Because Britney's lack of hair is more important.

March 6, 2007 7:55 AM

You would think that with 4,000 women and 200 girls together, along with hundreds of NGOs and representatives of 45 governments the United Nations' Commission on the Status of Women would be well covered by the media. Sadly, it is not: this year only 10 journalists demanded media accreditation to cover the international meeting, while pro-life groups are more than happy to send delegates arguing that "governments should protect girls from the moment of conception." The Commission however is no small event: it provided a legal frame protecting the rights of women and girls worldwide (those rights were officially adopted in the early 90s [!]). It also provides standards to which participant countries must try live up to. This blog takes us backstage, behind the CSW's scene.
posted by Sijeka (21 comments total)

No press in sight? You should go to any forum here in Washington DC, New York, London, or The Hague. The press is not in attendance because the groups that were started to cover these stories have changed topics, discovered their audience has moved on, or closed. A recent cover of the Journal of Women in the Americas looked at the Sexuality Gap in the American liberal landscape, rather than this.

As a religion journalist I cannot tell you the number of times I have been to conferences large and small to discover I am the only journalist in attendance. Made harder is the fact that I am a broadcast journalist, and have just one hour each week on public radio to showcase all of the amazing organizations on the left and right and middle that are working to address issues of the working poor, women, children, and families.

What is sad is not that the press did not show up, but that the UN is so strapped for cash its own journalists (of whom they have dozens) could not step up to write the articles themselves. More, the religious right, who Sijeka mentions in her post, aren't covering these events in their own media. Tackling international abortion issues does not bring in the same amount or kind of cash that conservative religious groups thrive on. When Bob Tilton goes to Africa, he passes the plate. What the religious right doesn't want you to know is that they cannot get audiences in developing countries to address issues of abortion and family planning. What the religious left does not want its constituency to hear is that they have given up hope in the United Nations as a policy body.
posted by parmanparman at 8:22 AM on March 6, 2007

Whiny Metafilter posts about how the media isn't covering this or that ever so worthy happening are so annoying. Please stop!!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:29 AM on March 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

It's interesting that you don't consider Britney's collapse under the weight of a celebrity/god culture a point to consider when speaking of women's issues.
posted by four panels at 8:29 AM on March 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

This might be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's important to remember that the U.N. is an international organization that is supposed to reflect the values of its member states. Many of those member states are devoutly Christian (on a level which the U.S. simply does not compare).

I don't have much firsthand experience with the U.N., but at OAS (Organization of American States) meetings, it is not unusual to see Canada and the U.S. striking rather far out on their own in "failing" to protect life from the moment of conception. This is not wholly the product of what we have come to call the "religious right" in America. Of course, that is more of a case with the OAS given the values and religious bent of the member nations, but it is still important to remember that in some ways, we are in the minority.

What the religious right doesn't want you to know is that they cannot get audiences in developing countries to address issues of abortion and family planning.

Really? In Brazil? In the Philippines? How about Nigeria?
posted by dreamsign at 8:34 AM on March 6, 2007

This might be a bitter pill to swallow, but it's important to remember that the U.N. is an international organization that is supposed to reflect the values of its member states. Many of those member states are devoutly Christian (on a level which the U.S. simply does not compare).

You have it wrong, Dreamsign, the devoutly Christian people who attend these family planning conferences are not reps from countries, they are reps from devoutly Christian organizations. In fact, any 501(c)3 organization can get observer status at the UN to attend these conferences. Some are part-independent, like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, but most, like Stop Planned Parenthood, are totally political.
posted by parmanparman at 8:39 AM on March 6, 2007

Really? In Brazil? In the Philippines? How about Nigeria?

Abortion is legal in all three of these countries.
posted by parmanparman at 8:42 AM on March 6, 2007

I've never been to a family planning conference. I have been to human rights instruments conferences and had to try to explain to representatives of member states why we were "failing" to protect life from the moment of conception.

Sorry if that is a derail. I can see that the "delegates" that sijeka is describing are of a different bent, but I just wanted to point out that the problem, as we perceive it mark, goes deeper than that.

And now I must sleep as I have early classes. Sorry to bow out.
posted by dreamsign at 8:43 AM on March 6, 2007

Four panels: Fair enough, fair enough, point taken. But I'm more interested in the 50 million something girls waiting to be schooled worldwide rather than Britney Spears' bipolar-ish behaviour.
posted by Sijeka at 8:44 AM on March 6, 2007

Then STOP READING THE BRITNEY SPEARS NEWS
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:46 AM on March 6, 2007

.... Not to mention that the Britney title was about the unbalance of women-centered coverage in the media. Britney shaves her head,and serious publications publish grave articles about "why women have the right to go bald".

The UN has a meeting that can provide countries with real tools to make tangible differences for women worldwide, and everyone's like, yawn, call me when it's over.
posted by Sijeka at 8:49 AM on March 6, 2007

WTF thirteen killer? Just because I chose or not to read about it doesn't mean I can't be offended by its prominence in the media at the expense of other topics.
posted by Sijeka at 8:50 AM on March 6, 2007

WTF thirteen killer? Just because I choose (or not) to read about it doesn't mean I can't be offended by its prominence in the media at the expense of other topics.
posted by Sijeka at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2007

/sorry double
posted by Sijeka at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2007

chat filter
posted by parmanparman at 8:54 AM on March 6, 2007

I agree that the popular media is more focused on entertainment issues than issues some of us might consider important. That said, thirteenkiller makes a good point, whether or not it was intended as such. The media focuses on Britney's bald noggin because people like us are paying attention to the media when they do. Maybe not us personally, but enough people to make a business out of reporting the emotional breakdowns of the rich and famous but ultimately human.
posted by katillathehun at 9:11 AM on March 6, 2007

Sorry to be snarky. I just think there are better ways to present this information than immediately contrasting it with pop celebrity news. We're all sick of Britney Spears, but the news content gripe has been done here repeatedly, and it's gotten tired and predictable. We know conventional mass media sucks in many ways! It's understood. That's why we come here! Anyway, that's all.
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:30 AM on March 6, 2007

Is there anything more toothless than a UN commision?
posted by smackfu at 9:52 AM on March 6, 2007

A lame duck president?
posted by mikhail at 10:12 AM on March 6, 2007

Unfortunately, for most major international conferences, the media coverage is negligible.

This keeps Americans isolated from the what the world is talking about. There are countless issues and events that the avereage American is never exposed to.

Instead they get a steady diet of Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. And even those who do cover the international scene do so in such a fashion that it is hardly serious - Anderson Cooper for example.
posted by pwedza at 11:01 AM on March 6, 2007

Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq
posted by homunculus at 1:18 PM on March 6, 2007

This blog takes us backstage, behind the CSW's scene.

Sweet! I want all the gossip! Who's had plastic surgery, who's bulimic, who bitchslapped who for making a pass at a boyfriend...
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:31 PM on March 6, 2007