybe that is the role of opinion pieces. To get the readers’ blood flowing during an otherwise uneventful and plain reading of the news. In a world of objectivity and professionalism Kathleen Parker seems to be a break from that monotony. In my mind it is comparable to the child who is kept inside all day by his overprotective, anxiety-ridden, germaphobic parents and his sudden cry of freedom when he escapes to the backyard to play in the mud. Maybe it’s dirty, maybe he gets hurt but it is important for him to experience that exposure.

Parker: How much involvement is too much?

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

I really thought that Parker’s column, ‘Introducing President MSNBC’ was so relevant to everything we’ve been discussing in class. She crafted her piece in such a cheeky but informative way, and really conveyed how the media may perhaps be too involved in modern day politics.
This coincides with what Schudson discusses — how much media does the public need, and when does the media blur the line between reporting news and shaping a political scene? Parker would probably argue that media, in particular MSNBC, has their own political agenda in mind a bit too much when they go about reporting. It’s very telling when reporting figures are more sought-out by the public than the candidates themselves.
It is also good that Parker defends opinion columnists, because she is right; it is their job to have an opinion. But it is not EVERYONE’s job to have an opinion; some people should just report. Her quote, “What is not counted on by casual consumers is the merging of a television personality’s politics and the viewer’s understanding of the world.” This one sentence accurately sums up what Schudson talks about when he questions what kind of journalism the public needs, and what can go wrong when things are reported in an inaccurate or an improper way.

Openness and Broad Perspective in Kathleen Parker’s Columns

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

I found all of Kathleen Parker’s columns to be engaging and enlightening, and her ability to address a wide variety of issues in a style that is both lively and serious is impressive and encouraging. We have discussed extensively how it is impossible for journalists to be completely objective or unbiased, and Parker embraces this notion with her columns, but she at the same time offers smart and balanced analysis that is driven by a desire to contribute to public discussion and welfare rather than a stubborn ideology. Parker is very skilled at drawing lessons of morality and responsibility out of the most salient current events, and also from her own important personal experiences.

In her coverage of the current presidential election, Parker sharply critiques elements of both candidates and parties, and points out serious issues that confront the American public at large. She evaluates Mitt Romney as being too engrossed with the mechanics of winning an election rather than being dialed in to the needs of American citizens, and identifies MSNBC’s “unapologetically pro-democratic, pro-Obama” coverage as an example of problematic television news media that fails to deliver impartial information and coverage to citizens that need it. Also, Parker’s piece on the American public’s infatuation with personality and “likability” in evaluating the presidential candidates is a powerful reminder that public policy issues, and not self-promotion, are what should drive political debates and elections.

I was perhaps most struck by Parker’s column on the issues surrounding President Obama’s stance on abortion and his visit to Notre Dame as a commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient. In discussing an issue that is both controversial and highly significant to different groups and individuals in different ways, Parker illuminates the importance of appreciating different interpretations and points of view, referencing novelist and physician Walker Percy’s statement that “one kind of truth” should never “[prevail] at the expense of another.” In a world where opinions can be extremely divisive, Parker reminds us that keeping an open mind is often the most important step in moving toward solutions and agreements. This message of tolerance and open-mindedness may signify what especially makes Parker’s columns strong, helpful, and engaging.

Opinions of Rightness

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

I have opinions, lots of them, on all sorts of things, from why Brazilian industrialization is lagging behind its predicted standards to how the game went last Saturday. I like talking, debating, and expressing these opinions, and this is why columnists always confound me. The fact there is a market for people to state their opinions, whereby you have no recourse or action but to take it in, has always struck me as odd. I have always wondered if people adopt the opinions themselves, thus surrendering part of their thinking to another, or if they do so to test their own thoughts on the matter against someone who, at least in theory, is seasoned. The latter I can at least partially understand, for in theory these are wise people, but the former seems undue surrender to me.

To extend this to a discussion of news generally, opinion pieces are pure interpretation. While they may contain facts, their purpose is not to provide those facts but opinions and analyses. This, I believe, places them squarely outside the definition of news, but that does not make them worthless. Analysis can serve as a textbook and whetstone, allowing people to see how analysis is done, see conclusions others draw, and finally to test their opinions against it and thus become sharper and more aware of a wider variety of thoughts. While one’s opinion must remain one’s own unless they wish to surrender sovereignty to some figure, whether politician or prophet or columnist, the opinions of a person who never contacts opposing thoughts becomes inbred in its ignorance.

As to the actual columns here, they’re interesting and right of center, but in general that seems a relatively safe position. Perhaps that is why they are popular, through mass appeal. After all, mildly conservative opinions are less likely to offend than mildly liberal ones, for while mild liberal ones call for small changes mildly conservative ones usually call for none. This is perhaps best exemplified in “The Principle at Stake at Notre Dame” where she basically avoids condemning abortion despite leaning that direction, and even in the end states she supports, to some degree, the current form it is in. I do not mean to say this is gutless, strong moderates have their own temptations to fight and their own deeply held belief, but it makes me wonder if we’re a right of center nation.

Columnists in the Media: Americans Need Them, Despite Their Faults

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

After reading several columns by Kathleen Parker, I noticed a pattern in her writing that reveals the benefits and drawbacks of columnists in the media. As for the drawbacks, Parker gets stuck in the routine of covering similar topics in a very similar format. She frames her most of her articles around an absurdity in the world then attempts to explain it pragmatically. The structure leads to uncreative articles that become repetitive over time. Along the same lines, columnists often end up reporting on very similar issues, issues that are important and interesting to them, but not necessarily a wide range of readers. Parker exemplifies this criticism with her emphasis on patriarchal society and confronting death. These themes hit home for some readers, but an ambivalence towards them leads a columnist into obscurity.

This post should not be read as a complete criticism of Kathleen Parker, in fact most columnists are guilty of similar flaws. My favorite, and most famous, example of this is Thomas Freidman of the New York Times. While some of his articles are unique and interesting, many of them focus on the same economic themes of globalization and the Arab-Israeli conflict. He often writes pieces that are disconnected with the average reader of the New York Times, but appeals to a much smaller public. This can, however, be an advantage for journalists and the media. In my recent paper I argued that the American public needs an authoritative news source that is able to weave news stories with expert opinions. In this sense, both Friedman and Parker can be viewed as experts on their respective topics and provide readers with valuable insights into the issues that columnists deem important.

This is where Kathleen Parker’s use of a common pattern within her writing becomes valuable for her and her readers. I found that I disagreed with most of her views towards the beginning of her articles. The absurdities she mentions and attempted to justify, originally seemed, at least to me, unjustifiable. But then, Parker pragmatically explains the rationale behind such extraordinary events. For example, in her September 18th Cyborg Romney piece, Parker successfully explains what limitations caused Romney to make the claims that he did regarding 47 percent of the American population. Her practicality and relative neutrality offers insight into otherwise politically charged issues. Although I was generally unconvinced by her arguments, she provides a tremendous framework of how to make sense of otherwise unintuitive events.

I believe that it is the transparency in her writing that makes Kathleen Parker so effective and respectable. She argues in a September 7th column on MSNBC that the answer to the media’s problems stems from transparency. Because objectivism is nearly impossible in journalism, it is necessary to explain where a journalist is coming from before the consumer can pass any judgments on the issue at hand. Parker’s emphasis on explaining rationales and justifying beliefs offers the readers understanding of how she (and others who share her beliefs) arrive at her (their) opinions. Instead of attempting to hide subjectivity, I believe that the American public needs more journalists like Parker who are honest about their journalistic limitations.

Objectivity and Opinion in Parker’s “Introducing President MSNBC”

Posted on October 2, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker’s articles do very similar work to that being done by this blog and our twitter feed, as she creates connections between many of the concepts we read about with various current events. In her article “Introducing President MSNBC” in particular, Parker’s critical and likable voice brings practical meaning to some of the class texts.

Parker, like Marvin and Meyer, in their article “What Kind of Journalism Does the Public Need?” calls for a greater sense of transparency in journalism, as she writes, “Surrendering pretentions to objectivity, news organizations (including Fox) can declare their political objectives and make the best case.”  While she is critical of news organizations, she is an equal opportunity critic, pointing out issues within news organizations across party lines.

In this same article, Parker also discusses the phenomenon of television personalities morphing into celebrities.  I think that when Giuliana Depandi, formerly known merely as an infotainment news personality on the E! Channel is suddenly making news for having a baby via gestational surrogate with her husband, the first winner of the Apprentice, it is clear that the epidemic of television personalities as celebrities is upon us.  Parker discusses this transformation as “unavoidable,” being that “We naturally feel a bond with people in our kitchens and living rooms every day.” However, she warns, “TV journalists risk becoming the event themselves rather than the events they cover.”  This point is also one relevant to our readings, as Schudson writes about the manipulation in journalism, stating, “The temptations of the reporter-source relationship are real” (135).  While Parker does not offer a solution to this lack of balance, her presentation of the issue in a clear, engaging manner raises attention to the matter, further opening discussion about objectivity and opinion.

Calm in the Political Storm

Posted on October 1, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

I’ve never really been much of a follower of ‘hard’ news. I like to skim it from time to time to keep up a general idea of what’s going on in the world; but really, I’ve always been partial to other features, specifically the columns. They tend to be a little more literary, a little less ‘by-the-numbers’, and a little more personal.
Bearing that in mind, I’ve really enjoyed flipping through Kathleen Parker’s columns from the Washington Post over the last few weeks. Two columns in particular really caught my eye – one from late August, entitled ‘Celebrating a life well lived’, and another from a few weeks later, ‘Michelle Obama’s valentine to men’ (especially the latter). Parker hails Mrs. Obama’s speech at the DNC as “perfection” and “brilliant”, saying “only the mingy-minded could fail to be proud of America’s first lady.”
But Parker switches from political commentary to point out her favorite moment of the speech, Mrs. Obama’s riff on her father. And then, in an analysis surprising in this day and age, she interprets the quote to mean “that children need a father.” It seems this is an increasingly less popular opinion these days (or at least one that people are more hesitant to express, for fear of attracting feminist criticisms), so it was interesting that she chose to take the column in this direction. She then points out the photo of Obama accompanying this section of the speech, showing him with their two daughters, certainly a powerful and memorable moment.
This gets to an interesting side of politics – how each of the Presidential candidates tries to portray themselves through the media (in this case, as a caring family man). Obama seems pretty talented in this regard, but it may be a challenge for Romney’s campaign, as Parker thoughtfully points out in her column on Cyborg Mitt. I’m curious to see in the weeks to come how each tries to align themselves with ‘common Americans’ (the recent stir about Obama and his White House brewing being one fascinating example), and then how journalists like Parker treat those efforts.
In this case, Parker chooses to mostly avoid the political implications of Mrs. Obama’s message, but instead suggests that she tried to set an example for women and little girls throughout the nation, a sort of gift of its own. It was a nice and thoughtful moment, a welcome break from the usual political trash-talking we’ll hear in the coming weeks, and a reminder that politicians are people too.

Thumbs Up for Kathleen Parker

Posted on October 1, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker’s voice comes through strongly in each article reinforcing the feeling that you are talking about major world issues with someone who could be your best friend. Her honesty is something to be admired, especially when working in an industry that is not short on critics. But she maintains a lively and positive tone that much journalism is lacking. Her matter-of-fact attitude reinforces my belief that she has a logical point of view and goes a long way in securing people who agree with her points.

Writing as an opinion columnist seems to give her the freedom that journalists crave; her job allows her to go beyond objectivity and inspire people to really think about the issues in the news. As we have just wrapped up our conversation in class about the homogeneity that is becoming problematic in media, Parker’s essays offer a refreshing style. Her articles on the election grab my attention because they are separate from much of the election coverage that has begun to run together in my mind. Taking risks (labeling Mitt Romney a cyborg) and sharing her point of view freely (“No longer do we get what we pay for, as the adage goes. We get what the activists want—and we all pay for it,” wrote Parker in her article regarding MSNBC’s blatant favoritism of the incumbent president in their election coverage) Parker manages to win me over, and many others I’m sure.

Another factor that sets apart her journalism is the broad range of topics she covers. Ranging from politics to her family life to the abortion issue and its play at Notre Dame, she approaches each piece with a strong point of view that is backed up accordingly. Her voice comes through in each piece so we can tell that she is confident in her writing. I applaud her writing and her ability to show that subjective journalism is important and can have an impact on readers to inspire them as citizens just like standard journalism does.

Three Cheers for Kathleen Parker

Posted on September 30, 2012 in Kathleen Parker

Alternate title: Why politicians beg journalists (read: offer large paychecks) to be their spokespeople.

On Thursday, Oct. 4 Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post will give the Red Smith Lecture to students involved in the Gallivan program for Journalism, Ethics and Democracy. In anticipation of her talk, our class read some of her more recent columns.

“Cyborg Mitt Speaks Out”

Parker interprets presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark while effectively framing his position as one based in truth about the way economics works in the United States. I mean really, were Romney’s comments something we didn’t expect him to say? No, not really. And is it unfair to rephrase (a portion of) his remark as “Heck, they need jobs an income before they can enjoy the problem of a high tax rate.”? Again, no. He’s not courting the vote of those who would fall into the 47 percent and they weren’t going to vote for him anyway. Hear, hear.

“Introducing President MSNBC”

I’m officially sending this column to anyone who wants to write one for Scholastic magazine, as it’s just a flat out good piece of journalism with an easy-to-map narrative structure. She teaches those of us purists who avert our eyes when MSNBC and Fox News comes on that in fact, at least one of these networks has a bi-partisan morning program. She also feeds our voyeuristic appetite with a colorful retelling of the DNC peppered with jokes at MSNBC’s expense. And then she goes on to explain why we so easily turn television journalists into celebrities, all while placing the blame on no one but the technology. With an attentive audience, she has set herself up nicely for her thesis: If news organizations would be more transparent and open about their biases, then people have the tools they need to hear the best case, rather than the set-in-stone fact of “balanced” programming. Hear, hear.

“The likability trap”

How anyone determines whether or not they “like” a candidate is beyond me, as no one outside of senior staffers ever get more than five minutes of the candidate’s time. And maybe I only speak for myself but I hardly think it fair that someone judge my “likability” factor off of five minutes. My suspicion is that I’m not alone. So why do we choose who we vote for based on whether we like them or not? Because politicians – like TV journalists – are celebrities, and as long as they’re not blander than vanilla tapioca, we’re willing to tune in. Parker says all that and more in her column about Romney’s unending battle to win the favor of the public. It’s a shame that she’s probably just preaching to the choir, which will be no different in Thurday’s lecture “Journalism in the Age of Twitteracy” – at least for our class (#NDJED).

But I’m happy to live tweet the event and more excited to meet Parker in person. Speaking of Twitter, follow @Sulliview. She’s the public editor for the New York Times and for those of you who thought “no one checks the press,” think again.

Huzzah! (Had to get that 3rd cheer in somewhere.)