The conversational and controversial nature of this book made for a quick and interesting read. Chapter 7, on the Ethics of 'Correctness' and 'Inclusiveness,' struck me the most with its focus on underrepresented groups within media coverage such as African Americans and disabled persons.

And queers (yes, that's an accepted term), not that you'd know they were underrepresented unless you read the text extremely closely. Mentioned once in Gordon's pro-inclusion argument, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals were mostly without a name, relegated to the category of 'other.' Gordon says we are painted an ''increasingly inaccurate picture of society...sending subtle and direct messages about whom society values enough to include,'' due to the overwhelmingly white male component of the media. I am amending that to the straight white male component because 1) that's reality (a.k.a. accurate) and 2) I refuse to accept this text's subtle attempt at homophobia by a repeated unwillingness to address the sexual orientation issue.

I am not saying that these omissions, as some might say, are necessarily purposeful; it's probably an oversight. However, that's what Chapter 7 is all about: inclusion. African-Americans comprise an estimated 11% of the U.S. population and (by even older estimates) 10% of the U.S. population is some flavor of gay. If African-Americans deserve as much attention as they get (re: inclusivity efforts), shouldn't queers get the same? Our society's politicalization of sexual orientation keeps it absent from many a discussion, evidenced in this text as well, unfortunately. And if Gordon truly advocates ''making media content truly reflective of society's real diversity, not shaping it,'' then it would have been good to start with his own essay. He can't cover everything, but spacing out the groups (instead of focusing only on one or two) would have been, as he says, truly reflective.

Although I could critique Kittross and Merrill on this same topic, I'll turn to Chapter 6's commentary by Merrill on information equity (IE). He agrees that information equity is good idea but ''perhaps an impossible goal.'' That being said, he later blasts, ''Let's face it. The bottom line is that there will never be IE. Certain groups in society had best resign themselves...to being isolated from information of various kinds.''

OK, let me get this right. Things aren't balanced but that's the way things are, so get used to it? The power of this kind of warped perspective kept African-Americans in slavery for centuries and was/is used as a rationale for silencing the needs of virtually every minority group on the planet. That's okay though; you just have to get used to the fact that you are not as valued or important as those who do have power/information/fill-in-the-commodity-blank, get on with the rest of your meaningless existence and be the little drone that you're supposed to be.

Yeah, sounds like my idea of a good time. If hundreds of women before me hadn't fought--hard--for the right of women to read, let alone the thousands working for a woman's right to vote, buy, and choose, I probably wouldn't be typing this paper today. I am already one of the information rich, relatively speaking, but that never could have happened if women had resigned themselves to their fate, as Merrill proposes. Thank God for alternative perspectives and the ability for them to flourish--and sometimes win--in such an inequitable world.