Covering Violence: A Guide to Ethical Reporting About Victims & Trauma Book

There's a sensible message here buried under a heap of convoluted, hypocritical, finger-pointing. The message that women should be wary of what the media is feeding them is a smart one, but Blyth is unfortunately the wrong author to tell it.[return][return]Let's start with Blyth's argument that the media's effect on women is a liberal-caused problem. Her only evidence to suggest this is that high-profile news anchors Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters are unabashed liberals. However, anyone with a walnut shell's worth of media knoweldge can cite Rupert Murdoch and FOX News as top media influences. Yet these conservative media giants share none of the blame in Blyth's world? This is a glaring omission that takes away much of the author's credibility.[return][return]The author gives us full disclosure that she was editor-in-chief of "Ladies Home Journal" and is the current editor of "More" magazine. She repents every other paragraph for her sins at LHJ, and constantly reassures us that her current gig at "More" is morally healthier. Besides feeling like chapters are constantly being interrupted by a commercial, I felt it rather hypocritical of Blyth to condemn rival magazines and celebrities for being harsh on women, and then follow up with scathing judgments such as calling Christina Aguilera "skanky." After paragraphs of condemning the Photoshopping of celebrities with cellulite, crooked teeth, and zits, she goes on to reveal that she changed an actress's appearance on a magazine cover, brushing it off with "Oh, that was necessary. She needed it" Hello? Can we stay consistent with our message?[return][return]This book alternates between frustrating and inspiring. While the author uses many anecdotes from her interactions with celebrities, readers have to wonder if Blyth, being a media persona herself, isn't part of the problem she's condemning. Can we trust her credibility and her anecdotes? On the one hand, women will immediately understand how diets, stress, and relationships are considered "women's topics" that are frequently twisted into scare tactics to boost ratings and profits, or to promote an agenda. Yet her constant insisting that liberals are blame makes Blyth seem like an outdated media maven, desperately clinging to the idea of party lines, ignoring that today's problems transcend a specific political ideology. If she approached the topic as a women's issue, rather than a conservative vs. liberal issue, her credibility would be much, much better. [return][return]For instance, the author often departs on tangents to detail how persecuted conservative females are by feminists (despite an earlier claim that feminists aren't the problem), and uses Phyllis Schlafly as an example. Blyth laments that Steinem and Friedan get all the glory while poor Schlafly gets snubbed by feminist society. Blyth smugly recalls how on lunch dates she regales her liberal friends the story of a brave, hardworking mother active in political life, and reveals to their shock that this paragon of sacrafice and womanhood is none other than Schlafly! Her "I sure told them!" anecdote fails to reveal her friends' rebuttal, and if they informed her that the reason Schlafly is not America's Sweetheart might have something to do with her vocal opinions on marital rape. (Schlafly has been documented saying that consenting to marriage is consenting to sex, and that a wife cannot, by definition, be raped.) Blyth's Conservatives Can Do No Wrong slant would be better suited for a writer who could drum up better examples of conservatives. Shlafly was just a misguided choice.[return][return]Besides the stubborn fixation on poor conservative role models, the books also sabotages itself by outdated media references, like the relationship of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck. Here, the magazine editor inside Blyth who insists on frequent name-dropping ultimately becomes the book's undoing and causes it to become obsolete. [return][return]I gave this book a try because I am interested in women's issues, and wanted to hear a conservative's take on the media's influence on women. But it became clearer and clearer as I read that the author's head-in-the-sand refusal to admit conservative blame tainted her message. Which is a shame, because as a media insider, she has a lot to offer the reader of the behind-the-scenes media doings. But she falls back on the old standbys: blame feminists, blame liberals, blame anyone but yourself, leaving her critique little new to offer readers. She failed in making this a conservative issue, but perhaps another, better author could have made a more convincing argument. It just seems that the issue is something all women should be aware of, not just conservatives.