When pundits talk about “class warfare,” they almost exclusively refer to actions taken on behalf of non-rich people. Warfare, though, usually has two sides. Research reported in Extra! found that a “class warfare” story was 18 times more likely to refer to bottom-up activities—like taxing rich people—rather than top-down actions—like dismantling unions. Extra! uncovered plenty of critiques against top-down activities, including bank bailouts and anti-labor policies, but these actions are seldom described as “class warfare.”

Source: Extra! 

Image by Joe Saunders, licensed under Creative Commons.

How much responsibility should be put on the media for hate crimes? Its fair share, according to Extra!, the publication of media watch dogs FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting). In response to a 40 percent increase in hate crimes against Hispanic people, a UCLA professor conducted a study aimed at quantifying hate speech on commercial radio. Chon Noriega found “systematic and extensive use of false facts, flawed argumentation, divisive language, and dehumanizing metaphors . . . directed toward specific, vulnerable groups.” In reaction, the National Hispanic Media Coalition has petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the scope and potential human cost of hateful broadcasts.

Source: Extra! 

Harper’s editor Ken Silverstein went undercover last winter to reveal the inner workings of Washington, D.C. lobbying firms. Neither his subterfuge nor his findings—firms “proposed laundering money” and “bragged that they had ‘strong personal relationships’ at every major level of government”—were particularly surprising. But the journalism community’s condemnation of Silverstein’s method prompted Aaron Swartz, writing for Extra! (article not available online), to investigate why undercover journalism is suddenly so unpopular.

Journalistic ethicists agreed that undercover reporting is pointless and unethical “when you indulge in subterfuge to merely provide the conventional wisdom with a concrete example.” The irony in that judgment, of course, is that the most successful undercover reporting often does just that, putting a face to social problems we know only vaguely about—Barbara Ehrenreich’s foray into “unskilled” work, chronicled in Nickel and Dimed, is a prime example.

But stories like Ehrenreich’s are harder and harder to come by. One reason is their cost in court: A string of litigation against undercover reporters in the 1990s forced media outlets to pay millions to private companies. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Silverstein blames lazy reporters for the dearth of undercover stories, especially “the smug, high-end Washington press corps” who have “become part of the very power structure that they’re supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.”

Where does new media fit into all this? It’s nice to imagine bloggers as the rogues who will dig anew into investigative journalism. Assuming the public trusted bloggers to deliver the real story (still, admittedly, a shaky assumption), how would bloggers protect themselves from the retaliation of powerful people and companies?

—Lisa Gulya

Image by striatica, licensed under Creative Commons.

The transgender narrative is well known, thanks to films like Boys Don’t Cry and Transamerica. But the problem, as Extra! reports in an analysis of transgender coverage over the past few years, is the idea that a single “transgender narrative” exists.

The narrative is by now quite familiar: A somewhat prominent white, middle-to-upper-class man comes out as a transgender woman, her long history of feeling “trapped in the wrong body” is detailed, and her struggles and surgeries are documented, as are the struggles of those around her to understand and embrace her change.

The Extra! report also seizes upon another shortcoming of media attention: that many reporters and television reporters obsess over a person’s “genital status,” reducing their transgender guests to sideshow surgical curiosities. Larry King is a notable perpetrator of such invasive questions—because, he explained to one guest, “we’re all fascinated with what happens.” 

People may be curious, Extra! acknowledges, but “there are very few instances in which someone’s genital status or sex life would actually be pertinent to a news story, and the simple fact of being transgender is not one of them.” Thankfully, some news outlets are beginning to understand that. Both the Associated Press and the New York Times style guides now dictate that reporters should refer to transgender subjects using a person’s preferred name and pronoun, rather than relying on anatomical or biological status.

An excellent ColorLines piece, "Becoming a Black Man," points the way toward better coverage by profiling transgender people within power matrices of gender, race, and class, moving beyond the traditional focus of the the male/female binary.

—Lisa Gulya