Fernando Carrillo has been living a calm life after being accused of sexual assault back in 2014 and completing his sentence. In fact, he’s dancing his controversial past away as he’s currently one of the contestants on “Bailando Por Un Sueño” in Argentina. It seems, however, as if Hollywood has been eyeing the tall and handsome… [Read more…]
Netflix has never shown its original shows on another platform or network — but that’s about to change.
According to Mashable, Netflix and Univision have agreed to a record broadcast deal that will bring season one of Netflix’s “Narcos” to the Spanish-speaking network. The second season of the Golden Globe-nominated show about a 1980s drug pin will even air on Univision before showing on Netflix.
“Narcos is a huge global success on Netflix and sampling the series to every single Spanish-speaking living room in the U.S. will give additional viewers the opportunity to fall in love with its unique storytelling,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, said in a statement.
“Promoting these original shows on Univision is a great way to further reach Hispanic audiences and help them discover Netflix,” he added.
“Narcos” isn’t the only show Netflix is sharing with Univision.
The deal also includes Netflix’s Mexican teen comedy-drama “Club de Cuervos” that will air on UniMás, Univision’s channel for young people. The companies are also creating new content together by co-producing a new series about Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. That show will air in 2017 on UniMás and later on Netflix.
While this partnership is good for Univision as it continues attempts to broaden its digital efforts, it’s also very good for Netflix as it continues to ramp up efforts to reach a larger Latino audience, Mashable noted.
“No other media company understands Hispanic-American audiences like Univision and this promotional partnership speaks to our ability to reach and engage our growth consumer with unmatched scale and depth,” said Randy Falco, president and CEO of Univision Communications.
“We are pleased to work with Netflix and leverage Univision’s unique reach and deep connection with our audience to introduce millions of our viewers to their ground-breaking series.”
This deal shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Last year Univision signed an agreement with Netflix to stream some of the network’s most beloved shows and novellas such as “Teresa,” “Maria la del Barrio,” “Lo Que La Vida Me Robó,” “Por Ella Soy Eva,” “La Viuda Negra” and “Rosa de Guadalupe.”
The National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the California Chicano News Media Association announced this week that the organizations will merge in an effort to provide more resources for members throughout California.
The two historic organizations will partner to better tackle diversity, training and development for members in California.
“NAHJ came from CCNMA 30 plus years ago and today, we come back together,” said NAHJ president Mekahlo Medina. “This new partnership will initially focus on Los Angeles, merging NAHJ LA and CCNMA’s boards and activities and then growing CCNMA’s presence in other chapters across the state.”
With this agreement CCNMA becomes a NAHJ chapter and shares the location of NAHJ’s West Coast office, but will retain its board of directors, non-profit status and independence. NAHJ chapters in San Diego and the San Francisco Bay Area will retain their independence as they partner with CCNMA to expand their reach in California.
“This is a historic moment for Latino journalists in the U.S.,” said Antonio Mejias-Rentas, NAHJ Los Angeles President, in a statement. “By building on the legacy of these two important organizations, we can increase our ability to meet our shared goals of increasing Hispanic representation in mainstream media and providing training opportunities for our membership, including those working in Spanish-language media.”
“We’re looking forward to this new relationship with NAHJ in California,” said CCNMA President Joe Rodriguez. “The partnership will allow CCNMA to strengthen it’s signature job fair and scholarship programs as it begins to cast a wider net, from promoting journalism in minority high schools to helping veteran journalists expand their skills in a rapidly changing industry. I’d like to see our local memberships work together on every initiative from now on.”
In reporting on Latino racial identity, The New York Times doesn’t include any Latinos and MSNBC limits itself to one
The New York Times recently set off a firestorm of controversy with its report, “More Hispanics Declaring Themselves White,” by Nate Cohn. Now it appears MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” may have made matters worse.
It is already difficult for many journalists to decipher and explain complex issues involving race. But in both cases of the Times and MSNBC, the problem appears to be journalists talking and writing about Latino identity with limited or no authority.
Cohn’s column, for example, is based on a Pew Research report that, itself, was based on a yet-to-be-published study presented at the annual Population Association of America meeting. In it, he states that Hispanics are choosing to change their race from “some other race” to “white” on US Census forms. However, he provides scant evidence to support this conclusion and a co-author of the study told Latino Rebels that Cohn’s inferences were his own, not that of the researchers.
Not only did Cohn, who is white, fail to include a source with a Latino perspective in his column that may have lent credibility and nuance, Hayes did little better when he included only one Latino on a panel discussion about the issue. The fact that Hayes tried to pack too much into his 10 minute segment also likely confused matters.
Hayes first veered from talking about the Pew report to introducing a video clip about the overall false construct of race in America. That’s a big enough subject to tackle, but then he introduced Jose Diaz-Balart to talk about the multi-faceted issue of Latino identity. Hays also invited surgeon and conservative pundit Ben Carson and Demos President Heather C. McGhee, both African American, to discuss race blindness, the concept of not seeing race at all or seeing past a person’s race. Another big issue. Hayes ended his segment by talking about how a growing Hispanic population will impact US politics.
It was just too much packed into too little time, so that none of it was done well.
For the purposes of this blog post, I’ll stick with the one topic of how news organizations attempt to parse race issues, often clumsily.
Hayes asked Diaz-Balart, MSBNC’s newest host, about the messiness of the “Hispanic Latino category.” Diaz-Balart responded that for Hispanics, race isn’t that “big a deal.”
“I think race is much less a big deal among the Latino population than it is maybe in the white population or overall population in the United States,” said Diaz-Balart. “I really do believe that people in the Latino community are looking for people that have sensitivity towards their plight. And if you happen to be darker or lighter, what really matters is what you’ve done and what you say you are willing to do to help those people who have found that because of their race they are, maybe, not having the same opportunities that others do.”
The panel needed three Latinos at the table to challenge statements like the one Diaz-Balart made, said Julio Ricardo Varela, the founder of LatinoRebels.com.
“It leads to a better conversation that is real,” Varela wrote on a Facebook thread about MSNBC’s coverage of the issue. “We need to make sure we don’t tokenize ourselves either and let’s not pretend that the MSNBC segment was good TV or a good discussion. This has nothing to do with slamming anyone, it has to do with speaking out against irresponsible reporting by The New York Times and how such a misleading story leads to severe misinterpretation and a false narrative.”
Varela criticized the national newspaper for misreporting the original story. Varela wrote to the newspaper with questions, but said Sunday that he’s still waiting on answers. Varela said he’s worried that Cohn’s interpretation of the unpublished data is now being taken as fact, as MSNBC did, he said. “… if we perpetuate that fact, as journalists, we don’t do our jobs,” Varela added.
Diaz-Balart, who is also a news anchor for Spanish language TV network, Telemundo, made reference to his African slave ancestors during his MSNBC appearance. But with green eyes and light skin, he could pass for a white Hispanic. If that matters.
Still, other Latino journalists suggested that Diaz-Balart’s comments represented the point of view of only a slice of Latino communities. The panel, they said, should have included Latinos of various skin colors.
Not knocking Diaz-Balart, but he was an odd choice to be booked on the panel, said Yvonne Latty, an Afro-Latina and journalism professor at New York University.
“It would have been fascinating to hear from an Afro-Latino in this case, who could have added a different perspective,” Latty said. “I have nothing against (Diaz-Balart) and I don’t want to bash him or his positive perspective, even though it has not been my reality at all.”
Latty was also critical of Cohen’s piece in the Times, which left out a discussion of black Hispanics altogether.
“The thing I found most fascinating about the NYT’s piece was this idea that Latinos with light skin were saying they were white on the census and the idea that the culture would go the way of the Irish, Italians and other immigrant groups… Just be white,” she said. “But where does that leave Latinos with brown skin? We were not even mentioned in the article. Are brown Latinos choosing just black? I don’t think so for many reason. I personally have always struggled with any form that makes me choose who I am, since I am more than one thing. But I enjoy the conversations, as race and identity, is a constantly evolving issue for me.”
The lesson learned from the current “white Latino debacle?” When talking about complicated issues like racial identity, news organizations should have a few of those identities on hand to inform the conversation.
To Code or Not To Code. That is not the question, nor should it be, writes Mathew Ingram for Paid Content. Journalists, he said, ignore a basic working knowledge of computer programming at their own peril. “Now more than ever knowledge is power,” Ingram states. “More than that, it means having an appreciation for how technology affects the way media and content are being produced, consumed and distributed — and if you don’t understand or appreciate that, or you think it’s someone else’s job to do so, then you are truly screwed.” The argument about whether journalists should learn how to code is an ongoing one that spilled over onto Twitter last week when Olga Khazan wrote a piece for The Atlantic arguing that most journalists don’t need to learn how to code because it wastes time that they should be using to write and report. “If you truly want to compete with the hundreds of other j-school applicants for a reporting job, you should be writing stories until you dream in active verbs, not making ugly code creations,” writes Khazan. This debate, like the ‘who is a journalist’ argument is likely to continue for a long time. Until there is a resolution, here’s a handy website that proclaims “… Anyone Can Learn To Code.” It lays out basic, how-to steps for building a website, scraping data from the Internet and making simple maps. Journalists might even find this coding site… informative.
Speaking of who is and is not a journalist. Jonathan Peters, a media lawyer and the Frank Martin Fellow at the Missouri School of Journalism, writes for PBS MediaShift’s website that defining the term ‘journalist’ is important in light of the proposed journalism shield law recently approved by the senate judiciary committee as well as new guidelines from the U.S. Justice Department that will limit the ability of its lawyers to obtain reporters’ records. Both the senate bill and DOJ’s guidelines attempt to define who will and won’t be deemed a journalist. Some journalists and advocates are pushing back against both DOJ and the senate because they fear government encroachment on press freedoms. “… the legislation is flawed because it should cover all citizens who engage in acts of journalism from being forced to give up their confidential sources,” writes Kevin Gosztola for Firedoglake.com, who argues that both governmental efforts are biased against bloggers and citizen journalists. But not all journalists and free press advocates believe the government’s attempt at defining journalists is necessarily all bad. “…the bill approved Sept. 12 by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is closer in spirit to the idea that journalism is an activity rather than a job,” writes Thomas Kent, deputy managing editor and standards editor for the Associated Press. In a piece for The Huffington Post, Kent argues that “the bill classifies a wide variety of people as journalists and even provides for federal judges to extend the “covered journalist” umbrella to others.” While journalists and their allies try to hash that out, Peters discusses in MediaShift, the findings of a recent study he and Fulbright Scholar Edson C. Tandoc, Jr. conducted in an attempt to nail down a more concrete definition. Culled from descriptions from several different sources, their definition is based on “shared common elements,” of the descriptions they reviewed, Peters writes. From that they came up with this:
A journalist is someone employed to regularly engage in gathering, processing, and disseminating (activities) news and information (output) to serve the public interest (social role).
The definition, the authors say, is descriptive and not intended to be, well, definitive. “…it would be unwise to adopt a definition that excludes unpaid bloggers and citizen journalists who gather, process, and disseminate news and information on matters of public concern. From contributors to CNN iReport, to editors at Circa, to reporters at the New York Times, all are capable of committing acts of journalism,” Peters writes. “Some do it better than others, some have more resources than others, and something is gained when reporting is done by stable organizations with money, logistics, and legal services — but all are capable.” This debate to be continued also.
Colorism In Latino Media. With the October 28 launch of Fusion network, the ABC and Univision joint venture aimed at English-speaking Latino millennials, Maynard Institute’s Richard Prince takes a look at colorism within Latino media. Colorism is a practice of discrimination by which those with lighter skin are treated more favorably than those with darker skin. Also called “the color complex,” it has long been a topic of concern among African Americans, but is also being talked about more openly among Hispanics. According to Prince, Arlene Davila, a professor of anthropology, social and cultural analysis at New York University and an expert on Latino identity and marketing to Latinos, wrote on Facebook about Fusion: “Remember ABC/Univision ‘Fusion”s promise to represent ‘Latino millennials’?? well get ready for more of the same: super white anchors, no Mexican Americans or Puerto Ricans or US Latinos but same old cast you’d find in any Latin American exportable show — except they speak English! Whoever is heading this thing needs to hit our barrios and get a reality check!!” One of her Facebook friends replied, “Well, but what can we expect from Blancovision?” and “The other phrase that we used was Uniblanco,” Prince reported. Prince asked Yvonne Latty, a clinical associate professor in journalism at New York University, for her perspective. Latty, who is Dominican and African American said she is not surprised by the lack of Afro Latinos on Fusion because they are invisible. “The same issues that plague African Americans in terms of jobs on air plague us, but with an unfair twist,” Prince reports. “If a market is interested in hiring a Latino, they will most likely hire a white Latino, that is why a great number of Latinos on air are white Latinos. And that just dates back to stereotypes on beauty and what is pleasing to a general audience. If a market wants to higher a black reporter they will hire an African American, not an Afro Latino…”
Online privacy now sounds like fiction. In advance of this weekend’s rally to stop mass spying by the government in Washington, D.C., Ben Scott and George Mascolo wrote for the New America Foundation’s The Weekly Wonk that “the Summer of Edward Snowden has given way to a Winter of Mistrust. The revelations from the former NSA contractor triggered all manner of responses – vocal support, shrugs, cries of outrage, and dismay. But now that he’s settled into legal limbo in Moscow, we’re left to confront what may be his most dismaying revelation: the basic expectation of private communications on the Internet is now commonly seen as fiction.” Earlier this week Macolo and Scott released a paper that addressed the challenge to finding a way back to trusted communication online, especially in light of the breach of trust revealed by reports of U.S. spying on Germany and other allies. The hard truth, they said: “There is no political or economic power in the world that can guarantee privacy and security in digital communications. The information systems of modern society are fundamentally insecure. We can never be completely certain that no one is watching.” An Amtrak train passenger was watching, listening and live-tweeting as former National Security Administration chief Michael Hayden gave an off-the-record interview to journalists. At one point during his tweets the passenger, political strategist Tom Matzzie, noted that he wasn’t a journalist but might as well be since his “live commentary was quickly picked up by dozens of political and news outlets as it was happening,” Mathew Ingram reported for Gigaom. Just more proof that somebody’s always watching.