Is this title SEO appropriate?

Recently, Editing and Design has become quite fun for me. Not that it wasn't always this way, but I've found that I highly enjoy writing headlines. Being a language person,this isn't surprising; finding the perfect word or witty combination is the greatest joy of any writer, but proficiency in this area does seem to be correlating success in the online news world.

While interesting headlines do grab attention, it has been discovered that online search engines may have trouble bringing up a related story when the headline contains no words that are literally germane to the topic. This situation translates into less readership, and that's not good for anyone but the competition. The way that news rooms have chosen to combat this is the science of search engine optimization, which helps these stories get noticed by major search engines like Google.

SEO is, more simply, a way of making headlines more literal and straightforward so that readers not only comprehend what the story is about, but can find it when they enter simple search terms into online databases. The Boston Globe's sister web site, Boston.com, has become a leader in this area, though it is not even in the top 10 of the United States' most ciruclated newspapers. Because of SEO though, their readership stands ready to grow.

While writing headlines is an essential talent for a copy editor, making the jump from print to online is a skill they must possess as well.

Mickey Mouse and Confederate Flags

Besides killing a portion of my childhood this week, our class discussions reminded me of Song of the South, a movie Disney released in 1946. Song of the South is about the America South on a plantation during the 19th century slave era. The main focus of the plot is on Uncle Remus and his stories of Brer Rabbit and his adventures --all common African American folk tales. The movie was the source of the popular song, "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" which won an Oscar in 1947.

You may be asking yourself, why have I never even heard of such a movie? Well, because Disney unwittingly made a film that made the slave-slave owner relationship look like the most jovial little family you've ever seen. The movie has never been released on video in the United States, though the VHS can be found on eBay and sent from England for the bargain price of $40 plus shipping.

The rampant stereotyping of African Americans is what makes the movie still so controversial today. Disney execs have recently been discussing a re-release, but are obviously hesitant. Several web sites have been set up to encourage its release and thousands have signed petitions written up by various fans and organizations who feel that the movie is part of our history and not racist, but a product of the time it was made. It has also been suggested that the movies's re-released format should include statements that reflect modern views of culture and ethnicity as a part of that culture. Whatever is decided, I question whether we have matured enough as a society to handle a text such as this as well as share it with our children.

*Bonus Material* Thank you, SNL! (Material does not necessarily display my views, but is hilarious nonetheless)

Nicolas Cage Is the Least Talented Coppola

Why do we love celebrities so much? I'm sure Brian will help us articulate that in our classes this coming week, but I found myself thinking about my unique brand of celebrity obsession.

I consider myself a snob on some levels, and I definitely find that this is so when it comes to anything having to do with pop culture. The way it breaks down is, Christopher Guest is a god, Bono is a prophet, Paris Hilton is Satan and Entertainment Weekly is my bible. So, naturally, I went to them to find out the latest in snarky pop culture punditry.

What I found showed me just how obsessed we can be. While any tabloid will show you that we love to see celebrities at their worst, EW takes pride in showing this to the nth degree. This is why I so highly enjoyed the most recent of their "Top" lists, "Sexy? You Be the Judge . . .". and felt the need to forward it to several of my close friends. While I believe in love and compassion for all people, I am not above taking out my insecurities on celebrities who have done nothing more than be photographed in awful, unspeakable ways . . . and gotten caught with prostitutes and drugs . . . but that's beside the point.

The truth is, we all need gossip and a means to get away from our own lives for a while and celebrities, in all of their good looks and fame, fit that bill. And since not all celebrities are George Clooney when it comes to humanitarian efforts, I'm sure it's the least they could do.

All's Fair in Journalism & Media

Let me just say, I think I might want to be Faith Salie.

The woman went to Harvard, is a Rhodes scholar, and is now doing the news her own way on Public Radio International's Fair Game with Faith Salie.

What makes Salie so special? For one thing, she's smart as a whip, having earned her bachelor's degree from Harvard and then going on to Oxford to obtain a master's of philosophy in modern English literature. Still, there's something else about Salie that stands apart. As one of her fan sites reads, "Faith Salie may be the only Rhodes scholar intentionally doing comedy." And in this generation of Stewart and Colbert fanatics, we all know what this means . . .

While Salie's show does bring on highly-respected experts and big names in the news, she makes the effort to cut through the "nicities" jargon of mainstream journalists. Her interviews are peppered with straightforward questions that refuse to acknowledge the possible discomfort of her interviewee. The show has been described as, "the quirky love child of 'The Daily Show With Jon Stewart' and 'All Things Considered.' It's smart enough to slake the traditional public-radio fans' thirst for intellectual programming but satiric enough to catch the attention of the prematurely cynical Gen X and Gen Y sets." We wouldn't expect less from a woman who also moonlights as a pop culture pundit for Vh1.

The radio show's website has a lot to shout about as well, featuring blogs done by professional writers about prevalent (and sometimes not so prevalent) stories in the news. And for those who believe that radio is dead, her show can be streamed off the website or copied onto your computer's MP3 player. Web 2.0 overkill? Definitely, but in the finest manner possible. If at the end of the day I can listen to a highly educated woman who shares my "useless" major give the news in a no-holds-barred sometimes satirical format that plays on my iTunes with the greatest of ease, I can go to bed happy.

What's the straight man's problem?

As a woman, I can only guess at the above question, for the answer may not be as simple as one may think.

For example, everyone knows that many men strive to be as buff and strong and masculine as possible, but I can attest that women quite often go for men who do not possess these qualities, in fact, they go for the opposite. Why do you think Will & Grace was such a hit among women? Who hasn't had the hots for the gay guy? And even when the sexual preference of these men comes to light for the unfortunate woman, they often find themselves wishing for a straight partner who possesses similiar qualities.

I guess I must beg the question, why are men afraid to be metrosexuals? Even when asked in class if the men considered themselves "metros", the men distanced themselves from the name. It was almost like asking women if they're feminists.

The term, though now overspoken and admittedly dorky, holds a very novel idea: men can be "manly" while looking great and, perhaps, allowing themselves to be sensitive. Are straight men afraid that this takes away from their overall masculinity? Are they worried about being considered gay? If this is the case, they need only look around to see that the women don't mind a nice pair of tailored pants on a man one bit. Still, I think all of this points to something deeper about men and how they are taught to behave.

In a world where many men have trouble admitting that they sometimes have a taste for clothing outside of workout sweats and old jeans, no wonder so many gay men are afraid of coming out. This unwillingness to admit to any other gender except for the extreme heterosexual male is disturbing and makes me think twice about how far we've come as a society that can accept many different genders and sexualities. How can we expect to move forward if men are even afraid of dressing well?

To the scared and straight men of the world, I leave you with this: Every girls crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man.

I Hereby Order You To Report!

In a day and age when people are continuously debating when the press should remain silent, it is surprising to hear that making a reporter write could be punishment. However, so goes the proposed penalty for Katie Baker, a reporter and news anchor who has been ordered by District Judge James Shumate of St. George, Utah to write a story about something “that needs some attention" in exchange for dropping criminal charges against her.

Baker was in contempt of court for interviewing a jury candidate live on her television station, KUTV, though she seemed to be unaware that her behavior was inappropriate; she later apologized and took responsibility for her actions. Judge Shumate had the charges against her put on hold, but only to offer her the opportunity to buy her innocence. The judge did not stipulate that the proposed public service story be broadcast, but required that Baker give him a copy of it on DVD.

While it may seem a mild punishment, the Society of Professional Journalists asked that the charges against Baker --and her story requirement-- be dropped. The SPJ was especially furious because, though Baker was not forced into silence, she was made to feel intimidated by the government. They also felt that the judge was over-stepping his bounds on several levels and abusing the power of the judiciary by trying to control the content of the news.

It all goes back to the same questions: What's more important? A fair trial or an informed public? Who is the watchdog? The government or the press? A balance needs to be struck between these forces that should not be against each other.

Be wary of the meat

When will the people learn not to keep information out of journalists' hands?

This past week, the Society for Professional Journalists signed a letter concerning the 2007 Farm Bill approved by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee on Oct. 25. This bill's language, which was drawn up by Iowa's Tom Harkin, included a provision which would keep mum certain information that the Agriculture Committee possessed.

The bill in question was drawn up in response to the mad cow disease scare of 2003-2004. During the panic, the Agriculture Committe kept quiet about which stores carried the infected batch of beef, and the bill seeks to make secrecy a right of the group.

Worrisome? I'd say so. Such information is prime fodder for newspapers whose job it is to inform and protect the public from such covert operations. While the committee should have the right to obtain any information they please, they also have an obligation to the citizenry that elected them to keep them informed --especially when the information could save their life.

As I've been blogging, it worries me how often I see these stories of certain higher-up organizations trying to keep the public on the outs. In our society that prides itself on public knowledge and participation, it is a shame that we have to keep checking our leaders this way. The public may not always want to know the info, but more often than not, they need to.

Boob(s) Tube

Feminism should be doing fine and well these days. Women are taking more leadership positions than ever before, they are in the lead in college attendance and in grades, and we may be well on the way to perhaps having the first woman president.

Sadly though, our culture still gives us several obstacles to overcome. With reality shows like I Love New York, America's Most Smartest Model and Beauty and the Geek high in popularity, besides low brain activity, audiences are getting an unhealthy dose of women as solely objects of love and lust. And not as just objects, dumb objects.

While one could argue that men are made to look ridiculous in these shows as well, women seem to be especially targeted by the reality TV world. The incredible number of makeover shows like What Not To Wear, 10 Years Younger and Extreme Makeover, are a testament to this. Men can be made over, but there is hardly ever a consensus that they "need" a makeover to make themselves attractive. There is a disproportionate number of women to men on such shows because women need to look feminine and be in style to make it in our culture. Obviously, men don't know how to dress, but women should -- and they should have great hair and make-up as well. Even on reality shows that these women already look great, it just means that the likelihood that they'll get into a catfight with another woman or become the show's resident devil is astronomical.

Reality TV, in my opinion, is already the most low-brow of all entertainment and it makes my thumbs itch (what I do when I'm incredibly nervous or uncomfortable) just thinking about how people are subconsciously seeing women in this format. I've already resigned myself to the fact that reality TV is here to stay, but I can only hope that it will, someday and somehow, show women as smart and vivacious and unique individuals. Not as Jessica Simpson.

We're involved. A little too involved.

When discussing narratives, particularly those put out by the mainstream media, it is not surprising to find how we tend to let a fictional world control how we should be. Our culture, indeed, even our world, tends to judge itself based on the constructed narration and reality that is presented through us through media texts and outlets. I believe that this has a lot to do with the way that narratives engross us.

There are six ways in which audiences become a part of the stories they hear. Most of the time, people are looking for answers in these stories that usually relate back to real life. If something works in a movie, why shouldn't it for us? If this character has this problem and they're now fine, won't I be? There are several ways that audiences can, and do, misconstrue fictional narratives with their own lives. This relation influences our fantasies, our ways of thinking, and sometimes, even our choices and actions.

This supposed influence may be overblown, but how many times have you considered yourself to be just like a character out of your favorite book? How many times have you thought of your life as "just like a movie"? How many young girls feel they need to be just as beautiful as every woman repesented in media texts? When we get involved in narratives, they tend to get involved with us.

Newspapers = Crime?

Everyone knows that newspapers have always been a place to read about and report crime, but could they also be a cause?

In England's Press Gazette, Paul Macey has posed the question: Do newspapers support the underground sex trade?

His concern comes from advertisements that have been placed in newspapers in England and elsewhere advertising massage services that seem to go several steps beyond therapeutic touching. What's more, these kinds of services are usually a front for sex businesses that abuse women and even young girls. Some of these businesses even advertise the many races of women that they have available, which is highly suggestive of illegal activity. This is no small matter, seeing as 4,000 women and children are trafficked illegally every year into the UK alone. A special interest group, The Croydon Community Against Trafficking, reports that 80% of women working in brothels or in other sexual service businesses have been illegally brought into the country. CCAT also found that most of the men who frequent these businesses find out about them through their local newspapers.

Many have voiced their outrage over this matter and are especially irate since newspapers are there to be a part of the solution --not the problem. The Poppy Project, a group devoted to providing help to trafficked women, has voiced concern over the ethics of newspapers and why they are not checking who they're advertising. Newspaper staff have shot back that they do not check all of their advertising clients, and should not be called to do so for all massage parlours or sensual services.

Most newspapers follow the guidelines of the Committee of Advertising Practice which have codes that attempt to protect against the type of advertising being disputed, but in the end, it is the publishers and editors who have the final say, and they must be relied on to make the right decision.

Culture Over-Kill

While so closely examining the elements of American Beauty and the many genres that it is a part of, I began thinking about what other movies could compare to the broad scope that this movie covers. It may surprise you, but one movie in particular popped into my head: Kill Bill.

While the film cannot compare in terms of acting and deep storytelling to American Beauty, Kill Bill is a mess of genres and a feast of visual communication. Everything from the Cantonese fighting temple to the desert of California becomes almost unreal to us by, not only the insane actions of the characters, but by the angles of shots, colors used (and in some cases, not used), elaborate and unexpected costumes, etc. The genres covered include action, dark comedy, road, in some cases anime, some could argue a Western, martial arts, and the list goes on.

When looking at Kill Bill though, one cannot help but think of other films. So much is jammed into the movie (or movies, since it has two volumes) that it is almost impossible not to compare it, and it's quite possible that this is what Quentin Tarantino wanted when he made the film. It is a perfect example of how old styles can be used to create something completely new. While breaking down a scene shot by shot is interesting, looking at this movie in such a way that would explain the justification of every action and reference would, to me, shed the most light on this bizarre film. In any case, it is the perfect example of a lot of culture at work.

The Hard Times of Telling Truth

Just how far should a journalist go? Just how far should the law go?

These are the questions that are raised by the case of two of Village Voice Media's leaders in the company's Arizona holding, the Phoenix New Times. Executive Editor Michael Lacey and Chairman/CEO Jim Larkin, have been arrested on the basis that they gave away "grand jury information" in their last new story, "Grand Jury Targets New Times and Its Readers.” They were also accused of giving away the home address of the sheriff of Maricopa, AZ, Joe Arpaio.

The Society of Professional Journalists is staunchly defending the two men on the basis of the First Amendment. SPJ president, Clint Brewer, also cited contradictory state laws in Arizona as being the cause of the arrests. Part of the uproar is also due to the attempt by the prosecutors in the case to unearth the records of use of the New Times' paper and Web site.

According to Lacey and Larkin, their arrest is the result of stories they have written that criticized the Maricopa sheriff along with County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

The story on the whole is causing great concern in the journalistic community about the ability of officials to censor journalists and its affect on free speech. This community is also counting on the general public to see these events as having a "chilling" affect on the press and what it can report to us.

Providing information for those who do not have the means is the job of journalists and we count on them to be on our side. This often means that journalists are put into positions where it seems, at least to government officials, that they are breaking the rules. But to Lacey, this is part of his job.

“We're being arrested for raising hell," he said. "It's sort of a tradition journalism has.”

As future journalists or future workers in the journalism field, I urge you to look at this situation for yourselves and ask yourself the question: How much does free speech matter? For this seems to be the ultimate question that separates the true journalists from those who merely report what information they are content to have.

"I'm just an ordinary guy with nothing to lose."

After watching American Beauty for the first time, there were several things that I couldn't get out of my head. Kevin Spacey's voice throughout the whole really got to me, though he spoke with such simplicity. The classic angles of the shots of each scene made almost every moment look like a framed photo. The colors running throughout were like a perfect, unused paint palette.

When considering all of these pieces, it's easy to see that this seeming perfection and simplicity make a mockery of the ideology that the characters are supposed to uphold. The "perfect family unit" is irrevocably shattered by selfishness, isolation and unhappiness. The man who is supposed to be the breadwinner and head of the family lives under the psychotic perfection of his wife. He later breaks from her domination, but he is still content not being the main breadwinner as long as he has the freedom to do whatever he pleases. The young daughter separates herself from her parents and engages in a not-so typical relationship with the boy next door. The new suburban neighbors keep to themselves and hide secrets that are disturbingly deep and convoluted. All of the elements of the perfect family in the perfect suburb in America are there, but the people involved ultimately either refuse to adhere to the ideology that these elements are supposed to maintain, or work to keep up the ideology in ways that ultimately break it down.

On the whole, the movie seems to encapsulate the beauty of imperfection. We have a dominant ideology in the American culture that makes us believe that perfection is what breeds happiness and the ideal state. The pursuit of this perfection though, is too consuming for humans to handle all throughout their lives. As Ricky's movies in the film show us, by losing the focus of perfection and ideological restrictions, one can find beauty in almost anything.

Newspaper 2.0

In a world where the future of newspapers is uncertain, a group has begged to ask the question: What will the newspaper look like in 2020?

The World Association of Newspapers invited a group of experts to come together to answer this question, and their responses were based on current trends that seem to be coming out in the media. The group, which featured, "futurists, academics, industry insiders, internet pioneers and other media experts", will have their findings published by the Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project. These findings may indeed work to influence future newspaper models since they were prominently featured at the World Digital Publishing conference in Amsterdam. The event hosted more than 400 media executives from all over the world.

The newspaper of the future could be anything from streamlined and personally-tailored news, to exclusively electronic media, to glossy, magazine formats. The Shaping the Future of the Newspaper project works to keep up with the trends in media in order to keep newspapers from going the way of the dodo. With their work, the print newspapers we know today, could be unrecognizable in a mere thirteen years. Still, by becoming unrecognizable, they will hopefully become more noticeable.

Preserve the Pygmies!!

Who says technology and and hunting and gathering don't mix?

The Mbendjele Yaka people of the Congo along with one of Africa's largest logging companies are working together to map out the land belonging to the tribe. They hope, through the use of satellites and GPS, to preserve the land that these people call home. By showing where they hunt, bury their dead, and dwell, the logging company hopes to avoid ruining the territory the people call home.

The logging company also hopes that, through this system, more awareness will be raised for the pygmies and tribes like them. Though it is a small step toward saving a dying habitat, it is a step in the right direction that many industries would be wise to follow.

The Prime of My Subjectivity II

Upon further investigation into my revelation that my generation is the current darling of the media, I realized that the media is only the surface.

The current presidential campaign, which has already consumed the media and the minds of so many citizens, is gunning hard for the late teen, early 20s demographic. Why else would presidential candidates be so keen on bringing their young and beautiful children with them to political events? While it has been common in the past for candidates to show off their children to appeal to the parental voters, kids on the campaign trail have been serving even more of a purpose. Republican Mike Huckabee's daughter, Sarah, has been called her father's, " field director, character witness and no-nonsense adviser".

Candidates have also been unashamed to bring celebrities on the trail. In the case of John Edwards, actor James Denton has been touting the candidate in especially high-youth areas like tailgate parties and colleges. While this device could be used to sway a candidate of almost any age, the celebrity craze is a noted interest of the young and can be a very powerful tool for a candidate --even if that tool is a piece-of-meat plumber.

The candidate who, to me, goes most for the youth jugular would be Barack Obama. His whole campaign which is focused on "hope" and "a fresh start" very effectively evokes images of youth and vitality. This kind of appeal is what young voters hope he will bring to the White House.

While my generation should feel privileged to be so valued, we must also be wary. Flash and glamour may be appealing, but with all of this focus, we must be prepared to ask the tough questions of all our candidates. With the power on our side, we have the ability to make a difference.

Hey kids, let's go to the Newseum!

It's heartening to a journalism student to know there is a place for news and journalists to be read and honored beyond the daily paper.

The Newseum, which will be opening its new facilities in Washington D.C. next year, will feature news articles and stories from around the world. This new forum seems to appreciate the writing of news as an art form that can give even greater insight into our cultures. Today's most celebrated editors have even been asked to come in and review the featured articles.

The museum's permanent exhibits will feature such sections as:

-the Great Hall of News
- News History
- Interactive Newsroom
- 9/11 Gallery
- Internet, TV and Radio
- Pulitzer Prize Photos
- Berlin Wall
- First Amendment Gallery
- World News
- Great Books
- Today's Front Pages
- The Journalists Memorial

In addition to updating its facilities, the Newseum has begun creating an online version of itself so that anyone in the world can view their exhibits -- an interesting parallel to the direction that news itself is heading. Indeed, the Washington Post poses the question of what will become of museums in the future in an accompanying article. Still, these two classic forms combined seem to be generating a good amount of public interest and hopefully will help to maintain the quality of both.

The Prime of My Subjectivity

As I was sitting and pondering subjectivity -- a thing I often do -- I began to take a look around and critically examine how I look at the world. In doing this, I realized that the way I see the world now is close to the most positive that I'll ever see it. This surprised me, but I found a lot of evidence as to why this would be true.

When looking at the world (a world that is largely shaped by the media) it is easy to see why my outlook would be so rosy. Being a 21-year-old female in college, I represent many of the ideals of our culture: youth, opportunity, vitality, etc. The world is constructed to make it seem as if it were at my feet. Though this at times may be the case, I also came to realize how my positive subjectivity is most likely made to be that way through heavy interpellation.

The systems I am a part of have every reason to make me feel like I am in control. My college, for example, is always asking me my opinion of how it's doing by inviting me to dinners and meetings. They want me to feel as if I have a large stake in what happens to the system. This feeling of "mattering" gets even stronger when looking at the commercial world that is all about youth and being increasingly dominated by feminine culture. To be young is to be beautiful and many companies make my age group into the poster children of how everyone should be.

Youth on its own has so much control in our world. Young people are seen as the ones who can make a true difference in the world and we can do it better and more efficiently than anyone else. This is humorously paralleled by the popular Mac computer commercials that show youth as being synonymous with efficiency and great work. A plethora of other markets strive to point out this same angle.

While it may just be a side-effect of the systems I happen to be a part of, I truly feel that I'm sitting in the best position that the ideological world will allow. Interpellation and subjectivity work together to give people certain positions in the world, and as far as I can see, they are both heavily in my favor. I would hate to be a 48-year-old male in my world . . .

The Journalist's Dilemma

As I was reading about the shooting of a Japanese photojournalist in Burma this last week, several issues of journalism came to my mind. The article spoke about how journalists should be protected when covering dangerous situations like the Myanmar protests, but I don't understand how this could be ensured. The world can't stop just so a journalist can get a picture, but the journalist still has every right to be there. It's inevitable that someone trying to get as close as they can to major - and often dangerous - events will eventually be put in harm's way.

Another issue I thought of as I was looking at the picture accompanying the article was, what should be put out to the public? I know we are a free country and everything should be put out there for general knowledge, but what are the ethics of showing the last moments of someone's life? Is journalism above anything that may be sacred? It seems that one has to choose between showing the whole truth, or hanging on to some shred of dignity.

The last time I really thought about this issue was immediately after September 11th when Time Magazine ran the photos of people falling from the Twin Towers immediately after the attacks. I remember opening the magazine and turning it on its side to see the full-page spread of people falling to their death. While the image got to me and has stuck with me these last six years, I rememeber being immediately appalled. I was looking at the last moments of someone's life. What if this victim's family saw this article? What if they recognized a body? a face? Had this photo been taken to record history or to sell magazines? The unanswerable questions made me feel worse in a time when I thought I couldn't feel worse and made me wonder where our standards are or where they're going to go from here. The time may come when I'll be a real journalist, and I'm afraid to ask myself the question: when deciding between showing the world the truth and protecting the sacredness of human life and death, which will I choose?

Some (actually most) Like It Hot

In discussing ideology, I can't help but immediately think of it in the most simplistic of terms. This is especially true when it comes to gender stereotyping in the media. We are trained to believe that women are meant to be all at once sweet and sexy . . . and men love sex. This is why I wasn't surprised to find a link to vote for the Ultimate Female Hotties: '90s - 2007. On CNN.com no less . . .

I, of course, immediately began flipping through the pictures of the candidates (of which there were 25) and found that the pictures really weren't meant for my personal satisfaction. As much as I like Charlize Theron, I really wasn't turned on by the fact that she was looking at me poutily through a sheer curtain. Obviously, Entertainment Weekly doesn't give a crap what I think about these women, otherwise the article would have been titled, "Ultimate Independent Power Women" and the pictures accompanying each candidate would have shown them in stylish, yet subdued couture, rather than . . . almost nothing.

While the ideology of men loving women and sex ultimately drives the article, a number of other ideologies were at work. While flipping through the photos I couldn't help but notice that the more "ethnic" looking women were often more scantily-clad or dressed down in more provocative attire than their white contemporaries. This played into the ideology that women of a non-European background are often more sexually liberated and more willing to play into a man's naughty fantasies. This was backed up even more by the captions accompanying each picture which proclaimed each candidate's "Ultimate Hottie Moment" which often involved a scene from a movie in which the actress was (surprise surprise) fully or nearly nude. This reveals the ideology that, to be a sexy, a woman must have no clothes on. This ideology also says that saying or doing something that actually makes a statement may not be sexy since almost all of the scenes that were brought up for each candidate involved them being the sexy sidekick or arm candy of a male lead.

What annoyed me through the whole section though, was the downplaying of the "Ultimate Male Hotties" article. Though its premise is pretty much the same, it is definitely under-the-radar in comparison to the female focus. This plays into the ideology that women are less interested in superficial and sexual material. Well, I'm here to say that I'm just as superficial as the next guy (literally).

Let the foul-mouthed speak!

As a college student, I'm well aware that the common ideology of my peers tends to lean a little left. With many of our professors tending to be the same way and constantly learning about the mistakes of the presidential administration in class and in the news, it comes as little surprise. College students are also the least likely to keep these views hidden, and this has currently become an issue at Colorado State University.

According to an article in The Coloradoan, the Fort Collins university's student newspaper, The Collegian, is currently under fire for printing an editorial with the title, "Taser This . . . F--- Bush", which claimed to express the views of the Collegian Editorial Board, led by student editor-in-chief, David McSwane. The paper claims that they have such a right to print the material since it is their unanimous opinion and because they are editorially independent. The school though, claims some power of control, using the 10-member faculty-student Board of Student Communications to decide whether McSwane should be fired. The leader of this group, Jeff Browne, director of student media, says that they will "investigate the decision-making process" to understand why the editorial title came to print.

While Colorado State University has reason to be scornful of the title due to the high-standing reputation of the school and The Collegian, I believe that college students are mature enough to put out whatever material they believe best expresses their views. I especially believe that this goes for anything that goes on the editorial page. College, to me, is supposed to be a time when opinions and ideas are allowed to come forth, no-holds-barred.

The university may be concerned because of McSwane's past journalistic experiences, which included an incident that garnered national attention while he was still a high school student. Still, the envelope needs to be pushed and there is no better place than the academic world for this to occur. While the sophistication of The Collegian's staff may come into question, their views should still be respected and their readers should be given the opportunity to respond.

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya

In a world where the average person has become wary of the power of the media that surrounds them, it's nice to know that our major news outlets still feel like they're being marginalized . . .

According to an article by Freepress.net, some of Chicago's major news outlets (most notably, the Chicago Tribune) have expressed their discontent that the Internet has taken away a larger portion of their audience, and therefore, they believe they should have even fewer rules and regulations controlling their output. The Tribune became so concerned with this, in fact, that they even complained to the FCC last October claiming that their competition was currently "fierce". This "competition", they claimed, was mostly on the Internet with Web sites like Chicago Ray and Gapers Block being named as top rivals.

Still, studies show that companies like the Tribune (which also owns WGN-TV, WGN-AM, cable news channel CLTV and Chicago Magazine along with its newspaper) are still dominating the market. One particular study done by Free Press writers Adam Lynn and S. Derek Turner shows that:

* The independent Chicago-specific websites do not publish appreciable amount of original local news content.
* Close to 60 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites were on nonhard
news topics such as sports and entertainment.
* Only 13.7 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites contained
original reporting. But the bulk of these stories were on soft-news topics, such as concert
and restaurant reviews.
* In total, only 5.5 percent of the stories in our sample of Chicago-specific websites
contained original reporting on hard news topics such as crime, local governance,
education and local politics.
* More than half of the stories on “hard” news topics linked to stories on Web sites owned
by traditional media.

When examining the number of hits that these independent sites received, the study came up with about 14,000 per month whereas any of the major news sources have numbers coming in that are "80 times as large". While it's true that many people do not use the major media as much as they once did, it's a fact that these sources are still the most trusted names out there, providing us all with the hard news that we deem the most important. If these major outlets are looking to maintain our trust, they will not get it by staying paranoid and looking for recourses to have fewer restrictions. Instead of focusing on the growing number of "professional" bloggers and independent sources, they should instead focus on their own content and work to retrieve the trust that has been lost between them and their consumers.

Bogus Bias

When it comes to ad campaigns in the presidential elections, nothing is more pleasing to any candidate than the ablity to place blame and shame on one's competition -- especially when the blame can also be cast on the competition's supporters.

According to the New York Daily News, Republican hopeful and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani took a golden opportunity this week to slam The New York Times, the left-favoring MoveOn.org, and political opponent, Hillary Clinton. The cause for the stir was an ad run in the Times that portrayed commander General Petraeus as "General Betray Us". The ad was apparently purchased by MoveOn.org which paid $64,575 for it to be run any day of the week the Times chose. Giuliani closed in on the two organizations claiming that MoveOn.org had gotten a discount on its ad due to its left-sided sympathies. He also pointed out the shame in putting such "unpatriotic" propaganda in a national newspaper. Not being one to settle for less, Giuliani also used the situation to call out Senator Clinton for not criticizing the ad. He also demanded that the Times give him the same price as MoveOn.org to run his own "pro-Petraeus" ad in Friday's edition.

It seemed as if Giuliani had everyone where he wanted them until the rest of the facts came to surface. The Times claimed that $64,575 is the cost of any ad that they are given to run on any day they choose, while $181,692 is the cost of an ad to be run on a certain day, therefore, MoveOn.org received the same treatment as any other customer. To give Giuliani his asking price for a certain day would have cost the Times well over $100,000.

While these facts show Giuliani's accusations of the Times to be unfounded, his attempted shaming of Senator Clinton also seemed to flop. For him to call her out specifically, especially when she did not even openly support the ad, made the effort seem forced and irrelevant. It's also interesting that these claims of "unpatriotic" behavior came at the end of the week in history that gave Giuliani his image as the super-patriot. With his part in Sept. 11 playing a huge role in his campaign, this comes as little surprise. His new quote which he touts on his campaign Web site reads, "These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom." Ironically, this line is run below a video his campaign has put up denouncing Senator Clinton for changing her position on the war in Iraq and claims that she should "apologize" to America's troops because she is "turning her back on them". In response, Clinton's campaign released a statement proclaiming, "Mayor Giuliani supports George Bush's Iraq policy and believes it is working, [while] Sen. Clinton knows it isn't and will keep up her efforts to end the war."

While Giuliani continues to dwell on this issue by keeping up a constant dialogue on his Web site, this voter wonders when he will step up and really address the issues instead of pointing out the supposed weaknesses of others.

They Saw the Sign ($$$)

Employees of Dow Jones & Company haven't been shy about voicing their opinion against the selling of the Wall Street Journal to media mogul Rupert Murdoch, but since their opinion has been overlooked, they feel it couldn't hurt to ask a few extra dollars of the man . . .

While higher-ups at Dow Jones went into negotiations with the billionaire owner of News Corporation, many Wall Street Journal employees spoke up to express their opinion that the company should not sell. But even before this exchange took place, employee's in the Journal's newsroom had expressed discontent with the pay that they had been receiving from Dow Jones. The company had offerred the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees --the union that most of the Journal's staff is under-- a pay raise of 3% over the next few years. With a change in ownership though, former dissenters of Murdoch have set their sights on him as their new financial savior.

In the days leading up to Murdoch's arrival at Dow Jones, posters began appearing around the newsroom bearing the face of Murdoch and the phrase "Show Us The Money". Soon after the posters appearance though, they disappeared, only to reappear again right before Murdoch's visit. The Wall Street Journal claims that it's not about to censor their employees since their very business is in the power of free speech. However, newsroom employees came to work on the day of Murdoch's visit to find the posters gone again.

With this appeal to Murdoch coming and going and Murdoch's own legendary dominance coming into play, one wonders if Wall Street Journal employees will be able to make a change or even speak up for themselves. While the power changes hands, those underneath may be passed over. With writers becoming unsure of themselves over this and many other new developments and changes among the staff at the Journal, the news reader may be left to wonder about the future integrity of one of the most respected names in news.

United They Blog

In this era when so many are growing more and more doubtful of what kind of news and information are coming out of everyday blogs, a new side of the issue has come into play. In Nepal, where a huge shift in governing power has taken place in the last few years, blogging has become the way to get hardcore news and information out to the country and the rest of the world. This sudden reliance should make the rest of us reconsider the usefulness of blogs in our culture.

According to a story in the Online Journalism Review, blogging has become the main source of news for the Nepalese people who have undergone an enormous shift with the takeover of King
Gyandendra who took power from Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba two years ago. At the beginning of the king's reign, almost all media outlets began to be censored and several journalists lost their jobs along the way. Reportedly, the editorial pages in the newspaper were filled with meager comments on the weather or were sometimes left completely blank. The only outlet left untainted by this censorship were the posts of the blogging community. The leading group in this area was the group blog, United We Blog, which released a potentially controversial photo of a radio journalist strumming a guitar on the street after his layoff. According to the World Desk Reference, this complete political control is still happening, but the blogs still seem to be free.

In our own country, we increasingly doubt the "tried and true" news sources for reasons of ownership, bias, etc. What I'm asking you to consider is the possibility that the everyday person with no political agenda or corporate funding could put out the best news. Hopefully we will never be under the same circumstances as the Nepalese people, but with the blogging medium becoming increasingly popular, I think it would be unwise to ignore it. After all, we are a country based on the right to free speech and we should also make it our duty that that speech is being heard. By regularly reading blogs, perhaps we could learn how to distinguish the correct news for ourselves and we may even find that the general public really has something to say.

Catch Us If You Can

Like any other college student in these United States, the first thing I want to talk about is Facebook, that lovable little time-sucker we all so adore. It's no secret that what everyone is hoping for when they obsessively check their e-mail is a little message telling them that so-and-so has left them a post, or sent them a message, or an ex-significant other from middle school has added them. To put it plainly, Facebook has revolutionized the way we network with others.

Because of its many users, advertisers see Facebook as a potential goldmine. Any iPod wearing, cell phone wielding, Target shopping college student who's anybody has a Facebook page and we're not shy about jumping on the bandwagon for the latest products. It seems like the perfect set-up, but it seems that these advertisers have become more leery due to a recent revolution in the Facebook realm: adults!!

While the social networking site began in order to help connect college students, soon everyone wanted in on the fun. High schools were added next, and most recently a growing number of middle-aged working adults began using the site to conduct business with one another. This seems to be posing a problem to advertisers who are looking at a rapidly broadening market. While it's true that Facebook does have some advertising, it has not gone so far as to almost dominate the attention of the user. Also, the advertisements are noticeably tame compared to what you would expect on a youth-dominated site. No scantily-clad models for Victoria's Secret, no sexed-up teenagers hawking Abercrombie, in fact, the ads mostly run along the neutral fare of movie ads. In a site now purportedly worth $5 billion, this is a surprising development, but ultimately makes ones think about what advertiser's are left to do when they are unsure of their market.

Facebook is still very young and who knows where it will go in the coming years. With debates raging on about whether the site should be opened up to search engines and new users of all ages signing on, the future is unclear and this will most likely continue to baffle advertisers for some time to come. Until then, I invite everyone to revel in the guilty pleasure of Facebook stalking and enjoy the time we have before the advertisements become so plentiful that we won't be able to tell who left us a drunk post at 2 a.m.