Categories
News News Blog

The Commercial Appeal Union Holds Rally

It may have been a warm afternoon in Memphis, but members of the Memphis Newspaper Guild weren’t having a picnic on The Commercial Appeal lawn.

Employees stand outside The Commercial Appeal building on Union Avenue.

  • Alexandra Pusateri
  • Employees stand outside The Commercial Appeal building on Union Avenue.

The union held an afternoon rally to raise awareness about the roadblock that held up the guild and the newspaper’s contract negotiations. The point of dissent is the addition of disciplinary measures included in the union’s contract. The company tried to include the language previously, but the union struck down the motion unanimously in March.

“The company is trying to eat away at our most basic right — the right to have a fair hearing whenever someone is disciplined,” said Wayne Risher, president of the newspaper guild. “We feel like they would be able to fire us for any reason at their discretion if we agree to it.”

Currently, the company operates within a progressive discipline format. It starts with a verbal warning and moves up to suspensions and firings. The union’s bulletins have reported that the proposed clause by the company claims that “progressive discipline is not required,” although it is customary.

The union is also fighting against the control of discipline moving toward management — “something [The Newspaper Guild] believes will be used to reduce or eliminate the chance an outside arbitrator would ever reverse a bad disciplinary decision,” according to a bulletin released earlier this year. The new clause allows management to determine disciplinary measures against an employee at its own discretion.

“We had a tentative agreement that we had second thoughts about,” Risher said. “We ended up voting it down in the ratification process. We have not been back to the bargaining table since the company has not changed its position and still wants to impose that change in discipline language on us.”

According to Risher, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s newspaper union in Wisconsin has maintained a “better relationship” with its own publishing company than The Commercial Appeal union “historically.” (The newspaper joined the group last year.)

“They’ve always tried to keep the union down here,” Risher said. “It’s just an extension of that old-fashioned thinking.”

The union president said the contract allows the company to attract new employees and maintain current employees in order to provide journalism to the Memphis community.

“We’re not really asking for money, although we’ve only had three raises in the past 13 years,” Risher said. “What we have basically been working on has been status quo that would not be any new money. We look at it like we don’t want to go backwards. We don’t want these rights taken away from us. We feel like it’s a fair contract if it preserves our rights.”

A call to the publisher of The Commercial Appeal was not returned.

Categories
Film Features Film/TV

Film Retrospective: Batman (1989)

This week, 25 years ago, I was a knot of anticipation. The thing I wanted to see more than any other thing, the Batman film, was at last coming out. I’m not saying I wanted to see Batman more than I wanted to see any other movie at the time; I mean I had never been so eager to partake in anything, ever. In retrospect, I haven’t been so excited for the release of any other piece of pop culture. I think the only things to surpass it are real-life greatnesses: kissing a girl, getting married, the birth of my children. Seriously. (Where are you going? Come back!)

I was so excited in part because I loved and devoured the Batman comics. The character appealed to my maturing sense of identity and growing individualism. He was no less human than I was — he wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider, exposed to cosmic or gamma rays, or orphaned from an alien planet — infinitely relatable to this here shy little nerd. What made Bruce Wayne into Batman was nothing but a common traumatic childhood; granted, my sheltered, suburban upbringing was far from harrowing. But, if you stabbed Batman with a sword-umbrella, he’d bleed like anyone else, and he became successful by dint of willpower alone. Plus, what kid doesn’t want to hear that it’s the monsters who should be afraid of the dark?

Michael Keaton in Batman

The movie Batman hit me square in the face, at age 13, the summer before 8th grade, a seminal moment at a seminal age. It marked my transition from an artless, prepubescent consumer of whatever happened to be in front of me to a relatively thoughtful observer of craft and commercialism. The coming of age was my (forgive me) Bat Mitzvah.

Batman felt like the first movie that was made for me. I pined for news in the build-up to its release — this was, of course, long before the internet, a lonely place of dying that left one starved for information. I watched Entertainment Tonight routinely, hoping for clips or updates; I scoured for showbiz tidbits in the Appeal section of The Commercial Appeal — this was pre-Captain Comics. Entertainment Weekly didn’t exist yet. MTV ran a “Steal the Batmobile” contest; I obsessed over the glimpses of the movie the promos and commercials showed. When the video to Prince’s “Batdance” premiered in advance of the film’s release, I was devastated: It didn’t show any scenes from the movie.

Finally, Batman came out. I saw it at Highland Quartet, the first showing on the first day. It napalmed me. I could not have loved it more. It buried itself in my DNA instantly. I bought the Danny Elfman score on tape and wore it out. To this day, it’s my all-time favorite soundtrack. I waited on tenterhooks for the box office results, finally delivered (at least, in my recollection) in the voice of Chris Connelly on an MTV News segment: Batman had a huge opening weekend. I felt personally vindicated. (As I said, I was a nerd.)

Batman was my first movie review. I wrote it for myself, in a journal kept in a spiral school notebook that has been, sadly, lost to time. After some attic digging, I did unearth the second volume of my journal, running from August 1989 to December 1990. Included within is my first ever movies list, presented here unadulterated:

Top 15 Movies, 6-29-90, 1:41-1:46 a.m.

1. Batman

2. The Hunt for Red October

3. RoboCop 2

4. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

5. Gremlins 2

6. The Jerk

7. RoboCop

8. Die Hard

9. The Terminator

10. Top Gun

11. The Blues Brothers

12. The Running Man

13. Young Guns

14. Blind Date

15. Parenthood

Looking back, there are plenty of things to commend in Tim Burton’s film. His German Expressionistic sensibilities (and Anton Furst production design) perfectly reflect the shadows of the mind cast within by Bruce Wayne’s psychological scars; Michael Keaton is surprisingly good as Batman; Jack Nicholson is terrific as the Joker. Its reputation was only burnished by the disappointments that followed, with the 1990s sequels Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin.

However, in 2005, with Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan rendered the 1989 Batman irrelevant — astonishingly, but no less substantively. Nolan and Christian Bale made a grown-up adaptation — textually moodier, with characters more realistically beat down by life’s injustices — that thoroughly neutered the Burton/Keaton “original.”

The one thing missing from Nolan’s update was the childhood sense of awe and joy that I see bursting from the 1989 film. It’s not really Batman Begins‘ fault. How could it have possibly contained and inspired all that life-changing ecstasy? After all, I wasn’t there to provide it.

Categories
Memphis Gaydar News

The Commercial Appeal Seemingly Contradicts Its Own Ad Policy

We’ve learned something about The Commercial Appeal’s management this week: They don’t think much of gay people. The newspaper won’t take sexual enhancement ads on the grounds that some readers might be offended. But it will run full page advertorials — advertisements that look like articles — warning readers of the homosexual agenda to seduce and convert heterosexual children, as it did last Sunday when it ran an ad titled “The Whole Truth About Homosexuality.”

A screenshot from the Commercial Appeals anti-gay ad that ran on Sunday, October 28th

  • A screenshot from the Commercial Appeals anti-gay ad that ran on Sunday, October 28th

CA Editor Chris Peck issued this written response to complaints about the anti-gay ads: “The Commercial Appeal fully supports the rights of people to express opinions, even opinions we or others might find objectionable. This right to express opinion is fundamental to a free press and the First Amendment. And it’s why we accept advertising that doesn’t necessarily reflect our newspaper’s editorial page positions. In relation to homosexuality, the newspaper editorial board actively has opposed any kind of discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, and will continue to do so. These two core principles will continue to guide us as we consider future advertising and news coverage.”

Compare Peck’s defense to comments by the CA’s president and publisher George Cogswell from the article “Certain Ads Declined,” published July 13, 2012: “The Commercial Appeal has stopped accepting ads from a national vendor whose products are promoted as sexual enhancements.

“While the products are legal and protected under free speech laws, we recognize the sensibilities of those who find the ads to be of questionable taste,” said George H. Cogswell III, president and publisher. “We have made the decision to discontinue publishing the ads out of respect for our readers.”

What can be concluded by the fact that the CA refuses some ads because they may offend valued readers but accepts ads that make Jim Crow-style accusations that an entire group of people are engaged in conspiracy and perversion?