media criticism

This is the final post in the series "Declare your independence" exploring why subscribing to Bitch is so important. This post is guest-written by Portland State media studies professor (and Bitch subscriber) Jil Freeman.

Most people feel overwhelmed when they hear that six major conglomerates own 80% of the world’s media products. And while I’m pretty certain that anyone of us could take Rupert Murdoch or Summer Redstone in a cage match, when it comes to besting them in the corporate marketplace it feels, well, like an unfair fight. Much of my work revolves around railing against the ills of big media. No matter how many shocking figures I can quote or how many examples of how corporate media products facilitate and sustain sexism, racism, homophobia, and classism, it always ends with the same question: "What can we do about it?"

A landmark federal bill aiming to put $3 million into research and education about postpartum depression is gathering controversy as it heads to the Senate floor. Advocates of the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act (known as the Mother's Act) say it will save the lives of women and finally help develop decent education about a long-dismissed female health problem. Critics say it will cause more women to take pharmaceuticals unnecessarily. But recently the big debate has been not so much about the bill itself as media coverage of the bill.

Last week, Time ran an article about the Mother's Act which featured an interview with a mother who was prescribed Zoloft after giving birth. The drug made things worse, causing her to have violent fantasies.

Time's story ignited the ire of many who argue that the article intentionally left out pro-Mothers Act voices to push an editorial agenda. Keep reading for more details!