Across the Web

I think we’ve all had those moments where we read an article, and we know RIGHT OFF that something isn’t right. Maybe we know because we were there or know someone who was there–or maybe we just have a feeling that something is wrong. Typically, the most we can do about such an issue is report it to the writer or paper and maybe write a letter to the editor.

But now, there’s a site that will look into media inaccuracies and point them out to publications for correction.

From the Media Bugs web site:

A media bug is a correctable error or problem in a news story or media report.

If you can’t see how the media outlet responsible for the bug would go about correcting it, it probably isn’t a bug. It might be a difference of opinion or a matter of debate. We love those arguments, too! But the Web doesn’t need one more place for them.

A media bug can be in a newspaper or magazine, on TV or radio, on a website or a blog.

We welcome bug reports for all media outlets based in the US. (For the first few months of our beta, we only accepted bug reports that related to coverage of the San Francisco Bay Area region or that appear in media outlets based here.)

When you know about a media bug, you can make a report about it with as much information as you’re able to provide.

Once you make a report, we’ll alert the responsible news outlet.

You can track the discussion about any bug by adding it to your My Bugs dashboard page. You can also receive updates about the bug via email or RSS.

I think this is so cool…you can also create an account on Media Bugs to keep up to date. I’ve only been following MB on twitter for a couple weeks and I’ve been intrigued by the amount, type, and variety of bugs they’ve reported. Some of the bugs were obvious mistakes by large publications.

Kind of makes you question every story your read. But of course, we should probably already be doing that.

If you report a bug, let me know how it goes.

I always wondered how celebs with common names take ownership of their names on twitter. R&B singer Ciara didn’t join twitter until last year, yet she was able to get the name @Ciara.  And what about people who pretend to be other celebs…how does twitter handle that?

I ran across this article about the NFLPA and its quest to get the @nfllockout twitter handle away from some fans who actually had it before the NFLPA put up NFLlockout.com.

On October 4, Shetty, a medical student, said he was contacted over e-mail by union officials who mentioned that they had NFLLockout.com and NFL Lockout on Facebook. Shetty said they proposed some items they could give the trio of friends in exchange for the handle. In the end, Shetty, Barbuto and Tomasetto were unsatisfied with the offers.

“I’m 30 years old,” Shetty told CNBC. “I don’t need a lifesize poster of Mike Vick on my wall.”

After negotiations failed Shetty soon received this e-mail from Twitter:

“Hello,

We received a valid report from the NFLPA regarding your original username, @NFLLockout. After our team reviewed your account, the use of the name ‘NFLLockout’ was deemed to be confusing under our entity impersonation policy. To resolve confusion going forward, we added two underscores to your username, now @NFLLockout__, and released the username to the reporting entity for their active use on Twitter. Also, please note attempting to sell a Twitter username is against Twitter’s Terms of Service.”

The article goes on to say that Twitter added two underscores to Shetty’s account and promptly handed the regular NFLLockout account over to NFLPA.

Couple observations: 1. If this is how the NFLPA negotiates, the NFL will definitely be having a lockout. 2. Twitter has time to handle name disputes for “power” players but still cannot keep the site up consistently or delete inactive accounts. Inactive accounts are squatting on names people need so they can avoid putting a million numbers and underscores in their handles. And two, they’re inflating follower counts like crazy.

Sidebar: Shetty says they never intended to sell the account and they didn’t think the name would ever be useful. Okay. If you say so.

Facebook is, once again, under criticism for not protecting its users’ privacy. Apparently applications have been sharing your information without your knowledge. Over the past year Facebook has had numerous security breaches–even one breach that allowed your friends to read your private messages–not to mention the changes it made to privacy settings without much warning.

I could go down the list of reasons we should all be careful what we share on Facebook, but it won’t matter. The reality is Facebook can do whatever it wants because the average user is too informationally disconnected to realize how consequential use of the site can be.

The average user of Facebook doesn’t mess with the privacy settings at all. I still know people who don’t know that privacy settings even exist!

One columnist broke down all the many reasons we should care about our privacy on Facebook. I bet I was one of about 25 that read it and took it seriously. Numerous journalists have written instructions for how you should manage your privacy settings, but, once again, not many people do.

I guess my question is what would it take to make people hold Facebook accountable for its missteps?

I deleted my Facebook account earlier this year and created a new one from scratch where I do share my real name but not much else. I felt pressured to maintain my facebook page because, no matter how I may feel about the site, the vast majority of people I know who use the site think it’s great.

As a compromise to my dwindling social media principles, I clear out my wall every couple of days, I don’t post pictures beyond my profile picture, I haven’t joined any networks or groups, and mostly don’t use the site beyond changing my status once maybe twice a day and accepting friend requests.

Still that’s quite a bit of activity for a web site I claim to be unable to stand.

I fear we are so concerned with keeping our easy connections we’ll allow the site to do anything as long as it remains free. But your privacy is precious whether you realize it or not, anytime you use real information on the site you are, in actuality, compensating Facebook for the time you spend using the site.

As a heavy user of twitter, I’m afraid that the site is looking at how facebook operates and is thinking that if they can only get a little more popular they can begin to do whatever they want too.

So what do yall think, are we all Facebook’s bitches?

.

This will be a short post. It’s Friday and I’ve been informed that people don’t read blogs on Friday. But that’s okay, because my issues with CNN’s Black in America specials are quite simple and easy to explain.

Put simply:

CNN’s Black in America specials aren’t black enough for me.

Sure, they feature black people, but the focus is narrow and the subjects (both human and topical) fit neatly into established narratives about black folks.

Last night CNN decided to show the “black experience” with money and debt through the personal stories of the members of one church. The most prominent people featured were an at-risk young black male and a family with a middle class income close to foreclosure.

This may sound innocuous and indeed it is in some respects–certainly many black people go to church and many black boys are at risk of dropping out of school, or worse, falling victim to the streets. But these stories closely follow the most comfortable narrative of black life in America.

This type of storyline doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable nor does it reveal any truths specific to the black experience in America. The average white person who watches “Black in America” will see identical parallels to their own lives in the struggles of the black people profiled. Plenty of white people go to church and plenty have worked very hard to keep their children from heading down the wrong path.  And certainly plenty purchased homes they couldn’t afford and have since lost those homes and suffered the financial fallout.

The biggest, and perhaps inadvertent, message in CNN’s special is that we are all the same.

The problem is, we’re not.

There are still a great many problems in America that affect black people disproportionately or at the very least differently. Every day stories are published by media outlets, including CNN, and non profits across the country about the disparities that exist between minorities and white people. I’m challenged to understand why none were worthy of providing an umbrella and inspiration for the Black in America series.

For example, in September the Southern Poverty Law Center published a study that found “big racial caps” in suspensions in middle schools in the United States.

“Middle schools across the country are suspending children with alarming frequency, particularly in some large urban school districts, where numerous schools suspend a third or more of their black male students in a given year…”

CNN could have taken that study and interviewed various administrators, teachers, and parents in a few schools systems and shed some light on why this type of disparity exists.  Instead, when CNN did talk about education in its previous Black in America special, it did so from the convenient angle of personal responsibility and “hero” school reformers and principals–another meme the media likes to run with as evidenced by the crowning-without-merit of former DC school chancellor Michelle Rhee. To talk about what’s happening at the ground level with nary a glance to the structural problems is lazy to say the least.

Unfortunately, CNN appears content to sell the black experience as the common experience only with darker people. That’s probably the most superficial way to approach such a project.

CNN and Soledad O’Brien need to take a break from looking at how black people handle life in America and begin to examine how life in America handles black people.

**This post has been updated to include ESPN’s response at the end.

ESPN is planning to tap into the women’s sports market with its new ESPN Woman’s “online brand” (which I’m pretty sure is fancy way of saying ‘web site’) But this effort, as it is envisioned, will fail miserably for one simple reason—all women sports fans are not the same.

When I first heard about ESPNW I had visions in my head of various muscular male athletes with their shirts off, links to girl-versions of sports paraphernalia, and an emphasis on female writers and on-air personalities. Unfortunately, ESPN has no such thing in mind. Their plan appears to be to have a web site dedicated to women’s sports that specifically caters to the female fans of those sports.

But who watches women’s sports?

The NY Times cited research from various league offices that when it comes to watching men’s sports “women make up 44 percent of football fans, 45 percent of baseball fans and 36 percent of professional men’s basketball fans, according to research conducted by the sports leagues. During the 2009 season, an average of 4.2 million women watched the N.F.L. on ESPN, according to the network.”

The fact that I couldn’t find numbers for how many women (or men) who watch women’s sports is quite telling (if someone has those numbers, please send!).  You’d have to assume the amount of women who watch women’s sports with any regularity is much, much smaller than the amount that watches male sports. Overall, women make up a quarter of ESPN’s viewership—but that doesn’t mean all of those women are committed to the main brand.

With ESPNW, ESPN is targeting a niche within a niche. For this reason, I think ESPNW will—if it stays around at all—end up being a sort of fitness and health centered version of popular women’s online magazine Jezebel all but abandoning the sports angle altogether. In this scenario, they’re more likely attract the Self/Shape magazine trying-to-lose-those-last-10-pounds-and-simultaneously-improve-my-body-image audience rather than the avid female women’s sports fan they claim to be targeting.

To be successful without caving into stereotypical women’s magazine topics, they’d have to be focused on making ESPNW appealing to men as well. I guess ESPN has officially given up on any plan to make women’s sports more appealing to men either by increasing its coverage of the games or focusing a little more on female athlete human interest stories or some other tactic. I think this is sad–with some creativity ESPN could easily incorporate more women’s sports stories and woman-friendly angles for male sports into their programming that would appeal to women without segregating the content or alienating men.

I do hope ESPN realizes there’s a difference between content that appeals to women sports fans and content that draws in women athletes and content that appeals to female fans of women’s sports. Though all 3 groups may have overlapping membership, they are three different demographics. To lump them all together makes me think that ESPN doesn’t really understand how difficult it would be to create brand loyalty with all of them successfully.

** From Keri Potts at ESPN:

espnW will serve former and current female athletes as well as female sports fans – as in NFL, NBA, college and women’s sports. It is not a site or singular product for only women’s sports fans, but rather, women sports fans. The NYT writer did a great job explaining both sides, but we said women sports fans, not “women’s sports fans.” espnW’s .com presence will provide coverage of all their favorite sports and teams while offering advice and information unique to female athletes, especially women who just graduated college and are moving on from collegiate athletics.

I definitely want to thank ESPN for reaching out to me and providing a response. Great way to get your message out.

Back in June I blogged about Columbia professor Marc Lamont Hill’s allegation that he was harassed by the Philadelphia police. It was reported last week that Hill now plans to sue the Philadelphia police department for the incident he describes in the tweets that appear at the end of the post.

The reporting on this story seems to be headed toward a Hero vs. Hip Hopper storyline. Most outlets have emphasized Officer Decoatesworth’s past heroic actions and subsequent invitation to a joint session of Congress in which he sat beside the first lady.

The above picture was run by Politico.com. In their article they elected NOT to run a picture of Hill at all; rather to refer to him as “another black Ivy League Professor” having a run in with the law, an allusion to Professor Henry Louis Gates’  run-in with a police officer in Cambridge which ended in the infamous “beer-summit” at the White House.

Sidebar: The paragraph comparing Hill and Gates is misleading. Gates didn’t file a Federal civil rights lawsuit nor was his incident with the Philadelphia police as the paragraph implies.

Nevertheless, the decision to run a photo of DeCoatesworth without running a photo of Hill is interesting as was the decision to emphasize DeCoatesworth’s achievements without mentioning who Hill is beyond a black professor.

The Philadelphia Inquirer article on the Hill lawsuit was better but one thing bothered me–they repeatedly referred to the incident as a traffic stop. I suppose this is factually correct as Hill was in his car and driving; however, Hill alleges that the police told him to move his car as he was dropping a friend off, and then after he dropped off his friend, the same police officer’s later stopped him and did not explain why.

That sounds like more than a “traffic stop” and the use of that language sort of downplays the whole thing. Maybe I’m being nitpicky?

I perused a few more sites and most seemed to either follow the Politico route of treating this like a non-story with more details about the cop than the professor–and others spending the bulk of the text explaining the incident. Almost all the sites referred to Hill and hip hop–I suppose that’s fair since lots of his work is centered around the musical genre.

At any rate, if Hill wants to win the media war in this one he has an uphill battle. I think this casting of him as an Ivy League hip hopper who is accusing an 24 year old hometown hero of acting completely and utterly reckless will probably continue–that is until more details are released and a new storyline emerges.

Obviously, journalists have to tell both sides of a story, and there’s no getting around the fact that DeCoatesworth is a hero. However, heroes can later make mistakes–something the general may not immediately recognize given the storyline.

As for Hill, I did note that his initial tweets didn’t sound as though the encounter was violent, so I was surprised to hear those details. That’s the downside of tweeting about something like this, you have to ask why he didn’t relay the juiciest part of the story the first time.

Tell anyone who reads MediaTakeout.com that the site was invited to the White House as part of its effort to “broaden online engagement” with the black community and it will be at least 5 minutes before you can continue the conversation due to the laughter that will ensue.

Media sites have been buzzing about the fact that a few of the members of the African American blogger community who were invited to participate broke the ground rules (the first half of the President’s brief was to be for background only and no quote attribution, the second half was completely off the record). The White House responded by posting a quick after-the-fact blog about the “Summit” including the complete list of list of invitees.

The list is embarrassing and perplexing to say the least.

Beyond Media Take Out among the list were representatives from the urban music gossip blog Concrete Loop, the gossip sites Young Black and Fabulous and Global Grind, politics blog sites like Jack & Jill Politics, as well as news sites like The Washington Post’s The Root, and NBC’s The Grio. Even online dating sites got a seat at the table via Black People Meet’s inclusion in the Summit.

This is such a jumbled mess of an attendee list I’m hard pressed to know where to begin my critique. Many of the sites and site-representatives who gained access to this Summit are notorious for publishing questionable content. The Root’s Cord Jefferson was roundly criticized for his historically inaccurate comparison of the Black Panthers and the Tea Party and Global Grind has admitted to routine content-scraping of other sites.

Media Take Out and Young Black and Fabulous are known to print highly speculative and, in many cases, clearly false information about people in the public eye. Much of the content on Media Take Out’s web site is graphic and certainly not safe for viewing on your work computer. What could they possibly add to a conversation about Obama’s healthcare, education, and civil rights policies?

I have to wonder what kind of research, if any, went into making these picks. They range from the not-very-important-or-relevant to the wildly inappropriate. If the White House was trying to show they’re serious about connecting with African Americans and discussing their issues this wasn’t the way to do it.

All it takes it one click on the homepage of Global Grind or Media Take Out to see that those are not sites that should represent black people politically in any way, nor are they sites that black people visit to engage in serious political debate. Even BET, which does some news reporting wouldn’t be a top pick for most black people when deciding who should represent the community in meetings at the highest levels of government.

As a black woman and confirmed policy wonk, I can tell you, I don’t look to music and gossip blogs for thought leadership. It’s almost as if the White House decided that any blog or web site that is owned or read by black people would be sufficient. I think black people DESERVED better representation at the White House than what was provided via this summit. And if the administration was serious about connecting with bloggers whose audiences they want to engage they all but completely missed the mark.

I have to wonder whether when the White House holds an “integrated” online engagement summit if comparable white, Latino, and Asian sites will be invited. For example, will Harvey Levin be invited to represent TMZ? What about Perez Hilton? Eharmony? Cosmopolitan.com? Something tells me, the types of sites extended an invitation to talk real policy won’t be of the gossip and fashion magazine ilk.

The biggest controversy that has surrounded this summit so far has been the discussion of the breaking of ground rules. Certainly a few of the bloggers broke those ground rules and Natasha Eubanks of Young Black and Fabulous and Kelli Goff of Loop 21 seemed shamefully unapologetic about doing so. Obviously, the bloggers acted in poor and inadvisable taste, but the bigger issue here is the question of seriousness.

Why were credible bloggers excluded for the most part? Is flawed research to blame or something more sinister such as a desire to avoid serious dialogue with the black community? Whatever the case, the President has now elevated the importance and legitimized the existence of sites that add very little to the debate and, in some cases, destroy it altogether.

I can’t decide if the White House doesn’t take the online community seriously or if they believe that the list of invitees is a genuinely accurate representation of black political engagement on the web. Either way, this Summit proves there is a gaping hole in between the President and the black community online and off.

**Complete list of bloggers who attended the summit from the White House blog.

• Aminah Hanan, Blogging While Brown
• Angel Laws, Concrete Loop
• Barion Grant, theGrio
• Claudio Cabrera, NewsOne
• Cord Jefferson, The Root
• Darrell Williams, Ph.D., theLoop21.com
• David Wilson, theGrio
• Deborah Bennett, HelloBeautiful
• Denmark West, BET Networks
• Fred Mwangaguhunga, MediaTakeOut
• Jackie Jones, BlackAmericaWeb.com
• Jeffery Holley, Concrete Loop
• Jeneba Ghatt, Black Web Media
• Jody Vaughn, BET Networks
• Keli Goff, theLoop21.com
• Leutisha Stills, Jack & Jill Politics
• Mario Armstrong, Black Web Media
• Mark Thomas, City Limits
• Michael Skolnick, Global Grind
• Natasha Eubanks, The YBF (Young, Black & Fabulous)
• Ron Worthy, BlackPeopleMeet
• Wendy WIlson, ESSENCE

I found some of the comments that supported (or at least semi-supported) the inclusion of gossip rag blogs interesting.

Melanie S said: “They were not trying to reach politically savvy or credible sites. They were trying to reach popular sites that attract a certain following. Obama is trying to connect with this black demographic, so he gathered the places they go to for news in one room. Yes, I said news. It sounds bizarre, but there are people who see The Root, MTO and Theybf as credible sources for information.”

I’d like to hear more about this demographic and we could speculate Obama intends to do with them. I think The Root is certainly credible, but what would the White House do with the the kind of person (or even the age group) who reads Media Take Out to acquire accurate information?

Cynadoll says: I really don’t believe the WH will utilize these sites to engage in substantive political discussions. I think they’ll be used the same way the WH engages urban radio(i.e. Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey, Michael Baisden, etc)…to get the word out. To make announcements during elections or when Obama needs an important bill passed and he wants you to call your senators/congressman.

I like this comment and I wonder if people think that this lends itself to the idea that Obama only wants to engage with black folks when he needs votes. A couple of white commenters alluded to that on other comment boards.

Another thing I thought of: There were other ways for Obama to reach out to these sites besides having a closed-door meeting at the White House. And, for his VERY FIRST closed door meeting with the black blogosphere, I still think that many of these choices were inappropriate.

Finally Inkognegro said: “I think the choice of blogs speaks more to The Completely Bizarro world status of the Black Blogosphere.”

I’d like to hear him further explain this but as written, I agree. Even a credible source like The Root are confusing sometimes in terms of their goals and content.

And just to be clear, the White House DID portray this as a POLICY discussion meeting, not as a lightweight will-you-help-us-get-out-the-vote effort.

From their blog:

On Monday, the White House hosted its first African American Online Summit, which brought together a group of programming leaders from the African American online media world for an in-depth briefing and discussion about how the Administration is approaching important issues such as jobs, the economy, health care, education, community investment, civil rights and civil liberties, and the First Lady’s Let’s Move! initiative.

The morning was spent with a series of policy briefings on everything from health care reform to the economy. After everyone had a chance to ask questions about specific issues, President Obama was able to drop by for a few minutes to welcome everyone and his senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, was able to stick around to kick off a wide-ranging discussion about how we could work together to engage their audiences.

When I found out that Saturday Night Live had added new cast members this season, I hoped a black woman would be among the new crop. I was disappointed to find out that, although one black man was added to the cast, not one black woman was chosen. In fact, over the show’s 35 year history, only 3 black women have been a part of the cast.

Unfortunately, rather than completely avoid sketches that parody black women, Keenan Thompson dresses in drag to play everyone from Oprah to Whoopi Goldberg. I’m surprised he hasn’t tried his hand at Beyonce yet–although I probably shouldn’t speak too soon.

Adding a black woman to the cast should be a no-brainer given how pervasive black women are in pop culture. Comedienne and Oscar winner Mo’nique and popular former radio personality Wendy Williams both have their own talk shows. Oprah is the powerhouse she’s always been. Then there’s First Lady Michelle Obama and pop singers like Rihanna and American Idol winner Fantasia and, of course, Beyonce. All of these women are ripe for comedic material.  I can’t figure out why SNL hasn’t capitalized on this fact given their decreased ratings and clear need to broaden their audience.

But even when not parodying real people SNL would benefit from having a black woman on air. So would the wildly popular ”The Daily Show,” which has, over the years, featured several black men.

A couple months back, there was much debate about whether or not sexism is rampant on the set of the “The Daily Show.” The women who work for the show wrote a letter defending their bosses. Above the letter was a photo of the “The Daily Show” women. Out of 31 women 2 appeared to be black. I don’t know what their roles are on the set or if there are additional black women who weren’t pictured, but I do know “The Daily Show” does not feature a black woman on air.

Too bad these aren’t the only examples of black women being virtually frozen out of mainstream comedy.

Thompson is only one of a slew of black male performers such as Tyler Perry, Martin Lawrence, and Jamie Foxx, who have, in part, built careers dressing as black women for laughs. Lawerence’s Big Mama’s House and all of Tyler Perry’s films that feature the gun-toting ”matriarch” Madea have been successful with crossover audiences. It appears that black women are funny provided they’re not actually women. Perhaps the best way for a black woman to build a career in comedy is to dress up as a man dressing up as a woman.

I’m well aware that the male-dominated world of comedy isn’t kind to women overall. Still, America has become too comfortable with the gender equivalent to performing in black face. For the most popular sketch comedy show on television to favor having a man dress in drag every episode rather than hire a black woman simply isn’t funny.

Pastor Long Preaching pre-sex scandal

The New York Times ran the photo to the left with this headline:

“Sex Scandal Threatens Georgia Pastor’s Empire”

That sentence is why I love the old gray haired lady. What a powerful 6 words. And the photo is a great complement.

Anyone care to discuss what makes this photo and headline so striking?

*For the complete Times story, click on the photo.

For those who don’t know, No Wedding No Womb is a movement started by Christelyn D. Karazin and Lorraine Spencer to encourage responsible relationships and parenting (broadly speaking). Karazin is now married but spent some time as a single mother and has stated that she wishes she’d made some different choices in the past, especially as it pertains to having a child out of wedlock. You can find more information here, but the gist of it is both women and men need to make smart decisions and try very hard not to produce children outside of marriage.

As far as I can see, there’s nothing wrong with that message—there’s also nothing groundbreaking about it either. Many bloggers, personalities, and media outlets signed on to be a part of No Wedding No Womb which officially launched on September 22.

I’m used to choruses of “Amens” any time black people are taken to task whether fairly or not. But this time, things weren’t quite so simple. No Wedding No Womb seems to be getting just as much, if not more, blow back as it is getting support.

There are a couple of reasons why I think the movement hasn’t been well received across the board.

Much of the success of any movement is largely predicated on timing. We are coming off of a year when black women have had it very hard in the media. From stories about how they will never be married to stories about how they will never have any money—there’s been one piece of bad news after another.

By and large, black women are shouldering the blame alone and this movement feels like piling on. Though No Wedding No Womb explicitly states they are advocating responsibility by both men and women alike, male reproductive organs aren’t mentioned in the title.

In the midst of a time when black women are achieving more than ever before, having less children than ever before, and feeling more divided from black men than ever, No Wedding, No Womb as a concept just seems tone deaf.

It’s also a bit Reaganesque in that it takes a snapshot of a certain group of people and presents it as the norm in order to achieve a desired goal with no regard for the image of the larger group. In Reagan’s case, his motives were malicious. By singling out poor black women as a drain on society, he created a lasting image of black women in general being deficient. That being said, it’s no wonder that Conservative web sites like The Daily Caller dialed in their agenda-laden support.

I don’t think that No Wedding No Womb is malicious, but I do think its needlessly damaging. For many, No Wedding No Womb immediately conjures up images of the myth of the welfare queen and other unfair stereotypes bandied about regarding single mothers. The underlying assumption is that there is an epidemic of black women who don’t understand that marriage is ideal. There’s no evidence beyond confusing and easily manipulated statistics that hint at that being a fact. It’s hard to get behind something that drums up such bad feelings, no matter how noble the cause, when there are only flimsy statistics to back it up.

When it comes to the title, using the term No Wedding No Womb, while catchy and direct, completely sacrifices nuance. You have to go to the web site in order to find out that their goals are not absolute e.g. they aren’t advocating for everyone get married even if you hate the person you’re with. I can assume that the title was conceived to get a reaction and draw interest. Unfortunately, sometimes you get a reaction and no real interest. And the reaction from many single mothers was an instinctual urge to defend their own personal decisions, not to go to the web site and find out more.

The creators of No Wedding No Womb have themselves to blame for their awful presentation. However, that doesn’t excuse entire written blog posts and twitter timelines that skew the intention of this initiative. In fact, I even had to stop myself from discussing it because I felt I was uninformed.

For those who are interested in a pretty substantive discussion on this subject and why the stats are so misleading, I recommend you read this post and this post over at The Atlantic. FYI: Census reports should be out fairly soon, and the numbers are likely to take this conversation in a different direction.