For another interesting story about the use of alcohol and teen drinking in the film, check out this NY Times article.
Last night, I got in touch with my teenage self and indulged in an outing to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I've always enjoyed the movies, even if they're geared to a crowd who's more into the Jonas Brothers than worrying about their next due date for rent.
And needless to say, there were moments that this PG-rated movie scared the piss out of me.
No one argues that the books get progressively darker, so I was expecting this 6th installment to definitely be an explicit "good vs. evil" showdown. However, no one warned me of that showdown including an scene of a boy (Ron Weasley) seizing and foaming at the mouth. Or that a girl who is "cursed" is thrashed around in the air, suspended in an unmistakeably crucifixion-like pose, and then thrown to the ground where she continues to twitch. Or a spell that causes a character's blood to seep out of his body onto the ground around him.
That's on top of the standard "evil wizards swarming around and burning down houses and killing innocent people" material that comes with the Harry Potter territory. Oh, and the sexual tension that runs so thick throughout the movie I wanted to gag at times.
The 4th and 5th movies received PG-13 ratings, and didn't suffer in the box office for it. And although there were some grumblings about the harsher rating, most viewers found them to be justified. So why the drop now, in what I considered the most violent of the series to date? Some of the people I went to the film with were like "what's the big deal? If people are going to see it anyway why does the rating matter?"
It matters because that "13" on a rating is the difference between what can and can't be shown in some schools. It's the difference between a little kid being sent to the movies without a second thought, and maybe just one parent taking a closer look at just what the film contains. Or at the very least, being prepared when those more graphic scenes do come up, so they can be ready for them.
I was just disappointed in the system. But I must say, the toolbag that tries to woo Hermoine is worth a second glance.
Showing posts with label cultural commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cultural commentary. Show all posts
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
It's not all make believe
Admitting I have a problem is the first step to healing, I'm told. That is, if I were willing to heal myself from the chaos that comes with being an avid "Grey's Anatomy" fan.
I know the show is full of ridiculous relationships, exaggerated emotions, and completely unrealistic medical monstrosities. But what can I say, addictions aren't rational.
With the season 5 finale taking over two hours of my life tomorrow night, I'm saddened and intrigued by the coordination of this show and the course of my college education. I started watching the show a little late in the game my sophomore year, but after catching up on seasons 1 and 2, I've never looked back.
The show has been one constant for me in a time when I never lived in one place for more than 9 months. Friday afternoons I knew that no matter what had gone on in the week, or how chaotic my life seemed, I could connect to abc.com and join people whose lives were inevitably more screwed up than mine. I could escape for 42 minutes into a world not entirely separate from my own, with characters who go big or go home. It's kept me connected to friends outside of college, as we've been able to rant and rave about Meredith's latest antics, or Callie's latest sexual orientation. This year I've been able to watch it in real time on Thursday nights, but the connection is still the same.
So tomorrow, I will make myself a heaping bowl of air-pop popcorn, pour a glass of milk, and settle in for a finale that I'm predicting will result in the death/absence of at least one major character. Hopefully the same will not be true in my own life.
And as a side note, here's an interesting article written by the show's neurological script consultant. It's fascinating.
I know the show is full of ridiculous relationships, exaggerated emotions, and completely unrealistic medical monstrosities. But what can I say, addictions aren't rational.
With the season 5 finale taking over two hours of my life tomorrow night, I'm saddened and intrigued by the coordination of this show and the course of my college education. I started watching the show a little late in the game my sophomore year, but after catching up on seasons 1 and 2, I've never looked back.
The show has been one constant for me in a time when I never lived in one place for more than 9 months. Friday afternoons I knew that no matter what had gone on in the week, or how chaotic my life seemed, I could connect to abc.com and join people whose lives were inevitably more screwed up than mine. I could escape for 42 minutes into a world not entirely separate from my own, with characters who go big or go home. It's kept me connected to friends outside of college, as we've been able to rant and rave about Meredith's latest antics, or Callie's latest sexual orientation. This year I've been able to watch it in real time on Thursday nights, but the connection is still the same.
So tomorrow, I will make myself a heaping bowl of air-pop popcorn, pour a glass of milk, and settle in for a finale that I'm predicting will result in the death/absence of at least one major character. Hopefully the same will not be true in my own life.
And as a side note, here's an interesting article written by the show's neurological script consultant. It's fascinating.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
would-be models: a study of group think
This is slightly old news, but I find this video of a recent New York audition for "America's Next Top Model" to be a fascinating study of the spread of chaos. It resembles almost an ant colony to me. Just think about how many pairs of Jimmy Choos broke that day. Check it out, courtesy of the New York Daily News:
Sunday, November 23, 2008
that's what she said
On the back of the door to the media office at Whitworth, The Whitworthian editors maintain a "Quotations" board. This board is really just a large piece of white butcher paper with silly sayings or pieces of conversations pulled from the long hours of Sunday production. Many residence halls or other organizations keep similar records of words taken out of context. And in almost all of these situations, the quotations deemed "funny" have sexual connotations.
I remain fascinated by mankind's relationship with sex. Sure, it's been around since the first of mankind, but sexuality is contextual to cultural and time periods. Take, for example, ideas of physical "sexiness." A recent episode of Oprah explored beauty standards from around the world, from the noses of Iran to the staggering rate of plastic surgeries in Brazil. In almost every culture, sexual attraction is based on that culture's own somewhat arbitrary definitions.
In my class last year about the English language, part of our reading included Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue. The chapter on swearing studies the history of profanity, and points out two common insults across history: the male member and someone's mother. Somehow, a man's penis, at least in terms of civilizations that contributed to the development of English, has always been seen as funny.
I have failed to conclude an answer to why sexuality is a go-to joke generator. Maybe it's because regardless of culture, sex happens in some capacity, whether simply as the method for procreation or a nonchalant activity. Maybe it's because language and history have been dominated by the male narrative, and thus jokes that relate to something that universal male understanding at the most basic level. This could also contribute to the fact that it's much harder for a female comedian to incorporate sexual material into their act, compared to acts like this one from Dane Cook. All I know is, my staff has come up with way too many "that's what she said" comments to ignore this somehow innate understanding of humor.
I remain fascinated by mankind's relationship with sex. Sure, it's been around since the first of mankind, but sexuality is contextual to cultural and time periods. Take, for example, ideas of physical "sexiness." A recent episode of Oprah explored beauty standards from around the world, from the noses of Iran to the staggering rate of plastic surgeries in Brazil. In almost every culture, sexual attraction is based on that culture's own somewhat arbitrary definitions.
In my class last year about the English language, part of our reading included Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue. The chapter on swearing studies the history of profanity, and points out two common insults across history: the male member and someone's mother. Somehow, a man's penis, at least in terms of civilizations that contributed to the development of English, has always been seen as funny.
I have failed to conclude an answer to why sexuality is a go-to joke generator. Maybe it's because regardless of culture, sex happens in some capacity, whether simply as the method for procreation or a nonchalant activity. Maybe it's because language and history have been dominated by the male narrative, and thus jokes that relate to something that universal male understanding at the most basic level. This could also contribute to the fact that it's much harder for a female comedian to incorporate sexual material into their act, compared to acts like this one from Dane Cook. All I know is, my staff has come up with way too many "that's what she said" comments to ignore this somehow innate understanding of humor.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
I want a sticker
Like Alyssa, this was the first presidential election I was eligible to vote in. As such, I became eligible after Washington state switched all elections to mail-in voting only. So last week as I filled out my double-sided, unusually sized piece of paper they call a ballot, I kept saying "all I want is the sticker." The brightly colored sticker that I would've received after voting at a local elementary school or such designated precinct. I remember going with my mom to Tapteal Elementary and sitting for what seemed like hours in cold metal chairs as she disappeared behind a thick blue curtain. She and my dad would always give my sister and I their stickers, which we promptly stuck to our bed frames and competed to see who's would stick the longest (she usually won, because I could never decide where I wanted mine to go, so I kept taking it on and off.)
Last night, I didn't find out about the call for the Presidential race until about 20 minutes after it happened, because at the time I was focused on state supreme court races in Virginia or referendums in Nevada. And as I dubiously entered the votes in individual numeric order (you read 123 as "one, two three," not "one hundred twenty three",) I just kept thinking about all those people who were getting stickers for standing in long lines and, in more than one case, delaying childbirth, in order to vote.
I got no such tangible stamp of democracy. I couldn't walk into Starbucks and take my free cup of coffee without getting a second glance (or my free scoop of ice cream, or slurpee, or any of the other numerous corporate celebrations of election day). I have to tell people that my vote contributed to our first black president, rather than them being able to see me pump my "yes we can" fist walking out of the voting booth. I guess I'll have to settle with a Facebook application.
Last night, I didn't find out about the call for the Presidential race until about 20 minutes after it happened, because at the time I was focused on state supreme court races in Virginia or referendums in Nevada. And as I dubiously entered the votes in individual numeric order (you read 123 as "one, two three," not "one hundred twenty three",) I just kept thinking about all those people who were getting stickers for standing in long lines and, in more than one case, delaying childbirth, in order to vote.
I got no such tangible stamp of democracy. I couldn't walk into Starbucks and take my free cup of coffee without getting a second glance (or my free scoop of ice cream, or slurpee, or any of the other numerous corporate celebrations of election day). I have to tell people that my vote contributed to our first black president, rather than them being able to see me pump my "yes we can" fist walking out of the voting booth. I guess I'll have to settle with a Facebook application.
Monday, November 3, 2008
UPDATED: America's youth, again corrupted by the media
Before you read on, I must admit a huge personal bias: I am a strong supporter of comprehensive sex education in public schools. While I believe that stressing abstinence is important, I value freedom of information over my personal beliefs about what the right choice is. Besides, when it comes to sex education, decisions should be based on health issues, not value systems (at least when we're talking about public funds).
A new study released in the November issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics has found a "prospective link between exposure to sexual content on television and the experience of a pregnancy before the age of 20." In interviews with the Washington Post, lead researcher Anita Chandra noted that in TV depictions of sex (or activities such as kissing that imply a sexual relationship) rarely display topics such as STD protection or other risks involved in sexual activity.
My reaction to this study is the same as my reaction to many studies that have linked video game violence to school shootings or other violence in children: the problem isn't the media, it's personal responsibility. I don't argue that media, especially those that focus on visuals such as television or certain Internet sites, have a huge influence on public opinion on all levels. Republicans wouldn't care about a "biased" Oct. 13 Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin if they didn't think the image would sway voters away from the McCain ticket. Responsible voters are looking at issues and their interpretation of a candidate's ability to do the job, not their ability to remove facial hair.
The same responsibility should fall on media consumers when it comes to sexual or violent content. I know that when I watch Grey's Anatomy, I'm not watching a realistic depiction of a Seattle hospital. I watch the show for personal enjoyment and a way to relax in someone else's storyline, not for a dose of reality. However, the controversy comes when we're talking about children (and yes, teenagers are children). As an avid supporter of the First Amendment, can I also say that censorship in the name of childhood development and socialization is ok? I struggle with this line a lot, because I think the core of the issue is not who is doing who on TV, but rather why Sally and Jimmy feel that their lives would be bettered by emulating the characters they see on television. I don't have an answer, or even a clear argument, except to say that blaming media for teenage pregnancies (as many of the abstinence-supporting sources in the WA post article do) is not the solution.
Other sites that have covered the study: The Spokesman-Review (from the AP), Los Angeles Times, FOX news, China Daily, New York Times, a CBS affiliate (this one includes a quiz titled "test your pregnancy know-how", which is a blog commentary in and of itself). As a side note, this story makes an interesting media study on how the same information gets turned into totally different stories, especially in regards to leads and headlines.
A new study released in the November issue of the American Academy of Pediatrics has found a "prospective link between exposure to sexual content on television and the experience of a pregnancy before the age of 20." In interviews with the Washington Post, lead researcher Anita Chandra noted that in TV depictions of sex (or activities such as kissing that imply a sexual relationship) rarely display topics such as STD protection or other risks involved in sexual activity.
My reaction to this study is the same as my reaction to many studies that have linked video game violence to school shootings or other violence in children: the problem isn't the media, it's personal responsibility. I don't argue that media, especially those that focus on visuals such as television or certain Internet sites, have a huge influence on public opinion on all levels. Republicans wouldn't care about a "biased" Oct. 13 Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin if they didn't think the image would sway voters away from the McCain ticket. Responsible voters are looking at issues and their interpretation of a candidate's ability to do the job, not their ability to remove facial hair.
The same responsibility should fall on media consumers when it comes to sexual or violent content. I know that when I watch Grey's Anatomy, I'm not watching a realistic depiction of a Seattle hospital. I watch the show for personal enjoyment and a way to relax in someone else's storyline, not for a dose of reality. However, the controversy comes when we're talking about children (and yes, teenagers are children). As an avid supporter of the First Amendment, can I also say that censorship in the name of childhood development and socialization is ok? I struggle with this line a lot, because I think the core of the issue is not who is doing who on TV, but rather why Sally and Jimmy feel that their lives would be bettered by emulating the characters they see on television. I don't have an answer, or even a clear argument, except to say that blaming media for teenage pregnancies (as many of the abstinence-supporting sources in the WA post article do) is not the solution.
Other sites that have covered the study: The Spokesman-Review (from the AP), Los Angeles Times, FOX news, China Daily, New York Times, a CBS affiliate (this one includes a quiz titled "test your pregnancy know-how", which is a blog commentary in and of itself). As a side note, this story makes an interesting media study on how the same information gets turned into totally different stories, especially in regards to leads and headlines.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Another tally in the "we're screwed" column
I try not to make this whole blog just about posting other articles I think others should read, but this one is worth the exception:
Almost half of women have sexual problems, from the Washington Post.
The interesting part is that of this almost 50 percent, only 12 percent reported distress due to the physical problems. And the survey includes nothing about the role of these women's partners in their "problems." Yet another example of how women are expected to be the perfect Cosmo girl, and if it's not working then she's to blame. No good.
Almost half of women have sexual problems, from the Washington Post.
The interesting part is that of this almost 50 percent, only 12 percent reported distress due to the physical problems. And the survey includes nothing about the role of these women's partners in their "problems." Yet another example of how women are expected to be the perfect Cosmo girl, and if it's not working then she's to blame. No good.
trains, planes, and really cramped automobiles
This is a first for me: I'm blogging from the airport. It's appropriate considering I'm leaving Kansas City (Missouri) after a 4-day college media convention that screamed themes of convergence and the mysterious world of online journalism. (Note of interest: I was in a session with the University of Washington's newspaper advisor, and got to talk to her about their ethical decisions in running a photo of the man who lit himself on fire. Crazy stuff.) And as I sat through sessions about anything from Twitter to using Facebook for community journalism, I couldn't help but wonder if hyper-connectivity is really a good thing.
I realize this sounds like the grandparent argument that everyone is just on their cell phones all the time, and no one talks face to face anymore. And as mass media history will teach you, this "phenomena" and changing trends in media consumption are nothing new. People thought radio was the end of all civilized neighborhoods, for goodness sakes. I guess for me, the lines aren't necessarily drawn at who is allowed to be a journalist, but rather how we will continue to distinguish the personal from the professional. I maintain this blog mainly for personal reasons, and as a rule leave out specifics about my work on The Whitworthian or other publications. Does that mean it's fair game for a reader to point out a bias I hold in the off-chance I report about something I've blogged about?
Facebook is a whole other ballpark. Again, I have to this point kept a Facebook profile for personal reasons. But as co-workers and potential employers scan my pages and updates, do they now get the right to evaluate my professional abilities by my personal proclamations? Newspapers want to know that I can use social networking, but I don't want to have to water down my photo albums or censor wall posts from friends just because I'm worried about how they may be perceived.
This all goes along with the changing roles, and even definitions, of journalists. Anyone with a phone camera can make headlines on CNN these days if they're in the right place at the right time. I just worry that as we spread the roots of journalism into worlds previously considered off limits, the lines of professional and personal get a little too complicated.
I realize this sounds like the grandparent argument that everyone is just on their cell phones all the time, and no one talks face to face anymore. And as mass media history will teach you, this "phenomena" and changing trends in media consumption are nothing new. People thought radio was the end of all civilized neighborhoods, for goodness sakes. I guess for me, the lines aren't necessarily drawn at who is allowed to be a journalist, but rather how we will continue to distinguish the personal from the professional. I maintain this blog mainly for personal reasons, and as a rule leave out specifics about my work on The Whitworthian or other publications. Does that mean it's fair game for a reader to point out a bias I hold in the off-chance I report about something I've blogged about?
Facebook is a whole other ballpark. Again, I have to this point kept a Facebook profile for personal reasons. But as co-workers and potential employers scan my pages and updates, do they now get the right to evaluate my professional abilities by my personal proclamations? Newspapers want to know that I can use social networking, but I don't want to have to water down my photo albums or censor wall posts from friends just because I'm worried about how they may be perceived.
This all goes along with the changing roles, and even definitions, of journalists. Anyone with a phone camera can make headlines on CNN these days if they're in the right place at the right time. I just worry that as we spread the roots of journalism into worlds previously considered off limits, the lines of professional and personal get a little too complicated.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
opportunity knocks
As someone who considers herself a fairly informed individual, especially in comparison to some of my university peers, I of course watched Friday evening's presidential debates. I saw the eye rolling, the name calling, and the "Truth Squad" from NBC point out the factual errors of each candidate in the post-game analysis. (Eisenhower did not write a letter of resignation. Take that.) And I agreed with most of the commentators: the candidates did a good job of reassuring their respective camps of their policies, but really didn't say anything new. Sure, they breezed over the specifics of the financial bail out, but who wouldn't? No one wants to hear that because investment banks are tanking their kid's school is going to even further cut the music program. It's the way political jargon is expected to run.
And then, when I was standing outside Martin Stadium in Pullman yesterday, I found myself standing about 4 feet away from Dino Rossi, as he was kissing the usual ass of Eastern Washington. And a thought came to me:
What would I say if I walked up to him and asked one question?
Think about it. We complain about biased coverage all day long (shout out to Chris Matthews), but if given the chance, what would we want to directly ask of a political candidate?
My first thought was broad, more along the lines of "hi, my name is Joy Bacon. Why should I vote for you?" In Dino Rossi's case, I want to ask him if he ever learned about fallacies in high school AP language arts, because if he had, he would know that you can't prove a causal link between Christine Gregoire and food prices in a 30-second TV spot. And then all the other questions that flood my mind surrounding social policy end up pinning me as a one-issue voter, which I hope to God to never be. And even now, as I sit in my office and try to come up with some intellectual, world-changing question, I can't decide.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired of scripted answers. I'm fed up with ads that I don't trust or speeches you don't need corrective eye wear to see through. I want a straight yes or no, a simple explanation, or a simple "I don't know, but I'll get back to you." Now all I have to do is find the perfect question to get me that answer.
And then, when I was standing outside Martin Stadium in Pullman yesterday, I found myself standing about 4 feet away from Dino Rossi, as he was kissing the usual ass of Eastern Washington. And a thought came to me:
What would I say if I walked up to him and asked one question?
Think about it. We complain about biased coverage all day long (shout out to Chris Matthews), but if given the chance, what would we want to directly ask of a political candidate?
My first thought was broad, more along the lines of "hi, my name is Joy Bacon. Why should I vote for you?" In Dino Rossi's case, I want to ask him if he ever learned about fallacies in high school AP language arts, because if he had, he would know that you can't prove a causal link between Christine Gregoire and food prices in a 30-second TV spot. And then all the other questions that flood my mind surrounding social policy end up pinning me as a one-issue voter, which I hope to God to never be. And even now, as I sit in my office and try to come up with some intellectual, world-changing question, I can't decide.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired of scripted answers. I'm fed up with ads that I don't trust or speeches you don't need corrective eye wear to see through. I want a straight yes or no, a simple explanation, or a simple "I don't know, but I'll get back to you." Now all I have to do is find the perfect question to get me that answer.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The things that can happen
Since I've been on a bit of a hiatus from the blogosphere, I've been feeling quite detached from the Internet world. Instead of reading 20-30 articles a day from various news sites, I maybe skim the headlines of two American sources before I have to scamper off to the next thing. But in the time I have had to be an informed individual, here are the stories I found that you may have missed:
1. TRL (Total Request Live) is going off the air in November. In other words, the part of my life that was lived out with Carson Daly from 3:30 to 5 p.m. every day is now being canceled. This means MTV will have even less music-based television, showing yet again how the culture created through music tends to dominate over the music itself. Get ready for more "My Super Sweet Sixteen" marathons that we should be asked to tolerate.
2. New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd finally showed how the West Wing wasn't just a bunch of theoretical, ratings-driven mumbo jumbo by creating a conversation between the show's presidents, Jed Bartlet, and Barak Obama. Good stuff.
3. The View is becoming somewhat of an authoritative voice when it comes to political analysis. Who knew that when I sat on my couch and was rooting for Elizabeth Hasselbeck (then Elizabeth Filarski) to survive the Australian Outback, I would be rooting for one of the up-and-coming daytime co-hosts of today. Although I do think she wears entirely too much pink.
4. I wrote a sports column for The Whitworthian as a last-minute space filler. I'll never escape.
1. TRL (Total Request Live) is going off the air in November. In other words, the part of my life that was lived out with Carson Daly from 3:30 to 5 p.m. every day is now being canceled. This means MTV will have even less music-based television, showing yet again how the culture created through music tends to dominate over the music itself. Get ready for more "My Super Sweet Sixteen" marathons that we should be asked to tolerate.
2. New York Times' columnist Maureen Dowd finally showed how the West Wing wasn't just a bunch of theoretical, ratings-driven mumbo jumbo by creating a conversation between the show's presidents, Jed Bartlet, and Barak Obama. Good stuff.
3. The View is becoming somewhat of an authoritative voice when it comes to political analysis. Who knew that when I sat on my couch and was rooting for Elizabeth Hasselbeck (then Elizabeth Filarski) to survive the Australian Outback, I would be rooting for one of the up-and-coming daytime co-hosts of today. Although I do think she wears entirely too much pink.
4. I wrote a sports column for The Whitworthian as a last-minute space filler. I'll never escape.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Be informed
I consider myself an educated, in the loop individual. But even I was stumped by a lot of these questions. And most disappointedly, I think my worst score was in the Arts and Entertainment section. Take the quiz from Newsweek for yourself, and comment on how you do:
Global Literacy 2008
Global Literacy 2008
Because curlers would have no other claim to fame
This year's Olympics have mustered months of pre-game coverage, anything from Michael Phelps dominating his sport to Paul Hamm dropping out of the men's gymnastics competition to China building walls to conceal its less "attractive" members of society. But despite human rights violations, air the color of dirt and one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen constructed for an Olympic stadium, I can't help myself: I love the Olympics.
I love watching the Opening Ceremonies and seeing a country with three or four athletes waving their flag just as high as a country with hundreds of athletes. I love watching the face of a competitor who has worked his or her entire life to perfect one skill and that hard work has now come to fruition. Regardless of the event, each athlete or competitor there has more determination and focus that I can hope to have in a lifetime. And even if I don't think there needs to be a distinction between swimming in an indoor pool or an open body of water, I'll watch both events with equal amazement.
I also love the predicable formula of Olympic coverage. There's the classic underdog, who rules the Olympic media coverage. Inevitably there is always someone from a country I can't pronounce who comes out of nowhere and blows everyone's minds, and then is hounded for the next week on every national talk show and news program imaginable. There's the athlete whose head looks like it's about to fall off from the weight of all the medals around his or her neck. But as karma would predict, there is also the inevitable mistake, the slip off the uneven bars, the missed turn in the triathlon, the trip of the foot right off the blocks. It takes two seconds for someone to go from almost guaranteed gold to sitting on the sidelines, empty handed.
So despite my doubt about China actually implementing democratic changes for the better, or the doubt that some athletes anymore aren't using steroids even if they don't get caught, or just the fact that I only care about cycling once every four years, I will still be a fan. In any case, I have to fill up on watching real talent, before the next season of "So You Think You Can Dance" redefines how terrible you can be at something and still win a prize.
A few Olympics links:
Create your own schedule of events
New gymnastics scoring
I love watching the Opening Ceremonies and seeing a country with three or four athletes waving their flag just as high as a country with hundreds of athletes. I love watching the face of a competitor who has worked his or her entire life to perfect one skill and that hard work has now come to fruition. Regardless of the event, each athlete or competitor there has more determination and focus that I can hope to have in a lifetime. And even if I don't think there needs to be a distinction between swimming in an indoor pool or an open body of water, I'll watch both events with equal amazement.
I also love the predicable formula of Olympic coverage. There's the classic underdog, who rules the Olympic media coverage. Inevitably there is always someone from a country I can't pronounce who comes out of nowhere and blows everyone's minds, and then is hounded for the next week on every national talk show and news program imaginable. There's the athlete whose head looks like it's about to fall off from the weight of all the medals around his or her neck. But as karma would predict, there is also the inevitable mistake, the slip off the uneven bars, the missed turn in the triathlon, the trip of the foot right off the blocks. It takes two seconds for someone to go from almost guaranteed gold to sitting on the sidelines, empty handed.
So despite my doubt about China actually implementing democratic changes for the better, or the doubt that some athletes anymore aren't using steroids even if they don't get caught, or just the fact that I only care about cycling once every four years, I will still be a fan. In any case, I have to fill up on watching real talent, before the next season of "So You Think You Can Dance" redefines how terrible you can be at something and still win a prize.
A few Olympics links:
Create your own schedule of events
New gymnastics scoring
Thursday, July 31, 2008
my strongest suit
When I wake up in the morning, I have two main concerns: what will take the least amount of time to eat for breakfast, and what I should wear. Breakfast is usually the choice between an apple for the road or a quick bowl of honey nut cheerios. But the second item proves to be much more of a conundrum. I would describe my workplace as "business casual," meaning as long as the appropriate body parts are contained and you don't wear a logo T-shirt, you're probably good to go. However, this still leaves a very wide range of combinations to choose from. This is a typical morning run-down:
"Hmm, I think the black skirt would be nice today. Except the blue top is dirty and with the black I can't wear the brown cardigan. Ok, green top it is. But it's a little windy outside so the skirt might not be the best choice. So just put the green top with the gray pants. But then do I wear the sandals or the close-toed flats? Ok what interviews do I have today? There's a chance that I could have to go out to Fort Walla Walla meaning I would want not-nice shoes, but I could also have to go meet with the lady at the VA office and that would require nicer shoes. But the grey pants are too short for the heels. I like the white bermuda shorts, but only men can wear shorts to work. And there's always the chance that I'll get assigned to breaking news at City Hall, meaning I should totally scrap the green shirt and wear something collared..."
I think I put more energy into my daily ensembles that most college interns, but it's not for nothing. Whether we like it or not, first impressions are a big part of success in the professional world. And your appearance is a significant part of that impression. Think about it: if you went it to meet with a bank to set up a mortgage, you would think twice about investing hundreds of thousands of dollars with someone who can't keep his or her shirt tucked in. On the flipside, if you went to a farmer's market looking for fresh local berries, you would trust the farmer who appeared to actually work with his or her crops, rather than someone who can't be bothered to get their hands dirty.
And unfortunately, I think this pressure falls more to women than men. I don't mean to go on another "women are treated as sexual objects and considered slightly incompetent in some professional settings" tirade. But the balance between feminine and professional clothing is often quite the challenge. If you dress too much like a "woman," meaning you highlight merely acknowledge the female figure, you're sometimes pegged as a flake or someone who really doesn't know what she's doing. However, if you wear a white collared shirt with black slacks and orthopedic shoes every day, people might say you don't care about your appearance, translating that apathy into a lack of interest in her work. As shallow as it sounds, I think "What Not to Wear" has been an invaluable resource for professional women. It teaches women of varying sizes, ages, and body types how to reflect their personalities and own styles, but within guidelines that are appropriate for a particular setting.
This environment-appropriate appearance is just as important in journalism, I believe. But here, the game is more about camouflage. You have to create rapport with sources, and if they get a vibe that you are either way above or below their environment, you're toast. Granted, doing your research beforehand, especially when covering a topic or feature outside your normal circles, is crucial. But fitting in and looking like you can relate to a person I feel is just as helpful to getting better quotes and a more conversational interview.
"Hmm, I think the black skirt would be nice today. Except the blue top is dirty and with the black I can't wear the brown cardigan. Ok, green top it is. But it's a little windy outside so the skirt might not be the best choice. So just put the green top with the gray pants. But then do I wear the sandals or the close-toed flats? Ok what interviews do I have today? There's a chance that I could have to go out to Fort Walla Walla meaning I would want not-nice shoes, but I could also have to go meet with the lady at the VA office and that would require nicer shoes. But the grey pants are too short for the heels. I like the white bermuda shorts, but only men can wear shorts to work. And there's always the chance that I'll get assigned to breaking news at City Hall, meaning I should totally scrap the green shirt and wear something collared..."
I think I put more energy into my daily ensembles that most college interns, but it's not for nothing. Whether we like it or not, first impressions are a big part of success in the professional world. And your appearance is a significant part of that impression. Think about it: if you went it to meet with a bank to set up a mortgage, you would think twice about investing hundreds of thousands of dollars with someone who can't keep his or her shirt tucked in. On the flipside, if you went to a farmer's market looking for fresh local berries, you would trust the farmer who appeared to actually work with his or her crops, rather than someone who can't be bothered to get their hands dirty.
And unfortunately, I think this pressure falls more to women than men. I don't mean to go on another "women are treated as sexual objects and considered slightly incompetent in some professional settings" tirade. But the balance between feminine and professional clothing is often quite the challenge. If you dress too much like a "woman," meaning you highlight merely acknowledge the female figure, you're sometimes pegged as a flake or someone who really doesn't know what she's doing. However, if you wear a white collared shirt with black slacks and orthopedic shoes every day, people might say you don't care about your appearance, translating that apathy into a lack of interest in her work. As shallow as it sounds, I think "What Not to Wear" has been an invaluable resource for professional women. It teaches women of varying sizes, ages, and body types how to reflect their personalities and own styles, but within guidelines that are appropriate for a particular setting.
This environment-appropriate appearance is just as important in journalism, I believe. But here, the game is more about camouflage. You have to create rapport with sources, and if they get a vibe that you are either way above or below their environment, you're toast. Granted, doing your research beforehand, especially when covering a topic or feature outside your normal circles, is crucial. But fitting in and looking like you can relate to a person I feel is just as helpful to getting better quotes and a more conversational interview.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Teenagers are again destroying all moral value in society. Or are they just changing the values?
One of the top New York Times reads over the weekend has been an article that explores the pros and cons of online literacy. And though I've emailed the link to a few of you, I thought a more in-depth look at the article would be appropriate. I've pulled out a few key quotes or topics to highlight, since the article is, ironically, four web pages long:
1. "Deborah Konyk, would prefer that Nadia, who gets A’s and B’s at school, read books for a change. But at this point, Ms. Konyk said, “I’m just pleased that she reads something anymore.”
This is a fundamental compromise I think a lot of parents are reaching these days when it comes to the Internet. They think that if their child is spending five hours on MySpace, at least they're chatting with friends from school and not potential child molesters (although 1 in 5 children under 18 will be solicited by a sexual predator online). The same applies to reading. They say "well reading Harry Potter is better than not reading at all." And while I agree that the world of Hogwarts has kept a lot of kids engrossed in a book, there are just as many books geared toward a teenage audience that have just as much intellectual or entertainment value.
2. "Some Web evangelists say children should be evaluated for their proficiency on the Internet just as they are tested on their print reading comprehension. Starting next year, some countries will participate in new international assessments of digital literacy..."
This is an interesting concept, although the article goes on to say such testing is not being explored in the United States. It's like taking a required keyboarding class to learn home row and pump out 60 words a minute. It might lose the art of putting a literal pencil to literal paper, but over time, typing has become essential to survival in the workplace or academic environment. I would be interested to see exactly how "digital literacy" is defined.
3. When a friend introduced Nadia to fanfiction.net, she turned off the television and started reading online.Now she regularly reads stories that run as long as 45 Web pages. Many of them have elliptical plots and are sprinkled with spelling and grammatical errors...Nadia said she preferred reading stories online because “you could add your own character and twist it the way you want it to be...Nadia said she wanted to major in English at college and someday hopes to be published. She does not see a problem with reading few books. “No one’s ever said you should read more books to get into college,” she said."
I wonder what Nadia considers "published." I find it encouraging that an online storytelling site can encourage young people to become writers themselves. However, I still cannot ignore the fact that almost any professor or writer will tell you that the best way to become a good writer is to be a good reader. If all she is reading is online amateur works, regardless of length, she will never be exposed to the types of more formal and sophisticated works that she could potentially aspire to create herself. And her last statement just makes me want to smack her upside the head.
4. "Reading five Web sites, an op-ed article and a blog post or two, experts say, can be more enriching than reading one book."
Well if this is true, I've read approximately three books a day this summer. But joking aside, I still wonder if this is actually comparable data. Growing up most of the books I read were fiction, or the occasional biography. The article goes on to talk about the plurality of ideas available through reading multiple websites on the same topic. And for things like politics or world affairs, it's true that I, an avid book lover, am more likely to skim headlines and commentary than I am to sit down with 400 pages on one topic in a bound edition. But again, the art of the fiction, or even non-fiction, novel cannot be equated to reading various blogs (unless Harper Lee has suddenly returned to the literary world via a daily short story posted online).
5. Some literacy experts say that reading itself should be redefined. Interpreting videos or pictures, they say, may be as important a skill as analyzing a novel or a poem.
I won't go into this one a ton, except to say it's the classic struggle for educators and students alike, trying to find textbooks and materials that are both engaging and informative, without having to dumb down a lesson plan or find a way to make everything "fun." (That's for my dad, who always complains that his students expect every class to be entertaining.)
6. "When researching the 19th-century Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for one class, he typed Taney’s name into Google and scanned the Wikipedia entry and other biographical sites. Instead of reading an entire page, he would type in a search word like “college” to find Taney’s alma mater, assembling his information nugget by nugget."
All I can think is of a Whitworth professor's threat that she would haunt the dreams of any student who used Wikipedia for research purposes. And as the 2007 AP Stylebooks notes, the Internet is "1/4 wheat and 3/4 chaff." A little dramatic, but it gets the point across.
1. "Deborah Konyk, would prefer that Nadia, who gets A’s and B’s at school, read books for a change. But at this point, Ms. Konyk said, “I’m just pleased that she reads something anymore.”
This is a fundamental compromise I think a lot of parents are reaching these days when it comes to the Internet. They think that if their child is spending five hours on MySpace, at least they're chatting with friends from school and not potential child molesters (although 1 in 5 children under 18 will be solicited by a sexual predator online). The same applies to reading. They say "well reading Harry Potter is better than not reading at all." And while I agree that the world of Hogwarts has kept a lot of kids engrossed in a book, there are just as many books geared toward a teenage audience that have just as much intellectual or entertainment value.
2. "Some Web evangelists say children should be evaluated for their proficiency on the Internet just as they are tested on their print reading comprehension. Starting next year, some countries will participate in new international assessments of digital literacy..."
This is an interesting concept, although the article goes on to say such testing is not being explored in the United States. It's like taking a required keyboarding class to learn home row and pump out 60 words a minute. It might lose the art of putting a literal pencil to literal paper, but over time, typing has become essential to survival in the workplace or academic environment. I would be interested to see exactly how "digital literacy" is defined.
3. When a friend introduced Nadia to fanfiction.net, she turned off the television and started reading online.Now she regularly reads stories that run as long as 45 Web pages. Many of them have elliptical plots and are sprinkled with spelling and grammatical errors...Nadia said she preferred reading stories online because “you could add your own character and twist it the way you want it to be...Nadia said she wanted to major in English at college and someday hopes to be published. She does not see a problem with reading few books. “No one’s ever said you should read more books to get into college,” she said."
I wonder what Nadia considers "published." I find it encouraging that an online storytelling site can encourage young people to become writers themselves. However, I still cannot ignore the fact that almost any professor or writer will tell you that the best way to become a good writer is to be a good reader. If all she is reading is online amateur works, regardless of length, she will never be exposed to the types of more formal and sophisticated works that she could potentially aspire to create herself. And her last statement just makes me want to smack her upside the head.
4. "Reading five Web sites, an op-ed article and a blog post or two, experts say, can be more enriching than reading one book."
Well if this is true, I've read approximately three books a day this summer. But joking aside, I still wonder if this is actually comparable data. Growing up most of the books I read were fiction, or the occasional biography. The article goes on to talk about the plurality of ideas available through reading multiple websites on the same topic. And for things like politics or world affairs, it's true that I, an avid book lover, am more likely to skim headlines and commentary than I am to sit down with 400 pages on one topic in a bound edition. But again, the art of the fiction, or even non-fiction, novel cannot be equated to reading various blogs (unless Harper Lee has suddenly returned to the literary world via a daily short story posted online).
5. Some literacy experts say that reading itself should be redefined. Interpreting videos or pictures, they say, may be as important a skill as analyzing a novel or a poem.
“Kids are using sound and images so they have a world of ideas to put together that aren’t necessarily language oriented,” said Donna E. Alvermann, a professor of language and literacy education at the University of Georgia. “Books aren’t out of the picture, but they’re only one way of experiencing information in the world today.”
I won't go into this one a ton, except to say it's the classic struggle for educators and students alike, trying to find textbooks and materials that are both engaging and informative, without having to dumb down a lesson plan or find a way to make everything "fun." (That's for my dad, who always complains that his students expect every class to be entertaining.)
6. "When researching the 19th-century Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for one class, he typed Taney’s name into Google and scanned the Wikipedia entry and other biographical sites. Instead of reading an entire page, he would type in a search word like “college” to find Taney’s alma mater, assembling his information nugget by nugget."
All I can think is of a Whitworth professor's threat that she would haunt the dreams of any student who used Wikipedia for research purposes. And as the 2007 AP Stylebooks notes, the Internet is "1/4 wheat and 3/4 chaff." A little dramatic, but it gets the point across.
Monday, July 14, 2008
the new journalist
Anyone who is remotely connected to print journalism these days knows that the industry is tanking almost as quickly as the stock market. Papers and corporations across the country from the Boston Globe to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to even the Tri-City Herald (owned by McClatchy, who made cuts of their own) are scaling back through layoffs or attrition. It's a scary time to be thinking about finding a job.
But as newspapers shift to smaller, online news coverage, a shift in style is coming with it. For example, the Washington Post just launched the second crime series in two weeks, this one is investigating the still-unsolved case of Chandra Levy from 2001. The series works with a style almost better suited for a mystery bestseller than a reporting of facts. Granted, I will be the first to jump on board the shift to more conversational and stylistic journalism, especially when dealing with long stories or less timely features, such as stories about semi-colons or fans going shirtless at baseball games. But in this series about Levy, many of the facts or information are left uncited, and comments are made about Chandra's feelings or thoughts or opinions that would be hard to nail down as concrete without hearing them from her directly.
Another debate about the same sort of language shift is being discussed by Politico about the Associated Press and its new head, Ron Fournier. The wire service is seeing more first person (considered the unpardonable sin by some journalists and professors) and "emotive language."
I have been saying for a few years now that the shift to increasing online content should not change the basic job of a reporter: gather facts, check accuracy, and write stories based on interviews and credible research. Online news still requires fact checking, still requires accurately quoting a source, still encourages watchdog journalism. And there is still plenty of this going on, both in print and online. But I worry that as newspapers desperately try to target the under-30 audience, they will compromise quality reporting for informal language and less "choppy" citations in order to mimic personalities such as Stephen Colbert (who actually is exceptional at citing sources for his facts or statistics) or E! news. The ride is keeping aspiring journalists on their toes, that's for sure.
But as newspapers shift to smaller, online news coverage, a shift in style is coming with it. For example, the Washington Post just launched the second crime series in two weeks, this one is investigating the still-unsolved case of Chandra Levy from 2001. The series works with a style almost better suited for a mystery bestseller than a reporting of facts. Granted, I will be the first to jump on board the shift to more conversational and stylistic journalism, especially when dealing with long stories or less timely features, such as stories about semi-colons or fans going shirtless at baseball games. But in this series about Levy, many of the facts or information are left uncited, and comments are made about Chandra's feelings or thoughts or opinions that would be hard to nail down as concrete without hearing them from her directly.
Another debate about the same sort of language shift is being discussed by Politico about the Associated Press and its new head, Ron Fournier. The wire service is seeing more first person (considered the unpardonable sin by some journalists and professors) and "emotive language."
I have been saying for a few years now that the shift to increasing online content should not change the basic job of a reporter: gather facts, check accuracy, and write stories based on interviews and credible research. Online news still requires fact checking, still requires accurately quoting a source, still encourages watchdog journalism. And there is still plenty of this going on, both in print and online. But I worry that as newspapers desperately try to target the under-30 audience, they will compromise quality reporting for informal language and less "choppy" citations in order to mimic personalities such as Stephen Colbert (who actually is exceptional at citing sources for his facts or statistics) or E! news. The ride is keeping aspiring journalists on their toes, that's for sure.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
BABIES
Instead of inching closer to my third completed season of "Law & Order: SVU" for the summer, I've tried to mix in another genre of Netflix Instant Play options: documentaries. I loved watching documentaries throughout middle and high school, and my heavy diet of PBS as a small child has created an appreciation in me for the grassroots-like footage and simple message of an hour-long look into a particular issue or historical event.
Last night's choice was "The business of being born," a project taken on and produced by Ricky Lake. The film received a mixed bag of reviews and controversy when it opened in January. It essentially focuses on the "deception" of obstetricians and how the United States has the one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Less than 1 percent of Americans use a midwife. In Europe, that number is 1 out of every 3 births. Those statistics alone were surprising to me, considering many people in this country consider midwives to be, as the film described it, "an old lady who brings a rolled up towel for the mother to bite down on." However, this is not the case. The organization featured employed midwives who were not only certified as such, but many had nursing degrees and had worked in traditional labor rooms for several years before becoming midwives. Another fascinating statistic was the huge increase in cesarean sections in the US: almost 40 percent of all children born here do not enter the world through vaginal delivery.
But despite the clear agenda of the film, the thing that surprised me the most was the actual footage of several different home births. I'm used to the "Father of the Bride: II" images of childbirth, the woman sucking on ice chips who is definitely sweating and in pain, but still able to carry on conversation and give her father friendly advice. I know this is extremely idealized, but at the same time, how many of us have ever seen what birth looks like in its natural state, without induced contractions or fetal monitors or eight doctors buzzing around in sea foam green smocks? The footage was both revolting and fascinating. Women were walking around their homes, often completely naked, moaning and swearing and just being in general states of agony. (And not gonna lie, the image of watching a baby's head literally pop out of a woman is probably the most terrifying thing I've ever seen. I didn't take health class in high school, so I was spared the infamous birthing video.)
I will always remember when at one point in 10th grade language arts when Kim Maldonado said bearing the responsibility of giving birth is the greatest honor she could have received; for her it was a blessing, not a burden. The film also talked a lot about the rite of passage of becoming a mother, and the euphoria that comes from holding your labor pains, literally, against your chest for the first time. I just hope when and if that day comes I can remember the blessing part, rather than what an episode of Gilmore Girls described as "doing the splits over a pile of dynamite."
Last night's choice was "The business of being born," a project taken on and produced by Ricky Lake. The film received a mixed bag of reviews and controversy when it opened in January. It essentially focuses on the "deception" of obstetricians and how the United States has the one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world. Less than 1 percent of Americans use a midwife. In Europe, that number is 1 out of every 3 births. Those statistics alone were surprising to me, considering many people in this country consider midwives to be, as the film described it, "an old lady who brings a rolled up towel for the mother to bite down on." However, this is not the case. The organization featured employed midwives who were not only certified as such, but many had nursing degrees and had worked in traditional labor rooms for several years before becoming midwives. Another fascinating statistic was the huge increase in cesarean sections in the US: almost 40 percent of all children born here do not enter the world through vaginal delivery.
But despite the clear agenda of the film, the thing that surprised me the most was the actual footage of several different home births. I'm used to the "Father of the Bride: II" images of childbirth, the woman sucking on ice chips who is definitely sweating and in pain, but still able to carry on conversation and give her father friendly advice. I know this is extremely idealized, but at the same time, how many of us have ever seen what birth looks like in its natural state, without induced contractions or fetal monitors or eight doctors buzzing around in sea foam green smocks? The footage was both revolting and fascinating. Women were walking around their homes, often completely naked, moaning and swearing and just being in general states of agony. (And not gonna lie, the image of watching a baby's head literally pop out of a woman is probably the most terrifying thing I've ever seen. I didn't take health class in high school, so I was spared the infamous birthing video.)
I will always remember when at one point in 10th grade language arts when Kim Maldonado said bearing the responsibility of giving birth is the greatest honor she could have received; for her it was a blessing, not a burden. The film also talked a lot about the rite of passage of becoming a mother, and the euphoria that comes from holding your labor pains, literally, against your chest for the first time. I just hope when and if that day comes I can remember the blessing part, rather than what an episode of Gilmore Girls described as "doing the splits over a pile of dynamite."
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
apples and oranges
Before the start of the 2008 race for president, I think a lot of people in this country had given up on our generation having anything useful to contribute to society besides chat abbreviations. But now, it seems like a whole focus of the campaign coverage has been the influence of "young people." In light of this, I was surprised to stumble across a Newsweek article denouncing Generation Y for not being able to identify the significance of a sign reading "Colored Entrance" or name the largest lake in the United States (Lake Superior). Now I consider myself a fairly educated individual. I can tell you the year Robert Kennedy was assassinated, why outsourcing is a debated issue, and how to look up a book using a card catalog in a library (a lost art in my opinion). The article focuses mainly on the lack of fact memorizing, such as dates or names. But it also gives credit to young people's ability to multitask and think critically, sighting Dungeons and Dragons as actually equivalent, at least in brain power, to a story problem in algebra class.
I think the discussion should not surround whether or not the same history books are being memorized by the new generation. Young people are processing and gathering information in new ways, and that should be considered. Many people would say that technology is the cause of stupidity, or perceived lack of intelligence. But think about how many of us can use the Internet to find information with a few simple clicks, that used to take a person hours to search for? How many of us can use a cell phone responsibly to check in with our parents when we went out during high school? We can create anything from family photo albums to complex power point presentations that save money, space and time. Granted, I will be the first one to admit that technology sometimes can cause more frustration than assistance. The question should not be if it is good or bad, but whether at the end of the day a person is educated enough to contribute something to society, whether that be a new way to connect the globe or merely spout of an answer for tomorrow's episode of Jeopardy.
I think the discussion should not surround whether or not the same history books are being memorized by the new generation. Young people are processing and gathering information in new ways, and that should be considered. Many people would say that technology is the cause of stupidity, or perceived lack of intelligence. But think about how many of us can use the Internet to find information with a few simple clicks, that used to take a person hours to search for? How many of us can use a cell phone responsibly to check in with our parents when we went out during high school? We can create anything from family photo albums to complex power point presentations that save money, space and time. Granted, I will be the first one to admit that technology sometimes can cause more frustration than assistance. The question should not be if it is good or bad, but whether at the end of the day a person is educated enough to contribute something to society, whether that be a new way to connect the globe or merely spout of an answer for tomorrow's episode of Jeopardy.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments