Evaluation of News Magazine Stories

I was having some trouble finding two-sided/debating conversations on twitter (surprisingly, given my major) so I'm happy that I have the task of evaluating other types of media. I think I can find really interesting debates within news magazines, with an actual specific event. A lot of twitter consisted of general topics, and little specificity. I clicked "The Nation" magazine link first because I read it sometimes, anyways, and always enjoy the stories in it. For a second magazine, I picked the "National Review," a more conservative platform because I think it will give me much different opinions on topics related to my gender and women's studies major.

1st Magazine: The Nation article 

1. What is the debate, disagreement or argument in the story about? Explain concisely, but with specificity and precision. Name specific people, places, things, events, dates, times and/or other identifying details.

In the article "Why I'm Ready For More Slavery Films", by Mychal Denzel Smith on January 29th, 2016 in "The Nation," elements of an argument are present. Smith disagrees with Kara Brown at "Jezebel" in her article, "I'm So Damn Tired of Slave Movies." Kara brown does not want slavery movies, claiming there are so many out there. Meanwhile, Smith wants tons because he thinks that America would rather not feel the guilt, nor would they want to understand the societal, political and economical influence of slavery.

 Smith says that Brown, who says she will see The Birth of a Nation, wrote: "...apart of me is torn about sitting through yet another film that centers around the brutalization of black people. Frankly, I'm tired of slavery movies." Smith disagrees with Kara Brown, but that does not mean he wants more slavery movies because he likes to see the brutalization of black people... First, Smith claims that Brown's argument is NOT that she does not want more slavery films because there are too many films on the matter already out there. Smith suggests, rather, that she objects slavery films because they inflict pain, since they depict the truth of America's past; where a time existed when white people would enslave black people. Smith also contends that there really are not that many of these kinds of movies out there. He says that these blockbuster films centering around slavery may stick out compared to others stories told simply because there are little films featuring black leading actors (and black actors in general).


2. Who is the most sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why do they evoke feelings of sympathy from you?

Smith makes readers sympathize for black actors, and black people, in general in order to prove the point that America is trying to push our cultural history out of our heads. In the story it gives evidence showing the discrimination in the film industry and shows how rare it is for black actors to be casted in films. Smith highlighted that Brown and others probably think there exists enough movies about slavery due to the fact that there is a shortage of movies with black actors, to begin with.

3. Who is the least sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why can't you easily sympathize with them?

Smith's story targets Kara Brown, but also politicians, pundits, and all Americans. Smith claims that white americans don't want more slavery movies because it reminds us of our brutal past- but that we cannot forget it. You cannot easily sympathize with them because Smith portrays them as being cowardly and needing to realize that the slavery films "barely scratch the surface on any of these issues" (issues that came with slavery).

2nd Magazine: National Review article

1. What is the debate, disagreement or argument in the story about? Explain cocisely, but with specificity and precision. Name specific people, places, things, events, dates, times and/or other identifying details.

In the story written by Carrie Lukas, "Stay-at-Home Moms Aren't Unjustly 'Unpaid' Laborers from "National Review," a disagreement is explored. On January 13th, 2016 at 3:45 PM Lukas disagrees with Judith Shulevitz of the "New York Times," after she called for a "universal basic income as reparations for women" in her article. Judith made her proposal in the NYT magazine on Sunday, January 10th, 2016 in her article: "It's Payback Time for Women." Lukas argues that paying women who do not bring in wealth to the family or neighborhood does not seem right.

Jbarta. "Good_housekeeping_1908_08_a" 6/3/11 via Wikipedia. Public Domain License.

2. Who is the most sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why do they evoke feelings of sympathy from you?

 Carrie Lukas' bias is clear. She does not agree with Shulevitz, and argues (calling Shulevitz and supporters "feminists") that "feminists" just assume that staying at home as the caregiver equates to having a monotonous job that is not as luxurious as the men who go to work and feel fulfilled. Lukas says, "Men aren't all sitting in board rooms smoking cigars and being showered with fat paychecks; rather, men often work in unpleasant work conditions -- on fishing boats, in mines, in prisons." Lukas portrays men as caring, hard-workers who sacrifice to come home to their children and wives, and share the money they have earned.


3. Who is the least sympathetic character in the story? Who are they? How are they involved? Why can't you easily sympathize with them?

Feminists and liberals are the least sympathetic because Lukas describes them and their actions in a negative light. She argues that Shulevitz' article discussed in the story is "rehashing the tired, feminist trope." Lukas does not agree with Shulevitz, and does not believe that women who stay at home and take care of their kids should earn some kind of a wage. She uses sarcasm, and claims that feminists "are among the biggest offenders in belittling women outside of the workforce." Lukas attempts to poke holes in Shulevitz' argument, and feminist aims in general.