Division of Labor, Talent and Journalistic Branding

A clear divide exists between generic labor and talent in media companies and it is now increasingly dividing journalists. The divide initially appeared in the motion picture industry and moved into broadcasting as competition led companies to vie for the talented people—or at least those who could generate the largest audiences and revenue for media companies.

The talent concept moved into journalism with the development of television news and salaries for news presenters and leading correspondents that were far above those of average television reporters.   In print journalism, talent initially involved columnists and then encompassed a few well-known reporters.

Today, the appearances of journalists at events and on talk shows, individually-authored digital news sites, and the increasing uses of blogs and social media by journalists is transforming many into individual brands that are being using to improve their social standing and connections with audiences. This journalistic branding no longer primarily supports employers’ interests for audience creation and retention. Instead, it creates an individual brand that increases the demand for the services of the branded journalist. This, of course, can be translated in higher wages, better employment opportunities, or self employment via the digital media.

The fact that individual journalists are finding ways to increase their value isn’t a problem, but journalists need to thinking about the point where branding transforms them into celebrity—thus moving them from being an observer to a participant in the news they report.

The development of talent—whether as journalists, investment managers, sports personalities, and even publicly recognized scholars—represents a significant shift in capital-labor relations.  In industrial society, capital had disproportionate power because it controlled factories and labor had few ways to counteract that power outside of collective bargaining. In post-industrial society, however, power is shifting toward talent because these branded professionals are a new class of personnel who are crucial for companies—but talent doesn't fall into the traditional capital or labor categories.

One of the downsides of this shift, according to Roger Martin, dean of Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto, is that it is creates two classes of labor: generic labour and talent. The first is often undervalued and the second sometimes overvalued.  The process is creating disproportionate incomes, opportunities, and mobility for the latter group and there is growing animosity between generic labour and talent because they do not share similar experiences or have a common identity.

What talent will mean to the future of journalism is uncertain, but digital communications are clearly making it possible for some journalists to separate themselves from others and to move into the talent category. It is something we should be watching.

The Crosbie Walsh problem

Comment is free, as legendary Guardian editor C.P. Scott once famously quipped, but facts are sacred. The problem begins when a commenter cannot get his facts straight. How much stock should we then put in his comments? He gets his wires crossed, doesn’t double check, or relies on secondary sources. (Perhaps, like Grubby Davis, he even relies on hearsay and gossip in making ad hominem attacks on a certain messenger.) He may be guilty of all of the above. But that doesn’t stop him from viciously attacking someone who does get his facts straight and actually does his job very well. Perhaps, because the commenter is in his “golden years,” he thinks he is above criticism and knows better than everybody else. I suspect that “all of the above” may apply to Crosbie Walsh.

The retired political science professor, who lives in New Zealand, has become increasingly acquiescent in his support of Fiji’s interim government since admitting last month to taking a free trip to Suva at their expense. While once his blog offerings at Fiji: The Way it Was, Is and Can Be were somewhat even-handed and occasionally even questioned the interim government’s actions, they have become increasingly one-sided. Now they are almost an extension of MINFO, even laughably running weather bulletins during the recent visit of Cyclone Evan, perhaps with the expectation that worried Fijians would go there first for information. As if to weakly fill some quota, Old Croz has taken to running speeches from the recent Attorney-General’s conference, publishing government press releases, and even reprinting Xmas messages from first the President and then the Prime Minister.

 

My favorite was the double offering earlier this month from someone named G. Larson (although one was first credited to a G Lawson). “How Laws are Made in Bainimarama's Fiji,” cited the Media Decree as an example of wide government consultations. “What the Judiciary Can and Cannot Do,” claimed that the courts cannot strike down laws. As I was then having to be careful about blogging or commenting on blogs under my own name, I was moved to post comments on these entries anonymously, which I am normally loath to do. I asked about G. Larson/Lawson’s legal credentials and never did get an answer from Croz, who instead questioned mine. (I was a legal affairs journalist for 10 years.) I pointed out that the draft Media Decree was delivered with only two hours notice before responses were due. Judicial review, I noted, is a legal process that allows judges around the world to overturn laws that are arbitrary, capricious, vague, or inconsistent with higher laws, such as a country’s constitution. Now that I am safely out of Fiji, just a step or two ahead of Yash Ghai, I can blog again and comment under my own name. I will be doing so with increased frequency.

 

Walsh’s blog has come in for considerable criticism from those who long for democracy to return to Fiji. He has actually done some scholarly research on the blog phenomenon, however, so he should know what he's doing. In 2010, Walsh published a journal article comparing his blog and the anti-government Coup 4.5 (no conflict there) and providing a comprehensive listing of Fiji's 72 then-known political blogs. He disputed the contention by some that Fiji’s freedom blogs are “expressions of democracy in the face of censorship and repression by Fiji’s military-led government.”

The anti-government blogs, hailed by coup opponents as advocates of democracy, are little more than agents of uncritical dissent that at this point in time looks to be leading neither to the imperfect democracy of yesterday nor the promised democracy of tomorrow.

As Croz noted, whether Fiji’s freedom blogs are an expression of democracy “depends, of course, on how one defines democracy in Fiji.” Some, of course, believe that true democracy is neither extant nor even possible, instead coming at best in the guise of technocracy, in which the propaganda machine “manufactures” consent for government policies, or mediaocracy, in which the populace is both controlled and distracted by a compliant media, including blogs. Propaganda, of course, is practiced largely through disinformation, as Croz himself has pointed out. Spreading false and distorted information is widely used as a technique to discredit regime critics in Fiji, as I know from personal experience, but to be effective it must be artfully done and not easily refuted, or the public will see through it. Counterpropaganda, such as I have been engaged in recently, is aimed at exposing disinformation.

Which brings me to Professor Walsh’s blog entry of yesterday. In it, he attacked Radio Australia journalist Bruce Hill, who is one of the few reporters who covers the Pacific critically, for his interview with outgoing constitution commission chair Yash Ghai. In it, Hill managed to get Ghai to confirm rumours rampant on the blogs that printed copies of the draft constitution had been seized by the government and burned. It turns out, as usual, that there was some truth and some exaggeration to the rumours. Yes, the press run of 600 copies had been seized by police, but only a few “proof” copies used for making corrections were actually burned. Yet the account provided in the telephone interview with Ghai was extremely vivid and a scoop of major proportions for Hill. As Ghai recalled: “I was saying ‘Why are you setting it on fire?’”

They brought a tin of kerosene and spread all the papers, brought some stick with a flame at the end and started the burning of it, and every few minutes or seconds they would come and put another dose of kerosene, so the flames would rise up again until everything was reduced to ashes.

Walsh, in his capacity as Chief Apologist for the regime, found the interview “inflammatory” (pun intended). He published a transcript on his blog, which was annoted with his comments. He highlighted in bold, italics, and underlining where he thought the interview was inflammatory (no pun intended), questionable, or mistaken. He quibbled with Ghai’s legal status, now that his commission has run its course, and he objected to the interview’s focus on the imagery of incineration. But most of all he objected to Hill’s choice of questions in drawing the story out of Ghai. “It shows how a supposedly neutral interviewer reveals his true colours,” complained Croz.

No one could possibly be in doubt about his feelings during the Yash Ghai interview. There was no attempt at neutrality. He provided a grossly inadequate background, did not challenge Prof Ghai on some matters that should have been questioned, and towards the end of the interview when talking about the "burning" incident he asked a string of heavy loaded leading questions.

As evidence of bias, he pointed to a comment Hill purportedly made in introducing his recorded interview with Ghai. “Predictably the regime has not responded to the allegations.” There is only one small problem with that quote. Hill never said it. Walsh was obviously working off the version published by Coup 4.5. Here’s what Hill said:

“The Fiji interim government has so far not responded to the allegations.”

That was obviously a bit too bland for the mad bombers at C4.5, who perhaps thought it was OK to spice up the copypasta by adding “predictably” and changing the regime’s preferred “interim government” to . . . well, “regime.” I pointed out to Croz in a comment posted on his blog before I discovered the above discrepancy that from visiting with Bruce and his producers in their Melbourne studios recently I found they bend over backwards to be fair to Fiji. No doubt this is as a result of numerous complaints which have issued from the regime and its apologists. What Croz seems to object to most is the imagery Hill evoked with the burning of the proofs of the draft constitution. Believe me, any world-class journalist would have done the same. That Walsh would argue he should not have played up that aspect of the story, which was big enough to make the ABC television news, only betrays his own bias. Judging by the other comments on Walsh's blog entry, he may have lost any credibility he once enjoyed. My advice to Croz: “I suggest you quit before you become even more of a laughing stock.” Obviously as thin-skinned as the regime he relentlessly defends and perhaps as understanding of the essential role censorship plays in propaganda, Walsh deleted by comment as "offensive," while he left up one that referred to his wife as a "slut." To my mind, that makes him a shameless censor in addition to a puppet propagandist.

Now I have some more advice for you, Croz. You owe Bruce Hill an apology. Brutally frank, perhaps, but someone had to say it.

Press freedom guaranteed, but only if. . . .

Press freedom is guaranteed in the proposed Bill of Rights contained in the draft constitution that was delivered by Yash Ghai and his team last week. For press freedom to become a reality in Fiji, however, the document lists provisions of the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree and other laws made by the interim government that must be repealed. The draft constitution’s freedom of expression guarantees are almost identical to those contained in the 1997 constitution, with a couple of additions, including academic freedom (wouldn't that be nice?) and "freedom of imagination." Here’s the new section.

Article 27  Freedom of expression, publication and media

(1) Everyone has freedom of expression and publication, which includes––

(a) freedom to seek, receive and impart information, knowledge and ideas;

(b) freedom of the press, including print, electronic and other media;

(c) freedom of imagination and creativity; and

(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

The subsequent limiting section is considerably different from that contained in the 1997 constitution, however. (NOTE: A listing of allowable limitations on freedom of expression that was dropped from the 1997 constitution has been deleted, as those limitations are allowed for elsewhere in the draft constitution.) The 1997 constitution’s hate speech provision has been retained in the draft constitution, but with reference to a longer list of prohibited types of discrimination. Under Article 21 (3), discrimination is prohibited on the basis of 20 categories: “birth, age, ethnicity, social origin, race, colour, primary language, religion, conscience, belief, culture, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital status, disability, social status or economic status.” That compares to the dozen types of discrimination prohibited in the 1997 constitution: “race, ethnic origin, colour, place of origin, gender, sexual orientation, birth, primary language, economic status, age or disability; or opinions or beliefs.” Here’s the complete limiting section.

(2) Freedom of expression and publication does not protect–

(a) propaganda for war;

(b) incitement to violence or insurrection against this Constitution; or

(c) advocacy of hatred that––

(i) is based on any prohibited ground of discrimination listed or contemplated in Article 21 (3); and

(ii) constitutes incitement to cause harm.

(NOTE: An extraneous subsection to this article appeared earlier by mistake and has been deleted.)

Licensing of media is allowed in the draft constitution only for the allocation of broadcasting frequencies. Other media, it explicitly states, "must not be subject to licensing." Procedures for regulating the airwaves, it adds, "must be independent of control by government, political interests or commercial interests." Article 57 Regulation of public media begins by stating: "Free and open discussion and dissemination of ideas is essential in a democratic society." State-owned media, it goes on to state, "are free to determine the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications independent of political or government control." State-owned media must be impartial, it adds, and must allow divergent views and dissenting opinions. In an apparent swipe at the Media Decree's unilateral regulation of media content, the draft constitution explicity reserves that power for elected legislators, stating: "An Act of Parliament must establish a body to set media standards and regulate and monitor compliance with those standards." Such a body must be independent of government control and political or commercial interests, according to the draft constitution, and must "reflect the interests of all sections of the society." Candidates and political parties contesting an election, states Article 60 Campaigning, may not be denied reasonable access to state-owned media.

In a separate Explanatory Report, the constitution commission states that  laws that are inconsistent with its proposed Bill of Rights would have to be repealed or amended, including the Media Decree, the Television Decree, and the State Proceedings Amendment Decree. Included in the sections of the Media Decree to be repealed is the controversial Section 8, which vaguely prohibits publication of anything "against public interest or order, or national interest, or which offends against good taste or decency and creates communal discord." As Shailendra Singh pointed out, "what is for or against the public interest can be a highly debatable issue."

The government can have one view, the opposition another and the media an entirely different one. Some believe plurality of views is healthy for Fiji. Others believe Fiji needs a benevolent dictatorship. But the question remains: Will a newspaper be guilty of a crime if it were to carry a strident editorial opposed to the government’s stand on an issue concerning the national interest?

Also to be dropped from the Media Decree under the draft constitution would be the Media Code of Ethics and Practice, under which journalists are now subject to sanction for what were once ethical guidelines. So is the provision that decisions under the decree may not be appealed to the courts, which the constitution commission has taken a dim view of generally. "The aim is that everyone will have physical access to a court, and to an appeal to a higher level of court," it states in the Explanatory Report. Also to be repealed is the provision of the 2012 Television Decree that prevents stations from going to court to appeal the lifting of their licence by the government. So is the section of the 2012 State Proceedings Amendment Decree which grants government ministers and media outlets immunity from defamation lawsuits for making or publishing defamatory statements.

Graham Davis is the lowest of scum

Imagine if emails you and others wrote were regularly published by a Bully Blogger in another country who used them in howling for you to be sacked from your job. Imagine if these blog attacks were then published across full pages of the next day's editions of a newspaper in your town. Imagine if these attacks went on for days and months. Imagine if you were criticised for something and the reasons advanced for your actions had nothing to do with what actually happened, yet as a professional you were ethically prevented from discussing the case publicly. Imagine if another person then launched a vile blog attack against you, and you were again enjoined from responding to its feeble logic.

How low can you go?

Imagine if this Bully Blogger criticised you for advocating for press freedom, insisting that a more government-friendly form of journalism was the only appropriate model for your host country and region. Forget for a moment that you had studied for years at a top journalism school and that you had not only earned a doctorate in the subject but had also taught international journalism at universities in several countries. This blogger was convinced that he knew better and that because you were an outsider you didn't have the right to advocate for what you believed was the best type of journalism. And imagine that you were forced to endure threats of not only violence but even death posted by anonymous commenters on this blog. And that those who dared to support you were attacked by others, who even posted their names and threatened that they would never get jobs in their chosen field.

Now imagine if your blogging bête noire admitted that he was a paid propaganda agent of an American public relations company hired by the dictator who had taken power in your host country, and that its specialty was engineering social media smear campaigns against regime critics. And that you did a bit of research on these spin doctors and posted on your own blog some information that was easily found elsewhere on the Internet, only to have the government complain and order you to apologise and delete the blog entry. And imagine that you told a joke about this propaganda outfit at an event, only to have the regime and the blogger complain about that as well. And finally, that you forwarded a funny email ridiculing both blogger and regime, which brought not only more complaints that it insulted the Glorious Leader, but also threats that your work permit could be revoked at any time.

And imagine if, unbelievably, this blogger-cum-propagandist actually held himself out as a reputable journalist in his own country and even hosted a weekly public affairs programme on national television. (How long do you think that is going to last?) And that he had won journalism awards and helped to review the journalism code of ethics in his country.

It all sounds a little bit unbelievable, doesn't it? Well, that is the nightmare I have been living for the past few months. Mercifully, it is now over. But the counteroffensive has only just begun.

Who is Truncated Lounge?

Fiji's most entertaining letter writer has gone mainstream. That is, if you consider the Discombobulated Bubu blog mainstream. The fictitous correspondence between Permanent Secretary for Information Sharon Smith-Johns and regime propagandist Graham Davis is side-splitting hilarious. I was lucky enough to get on the email distribution list early on. The missives come from someone who calls himself Truncated Lounge. The first mention I can find of them online came from pro-regime blogger Crosbie Walsh, who has become Crazy Welsh in the letters. Croz mentioned in a comment of 6 October that he had received "a cleverly written but insulting email." My favorite blog commenter, Graham is a sellout, then pasted the letter into the comments section of Walsh's blog, but disavowed authorship, claiming he had also received it by email. He urged the octagenarian Kiwi to lighten up. "In defence it clearly says this is a spoof so stop being so prim and proper for once Croz and have a laugh." At first the letters showed up once a week. With the crisis in constitutional consulations that hit Fiji in November, however, they started coming daily. My favorite passage was in the letter of 26 October.

The boys in green had a good idea to save money. They decided that if all prisoners only had one leg they would not be able to escape. So they have just tested it out and amputated the leg of one of the BSP bank robbers. In theory it is a great idea but as ever they don’t think things through properly. They are now going to have to add an extra 2 feet to every prison wall in Fiji because as we saw in the Olympics one legged Fijians are the best jumpers.

I simply had to reply to that one and used my best reporter's skills to try and learn TL's identity, but he refused to be outed.

I prefer to remain anonymous. I am a Fijian with only a Fijian passport and I need to work here in Fiji. But I am frustrated by ex pats teling us what to do and this little letter is really a way to vent my frustrations.

I have been hounded out of Fiji

Did I jump, or was I pushed?

Let's just say it was a little bit of both. I was certainly pushed. To the Edge, you might say. In the end, I decided it would be better to make an orderly exit from Fiji than to be bundled off kicking and screaming under a deportation order. Unfortunately, this blog made things a little bit too hot for me with the country's military dictatorship. It complained endlessly about entries that questioned media-related decrees, such as the TV Decree, and more recently about my efforts to shine some light on the regime's propaganda machine. It even complained about a joke I told about regime propagandist Qorvis Communications and then about a funny email that I forwarded. The email was the latest installment in the satirical "Shazzer and Grubby" series of fictitous love letters between chief propagandist Sharon Smith-Johns and blowhard blogger Graham Davis. As this one involved me, I thought certain people would like to read it. I particularly enjoyed this passage.

“Shazzer, my flaming Goddess.” You addressed me in your whiney little boy voice. “Professor Edge has been mean to me. He has been saying nasty things about me and writing them on his blog. He has been weally, weally mean and I can’t shut him up and he just ignores my award winning attacks on him. I don’t think he knows I won a Walkley and a Logie otherwise he would treat me with more respect. Perhaps no one has heard of them outside of Tasmania.” You got down on your knees before me and continued. “Pwease my bwutiful goddess will you get him sacked and deported. Send him back to Canada.”

Happily, these riotous letters are now being published on the Discombobulated Bubu blog, with some dandy illustrations added. The identity of the author has become the subject of intense speculation in Fiji. He calls himself Truncated Lounge (I infer the gender from his email address), and we have struck up a correspondence. He is rightly guarded about anything that might give himself away. We are united in our drive to destroy Shazzer and Grubby through mirth, if there is no other way. Regime cyberbully Davis, of course, was the main agent of my downfall with his constant carping about my advocacy for press freedom, media and democracy, journalism standards, etc. I seem to have become an obsession for Davis, as I have been all he has been able to blog about for two months. First he got my scalp, but that wasn't enough. He wanted my head, and he put enough pressure on that he got it. But two can play at that game. Stay tuned for the revenge. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. Then you can look forward to buying the book. I am told that it might even be a movie. If so, I want Tom Cruise to play me. But who should play Grubby? Surely someone suitably villainous. Suggestions?

But the nail in my proverbial coffin likely came from old Crosbie Walsh, whose recent junket to Suva drew a rebuke in the last blog entry I dared post before exiting the country. Well, except for the cryptic comic book cover that signaled my existential struggle, and a dandy shot of Cyclone Evan as it ravaged the islands. Old Croz announced that the Fiji government had paid his way to Suva for a visit so he could write about it on his blog, then seemed surprised when some, including me, pointed out the conflict of interest this created. According to Croz, I did not have the right to criticise him because . . . well, because he's somehow above criticism and, more importantly, he has the dictator on his side. Others, he pointed out, had been thrown out of the country for less. "He is on a work permit issued by the Fiji government he constantly criticises, and a significant portion of his salary is paid for by the Fiji Government," scolded the regime's Chief Apologist. "He is not a citizen and is a relative newcomer to Fiji. If I were similarly placed, I would listen and say little."

Well, let's just say that when this came to the attention of the powers that be, my days in Fiji were numbered. The cretins in the regime don't like criticism, either. But here's the delicious irony. They think they can get rid of the problem I created for them by getting rid of me. But they are so intellectually challenged that they can't think more than one move ahead. As long as I was in Fiji, they had some control over me. I had to maintain at least a modicum of respect for a regime for which I have none. Now, the gloves will be off. I can blog as often as I want about anything I want. Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama will now be Commodore Frankly Bananas, as Truncated Lounge so delicously labeled the Tinpot Dictator. I have re-posted my entry of November 1, "Who/what is Qorvis Communications," which I took down after a demand to do so by Permanent Secretary for Information Sharon Smith-Johns. I will have much to say about this Aussie she-devil in coming weeks, as her reign of terror over Fiji media simply must end if there is to be any hope for democracy in that benighted Pacific outpost. Luckily the banned blog entry lived on thanks to Fiji Today, which aggregates almost anything of interest in Fiji politics. I am also posting an entry I wrote at the height of the assault on me in mid-November, "Who is Truncated Lounge," but dared not publish while I was still in the country. And I have a half dozen fresh entries in the hopper which I will post over the next few weeks. I will be making Fiji media a research interest of mine wherever I wind up teaching next, and I have ideas for several journal articles, not to mention the promised book, which will be titled Fiji Media Wars: The Story of a Blog.

I have proudly joined the ranks of Fiji Freedom Bloggers. Hang on tight. This is gonna be fun!

Damn you, Cyclone Evan

RuPaul's Drag Race’s Exec Producer & a GLAAD Awards Nominated Blogger Both De-friended Me from Facebook for Simply Sending Them This Article: 11 Ways Men Can Be Better Feminist Allies

Last month, days after the transsexual community and allies started a boycott against RuPaul's Drag Race due to RuPaul misgendering and bullying women of transsexual history in a recent episode, I thought I'd let one of the show's executive producers and a GLAAD Award nominated blogger (both of who were 'friends' of mine of Facebook, both who are gay white men and both who have offended many women in my community in the past) what was behind the public outcry against RuPaul's anti-transsexual comments.

I sent them a non-offensive article written by Ozy Franz that I had found online, which is a resource to help men who seem to be clueless as to why why women get fed up with misgendering and sexism.

The same day I tagged both men this much needed advice they each deleted me from Facebook. And that is their right. Yet I'm not sure why they were so upset about the opportunity to actually educate themselves on how they could treat the women in my community better, especially the RuPaul's Drag Race producer, who's company (World of Wonder) and himself have many times participated in projects which exploit and demean the women in my community. Well, either the truth hurts, they didn't want their followers to read up on being better feminists or, like the national LGB media outlets, they wanted to censor the dissent of transsexual community altogether. Whatever the reason, I thought I'd repost the article on my blog so that more people can understand why women of transsexual history are fed up with some gay men thinking they can get away with bullying us.

11 Ways Men Can Be Better Feminist Allies
by Ozy Frantz

Originally posted on: http://www.rolereboot.org/sex-and-relationships/details/2012-07-11-ways-men-can-be-better-feminist-allies

1) Educate yourself. One summer, in high school, I literally read every book the library had about feminism. You don’t have to go that far, but a familiarity with concepts like male privilege, slut-shaming, and rape culture can give you a lot more understanding of how gender works.

2) Don’t be that asshole. Don’t assume that the women in the room have no idea what they’re talking about regarding gender. (If they clearly don’t, well, see #4.) Don’t expect to be thrown a parade because you’ve decided to vote pro-choice. Don’t forget that most men are not feminists and that many feminists are survivors of rape or abuse, and that you’re not sending out Beacons of Awesomeness that show that everyone has to trust you. Check your privilege.

3) Talk to your male friends. It’s sad but true: For a lot of people, men have more credence when talking about gender issues than women do. If your friend tells a rape joke or says that women just aren’t as good at science as men are, challenge them on it. A lot of times, people can’t think of anything to say in the moment; if that’s you, prepare comebacks in advance so you know exactly what to say when it comes up. Even if you forget in the moment, a simple “that’s not cool, dude” can go a long way.

4) Challenge your female friends. A lot of people say that men shouldn’t tell women when they’re being misogynistic. That’s crap. There are plenty of sexist women in the world and they should not get a free pass. If your friend starts snarking about a fat woman or saying that she’s so much better than all those silly other women that are only concerned about their hair and boys, tell her she’s full of it. Other women will thank you.

5) Consume media made by women. A lot of people listen to music made by men, read books written by men, watch movies directed by and starring men—without even realizing it. That’s stupid! It neglects women’s voices and experiences; besides, think of all the amazing talent you’re missing because of their gender. If you like comics, try Alison Bechdel or Gail Simone; if you like movies, look for Kathryn Bigelow or the late Nora Ephron; if you appreciate music, add some Bikini Kill or Nicki Minaj to your playlists.

6) Practice good consent. The general rule is that all sex should be sex that everyone involved wants. I know you, personally, would never have sex with someone who said no, but good consent goes far beyond that. Talk openly and honestly with your partner(s) about your and their sexual desires. Check in when your partner seems to not be enjoying themselves. Eschew pressure and coercion. And the same applies to you—if you’re being pressured or coerced or not having your consent respected, you are not in a healthy relationship.

7) Believe the survivor. It’s true that occasionally people falsely accuse other people of rape or abuse. This is very rare, however, and time spent figuring out the truth is time not spent supporting the survivor. Also, if there is a rapist or abuser in your social group, don’t take “I don’t do drama” as a reason to keep hanging out with them. Not being invited to parties is not a cruel and unusual punishment, and most rapists are repeat rapists. You can keep them from doing it again.

8) Support women’s bodily autonomy. On a political level, of course, one should fight pro-life initiatives, attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood, forced sterilization efforts, etc. On a personal level, of course, it’s almost more important. If your partner gets pregnant, it’s up to her whether to have an abortion, give the child up for adoption, or raise the kid. Her body, her rules. If a woman is having sex with hundreds of people, don’t call her a dirty slut; if she’s a virgin until marriage, don’t call her a prude. Her body, her rules. If she weighs more than you think she should, don’t call her fat or tell her to go on a diet; if she weighs less, don’t tell her to eat a sandwich. It’s her body and, ultimately, what makes her comfortable in it is what matters.

9) Be a feminist because you support equal rights. Don’t become a feminist because you want to get a girlfriend or because you heard that feminist chicks are easy. Don’t become a feminist because your girlfriend is a feminist and you want to get in good with her. Don’t, for God’s sake, take women’s studies classes because it’s an easy A. Become a feminist because you believe women are people and you will not be satisfied until they are fully treated as such.

10) Be intentional. Maybe it’s best for your family that your wife sacrifice her career to raise kids. But is it really, or are you just assuming that because it’s the narrative you’re used to? Maybe you’re only attracted to 22-year-old blonde skinny women. But are you really, or have you simply not explored your attraction to other people? It’s OK to do things that look anti-feminist to outsiders...as long as it is honestly what you want, and not just falling into the patriarchal rut because you haven’t thought about the other options.

11) Don’t satisfy yourself with just being a feminist. If you are just a feminist, you’re only advocating for the rights of women—which means that you’re advocating for the rights of straight, white, abled, middle-to-upper-class, privileged women. Everyone else? They suffer from racism, queerphobia, ableism, or classism in addition to sexism. Fighting for those rights means fighting for everyone’s rights.

Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman; identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary; and blogs at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?

To the gay male TV and film producers who like to defame the women in my community, and to the gay male dominated 'LGBT' media outlets and 'LGBT' media watch dogs who like to censor our dissent against this defamation:

What we now know about news and news revenue in the digital world

There has now been enough experience and research to draw conclusions about how news is transitioning to the digital world and what it means for news companies. If one objectively views the developments, one sees that the current developments are is neither as bleak as some journalists portray them nor as rosy as some digerati frame them. Instead, we have reached a point where digital news is becoming workable in commercial terms, but is not yet mature enough to erase the industry's business challenges.

News consumption in the digital environment is significant and audience reach is now 5 to 10 times larger across digital platforms than for print editions of most newspapers.  Many large news organizations are now generating 15-25 percent of their revenue from online, tablet, and smartphone platforms and benefits are starting to appear for some mid-sized players as well.

If we look at what has occurred in the past decade, there are some important lessons to embrace about news businesses in the digital environment:

• Commoditized news does not create economic value; you have to provide something unique if you are going to get the public to pay for it
• Consumer payments are becoming a more important revenue source than advertising and success come through creating more sources of revenue than merely audience sales and advertising sales
• Paid apps for news on smartphones and tablets are gaining better acceptance than general online payments, and
• new partners, networks, and value configurations are needed in the digital world.

When it comes to payment issues we now know that:

• Willingness to pay is affected by the platform used (partly because of expectations and traditions and partly because of better payment interfaces), as well as the number of free digital competitors in the market
• Willingness to pay ranges from about 4 to 12 percent of the public in markets that have been studied
• Larger legacy news players seem to have advantages when seeking digital payments because of their offline size and resources and the strengths of their brands
• Instituting a paywall reduces website traffic between 85-95 percent
• Metered ( freemium) models provide brand and marketing advantages and reduce traffic loss somewhat
• Cooperative paywalls involving multiple newspapers are beginning to work in some locations and provide economies of scale and transaction cost saving that are useful for smaller organizations
• Public affairs magazines are finding it easier to get the public to pay than newspapers, especially on tablets. This may be due to differences in how they approach and present content.

It is also apparent that users expect more from digital environments than the print environment and that they are more willing to use and pay for news if it offers a better experience (convenience, simplicity, ease of reading/viewing, enjoyment), if they can influence the presentation and consumption and interact with content and other users, if content includes more analysis and access to additional material, if it includes audio-visual material, and if it offers various usability tools. Those factors mean that news organizations have to offer digital content that differs from the print newspaper in many ways.

We have learned that to make money from news in the digital world companies have to focus on customer needs (not the needs of the news organization), must be realistic about financial expectations (you won’t make as much money as in the 1990s and growth won’t be highly rapid), and that you cannot just transfer the same content among platforms because each platform requires different types of presentations, story forms and navigation.

Some news organizations are making good progress in getting things right and the public is increasingly seeing value provided by news on digital platforms and evidencing increased willingness to pay. Most news enterprises still have a long way to go, but we have no reason to be  highly pessimistic about the future of news in the digital world.