<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Media Criticism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/media_criticism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 15:05:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Hustler&#8217;s denigrating S.E. Cupp &#8220;satire&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/hustlers_denigrating_s_e_cupp_satire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/hustlers_denigrating_s_e_cupp_satire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12926889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Larry Flynt hides behind free speech to degrade a conservative]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's not as if one expects subtle political discourse from Hustler. But come on.</p><p>Larry Flynt's venerable publishing enterprise has, throughout its history, championed freedom of expression in its own unique way. In 1984, Flynt famously went <a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hustler.html">all the way to the Supreme Court</a> over the right to run a parody ad of inexhaustible loon Jerry Falwell reminiscing about losing his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. Tasteless? Yes. An obvious lampooning of a public figure? Also yes. But when Hustler recently ran a photo of conservative writer S.E. Cupp Photoshopped to look like she was performing oral sex, that was something altogether different.</p><p>The Cupp photo exists as a "celebrity fantasy" – i.e., an imaginary hate bang. And though Hustler takes pains to cover its butt, noting that "No such picture of S.E. Cupp actually exists. This composite fantasy is altered from the original for our imagination, does not depict reality, and is not to be taken seriously for any purpose," it ponders, grossly, "What would S.E. Cupp look like with a dick in her mouth?"</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/hustlers_denigrating_s_e_cupp_satire/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/hustlers_denigrating_s_e_cupp_satire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>163</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Community&#8221; botches damage control</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/community_botches_damage_control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/community_botches_damage_control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12926724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A leaked memo reveals Sony's social-media blunder -- and its belief that the cast and fans are easily herded]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's adorable the way Old Media keeps forgetting that we live in the age of transparency. Hey, Sony Pictures Television, your metaphoric fly is undone.</p><p>You'd think that after that <a href="http://www.celebuzz.com/2012-04-10/%E2%80%98its-just-a-fcking-mediocre-sitcom-second-chevy-chase-recording-emerges-rips-his-own-show-community-exclusive/">ranting, complaining voice mail</a> that "Community" star Chevy Chase left showrunner Dan Harmon went viral this spring they'd have learned. Or maybe after Harmon responded to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/whats_community_without_dan_harmon/singleton/">his dismissal</a> just last Friday by <a href="http://danharmon.tumblr.com/">spilling his guts on Tumblr</a>. You'd think the muckety-mucks would have figured out by now that the best you can do when there's tension in your little creative family is to be forthright and creative about it.</p><p>Note, for example, how the show's star Joel McHale spent the spring diplomatically – and wittily -- handling the talk-show circuit after Chase's meltdown, joking that the voice mail had to be fake because <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/04/12/joel-mchale-chevy-chase-community/">"there’s no way Chevy could figure out voice mail."</a> See, it's glib and funny and sounds magically off-the-cuff! Get it? The cast of "Community" -- which includes the incredibly on-the-ball Danny Pudi, Alison Brie and Donald Glover – knows how to handle itself.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/community_botches_damage_control/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/community_botches_damage_control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Luke Russert, nepotist prince</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Luke Russert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Hack List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12926399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Luke Russert is being groomed as a simulacrum of his father -- but without the inspiring rags-to-riches story]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim Russert was not the unalloyed saint of tough journalism that his celebrators describe in posthumous tributes, but he was at least a classic American success story, of the sort that we still enjoy pretending is common: Blue-collar kid from Rust Belt town becomes enormously successful thanks largely to brains and hard work. The story of Luke Russert, alas, is a much more common one in American life: No-account kid of successful person has more success thrust upon him.</p><p>Pretty much immediately upon the death of his father, Luke Russert inexplicably had a full-time broadcasting job, supplanting his part-time broadcasting job co-hosting a satellite radio sports talk show with James Carville. (That was a real thing that actually existed. Can you imagine a human who would want to listen to that?)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/luke_russert_nepotist_prince/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My break with the extreme right</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12926348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I worked for Reagan and wrote for National Review. But the new hysterical right cares nothing for truth or dignity]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gosh! When did I end up in bed with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Could it be because I did specialize in blowing things up while serving my <a href="http://fumento.com/fumento/">country</a> for four years as an airborne combat engineer? I also watched human <a href="http://fumento.com/military/ramadi.html">beings</a> blown up. I had <a href="http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2006/12/maj_megan_mcclu.html">friends</a> and <a href="http://www.fumento.com/military/monsoormedal.html">Navy</a> SEALs I was in battle with blown up. My own intestines exploded on the first of my four combat embeds, three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Took seven operations to fix the plumbing. I later suffered other permanent injuries.</p><p>Yet now I find myself linked not only with the Unabomber, but also Charles Manson and Fidel Castro. Or so says the Chicago-based think tank the Heartland Institute, for which I’ve done work. Heartland <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?newsfeed=true">erected</a> billboards depicting the above three <a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2012/5/4/1336125117472/Leo-blog--The-Heartland-I-007.jpg">declaring</a>: "I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?" Climate scientists now, evidently, share something in common with dictators and mass murderers. Reportedly bin Laden was scheduled to make such an appearance, too.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>273</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t mention income inequality please, we&#8217;re entrepreneurs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12923179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At this point, TED is a massive, money-soaked orgy of self-congratulatory futurism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a bit of a scandal last week when it was reported that a TED Talk on income equality <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516?mrefid=mostViewed">had been censored</a>. That turned out to be not quite the entire story. Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist with a book out on income inequality, was invited to speak at a TED function. He spoke for a few minutes, making the argument that rich people like himself are not in fact job creators and that they should be taxed at a higher rate.</p><p>The talk seemed reasonably well-received by the audience, but TED "curator" Chris Anderson told Hanauer that it would not be featured on TED's site, in part because the audience response was mixed but also because it was too political and this was an "election year."</p><p>Hanauer had his PR people go to the press immediately and accused TED of censorship, which is obnoxious -- TED didn't have to host his talk, obviously, and his talk was not hugely revelatory for anyone familiar with recent writings on income inequity from a variety of experts -- but Anderson's responses were still a good distillation of TED's ideology.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/21/dont_mention_income_inequality_please_were_entrepreneurs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manny Pacquiao doesn&#8217;t want you dead</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiao_doesnt_want_you_dead/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiao_doesnt_want_you_dead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12921415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A gross misquote gets out of hand -- but the iconic boxer still has a long way to go on the sensitivity front]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Updated below</strong></p><p>Let's get something straight, so to speak, right off the bat. There's no disputing that Manny Pacquiao is not the most enlightened guy to ever put on gloves and fight for a belt. In a story for Examiner.com this past weekend, blogger Granville Ampong wrote of how the boxing champ takes issue with Barack Obama's recent groundbreaking declaration of support for same-sex unions. <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/pacquiao-rejects-counsels-obama-god-s-words-first">"God's words first ... obey God's law first before considering the laws of man," </a>Pacquiao told Ampong, in what the writer described as "an exclusive interview." Pacquiao was further quoted explaining that "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other… It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiao_doesnt_want_you_dead/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacquiao_doesnt_want_you_dead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet doomsday, explained</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/internet_doomsday_explained/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/internet_doomsday_explained/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12920845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to media reports, July 9 will be our online apocalypse. The better story is how this crazy rumor started]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The apocalyptic story line was once reserved for truly apocalyptic events. Nuclear war. The return of Christ. Environmental or economic collapse. But it’s 2012, and the apocalypse has become the basis for everything from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFYYP8040A">Super Bowl commercials </a>to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4fwCCVt9yk">summer romantic comedies </a>-- and no media story is too small to have an apocalyptic moniker attached to it. (Remember Snowmageddon?) If you want to get the world’s attention, simply proclaim that the world will soon end -- or the Internet. Just read coverage of the so-called Internet Doomsday virus, which will supposedly strike and shut down the Web on July 9.</p><p>Here's how the story got started. Back in October, the FBI announced that it had broken up an international crime ring when it arrested six Estonians in what was then heralded as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8881382/FBI-Operation-Ghost-Click-raid-shuts-down-cyber-criminals.html">“the biggest cyber criminal takedown in history.”</a> The Estonians had, over the course of four years, hijacked more than 4 million computers in 100 countries through the use of malware known as DNSChanger. By redirecting the infected browsers of unwitting users, DNSChanger was able to send high volumes of traffic to the criminal ring’s rogue websites and servers, collecting more than $14 million in fraudulent advertising revenue and exposing their victims to information theft in the process.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/internet_doomsday_explained/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/internet_doomsday_explained/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Yorker profile? No, thanks</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/13/new_yorker_profile_no_thanks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/13/new_yorker_profile_no_thanks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Clooney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lena Dunham]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12919099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's an honor to be the subject of a long, flattering, well-written New Yorker piece. It is also the kiss of death]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last year, The New Yorker ran a long, flattering <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/17/111017fa_fact_friend">profile</a> of the director Andrew Stanton, the Pixar veteran who was engaged at the time in reshoots for the troubled "John Carter." The article, by Tad Friend, noted some of the studio’s concerns about the initial cut of the film, which was Stanton’s debut in live action, but for the most part, its tone was highly positive, portraying Stanton as nothing less than Pixar’s resident storyteller: “Among all the top talent here,” an executive is quoted as saying, “Andrew is the one with a genius for story structure.”</p><p>Six months later, "John Carter" became one of the costliest flops in Hollywood history, and while the film may have its redeeming qualities, story structure isn’t among them. Read in retrospect, the Stanton profile now seems laden with irony, and it isn’t alone: A striking number of recent New Yorker features on movie directors and actors have been followed by embarrassing setbacks for the artists in question, usually involving the very projects that the articles are extolling.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/13/new_yorker_profile_no_thanks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/13/new_yorker_profile_no_thanks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time magazine&#8217;s breast-feeding cover star: Is he doomed?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/time_magazines_breast_feeding_cover_star_is_he_doomed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/time_magazines_breast_feeding_cover_star_is_he_doomed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12919085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A provocative magazine cover doesn't mean the breast-feeding preschooler is in for a lifetime of "Got milk" jokes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the single, whipped-up day since <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/why_times_cover_shocks/singleton/">Time magazine unleashed that cover story</a> about crazed MILFs "driven" to "extremes" by attachment parenting, there's been plenty of debate over its provocative image of blogger Jamie Lynne Grumet breast-feeding her almost 4-year-old son. And, as so often happens when adults see an image that unnerves them, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/09/suddenly_im_tipper_gore/singleton/">that anxiety is projected onto kids</a>. In this case, one kid in particular. Grumet's.</p><p>Unshockingly, the National Review Online was quickest to leap into pearl-clutching position. After deeming the image <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/299638/new-itimei-cover-not-onion-spoof/glenn-t-stanton# ">"as bad as it will ever get,</a>" Glenn T. Stanton pronounced that "This poor boy may be diggin' life now, but will soon be forever teased as the Got Milk? boy that Time magazine and his indulgent mom made infamous." And in the Contra Costra Times, Tony Hicks decided that all the mothers who appeared in the story's photos did so <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_20597043/hicks-time-magazines-breast-feeding-covers-causes-stir ">"simply to have something really embarrassing to use against their kids when they become teenagers."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/time_magazines_breast_feeding_cover_star_is_he_doomed/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/11/time_magazines_breast_feeding_cover_star_is_he_doomed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Time&#8217;s cover shocks</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/why_times_cover_shocks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/why_times_cover_shocks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 19:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12918442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hint: it's not the breast-feeding -- it's the contempt]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's going to be a long Mom War, people.</p><p>In case you thought, nay, hoped, that the barrel-bottom had been fully scraped last week when the New York Times asked, in a query straight out of the Onion, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_nyts_ridiculous_motherhood_debate/">"Has women’s obsession with being the perfect mother destroyed feminism?,"</a> now Time magazine has upped the ante with a cover story brazenly challenging "Are You Mom Enough?"</p><p>It's accompanied, by the way, by <a href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20120521,00.html">a picture of a hot blonde and her 3-year-old son standing on a chair to suckle her breast</a>.  Yo, take THAT, Room for Debate page! I guess Time felt it really had to bring it after uber-troll Katie Roiphe's piece last month on <a href="http://www.salon.com/topic/katie_roiphe/">why feminists just want a good spanking.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/why_times_cover_shocks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/why_times_cover_shocks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>120</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media grows bored of Occupy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/media_grows_bored_of_occupy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/media_grows_bored_of_occupy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 15:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Income inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12916032</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And that means, according to a new report, that Americans can expect to hear a lot less about income inequality]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As evidenced by the lack of stories about the May Day general strike last week, the mainstream media's interest in Occupy Wall Street has waned. It's a shame because, as a new report indicates, Occupy has been central to driving media stories about income inequality in America. Late last week, Radio Dispatch's John Knefel <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/03-3">compiled a report </a>for media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), which illustrates Occupy's success: Media focus on the movement in the past half year, according to the report, has been almost directly proportional to the attention paid to income inequality and corporate greed by mainstream outlets. During peak media coverage of the movement last October, mentions of the term "income inequality" increased "fourfold." Meanwhile:</p><blockquote><p>As mentions of “Occupy Wall Street” or “Occupy movement” waned in early 2012, so too have mentions of “income inequality” and, to an even greater extent, “corporate greed.” The trend is true for four leading papers (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times), news programs on the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable (MSNBC, CNN, Fox News) and NPR, according to searches of the Nexis news media database. Google Trends data also indicates that from January to March, the phrases “income inequality” and “corporate greed” declined in volume of both news stories and searches.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/media_grows_bored_of_occupy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/media_grows_bored_of_occupy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>85</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who says men can&#8217;t be raped?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/who_says_men_cant_be_raped/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/who_says_men_cant_be_raped/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual abuse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12914527</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A tabloid story about a German "nymphomaniac" makes an absurdly sexist error]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know what you call someone who demands sex after a partner refuses? Who forces a person to have sex? Whose victim has to escape out a window and call the police? Someone who, according to news accounts, faces charges of "sexual assault and illegal restraint"? You call that person an alleged sex offender. Or, if you're the UK Mirror and the assailant is a female, you just call her a nymphomaniac.</p><p>As first reported in the Canadian site <a href="http://www.theprovince.com/news/German+flees+partner+demanded+much/6447883/story.html">the Province</a> last month – complete with a snuggly picture of a happy couple in bed – a 43-year-old German man told Munich police he had met the 47-year-old woman in a bar, went home with her, and had sex a few times. But when he said he'd had enough, she demanded more and refused to let him leave.  He then fled out a balcony and called the cops. The Mirror then picked up the tale -- this time along with a coy image of a pair of feet in bed – and described the woman as an <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-flees-apartment-and-calls-police-795081">"insatiable lover."</a>  She then allegedly struck again early this week, leaving a second man who'd gone home with her after a chance meeting on a bus <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-found-sobbing-in-street-after-813563">"sobbing in the street"</a> and pleading to police, "Oh God, it was hell. I can’t walk. Please help me." She has reportedly now been placed under psychiatric evaluation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/who_says_men_cant_be_raped/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/who_says_men_cant_be_raped/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The NYT&#8217;s ridiculous motherhood debate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_nyts_ridiculous_motherhood_debate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_nyts_ridiculous_motherhood_debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 21:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motherhood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12913078</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A throwdown about maternal "obsession" shows how out of touch the paper has become]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Times would like to know, what'll it be, ladies? Motherhood or feminism? I don't know, I think a better question might be: Are you freaking kidding me?</p><p>You'd have to go all the way back to January, when the Times hilariously asked if it should be a "truth vigilante" – i.e., fact-check its sources – to find such a fanciful query in the paper of record. This time, the "Room for Debate" Op-Ed page jumps off from French feminist Elisabeth Badinter's contentious book "The Conflict: How Modern Motherhood Undermines the Status of Women," asking, I kid you not, "Has women's obsession with being the perfect mother destroyed feminism?" It may take its inspiration from a controversial book on the tyranny of attachment parenting, but rarely has a single, short sentence strung together so many incendiary words. You've got obsession, motherhood, perfection and the destruction of feminism all in one tidy package, centered about the tacit acceptance of the notion that by, say, co-sleeping with your infant, you're undermining The Sisterhood. As Time.com editor <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/winterjessica">Jessica Winter mused</a> Tuesday, "Next up:  Fatherhood vs. Sports, Childhood vs. School, Coats vs. Shoes and Cats vs. Dogs."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_nyts_ridiculous_motherhood_debate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/the_nyts_ridiculous_motherhood_debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No one gets lucky at Washington&#8217;s prom</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/no_one_gets_lucky_at_washingtons_prom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/no_one_gets_lucky_at_washingtons_prom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington D.C.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House Correspondents' Dinner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12911908</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House Correspondents' Dinner isn't what's wrong with politics. It's what's wrong with D.C.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every year the White House Correspondents' Dinner inspires two competing varieties of coverage: celebrity-obsessed fawning and <a href="http://gawker.com/5905698/fuck-the-white-house-correspondents-association-dinner">angry tirades</a> about how it represents everything twisted about our broken democracy. It doesn't, really. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Financial_Services_Subcommittee_on_Oversight_and_Investigations">The majority membership of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations</a> is a much better example of how awful and broken our democracy is. The Washington Post editorial page better illustrates how worthless and co-opted our establishment press is. Yes, it's an event where vile war criminals like Henry Kissinger are feted and celebrated, but you know where else vile war criminals like Henry Kissinger are celebrated? Literally everywhere they go. The Correspondents' Dinner is just an awkward roast preceded and followed by depressing parties.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/no_one_gets_lucky_at_washingtons_prom/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/no_one_gets_lucky_at_washingtons_prom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC takes on super PACs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12911015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The commission voted to require stations to post political ad data online -- but it won't be searchable]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Communications Commission voted 2 to 1 this morning to require broadcasters to post political ad data on the Web, making it easier for the public to see how <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/news/la-pn-2012-ads-could-top-3-billion-20111006">as much as</a> $3.2 billion will be spent on TV advertising this election.</p><p>The files — which, among other information, detail the times ads aired, how much they cost, and whether stations rejected ad buy requests from campaigns — are currently available only on paper at stations.</p><p>The FCC rejected <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/broadcasters-last-ditch-push-to-hide-political-ad-data">a push</a> by the industry to water down the measure. But the rule as passed also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common format.</p><p>The rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to come into compliance.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tucker Carlson&#8217;s downward spiral</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/tucker_carlsons_downward_spiral/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/tucker_carlsons_downward_spiral/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tucker Carlson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12909472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Once a promising young magazine writer, the bow-tied Daily Caller pundit has come to epitomize right-wing hackdom]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In many ways Tucker Carlson's a better symbol of the pathetic state of what passes for conservative journalism than even Glenn Beck or the late Andrew Breitbart, to name two of his contemporaries with a much larger following. Glenn Beck started as a no-account shock jock and is now a no-account Internet show host. Breitbart at least went from Drudge lackey to successful right-wing media mogul. Carlson, though, began his career in the most respectable fashion possible and has spent the ensuing decades gradually lowering himself into the gutter. His story illustrates why we can't have a responsible or at least slightly less hysterical conservative media.</p><p>The Daily Caller, the site he launched with a promise to offer a new model for conservative journalism, is primarily a catalog of sleazy traffic-baiting aggregated Web garbage ("Top 10: Most beautiful ‘most beautiful’ women [SLIDESHOW]"), ancient relics of online commentary with nowhere else left to publish (Ann Coulter, Mickey Kaus), and overblown scandal-mongering headlines that promise much more than they can deliver. In other words it is like a mean-spirited parody of a conservative version of the pre-AOL Huffington Post, with a healthy dose, recently, of attention-grabbing race baiting. This is not the sort of thing Carlson used to be known for.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/tucker_carlsons_downward_spiral/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/tucker_carlsons_downward_spiral/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Post-literate media</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/post_literate_media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/post_literate_media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12907882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The more data we collect via Google, YouTube and Facebook, the less likely we are to understand what it means]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse. </em><br />
-- Emperor Charles V</p><p>But in which language does one speak to a machine, and what can be expected by way of response? The questions arise from the accelerating data-streams out of which we’ve learned to draw the breath of life, posed in consultation with the equipment that scans the flesh and tracks the spirit, cues the ATM, the GPS and the EKG, arranges the assignations on Match.com and the high-frequency trades at Goldman Sachs, catalogs the pornography and drives the car, tells us how and when and where to connect the dots and thus recognize ourselves as human beings.</p><p>Why then does it come to pass that the more data we collect -- from Google, YouTube and Facebook -- the less likely we are to know what it means?</p><p>The conundrum is in line with the late Marshall McLuhan’s noticing 50 years ago the presence of “an acoustic world,” one with “no continuity, no homogeneity, no connections, no stasis,” a new “information environment of which humanity has no experience whatever.” He published "Understanding Media" in 1964, proceeding from the premise that “we become what we behold,” that “we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/post_literate_media/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/post_literate_media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservatives mad at liberal media, Obama over Afghanistan photos</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12891021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Confused right-wing responses to a grisly scandal]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The L.A. Times Wednesday published photos of American troops in Afghanistan posing and grinning with the body parts of dead Afghan insurgents. There are 18 photos in all of soldiers posing with human remains, all from 2010, and the Times published two of them. The newspaper received the photos from a soldier in the unit depicted, who, according to Times editors, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-maharaj-chat-20120418,0,5438409.story">sought to publicize</a> "dysfunction in discipline and a breakdown in leadership that compromised the safety of the troops."</p><p>The L.A. Times informed the Pentagon of its story and waited 72 hours before publishing. The Army, notably, had not launched a criminal investigation into the troops responsible for the photos until the Times contacted them. The Obama administration and the Pentagon have both condemned the soldiers responsible for the pictures, but also expressed disappointment in the Times for publishing them. Wired's Spencer Ackerman refers to the photos as <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/afghan-corpses/">"yet another unforced error" for U.S. forces</a> in Afghanistan. It's a depressing and disturbing story, from a long and miserable war.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Keller joins Krugman/Brooks Op-Ed fight</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/bill_keller_joins_krugmanbrooks_op_ed_fight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/bill_keller_joins_krugmanbrooks_op_ed_fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Keller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Krugman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12873051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A defense of centrism from a convincing argument against it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like a rich WASP family, the New York Times does not, as a rule, air its disagreements in public. The newspaper of record has a (supposedly unwritten) rule barring opinion columnists from criticizing one another by name. It would be unseemly. So you will never see columnist Paul Krugman specifically criticize something written by columnist David Brooks.</p><p>But what you will see, regularly, is <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/paul_krugman_and_the_art_of_calling_out_a_colleague/">Paul Krugman criticizing unnamed people</a> who happen to have made the exact same argument as David Brooks. (Or Thomas Friedman.)</p><p>Last week, Krugman <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html">wrote a column attacking so-called "centrists"</a> who defend the Paul Ryan budget plan and criticize the president for being too "partisan" about it. The column came a few days after Mr. Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/brooks-that-other-obama.html">defended the Paul Ryan budget plan and criticized the president for being too "partisan" about it.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/bill_keller_joins_krugmanbrooks_op_ed_fight/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/bill_keller_joins_krugmanbrooks_op_ed_fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>David Sirota on &#8220;The Young Turks&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/david_sirota_on_the_young_turks_2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/david_sirota_on_the_young_turks_2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12845871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Sirota joins host Cenk Uygur to discuss the legacy of late newsman Mike Wallace]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Monday evening, Salon contributing writer David Sirota talked about how current journalists can uphold Mike Wallace's integrity by practicing what they preach -- including their praises of the late newsman's fierce moral code. "Mike Wallace's ethos were the toughest possible," he said. "You can't honor [his] legacy and at the same time walk away from it."</p><p><iframe src="http://current.com/bc/1554148886001?linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fcurrent.com%2Fshows%2Fthe-young-turks%2Fvideos%2Fhonor-mike-wallace-by-asking-the-toughest-possible-questions" frameborder="0" width="480" height="270"></iframe></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/david_sirota_on_the_young_turks_2/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/david_sirota_on_the_young_turks_2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

