Ranthropologist

Tag: media

  • Daily Read: Bankrupt Reality

    Daily Read: Bankrupt Reality

    I’ve been feeling off my blogging game lately, which is why I haven’t been posting, but how could I not share this story about the worst excuse for a “reality” show I’ve seen yet? I’ve seen a few headlines about this over the past few days so I finally clicked on this story from Alternet, and read about the horror-show called The Briefcase. In short, the show pits two needy families against each other in a televised version of the prisoner’s dilemma in which they are asked to make decisions about how to use a briefcase full of money ($101,000, to be precise). They could keep it, donate some of it, or donate it all – and each family is mislead into thinking that the other family is the one in need of help when in reality they are both playing the same game (that is, EACH family has the same amount of money, but they believe that the other family has nothing). The decisions they make determine how much cash they walk away with in the end. Essentially, if one of the families decides to give all the cash to the other family, but that family chooses to keep all the cash, one family ends up with $200,000 while the other family has nothing. Vox has another take on the show that explains these details (and incidentally, from a viewer’s standpoint, pans the show as boring).

    I don’t know what to say about this other than that it fills me with disgust and rage. The rank exploitation of two families who are struggling to keep their heads above water and yet still bravely refer to themselves as middle class is horrifying. To call this entertainment is an insult to every performer who wished to please an audience. To call the executives at CBS who greenlit this monstrosity human strains credulity.

    New Reality Show Exploits Poor Families, Makes Them Grovel Over the Thing They Need Most

    ETA: Here’s another article that really does a good job of expressing how horrible this show is, from Vulture: On The Briefcase, Poor Americans Have to Prove Themselves

  • Daily Reads: Race, Riots, and Context

    Daily Reads: Race, Riots, and Context

    In light of the riots in Baltimore in response to the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police, I offer this article by Conor Friedersdorf. Writing in The Atlantic, Friedersdorf condemns the violence while urging that the state-sanctioned violence perpetrated by police against Baltimore residents – particularly those of color – be addressed with the same urgency, indignation, and self-righteousness. Sadly, our attention is easily diverted from the underlying causes of the violence by context-free sound bites and video feeds, or by the actions of a single mother dragging her son away from the scene. Friedersdorf includes quotes from Martin Luther King that, to me, say it all, with this as the kicker: ” I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.” Friedersdorf reflects King by concluding “that riots are to be condemned; that they are inextricably bound up with injustices perpetrated by the state; and that it is a moral imperative for us to condemn both sorts of violence.”

    Two States of Emergency in Baltimore

  • Daily Read: Critical Medicine

    Daily Read: Critical Medicine

    In this article from Vox, Julia Belluz uses the example of medical research to highlight the problems with mainstream media reporting on science. The article points out that reporters have a different idea of what is newsworthy than scientific researchers do, and that is reflected in the way medical “breakthroughs” are reported. Scientists write their reports and articles for a very specialized audience, while reporters must present scientific findings in ways that are accessible to the public. Furthermore, reporters are looking for a hook in their reporting – something that will get eyeballs on their stories. This means that there is often a profound disconnect between the actual findings of scientific research, and the way that research is reported to the general public. The upshot, according to Belluz, is that the general public needs to take reporting on medical studies with a grain of salt because many, if not most, of the most apparently breathtaking findings turn out to be undermined or disproven by further research. This is also true of the seemingly endless stream of reports on diet, exercise, supplements, etc. I can’t stress enough that revisions and refinements of existing research are actually the biggest strengths of science; yet, when the media reports that previously promising treatments or techniques turn out not to work, the general public loses faith in the scientific community. I empathize with Velluz’s rumination on whether it’s a good idea for these studies to even be reported: “I often wonder whether there is any value in reporting very early research. Journals now publish their findings, and the public seizes on them, but this wasn’t always the case: journals were meant for peer-to-peer discussion, not mass consumption.” She is right that early reporting is harmful for the false hope it can give people and for the damage it does to people’s faith in science.

    This is why you shouldn’t believe that exciting new medical study

  • Daily Reads: Pest Control

    Daily Reads: Pest Control

    Today’s article is a must read because it is reporting on an issue that has become divisive in the public eye. A new review of the research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, shows that it is probably a human carcinogen. As Dan Charles from NPR’s The Salt points out, while this news sounds bad, the truth is really much more nuanced. Yet, as expected, this news is already being trumpeted by those opposed to Monsanto, the company that manufactures Roundup. Monsanto also creates and sells seeds for the genetically modified (GMO) crops that are resistant to glyphosate. To those opposed to the use of GMOs, Monsanto is the devil. So now, there is a review that seems, on the surface, to prove that both glyphosate and by extension, GMOs, are unsafe for humans. Critically, this is not actually what the review concludes. This is a perfect example of how selective reporting on scientific research can confuse and mislead the public. This is incredibly important, because both sides of a debate can leverage these reports to bolster their side, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. I’ll leave it to you to read the article, but here are some of the most important takeaways:

    “…the IARC is saying that glyphosate probably could cause cancer in humans, but not that it probably does.”  “… society often chooses simply to accept certain hazards. Among the other things that the IARC says probably cause cancer are burning wood in home fireplaces, disruption of circadian rhythms by working overnight shifts and working as a hairdresser.” What this means is that the dose makes the poison: yes, glyphosate causes changes in cellular DNA that could lead to cancer, but the report does not say under what circumstances and at what dose. This is a very important area for more research, because there are countless substances in our daily environments that are technically carcinogens, but that you’d have to be exposed to in huge quantities to actually be put at risk.

    “…studies of human health records did not turn up convincing evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. A long-running study of farm workers, for instance, did not show higher rates of cancer among those exposed to the chemical.” This conclusion from the report will definitely not be showing up in the responses from those organizations that are anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto.

    “…Glyphosate residues on food, however, are not of great concern. The chemical is used in the early stages of growing crops like soybeans, corn, and canola. Those crops, if they even reach human consumers at all, are heavily processed first, destroying any glyphosate residues.” Again, this fact is not likely to be highlighted by those who are motivated to cherry-pick only those parts of the report that fit their beliefs.

    All this said, I also want to point out that I am disappointed (although far from surprised) in Monsanto’s response that the report is biased and constitutes “junk science.” The research cited in the report does show a probable carcinogenic effect that needs more study, and it’s disingenuous for Monsanto to dismiss it simply as bad science. Monsanto has an agenda too, so they are just as likely to cherry-pick as the anti-GMO crowd. True skepticism and critical thinking means taking account of all the data; but I realize that’s a lot to ask when it comes to these controversial issues. If you are anti-GMO or if this report scares you, please read the article and realize that this is not the final word, and that frightening buzzwords like “carcinogen” and “cancer” should not derail your responsibility to think critically.

    A Top Weedkiller Could Cause Cancer. Should We Be Scared?

  • Daily Reads: Coffee Talk

    Daily Reads: Coffee Talk

    Unless you live under a rock, you’ve heard of Starbucks’ new initiative to have their servers (I refuse to call them baristas) start conversations about race with their customers. This is a terrific example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz means well, but this campaign is beyond tone deaf. Starbucks has already received a barrage of criticism, so I could have picked any number of articles to share as a Daily Read, but this one by Terrell Jermaine Starr on Alternet stuck with me. Starr points out what should have been obvious to Starbucks: racial inequality is not going to be solved during a chat over coffee. Obviously, Starbucks knows this; but to even position this campaign as helpful reveals just how little CEO Schultz and his staff seem to understand about the depth and breadth of this country’s racial problems. Starr addresses those problems from his perspective as a Black man, and because I have no desire to summarize and potentially coopt what he puts so well, I will leave it to his words to explain it. Let me just add, obviously and cynically, that as well-meaning as Starbucks may be, this is just another example of brandwashing.

    Dear Starbucks: Black People Do Not Need to Participate in #RaceTogether

  • Daily Reads: Parent-noia

    Daily Reads: Parent-noia

    This will sound familiar to everyone within my generation, everyone older than me, and probably to plenty of people younger than me. When I was a kid, my sister and I left the house to play unsupervised every day. We met our friend Hyla, who is my dear friend to this day, and ran into the hills (which we, for some reason, called “the canyon”). The canyon was bordered by freight train tracks. It was criss-crossed by rabbit trails and bisected by a creek flowing with suburban run-off from the houses on top of the hill. We played in the canyon for hours – building forts, pretending to be “wilderness girls,” following trails – and other than the occasional skinned knee or slightly twisted ankle, never got hurt. We were home for dinner – responding to the familiar sound of Hyla’s mom sing-songing her name to call her home, to the “feeooweep!” of my mom’s piercing whistle punctuating the air, beckoning to Hilary and me. I don’t remember our parents ever telling us not to play, unsupervised, outside – in fact, more often than not, they were shooing us away, importuning us to get out of the house.

    Are those days gone? I’m not a parent, but from what I read things have changed, and probably not for the better. Today’s Daily Read is long, but worth it for how author Kim Brooks, writing in Salon, sensitively details her experience with being arrested and charged for leaving her toddler in the car for five minutes while she ran into a store. Brooks is not looking for sympathy, but her story is wrenching. Parents and non-parents should both read it, especially for the end when Brooks asks important questions about how parenting and childhood seem to have changed. She wonders if we’ve become too paranoid, too controlling, and too afraid – to the point where leaving a child unsupervised for even just a few minutes becomes a matter for the criminal justice system, often triggered by a bystander who feels they are acting as a good samaritan.

    I could write a great deal about this, but these Daily Read posts are supposed to be synopses, not treatises. I’ll simply add that as an anthropologist I recognize how US parenting differs quite dramatically from parenting in many other parts of the world. I also can see how the modern media environment has contributed to today’s fear-based parenting – but both of these topics are better left for another post.

    The day I left my son in the car