"Can Obama Save the Media"

This article was actually written the week after the election but I thought it was really interesting so I posted it. Basically it talks about how all newspapers and magazines underestimated how much to order from the presses after the election. Many print media outlets had to create waiting lists for copies until the publishers could print more. In the last few years, the Internet and 24 hour news networks have been more popular than traditional print media in regard to the news. An event as large as this particular election is just what print media needed to revitalize their industry. People do not want mementos on their computers, tangible items are desired. The headline, "Can Obama Save the Media", is an expectation that with a historical story unfolding people will want to commemorate it all in print. I don't know if I agree. I think election day was a single exception. Everything Obama does will not be worthy of ordering extra copies to save. He will be performing the same acts as any other presidents. How do other people feel about print media and it's struggle compared to the Internet and 24 hour news networks? I thought this was particularly pertinent since we are all blogging from stories found on Internet sites created off successful print publications.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168933?tid=relatedcl

"The Federer Fade"

This article talks about the lacking success in tennis pro Roger Federer's career. The author chronicles the high expectations tennis fans had for the player, that he would surpass Pete Samprass for most Grand Slams ever won by a single player (Federer, 13, Samprass, 14). He was ranked number one in the world between 2004-2008. Even though he has never been considered the best at a specific skill in tennis, his style of play allowed him to easily dominate all competitors. However, in the last two years he has been beat by unknown players. Also, Federer has always kept a calm demeanor during matches but has been seen losing his temper and slamming his racket on the court. The author questions why Federer, after a 'perfect' career, is not as successful as he once was when nothing appears to be wrong in his life.

I really hate articles that question what happens to athletes when they stop winning or stop excelling with such ease. There is no such thing as a perfect athlete and anyone who thinks so is not one. As an athlete, I understand the frustration that Federer feels knowing he is not succeeding to the same extent because athletes are perfectionists. Our need to be perfect is something that must eventually be overcome or else it is impossible to reach peak performance. Many times, the pressure felt by coaches, teammates, and in the case of a professional, the masses, is what disallows accepting mistakes or causes the resurfacing of that fear. Why are these stories chosen, why does the media feel highlighting a person's issues is beneficial? The article ends by the author hoping Federer figures out what's wrong and re-assumes his place on top. We have seen this in other forms of media in class. For examples, articles during the election that boasted negative headlines but somehow the story ended with a positive spin. If there is legitimate drama or cause for concern, yes, please report it. Stop crafting stories by twisting words and creating problems that might not be there.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194479/page/1

"Technology to Wear"

This article is about designers partnering with technologies in order to create 'fashion for the future'. One student created a pair of pants that had blue tooth capability and a keyboard and the outerwear company O'Neil developed a jacket with GPS. Famed British designer Hussein Chalayan is credited with the the concept of "haute tech" (technologically inspired fashion). He has created several installation pieces that are on display at the London Design Museum, but he and other designers have every intention of "haute tech" becoming mainstream in the near future. I feel like this is an example of technology going too far. The GPS in the sports jacket makes sense but light coming out of dresses, that's just excessive. Designers believe this is one of the few or the only way to contribute to something new to the world. Do things always need to be create though just because they don't exist yet? We've talked about advertising, the selling of items, and the pairing of dissimilar things in order to sell (Paris Hilton and the Carl's Jr. commercial). Though this is not as extreme as that instance, I think the combinations companies and individuals are creating in order to produce more things is incredible... and not in a good way.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193507

"A Fighter Disarmed"

This article is about Mike Tyson and his acclaimed documentary by friend James Tobak. The movie received a standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival last year. Over 30 hours of Tyson talking was shot, sharing most of his life's story while in rehab for drug addiction. I thought this was an interesting article but it also relates well to what we talked about at the beginning of the semester: the news as a story and the creation of characters. Tyson talks about his behavior and makes sense of it by saying he just acted in a way that would give him attention, give people stories to tell. We've talked a lot about how the media creates characters but not if individuals distort themseleves and the media buying into it and fostering the behavior by giving the person attention.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193491

"Rethinking Race In the Classroom"

This article talks about the argument regarding which books that discuss race should still be taught in the classroom. Classics like Of Mice and Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are under fire because the N-word is used frequently and the portrayal of black characters follow stereotypes that are no longer tolerated in contemporary culture. I personally do not believe these books should be banned from schools not only because of their literary brilliance but because they are an important part of American history and our contributions to the world. Though this debate has been going on for a while, the election of President Obama has given even more ammunition to those who are against the teaching of such books. Just because there is now a black president does not mean race disappears and does not discount history. Yes, it is important for a new generation of children to accept everyone but that does not mean differences need to be ignored, just celebrated and understood. Also, children need to understand why we accept everyone not just be told to believe it blindly because eventually questions are asked and we want to make sure kids are given the right answers. This topic has come up a lot in class, whether or not racism has disappeared just because Obama is president. Many forms of media told his story as if the wall has completely fallen down and there is nothing else. Although this was one hurdle blacks had not yet jumped, just because it is a big one does not mean there is nothing else. It is contradictory that the media covered so many stories about how racial barriers are gone, but won't we really know that to be true when the media stops talking about it?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187009

"A Ceasefire in the Culture War"

This article talks about President Obama's plan to deal with issues such as abortions and birth control. Women's health, bodies, and the rights pertaining to them are always touchy and seem under question. Both Republicans and Democrats are forced to take strong opposing views of the topics in order to strictly maintain party lines. Reducing abortion and teen pregnancy is a top priority, not overturning Roe v. Wade. So, the question is how do you accomplish a reduction without taking something completely away? More sex education in schools, making it harder for women to attain abortions? All these things are mandatory but the media cannot be discounted. This semester we've talked a lot about how the media reflects the views of society or what the people in charge think society should look like. Has anyone seen any evidence in the media planting seeds that will contribute to the goal of reduction? Without the youth of the country being consistently fed material that promotes safer sex and accepting responsibility for their actions (this is not necessarily my opinion on abortion), there is no chance.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191429

"Rapper T.I. sentenced to year on weapons charges"

I understand that I might be a little biased because I absolutely love T.I. but I think he has been a really positive role model for young people, showing that it's not about the mistakes you make it's how you handle them, how you grow and learn afterwards. I don't know if anyone has seen his show on MTV leading up to the actual sentence, "T.I.'s Road to Redemption" but it was amazing. Basically he would go around talking to at risk youth, dissuading them from joining or continuing affiliations with gangs or just people who don't mean them well. I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong, obviously it was. Playing devil's advocate, what happens when people who have made past mistakes are still targets for whatever reason, how are they suppose to protect themselves. T.I. had a rough time as a teenager and young adult, paid his debt, and completely turned his life around. That doesn't mean that other people did the same. His best friend was murdered with a bullet intended for him, from a man who just wanted to hurt him. There has never been any indication that since his fame he has been involved in anything above reproach. Felons are not allowed to carry weapons which I do agree with, but, when released back into society they still need to feel as safe as every other American. What do you do when the lines are a little blurred like I believe them to be in this situation?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191246/page/1

"Straight Into Compton"

I thought this article about Compton, California was super interesting and I learned a lot about the community and why it has had such a difficult history. Once known as the murder capital of the U.S. and the birth place of gangster rap, which explained the horrible environment that was Compton, Long Beach, or difficult California communities, Compton has been cleaning up in the last few years. Many people who were a part of the heavy gang movement in the 1980s and 90s are now contributing to city improvements. One underlying issue in the article is that of race and economics. The change of inhabitants and money played a huge role in the cities demise in the 1960s. Please also see the discussions of these issues underneath the article. Obviously those two topics are always loaded questions but also extremely important to discuss.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190871/page/1

"Extreme Motherhood"

I do not know how familiar anyone is with the various shows on TLC that showcase huge families, like "John and Kate plus 8" or "17 (now 18) Kids and Counting", but there popularity sky rocketed with the birth of the idea a few years ago and continue to increase. While I thinking watching a ton of kids run around to be extremely annoying, like "John and Kate plus 8" I do not find them controversial or offensive. However, this article focuses on the Duggers, the family featured on "17 Kids and Counting", and their ultra-conservative Christian beliefs, specificially Quiverfull. Not associated with any particular denomination, Quiverfull prohibits the usage of ANY kind of contraception, even when used for family planning. The idea is rooted in anti-feminist beliefs, that working women, the usage of birth control, and teen sex (sex solely for pleasure) all go against God's original intent for women. We're simply here to reproduce. I have no problem with following religious beliefs being that I am a Christian, but these extremist are the biggest hypocrites of all. The Bible also has slavery and daughters can be sold off to men when they gain the ability to reproduce. You can't pick and choose to be extreme on one issue and not the others. Find the middle ground, live by the rules laid out if you believe and that's about it. Promoting irresponsible sex practices and encouraging women to forget hundreds of years of progress does not need to be televised.

Also, while I believe the "Octomom" to be truly certifiably insane, why are the Duggers any different. Why do they get a show on a family network and the "Octomom" is crucified by the media? Though America claims to not have a national religion, most people are Christian, those are just the stats. So, no matter how crazy, ridiculous the Duggers might be, anything done in the name of, or following the teachings of Christ is given some kind of reprieve and even awarded admiration by the media. This is evident by the fact the Duggers have a show.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763/page/2

"AIG CEO says employees starting to return bonuses"

I'm sure everyone has heard that despite the current economic climate in the country, AIG, which received a $182 billion bailout last year, still proceeded to awarded executives large bonuses. However, due to government pressure and societal outrage $165 million dollars has been returned. The Obama Administration says they cannot be blamed for the lack of stipulation that was put on the bailout but they will not repeat that mistake in the future. This brings up questions of government regulation. Do you think AIG should be under scrutiny and how much, if any, do you think the government from here on out regulate the country's economics?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189515/page/1

"A Forgotten Contribution"

This story is about a woman named Claudette Colvin, who at 15 (now 69) was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for refusing to move to the back of the bus 9 months before Rosa Parks. Though many activists in Alabama supported Claudette, including Martin Luther King Jr. who argued on her behalf in court. Many civil rights organizations took interest like the Women's Political Council. However, they worried Claudette's age and personal life would not make her a suitable face for the movement. I thought this story was interesting not only because of the historical value but because it is particularly pertinent to this class. A young girl's courageous and brave actions were quickly forgotten and with the passing of time unknown because of marketing concerns. At the beginning of the semester we talked about news as a story. Various civil rights organizations decided this was not the right person for the story and so 9 months later it is retold by Rosa Parks, who they considered to be more appropriate. In situations as desperate as trying to attain the rights one's already has it seems any story that would garner attention is a positive thing. However, it is interesting to think the Rosa Parks story is simply a "re-do", a "better version" of something that had already happened.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/187325

"The Enemy Within"

This article is about the recent issues with the Mexican drug cartel moving past border towns and into cities across the country. Historically, states like Texas and California are at the center of immigration issues whether it be population or drug trafficking. However, a man leaving a Radio Shack with his family in Phoenix, Arizona was kidnapped by a group of men. Police believe the orders game from a a high up official in the organization in Mexico. They are demanding $1 million dollars and are holding his Cadillac Escalade as collateral. Within the last few years, Phoenix has become the leading city for kidnappings, the majority associated with drugs. Though Arizona has quickly gained much attention from the government, issues have risen as far away from the border as Wiconsin and Alaska. One important question the article prompts is the ethical conflict in saving criminals. The people being kidnapped are smugglers and/or have stolen drugs and money, now the organizations are just taking care of business. By no means am I condoning the methods used to punish someone, especially murder, and I do not think those kidnapped should not be recovered, but it is an interesting thought. Is it not a little upsetting that we're having to spend time, money, and power trying to save those who after they are found are immediately taken to jail?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189246

"Reefer Madness"

This is an article written about the Michael Phelps' photo that surfaced, showing him smoking out of a bong. It was written this week and I'm wondering why people are even still talking about this? Although the article ends with saying everyone will forget about this, just as they forgot about his DUI arrest when he was 19 (which, I had no clue even happened), why is an article being written about how we'll forget. A few different issues are brought up in the article though which is why I thought I would post it. Questions of race, celebrity, and redemption are brought up in this 'scandal' (though I see nothing scandalous about a college age kid smoking pot). Thoughts?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185807

"Dumb Money: Are Execs Villains or Morons?"

I thought this article was pretty interesting. Basically its absolving the blame of the economic crisis from the handful of names we've heard in the media the last few months like, Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford. The article questions the motives of every professional title or position that has played a vital part of our countries since the 1800s. Are all the moves calculated in order to trick the common people and those running Big Business continue to live well? Or, is the first true but they didn't realize the rouse would be exposed eventually when everything comes crashing down?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/186296/page/1