So goes the whole story. The basic premise here is "we are responding to a fundamental change in what women want". But, wait a minute, where is the evidence that this has changed - maybe some statistics on workforce participation, some solid social science survey, hell, even a well-conducted "pop" survey?
None, nada, not a word. The whole story is built on a premise - a very large premise - that it makes no attempt to justify or back up.
But it is worse than that: More than half of British women are currently working in a job for which they are overqualified, often because domestic responsibilities leave them too little time or energy to pursue more senior positions. "Often" - what does that mean? I could equally say - and would say - "often" women are stalled in their jobs because of male prejudice and discrimination, "often" all workers, men and women, are stalled in their careers for all sorts of reasons - from their boss not liking them to their inability to move location because of their children's schooling ...
Now I don't want to pick on these two particular journalists - they are only cogs in the wheel, and the stories products of the huge pressure to produce great headlines. But such a pity those headlines so often have no solid foundation whatsoever, and yet these are what give readers their view of the world, that guides their votes and their actions.
Article comments
1 - Victor Lana
Natalie, this post is on target. I remember even when writing for the high school newspaper, that we were told to "jazz it up" for a eye-catching headline. Never liked that idea, truthfully.
I have seen many similar cases as to the ones you describe. Now, I almost disregard the headlines. Except, of course, if I am in line at the supermarket. I just love the headlines on the newsweeklies (no naming names here). They are so outlandish that I laugh all the way through checkout. At least their editors are not pushing that junk as serious news.
2 - Nancy
The MSM are universally guilty of over-hype, to the point that, like Chicken Little or the boy who cried 'wolf', they are lacking in credibility. What is annoying is, they have the gall to wonder why.
3 - Bill Wallo
A challenging post, thanks. As to your first referenced article, I am reminded of a book I read earlier this year called Overdosed America, in which the author pointed out that drug companies (which often co-opt "independent" research) also manage to create "conditions" for which they just happen to have a product.
What you often see is an effort to redefine medical problems, or to characterize things as medical problems that had previously been largely considered unimportant.
4 - SFC SKI
Why did you limit to only those 2 articles? These are both fairly mild, and far less important in comparison to war coverage, for example. Hopefully, the MSM will stop presenting opinion as fact, and report more thoroughly, and fairly in the future. Circumspect and responsible use of unnamed sources would be another good idea.
Still, a good post, nicely researched and dissected for the reader.
5 - Pekky
You are right on here! This is one of the reasons why I left Journalism school during my undergraduate years. Lack of evidence and lack of objectivity have characterized a lot of the media lately!
Thank you for this entry!
Peace!
Pekky
6 - Silas Kain
I've got an even simpler reason why I don't trust newspapers any longer. A newspaper in a once dominant New England city was going to run a series about LBJ vs. Goldwater back in 1964. Well, a reporter or two happened to let it slip to a couple of business owners that this series was coming out. The next thing you know a couple of the newspaper's largest advertisers called the Editor of this consistently Democrat bastion and informed him that if the series ran they would pull all advertising and pump it into an alternative newspaper. Well, you know what happened, right?
Many years later, this same newspaper accepted a series of ads for a family planning clinic about to open. The first ad ran. Another never appeared. Why? Business owners called the Editor once again. What makes the story interesting is that the Editor died some time later undermysterious circumstances. It all goes to show you that money talks and the truth doesn't get printed. Now, that's not a blanket condemnation for all newspapers because broadcast news is just as slimy. Bob Woodward, once a great hero of mine, has proven that even he has a price especially in light of what he knew about Plame-gate. Thank God (and any other appropriate Deity to the reader) for the Blogosphere! We're the antidote to the Fourth Estate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Bob Novak.
7 - Natalie Bennett
Well SFC SKI, these might not be about issues of war and peace, but they are about important social issues, and this sort of campaign, sustained, is likely to have all sorts of effects on public opinion and then policy. (Eg Less provision of childcare in the second case.) So they do matter, I'd say, just as much as war and peace, but reports on such subjects are less likely to be subjected to serious scrutiny.
But thanks for the compliment!
8 - Silas Kain
Perhaps we should have you take Jeff Gannon's seat at the White House Press Room, Ms. Bennett. Maybe for once, we'd get to the heart of things. Keep on writing!
9 - Natalie Bennett
Thanks Silas - I am looking for freelance writing gigs, so if anyone wants to offer the seat ... (grin)
10 - Baronius
The have-it-all woman wants her husband to do more chores. This is breaking news.
Nice article; great documentation.