Laura Flanders: .....as that story. And that in fact, that the message that I went away from Helen Benedict's book with, was that not only is this a kind of academic question of misrepresentation of the facts and confirmation of stereotypes, but it is misleading women in a way that makes us less and less well equipped to protect ourselves. It is just giving us precisely the wrong information that we need to lead our lives. And it's also, there is such a history in the misrepresentation and the sort of manipulation of rape stories. And that was another problem that I wondered about as I looked at that front page of Newsweek. Because I remember the history in this country of the use of rape stories in the late 19th century, in the 1890's in particular. When the newspaper tabloids really just taking off covering crime. And one of the most popular stories at that time with the stories of African American men, freed slaves for the most part, raping or attacking white women. And we know that those stories were then used to justify lynching. That was at a time when white men had a very large number of reasons to be concerned about a big freed Black population who had their own ideas and their own economic theories and ideas around farming in the South and that threaten the status quo. And suddenly this preponderance of stories justified violence and vengeance against Black men. So I thought when I looked at that story, I thought, are we really hearing from the women themselves? Are we hearing? Who is telling their story? Those Bosnian women. Who is taking those pictures? Are all the women in Bosnia really just victims? Are they all kind of as they appear in the papers, sort of shrouded in dark colored clothes and dejected refugees? Or what is going on in that country to respond to the situation by women? Is there a women's movement there? Has there been? What has been the work of that women's movement? What has been the experience of that women's movement? And in the lucky position as a journalist, I'm able to go and find out some of those answers and bring --as it turned out with the help of a women's organization in this country called MADRE -- some of the women from former Yugoslavia, from Croatia, from Bosnia from Serbia, to the U.S to talk about their experience. And about how they were responding and what messages they will get him from the raped women as to what they wanted. And some of the information we got was horrific. That suicide attempts escalated after the raped women spoke to the media. But some of the women felt like they had been raped for a second time. That one of the messages they were giving was that they didn't necessarily want their stories to be sort of, churned into the propaganda mill around the war. All of these things were questions that needed to be addressed and it brought home to me how important it is that the women's movement in this country consider itself a system movement with women internationally. That when we see an international story don't think "Well that isn't a woman's issue." But really go and find out what are the women in that country talking about ? What is there analysis? What is their perspective? Because as we traveled around the U.S. in the last month, it brought back to me another part of U.S. history. Which is that in the early part of the twentieth century there was a group of U.S. women who formed an organization called The Association of Southern American Ladies Against Lynching (The Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching (ASWPL). And they cared very, very much about rape. And they cared very, very much about lynching. And they did not want to see stories about their own suffering used to justify other people's suffering. And that was comforting to me. To think of that have always been women trying to say something that was not easy for them to say. That did not fall into a simple category where women are allowed to speak. But instead took the took the debate, changed the terms of it and said this: "We want you to listen to us". And I think that that is very much what I'd like us to talk about here today, is how we cannot just be pushing for women to replace men as the pundits on the nightly news programs. But how we can actually change the terms of the debate so that stories, for example, like the Tailhook scandal that got the front page today. How that story could be told a different way next time. Maybe we can still have the men's version and the picture of the guy wearing the T-shirt saying "Women are property". But maybe we can have another picture and another story as well. Or maybe we don't ever really need ever to see again another picture of a man wearing a t-shirt like that. [murmurs of agreement] Speaker 1: Hear, hear. Laura Flanders: That's some of the things that I'd like to address. And finally, I just, I think it's important to really listen to women internationally. And to not just measure the gains of the women's movement by all gains in this country and that becomes particularly dangerous when it becomes a study of the media. Because we can look at how many women reporters are being sent out and how many women pundits are being invited into the studios. But if we still can, for example, cover the North American Free Trade Agreement from beginning to end - and I looked through Nexus the computer base, the database to try and study this to find out-- if we can look at that whole debate without ever speaking to working women in the factories in this country, or the factories South of the border and treat them as experts rather than just as kind of human interests, sort of side bars to the story--then when not really achieving the gains that the women's movement set out to achieve. And we're certainly not advancing an international women's movement which I think, or I thought is what the women's movement was about. Thanks. [applause] Maria Hinojosa: It's very interesting because in preparation for this talk, the only word that I could think of was invisibility. And it goes I think for me, beyond what Laura says. Women of color are completely and totally invisible from the media. And this is possibly what concerns me most about when we talk about women in the media and how we are covered or women in politics. I just continue to think, "well what about all of the women of color who make up this country or particularly in New York City, the city where I work?" What about all of these women of color? We simply don't matter. Our stories are not important to be told. You know, I was the first Latina to be hired at National Public Radio in the Washington DC headquarters in 1985. And that wasn't very long....well I guess it was. [laughter] But I mean, you know, multiculturalism was around back then. I mean, we all seem to forget the fact that this country from day one was a multicultural country. I mean, it's only been in the 1990's when everybody said "Ah, multiculturalism, how wonderful." [laughter] I mean, this country from day one was multicultural. I mean, there were Native American peoples here and others came to find themselves in this country already it was multicultural. Even before the pilgrims came there were Mexicans living in what is now the United States. So let's not forget that this has always been a multicultural country. It's only now that it's become so much of a fad, in fact I refer to it as the multi-culti kind of fad. [laughter] And I do, I worry that it is in fact, a fad. As opposed to really being something structural and understanding what's happening in this country. And that takes me to the perspective of what's happening with women of color in the media. As I was preparing, you know, what I was going to talk about, I just said "Well the fact is that we just don't matter. Our stories just don't matter." I mean when have you, as Laura, I mean the perfect example is with the free trade agreement, when have you been told "We'll go out and do a story about what the working women think about this." Now because you see, we, the people who were making those decisions have no relationship to those women. For example, what about what happened with Zoë Baird? As far as I was concerned, I mean, this woman, the 'illegal alien" of course, because that was the term of usage all of a sudden again, that was the term. And within media circles there was even resistance to questioning why are we using the term illegal alien? In fact, a week ago I called local WNYC (WNYC New York Public Radio) when I heard one of their local reporters whose a colleague of mine, I said "How could you, how come he says the term illegal alien on the air?" and his news director said "Well, isn't that the term that the federal government uses when..." And I said "That's not a good enough reason". [mimics the news director} "Well, you know, we're not trying to be politically correct.." I said, "It's not it's a question it being politically correct". It's not. It's a question of what do you call a human being? Do you call them an alien or not? Do you call a human being illegal or not? And again the question is is that we, as women of color, I guess are not human being in a lot of ways. Even today I find myself in a strange position. I was recently hired to host a show called Visiones which is on Channel 4 and it's a show for the Latino Community. Just between us, it's a zero budget show. [laughter] They'd rather not have it on the air, probably. Don't repeat that any place, but. [Laughter] I find myself being in a strange position as some of my friends told me that I am the only Latina right now on mainstream commercial media television in New York City you are the only Latina on Commercial media...television in New York City. And I said " No, no, no. Wait a second." I said to my friends, " That's not true." They said " Yes, Maria. You are the only Latina on commercial television in New York city in English language media". Now how can this be? It can be because as far as I'm concerned this country is in this absolute moment of complete negation about so many number things. I mean, speaking of slavery, this country is in complete and absolute negation about what that historical reality brings to the present. We negate the fact that slavery existed in this country and what that implies. I mean, when has there been a thorough and complete analysis of what slavery meant? That just over a hundred years ago people were slaves. I mean we, still, it's like nobody, people just kind of negate that as a real concrete historical experience. We negate the Latino Community as a whole entirely. We just had a major media circus in Los Angeles. We had the waiting and the preparation for the result of the verdict. And about half of the people who are arrested for participating in the uprising in L.A, half of those who were killed, half of the stores who were looted were owned or people were Latinos. Now with all of the media circus that we had there, was there coverage of Latino vis a vis the situation in Los Angeles? Was there coverage of Latinas? Was there coverage of women, period? Very, very little. And I think the other thing that I'm really particularly worried about in terms of this country is the negation of the crisis in which it finds itself in. And the crisis for me is particular surrounding issues of youth. And I mean, it's like I say issues of youth in general and then it's like, well what about young women? It's like forget it. I mean, who cares? Is really what they're thinking. Who cares anyway? And yet, these are the mothers, these are the future mothers of the children of this country which we should assume we as a society embrace as an entire country. The country is so divided at this point that it's really devastating to me. It's really really devastating. And of course, as women, forget it, we're completely negated. A recent experience that I had --and it's something that I carry with me, one of the frustrations. I recently won an award from the American Women and Radio and television (American Women in Radio and Television (AWRT) and they had a big luncheon at the Waldorf Astoria. And I actually won an award for a story I was really proud to have done. It was a story about Puerto Rican women and AIDS on the island. Speaker 2: It was terrific. I heard it. Maria Hinojosa: Oh, thank you. [laughter] Well, at least somebody listens to NPR here. [laughter] Um, just a little bit of background: it was the first time that any NPR reporter had ever been sent to Puerto Rico because of course Puerto Rico doesn't exist either. Yes, first time. Anyway, who cares about Puerto rico, right? Except for the fact that it happens to be our colony , you know the American colony. But, oh who cares about that? Anyway, so I went to do this story and it was very, very devastating. And for me what was interesting covering the issue of women and AIDS in Puerto Rico was that I suddenly felt like: this is when we were allowed to cover women of color issues. When it's something about AIDS. Because women in Puerto Rico right now are the most at risk in the entire island. Their rates are just skyrocketing. And I had very mixed feelings. I mean, I was very happy to do this story. I mean, I was glad to do the story. And at the same time here I was putting Puerto Rican women on the air when I'm not usually given a lot of opportunities to do stories just about Puerto Rican women. And the women were talking about things that were very, very difficult. Questions of usage of condoms. Questions of intimacy. Questions of how you communicate to your partner. Questions of the need for love. I mean, all of these issues. And here I was putting these women on the air who were saying things that were really difficult to hear. Some of the women were saying "I don't want to use a condom". "Yes I know that my companero may not be faithful to me or he may use drugs." But one of the women said " ¿Qué es un matrimonio con un condón?" What is a marriage with the condom? What is a marriage with the condom? Which I think goes to the fundamental issue of what intimacy is all about. And yet, I thought --and I knew that this was an issue that all women face. Your friends, your friends your friends, every single woman that we know faces that same exact question about what are we going to do with the question of AIDS and a condom? And yet, I was only being able to place it within the context of Puerto Rican women. You see, because it's their problem. Because they've got all their cultural background and they've got all of their stuff that they carry with them. And so therefore it's a realm it's just their problem. And I was able to put a line in the story, I mean one line which said I can't remember how. But it basically said these are issues that not only Puerto rican women face, but all women across the board. Maria Hinojosa: And of course I was thinking about friends of mine who are white, for example. Who here educated or who are not white. And who are going through these same exact, very disturbing issues about intimacy. So those are the times when we are allowed to talk about women of color. In a way when we use them to make caricatures of situations which we're all facing. It was really very difficult for me. And the point that I was trying to make about the award was that it got an honorable mention. Of course I thought it should have won the award. [laughter] But, and I kind of felt like, well why did they give it an honorable mention? It was like a lot of stuff going on me. And then I went to this conference, I mean to the luncheon and, you knows, no other woman of color won an award in the entire event. In fact, let me try and think. I'm almost sure that no woman of color even spoke at the luncheon. I mean Paula Zahn was there and all these other top... And everybody was talking about "You're [all] women and we don't get any coverage." And I was just [here] saying "You all just don't get it, you know." I mean, for me, yes the issue is just much broader than women. Because, I'm sorry to say that I do think that in this country often we talk about women's issues, we're talking about white women's issues. And I think that unfortunately, all we have to do is look around the room and see that there's a problem. Speaker 3: White young middle ....[unclear] Maria Hinojosa: Um, it's a real problem for me, it's something that I live with everyday. So another story I wanted to tell you about, something for example that could have been covering the media and that wasn't. I think it was a month and a half ago a group of very powerful Latinas gathered in Washington DC. They were very upset about the fact that Clinton has not named any Latinas in his cabinet. Maria Echaveste actually was his National Latino campaign coordinator and brought out a lot of Latino votes for Clinton. She is now like assistant to the assistant to the assistant of I don't know what department, whatever. I mean this was somebody within the Latino community had a lot of respect and power. This is a position she was given. I mean, that to me is a story in and of itself but they don't consider it a story. They, right, we'll talk about the "they's" in a little bit. These women came together and said they were very upset about the fact that the Clinton administration had done this. And within 10 minutes they decided to put their money where their mouths were and they raised you know $25,000 in 10 minutes. And they put a full page ad in the Washington Post and said "Yo Bill, what's up, you know with this stuff?" And the Clinton's you know, we haven't seen any movement on that at all. Was this cover- I mean, did any of you know that happened? [murmurs of "no"] Maria Hinojosa: Well, there you go. Need I say more? We're considering, we're consider...that there are few of us like me and, for example [Shirley] would have been here. There are few of us women of color and we're just these, like kind of, um, yes tokens, is what we are. I remember the first time when I was interviewed for my job at NPR [National Public Radio] the person who interviewed me. I mean he couldn't believe it, I mean, a Latina who went to Barnard, and who is educated, and who spoke and you know, understood political science. I mean, the man was almost having an orgasm. I mean, he just couldn't believe it. He was like, "Oh, I've never seen this in my life, of course we have to hire you right now because this is such an aberration". [laughter] He was like, you all, you don't understand that there are a lot of us around here. And in fact, very soon after I was hired they came up to me and said, "Listen, are there any more of you out there?" [laughter] Literally in those terms. So you know, we are seen as an absolute aberration. I mean they're really glad that we're there and you basically we're a rarity. Now, my struggle as as a woman of color in the mainstream, is that I have to try to remain constantly true to what I think is my, what I can give as a woman of color [and in coverage]. That is to remain true to my intuition about what is an important story, who are the important people to talk to, and it's really for me it comes a lot about intuition. Because I really feel that journalism, if it doesn't make me feel anything, then you can either come or go. That's my kind of, very gut feeling about what journalism needs to do. It needs to touch you. So I always try to remain in contact with that level of humanity that you need to carry when you're either on television or doing your stories. And luckily at NPR, a lot of the times I don't have problems with that, but I'm not allowed to do it a lot. Because there's kind of this talk of like, "Well we have to protect you, you know, you can't be coming across like you're too much of a sensitive person or anything like that". You know, because you lose your credibility, I suppose as a journalist. So one of the stories that I thought of as I was preparing for this talk, was what I did when I had to cover the Democratic National Convention. I had never covered a convention before. I mean, I find it very interesting that you know, we make this huge hullabaloo about this convention. When you go in there it's like four thousand people, you know. And when you see it on tv it looks like there's millions of people and it's really just like four thousand people. A lot of them you know, very much alike in a lot of ways. But what I did was I went out and I talked to people around New York City about what they thought about the convention. And I interviewed this woman who was selling hot dogs on 14th Street and 6th Avenue and she was an immigrant from Greece. She barely spoke English and she was great. She just said "Convention!" You know, she had a very, very thick accent. "Convention, what convention? What convention are you talking about? Politics? Who cares about politics? I'm working every day. Who cares about...?" And I was like, "Thank you". And that's the person I put on the air. [laughter] And to me that was what it was all about. And we don't hear those stories because ultimately the people who were making those choices are not us. Are not women in general, or women of color. I guess I just want to find the end because I really do want to open this up just to a talk. For me the issue of diversity in the media is a very complex one. I really think that you can have as many brown faces or Black faces behind the microphone or on the camera as you want, and that's not really going to do much. You have to, diversity really comes from people who understand what their role is as a journalist of color in the mainstream media. But of course the people who are giving them those jobs understand that that's what they don't want to have. So they try to get the other people of color who are prepared to just do the same thing as Dan Rather, but just be of a different color I think or whatever. And I think that my biggest issue right now is the issue of diversity in class and that's where I would hope that at some point it changes in regards to women. Because the young women who I see right here in New York City who have so much to say, I mean I just know put a microphone in front of their face and they just start talking and I'm like, you know these women are brilliant. And yet they are totally disregarded in the entire society. I'm thinking of the women who I'm interviewing right now. But young girls who I'm interviewing right now for a book I'm writing about gangs in New York City. And these young women don't see themselves reflected anywhere. No one ever asks them what they think about anything. And as long as they are completely invisible in the media, they will always feel or hopefully not always feel, but continue to feel that what they have to say has no importance. And therefore why should they even give an opinion about it. And that worries me profoundly because ultimately this is our society. This is our society, all of us here together. And that is our future. [Applause] Michael Delli Carpini: I'd like to open it up now if you have any questions, comments, issues you'd like to raise. Yes? Speaker 5: Yes, I was particularly interested when you were talking about quote, "illegal aliens". I was shocked that of all the people to have written a column about illegal aliens was Abe Rosenthal in the New York Times who talked about his parents coming over as immigrants. He said 'What is this illegal aliens all about?" and he said "Nobody ever called them illegal aliens." He said "What does it mean?" he said "These are immigrants again and again." He says "Time after time." And you know, [unclear] and I said you can only push a button, and if we could only keep finding those buttons we could really get the mainstream media to respond to some of those things that we hear. We let too many things go. Maria Hinojosa: But see the interesting thing about that column that he wrote, was that, thank God he wrote it. Because otherwise there would have been ..... You see, he is able to bring that discussion because of who he is. Speaker 5: That's what I'm saying. Maria Hinojosa: But when I when I bring that discussion, you know, the immediate response to me was "Well I don't know, a little, we don't want to be perceived as PC and all this." And it's like you don't get it, it's not about that. And again, I mean yeah, it was because of who he was. We bring that stuff up, I bring that stuff up, and you know it's really dismissed. And my worry, and I know it happens, is the question of self-censorship. Is when you just say I'm not even going to bring it up because it's just too painful. And it happens. It happens with me, it happens with a lot of other journalists who are just tired. I mean you get into that mode just for a little while and then you quickly get out of it. But it does happen. And it's very dangerous. Speaker 6: Can you differentiate the role between print media and how well they are aquitting themselves as opposed to radio and TV. I mean, there was recently a series of in depth profiles [unclear] there were some that were young women. And I just wonder whether you, you know, have any difference in terms of how you evaluate print media versus.. Maria Hinojosa: No, I really don't have a difference. I mean, I evaluate it all on the same lines. And regarding the New York Times and their coverage, I had very mixed reactions to it. I mean I was glad to be seeing those stories because those are the stories I'm dealing with on a daily basis now and it was about time. On the other hand, you know so it's a 10-part series and then it's over. And there is no continuity in terms of the New York Times and their coverage of young people and their issues period. I mean all you have to do is just go to Hunter College and you'll see, you know, thousands of young people of color who are doing different things with their lives. And we don't know any of those kids. We don't know what their struggles are. So the New York Times can pat itself on the back and say "We did this and it was great" and at the same time, what about all the other lives involved? What about all the other lives who have not chosen to go down that path. Or at least just to have a continuity in terms of your coverage of issues of people of color, of issues of young people in the inner city. And they don't. They'll just do it in a series like that and then, you know, wipe their hands of it. Speaker 7: I wanted to ask you. I want to know if I think I can have a vision of {unclear] through the news. And the correspondents are quite good but they are young women and they all [unclear] Latin American represented. the young women are all very homogeneously young, white, young, and pretty. I think, you know, I mean I haven't seen any Indian women, you know, correspond. Maria Hinojosa: And don't hold your breath professor because it's not gonna... Speaker 7: Why is that? Maria Hinojosa: Why is that? Because ultimately you have the same elitist structure that controls the mainstream commercial media English language is the same that controls it in in Spanish language. You have very powerful white men. And they may be white men from Latin America, but they are white men. And yes they may experience some kind of racism when they're dealing with their white-men counterparts in CBS and ABC, but ultimately they're coming from the same place. And so again, women of color are the absolute negation of who they are. And they're not going to be on the air. They're not going to be on the air for a long time until women of color here start saying we want to see more women of color. And then maybe they'll be some movement. But other than that [unclear] Laura Flanders: I was talking with Bonnie Erbé who's the host of Maryland Public Television's, To The Contrary, which is the only weekly news analysis program that features a consistent panel of women. And I was talking to her about why the makeup of her panel, politically, so absolutely reflects the same spectrum that we see in all the male programs. Because that's what it does. And why couldn't she shift the political spectrum to reflect the political spectrum of women in the country, which is typically at least a few grades to the left of men. Anyways, we were having this conversation and she said that she had to constantly bear in mind, surprise surprise, the interests of her sponsors. And bear in mind that she's on public television. And she said two interesting things. That she had just met with one of her corporate sponsors and they said that they had to be very careful about sensitivity issues. And I said "Well what do they mean by sensitivity issues?" And sensitivity issues are all those issues that they have to avoid. That's how they define it. Those are the issues which we avoid. And then she said, and she's somebody who has been going around trying to get corporate support for a program that is now on about 220 stations around the country. She said there is not any possibility for anything to get onto television or radio and to a slightly lesser extent in the print that does not speak to constituency that the corporate backers want to speak to. That there's simply no chance for that. And that PBS is able to push the envelope a little tiny bit with some programs like the POV documentary series. But that for regular programming, the concerns of the corporate sponsors and the demographic group they want to target their product and their message, is what defines what gets on television. Commercial, PBS, radio, and of course print. Speaker 8: Because of course the future of this country is all white, anyway. Laura Flanders: Of course. Michael Delli Carpini: Well that's... Laura Flanders: But also that's where you get into the fad thing. It's like who is the fad audience the moment. So you see some advertisers targeting Latino community in a very particular patronizing kind of way. And you see women being targeted in a particular way around the year of the woman and so forth. I think that's where becomes important that we not just try to replace men, in some ways to the contrary, replace men discussing in the same ways, the same issues. But change the debate. Change the story. Michael Delli Carpini: An argument that's increasingly made is that because the demographics of the country are changing so much, that they'll eventually be an economic incentive to just the sorts of things you describe. Maybe not for the right reason. But do you see any of that happening now? Is there more acceptance of the kind of stories you've been talking about? Not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but because I think they might reach an audience that they haven't been able to reach before? Laura Flanders: Well, I think women are a popular target audience right now. But I think that the women that they're targeting are upper class, wealthy, white women. And that that's where those, that's where all of us have a role to play, particularly in a way upper class white women, to say "No it's not okay to make space just for me, I bring all my sisters with me ,sorry." You know. And I think that's why this kind of conference is disappointing insofar as I don't see all my sister's here. You know. And while we're talking about invisibility, not all women worry about sex with condoms. Lesbians exist. And I don't worry about condoms. Um, so I think that we need to really think about bringing everything that we are as women everywhere we go. And not allowing ourselves to be divided in the way that we consistently and continue to be. And I think at this point are on the verge of being even more. Maria Hinojosa?: But see, the thing, the thing that I need to.... See, when you're having your discussions with your editor, you know, who lives in the suburbs and who doesn't hear gunshots at night when he goes to sleep. And who doesn't have drug dealing going on his corners. And who doesn't, I mean, it's like their reality is something completely different. And forget about even talking about the issues of women. I mean, that's what I'm telling... It's like, you can't even. That's like on a whole nother level. So what you have to do, what I try to do is just you know, kind of like, you know, just squeeze it in wherever I can. But I would appreciate hearing your pointers for example about what you do when you are in that discussion with your editor. And certainly NPR is going through this phase right now where it's becoming more mainstream and more, well more mainstream. Laura Flanders: I think that's where alliances come in. I think that women journalists are in a very special place as far as we have our own struggle as journalists in the profession. And we need support for that. But we also have the political struggle to change the terms of the debate which is so much bigger than we are. So that my experience is, for example, FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting] is useful insofar as it can produce research material that you can then go into your editor and say, "Well I read that according to statistical breakdown blah blah blah blah blah" Speaker 9: Yeah except, except... Laura Flanders: Just let me....I think that there are different places that you can get help from. And that we can offer help. Speaker 9: Okay, except I go in there and I say "look at FAIR [Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]". I say, " Do you remember what.." I mean, unfortunately the reality is, is that fair is "Ah yeah right". Well, you know, We know where FAIR is coming from. That's what you're hearing…. Laura Flanders: So then you go to the next place. You go to the very acceptable resource material and say "you know, it looks as if there's really rather a lot of interest in this kind of an issue." If you look at this audience Arbitron rating breakdown of Roseanne. If that many people are watching Roseanne, if that's the number one watched program in network nightly news, then what does that tell us about? I mean, what arguments can we make and who who can we enlist as our friends. You know, I want to be able to support [Charlane] and you, and move myself. I don't want to be as a media critic, criticizing the women in the media more than the men or or in the same. I want to be supportive and I think that's what we have to really reach out and try and find the sources that are irrefutable. And the guests that are irrefutable. I mean, that's where our challenge as journalists comes in, is to find that guest, you cannot say is not an expert in that field. Who does have something invaluable to say on their terms. Speaker 10: Excuse me, um, you spoke that invisibility of Latina women. I speak to the invisibility of the older woman on television. And [I had to go back] also to the corporation, the advertiser who is saying, "Uh,uh, I don't want those products being shown by either an older woman or Latino women, or any kind, because it's not going to sell." Regardless of what the demographics are showing. I know, for example an older woman doesn't identify with a woman her own age, instead find someone else who is at least 10, 15 years younger. And that's another problem that you have to deal with in terms of stereotypes. Michael Delli Carpini: One right here and then there are [unclear] pass Speaker 11: I work in mainstream media and that is my struggle. I work for a women's magazine and the print media is worse I would say than electronic media. The point that I just wanted to make is that I think we have this idea of the media as being something honorable [laughter] and is giving us the truth. And it's not. Multiple voices: Hear, hear. Speaker 11: They're there to make money. Speaker 12: Exactly. Speaker 11: And my only kernel of optimism that I hold is that women are increasingly becoming entrepreneurs and owning businesses. And maybe we can get this old guard out, all these advertisers who say "We don't want to see old women, we don't want to see women of color, we don't want to see gay women." And let them buy ads. Let them take out [time]. I mean, for years I was never interested in business or entrepreneurship and I realized that's a terrible mistake. Because we have to be. Maria Hinojosa: Well I agree with you in a sense. Just two quick things about the media as being some kind of "Aaaaahhhhhh" powerful all, you know. I mean, the fact is what I was telling you Michael. Is at one point in my career I was at public radio and I left public radio. And then I ended up working at CBS news on 57th Street. And what I found there was that it was not the best and the brightest, it was the most mediocre who actually were able to stay employed and get employed there. I mean, I really had a very hard time there because I felt like they were trying to shrink my brain into the size of a pea. And so, it's very interesting that we have this image of who they are. And the other thing, when I was at CBS which was during the '88 elections, I'll never forget the day that Jesse Jackson won the Mississippi prima, I mean the Michigan primary. [laughter] I mean, the next day everybody came into the morning meeting and they were just like, "Oh my god, what's going on with this country!" I mean, "Wait a second, this wasn't supposed to happen." You know, because they are so convinced that they know what's happening. That they understand "you all". And they had completely missed the Jesse Jackson story. And it was such a revelation for them to realize that no, they don't have all the answers. But that is the way they operate. Speaker 13: Um, I have a question but first of all I want to make a point. Um, Maria, I'm glad that you spoke about the invisibility of people of color in general. Because I'm beginning to get it, that women of color simply employing, embracing a feminist agenda is not a [under-complex] position to take. And I think it's very important because it has [unclear]. I wish that while [unclear] on the panel was wonderful, I wish there had been a woman of color who [unclear] officers of the college [unclear]. At the same time, I thought I would misquote something that [unclear] I'm misquoting. But the essence of what she said was that "While all of that is true, and I believe it's true, women also have to start thinking about what we all have in common. And [unclear] and not forget what we all suffer as women no matter what out background affiliation. Um, my question is, because I'm very concerned about the coverage of not only [unclear] but women in general in the media. Um, I think that there is this journalistic objectivity [unclear] that is not objective [unclear] that there are times for it to be. there are other times when I don't think that it should be and I wan't [unclear] to stop pretending. SO I'm wondering if any of you can speak to whether or not there is a way we can use the reality of what journalism really is to kind of revolutionize the journalism agenda. [Unclear] agenda. Whatever our individual agendas are. And to remake a journalistic [unclear]. [laughter] Speaker 14: I mean, if I can jump in. My name is Barbara [unclear] and I'm assistant managing editor of [unclear]. And there were so many things in my mind... Speaker 15: Are you at Columbia? Speaker 14: I'm at [Neiman] [unclear] And I didn't say anything before because there were so many things going through my mind. And one of them is that we talk of media like it is one huge thing and it is not. And so [unclear] think about that. There's not one easy answer for it. You know, one of the things that we are all struggling with [unclear] is this fact that objectivity of designing systems. That we've been up holding something.. Speaker 15: At your paper do you.... Speaker 14: Not at the paper. I'm talking about 22 journalists and .... Speaker 15: So it's not your discussion at the paper? Speaker 14: At the paper? It's beginning to. It's beginning to [unclear] a great deal of [tension] because if you don't have this fake sort of objectivity to hold on to, what do we have to hold on to? And so it might very well be individual work and all the things you were mentioning, okay? And prioritizing agendas equate to real issues. And not to the issues of the 22 people sitting around the table. Many of whom are men and it doesn't worry me that they're men. What worries me is that they're all thinking the exactly the same. Speaker 15: Right. Speaker 14: They're all wearing the same shirts and thinking exactly the same. And they happen to sit at my paper in a very dynamic multicultural kind of place. So it's beginning to have [unclear] journalism. We're beginning to question whether objectivity has [unclear] as journalists. And I think you're going to begin to hear that. We have in our class, Michael [unclear], and everyone is questioning this. But I don't think there are easy answers and I think we have to go back to the papers and fight the battle every day. Michael Delli Carpini: Do you have people from New York Times, or ABC, or NBC as part of this group? Speaker 14: [They're even more hesitant]. But I think, you know the series, which I must admit that [unclear] alluded to, which in every circle I have gone to has been mentioned. Is, I hope, a beginning to recognize that the New York Times is not the bible of New York. Okay [unclear]. One thing that really [amuses] me about that series is the fact that everything [unclear] reporters. Speaker 15: Right. Speaker 14: It's not the usual reporters. David [Rosales]. I mean, they and a lot of them that really do that kind of stories. So it's again, one issue that we struggle with is. Because if every time you have the female reporter it's only the Latino reporter who is put in certain [unclear]. And the editor is going to reject that. "Oh, I know where she's coming from". But if we sort of, make it our responsibility to see the reality. Then all of us come up and you have you know, white people who are saying this is a reality. Speaker 16: I just wanted to add that I'm also talking about the style, what we call journalism, what we call journalistic writing. That I'd like to see that changed to embrace and include other forms. Because, and I know it has changed somewhat, but I feel like what happens is there are these styles that get put into place making agencies [unclear] styles of writing. And I think it should [unclear] a little now what we call journalism. I'd love to question and see if that's prevalent [unclear] shake that up and change it. Laura Flanders: I think there's two things happening at once. I think that the debate about objectivity and who can represent what stories is a debate that's happening. And I also think that the journalism as a profession is finding itself in a very absurd place right now. I'm thinking of the most recent example where I saw that this idea of objectivity in particular, balance had really got out of whack. Was in the reporting of the killing of Dr. Gunn [David Gunn] in Pensacola. Where the idea of a balance meant that we had, on the one hand the abortion doctor. And on the other hand, the anti abortionist. And you saw headlines like that. One headlne that we saw in the Washington Post that then was reprinted across the country was "Abortionist anti abortion activist...." or "Doctor asssailant obswssed by abortion". It's like saying "Policeman criminal obsessed by crime". [laughter] It's ridiculous, it's totally ridiculous. [laughter] And it's the same in the coverage, for example, recently there's been a lot of coverage about the gays in the military thing. And the people that are brought into balance the gay rights movement all the Christian Coalition. [laughter] And the New York times chose this weekend [recording cuts off] I'm more familiar with the Times [New York Times] over of a time so that that's what I'm using. But when Jeffrey Schmaltz who was a gay men with HIV AIDS now, began to write about AIDS and his own experience and also other people's experience, that was a major threshold broken....stepped across. Speaker 17: Yet they're not allowing certain women who are pro-choice. Laura Flanders: Oh no and I we have that... Speaker 17: You see, and that's the part... Maria Hinojosa: Men can do things still.. Speaker 17: We have been sort of castrated as journalists [unclear] who have [unclear] objectivity. I can't participate in any pro choice march. I can't join any community really [unclear] movement. So how can I really [unclear]... Maria Hinojosa:: In fact, I'm probably doing something really bad by wearing this on my... Speaker 17: Right! You're supposed to really become a member of the community as an observer. And sometimes that's not [unclear] enough. Maria Hinojosa:: Right Speaker 17: Sometimes, what you were mentioning, as far as one side or the other, it's ignorance. But sometimes it's that reporter who doesn't know any better sort of looking for the extreme. Maria Hinojosa: Right Speaker 17: Because he or she is not an expert. Maria Hinojosa: You know I really feel that the question, I mean I would love it if there was more of a debate on the issue of objectivity. Because to me, I've always been very clear that it doesn't exist. You have two sides of a story, that's you know, balance or fairness. You know, you can talk to both sides.There is the extreme that they say you know, the pros and cons of the MacNeil/Lehrer show where you have to [unclear] on everything. So there's this guy , did it take on it said " Well here today we're going to be talking about the pros and cons of cannibalism!" [laughter]. You know, and it's like we get to this extreme. The fact is I'm convinced that there is no objectivity because when we talk about objectivity in this country, the perspective is that you're talking about objectivity through Walter Cronkite's eyes. And I actually ended up at one point having to write a commentary for Walkter Cronkite and I got a lot of-- when I was at CBS. Can you imagine? He read it. Speaker 18: I love it. Maria Hinojosa: He read it but I got a lot of....negative... Speaker 18: Flack? Maria Hinojosa: Flack, thank you. I was thinking of another word that I wasn't going to say [laughter]. But, from my editor at the time because he was like "No! How is Walter Cronkite going to read this? You have to stop seeing the world through your eyes, [laughter] you have to see it through his eyes." [laughter] And I said "I can't stop seeing through my eyes. These are my eyes!"And for me it was the [crux], it was right there. This is what objectivity is all about, and this is what I'm not all about. Michael Delli Carpini: It's also important to remember that objectivity in the news is a 20th century idea. I mean, in the media and print in the United States in the nineteenth Century it was the idea that you could speak with a point of view. That you have the opinion page in the back page didn't exist. And that's not to argue that the coverage was always so great then because certain groups where still excluded. But it was a model that comes a lot closer to the model that I think people now realize is probably as close as you can get to really speaking the truth. Maria Hinojosa: But let me add one little quick thing about the question. Somebody brought up the issue of language. Um, and very briefly: public radio is about to start a new program. It's called Latino USA. It's going to be a national program like an "All Things Considered" but about Latinos in the United States. And I'm the host of the show. It's being produced out of Texas and we just have produced a few programs. And one of the responses that we got just this morning as I was preparing to come over here, my producer called me and said "Look this is some of the feedback we're getting about the show. The news directors are saying that they're very worried about the question of bilingualism within the program". Because I'm very interested in the question of language, and how we use language, and how that is a cultural experience that we all have to come to terms with in this country. So for example, I would in the show, I can't give you an example, but there were times when I would say something in Spanish and then repeat it in English. Just a little phrase like, "But first, las noticias". Or "First here's the news". And the news directors were very upset that there were times when we were not translating. One particular, we would just say "noticias" without saying "news" that there was a lot of [unclear]. And they were very angry and upset and worried about what this meant for listenership when we would say things as they should be pronounced in Spanish. [laughter] And so to me [laughter] I do think it's very interesting dialogue. Because to me, you see, I think it's important that people realize that I am Maria Hinojosa and that I'm not Maria Hinojosa [says this without a Spanish accent]. That that is who I am and I live in this country and I have and experience here. This is part of my culture experience here. And yet people have come up to me and said "Would you please try Americanizing your name?" You know [laughter]. So that's part of the complexity of what we're experiencing in this country. And finally, I think that's why we don't have this dialogue, is because there really is a lot of fear on the part of the powers that be to let go. You know, to just let go and say "Okay well we have to open up and we have to experience this." There's just an incredible amount of fear to take it to that level. Michael Delli Carpini: And it's fear that's making itself evident with very few gains. So it gives you an idea of how resistant I think the powers that be are going to be as further gaines are made in many ways. Speaker 18: Who said that? Maria Hinojosa: Who said what? Speaker 18: "Would you Americanize your name?" Maria Hinojosa: It was at an event for Manuel de Dios Unanue. Who was the..... Speaker 18: But who said it? Maria Hinojosa: Well, I'm going to tell you. It was at an event for this journalist who was killed. I mean, it was a very sombre event. And somebody realized who I was when I identified myself and he was just an elderly man who, you know just came up to me and tugged my shirt and said it. He didn't even identify me, he was just a listener. And he was really upset. He was really upset with me. And I just kind of, I mean I drew a blank. I was like, "How could you even ask me this?" I mean, I should have hit him but I didn't. [laughter] Speaker 18: I have a comment though. [unclear] I just read that article in Time magazine on the Information Highway, I think it's called. So, a new thing about how all the cable and fiber optics..I don't have a good grip on it yet. But I understand that we're going to have many, many, many choices. And I noticed that one of the concerns in the article was a concern about the fracturing of society. That's the way they put it. That you know, whoever wrote this article in Times. What is going to happen to our society if we like, have all these choices? Laura Flanders: Stop listening to Walter Cronkite. Speaker 18: They only said. I mean, that was it. There wasn't anything after that. Like, what did they think was going to happen. You know, what will happen if we have all these choices. Michael Delli Carpini: There's an argument that's made that if everybody is simply listening to their own channel with their own point of view, that there won't be any kind of dialogue that goes on across groups [laughter] which completely ignores the fact. Laura Flanders: Like there is now Michael Delli Carpini: Exactly [laughter] like there is now. I also think that the fear, the more realistic fear of the information highway is that if you look at the way cable has worked, the ownership patterns have been not much different than the ownership patterns in broadcasting. It's the same five or six major corporations, major interests that own the multiple cable stations. And so cable itself was introduced as a real chance for a much more diverse communications environment. And it is in some important ways, but not nearly to the extent that the potential allows because of patterns of ownership and production. Speaker 19: Two things. One, I wanted to say that for years I have loved how you pronounce your name [laughter]. It reminds me that you're a person who isn't the person that I could think you were until you [say it]. [laughter] No, it's true. It makes me aware of me. [unclear]. I wanted to you, because we've been talking mostly about horrible [unclear]. Um, and you were involved in a campaign to bring that woman [unclear] to the Super Bowl. Laura Flanders: Right. And I was curious as how, because I think strategy is one of the issues. Laura Flanders: Yeah. Speaker 19: And I would be very [interested] to tell someone about the strategies. Laura Flanders: Um: Speaker 20: Could you tell us a little ...... Laura Flanders: Yeah, sure. The campaign was launched in December of last year to get a PSA, a public service announcement on domestic violence aired during the Super Bowl broadcast. Because, for years anecdotal evidence from clinics across the country, has shown that Super Bowl Sunday is one of the worst days of the year for violence against women in the home. [murmurs] So we checked around with women's organizations and they thought this was a great idea. And we contacted the president of NBC Sports, FAIR [ Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting], myself, and the executive director. And we said, "Listen, last year's CBS [an American English language commercial broadcast television and radio network] did a PSA about illegal drug use. Every year some issue gets raised, we think there's ample reason to broadcast a PSA about domestic violence on any day. But particularly on this day when you have such a large audience and there's even evidence to suggest it's particularly bad day". And he kind of hemmed and hawed, and hemmed and hawed and thought that we wouldn't be able to come up with a good enough PSA and so forth. So then, having done this kind of very above-board and polite thing, we unleashed a campaign across the country of faxing to him and to the president of corporate relations there or whatever it's called. And I think they must have received about two or three thousand faxes to the point where they started saying "Don't send us any more faxes". And that was a place where we had the evidence, we had the argument, we were very cogent and polite. And then we were able to stay "And look, there all these women's organizations who represent all these constituencies who think you should do this." And we didn't really go to the next step of saying "And if you don't do it will burn your place down." [laughter] But it was.... Michael Delli Carpini: It was a step in between... Laura Flanders: Yeah, that was. It was clear that this was something people took very seriously and that the story could be "NBC does this great thing" or it could be "NBC fails to do this really great thing". Speaker 19:....I would think it would be completely counterproductive to the advertising that supports ..... Laura Flanders: It was half a million dollars worth of free advertising we got. Speaker 19: No but not only that, but also I would think it would be exactly not the story that the people who advertise during Super Bowl would want told. Laura Flanders: Well, I mean the fact was we got it on 45 minutes before the game began. We didn't get it on during the height of the game. It was 30 seconds. It was half the length of some of these Budweiser ads. [laughter] It was a step forward and I think that the attention, the media coverage of that issue this year was unlike any other prior year. And I think because of this, the media love media stories. So there were a stories about us doing it. But then local stations in almost every major market, local stations ran their own ad during the game regardless of the national fee. And local stations did stories and we even got major program like, Donahue did a program about battering three weeks later. Which was still, I think an effect of us talking to them about doing a program. And we even said to them, "Why don't you do a program about battering with men who batter? Women are fed up with talking about this. Why don't you have men on?" And that's what they did. CBS, the night off to the Super Bowl did an extraordinary investigative report on the nightly news about violence against women on the Super Bowl but in general as well. And even just last week when the Family Violence Prevention Fund came out with their study on domestic violence, I was sitting watching CNN at 10 o'clock and it was the sixth or seventh item on the news. And I thought something shifted, some little thing shifted. And I don't think, you know it's a great gain in and of itself. It's a small gain in and of itself. Because we want to see coverage of violence against women every day. And we're now launching a campaign, I'm announcing right now. [laughs] Well, I'd like to address the fact the crime statistics are reported every year and in every city in particular New York. We hear every year in January or February about whether crime is gone up or down. And consistently, according to the research I've been able to do so far, if crime goes down it's reported as such, but if you look in the headlines, I mean in the in the body of the story, rape and battery are up. Violence against women is soaring even if they say the crime is down. So what's crime? So I think if you hit on an issue that you know it is really undeniable. We were able to go to them and say "Well according to the Surgeon General's report, a woman is 22 times more likely to be in a violent relationship that she is to have an addictive relationship with illegal drugs. So, if you did this campaign about illegal drug use you're really responsible now to do one about violence against women". Michael Delli Carpini: Does that work? Laura Flanders: Oh, I don't know. We said that we quoted Tom Brokaw. Tom Brokaw in 1989 said talking about the war on drugs he said "Well if this is a war we are all soldiers". And we said, you know "Violence against women affects more people than illegal drug use across the country, you know nationally. Why isn't that a war that we all feel ourselves to be soldiers in?" And why was it allowed for Tom Brokaw to say he was a soldier in the war on drugs, going back to the objectivity debate, but it wouldn't be okay for as a woman from Maria or I to get up and say "We are soldiers in the fight against violence against women." We would be off the air in a second. Michael Delli Carpini: Did you have? Okay, back of the room. Speaker 19: I have a couple of questions. First of all, I'm totally [unclear]. And I have read the Times [New York Times] for years. [unclear] [laughter] It seems to me that you choose your frames, you choose your context in which you live and then when you can hear...I mean, I read the Nation, I read the Times, I listen to [unclear]. SO I have a point of view. Now then when I hear another point of view, and certainly I read it. [unclear] But I can see it as the other, you know. And then see "Oh, they're really coming from another place." And then I start to see the issues very clearly. Even more clearly. So, I mean, I don't think that bias, one needs to be so afraid of bias. As a reader. [unclear] is another story in terms of moving onto your job or whatever. But [unclear] certainly from you, you may not have [unclear] soldier against [unclear] but it's very clear from who you chose as guests and what position you take, you're soldier in the war against violence against women. So it's there in the subtext. Another question I have is about you were saying, Maria, about why are we all white or mostly white or whatever. And, I start to feel guilty really even saying that and I mean, I'm white. I'm a poor older woman. I'm an adjunct at two universities. I hardly make it. My students could not care less about coming to an event like this. I practically have to threaten to fail them to get them to vote. I mean, I push voting. I push it and I push them trying to become citizens. And these are women at BMCC (The Borough of Manhattan Community College) and at Long Island University all very working class. I mean, people are struggling to stay alive. These are the people you are saying in the halls of Hunter College etcetera, etcetera. Now, these people, I know these people's lives and it's impossible for them to get a Saturday off [unclear]. So, it's not my fault that I'm here. I mean I'm here and yet it seems to me, how does one change that demographic, to get a bunch of people here. Like the equivalent of the [unclear] the women would be affected by [unclear]. You know, this doesn't say Barnard women's center has to take responsibility to say "We are going to actively recruit. Were going to go out there. We are going to send our women's center people out to Hunter and to BMCC and to whatever so that we're going to get a quota." Or do something. How do you suggest that we change? Maria Hinojosa: First of all, I'm not talking about quotas. You know. Speaker 19: No, I understand. I understand Maria Hinojosa: I do think that, yes, Barnard Women's Center should have done that. Maybe they did. I think that you see, the whole discussion has to be taken on another level. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see conferences like this being held in those communities first of all. I'd like to see them being held publicly, outdoors. I mean, I'm not sure. I don't have the answers about how to get young people of color, or young people in general, or people of color in general involved in the political process. I mean if I did that would be wonderful. I don't have the answers. I do think that we have to talk about what's happening with the fact that most of those people feel completely disenfranchised by the system in general. And that they aren’t included in these discussions. I'm not sure, I mean I do think that kind of where I'm thinking if I was able to be a political activist which I can't do anymore. You know I would be doing stuff outdoors, I be taking stuff right onto the street publicly. Wherever it be that it has to happen, I'd be doing it outside because people right now are as you say, people are just trying to make it at this point. And so for them to be talking about, you know these real esoteric kind of discussions about power and alienation and you know. I mean it's like, you know, who gives a, alright? In a lot of ways. So we have to, those of us who are either in academics or who are in the media, have to think of ways in which we have the responsibility of getting out to those communities. I'm not sure what the Women's Center did or didn't do. But I am concerned that those women aren't here because I think that what they bring, I mean if they were here talking about their perspectives on the media, we'd have a completely different discussion. And it would be hot. I mean it would be seriously hot about what they have to say. They would probably just close the door and walk out if they were here listening to this because it's like, this is not where they are coming from. We have no idea , most of us in this room have no idea about what is happening in those women's lives. Because we don't ever read about them and because we don't go into those communities. I mean, so it's like we're talking, and when I said that this country was divided that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's exactly what has been the most panicked in my entire life at every moment, is the absolute division and the gap between those who have and those who have not. And I mean, it's a thing that tears me apart the most. And that I try as little, whether it's you know, just issues of young people, or issues of people of color, issues that you didn't cover in journalism. But it's like a drop in the bucket of what I see. Laura Flanders: I think it's so important what Maria's saying. Because part of what's so great about Maria's work is that she brings the voices of the women that we don't hear anywhere else to our ears. That's what's different, is that we're actually able to listen to people that we don't normally in all regular run-of-the-mill life get to listen to necessarily. And that's where I think we need to ask ourselves how much time we spend speaking about the issues that concern us, and how much time do we actually spend listening to how other people are addressing an issue. I remember that I was too, sent to cover the convention and was covering the different kind of issues that were being discussed. And on the day of the debate about the health care package or the abortion debate, one of those, I went to a mobile unit that was traveling from homeless women's shelter to homeless women shelter to interview women. Who were young teenage women who were getting their only prenatal care, because they had become homeless and there was a mobile clinic van that came to their shelter. And I interviewed a woman there briefly about -- or I asked her one short question and she went on to talk about her just understanding of a reproductive rights. Of what her experience had been. And I learned so much more about what the issues are listening to her talking about why she had decided to have her tubes tied. And explained to me that was tubal ligation. She knew what she was doing and she knew why she was doing what she was doing. But I learned so much more about what the discussion should be, listening to her. That was my only response, that we have to stop thinking about going and recruiting people to come and participate in our discussion and start thinking about how we find the level of discussion that does affect all of us. That does involve all of us as women and as disempowered people. Speaker 20: Maria, I just want to comment on what you said earlier about people telling you that you should Americanize your name. I've struggled with this all of my life since I came here [unclear]. My first name is [Lai Peng] and they often, people don't get that when they spell it. I mean, just about everybody I deal with at work misspells my name and mispronounces my name. And I've come to accept that. Recently I started thinking about that and you know, it was beginning to bother me. One day my secretary said to me "Robert Nassau is on the phone and he just asked for my [unclear] or something, and I told him no, it's [Lai Peng] and he said 'yeah, whatever' ". So, finally somebody else is experienced all of this time. This is the first job where I have a secretary where she's now experiencing some of what I have gone [unclear]. [laughter] [murmuring] [unclear]. I always notice [Lai Peng] and they'll be like "Yeah, whatever" you know. It's like my name doesn't matter, it's just one of these foreign names. It really doesn't matter whether I get it right or not. And I get the same thing from my own family. My cousin will say "Why do you keep that name, why don;'t you just change it to Susan or something?". They all have done that. They say "That will help your career, that will help, you know." I say "Who gives a shit what people think about my name. If they don't get it and they have to deal with me, they're going to get my name right." You know? Otherwise. It is my name, you know! [laughter] [applause] Maria Hinojosa: It's very funny that an issue like that, what some people may consider so simple, is yet so crucial. And so telling about what this country's all about. Speaker 20: And for years I accepted that. And then, you know, one day I just said "No, from now on I'm gonna correct people. Every time they get it wrong, i'm going to say. And whenever I get a memo that my name is misspelled, I will correct them and send it back to say "This is the correct spelling of my name." You know? Get it right. [laughter] [background chatter] Maria Hinojosa: I do think that, you know, I mean the question about like for example, you brought up the issue of guilt, you know, for example. I mean, look. You know, we all don't know everything about everything. I mean, the question here is how you deal with the other person. If you can say, "Maria, you didn't bring up the issue of lesbians in your talk." Okay, yes that was my... But how is it brought up or, you know, you're saying my name wrong. Now how does that other person react? Well, whatever. Or, okay, I've got to think about it. I mean, that is the level of discussion that we have got to have. That no, not everybody knows everything about everything. But we have to have a kind of openness and dialogue to be willing to be criticized and not take that as something horrible because you've been called on something. Laura Flanders: That goes to the structure of the media. Just for a second, I wonder if I mean, in the same way that the media put up there is the Bible. And in Britain it's even worse. They sit there and they read it and they don't even have any- it's literally a reading of the truth for the day. You know. [laughter] But I wonder whether we don't also cultivate the star system in the media where you have the few important voices of the Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, the Tom Brokaw folks. Peter Jennings. I think we have to break that down. I mean, I'm concerned the Pacifica (Pacifica Network) is doing the same thing, that NPR (National Public Radio) is doing the same thing. That is the model. But if the only way that we really learn is through hearing and exchange of voices in a collaboration going on. Which I think is what you're talking about. It's about, I'm not attacking you, I'm collaborating with you. We're trying to build a bigger picture. How do we do that if we only get the truth from one person whether that's a man, a woman, a white person, a person of color. I don't know whether we can do it with this star system that we use. Speaker 21: I have two questions. The first one is through all this debate and this [unclear] that's going on here, in a way I'm sort of aggravated by it because there's a lot of things that are being said that [we're basically ] fashioning. What I'm more interested in discussing here is what is your idea of what the news and media is for? There seems to be this thing, and whatever that is, then like if it's about a dialogue, what does that look like? In the pragmatic real world where there are limited resources [unclear] women [unclear]. So it's really two questions: What is the news for? What is the media for? And then in your mind, what purpose does it serve? And then how do you think reality shapes that? So, is it something you can buy on the corner or pick up, you know, at the pharmacy? You know your magazine [or when] you turn on TV? Laura Flanders: I like the way you look at me, Maria. [laughter] Your admitted answer to that, right? For me, the key is cultivating critical thinking. That a wrong way to meet, to my mind of reporting a story, is to say "This is the story." The right way is to say "These are the questions surrounding this story, you think about it." And then it's political which questions you choose to bring up and whose voices you choose to address those questions. But I think the big struggle right now is between those who want to have a kind of fundamentalist approach to what is the truth, and are threatened by anything that challenges that. And those who are still grasping at the educational process that cultivates critical thinking. And that's I think what we're seeing in the struggle between the religious right and everybody else. It's what we're seeing in the schools, in the school boards. What NPR does, what Pacifica does is to say there's more than one way of looking at the story. The more that we can do that the better I'd say. Speaker 22: A lot of the times Pacifica and NPR represent a whole other monolithic voice. And that's something we're not addressing here...[cuts off] Michael Delli Carpini: Well I think one point to take away is that any voice is going to be only part of it. And so part of what you're asking is impossible. That you're not going to be able to find a model where you can go to the newsstand and pick it up and it's going to be the version of the news that's going to be the one that's going to tell you the truth. Part of it is not just to depend on the media. I mean, we spend a lot of our time with other people and I think getting involved in the idea of talking about these things with people is critical. It's not just simply a matter of sitting at home alone taking it into your head and then being informed in your own mind. It's a matter of exchanging these ideas, the dialogue that you're talking about is not just a dialogue to take place on the media. But it takes place when you're having lunch. It takes place when you go out in the evening. It takes place when you're around the dinner table. It's exchanges. People don't take what they get on the news, and it's not a time issue I don't think. I mean, we spend in this country 3 hours a day watching television. The television is on 7 hours a day. We have more, you know, you're never going to know it all. But we don't even begin to use our time effectively. Speaker 23: [unclear] critically even in those forums, how [uncler] be surrounded by people who don't share our views. I mean, it's sort of like the nature of this room is that we all have [approached this day] and come here because we share a certain common understanding. [unclear] Laura Flanders: We could all have a debate right now about what action the U.S. should take around Bosnia and I bet we could have a ...... Michael Delli Carpini: I think there's more diversity here of opinion than you're giving credit for. I mean, it doesn't mean you've gotta have a conversation with a religious right person to get a full sense of the... Maria Hinojosa: If I could just tell you. I mean, what is the media and what should we do, and what does it look like. I don't know, you know. I mean, I think that's a great question and I think that's a day long conference in and of itself. But you know, I do feel like what I need to be telling other stories that I see around my life. Because as I said, and I continue to say, this is our society. This is, and I wasn't born in this country, I only recently became a citizen. You know, I mean, I always felt that I was going to leave at some point. And it was only recently that I decided that I wasn't going to leave, I was going to stay here. So, you know, my only perspective is that we all have to assume responsibility for where we live. And the only thing I can do as a journalist is to make you as a listener feel something about what I have told you because you have heard these voices that you have never, ever heard. And my whole debate within NPR is for them to let me do more of that. And it's not easy because as NPR is going kind of to this direction, you know there's those of us who feel this need to tell these stories because they are what the future looks like. And we as the entire populace have got to assume responsibility for what this society looks like. It's not just their problem, we created this. Michael Delli Carpini: if I could just follow up for a second on that. I think if there's anything about the way in which the media works that I would like to see change, it's really related to the point that Maria just made which is it is that you want people to be able to speak in their own voice. If you want to know what inner city Black youths think, let them talk over the airwaves. If you want to know what the women in Bosnia think let them talk in their own words. Maria Hinojosa: Well, let me just tell you very, very briefly. I did a story two and a half years ago called [Crews]. It was after Brian Watkins a Utah tourist was killed in the subways. And I did a story, I went out and I hung out with the crew- they're not called gangs, they're called crews- that was tied to the crew that did this. And it was a very, very gripping and real, you know, gritty story about what these kids felt. And I got, I mean lots of awards and commendations and stuff, but when the [listeners] got back they were pissed off. "How could you let her put those voices on the air? Why did you give any air time? We don't want to hear those..." I mean people were angry, and I was saying "You got to hear this I don't care what you say you've got to hear it." And right now, just put a little plug-in that as a result of that story, I was contacted by a publisher and I'm doing a book of interviews with kids who are involved in crews. And what I'm hearing is devastating. I mean, what I'm hearing for kids it's going to be, it's a Studs Terkel style book. It's just going to be their voices because it's exactly it. You've got to hear it from them and nobody wants to hear it, but the fact is that it's there. And until we hear it and assume what that means to us as a society, I don't think anything's going to change. Michael Delli Carpini: Did you have something? Speaker 24: We haven't mentioned here I think, what I see as the fundamental problem. Which is the two tier educational system that we have here. I teach at the City University of New York [unclear]. My students come from the so called inner city and they are people who are like everyone else. Different kinds of people. But they share a terrible lack of education. They cannot speak, they can hardly think because they have been passed through the elementary and the public school system, and graduated and sent to collage. And they will get a college degree which will not enable them to compete with my children who also have a college degree. And I feel worse than Maria Hinojosa because I've been around longer. [laughter] I despair because by now we have generations, several generations of semi [unclear] teachers who are teaching the kids. And we politicize the school system. I remember in the 50's, it became impossible to fail or hold back a child of color because it would have been perceived as a hostile act. And so we passed these children through the system and we gave them nothing. And that's to me the essential problem. Until we teach all our children how to read and write and think, nothing else will matter. I just wanted to say that I heard Crews and I can still hear it. I can hear the interview in my head. It was just one of the best things that I've ever heard. It shook me up so that I heard real people, real voices. They weren;t like some satanic cult [unclear]. They were just real people talking an it really impressed the hell out of me. And I just wanted [unclear]. Speaker 25: It's so interesting, I went to the media coverage forum upstairs for a bit, you know people are saying the exact opposite of we are hearing here. The kind of stories you want to put on the air are not news. That is not news. Well let's go for it! [laughter] [multiple voices] Louder! Speaker 25: Well [unclear] I can't tell you exactly what they said, but basically that one of the comments was 'Why wasn't there more news from women [unclear] panels [unclear] because it's not real news". I was there to cover a war and this wasn't the news". Maria Hinojosa: Who, I'm sorry, who's on that panel? Speaker 25: [Corrine Titan] [laughter] [multiple voices] Speaker 25: It's interesting because what she's saying, because my question was, my comment was to go back to that series that the Times was running. Because it's not news. It's a feature. The [unclear] didn't come out of that because the reality is that it is the New York Times and it is the New York Post, and it is the Daily News and whatever it is it is not the AI and it's not even NPR. Is that, perhaps the hope is that the next time a story is covered, that there will be a piece of reality that people are a part of this group [that they have come]. That maybe the reporter will be able to write with a little bit more of an understanding. They're not just reporting a crude bash or a mugging, or a killing, or whatever, without having any sensitivity to the people who are....[cuts off] Maria Hinojosa: See that's what I ended up talking about in the question of diversity and where I brought up the issue of class. I mean, I think it's very interesting. There was talk that possibly the media could have been a target in LA. And then why would the media have been a target? Because the media is perceived as again coming from this outside you know, world to cover this world. And the fact is, how many reporters do we have who live and work in South Central LA, for example? Why don't we have reporters who come from and live in those areas? I don't understand why we don't. And until we have that, see I really worry that again you know, things aren't gonna. I mean, we continue to say this but that's the kind of diversity that we need. The question of objectivity, the question of difference of voices, and that's not what's happening right now. I mean maybe there's going to be a shift in the planets and something, and they're all going to wake up and say "Oh yeah." But I really doubt, because again for me I think that that is, you know the head of CBS, NBC, ABC, this is not their world and so therefore not important. And again, I mean we're talking about women here supposedly. So it's like, just to the other degree. I mean when Laura [Laura Flanders] and I were here in school, I remember the classes we would sit and go "Yep, the women's struggle it's the longest one." [laughter] And it is, you know. It is. Laura Flanders: Id that what we did! [laughter] Michael Delli Carpini: That's not what I heard! Speaker 26: [unclear] .... three girls out of 10 or 11. And also the first one, statistics that show something like, sexual activity of girls and teenage pregnancy brains but no statistics on sexual activity of boys at all. It's probably because.....[laughter] Maria Hinojosa Right Laura Flanders: Right Laura Flanders: I think that goes back the crime statistics thing. I think it's very, very slow the filtration of any consciousness from those feature stories into the main coverage. Because how come we can continue to write this thing about crime going down but write rape going up? You know we've had enough features about a particular rape story, you would think the consciousness might be there but it isn't. And that's why I think that it's true, that we need reporters from a variety of places. We also need to change the panel of experts that we consult on these different topics. When I looked at NAFTA 9The North American Free Trade Agreement), there was some women interviewed. There was [Marie Matlin], and whatever her name was, Tori from the campaign. The Bush and Clinton campaigns. There was Lynn Martin the Labor Secretary. That was it. So there were women up there. I mean the women were interviewed on that story, never as experts apart from those three. The women who were interviewed were kind of commenting on their surroundings in the factory. Instead of being seen as the experts perhaps, and what would happen from this thing. And the same the same with these, who we consider the expert panelists. Even L.A., we don't talk to the LA residents. We bring in outside observers who are sociologists and psychologists, and have done a survey and a report. And that goes back to what's news? Like it was apparently news to have you know, two weeks of anticipating a result. And this overblown attention to "Will there be violence?" When there's violence all around. [laughter] But it's not defined, doesn't look the same cuz it's not burning and looting. It's poverty, underfunded county hospitals. You know, welfare lines, homelessness. That violence isn't news because it's just the background. And that again goes back to changing the debate. Speaker 27: I have a question that worries me. Why is it that the negative aspects of society [make it]. You mentioned that you are [studying] the see the you know, AIDS. You mentioned the violence. I mean, I would like to see some more positive aspects you know, of the Latin community, the African- American community. Because it doesn't make the news. I mean, we just seldom hear that. Why? Laura Flanders: Well that was really brought home and studied in the reporting of Somalia. You would think that nobody in Somalia was anything but a starving person receiving the charity of a Western charity organization. And then the Westiern charity organization distributor would be interviewed about the situation in Somalia. [laughter] Where it's in fact 90% of the aid was being distributed by indigenous people using their indigenous networks and blah blah blah blah blah. I think that really affects our thinking. That we don't get to hear about the positive things that people are doing. And we left with this impression, particularly when it comes to reporting on Africa, that Africa is just waiting for Western, kind of charity to come in and help. And that goes the same with with... Speaker 28: And people, you know there's groups in New York. Teachers don't get too much money but they are doing a lot of things... Laura Flanders: An incredible amount of work.. Speaker 29: It's the same thing with Sudan...[unclear] Speaker 30: One of our friends in the back was wondering what is objectivity and reality. Well I owe it to the daily news 15 odd years ago when I went to college at '55, whatever. We were a group of students at Hunter College/ And we couldn't even afford the fee. There was no fee then but they said they were going to impose a 15 dollar fee for those that took a science course. And we went down to City Hall really to ask. We had learned about democracy, and so a group of us went down to city hall to speak to the mayor. The next day in the daily news, there was a big article about the communist invading because of that article. [laughter] Because all the years that some of us walked around wondering the philosophy of objectivity, the purpose of media, we saw it in one single moment. [laughter] We kew who's side we were on and whose side they were on. And while I have the floor, two more seconds. I think that teachers and all of owe you a vote of complete thanks. [unclear] You use critical thinking. And I think that we as teachers, if we teach nothing else about Columbus and [unclear], we have to teach critical thinking from the moment children, [addresses fellow audience members talking] excuse me a moment. Listen a moment. I'm just behaving as a teacher should! [laughter] Michael Delli Carpini: Not on this campus! [laughter] Speaker 30: She's like, perhaps you know, this is what we're saying because she does the good side. the important thing is, which side are we on? If we're on the side of the people who have all the money, obviously we're going to love the New York Times which hypocritically has been talking about these issues. And it's rather pitiful that we have to wait for these articles, like series, to start thinking about if we have anything called observation. And that's the basic way of looking at life and dealing with life. We see it all around us. Especially those of us who like in New York City, we know damn well the premise of the New York Times from my point of view. And I certainly am bigoted. And if- I never say "my humble opinion", I say "my studied opinion based on reality" [laughter]. My studied opinion is that they're criminals, everyone [watching] how liberal they are. And if they're so damn liberal, in my point of view, why would they support some of us? I'm putting a plug in purposely about the controllability of rent control being eliminated in New York City. They oppose us, they talk to the landlord. We know which side they're on. And the basic way of solving so many of our philosophical questions without going to Barnard and Columbia is to just observe from the moment we leave this place, observe contrast. The way contrast and hypocrisy describes America and describes of course, the media. And I have such regard for your paper, you know because it's on [my side]. It's on my side. [laughter] And obviously those people whose forces that you're attacking, we are attacking, why would they like us? So my point is that I love the fact that I learned to think critically as a young person and I knew that the media was not on my side when they started calling us revolutionaries when all we wanted to do was go there and ask for our democratic right. Michael Delli Carpini: The fairness doctrine that was written for regulating television specifically says, just to make your point, that when they talk about balance and fairness they don't mean having to cover groups like The Communist party. [laughter]. So it is specifically is meant to be a very limited notion of fairness. And your point about observing, I mean that's important. We don't all live in New York City though, and a lot of the stories that are important are not stories about things we do get to observe. And so that only works to a certain distance. In the back of the room? Speaker 31: I'm curious Maria. You seem to be aware of the degree to which you have to censor your own perspective in order to work with the media. And maybe particularly in the beginning it might have been necessary to do that, stay with the [resistance], to give the type of experience that you to move on. How did you deal with that situation, do you remember ever feeling like "This is it. I can't put in [unclear] with Walkter Kronkite's [eyes]. And they have, and Olivia and I have to quit?" Have you felt that way? Has anything pushed you to that point? Maria Hinojosa: Yeah. [laughter] I mean it's still the hardest struggle. It's the one that since I've been in the media, I've carried. I mean I left Barnard and I didn't know I was going to be a journalist, I just kind of ended up through career services doing a, I mean I did radio at WKCR (WKCR-FM 89.9 FM Radio, Columbia University). And I kinda ended up at NPR. It was my first job and I got very frustrated after a year because I was like, "Oh my god, all these sexists. And all these discriminatory people and blah blah." And so I was like "Later for you" in one year. And then that was when the whole process began where it was like, well what's worse, you know, racism or sexism? Or you know, what's worse, you know the stuff that I have to deal with it at CBS or NPR? You just start kind of, you know juggling these things. I deal with it on a daily basis. And you know, I think about quitting all the time. [laughs] But you feel like if you can get something on there that's worthwhile, if you can just touch one person then I'm doing something okay. And I think that the one person that I know that I have had an effect on, on this one person's life, it kind of keeps me going. Is one of those gang members from that story Crews who is totally transformed, well not totally, I mean he's becoming a critical thinker about his own life. And actually now he has a job and he's going to college and we're friends. And if I can just do that with one person's life, then it's like you have to do what you can do. But every single day my resolve becomes more so to put my limits and say no, I'm not going to let you tell me I can't say that. Or no, I'm not going to let you tell me that that story's not important. Or no, I'm not going to let you tell me what I can or cannot do. And just continue to put my foot down until they boot me, I suppose. And then, hopefully you'll all come and... right? [laughter] Laura Flanders: Don't worry, we will! [laughter] Speaker 32: I'm not here to defend the New York Times but I must say that my experience with the distinctive series that we're all referring to, The Children of the Shadows. I work in a desperately poor city called Paterson, New Jersey. And I live less than six miles from there in a fairly really white suburban community. And all my talking about the poverty and the grinding nature of the light and the people in that city, doesn't really affect people so much as quote "reading it in the New York Times." People, they believe it because it's in the New York Times. And then, now they can say "Oh, I get it a little bit. Oh, isn't this horrendous what's going on?" And all the talking and all of the bringing of the message has not been as effective.. Maria Hinojosa: But what do they say then about "Oh, I get it?" See, what comes after that? Speaker 32: They begin to have an understanding of the desperation and of the monotonous... Maria Hinojosa: You know what I wanna know? Is whether or not those people, not even. Look, doing something, yes of course. In an organized manner. Speaker 32: Even just think differently... Maria Hinojosa: But it's like, looking somebody in the eye who you think is the enemy, you know. All those kids in those articles who say, "Everytime I go into a store, they always look at me and.." Most of the kids are not doing illegal things. Do you have the possibility to look them straight in the eye and say "Hey, how you doing today? What's up?" You know. "Have a great day." It may be as simple as that. But if we can look at each other as human beings. Speaker 32: Exactly right. Maybe they can begin to understand what's going on in those kids' lives. Maria Hinojosa: Right, as opposed to "I fear them now." Speaker 32: Right, you go downtown. You work down there, and you go to your car. I get out of my car and I walk in the house. I even speak to people on the street. Speaker 33: This is a little different direction bit, earlier today we talked about images and what our audience see in terms of gender expectations. And I work in a school with early adolescents out in the suburbs so it's a different group. And the kids don't listen to NPR and they don't read the New York Times or any of those things. What they see is garbage on mainstream television, advertisements with images of women. [unclear] you know gender images that are horrendous. And the kind of violence and I think and increasing lack of knowing how the sexes should deal with it, and speak to, and handle each other. And I'm wondering, we're talking about a group of... I listen to NPR, they don't. What do we say to that whole area which is where most of my children get their ideas about what men and women [unclear] are, and how what behavior is expected of them? Speaker 34: I was going to say something like my mom..... Speaker 35: I didn't know that, we didn't get this together. [laughter] Speaker 36: There are lots, I was noticing this at a newsstand the other day. There are lots of [unclear]. Most of them are barely dressed, they're all Barbie dolls. There are [unclear] like that. And these are what people are seeing. And discussing with NPR [unclear] large mass culture [unclear]. Laura Flanders: My response to that, is it just goes back to the critical thinking thing again. It's a very frightening, I mean, what's more frightening to me is not so much the images in the newspapers because we know about that already. Bit the fact that the divisions that Mara is talking about, that we can all exist on one level having this kind of debate. And the majority of the population exists on another level having, perhaps no debate. And I think that the class issues are the key issues in this society and that the women's movement has to take on what was its original mandate. Which was to address the fundamental structure of society, not just to fit women into nicer positions. White women or women who could get there into nice positions. But to really address the hierarchy that exists between those who have and have not. Or those who are heard and seen and those who aren't. And the only gift that we can give to anybody, like Maria says, maybe [reading] this radio report is what helped that guy think "Maybe I can do something else." You know, I have friends in northern Ireland who feel the same way. Just having had a conversation with somebody from a different place opened up a door. If we can use the media to open up a door like that or to beacon a finger like that, then that is the best that we can be doing. Speaker 37: I've been thinking along the same lines as these women here which is that we've been dealing with the media as journalists for the bulk of what's seen, read, and so forth is fiction or fictionalized. And it is drenched in sex, violence, because that's what sells. There's a response mechanism of the public, whoever's picking the [unclear]. If you don't buy, they don't want to produce that thing [unclear] or something else. And we can all vote with our pocketbooks. [unclear] very well. But there's not that general an organization. I'm not even saying we should organize to censor it. But it becomes clear that there's a movement that's clearly pissed off at that kind of stuff. There'll be a response to it. Holding your money makes the difference, [Maria] that's what does pay. All of the print media, ads, all the time on the earth all purchased. All purchased by people who want to sell us stuff. And we do have power when it comes to that. Michael Delli Carpini: There is a response to that. Speaker 38: I would like to urge people to respond not just by withholding money because in my industry [laughter], the women's magazine industry we agonize if an issue has done poorly. And there's usually, there's always a woman on the cover, it's like Cosmo [Cosmopolitan Magazine] using women's bodies to sell issues. Um, if a magazine doesn't sell well, nobody, it's usually clear to me why it doesn't sell well. Because it [unclear] makes women. Because of the content or the cover or something. The woman's often low buttoned blouse. And they say "Oh, it must be because we used all the same colors on the cover." [laughter] Or, "They don't like this model. She's too old or." You have articulate. You have to write and say "I'm not buying your magazine if you don't ...whatever." [unclear] Speaker 38: They pay attention, absolutely. Michael Delli Carpini: Two more questions and then I think we're at our time limit. Speaker 39: [unclear]...back to the issue of the coverage of women in the newspapers. [unclear] Is FAIR taking any proactive action in response to this [unclear. Should we, those of us who are interested in changing the [unclear] bother with that sort of thing or take our energies elsewhere? Laura Flanders: No, I think that definitely part of the mandate of the Women's Project is to respond but also to put out not only our criticisms, but what we would like to see. And one of the things that we've done or tried to do is establish a network of activists and journalists who can actually meet and talk. And communicate with one another and begin to change the [sore] space for journalists in the mainstream. And encourage journalists. You know, one thing that we're doing is we have a fax network of journalists around the country who at least will read our faxes, and say to them "You know, next time you're covering this issue, you might wanna investigate." The next time you're discussing abortion, for example. Throughout the election the abortion debate was defined or debated as something that could hurt male candidates or hurt female candidates. But hurt the candidate. You know. And so they talked about so and so losing votes if they vote this way. Or so and so gaining votes if they vote that way. And our criticism was, you know, why don't you talk about an issue that might hurt women, you know? Um, and maybe what they need is a list of sources of alternative people that they could interview. Alternative approaches they could take on a story. The media, journalists I find want to do the best they can do. Most of them. And they are open to suggestions. All of us have a limited circle of context and if we can help by saying, "Listen, there's a really great Safe Homes project in Park Slope that would be a good group for you to contact." Or "Have you thought of speaking to this Latino organization who are going this great project." Or you know, this, whatever. They most likely will give it a try. If you give them phone number and a name. Like really, really, in the proactive sense, give some suggestions as well as your criticism. I think it is a very effective thing to do. And we're certainly doing it and you can contact FAIR. Speaker 40: I just wanted to say something to [unclear]. I support Laura's idea of the [unclear] context. And I'm bringing it up in the best time because [unclear] anything much to do with women, but it does have a great deal to do with [unclear]. What it [unclear] work very hard [unclear] decentralize board of education. And I work with a woman named Esther [unclear] who is a great activist on the Lower East Side. And we worked probably weeks, months, trying to get the board decentralized and particularly in that community because it was the Lower East Side. And because there was no voice for the parents in the community. But to make a long story short, 20 years ago we worked on the decentralization of the Board of Education and now we have 20 years later because- and I blame myself as much as anybody else- we walked away after we got it done. And the reality was that those people that we were fighting for to put them on the board, the parents of the children that go to school in that school district, had neither the time nor the money nor the survival skills to be able to give that kind of energy or time or even thinking to what they could do to go on a school board. And what happened was the school boards would take [unclear] by the [unclear] elements in the community and now we ended up with Hernandez being fired and the school board is being taken over by the right wings. And it is only proven to me that unless we do something, and of course it has to do with women and children. It's only proven that if you live long enough and you see that you take a certain kind of care and can't see that it's followed through. All of the things that we've talked about in the media today, cannot end in this room. We have to really make all the connections, we have to keep making the connections. It isn't just to [unclear] women, it's what women have to live with day in and day out. I don't know how we're gonna do it. I mean, we've been trying for a long time to do it. But it wasn't brought home to me so strongly as that school board issue. That really has blown me away, I worked so hard 20 years ago and I feel like I can't do anything unless I'm really committed to following through on it. And I think that's what we really have to do. Is we really have to keep making those connections. Laura Flanders: And vote May 4th. Speaker 40: And vote May 4th please everybody. Find out who your candidates are in your district. Michael Delli Carpini: Laura, anything else you want to add... Laura Flanders: No, um [recording ends]