Report: No crime wave among Hurricane Katrina evacuees

First, I want to congratulate Scooby for having his research highlighted in USA Today. Nice work!

Here is a link to the complete article. As the blog title suggests, Scoob and his colleagues (including Cranky) evaluated crime trends in cities that housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina (Houston, Phoenix, and San Antonio). They describe the 'disaster myths' common in events like Katrina - the public perception that tragic events like these breed crime. Similarly, this work comports with the racial threat hypothesis and attribution theories- the concern that outsiders, particularly people of color will threaten the status quo and will be less trustworthy and more prone to criminal behavior.

The article is very well written, so I will just share some excerpts. Overall, the authors find few links between the presence of evacuees and an increase in crime.

"But if there was any effect, it was a modest one," Varano says, after his group weighed police crime data from the three cities to look for trends for each crime from 2004 to 2006. The study found a slight rise in murder and robbery in Houston, when adjusted for the long-term crime patterns, but no increase in other crimes (and suggested drops in rape and aggravated assaults); no effect at all in San Antonio; and another slight statistical rise in the murder rate in Phoenix. "Any increase in murder is intolerable," Varano says, but a lack of increase in crimes such as car theft and robbery, where economic motives most clearly would tempt so many displaced people, argues against a crime wave driven by evacuees, he says.

What is most interesting are the comments to the article. Here is one example.

I am 32 years old and have lived in Houston all my life. Take it from me, this article is nothing but 100% BS! Petty crimes such as robbery and thefts have definitely skyrocketed since the influx. The bad economy isn't helping crime rates either. I was a victim of robbery in 2008 and I constantly see it happening again and again more than usual. The higher end suburbs seem to be the taking the worst of the brunt right now. Shootings/robberies at the Sugar Land and Woodlands malls last month. Hell even the mayor of Sugar Land was robbed at his own house! These two suburbs have been fairly safe areas in the past but things have been changing a lot over recent years. You can never escape crime anywhere you go but sometimes I feel things are starting to get so unsafe around here that I'm ready to pack up my crap and get out of dodge!

Story Gives New Meaning to "Self-Reported Crime"

Not sure if this made national headlines yet, but it has been circulating around our area for a few days. A woman recently called 911 to report a drunk driver. Turns out she was reporting herself:

Dispatcher: Clark County 911
Mary Strey: Somebody's really drunk driving down Granton Road...
Dispatcher: ...Which way are they going?
Mary Strey: They are going, um...
Dispatcher: Towards Granton or towards Neillsville?
Mary Strey: Towards Granton
Dispatcher: Okay are you behind them, or...
Mary Strey: No, I am them
Dispatcher: You am them?
Mary Strey: Yes, I am them
Dispatcher: Okay, so you want to call and report that you're driving drunk?
Mary Strey: Yes

You just can't make this stuff up...

The Bath School Disaster

Events such as the Columbine High School shootings and the more recent incident at Virginia Tech have captured both media and public attention. Debate continues about whether we are in the midst of a school violence epidemic, or whether the proliferation of 24 hour news stations have created a media culture that highlights unusual cases and skews public perception of crime. The data itself indicate school violence has not been on the rise (leave it to the librarians, the masters of information, who keep us grounded):

SAVD [School-Associated Violent Death] data continue to indicate that individual violent events involving numerous homicides, such as the 1999 event that involved 15 deaths at Columbine High School in Colorado, are rare. Most school-associated student homicides continue to involve a single victim and a single offender.

Even in light of such comforting information, no one can argue that the rare cases have been horrific. Before the Virginia Tech shootings, in which 32 people were killed, the deadliest incidents of school violence included Columbine (13 deaths), and the "Texas Tower" shootings at the University of Texas (14 deaths).

No doubt most readers are familiar with these tragedies, but few may know about the deadliest incidence of school violence in the United States: the 1927 Bath School Disaster. Forty-five people were killed in this incident, most of whom were children aged 7 to 12.

Bath is a small community just north of Lansing, Michigan. It's a mixture of suburban and farming communities with a small recreational lake. It's a nice place to live--I know, because I live there. I can only imagine it was even smaller, and quieter, in 1927.

The bomber, Andrew Kehoe, was a School Board member in Bath Township and part-time handyman at the school. After his farm was foreclosed upon, he blamed the property tax used to build the school. Over several months (while doing his handyman work) he planted hundreds of pounds of dynamite throughout the school. On the morning of May 18, 1927, he killed his wife, set his farm on fire, and set off the dynamite under the school. He then drove to the school in his truck (loaded with dynamite and shrapnel), and detonated it amongst the rescuers. That explosion killed him and three others.

[The "Criminals are made, not born" sign at the top of this post was found attached to Kehoe's fence at the farm. You can see more pictures in this Lansing State Journal article.]

As bad as it was, the tragedy could have been much worse--500 pounds of dynamite under one wing of the school failed to detonate.

The Bath School Disaster differs from modern examples of school violence in that, (a) the offender was not a student at the school, which is common in recent incidents, and (b) explosives were used rather than guns. (Perhaps this incident should not even be considered "school violence," as it might more accurately be described as a terrorist event--or even a suicide bombing.) Still, it shares at least one similarity with modern-day school shootings, in that it was perpetrated by a distraught individual who sought to exact revenge for a personal loss by killing innocents en masse. Other aspects of the crime also feel sadly contemporary: a man devastated over financial ruin kills his wife then commits suicide, which recalls several recent events following this exact scenario. Also, the plotting of the Bath attack over an extended period of time echoes the Columbine killers' methodical preparations, while an explosives-laden truck was used in the Oklahoma City bombings as well.

While media accounts of recent school shootings may create the impression that these crimes are the product of contemporary ills (decaying family values, violent video games, what have you), the Bath School Disaster reminds us that, sadly, mass murders on school grounds are nothing new.

Violence against Women in Music

When I teach "Women and Criminal Justice," my students have the option of completing an extra credit project on gender and expression in music. Essentially, they have to identify a song that focuses in some way on gender and justice. The examples I use in class are:

• Bitch, Meredith Brooks: The quintessential "madonna/whore" duality expressed in pop music. Who would have thought?
• Just a Girl, No Doubt: Although not related directly to CJ, the issues of patriarchy and paternalism pervade (hooray for alliteration!).

Imagine how surprised I was yesterday to find this gem on my favorite pop culture blog:



Consider this my new example.

According to allmusic.com, this was written as a protest song. This isn't a definitive source, so we can't be sure about the intent of the song writers. We do know that Phil Spector arranged the song--given that his ex-wife Ronnie Spector made serious accusations against him about his abuse and control of her, one has to wonder...

It is good to know that even in 1962 there was protest against this song playing on the radio. I suppose the satirical nature of the song wasn't entirely obvious.

UPDATE: Dr. Huginkiss points out that Carole King was a writer on this song, so I think we can definitively place this in the "protest" category. Also, Hole did a cover of this song. There's something about Courtney Love singing it that removes all trace of satire.

The Power to Decide What is "News"

So, by now everyone with functioning retinas has seen the news that John Edwards has admitted to having an extramarital affair in 2006 -- an affair that may or may not have resulted in him fathering a daughter out of wedlock. (Hmm...perhaps Senator Edwards would like to rework his "Two Americas" trope? How about, "One America that cheats on its incurable-cancer-ridden spouse and one that does not"?)

Despite the frenzied media coverage of this story over the weekend, rumors of an alleged affair have dogged Edwards for years -- particularly on the blogosphere -- leaving some to wonder why the mainstream news media didn't pick up the story sooner.

Some theories: (1) the media kept quiet out of respect for Elizabeth Edwards, whose public battle with incurable breast cancer garnered her considerable public sympathy; (2) there was insufficient credible evidence of an affair to move the story beyond speculation, at least until Edwards' admission of guilt; and (3) the story was originally reported by The National Enquirer, and "respectable" media outlets didn't want to follow the trail of a supermarket tabloid.

Conventional wisdom says that it was #2; in fact, ABC News sources say that they were close to gathering enough verifiable evidence of an affair that they likely would have aired the story this week anyway, even without Edwards' confession:

Asked by CNN's Howard Kurtz if sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards played any part in an apparent reluctance to report the story, ABC correspondent Kate Snow said no.

"We at ABC were working on this story, and if we had had any proof and any verifiable facts, we certainly would have gone with the story," she said. "It was just a matter of, we're not going to put something on the air until we know that it's true."

On this particular story, most major news networks took the stance that the rumors of an affair were not newsworthy.

Brian Ross, ABC's chief investigative correspondent, said his investigative team was pushing hard following the money trail, looking at such things as who paid for [Edwards' mistress's] fancy California home and the use of campaign funds.

He said that even without Edwards' admission, ABC probably would have been able to run a story about the issue this week.

Still, there was some acknowledgment that #3 was an issue, too:

David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."

What I found most interesting about this article -- and what made me think about previous discussions we've had concerning the role of technology in reporting/recording crimes -- was the comment from NYT columnist David Carr about who has the power to decide what is "news":

"I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed," Carr said.

"Members of the public, people with modems, people with cell phones are now producers, editors. They can push and push and push on a story until it ends up being acknowledged by everyone."

Isn't that the truth? And the power of technology to raise awareness of events -- including crimes -- goes well beyond posting cell-phone videos on YouTube. For example, the grassroots movement to investigate the rape and murder of Private LaVena Johnson has gathered tremendous momentum recently, and has occurred largely online.*

It seems like a topsy-turvy world when The Enquirer is blazing journalistic trails ahead of ABC News and the New York Times, but opportunities for lay people to agitate for media coverage of an event seems to grow exponentially as technology becomes both more accessible and more sophisticated. Now if only someone could get a decent camera-phone video of the elusive "Bat Boy".

*P.S. Stay tuned for what I hope will be our first guest blogger post about disparate media coverage of murdered white women and women of color.

McGruff the Crime Dog!

First off, I must say that I *love* McGruff the Crime Dog. I would imagine that every criminal justice or criminology professional feels the same way. As a few of you know, I was so excited to be a part of this Cyberbullying Press Event at the National Press Club because a) it's a huge honor and b) I knew that McGruff would be there and I really wanted to get a picture with him. That would have been such a wonderful way to mark the trip. After the Event was over, I saw McGruff taking pictures with many other attendees, and figured he would hang out a little so I would have my chance. Meanwhile, people came up and asked questions about my work (much like any conference setting), and so I was momentarily distracted from my goal of getting a picture with the iconic legend that is the Crime Dog. After I had talked to everyone who was waiting for me, I looked around - and McGruff was nowhere to be seen. I was like, oh, CRAP. Just a minute ago, he was there. But then he was gone.

I walked quickly in the direction in which I thought he had gone, and turned to ask random people, "Have you seen McGruff?" "Did McGruff go this way?" "I have got to get a picture with McGruff, where is he?" A couple of the Event planners pointed me outside the ballroom of the Press Club, stating that he had just walked out. And so I headed into the hallway where more people were milling about and talking, looked up and down in both directions, and still didn't see him. Was my dream of getting a picture taken with the only animal that could get away with saying "Help Take a Bite Out of Crime!" coming to a disappointing end? I asked another person, who pointed me in one direction. I moved even more quickly than before, sensing that time was of the essence. I asked another person, who said yes - she had just seen him - and he went around a corner down another hallway. Another hallway? This place was like a MAZE, and I could feel my hope slowly slipping away. But I said to myself, no...let's just do what we can to try to find him. Maybe this can still happen.

So I turned down that hallway, and noticed that it ended abruptly. ????? What the heck, I asked myself.... But I realized that the hallway ended in a door. With a sign on it. It was...the Men’s Room. McGruff was probably in the bathroom. With adrenaline coursing through my veins, I told myself that it’s now or never. I must accost the Crime Dog in order to make my miracle happen. I burst in, and saw that there was no one by the urinals. And then I turned my attention to the stalls, and saw a pair of shoes and legs in two stalls. One of them wasn't facing the toilet, or facing the opposite way....but was facing sideways. Brilliant deduction, I thought to myself - you can't go to the bathroom sideways, and so I bet that is McGruff, changing out of his costume! And almost every fiber of my being was shouting, "Let it go! Do not bother him! He's had a long day already!"...but I said, no, I promised this to myself, it will complete my day with perfection, I must at least ask. I must be bold.

And so I said, "McGruff, are you in here?" And a man's voice said, "Yes?" And so I said, "I don't want to inconvenience you at all...and I am not sure how far you've changed out of your costume, but it would mean a lot to me to get a picture with you." And he was like, "Well, I've already taken off my head and my paws...." And so I replied, "I understand. I really don't want to trouble you. I just really hoped for a picture." A wave of disappointment swept over me at that instance...but then he said, "Okay, no problem, it'll just take me a minute to put these back on again. We can do it." All of a sudden, I was filled with excitement again - it was going to happen! And so McGruff came out of the bathroom stall, with just his trenchcoat body on, and I saw that he was a normal, cool, laidback, scruffy young man. Kind of like me, on my days off. We chatted for a bit as he got himself together, and I once again conveyed how appreciative I was, and then we went outside (where a couple of people were laughing at my determination to make this picture happen) and took a couple of shots together. I think they came out GREAT, and I am honestly so thankful. This meant a lot to me, and I know McGruff recognized that. Mission accomplished! Hooray for Pap!!!! And, even more importantly, Hooray for the Crime Dog!!!!

PS Please don't make fun of the fact that my nametag is crooked. Yes, the photographer should have told me to fix that...but, frankly, a little bit of my dopeyness tends to surface in moments like these, and some would say it's endearing :)

Totally Unshocking Crime Headlines, Vol. 10

"[Nathaniel] Abraham arraigned on drug charges"

A refresher: In 1997, 11-year old Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed 18-year old Ronnie Greene, Jr. Two years later, at the age of 13, Abraham became one of the youngest people ever tried and convicted as an adult in the U.S. -- and the youngest ever in Michigan. Though tried as an adult, Abraham received a juvenile sentence in January 2000: he was incarcerated in a maximum-security juvenile detention facility until his 21st birthday, after which he was released in January of last year.

Naturally, at the time of his trial Abraham gained national (and international) notoriety, propelled in no small part by defense counsel Geoffrey Feiger. (Who can forget the image of an avuncular Feiger leading a cardigan-clad Abraham into court by hand? A stroke of theatrical brilliance if ever I saw one.) However, Abraham caused an equally big media stir last year for the outlandish outfit he wore upon his release, which many observers interpreted as a tasteless (and egomanical) taunt to the public. As if to underscore Abraham's prominence in the public consciousness, he was personally summoned by Oprah Winfrey to a private meeting with Greene's relatives, during which Winfrey convinced Abraham to apologize to the Greene family. Needless to say, this young man was under far more public scrutiny than the average recently-released offender.

However, Abraham also received far more benefits than the average recently-released offender as well -- namely, state-funded rent and college tuition:

[Abraham] is being given free services through a Foster Care Demonstration Project. The pilot program is designed to help Wayne County foster care children who are phased out of the system at age 18 but still need the support of the state....

Under the program, Abraham will be eligible for two years of free rent, full college tuition paid by Michigan Rehabilitation Services through age 25 and food stamps, which he has applied for. He must live in Michigan and attend college in the state to remain eligible in the program.

And yet. And yet. And yet last week he was picked up on drug charges -- specifically, possession with intent to distribute ecstasy:

Undercover officers were working surveillance at about 1 a.m. in the neighborhood where there had been three separate armed robberies recently, when one of them witnessed what appeared to be a drug sale between Abraham and a man on a bicycle.

Abraham, 22, had parked a red 1970 Cadillac convertible in the parking lot of a Sunoco station on North Perry Street just south of Pontiac Northern High School. After the officers witnessed the exchange, they called for additional officers and moved in on Abraham, who was standing behind the vehicle with the trunk open. As the officers approached, they asked to see Abraham’s hand, and he said he was just changing a tire.

“He didn’t see the guys coming up behind him, and he threw away a bag,” said Pontiac police Sgt. Kevin Braddock.

When officers recovered a purple Crown Royal liquor bag, they found inside 254 individual tablets of the street drug ecstasy. Police said the pills typically sell on the street for between $10 and $30 each. Abraham was arrested without incident, and the vehicle, which did have a flat, was impounded.

Since his release, the Michigan Department of Human Services has spent $1,200 on Abraham – money that helped him set up an apartment and paid his rent, said DHS spokeswoman Maureen Sorbet.

And really, how many people expected any other outcome? Though his mentors and supporters are "shocked and devastated" that Abraham failed to make good on his promise to stay clean (by -- what else? -- becoming a famous rapper), he exhibited many warning signs of failure:

Looking back on the year, Abraham says he tried college, one semester at Wayne State University last fall, but chose not to reapply to focus on his music. He is also writing stories that he hopes to put into a book.

Abraham has his own apartment in Oakland County and has worked a series of odd jobs, but has not taken any full-time employment.

So, all of this makes his arrest last week a complete and utter non-surprise. The only question is, who is to blame here? Is it Abraham himself, who has made incredibly poor choices even in the face of unparalleled social and economic support? Or the system itself, which treated a troubled boy (who committed a very serious crime, true) as a mature adult and incarcerated him for the bulk of his formative years? Or the news media, whose incessant coverage of his case granted an impressionable youngster instant celebrity status of the worst kind? Most likely the answer is "all of the above" -- not that attributions of blame make this case any less sad.

Happy Gilmore, Crimefighter!

An article in today's New York Times discussed a recent study that yielded sure-to-be controversial findings: Rather than affirming the conventional wisdom that violent movies, TV shows, music, and video games promote violent behavior, the study -- conducted by two economists and presented at the American Economics Association annual meeting this weekend -- suggests that violent movies actually reduce violent crime:

[The authors concluded] that violent films prevent violent crime by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs. Instead of fueling up at bars and then roaming around looking for trouble, potential criminals pass the prime hours for mayhem eating popcorn and watching celluloid villains slay in their stead.

The article describes the two competing schools of thought (i.e., violent entertainment begets violent behavior vs. violent entertainment diverts violent behavior), and offers analysis from experts on both sides.

Interested in the researchers' data and methodology? Here you go:

The study’s authors acknowledge that their research does not...address the long-term effects of exposure to violent media, an influence they view as pernicious. Rather, the research uses a decade of national crime reports, cinema ratings and movie audience data to examine what has happened to rates of violent crime during and immediately after violent films are shown.

This article leaves me with some methodological questions, most of which cannot be sufficiently answered without seeing the original study. However, this parting comment from one of the study's co-authors had me chuckling so much I forgot my methodological queries:

In other words, Professor Dahl suggested, Hollywood could help cut crime in more palatable fashion by cutting out the gore while making movies that still attract male teenagers and 20-somethings.

“We need more Adam Sandler movies,” he said. “Even though I’m not a big fan of Adam Sandler, that’s the implication.”

I tell you one thing: I am in the wrong line of work. I need to become an economist so that I can produce research with policy implications like "make more Adam Sandler movies"!

Thanks to EW.com for the heads up.

P.S. I wonder whether Bob Barker would agree with Dr. Dahl's categorization of Adam Sandler movies as non-violent? Ha Ha!

More on Sean Taylor

The NY Kid recently wrote eloquently about the media's characterization of Sean Taylor as a "thug". This week's Newsweek features an editorial by Raina Kelley about this very subject, which some of you may be interested to read. You can find it here.

Again with the Media

You may have heard about this story:

Emily Sander, an 18-year-old college student in Kansas went missing last Friday. Authorities believe they have found her body, and that she was murdered by a man with whom she was seen on Friday night. It seems she was also involved in Internet porn during her college studies. A headline on the main page of MSNBC.com tonight reads:

"Police: Body Likely Missing Porn Star"

Do they really need to refer to her in that way? I'm not sure why this is so upsetting to me--I suppose it is an accurate description. Maybe as a parent I'm particularly struck by this insensitivity, and how her parents have to deal with this characterization of their daughter. Given that sex workers seem to be viewed as somehow "deserving" of their victimization, this may be viewed as an attempt to dehumanize her.

We'll see what happens when they make arrests, and how the defense attorney presents the argument for the accused. Hopefully it won't end similarly to this case.

Violence and the American Athlete - RIP Sean Taylor

For those of you who are unaware, Washington Redskins free safety Sean Taylor died this morning after being shot in the upper thigh sometime last night during what is being called a robbery. The only shot that hit Taylor severed his femoral artery, leading to a great deal of blood loss. Although he slipped into what appeared to be a coma, it is being reported that at some point during the early morning hours, Taylor managed to squeeze the hand of his nurse. He never regained consciousness, however, and the world lost another young black male due to gun violence.

The point has already been made all over the internet, and perhaps rightfully so, that his death is not unique in that young black males die due to gun violence every day in America. So what makes hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people who have never met Sean Taylor so despondent about the situation? Put simply, he was "their" player - either at "Tha U" (University of Miami) or for the Redskins. Unfortunately, Sean Taylor is no longer quite so unique as a professional athlete either. Darrent Williams was gunned down last New Year's Eve; both Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry were held at gunpoint and robbed in their own homes. While these things happen everyday, millionaire athletes are obviously more visible, and thus the media pick up on these events.

Perhaps the saddest part of the Sean Taylor murder is all of the conjecture surrounding the incident - not because of the conjecture itself, but rather due to some of the vitriol that it spurs. Sean Taylor (whose father happens to be the chief of police in a small Florida town) is known to have associated with some pretty questionable characters and to have displayed some questionable decision-making on the field. It also now appears that several days before his murder, someone broke into his home and left a kitchen knife on his bed in what would seem to be a menacing message. Although we do not know what happened in Sean Taylor's home the night of his murder, it would not be surprising if Sean was murdered, rather than shot during an aborted burglary attempt. The shame of this situation is that almost everyone who knew Sean personally has admitted that while he was immature over the past several years, he had become a different person since the birth of his child and was trying to distance himself from any dangerous friends and activities. Despite this, there has been an astounding amount of commentary on the internet (particularly in the comments section of the ESPN story on his murder) along the lines of "he was a thug and deserved it". Some of this is simply racist idiots trying to stir up trouble, but quite a bit appears to be sincere, which may be even more unnerving. That is, rather than some racist rant, it appears that many of these commenters believe that Sean's death was simply a matter of his past catching up to him, and that he deserved it because of his past. While the former may be true, the latter certainly is not.

Sean Taylor's death is merely the latest high-profile crime against a rich athlete, but it is so much more than that to his family and friends. It represents something far worse - the silencing of a bright future both professionally (in the NFL) and personally (with his family). Yes, young black males are gunned down every day, and the fact that he was a rich athlete does not make Sean Taylor more important than anyone else. But we should use the fact that his death is so visible to really examine what it means to "be a thug" or to "come from the wrong neighborhood", and figure out how we can protect the next generation of potential victims.

The FCC, National Media, and Violence Against Women

Amanda's heart-wrenching post about domestic violence made me think more about the representation of these cases in the media, and how we come to know about victimization in America. Is there anyone who doesn't know the names Natalee Hollway, Laci Peterson, and now Stacy Peterson? Thanks to CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, we are inundated with stories about these young, sad victims of crime--all likely killed at the hands of men.

Of course, it is very helpful for us to know about these cases. It is desperately important that the public recognize the prevalence and seriousness of domestic abuse and domestic homicide. Unfortunately, the media is quite selective about which stories make it to airtime--after all, every second is valuable, right? (I plant tongue firmly in cheek as I consider the minute-by-minute Anna Nicole Death Coverage and it's "value" to the citizens of the world.)

While it is helpful for the media to present these stories and educate the world about DV, it is also quite unnerving to know that the cases presented to the public are selectively screened. While stories such as those of Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and Stacy Peterson will continue to make headlines (and feature live "on-site" broadcasts from Greta V.S. & Nancy Grace), the stories of women like LaToya Figeroa, Reyna Alvarado-Carrera and Tamika Hudson will never be told. It turns out there's some truth to "missing white woman syndrome", even though it is virtually impossible to collect meaningful data on the practice.

This is something I've been ranting about for some time--in class I ask my students to raise their hand if they've heard of Laci Peterson, then keep it up if they've heard of LaToya Figeroa--both disappeared while pregnant, both killed by the father of their unborn child. One makes the national news instantly, one finally gets a few minutes of time on CNN after bloggers and families bombard the networks with email.

Unfortunately, upcoming events suggest this practice will only get worse. The current chairman of the FCC is planning to lift restrictions that keep media conglomerates from owning more than one television network or newspaper per market. In theory, the news media could be run by all 6 (or fewer) mega-corporations in the next couple of years. Rupert Murdoch will be in heaven.

What does this mean? The conglomeration of big media will lead to even more selective news, and finally to censorship. We will hear more stories about victimized women who are attractive, white, and middle-class. Minority women and those in the lower classes will continue to be ignored by big media because their stories do not bring ratings, thus their lives are not as valuable. Good bye, diversity; hello, McAmerica (or maybe Disneymerica®--I can't decide which I like better).

If you feel as strongly as I do about this, visit http://stopbigmedia.com and write to the FCC opposing this change: http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html