Georgia Straight Article: Senator Says Macleans Magazine Should Lose $1.5 Million Dollars Of Taxpayers Money For Racist Anti Asian Article.
Senator says Maclean’s should lose $1.5 million in federal funding over “Too Asian?” article
Comments (27) 
Senator Vivienne Poy wants the federal government to review Maclean’s public funding.
A Canadian senator is urging the federal government to pull $1.5 million in public funding from Maclean’s magazine.
Senator Vivienne Poy of Toronto has sent a letter to Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore, calling the magazine’s controversial “Too Asian?” article “offensive material” and a “legitimate reason” to revoke the publication’s federal funding.
In her letter dated December 16, Poy notes that the city councils of Vancouver, Victoria, and Toronto have all passed motions condemning the piece.
The November 10 article, since retitled “The Enrollment Controversy”, has been described as “offensive and full of stereotypes” by the Chinese Canadian National Council, which has demanded an “unqualified public apology” from Maclean’s.
Poy, a former University of Toronto chancellor, points out that the magazine has also garnered complaints that it has exhibited an “anti-Islamic bias”.
“It has offended large portions of the Canadian population through its divisive journalism, which is increasingly unprofessional,” Poy wrote in her letter. “As such, given Maclean’s propensity for speculation, editorializing, and courting controversy merely for the sake of publicity, it should no longer be deemed worthy of public funding by Canadian Heritage.”
Poy’s letter observes Maclean’s receives “substantial funding” from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Canada Periodical Fund’s list of 2010-11 recipients shows Maclean’s is due to receive $1.5 million in funding.
(The only other magazines listed as $1.5-million recipients are Canadian House & Home, Canadian Living, Chatelaine, and Reader’s Digest.)
Poy notes that publications that contain “offensive content”, such as that “denigrating to an identifiable group”, are ineligible for financial assistance from the Canada Periodical Fund.
Maclean’s—which is owned by Rogers Publishing, a subsidiary of Rogers Communications—defended its story in a November 25 commentary.
“Some of the comments we have seen on the Internet and in other media have suggested that by publishing this article, Maclean’s views Canadian universities as ‘Too Asian,’ or that we hold a negative view of Asian students,” the magazine stated.
“Nothing could be further from the truth.”
In a November 27 commentary on Straight.com, Henry Yu, an associate professor of history at the University of British Columbia, asserted that Maclean’s published response to the public outcry was a “nonapologetic nonapology”.
Upscale Magazine Interview:Lesbian Actress & Rapper Queen Latifah Almost Of Comes Out Of The Closet.
Queen Latifah Covers Upscale Magazine
You’ve been asked so much about your sexuality. Wouldn’t it be easier at this point to just speak on it-once-and be done with it?
I don’t have to explain anything. I don’t have to confirm anything. Look, I need my time. I need my life.But isn’t that a part of being a celebrity, letting people into your personal life?
You know, I was looking at something the other day. A magazine with Jennifer Aniston on the cover. That’s a strong woman right there. All of these people in her business-who is she dating? Angie this. Brad that. They come up with so much stuff. That’s a tough situation to be in. My situation is small compared to that. But still, I don’t feel like I need to explain. I’m the one living it. You write about it. You go ahead and speculate. I’ll just live it.Do you feel like you’re understood by the people closest to you?
Absolutely. I don’t feel like I need to explain things to a perfect stranger. The people who matter know. And they love me for Dana. I don’t have to tell Joe Blow. Joe, you worry about who YOU sleeping with.
LA Times Article: Twenty & Thirty Something Adults Learn Breaking Through In Hollywood Is Tough.
In Hollywood, a tougher climb to studio executive ranks
Aspiring future studio executives who start at the bottom hoping to climb to the top find themselves stuck in the middle as economic pressures squeeze the industry.
 Matthew Cohen, a former director’s assistant who wanted to be a movie producer, left his job as a creative executive at Temple Hill Entertainment this year to work for a video game development studio. (Michael Robinson Chavez, Los Angeles Times / December 19, 2010) |
E-mail
Print
When Will Hackner came to Hollywood in 2002 with dreams of becoming a movie producer, it immediately became clear what he had to do.
“Through osmosis you quickly learn that you get an internship, become an assistant, then a junior executive and you keep working your way up,” the 30-year-old graduate of New York University‘s Tisch School of the Arts said.
It’s a career path that has become the stuff of legend: Start off in the mailroom at a talent agency or doing menial tasks for a producer, director or studio executive, and one day you could be one of the empowered few who decide what movies end up on the big screen. Such well-known names as DreamWorks Studios Chairman Stacey Snider and mega-producer Brian Grazer trod that road to the top.
But as radical changes in the entertainment business force studios to cut staff, make fewer movies and generally reduce the amount of money flowing through the town, these thousands of young people have found the Hollywood career ladder a steeper and more treacherous climb.
Hackner has seen the change firsthand. Eight years ago he began his career as an intern at Nickelodeon and assistant at Warner Bros. before becoming a junior development executive for Warner’s DC Comics unit.
But in September, when he lost his job in a restructuring at DC, Hackner found himself among a growing number of 20- and 30-somethings working in show business who have been laid off or voluntarily left after concluding that there was little chance that they would ever become a studio president or film producer.
Jobs are so scarce that when Universal Pictures had an opening this year for a creative executive, or “CE” in Hollywood parlance — the job right above assistant in which young people get hands-on experience developing movie ideas — more than 200 people applied.
“What’s amazing is that nearly all of them were deeply qualified,” said Debbie Liebling, the studio’s president of production, who started her career as a junior “coordinator” at MTV. “That brought home that it’s genuinely harder now than when I was coming up and the industry was in a growth phase.”
The traditional economic model underpinning the movie industry is in the midst of a radical shift. With the lucrative DVD market shrinking, digital alternatives stealing consumers’ attention from traditional entertainment and media conglomerates demanding fatter profit margins, every major studio is finding ways to rein in spending and reduce overhead. Consumers can see the results at the multiplex, where 18% fewer movies will have been released this year than in 2007.
But perhaps nobody has felt it more than the eager college graduates who answer phones, fetch coffee, set meetings and read scripts for demanding bosses to keep the world capital of pop culture humming.
“When I started, it was understood that most of us would be able to work our way up just like the executives around us at the time had,” said Heather Jack, a 30-year-old graduate student at New York University who began her career as an assistant at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and later worked as a development executive for producer Jerry Bruckheimer. “But of the ones who started working at the same time as me, only a handful are still in the industry.”
Along with the reduced head count at the studios, there has been consolidation in the agency world, where many young people get their start delivering packages and placing calls. Two of the biggest talent houses — William Morris Agency and Endeavor — merged last year to better weather the revenue downturn affecting their clients.
Also notable: The number of producers whose overhead is covered by studios — so-called “on the lot” deals that allow them to hire a cadre of young helpers — plummeted 34% from 2006 to 2009, according to the industry trade paper Variety.
In many ways it’s tougher at the bottom because it’s more cutthroat at the top. The uncertain state of the industry has left many senior executives frozen in position because there are fewer available jobs and it has become increasingly difficult for them to step into producer roles. Meanwhile, producers who used to invite junior staffers to handle some projects are frequently keeping control over the fewer movies they make.
“The people who have jobs hold on to them for dear life, so there aren’t many openings for other people to take,” said Nina Jacobson, a producer and former production president for Walt Disney Pictures who got one of her first breaks as a junior executive for producer Joel Silver.
The result, said Jacobson, is a system in which fresh talent is no longer steadily flowing up the ranks. “In the long run, an absence of fresh blood is something to be worried about for the health of the industry.”
Young people with pricey college or even law school degrees have historically accepted the comparatively low pay (assistants typically make less than $35,000 a year) and long hours of an entry-level job in Hollywood because it presents a unique opportunity to learn how the sausage is made in a glamorous industry. Assistants are on the phone while their bosses negotiate multimillion-dollar deals and on sets alongside decision makers.
“It’s like an old-fashioned apprenticeship where you learn a craft by watching someone else do it,” said Matthew Cohen, a former assistant to “Twilight” director Catherine Hardwicke who now works in the video game industry. “You put up with all the things you don’t want to do because you’re in the nerve center of how movies get made.”
But now many people are deciding that the long hours and tedious work aren’t taking them where they want to go. After four years at Temple Hill Entertainment, where he was a creative executive, Cohen left early this year after concluding that it was much more difficult to make the leap to movie producer than when he started working in 2004. He took a job running business development for a video game development studio.
“I don’t feel like I’ve abandoned Hollywood, but I’m doing what I was doing in a different way,” he said of working in the younger and more dynamic game industry.
Even those still hoping for another job in the movie business are having to pursue other opportunities as they apply for the few job openings that pop up. Hackner now runs a sports league for gay men and lesbians and does fundraising for nonprofit groups.
Ryan Gray, a former assistant at New Line Cinema who left early this year after seeing no promotion in sight, has worked as a baseball scout and writes a sports blog. Applying for low- or mid-level positions, he said, continues to get more and more competitive.
“At the same time, there has been a stunting of job growth,” he said. “We have the same influx of interns every year. That creates a huge backup of people looking for jobs.”
The situation has changed so much that experienced people say they can no longer offer the same advice that young people who trek to Hollywood have received for decades.
“In the past you could become a vice president if you just stuck around and worked hard,” said producer Beau Flynn, who started as an assistant to producer Scott Rudin. “Now, when I hear people say they’re going to start off as an assistant and go on to become a producer or executive, I have to tell them I just don’t see it happening much anymore.”
The most reliable path, Flynn and others say, may be not to follow one. Websites, mobile devices and video game consoles provide more platforms than ever to produce content for those willing to think out of the long-prescribed Hollywood box.
And the future of the industry, they note, will quite likely be defined by those who understand much more than the traditional way movies are made.
“You have to be an entrepreneur from Day One,” Cohen said of the lessons he has learned. “You can’t rely on the system coming through the way it was promised to you.”
Eureka Street Article: Does Wikileaks Leader Julian Assange Have A Problem With Feminists?
Julian Assange’s problem for feminists
Ruby Hamad December 09, 2010
For feminists, the case of Julian Assange has produced a headache that threatens to create a permanent division.
Assange is rapidly achieving superhero status, an Australian David battling the American Goliath. A Fairfax article refers to him as the digital age’s Ned Kelly. Pundits such as Catherine Deveny proclaim he makes them proud to be Australian. An open letter to PM Julia Gillard asking her to ensure Assange’s rights as an Australian citizen are respected has garnered more than 4000 signatures.
He claims to be fighting for freedom of speech and government transparency. Ideals that feminists also hold dear. But Assange has been arrested on rape charges and many feminists will find it hard to reconcile their defence of him with their support of rape victims. He denies these allegations vociferously, claiming they are trumped up by his detractors.
There is no doubt that the timing of the charges is suspect. Surfacing and quickly dismissed by Swedish authorities in August, the hunt was suddenly back on in the wake of the first dump of the US diplomatic cables last week. Interpol went as far as to issue a ‘Red Alert’, usually reserved for cases pertaining to murder … and terrorism, of which Assange has been wrongly accused.
This prompted many to dismiss the charges as fabricated, which means claiming the two women who made the accusations are liars. This is a common smear against rape victims, whether the man they are accusing is famous or not, and one frustrated feminists work tirelessly to overcome. By placing the shame on the alleged victim and casting doubt on the veracity of her story, such smears discourage other victims from reporting their own experiences. And thus the so-called rape-culture is perpetuated.
This is why Naomi Wolf has attracted ire for her column in the Huffington Post where she scornfully derided the accusations and hence the accusers, claiming Assange was guilty of nothing except perhaps being a jerk. She, in turn, has been slammed by other writers such as Salon‘s Kate Harding who say she is undermining her own feminist credentials by ‘smearing … rape accuser(s)’ despite a lack of access to information in the case.
Assange is undoubtedly the victim of a witch-hunt, with calls to charge him with terrorism, espionage and even — absurdly, given that he is not a US citizen — treason.
Ironically, even as the likes of Sarah Palin call for Assange to be hunted down like Osama bin Laden, even as WikiLeaks continues to have its access to resources shut down due to US governmental pressure, and even as the Australian government talks of cancelling his passport, the mainstream media continues to publish the documents that WikiLeaks has — legally — made public.
But to automatically dismiss the allegations because of suspicious timing could potentially undermine future cases of sexual molestation. While commentators such as Wolf claim the women simply had a case of regret, this ignores the fact that often women do reluctantly submit to unwanted sex due to intimidation and fear, only to find themselves awash with anger and shame and a very real sense of violation. This is not simple ‘regret.’ This is a sex crime.
If Assange did use his body weight to hold down one of the women, if he did continue the sex act after she asked him to stop, if he did refuse to wear a condom despite repeatedly been asked to, as has been alleged, then he has committed serious crimes. But according to one Reuters report the women originally approached the police not to have Assange charged, but in the hope of persuading him to undergo an STD test.
What then led to such serious charges? If the accusations are found to be false or exaggerated, the credibility of future rape victims and the likelihood of them coming forward will be seriously undermined, particularly in high profile cases. In an ideal world, Assange’s status as WikiLeaks founder and spokesperson would have no bearing on the rape case. But in reality, there is little doubt that WikiLeaks is also on trial.
It’s a murky case and one in which the true details seem unlikely to emerge. But one thing is certain: it’s only going to get uglier for Assange and his alleged victims.
His adoring fans are already mounting web-based personal attacks on the two women, calling their credibility and morals into question. But at the same time, the cult of personality surrounding Assange mean the likelihood of a fair trial is next to impossible. Hatred of his organisation has led to a stop-him-at-all-costs mentality.
It is more than likely that Assange will wind up in prison. There is even talk of his being extradited to the US from Sweden. Vindication perhaps for the supporters of his accusers, and haters of WikiLeaks, but cold comfort for those of us who not only believe in justice but who balk at women being used as pawns to settle scores between men.
Feminist Kate Harding Slams Media For Defending Alleged Rapist Julian Assange.
09 December 2010
Accusations against Assange’s accuser
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol’s warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities this week, curious.
The charges – “one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape,” according to a statement from Scotland Yard – were brought against him in Sweden last August, yet he suddenly graduated to “most wanted” status just after releasing over a thousand leaked diplomatic cables in late November? It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens of countries most eager to plug the gushing WikiLeaks not to wonder if those dots connect.
Still, as the New York Times put it, “there is no public evidence to suggest a connection,” which some members of the public seem to find unbearably frustrating. With no specific target for their suspicions and no easy way to find one, folks all over the blogosphere have been settling for the next best thing: making light of the sexual assault charges and smearing one of the alleged victims.
By Sunday, when Keith Olbermann retweeted Bianca Jagger’s link to a post about the accuser’s supposed CIA ties – complete with scare quotes around the word “rape” – a narrative had clearly taken hold: Whatever Assange did, it sure wasn’t rape-rape. All he did was fail to wear a rubber! And one woman who claims he assaulted her has serious credibility issues anyway. She threw a party in his honour after the fact and tried to pull down the incriminating tweets. Isn’t that proof enough? The only reason the charges got traction is that, in the radical feminist utopia of Sweden under Queen Lisbeth Salander, if a woman doesn’t have multiple orgasms during hetero sex, the man can be charged with rape. You didn’t know?
Even Naomi Wolf – Naomi Effin’ Wolf! – has taken a public swipe at Assange’s accusers, using her status as a “long-time feminist” to underscore the absurdity of “the alleged victims… using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings”.
Wow. Admittedly, I don’t have as much experience being a feminist as Wolf has, but when I see a swarm of people with exactly zero direct access to the facts of a rape case loudly insisting that the accusation has no merit, I usually start to wonder about their credibility. And their sources.
Wolf links to exactly one, an article in British tabloid the Daily Mail. “Using a number of sources including leaked police interviews,” writes Richard Pendlebury, “we can begin to piece together the sequence of events which led to Assange’s liberty being threatened by Stockholm police rather than Washington, where already one US politician has called on him to be executed for ‘spying’.”
Well! A reasonable person might be sceptical of information coming from a single anonymous source via a publication known for highly sensationalised reporting, sure, but in this case, there are a number of them.
That Daily Mail article also helped to inspire a December 3 Gizmodo post in which Jesus Diaz boldly asserted, “While you can say Assange is a douchebag for not putting a condom on and continuing after the woman requested he use a condom, there was no rape accusation in both cases.” The other source for that claim was an AOL News article that relied on (hey, look!) the same Daily Mail piece, a Swedish tabloid, and statements from Assange’s lawyers to cobble together a theory of what happened and why Assange was charged. Rock solid!
To Diaz and Gizmodo’s credit, they quickly posted an update upon learning that the Swedish prosecution office had “issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.” Diaz added, “Obviously, this is now a completely different issue altogether. Rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion are extremely grave accusations. This is not the ‘sex by surprise’ accusation that was discussed before.” (I don’t know that I’d go as far as “a completely different issue altogether” – Feministe’s Jill Filipovic wrote a terrific explanation of why “sex by surprise” actually is a pretty big deal – but good on him for acknowledging that much.)
Still, the notion that consensual, unprotected sex equals rape in Sweden (despite millions of Swedish fathers walking around free today) continues zipping around the internet. One wonders if the statement from Swedish authorities, which elaborates that Assange is accused of “using his body weight to hold [a woman] down in a sexual manner” and having intercourse with a sleeping woman, among other things, will even slow them down.
OK, so maybe the charges really are for rape-rape, but still – the woman has CIA ties! I’ve read that on at least a dozen blogs! Keith Olbermann tweeted it and everything! That’s got to be coming from a highly credible source, right?
Actually, as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article by Assange fanboys (seriously, they recast him as Neo of “The Matrix”) Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Here’s the most damning evidence Shamir and Bennett have compiled against Assange’s accuser:
1) She’s published “anti-Castro diatribes” in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is “connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner,” who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy.
2) “In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter.” That link goes to an English translation of a Spanish article noting that at a march last spring, Posada “wander[ed] unleashed and un-vaccinated along Calle Ocho in Miami, marching alongside” – wait for it – “Gloria Estefan in support of the so-called Ladies in White.” Apparently, it’s “an established fact” that Posada and the Ladies also share a shady benefactor, which means he should clearly be called a “friend” of the organisation, and this is totally relevant to the rape charges against Julian Assange, because the accuser once interacted with them in some manner.
3) The accuser is a known feminist who once wrote a blog post about getting revenge on men, and “was involved in Gender Studies in Uppsala University, in charge of gender equality in the Students’ Union, a junior inquisitor of sorts.”
Are you kidding me? That’s what we’re basing the “CIA ties” meme on? An article that reads like a screenplay treatment by a college freshman who’s terrified of women? Actual quote: “[T]he Matrix plays dirty and lets loose a sex bomb upon our intrepid Neo. When you can’t contest the message, you smear the messenger. Sweden is tailor-made for sending a young man into a honey trap.”
Look, for all I know, Assange’s primary accuser does have CIA ties. Perhaps it was all a setup from the beginning. Perhaps she is lying through her teeth about the rape. Anything is possible. But in the absence of any real evidence one way or another, we’re choosing to believe these guys? Or at least this guy at Firedoglake, who says he’s “spent much of [his] professional life as a psychiatrist helping women (and men) who are survivors of sexual violence” – giving his post a shiny veneer of credibility, even though it’s a pure regurgitation of Shamir and Bennett’s – but segues from there into an indictment of the accuser’s post-rape behaviour. She socialised with her attacker again! An expert like him can tell you that real victims never do that.
The fact is, we just don’t know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.
Public evidence, as the Times noted, is scarce. So, it’s heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretence of healthy scepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.
Gayblackcanada 