Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Jeannie -
Recent Activity
-
Jeannie commented on the article |Excellent blog entry. Thank you for writing this, Tracy. And thank you for mentioning David Nibert and his book, which have influenced me tremendously in my views on animal rights/human rights.
-Jeannie
-
Jeannie commented on the article |
Is it possible to view blogs as a written form of mini-talk shows and the authors of the blogs as "hosts" (that is, if comments are allowed on the blog and responded to by the host)? Talk shows allow for the audience to respond to the material presented in the show with either comments or questions. Anytime dialogue from audience members becomes derogatory, inappropriate, or veers off topic, that part is edited out of the show, so as to keep things flowing, cohesive, and relatively pleasant and informative for the majority of the viewers (unless it's the Jerry Springer show ;-)). As much as I am not a fan of censorship, a blog host has a right to run her ship in the most professional way she deems possible, especially when she is getting paid to run it professionally. Not that I am comparing any blog writer to Oprah (not my favorite talk show host; I'm just using her as an example offhand), but I'm sure there are times when Oprah has lost her cool with an audience member, in which case I imagine she just takes it off line (off air) or edits it out and life goes on. The host is definitely the person who sets the tone and is the captain of the ship steering the content in a way that is representative of what she wants to convey. I see paid blog writers in the same way - they should be granted the right to move the direction of the content in the way they wish and to have the ability to *directly* edit any interaction to enhance the quality of the piece.
In terms of journalism, I have no firsthand knowledge of it, but I suspect that sometimes the lines of journalism get rather blurry when a writer is required to respond to comments and answer questions after the article is written (especially when comments wax aggressive, insulting, or inflammatory). Before the advent of blogs, these post-article discussions did not exist in professional journalism of paper-based newspapers (not in my memory, perhaps I am wrong), unless it was a self-help column like "Dear Abby," and even in those cases, the answers and questions were very contained, as were letters to the editor, which appeared in its own section apart from all else (and they still do I guess - I haven't read a paper-based newspaper in years!). Because blogging is a relatively new form of media, there is no known code of ethics or universally established (standardized) rules in the blogging world, such as I would suspect one would learn in a proper school of journalism (I haven't heard of a "blog-writing school," but maybe one is out there?). The lack of such formal restrictions is in a way refreshing, since independent bloggers can for the most part make up their own rules of style, format, conduct, and etiquette (in comparison to old school journalism, which seems to have strict parameters) and open up honest and open ongoing dialogues between the writer and her readers like never before in history. Blogging is a relatively new format, which is still working out the kinks in terms of where it fits in the world of media/journalism. I think it will be interesting to see the evolution of paid blogging and what it morphs into - whether blogging gradually begins following the more strict lines of objective journalism or if it takes a far different direction, a rogue route where emotional content between the writer and readers is the accepted norm.
I have noticed that online newspapers have become more and more open to comments (usually appearing below the article), and in most cases the writer/columnist/journalist herself is inconspicuously absent in them (nobody questions or notices her absence - it is accepted and normal). It is not expected of the journalist to answer questions, appease or calm down commenters, or offer thanks to anyone who responds. It is less personal and makes the writer less accessible, but I have never found this to be a problem (i.e., I am not offended that the writer has better things to do with her time then wrangle with her readers, leaving them to their own devices to discuss and debate the topic as they wish. It is not a required self-evident "duty" that the journalist respond online, and I think commenters often forget the luxury they are receiving when they are offered the chance to interact with a paid writer, including getting the chance to ask pertinent questions and express their opinions and ideas directly to the writer).
The job of a paid blogger is more encompassing in certain ways than a traditional journalist, since she is often expected to engage daily with her readers (and at times generates negative responses if she does not), as well as deal with the sometimes heightened emotions certain readers may be exhibiting on a given day. I may be wrong, but I can imagine in some cases, because blogging is a fairly new movement in the world of media, the job description of a paid blogger could be on the vague side, without a whole lot of precedent and leaving too much room for interpretation in terms of a job description, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who post heated comments. I wonder if there may be a need to provide better guidelines that protect and respect the writer (and empowering her to directly control the content) - perhaps a more standardized/detailed job description (regardless of how much or how little one is paid). (For those of you who are wondering, I do not know Stephanie personally - in fact, I've only posted on this blog maybe three times, at best. I am merely speculating on the position of all paid bloggers - this is not directed at Stephanie herself. But these are some thoughts that employers of paid bloggers should certainly take into consideration. As well as commentors who may have forgotten that paid blogging is a relatively new ball of wax and provides a fairly new luxury of immediate accessibility to the writer that readers at one time did not possess.)
Sorry for the long ramble (I truly have difficulty writing short comments)! Hopefully I have not insulted anyone with what I have written - that was not my intention. These are just some thoughts I was processing in trying to understand the nature of what is going on here. In any case, I think this is a great blog -- it is well written and informative and I agree with close to everything you (Stephanie) write (I am a vegan who supports abolition and believes animals should not be used...period. I also have three rescued animals in my care :-) - they are enslaved only in the sense that humans have made them so by breeding them.).
-
Jeannie commented on the article |
I haven't commented much on your blog, but I read it regularly and appreciate the information and insight that you provide. Thanks!
-
Jeannie commented on the article |(When I used the word "you," I didn't mean YOU specifically, Amanda. After rereading, I realized it didn't seem clear that my post wasn't aimed at your blog, which I find very informative. Your blog raises awareness of a world-wide problem that most people have very little knowledge about - including me. I just don't think most people should be paid for blogs that are rehash of secondhand information offered with little substance, research, etc. and an unhealthy dose of self involved opinion.)
-
Jeannie commented on the article |
Well, I don't know loads about the newspaper industry, but I would assume that if you'd like bloggers to get paid at an online newspaper, then you better expect one of two things: to pay for what you read, i.e., pay for a subscription/donation (because obviously money that goes toward salaries isn't pulled magically out of the employers' asses) or, as a reader, to be bombarded by very annoying ads blinking in your face asking you to buy this or that product. Unless you're Greg Palast (or another writer/reporter/journalist who only asks for donations in return for genuine quality investigative work like he does), I'll stick to reading people's opinions for free. Because most blogs consist of opinions (and/or what I call "headline commenting" - grabbing/copying peripheral information or news off other sites on the Internet, providing the corresponding link, and offering a brief opinion on it) involving little to no investigative research (where a person gets up off their ass and is actually OUT there in the field/trenches getting the scoop, interviewing people in person first hand, making the appropriate phone calls, uncovering vital information, digging deep into archives/documents, reading voraciously on the subject, etc.). Because I'm not going to pay money for someone to sit on their ass for a few hours each day gathering information off the internet from other more credible new sites that actually have real reporters out there working their asses off to get that information to you first hand. I'm not saying all blogs are worthless (nor am I saying yours is). However, MOST are worthless. And there is only a small percentage of blogs that offer genuine fresh insight with each new blog entry written...where a writer has actually delved deeply (and passionately) and invested real time (days/weeks/months...not seconds, minutes, or even hours) into the issue or topic he or she is writing about (i.e., he or she has done extensive research on the subject and writes from a place of substance with fresh new knowledge, instead of just commenting on an article (or worse, another blog) found somewhere else on the web, and feels the vacuous need to share, rant, or rave how they feel about it. Also, there is a question of the quality of writing, which is poor to mediocre in most blogs. That includes many blogs on Huffington Post, which is basically an outlet where just about any goofball can throw around his or her opinions (not facts or first hand news) and feel important.
In general, there are few serious reporters and writers on the front lines bringing back the real deal. And they are NOT hired by the mainstream media. But these folks are the ones who should get paid (many in the independent media do, but in the form of donations given by those people who care to receive the real news).
-
Jeannie commented on the article |I highly recommend Nibert's book as well.
-
Jeannie commented on the article |
Oops - after rereading I just realized how long my post was...sorry! Sometimes I get going on a subject that I'm passionate about, and I just go on and on... -- ye olde windbag.
-
Jeannie commented on the article |
Excellent and informative post, Kelly. Thank you for pointing out the intersection of oppression happening between the pigs and the religious minority in Egypt - no one else is doing so.
Quote from the article: "Now, they say, the cull is not a measure against swine flu but is intended more generally to improve public health."
This reminds me of the US government's successive reasons (lies) for invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people there (first it was because Iraq had WMD, then it was because Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, and the final strained reason was that we were "helping" the people of Iraq). When someone wants a real motive to remain secret, the successive lies generated to keep the real agenda under wraps tend to morph and evolve through time.
The Egyptian government is also using another tactic that is familiar to the US government - taking advantage of a situation to create a panic in the country so they can carry out their own selfish vile agenda. The Egyptian people are in a state of unnecessary fear and paranoia of catching the swine flu. In a quote from the article you linked, an interviewee says, "Muslims do not want to deal with my neighbor who sells electronic appliances as his shop is right next to a man who deals with pigs, [and they are afraid] that he might infect them with swine flu." Liken this to Level Orange hysteria and 911 racial profiling in the US. Only in Egypt, they're using alarmist propaganda and shock to conveniently further their own previous personal agenda. What's ensued is the racial profiling of pigs and Coptic Christians. The violations of human rights and nonhuman animal rights oftentimes go hand in hand.
I agree with what many animal rightists are saying about it - that what's happening to the pigs in Egypt isn't necessarily any different than what is happening anywhere else: the slaughter of animals is taking place everywhere on this planet and by the billions, including right here on our own US turf.
However, what is significant about this story is that it is a clear-cut example of how human oppression and animal oppression are linked. Just as violence breeds violence, oppression breeds oppression. Many vegans/animal rightists have commented on the atrocities happening to pigs in Egypt, but none that I have seen (except you) have commented on the interlinked crimes committed against both the pigs and the people who farm them.
One can easily and simply say, "Who cares about the farmers - they are killing pigs for profit - they deserve no sympathy." But oppression, usually derived from another source of oppression, often fans out into various branches (sometimes like a trickle-down effect). In this case, there is simultaneous oppression of members of a religious minority, the underprivileged, the workers, the children...and pigs. Yes, the pigs are the most affected and that cannot be understated, but by ignoring the oppression happening to the people as well, is to ignore the elements that cause oppression itself (and stubbornly prevent the possibility of understanding and uncovering the origin/root of oppression). If the Coptic Christians in Egypt were treated equally, perhaps they would not have resorted to raising and slaughtering pigs for profit to begin with. And if the Coptic Christians were not disvalued, perhaps the pigs would not have reaped the horrifying consequences of the Muslim's hate. It is not an accident that a large portion of the religious minority lives in squalor...and that consequently the animals associated with them suffer the most.
And there's more racism and hatred to throw into the mix. We can't leave out the Jews. A popular Muslim religious leader urged the slaughter of the pigs because he states that Jews are the source of pigs: http://albawaba.com/en/news/24548 .
To each their own agenda, right?
In Jordan, the Islamic Action Front (IAF) called for all the pig farms in the country to be closed: http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=17838 . And..."On Monday, the Balqa Health Department said it had installed thermal imaging detectors at the King Hussein Bridge to screen travellers coming from the Palestinian territories to ensure that they are free from swine flu..." Only the Palestinian territories, huh? The secretary general of IAF said, "Hotels and areas frequently visited by tourists should be put under constant surveillance to prevent the spread of the virus across the country." Hmm. I detect more intersections.
"Researchers" are now saying that the Swine Flue originated not in Mexico (Smithfield off the hook? - not surprising), but probably in Asia: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/health/24flu.html?_r=2&emc=eta1 . Nice to know, since that is where they culled/killed millions of birds to ward off the Avian Flu.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits