minalisms

A mundane day at work yesterday was salvaged by a lunchtime conversation related to NPR.

My co-worker mentioned that she heard of the book “Not Quite What I was Planning: Six-Word Memoirs from Writers Famous and Obscure” on public radio. This style of storytelling — consisting of just six words — is a variation of Flash Fiction.

For example, Ernest Hemingway once wrote this tale: “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” (I could cry over its poignancy.)

So naturally, upon hearing of the method, the four employees sitting at the round table silently began to concoct their own story. I haven’t finished mine yet; it’s a memoir.

But here are a few of my favorites from others:

He read his obituary with confusion.

Three to Iraq. One came back.

Longed for him. Got him. Shit.”

What’s your story?

Did anybody witness the recent and now-infamous “fist bump” between Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle?

A fist bump or “closed-fisted high-five,” as The New York Times referred to it, is commonly called a “pound” or “dap.” It’s been used for decades as a greeting or a gesture to signify respect. What it’s not is “Hezbollah-style fist-jabbing” the nutty, ignorant, racist fear mongers call it.

Fox News aside, does this mean that neither The Times nor the Washington Post, which called it “fist bump,” had people in their newsrooms who could enlighten fellow editors about today’s lingo? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t readers be worried?

I remember a discussion with a co-worker a while back about fair and accurate representation by media. She said some of the journalism coming out of our newsroom — and others around the country — suffers because of homogeneity among its representatives: Many of us are around the same age, married with children, and live in modest homes in middle-class neighborhoods. She went on to say that we’re not paying attention to wide representation among sources in stories either, thus forgoing variety and complexity for convenience and familiarity.

Knowing this, could an African-American college student from out of state depend on us to report the news in a way in which he could relate? On news that matters to him? How about a single mom on welfare who is working two jobs to pay her rent? Or a lesbian shopkeeper living in a “gay-friendly” part of the city.

Who in the newsroom is serving these vastly different individuals? Because it’s not us. Not yet.

It all makes me sad, really. We journalists couldn’t even call a pound by its true name. Now the inaccuracy has us going out like fist-bumping suckers.

And if we can’t get something so simple right, how much more are we getting wrong?

Hillary Clinton is getting a raw deal. That’s not in reference to her politics; it’s in reference to her gender.

The never-ending race for the Democratic presidential nomination between Clinton and Barack Obama is peeling back layers and layers of this country’s long-shot hope for equality.

Sexism vs. racism — which is more offensive?

Ideally, we want to believe that both are regarded with an equal degree of seriousness, because both are forms of discrimination — plain and simple. Realistically, however, that isn’t the case. Realistically, we tolerate sexism far more than we do racism.

Why?

Way back in January, while addressing supporters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Clinton was interrupted by two men who stood up with signs and repeatedly yelled, “Iron my shirt!” The signs matched their moronic proclamation. Soon after the outbursts, the men were escorted out of the building, not to be heard of or from again.

Ah, the remnants of sexism — alive and well,” Clinton said after the commotion subsided.

Upon hearing the news, reaction around the newsroom consisted of incredulity mixed with laughter. There was something about the incident that prompted some to chuckle, and conclude how ridiculous certain people can be.

Now, I’d like to present another scenario:
Let’s say that Obama was at a rally. And during his speech, two individuals stood up flaunting signs and yelling, “Shine my shoes!”

What would the reaction be to that? Would there be chuckles? Would the occurrence be chalked up merely as ridiculous? Would we forget about it three days later? Or would the media latch on to the episode to spurn scores of news stories and analyses about race relations in America?

We’d quickly describe “Shine my shoes!” toward Obama as hate speech. But never once have I heard someone describe the “Iron my shirt!” demand toward Clinton as hate speech.

Sexism and racism are both, by law, equal forms of discrimination. Yet they don’t prompt equal responses. 

Why?

When the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday to overturn the ban on gay marriage, I was curious to read what the justices would write regarding their decision.

Because it seems only fair that this nation start recognizing gay marriage as marriage, regardless of whether that term relates to the union between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman.

I thought to myself: How is this current resistance that much different from that which existed in the early part of the 20th century and beyond, when it was illegal for a black man and a white woman to marry?

And, stretching the logic a bit further, I thought: If we perceive marriage between a same-sex couple as a lesser marriage, should we perceive a parent who adopts a child as a lesser parent? Do we not give that mother and her child as equal rights as we’d give a mother who carried her child in her womb?

Parenting is parenting, the way marriage is marriage — a relationship based on love, which yields to no such barriers as race, gender, class, religion or sexual orientation.

And so said Chief Justice Ronald George of the California Supreme Court:

An individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. …Reserving the historic designation of ‘marriage’ exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples . . . equal dignity and respect.”

Yes, I thought, marveling over the simplicity of it all. 

Justice George went on to say that the ruling, which was divided 4-3, was based on California’s 1948 decision to end its ban on interracial marriage. That ruling, to my surprise, was handed down 20 years before the U.S. Supreme court followed suit. I wonder how long it’ll be before homosexuals across the nation can marry and attain the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

Describing gay marriage as “untraditional” is true. But if we remind ourselves of the past “traditions” of United States, such as slavery, does “untraditional” really sound so bad?

Sure, change is difficult to follow. But we will neither survive nor succeed unless we accept change, and then adapt to it.

As though the cyclone in Myanmar last week that has killed nearly 30,000 weren’t enough, another natural disaster lashed out today, this time in China, where the death toll from a magnitude-7.9 earthquake has already reached 10,000.

The news followed up a sad weekend story, in which about 25 people in the Midwest and South were killed by tornadoes and violent storms.

And who can forget the weeks-long saga regarding unrest in Tibet, which I’m sure has not vanished but has merely turned into an afterthought, regarded as passé by finicky editors around the nation.

This is a snapshot of my work day, and these are the types of events that comprise it. I read story after story — violent crimes rising in cash-strapped cities, Shiite militias planting roadside bombs in Iraq, the number of home foreclosures hitting a record high — gauging whether one tragedy can top another enough to make it on the front page of a 15-by-22-inch newspaper.

In my industry that’s called “news judgment.”