I'm never really quite sure what term to use when referring to black people. African-American seems to be "safe" because it's hard to take offense to that but I've seen some roll their eyes before and tell me to "just say black."

It is a dilemma because calling someone African-American can seem like an exaggerated effort to make sure no one is offended. Then again, calling someone black can seem like you're not taking care to be sensitive enough. It depends on who is listening.

Since black people feel differently on the subject, I think I'm just going to say black unless someone indicates a preference before or after the fact.

I'm a little pissed

I'm completely appalled that DOVE and AXE are owned by the same corporation. As a firm believer that advertising negatively affects body image, especially for women, I thought Dove's campaign for real beauty was revolutionary. Now I am disappointed and no longer applaud that campaign. Considering I watched the Bom Chicka Wah Wah video with my jaw dropped, I couldn't believe that DOVE company could advocate such oppossing ideas. The fact that the company allows this ruins the campaign for real beauty for me. The BCWW campaign furthers the stereotype that a woman is either a highly sexualized wild seductress or a frail, domesticated wife who has ironing on the brain. It promotes a thought that there is no such thing as a wife who does more than just chores, one who can still be sexual and respectable.

I understand why the Latin community put pressure on Ken Burns and PBS to include the sacrifices Latinos made for WWII. It is important, it's a part of our history. I think it's quite overlooked, I know I didn't learn about it specifically in my past History classes.

But I don't think that documentary makers disclude races purposely. I'm thinking they just get focused on showing the American experience in general even though the Latin American, African American, Asian American and Native American experience is somewhat different although they are contributing in the same way, by fighting a war.

The fact that a Native American vet's perspective was included as well as a Latin Americans is a positive outcome. It means that Mr. Burns and PBS got the point that the documentary needed more diversity in general.

In the follow up letter to PBS, the organization mentions that the members were pleased that a Native American was included and that this was part of the groups agenda- to promote all diversity.

Maybe I'm a cynic but I think though that if only more Latino perspectives were included they would have been just fine. I read the 1st letter to PBS and didn't see anywhere about asking for other ethnicities being shown aside from their own.

The 'Jena 6' story leaves me torn.

A student was severely beaten and that deserves punishment. Nooses were hung on a tree after a couple of black students sat beneath it and that deserves punishment.

I understand what injustice is going on here but I'm not sure what the solution is. The white students should have been expelled from school. I believe 3 day suspension is showing that a racially motivated act like will be only slightly intolerated.

But 'free the Jena 6'? Am I missing something here? It seems as if people are chanting this because the vandals of the most recent incident have not been brought to justice. What if everyone is brought to justice? Maybe the Jena 6 should not endure the charges against them, but people are suggesting that nothing happen.

Well it was really a treat to have Karen come talk to us about her observations from attending a demonstration in Jena. She told us about the happenings, but she did it like a reporter. I wonder what her opinions are of the incident.

I don't believe that I caught any stereotypes from the news media coverage, but I've missed them before. Then again, I was distracted by all the crap going on about OJ.

I never realized that people with disabilities are often used as subjects, as "Supercrips" but it makes quite a bit of sense. I think I understand why.

When most people think of what would happen if they were permanently disabled i.e with paralysis, blindness, or a mental disorder such as tourettes syndrome, they probably believe that it would be unbearable, unfortunate and that they would be highly inhibited from many normal activities. Like the article said, people probably file these kind of "what if?" thoughts away because they are too upsetting. So when someone with a disability accomplishes anything that requires hardwork and dedication, it is deemed newsworthy. "Look, she is overcoming her disability."

But I can't help but be interested in these stories. On Monday, in Journalism 2310 we read an article that ran in the DRC about a NT grad student who lost his sight while in college- he now paints and is pursuing an Art Degree. It was fascinating, an enjoyable article to read. It ended with the subject making a point about how a handicap is just something a person can't do, so everyone is handicapped. I agree. We all have advantages over one another but the severity of the disadvantages are what we label as "handicap."

I couldn't find the link to the DRC article but here is an NTDaily one on the same student:

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage/paper877/news/2005/01/18/UndefinedSection/Blind.Artist.Paints.With.Perfect.Precision-1892515.shtml

In response to the 2006 article about the declining numbers of blacks in journalism, I can understand the concern. Without diversity in media there is no dispersement of varied ideas through media viewers. I'm sure that fewer stereotypes are caught by people in the newsroom without the African-Americans working alongside them whose race will be affected by it.

What the article didn't address was why there was decline. It is stated that maybe blacks are not being hired because the hiring coordinators for these jobs are diversifying with other demographics, maybe other races but it didn't seem like that point was solid. I didn't see any statistics about the ratio of blacks applying for media jobs and actually being hired.

The articles two years previously showed a promising increase of minorities and women in the newsrooms and a decline of what's been the norm in newsrooms- white older males. Although the increase of diversity is in small steps, they are steps nonetheless.

I also must add that I think it's weird there are minority quotas every year to reach some sort of masterplan in 2025. I understand it's important to have realistic representation but it seems more reasonable just to make sure that no one is violating anyone's rights when hiring/not hiring.

The only real solution is one already being attempted which is to spread awareness to media companies and potential African-American journalists.