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.

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.

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.

shameless plug

Latest review I wrote for whitworthian.com, on the Secret Life of Bees.

man's best friend: ideally, also a man

As Fall Break approaches at Whitworth, you start to see students get a glassy look in their eyes. This haze is caused by three scenarios: 1. The student is looking forward to free laundry, homemade lasagna and 24-hour access to a TV remote; 2. The student is not going home and thus is picturing the four days they have to spend alone, with cafeteria food; 3. The student is going to be able to see his or her dog.

My freshman year, I thought it was just a fluke, a weird quirk that only applied to my small group of friends who felt they could trust me with their homesick desires. But as college has progressed, I've seen more and more that college students grow more wishful to spend time with their pets than their actual families. People have pictures up all over their rooms, or refuse to wash a blanket or article of clothing because the dog hair all over it just "reminds them of home." (And Katie, this isn't just you...) One friend even had an entire calendar made with 12 different pictures of her dog.

Now I never had a dog growing up, for several reasons. For one, we don't have a fenced in back yard, so logistically it would've been pretty a pretty expensive alteration to our backyard. Plus my house was always here and there and then over yonder about 18 times a day, and none of us could've really committed to taking care of a dog. (Cats are low-maintenance when it comes to indoor pets.) Sometimes when I was at the river I would sigh in longing at the family splashing in the waves with their golden retriever, or think that I might be motivated to run more if I had a canine companion. But then I would see the dog shake itself all over the family's dry blanket, or realize that I will never be motivated to run for running's sake, dog or otherwise.

So let all those dog dependents swoon over man's best friend. Sure, I might be missing out in the long run. But I've always supported the notion that a man should be able to maintain a two-way conversation with his best friend. And to me, a wagging tail or slobbering snout is a conversation I can live without.

back in the day

The Smith family is on campus today, because little Nat (who I guess isn't so little anymore) is considering Whitworth. Nancy came up to the media office and immediately was drawn to our opinion columnists' byline styles, which made me smile. Kelsey was up here too, and it was then that I realized that little Bacon was also the editor-in-chief of The Altitude, Hanford High School's newspaper. And of course, this took me down memory lane...here are some of the stops I made along the train of thought:

• explaining the difference between a gordita and chalupa as Alyssa and I made late-night Taco Bell runs. We keep things soft.

• constantly wondering, "where did Brandon go?"

• making glass after glass after glass of hot chocolate

• taking three hours to make a map in Photoshop, and then making Ben admire it for an hour

• sneaking into the press box at the state basketball tournament

• having people stare at my chest to read about the Hanford curling team

• playing hours of hearts instead of going to the journalism workshops at Central

• yelling at Ben to go take a photo of something, even though he had no idea what the story was about

• arguing over whether or not certain French phrases were common knowledge.

• the endless pranks

• getting ink all over my face when I always forgot to wash my hands after delivering the paper

• watching Nancy shop at gap.com instead of grading papers

• editing with Alyssa on my lap

...just to name a few

the john mayer soundtrack

I started out the day in the optimism zone. I only had one class, and I knew we weren't going to be there for the whole hour, so I pretty much had the day ahead of me to go forth and conquer. I had some evidence cards to finish for my debate class, and a little bookkeeping to catch up on for the paper, but other than that, it was supposed to be a smooth-sailing day.

Needless to say, by 3 p.m. there was no sailing happening, and it certainly wasn't on calm waters.

Long story short, I left campus feeling pretty discouraged and just overall, incompotent. Luckily, I had a date with little Bacon for some quality sister time, so I made myself leave school and just forget about all the stuff of the day. We got in Erin's car (my car is, surprise surprise, not running), and drove the .8 miles to Foxy Nails, the hot spot of beauty in North Spokane. Kelsey cranked Erin's Spanish dancing music and got really excited when I told her one of the lyrics was "I want to dance with you, without fear, until the floor breaks." With our unibrows now tamed and my stomach filled with 5-pump classic black iced tea, we headed home and spent the next hour mocking Oprah's epiphanies about the economy.

Once Kelsey left, James and I ordered pizza, and stolled over to Best Buy while we waited for our carryout order. We ended up playing 20 minutes of "Guitar Hero" and probably annoying the hell out of the Best Buy employees, but the looks on their faces told me we were not the first to sit and play the game for free, instead of buying it and sucking at guitar in the comfort of our own homes. We then watched the full set of Will Farrell's best of SNL DVDs, which I haven't seen since freshman year of college.

I tell you this not to turn my blog into my play-by-play diary, but to illustrate a point. By the end of the night when James went home to sleep before this morning's LSAT, I had forgotten about my stressful day. When I could've been cranky, I chose to be carefree. I let anxiety be pushed out by amiability. And I realized that at the end of the day, I have more important things in my life than just getting a task done. For some reason, that lesson really smacked me in the face yesterday. It's what happens whenever I listen to John Mayer's "Room for Squares" album. I just sit and recognize that trying to fit the world inside a picture frame means that everything outside of a 4x6 image gets deems unimportant, or somehow less significant in my life.