Latest Fast Company Article

Cenk Uygur Sets Out to Take Down Traditional Television

By: Tina DupuyTue Dec 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Cenk Uygur and his rebel band are out to take down traditional television, with a hand from YouTube, satellite radio, and 500,000 fans.
Young Turks, Cenk Ugyr

Photographs by Dave Lauridsen

Television studios are airport-hangar-size buildings with green rooms, overflow trailers, and people with massive salaries bustling around. I’m sitting instead in a cramped office on Wilshire Boulevard, a mile from Beverly Hills, which has been converted into a makeshift studio for the Internet-based TV talk show The Young Turks. In the control room, three staffers in T-shirts and a perky producer, Ana Kasparian, 23, man eight computer screens and clutch boxes of various Willy Wonka candies. A wall-size window separates them from a modest newscast-esque set.

Just before 4 p.m., host Cenk Uygur, 39, arrives — “early,” he says, so we could talk — not at all fazed that his three-hour show is streaming live in 10 minutes. I’ve seen the show; his musings are thoughtful, insightful gems in a sea of digitized diatribes. I look around for a teleprompter. There isn’t one. No writers either. Uygur watches the day’s video clips for the first time during commercial breaks, seconds before he discusses them on-air.

Uygur doesn’t look like a rebel, but there is something revolutionary going on here. Roughly 450,000 people watch The Young Turks on YouTube alone; thousands more in the precious 18-to-35 demo listen on Sirius Satellite Radio and through the TYT Web site, making it competitive with, say, MSNBC’s Morning Joe (382,000 viewers a day in September), or CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight (616,000). And that, says Uygur, is only the beginning of a campaign “to take down television.”

“When I watch TV, I see robots,” he says. “We’re not robots; we’re people.” On a show touching on health-care reform and Senator Max Baucus, Uygur proclaimed, “The mainstream media and the politicians who do these tricks and the media who cover for them — guess what? You’re fucked. We’re coming for you. We’re coming to your house.”

Uygur is no Jim Cramer or Keith Olbermann. There are no props. He doesn’t pace or throw papers. On air, he sits at a desk in a news-anchor manner, without the necktie. His style is conversational. Even from the voyeuristic distance of YouTube, he seems to be having an intimate chat with his viewers. For two hours, he comments on what interests him about each sound bite and piece of video, and talks with guests who span the spectrum from Mel Brooks to Mary Matalin. A self-described moderate progressive, he sometimes disagrees with the likes of Michael Moore. For the third hour, cohost and producer Kasparian does softer news.

The Turks’ goal has always been to make a television show for the Web and build on that success. “In ‘97, I knew television and the Internet would merge,” Uygur says. “Didn’t realize radio would too.” TYT was Sirius’s first original programming, an arrangement that, by 2006, provided this ragtag crew with an operating budget of $250,000 a year. According to Uygur, the network wouldn’t allow them to produce a YouTube video program, so they raised their own funds (mostly friends and family) and worked out a syndication deal with Sirius. The gamble paid off; within a year, revenue reached the $250,000 mark. Today, TYT takes in more than $20,000 a month from YouTube’s ad sharing, plus a similar sum from 2,100 subscriptions and ads from its own Web site. Revenue has doubled in the past 18 months.

With operating costs of $35,000 a month, covering five full-time employees and rent, TYT is a lean — and modestly profitable — talking machine. There’s no makeup person. No wardrobe budget. No craft services. No catered lunches. No grips. No unions. And no 401(k)s. “Yeah, I’m on my wife’s health care,” admits Uygur.

To create a single hour of cable news, “you’re probably looking at a ballpark of $200,000 to $300,000,” says Pixel Pictures executive producer Karen Daniel. Compare that to TYT’s tidy budget and television looks like a dinosaur blissfully dismissing mammals, or newspapers scoffing at blogs circa 2002.

TYT does absolutely no advertising. Rabid fans, known as the Young Turks’ Nation, are the show’s most devoted publicists. “Our marketing is purely word of mouth and people linking to our videos and blogs on the Web,” says Uygur. Meaning TYT has found a way to crowdsource everything, from fact checking to $10-a-month Web subscriptions to keep the lights on. “If I screw up and say something wrong, I instantly get 100 messages,” says Uygur.

What’s next for TYT? “Launch a network,” says Uygur. “We’re crazy cheap.” He notes they already have the studio and the equipment to produce another show. It would just take a couple more crew members and a new producer. The model is proven. YouTube is equipped. The TYT brand is ready to expand. Uygur hopes to launch at least one new show in the next three months.

But what if MSNBC, where Uygur had talks last spring about its 10 p.m. slot, comes calling? What if a real television network wants to scoop up TYT? “It would have to coexist with what we have,” Uygur says. Cable news is welcome to syndicate its content, but TYT won’t shut down the YouTube channel for the old Goliath of cable news. Instead, Uygur says, “we’re going to pick their pockets.”

Via Fast Company

 

“Big Brother” is watching you in a very “Orwellian” way. Has been for years. People who have never heard of George Orwell know of the term “Big Brother.” In many ways his dark vision of what the year 1984 would look like is prophetic. For example, his novel 1984 takes place in a never-ending war while technology is aiding an over-reaching government. I read that in the New York Times yesterday.

Orwell was right. He was dead on. Spooky.

EM Forster is best known for his novels Howards End and A Passage to India. Less well-known is a 12,000-word science fiction piece, an allegory about technology titled, ”The Machine Stops” written in 1909.

Forster’s gloomy tale takes place in a future where all the world’s people have become hermits, content with no longer physically touching others, opting instead to live in solitary with the aid of The Machine. “There are no musical instruments and yet…this room is throbbing with melodious sounds,” he writes. The protagonist Vashti lives in a small climate controlled room, illuminated by neither lamp nor window. She has thousands of friends. She even lectures on “Music during the Australian Period.” It all takes place through The Machine. The catalyst is when her son wants to see her in person instead of through the “blue plate.” People don’t travel above ground anymore. The atmosphere is barren and brown. And Vashti doesn’t care for “air-ships.”

Basically he predicted central air, the Internet, video conferencing, television, radio, global warming and commercial air travel.

Forster was right. He was dead on. Spooky.

“The Machine Stops” was penned a hundred years ago. From a historical perspective, the first radio was not installed in the White House until 1922, yet a Victorian like Forster imagined modernity amazingly close.

I first read this short story ten years ago: before I became a telecommuter, before MySpace, before Google was a verb. Now I have days where I feel like Vashti, isolated in my pajamas revering The Machine. “The Machine, feeds us and clothes us and houses us; through it we speak to one another, through it we see one another, in it we have our being,” wrote Forster.

But the story is also a poignant criticism of technological advancement. The current struggle between “old media” and “new media” is one of reporting verses the digesting news. One hundred years ago a lecturer in Forster’s tale pronounces, ”Beware of first-hand ideas! First hand-ideas do not really exist…Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from the disturbing element – direct observation.” It’s a rundown of blogging verses journalism.

It’s not just that Forster foresaw the Internet, but he guessed rightly how it would be used. In this fable of the future what values most are ideas – they are the new commodity.  Talking to her son Kuno about his desire to see her in person through The Machine is private, until Vashti turns off her isolation switch. “The room was filled with the noise of bells, and speaking-tubes. What was the new food like? Could she recommend it? Had she any ideas lately? Might one tell her one’s own ideas?” He’s describing online communities. He’s describing Facebook. He’s describing Twitter.

“We created the Machine, to do our will, but we cannot make it do our will now,” Forster wrote. “It has robbed us of the sense of space and of the sense of touch, it has blurred every human relation and narrowed down love to a carnal act, it has paralyzed our bodies and our wills, and now it compels us to worship it. “ Of course, as I write this my “machine” chimes with the siren call of new emails, IMs and tweets tempting me to distraction. To quote Vashti as she tried to comfort herself while on the air-ship, ”O Machine! O Machine!”

This piece originally appeared on True/Slant.

 
 

Blogger Asks For Payment From Newspaper

(tech note: I’m having issues with the embed, so it’s a screen grab linked to YouTube)
I’m calling this episode “YouTube to the Rescue!”

As a freelance writer, when I don’t have an assignment, I’m in the practice of writing witty and pointed opinion pieces to keep my name out there. I send these articles out to op/ed editors around the country. Some papers pick up my work. Many don’t. I’ve been doing this for years.

Well, a month ago I found via Google Alert a piece of mine was published in the Tampa Tribune. They never contacted me prior to publishing it. I sent them an email telling them I was never asked for my permission. The editor Jeff Stidham, responded explaining my unsolicited submission didn’t ask for payment or permission. Which is not how copyright works.

Anyway, I wrote them back, sending them an invoice for $75, which is the amount newspapers of their size and circulation normally pay guest columnists. I have not heard back from them.

So now my only recourse is putting a video up on the Internet to plead my case.

Enjoy!

 

LA Marathon for the LA Weekly

Ruining the L.A. Marathon

Preachers pressured City Hall to change it. Now the race faces uncertainties

By Tina Dupuy

Published on June 16, 2009 at 9:15pm

The L.A. Marathon has never been world-class. The course is hilly and winds through the ugliest parts of the city, a festival of blights. It’s gone through three owners in six years, and the number of entrants is half of what Chicago and New York boast. It’s not a “runner’s marathon” but a very long parade of moisture-wicking wear.

And now it’s morphed into a flash point for religious leaders to browbeat City Hall, with probably more strife to come. Next year’s event is slipping toward turmoil, with officials at the L.A. Marathon failing to release or even hint at a date for next year.The unsettled situation regarding this decades-old, major-metropolis marathon is extremely unusual; it’s keeping sponsors and runners in limbo, and is an indicator of how the key political players in the drama, City Councilman Tom LaBonge and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, have failed to clean up the marathon mess.

As runner Shanna Moore wrote in an online petition calling for the marathon to return to its longtime date of a Sunday in March, “I proudly attend church on Sundays and often during the week, and I know firsthand that if someone wants to get to services, no once-a-year marathon is going to stop them. This is all ridiculous! Move the race back to a March Sunday or don’t have it at all. These ‘houses of worship’ should be ashamed of themselves!”

For years, the L.A. Marathon, like every other U.S. marathon (save the oldest, in Boston) has taken place on a Sunday. But the closed-off streets were, according to Father John S. Bakas of Pico-Union–based Saint Sophia Greek Orthodox Cathedral, “an infringement on our access and ability to worship on the sabbath,” which tied up “the whole city until 2 p.m.”

In 2004, according to religious leaders, then–mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa had promised them he would move the race to a different day. “He promised me that,” says the Rev. Jeong Song of Mijoo Peace Church in Koreatown.

With religious leaders increasingly insistent, a curious math began to emerge: The numbers of avid churchgoers and others purportedly stymied by street closures during the one-day marathon blossomed to one-quarter of L.A.’s 4 million people. “Using the most conservative estimates, 921,000 people are directly affected,” states Save Our Sabbaths, a group that includes Bakas, on its Web site.

Song, who has opposed the Sunday race for more than 14 years, says, “I told them it was 100,000 people impacted [who] cannot attend church” — a more modest figure but also inflated. By some estimates, the turnout for runners, volunteers and supporters of the marathon is upward of 200,000.

Last fall, the L.A. Marathon, a corporation, was bought by Dodgers owner Frank McCourt. Seizing the moment, the religious community spearheaded by Bakas — the self-proclaimed “biggest mouth and the most passionate” — shook its collective fist and finally prevailed. The 2009 marathon was set to take place on a federal holiday, a Monday, not a Sunday.

In the contract being negotiated by the city of Los Angeles and the McCourt Group, President’s Day in February was the suggested date — as most cities with hot weather hold their marathons in winter to spare the runners from the heat. The contract with McCourt was easily ratified by the Los Angeles City Council, with Villaraigosa’s blessing.

Everyone seemed happy — until the first “pre-planning” meeting, at which police, fire and transportation officials met at Councilman LaBonge’s office. There, somebody thought to ask senior transportation engineer Aram Sahakian about the street logistics of holding the marathon on President’s Day, February 16.

Incredibly, nobody on the vast staff of the 15-member Los Angeles City Council, which employs 320 personal assistants at an annual cost of about $20 million, had bothered to fully review that date with the transportation engineers before the council approved the deal. Instead, Sahakian tells L.A. Weekly, “It was done verbally at a meeting.”

Sahakian informed the pre-planning group that so many people work on President’s Day that he couldn’t recommend a race then. He envisioned a huge commuter-traffic mess. Sahakian, who has worked on the minutiae of road closures and preparations for the marathon for 10 years, says that the query “was just thrown out at us, asking for a recommendation.”

The only other “federal-holiday Monday” in the first part of the year was Memorial Day, May 25. And to the chagrin of runners, fans and residents, the city’s 23-year tradition of holding its race in early March was suddenly being shunned in favor of a marathon date during a much hotter season.

Despite an uproar, religious leaders — insisting on their mythical estimation that 1 million church-going residents would face road closures — refused to back down, citing barriers to religious freedom. Bakas’ loudest battle cry has been “Honor the contract” — a contract whose date was rejected because it had not been fully explored and was unfeasible. He exclaimed to L.A. Weekly, “Why would we have to work it out? It’s already worked out. The City Council voted. We have a contract.”

The weather stayed cool on May 25, and the runners did not face horrific heat. But the unprecedented uncertainty and controversy kept runners and viewers away in droves. The L.A. Marathon does not disclose the number of its registered runners. But in the past 10 years, according to its Web site, the average number of those who finish the race in a given year is 18,000. This year, fewer than 14,200 completed the marathon.

“Their argument doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t make any sense,” says Peter Abraham, director of the L.A. Marathon, of Bakas’ claim that blocking some streets one day out of 365 harms the churches’ ability to thrive.

Now, the issue over the 2010 race sits before the Los Angeles City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee, headed by Councilman Bernard Parks. Parks tells the Weekly, “If the two groups [runners and church leaders] can come together and take care of it, that would be great.” He says it’s not up to the City Council to fix this, and that the McCourt Group is letting City Hall “take the blame.”

In fact, it is up to the City Council, which must now amend the contract it so badly botched, and settle on a date for next year’s marathon. And to make sure the council members ban the marathon on Sunday, Bakas and his Save Our Sabbaths posse have enlisted former mayor Richard Riordan, whom Bakas calls “just a private citizen who has been very helpful to us.” When asked if Riordan is lobbying the council, Bakas tells the Weekly, “I hope so.”

Notably, during the tenure of Riordan, a devout Catholic, the pragmatic mayor never stopped the race from taking place on a Sunday; Riordan was, in fact, a marathon enthusiast. The group’s other headliner lobbyist, Cardinal Roger Mahony, has written to council members, pushing them to ban a Sunday race.

LaBonge now argues that the race belongs on its original Sunday in March, saying, “I believe the best day of the week in L.A. is a Sunday morning.” He’s suggesting a “face-to-face dialogue” between the religious groups and the runners. After all, the runners are the ones forking over about $100 per person to participate, and in many cases they are traveling great distances to run the race here.The runners are also the ones McCourt must woo in order for his acquisition to turn a profit. Many runners and race supporters, 5,000 of whom signed a petition in recent months, favoring the traditional Sunday in March, are furious. But LaBonge insists, “We have to have agreement from everybody.”

Bakas, whom few Angelenos had heard of before the contretemps, is clearly relishing his bizarrely granted, outsize power over the city, its traditions and dwellers. In an e-mail to council members Janice Hahn, Bill Rosendahl and LaBonge, Bakas compares holding the race on a Sunday to biblical bloodletting: “In this matter we WILL NOT IMITATE JESUS by putting our heads down and be led like ‘sheep to the slaughter.’ ”

Now, the Pasadena Marathon, whose fall 2008 debut was postponed until last February due to wildfires, is again scheduled for February next year, close to the traditional March date of the L.A. Marathon. Who knew a nimby turf war would move the money out to the suburbs?

This piece originally ran in the LA Weekly.

 

Babies & Bibles

At Glendale’s Avenues Pregnancy Clinic, women go in for a pregnancy test and come out fearing eternal damnation

By Tina Dupuy 04/16/2009

I’m sitting in a generic-looking clinic waiting room. The space is clean. Empty. Quiet. The all-purpose art on the walls matches the neutral-colored couches. A receptionist at the office window, a 30-something brunette clad in scrubs and a sensible cardigan, sits at a desk and appears busy.It looks like any doctor’s office. Totally normal.

I’m filling out a form. It’s only two pages long and doesn’t ask the usual personal and medical information. One page asks for my name, contact info, date of birth and date of my last period. The other is a disclosure form. It notifies me that the people I’m about to talk to do not have psychological degrees and have not gone to medical school. The volunteers, the form says, should not be considered a substitute for professional counseling. Oh, and the pregnancy test I’m about to take, the form tells me, should not be considered a clinical diagnosis.

I’m at Avenues in Glendale, which — despite all the above disclaimers — styles itself a “pregnancy clinic.”

I’ve come to Avenues Pregnancy Clinic, located on West Glenoaks Boulevard, to do some undercover investigating after hearing a bizarre story from a friend.

Maggie, as we’ll call her, is 23 years old. She’s what I call a yoga twinkie (not to her face): sweet, open-minded and sometimes naïve. Maggie just moved in with her new boyfriend. It’s the first time she’s lived with anyone. She’s elated, she’s in love, and now she’s late. Just by a couple of days, but she’s worried. Maggie is proudly paying her own way through college. There’s a sign in a medical office complex on the way home from her job touting “Free Pregnancy Test.”

So she goes. To her relief, her test comes back negative. To her surprise, she’s kept in what she describes as a backroom, where several women, dressed as nurses, want to speak with her about her life decisions. Maggie is far too polite to try to leave or question her detention.

The women talk to her about “living in sin.” They ask her if she believes in God. Yeah, sure, she tells them, she believes in God (and Allah and Buddha and the Master Cleanse). After two-and-a-half hours the nurses ask Maggie if she would like to give her life to Jesus Christ and pray with them. Maggie is blindsided. All she wanted was to know if she was pregnant.

She leaves with a Bible and an existential crisis. “They were so convincing; they said all this stuff,” Maggie tells me, in tears, after her ordeal. “I don’t know. Is it wrong that I’m living with Mike?”

Her voice seems earnestly stressed about the answer.

“Tina, do you think I’m going to hell?”

Avenues is a California primary clinic, fully licensed and accredited by the state. So exactly what kind of medical facility lures women with the promise of free pregnancy tests and leaves them fearing eternal damnation?

The mission statement on Avenues’ Web site reads, “Avenues Pregnancy Clinic is a Christ-centered ministry dedicated to affirming the value of life. Our mission is to provide a network of care to those experiencing pregnancy-related crisis and compassionately presenting Biblical truth resulting in changed lives to the glory of God.”

According to their site, Avenues has been “presenting Biblical truth” to women since 1988. And no, this is not Honduras. This is not even Arkansas. This is Los Angeles County.

A 2006 article in The New York Times says there are anywhere from 2,300 to 3,500 of these religious-themed clinics, often referred to as “crisis pregnancy centers,” nationwide, compared with around 1,800 abortion providers. Planned Parenthood has 15 clinics in the LA area. LifeCall.org, a pro-life resource Web site, mentions 25 or more centers in the same area.

Typically, as is the case with Avenues, the religious intentions of these clinics-in-name-only aren’t publicly displayed on their sign or even on their disclosure forms. They intentionally camouflage themselves to look like medical facilities, following the advice of Robert Pearson, who — after Hawaii decriminalized abortion in 1967 — started the first crisis pregnancy center in Honolulu to combat it. The Pearson Foundation Manual, “How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center,” published in 1984, is still used today as a blueprint. Pearson writes, “Obviously, we’re fighting Satan. A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby.”

The camouflage is still used, even today.

“I thought I was at a medical clinic,” recalls Judy, a gruff 43-year-old mother of one, who mistakenly went into Avenues because it’s adjacent to her general practitioner’s office. “I told them the same dialogue I was going to tell my doctor.”

Judy was pregnant. The volunteers at Avenues put her in the backroom and told her if she had an abortion she would have problems “getting into heaven.” Judy had already had an abortion 20 years ago. A recovering drug addict, Judy was afraid that if she had another child she could “revert back to addiction” as she did when her 9-year-old was born.

“I was vulnerable,” she says. “I was falling apart.”

Like Maggie, Judy was kept there for two hours. “I heard that I was going to hell and that I was fucked,” she remembers. They hooked her up to the ultrasound to “see the heartbeat,” a procedure that Chicago-based gynecologist and author Dr. Michael Applebaum describes as both unnecessary and even irresponsible. “It’s not an emergency to have an ultrasound immediately,” he says, adding that “medical tests shouldn’t be performed without a reason.”

Judy describes her visit to Avenues as a trip into “The Twilight Zone.” A week later she found an actual women’s clinic and terminated her pregnancy, a decision she says that she is happy with. But her detour to Avenues still haunts her.

“I don’t like what I went through,” she says. “Bizarre is putting it lightly. It’s like I slipped into hell for a minute.

[What they do in Avenues] just doesn’t go with the face of the physical place. It was a horrible experience — just manipulative. Deceptive! That’s what I feel — deceived.”

In the waiting room, I write my drag queen name (favorite pet plus street I grew up on), “Sasha Collins,” on the form. I’m/she is four days late.

A woman in scrubs calls out my name and leads me through the halls to the backroom that Maggie described. There’s a desk, more generic office artwork, some literature and a chair I plop down on. I appear to be the only client in the building that day.

A sturdy woman with shaggy blond hair who will later give me her card with the name Melissa Knox, RN, comes in. She sits down and shuffles through her official-looking paperwork.

“Have you given any thoughts to what you’re going to do if you’re pregnant?” she asks. I say I don’t know. I tell her I have no money, and my boyfriend I was living with just left me.

“Isn’t there, like, a pill or something I can take?” I ask.

“There is. It’s called RU486. But you can only take it if you are less than three weeks pregnant.”

From the information I gave her, I would be around three weeks pregnant, maybe less.

She grabs a chart and shows me. “Since your last period was on this date, if you’re pregnant, you’re at least five weeks along right now.”

“Really?” I ask, peering closer at the chart. “Oh my God!” I say, pretending to be shocked, but simultaneously actually shocked.

“Yeah, isn’t that weird how that works,” she offers.
Indeed.

“Plus,” she says matter-of-factly, “the FDA is under investigation for RU486. They’re going to be in a lot of trouble.”

“Wow! Really?” I play along. Just who investigates the FDA? I wonder, but never ask.

“OK, we’re going to give you a urine test to see if you’re pregnant. Now if you are …” she pauses dramatically, “we have to give you an ultrasound, kay? We do that, kay, to see if the fetus is viable. Thirty percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, so we need to know what’s going on, kay?”

She hands me another disclosure form, this one stating that the ultrasound is also not a clinical diagnosis. Basically contradicting what she just said.

Dr. Applebaum says that not as many pregnancies end in miscarriage as Melissa claimed. And RU486? It’s called Mifepristone in this country, and most guidelines state that a woman can take it up to two months after their last period.

I pee into a cup. In the room where I drop it off is the massive ultrasound machine. It is the only medical equipment in the place. I was expecting to see at least a tongue depressor.

A couple of minutes later Melissa enters the backroom I’m in. “OK, your pregnancy test came back negative.”

“Awesome!” I bleat. “What a relief!”

Melissa sits down at her desk and abruptly launches into her personal story. “I am a very sexual person,” she informs me, “but you know latex allows viruses to seep through.”

Latex? The same material surgical gloves are made out of? Viruses seeping through?!

Then Melissa announces she personally has forgone sex for the past eight years.

“My God! How do you do that?”

I ask.
“With God,” she responds. “I pray … a lot.”

Why not be candid? Why not give accurate medical facts? Why mask the religious intention? Why all the sneakiness? Isn’t this a classic bait and switch? Go in for a root canal and come out with fire insurance? Isn’t this fraud?

“I would be curious to know what kind of medical license allows a clinic to NOT offer health care,” says Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, D-NY.

In 2006, Maloney sponsored HR 5052, the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act. “We have to protect the First Amendment,” she tells me by email. “We can’t clamp down on the honest opinions of those who disagree with those of us who are pro-choice. What we CAN do is what my bill does, which is clamp down on those who advertise with intent to deceive, and empower the [Federal Trade Commission] to enforce such a provision.”

The bill would have outlawed these fake clinics. It was co-sponsored by 46 members of Congress, including Rahm Emanuel, now President Obama’s chief of staff, and Hilda Solis, now the Secretary of Labor. However, the bill died in committee.

“Marketing should be 100 percent truthful,” says Dan Steiner, president of Avenues, when reached by phone.
Is Avenues 100 percent truthful? Says Steiner, “Absolutely.”

Mission Pre-Born (MP), is Steiner’s broad nonprofit. Its stewardship guidelines read, “Full disclosure [walking in the light] is our practice.” His “vision” is to bring more “fully disclosed” crisis pregnancy centers to LA County in what he likes to call the “Miracle Campaign.”

However, when asked about the cryptic forms that state that none of the tests should be considered a clinical diagnosis, Steiner responds, “I’m not aware of the form.”

Steiner, who could be entered in a Ross Perot look-alike contest, explains Avenues tactics and hopes for a new clinic in Hollywood on a fundraising video on the MP Web site: “This is the front door of Los Angeles City College. All the students come out here and if they have a suspicion that they have an unplanned pregnancy, day after day they will see our sign, ‘Free Pregnancy Test,’ right across the street. They’ll see it before they see Planned Parenthood; they’ll see it before they see the abortion clinic. Then they walk out and there it will be and BANG!” He slaps his hands together. “We’ve captured that woman before the abortionist does!”
Bang? We’ve captured that woman?

“Capture their attention,” Steiner attempts to clarify. Minutes later the video is taken down from the Web.

“Captured is a good word,” says Joyce Schorr, president and founder of Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project, or WRRAP. “They have to capture you because what they do is not aboveboard.

“To not say who you really are is to have an illegal front,” continues Schorr. “[Avenues and clinics like it] continue to be effective because there is no public outcry, because people don’t care.”

But that’s not the only reason.

This common kind of deceit in women’s health care has its allies. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D.

Antonovich, arguably one of the most powerful men in California, is listed on Avenues’ advisory board. He oddly omits the affiliation with the clinic from his bio on his Web site. When asked about this, Antonovich’s press secretary Tony Bell says curtly, “We certainly can add that.”

As to whether the supervisor is aware of the misleading practices done by an organization he’s advising, Bell simply states, “He supports the mission.”

In the backroom, Melissa tells me about all the reasons I should never have intercourse. “Every woman, when she has sex, gives away a little piece of her heart,” she says, then hands me a fistful of abstinence literature.

We chitchat a bit more before Melissa finally stands up, indicating I can go. She escorts me to the back door and hands me a flyer to see her band play the following week. I wonder why I didn’t get a Bible.

The receptionist in the office is there to see me off.

“We had another clinic in Hollywood,” she informs me on my way out. “We’re trying to get back there again because we’re so badly needed there.” I nod and walk out the door.

What could possibly be so badly needed? I just spent nearly two hours of my time to get an admittedly unreliable pregnancy test, erroneous medical information and find out more than I ever wanted to know about the life of a sexless 35-year-old bass player.

This is a licensed medical clinic.

It’s usually safe to assume that medical clinics provide medical care. But if you have the capacity to bear children, those rules apparently don’t apply. If a cancer clinic were run as a Christian Scientist front there would be anger.

There would be disgust. It would be shut down. But the distraught woman in dire circumstances — “a killer who in this case is the girl” — being routinely defrauded because she “has no right to information” has gone unnoticed by the general public.

As I walk down the street back to my car, I glance at one of the abstinence flyers Melissa gave me during her oversharing session.

“True love,” it says, “protects 100 percent of the time.”

This story originally appeared in Pasadena Weekly.

 

LA Weekly and the Octomom

Octomom as Reproductive Lightning Rod

Do the prolife and prochoice sides in L.A. finally agree on something?

By Tina Dupuy

Published on April 01, 2009 at 7:03pm

Nadya Suleman is our local, single, unemployed, plastic surgery–enhanced welfare mother of 14, many of them “special-needs” children. Her story is straight out of Brothers Grimm, and by now the world knows that all of her children, including her octuplets, born in January, were conceived through in-vitro fertilization.“Does she live in a shoe?” asked my friend’s 4-year-old daughter.Suleman is a staple for Dr. Phil intervention, tabloid prattle and message-board hostility, but underlying it all is an emerging story that pits her against both prolifers and prochoicers.“It’s a Rubik’s Cube of reproductive issues,” admits Colleen Holmes, executive director of Eagle Forum, a prolife conservative grassroots organization. “It takes childbearing out of the family and is not in the best interest of the children.”In a RadarOnline “video showdown” with Suleman and her mother, Angela Suleman, before the children were born, Suleman described them as “human beings that are growing. That are related to you.”

Suleman’s mother snapped back, referring to the embryos her daughter had used: “They were frozen, and you didn’t have to do anything.”

“They were lives,” Suleman insisted.

In other circumstances, prolifers might have taken up her cause, proud of a media-magnet example of a woman who would not destroy any embryos for any reason. Indeed, prolife blogger Jill Stanek says that Suleman’s decision to not abort her babies or selectively reduce their numbers was prolife. But beyond that, Stanek states, “many prolifers believe the process of in-vitro fertilization is unhealthy and/or immoral.” She wrote on conservative World Net Daily, “I tend toward Catholic teaching that it is morally wrong to create the image of God in a Petri dish.”

Normally on the other side of such divides are prochoice advocates like Leslie Marshall, a Talk USA nationally syndicated host in Los Angeles. Instead, Marshall is stunned to see that Suleman, so vehemently opposed to abortion and the destruction of fetuses, is drawing the ire of the prolife movement.

“You would think she would be their [prolife] poster child,” Marshall says. “A woman who can’t afford these babies but had them, didn’t abort them — or murder them, as a prolifer would put it. … I was surprised they didn’t erect a monument or shrine to her.”

“Freedom, including women’s reproductive freedom, entails responsibility,” says Carole Lieberman, a prochoice Beverly Hills psychiatrist who filed the first complaint with Child Protective Services against Suleman. Lieberman tells L.A. Weekly, “Nadya is the poster child for women’s reproductive irresponsibility. Prochoice essentially means that she had the choice over her body in regard to reproduction. She had several options, including donating her frozen eggs or giving the babies up for adoption.”

“She illustrates the problem with ‘every sperm is sacred,’ ‘every egg is sacred,’” says Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood. “She’s a poster child for irresponsible childbearing.”

For anyone keeping score, the antichoice people think Suleman made the wrong choice and the prochoice people think she made the wrong choice. Normally only in fiction would such a scenario unfold.

Some prolifers have blamed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling for the situation, saying it has led to the erosion of social norms and cut men out of the picture. But Liz Owen, a prochoice activist in Valley Village since the early 1990s and mother of twins by in-vitro fertilization, says, “‘Prochoice’ should not be equated with bad medical decisions.”

Regardless of what the various sides think of Suleman’s resolve to have all those preemies, most of the feeble bundles are home after a reported $1 million in medical bills at Kaiser Hospital in Bellflower.

Suleman’s medical bills are giving the two sides in the abortion wars something to haggle over, while they seem to agree that the eight babies deserve society’s support now that they’re here — but with caveats.

Prochoicer Marshall says of the prolife crowd, “Now they complain because they have to pay for them? So … it’s okay to pay for the unborn, but once you’re born, forget it?”

Prolifer Stanek is equally ready to slam the other side, telling the Weekly, “They don’t think children should be conceived in adverse financial circumstances. But they aren’t giving Suleman a break. They’re mad she gets financial help from the government, and mad at the thought of her making money from book and movie deals.”

Holmes tries to explain that being prolife means more than caring about persuading women not to have abortions, saying her greater issue is that “life needs to be protected.” She draws a line at government assistance aimed at the parents, saying, “We don’t agree with welfare, though. The focus should be on the children.”

But so far, much of this tangled tale has been about the adults.Among other standout moments, feminist icon and lawyer Gloria Allred secured 24-hour nursing care and housing for all of Suleman’s children through an organization called Angels in Waiting, founded by nurse Linda West-Conforti, a specialist in care for premature foster babies.Now, West-Conforti has publicly accused Suleman of not caring about her children, and of volunteering to feed them only when cameras are present; Suleman has fired Angels in Waiting, claiming its nurses spied on her; and Allred has publicly questioned the children’s safety, calling security at the Suleman home questionable.Before those events, Allred had hinted that donations to the family were lacking. Perhaps that is because Suleman, who underwent disfiguring plastic surgery to glamorize her face, is seen as an avid self-promoter. Allred had promised, “All donations would be used to secure experienced and trained professionals who would provide much-needed care, and not 1 cent would go to Nadya or anyone else in her family.”When Dr. Phil jumped into the fray, he argued to his TV audience that he needed to play a role because “of all the angst — I felt that somebody had to step up and show some leadership here. So I offered to mediate the situation.” In a contrived-for-TV turn of events, Suleman, a food-stamp recipient, had reluctantly accepted help from Angels in Waiting on the March 10 Dr. Phil show.

“None of this could have happened without you, Dr. Phil,” Allred said during the bizarre announcement segment of the show.

Now, the prochoice and prolife activists are launching into an argument about who is going to help Suleman more, both at this stage and in the difficult years to come. After all, as Suleman lectured her own mother in an Online video, “You can’t go back and alter the past.”

That fact has former Planned Parenthood president Feldt predicting that, “Of all the people that are going to help her, nine out of 10 of them will be prochoice.”

But Stanek takes a different tack, arguing via e-mail, “I don’t think you’ll find it is prolifers who so vehemently oppose Suleman’s decision. That said, we do believe in most circumstances children are best raised in a two-parent, married (mother and father) home. Yes, I think the children would be best off adopted out to married male/female couples. Furthermore, the female body and human psyche were not made to have and raise litters of children the same age (different from large families), another problem with in-vitro fertilization.”

Even on controversial wedge issues like this one, prolifer Holmes relays, “Yeah, the two sides can unite in some areas.”

The original story is here.

 

I have an essay published in the book, What Was I Thinking?. You can check it out on Amazon here.

I will be reading my essay this Sunday, the 15th of February at Border’s Books in Westwood at 3:30 PM.
Stop by and say hi!
Borders Books
1360 Westwood Boulevard
on the second floor
Sun. Feb 15, 2009

 

LA Marathon Hits the Wall

The inspiration for long-distance runners is the Greek messenger Pheidippides, who legend has it ran the 25 miles from the plains of Marathon to Athens in 490 BC to announce the Greeks’ victory over Persia, and then immediately dropped dead.

This is the model of my sport of choice. You think sky divers are twisted? Please.

For cities, marathons are a thing of pride. Just ask someone in Boston what they think of their super-exclusive marathon (the world’s oldest). The people of Chicago — even those who don’t own running shoes — will talk about how their marathon, with its quick flat course, sells out at 45,000 runners every year. In New York, the whole city gets together, and its marathon is like a six-hour-long parade.

Los Angeles holds a special place in modern marathon history, especially among women. It was in Los Angeles in 1984 that women were first allowed to officially compete in an Olympic marathon. Joan Benoit of the United States ran through the glass ceiling to the gold with a time of 2:24:52.

So what’s going on with L.A.’s marathon today? Since the first one in 1986, the route has changed a few times — and not always for the better. It has had three owners in just the last six years. One was Devine Racing Management, which paid some of its winners so late in 2006 that some elite runners boycotted the following year’s race.

Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and his company, LA Marathon, took it over last year. A local guy. A sports guy. Great. New owner, new ideas, better marathon, I figured. Right? Maybe not.

The race is usually run in late February, early March. With the sale to McCourt, the race was moved to Mondays, with next year’s on Feb. 16, Presidents’ Day. That was better for the race. The ideal temperature for a marathon is about 50 degrees; the hotter it is, the slower your time. Slower times mean fewer people coming to L.A. to participate.

But now LA Marathon has proposed moving the race to — wait for it — Memorial Day, the last Monday in May. A month that is on average about 10 degrees hotter than February.

Why? The decision to move the race to Mondays in February was in response to complaints from religious leaders that the road closures and congestion made it difficult for their congregations to attend services on Sunday. LA Marathon President Russ Pillar said the switch to May was because many employers don’t observe Presidents’ Day, so fewer runners and volunteers would have been able to participate.

But there’s a reason cities in hot climates have their races in the winter months. Honolulu and Las Vegas have theirs in December. Big-city races want to attract the broadest number of runners, and the best course with the best weather is the best bet.

Maybe McCourt is used to baseball fans being mad at him, yet runners aren’t as easily miffed. But suggesting moving the major race in the city by three months has sure done it.

“It’s not considered a ‘marathoner’s marathon,’ it’s an event,” said Long Beach podiatrist John Pagliano, who has run 111 marathons. (For the record: I’ve traded in cars that had less miles on them.) And a move to what in L.A. is essentially a summer day will not make it a layman’s marathon either.

This date change is like moving a minimally popular television to Friday night. It’s a death rattle. It’s about to be canceled for ratings.

A woman in my running group put it best when she heard that the race might be moving to May — with a line that can double as a first reaction and an epitaph: “Great. First we don’t have a football team, and now we don’t have a marathon.”

This annual experience, which has grown to more than 20,000 runners, is the only major sports event in Los Angeles where, for a small fee, anyone can compete. It’s the only non-natural disaster that brings us together as a city.

And right now it looks like it’s in trouble.

This article first appeared the the LA Times.

 

The entire article can be read here. I’ll post it here in full later. Cheers.

 

Fast Company Article

Here’s a link to the article I wrote in next month’s issue of Fast Company.

Fast Company is one of those great magazines where you actually feel smarter after reading it. Not my article exactly. But the other ones. Really great. Ahem.

 

I co-authored a piece that is in the LA Weekly today. My original assignment was a follow-up on the Pico/Olympic story that then was absorbed by a larger story about the MTA.

The story is here.

Thanks for stopping by!

 

LA Weekly

Not to degrade anyone’s opinion of the LA Weekly, but they hired me to do some local stories.

One on the Silver Lake Meadow and another on the Pico-Olympic One Way.

I’ll post more…later.

 

My New Blogging Gig

Hey All!

I’m blogging over at Mediabistro’s Fishbowl LA. Come by and say hi!

 
Page 1 of 41234
Copyright 2010 tinadupuy.com