Natasha Vargas-Cooper Biography, Age, Image, Married, Serial, seiu, Books - | Natasha Vargas-Cooper Biography, Age, Image, Married, Serial, seiu, Books -

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Biography, Age, Image, Married, Serial, seiu, Books

Natasha Vargas-Cooper is an American journalist and author. Her writing has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, GQ, Spin, The Atlantic Monthly, the New Statesman, Good magazine, Bookforum, BlackBook,…

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Biography

Natasha Vargas-Cooper is an American journalist and author. Her writing has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, GQ, Spin, The Atlantic Monthly, the New Statesman, Good magazine, Bookforum, BlackBook, New York magazine, and Los Angeles magazine.

Her writing has also been featured on websites such as The Awl, the Huffington Post, E! Online, The Daily Beast, and Salon.

She resigned as a staff writer at The Intercept on January 15, 2015, to work for Jezebel; she left in November 2015.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Age

Natasha Vargas-Cooper is an American journalist and author. Her writing has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, GQ, Spin, The Atlantic Monthly, the New Statesman, Good magazine, Bookforum, BlackBook, New York magazine, and Los Angeles magazine. She was born in 1984, in Los Angeles, California, United States, she 35 years old as the year

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Early life and family

Vargas-Cooper was born in and raised in Los Angeles, California. She is the daughter of author and journalist Marc Cooper and teacher Patricia Vargas-Cooper. She attended UCLA and graduated summa cum laude in 2007 with a major in history.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Career

After graduating from UCLA, Vargas-Cooper worked as a union organizer and health policy analyst in both Los Angeles and Washington, DC.

In 2009, Vargas-Cooper wrote a memoir/true-crime series on the trials of Jesse James Hollywood that took place in Santa Barbara. It was widely praised and critics said that the series “reminds us more than a little bit of Dominick Dunne.

In December of 2014 Vargas-Cooper published the first interview with Jay from the popular podcast Serial. On February 27, 2015, Jezebel published an article by Vargas-Cooper falsely reporting that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s proposed budget would cut funding for sexual assault reporting from the state’s universities.

The article was widely condemned, and Jezebel subsequently acknowledged that its article had presented “an unfair and misleading picture. We regret the error and apologize.”

The Daily Beast, which ran an article of it’s own based on the Jezebel report, likewise backpedaled, saying, “We deeply regret the error and apologize to Gov. Walker and our readers.

Our original story should be considered retracted.” On Twitter, Vargas-Cooper initially defended the post claiming that Walker should have been aware of the “optics.” Several days later she admitted, “I screwed up.” In April 2015, also at Jezebel, Vargas-Cooper published the leaked Amazon shopping list of Amy Pascal.

There was some backlash as people thought this list violated Pascal’s privacy. In February 2017, Vargas-Cooper published an article in opposition to trans women being allowed to participate in feminism. The article was condemned.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Image

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Photo

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Married, Husband

Natasha Vargas-Cooper is an American journalist and author. Her writing has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, GQ, Spin, The Atlantic Monthly, the New Statesman, Good magazine, Bookforum, BlackBook, New York magazine, and Los Angeles magazine. Her pieces of information about marriages, husband are not yet revealed but stay ready for the update soon

Natasha Vargas-Cooper terf

Natasha Vargas-Cooper, a journalist and labor organizer, has published an essay titled “Womanhood Redefined” in The American Conservative. The piece is a jeremiad against trans-inclusive feminism, combining condemnation of American university discourse with a reiteration of the conventional view of biology as the defining experience of womanhood.

The piece has occasioned much handwringing on both sides of the feminist aisle, but not in a new way. It was published this week (a bug at TAC’s site misstates the date) but had it come to us unedited from 1998, I would not have been surprised.

What really stands out from the piece is its tone. Vargas-Cooper talks about trans women and their sympathizers with the kind of dry sarcasm we usually reserve for the very stupid. The term “construct” is “college dorm parlance,” Vargas-Cooper writes, a short while before agreeing with Norman Mailer.

Vargas-Cooper accuses the British writer Laurie Penny of writing that is “the product of too much French post-modernist theory.” And yet, her article could do with a good dose of poststructuralist thought, hobbled as it is by a false binary.

Trans acceptance is “a twofold proposition,” she writes: “the realistic and the rhetorical.” On the one hand are the realistic aims of trans women: To access medical care, to use the less dangerous bathroom, to possess accurate documentation. Vargas-Cooper is okay with those demands.

What Vargas-Cooper objects to is the “rhetorical” demands of trans people and their allies. By this, she refers to the common complaint of trans-exclusionary feminists that it is no longer acceptable to say in public—especially at universities—that the gender you were assigned at birth defines your experience of gender in the world.

Here are the “rhetorical” demands of the trans-sympathizing lobby, in her words: This is the point of the essay where exasperation sets in. This is not trans-acceptance rhetoric, but trans-exclusionary rhetoric. Here, Vargas-Cooper loses any reader who was on the fence. This is not writing to convince, but to insult and to evangelize.

Setting aside the substance of Vargas-Cooper’s argument, using words like “mutilation” to describe surgery is insulting. Similarly, a phrase like “men who decide to become women”—and again, regardless of her argument—is designed and guaranteed to bruise trans women.

At another point in the essay, she claims to make her position clear but, again, wraps her thinking in language so insulting that it reads like a lie: “In truth, I possess no phobia about trans men or women, but as a lifelong feminist I think it’s preposterous to snuff out a critique of men, and their relationships to women’s bodies, simply because those men want to be women.”

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Books

Her book, Mad Men Unbuttoned: A Romp Through America of the ’60s, was published by Harper Collins in 2010.

Other works
Vargas-Cooper is the creator and host of Public School, a weekly live storytelling series in Los Angeles where writers and performers tell personal stories, based on a theme. Some past participants include Starlee Kine, Paul F. Tompkins, Davy Rothbart, and Julie Klausner.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Serial

The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Pierre Omidyar’s new online publication, pitches itself as a place for “fearless, adversarial journalism.” And until recently, I wouldn’t have doubted it — Greenwald’s reporting on NSA surveillance has been vital, insightful and aggressive, for one.

But their recent articles on “Serial,” the uber-popular podcast from the producers of “This American Life,” are making me question whether they’re being adversarial just so they can say they are.

Over the last two months, they’ve landed exclusive and wide-ranging interviews with two figures involved in the “Serial” drama: Jay Wilds, who testified (and largely made the case) against Adnan Syed, and Kevin Urick, the lead prosecutor on the case.

The interviews were catnip for anyone who loved “Serial” — I count myself among those — because neither Wilds nor Urick was interviewed to any extent for the podcast, largely because they declined to participate. (More on that in a bit.)

But in the process of publishing the interviews, the two main authors — Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein — adopted a strange editorial strategy: Instead of allowing the interviews to stand by themselves and letting the legion of people who are obsessed with “Serial” draw their own conclusions as to Syed’s guilt or innocence, they chose to take the stand that the interviews alone prove that the case against Syed was solid and that yes, he killed Hae Min Lee in 1999.

It didn’t so much come out in the three-part interview with Wilds, but it became a defining element of the interview with Urick.

In a 1,400-word introduction to the interview, Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein editorialized not only that Urick’s claims back up Syed’s guilt, but that “Serial’s” Sarah Koenig never made much of an effort to contact him and get his side of the story. From this, they concluded: “The justice system in America frequently doesn’t work. This is not one of those cases.”

I was floored by their judgment. Not because I believe that Syed is necessarily innocent, but because I couldn’t believe that they would conclude that he is certainly an undeniably guilty — and reach this conclusion based on little more than the words of Wilds and Urick, two characters in the drama that have very clear reasons to insist today that Syed is as guilty as he was 15 years ago.

Ever since the interview with Urick was published earlier this week, both Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein have posted defensive and, in many cases, snarky tweets brushing aside criticisms of their editorializing.

They dug even deeper on Friday when three corrections — one pretty significant — and a few editor’s notes were appended to their interview with Urick. (Silverstein weirdly called them “needed but irrelevant.” What?) In the process, Silverstein has hinted that he’s taken the position that Syed is guilty not because he actually believes it to be true — or has the evidence to back it up — but because it’s the adversarial thing to do.

Being adversarial is an important trait for a journalist. It’s my profession; I get why you need to be consistently skeptical, especially of those in positions of authority. And yes, being contrarian and saying things others don’t like to hear is often invaluable; in his strident reporting and editorializing on the NSA and civil liberties over the last few years, Greenwald has powerfully made this point.

But Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein seem to take being adversarial as its own virtue — truth and evidence don’t really matter, as long as what you’re saying cuts against the grain.

The weirdest thing about this all is that they’re picking a side when “Serial” did no such thing. In fact, one of the frustrations expressed with the podcast was that there was no big satisfying finale; listeners were left with the equivalent of, “Well, despite a year’s worth of digging and 12 episodes worth of content, we don’t really know what happened.”

Worse still, they’ve picked it based on what seems to be very limited information — two interviews. Maybe Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein are sitting on a year’s worth of investigating to dismantle “Serial,” but if they are, they certainly haven’t rolled it out yet.

(“If you’re wondering we did not just take a prosecutors word, we have done our own investigation THANKYOUVERYMUCH,” tweeted Vargas-Cooper this week. The fruits of that investigation haven’t yet been made clear to anyone, though.) All they have is what Wilds and Urick told them.

And that’s one of the biggest problems, in my opinion. Wilds was the guy whose testimony (and the many variations of it) largely got Syed sent to jail. Urick is the guy who put him on the stand and built the rest of the case around what Wilds said.

Any journalist would take what they have to say with a grain of salt; they both have a very good reason to stick to their guns, after all. But Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein seem to be taking it as gospel, especially what Urick said.

I’ve had lots of trouble squaring the fact that two adversarial-minded journalists are simply taking a prosecutor and his main witness — a guy who changed his story multiple times, including in the interview he did with them — on their word, and not pushing back on anything they’ve had to to say.

It’s even weirder because you’d expect an “adversarial” journalist to be much more, well, adversarial when it’s an agent of the state — in this case, a prosecutor — making a specific claim. But they’re not. And they accuse “Serial” of being the biased one.

“Serial was strangely biased towards a man who was convicted, on the basis of strong evidence, of strangling a teenage girl to death,” tweeted Silverstein this week, seemingly unaware of the obvious bias that would come from relying on only Wilds and Urick to conclude that Syed is, in fact, guilty.

But that’s where Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein are: Syed is guilty because Wilds and Urick say so. “Adnan Syed murdered Hae Min Lee. To state the obvious,” tweeted Silverstein this week. “No one ever convicted of a crime in America is guilty. This sophisticated argument of pro-Serial drones,” he added.

“Many people are wrongfully convicted, but sometimes people are rightfully convicted,” said Sharon Weinberger, an editor who worked with Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein on the interviews.

“You know, sometimes the state gets it right,” tweeted Vargas-Cooper. (And yes, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. But juries have gotten things wrong in the past, a point any “adversarial” journalist would easily concede.)

But more than simply try and say “Serial” was wrong on a conclusion it never reached, Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein also did something much more serious: They questioned Koenig’s journalistic ethics. In the original interview with Urick, he claimed: “They never showed up at my office.”

The message is clear: Koenig and the “Serial” staff never even bothered to get my side of the story. That’s a serious allegation, and one that would sink many stories and journalistic careers.

But in the corrections appended days after the interview ran, The Intercept’s editors admitted that Urick’s quote was shortened. The part that was excluded: “They may have left a voicemail that I didn’t return but I am not sure of that.” That’s a huge omission.

The narrative suddenly shifts from “They didn’t even try to contact me” to “They may have tried but I don’t really remember.” And “Serial” itself is fighting back on this one: In a series of tweets this week, it insisted that Koenig tried multiple times to get in touch with Urick. (She got in touch with Wilds, but he apparently did not want to take part in “Serial.”)

There might be something to what Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein are saying. Maybe Syed is truly guilty — again, “Serial” never said he was or wasn’t — and “Serial” was just a massively unethical and misguided attempt to chip away at the reality that he killed someone.

But if you’re going to make that point so definitively — and defiantly, I might add — you better bring the goods. Two interviews with people with ulterior motives won’t do it, much less when you don’t push back on those very people during the interviews.

Maybe Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein are sitting on a mountain of evidence to make their point, but if that’s the case, they should really come out with it — and soon. (A second portion of the interview with Urick was supposed to be published this week, but it wasn’t.) If they don’t, it’s going to continue looking like they’re simply trying to chip away at a podcast that was massively popular because, well, it was massively popular.

And yes, being adversarial does sometimes require taking on those sacred cows, but it also demands that you can make your point beyond a reasonable doubt.

So far, Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein haven’t come close. In fact, they’ve come off as trolls — people who like to be contrarian because they like to pick fights. For this, I point to another Silverstein tweet: “I enjoy taking candy from babies which is why it’s so much fun to piss off Serial drones.”

If all you set out to do is piss people off, great. But don’t try to pretend it’s always “fearless, adversarial” journalism.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper seiu

Women face challenges as workers and aspiring leaders of organized labor. Our current jobs crisis in America disproportionately affects women.

This is a critical time to consider the roles of women in the workforce. We were joined by thinkers and activists to explore cutting edge issues for working women, their families, and communities.

Dorothy Sue Cobble, labor historian and author of The Sex of Class: Women Transforming American Labor (Cornell, 2007) from Rutgers University, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, a writer and labor activist in Los Angeles and Washington D.C, Patricia Greenfield, UR ’76 Political Science, who has been a labor educator and advocate for over three decades, and Ai-Jen Poo, founding director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance participated in the dialogue.

Natasha Vargas-Cooper Instagram