Image via Wikipedia

Pop quiz:

What couple are getting a divorce and how many children do they have?
Name one of the products that Billy Mays sold.
Who has custody of Michael Jackson's children?

(Answers: Jon & Kate, 8 children, Oxy-Clean, and Jackson's mother).

Real answer: Why do we care about these things?

There are several other important events going on in the world yet our American media chooses to fill most of our 24 hour news networks with telling us about these pop culture tidbits.

I love pop culture, but I see a major damage to our culture by how much attention our NEWS sources pay to these items. Is 24 hour coverage of Michael Jackson postmortem with intermittent updates on how Billy Mays died more important than any of the other news items that have come across in the past few days?

Honduras is experiencing a military coup and their congress has selected a new president. Can we even name either the overthrown president or the newly named president?

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on a case, but if we were not in a class that discusses race and/or were not journalism students, would we have even known about this ruling?

In my opinion, it is the creation and dependence of a constant source of information that has caused the need to find such filler. In the past, broadcast news was available at only certain types of the day. Magazine shows did not exist and the 24-hour news station had not been invented, so the amount of news that could be provided each day was limited to the most important news of the day, news that was pertinent to people's knowledge and daily lives. Although I enjoy the ability to have instant access to news and information, I'm not convinced that we are truly getting the best information. If anything, the advent of the 24-hour news networks signaled the death of concise news reporting.

The majority of information we receive is unnecessary. I don't care to watch hour upon hour of coverage about the life of Michael Jackson. At the least, I find it hypocritical that the man they had bashed and labeled as "Wacko Jacko" is now to be endeared into our cultural history and the bad parts are glossed over by the media. At the most, I find it insulting to the American public that the producers and editors feel that this is the most important news of the day. I'm honestly tired of talking and hearing about Michael Jackson. I can understand and appreciate his contributions to pop culture, music, and dance, but I can't understand the constant coverage.

On this same weekend, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots were celebrated across the country. June 28, 1969 is not even a date that most history books, unless you are in a more "liberal" college class (like my History of Journalism was), yet it signals the time that the gay and lesbian movement really took ground. Some media will cover pride events (the yearly memorial marches of the Stonewall Riots), show the more extreme sides of the LGBT community (this is a topic for another blog) and move on. But when police raids eerily reminiscent of those that started the Stonewall Riots occur in Ft. Worth this past weekend, it is hardly mentioned in most news sources.

The priorities of our "news" sources have become disoriented. It is no longer the events of the day that affect our actual lives that are the most important on the CNNMSNBCFOX.net channels. Our news has become a combination of opinionated talking heads and pop culture tidbits with not much true hard hitting journalistic action.

Privilege can be Straight and Narrow

Consider this scenario:
My girlfriend of three years is Canadian. We both live in Oklahoma and are going to OU and have plans to get married some day. In the next few years we plan on moving to Illinois. She is here on a green card with her family, which will expire in about seven years. By marrying her in the next seven years, getting full or even dual citizenship can be expedited and her naturalization won't really be an issue.

Everything in that paragraph seems normal and wouldn't be cause for discussion when talking about privilege. Nothing based on race, creed, color, or nation of origin causes any red flags to go up in that situation. Everything seems normal and is what we have come to expect from immigration laws in the U.S.

Now let's look at the actual situation:
My boyfriend of three years is Canadian. We both live in Oklahoma and are going to OU and have plans to get married some day. In the next few years we plan on moving to Illinois. He is here on a green card with his family, which will expire in about seven years. Even if we get married in one of the six states now allowing equal marriage rights, the federal government does not recognize these marriages and they are not eligible for expedited naturalization. Within the next seven years he will either need to start a longer immigration program on his own, find an employer who provides sponsorship for immigration, or we move to Canada. O Canada!

This is one of many legalized privileges afforded to heterosexual couples through civil marriage.* Other legal issues arise even outside of civil marriage rights. Sexual orientation is not covered under the Fair Housing Act, any related acts, or any housing related executive orders.

Coming off of the legal privileges and focusing back on a social and cultural privilege, we can look at the knapsack McIntosh discusses(pdf) and make similar comparisons to the privileges straight men and women have in our society.

For example: "I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my sexual orientation widely represented."

In the 2008-2009 television season, 2.6% of all regular scripted characters on network television are identified as LGBT, an increase over previous years. Of those, lead characters on network television who are gay or lesbian consist of Kevin Walker on Brothers and Sisters and Callie Torres and Erica Hahn on Grey's Anatomy, both found on ABC. This is twelve years after Ellen first came out as a lesbian on her television show (her sitcom, not her talk show) becoming the first lead character to be out on television. This is the generation that grew up watching Will & Grace, gay characters on television is not supposed to be an issue anymore, yet only three lead characters can be found on network television.

Is privilege only in being seen on television? What about in the way gays and lesbians are viewed. If only three lead characters are gay or lesbian, that still leaves supporting characters. It seems that being the leading man or leading lady is left more to the straight characters.

(I differentiate civil marriage here for a reason. All legal marriages conducted in the United States must have a civic element, usually a marriage license provided by the government. Not all marriages in the United States, however, have a religious component to them. Therefore we can use the term civil marriage to define the act and rights afforded by government recognition of a union of two people).