Photos of War

The Iraqi war is very controversial in so many ways. A frequent problem that occurs is the media giving damaging images of the American military. Most Americans do not want our military over there fighting but it is not fair to make them look like murderers. The American military is fighting fir what this country stands for under the direction of our government. On the front page of the Washington Post, in the Wednesday, April 30, 2008 edition, there is a picture of two men carrying the unconscious body of a 2 year old boy that goes with an article titled "U.S. Role Deepens in Sadr City." The caption under the photo is " Ali Hussein is pulled form the rubble of his home after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad's Sadr City. The 2 year old died at a hospital." The boy looks dead in the photo. This picture shows American citizens that our soldiers are over there killing children in their homes'. A soldier's family does not need to know that loved ones have been or could be killing someone as innocent as their own 2 year old child. This article talks about how the residents of Sadr City see the U.S. military as coming in, killing innocent people and not as many militiamen, and trying to take control over the city. With this photo the media is not being supportive of our troops. I'm not saying the media should be biased towards the things they report but the effects on the character of our soldiers' should be taken into consideration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=U.S.%20role%20deepens%20in%20sadr%20city&
-you have to be registered to view

Peta

Peta is one of the nations organizations that thrive in shockvertising and are always a model of controversy in advertising. The organization really wants people to understand their opinion of the cruelty to animals that happens in the world. Sometimes the organization even takes direct shots at business and popular people. In one commercial Peta makes a direct at Kentucky Fried Chicken and the Colonel which aired during the super bowl and later banned. The ad opens up with officers or prison guards stomping on chicken with what appears to have a human-like body. The guards were beating the helpless chicken with no mercy. The initial problem with this commercial is that it gives a bad image to officers a the law who are endlessly in the media for being accused and/or convicted of using excessive force. But this is not the main issue. The ad ends with a man who looks like the Kentucky Fried Chicken Colonel and the text of the website "kentuckyfriedcruelty.com." This website is about the treatment of chickens that are grown and slaughtered at factories by the company. With this ad Peta is insulting the integrity of the Colonel and the image of Kentucky Fried Chicken. I believe it is unethical because it compares treatment of animals to treatment of humans. No it is not fair for humans to be beaten and tortured for no reason. And it is not fair Peta to use this negative action to convince others to stop what they believe is a negative action. What Kentucky Fried Chicken does to chickens is a process that is used to supply humans with food that is used for nourishment. Similar, but on a smaller scale, actions have been used for years by hunters early in human development. Not the growing but the killing, cooking and eating. The ad is just very misleading, officers beating a convict for whatever reason is not the same as breeding and killing chickens for food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeYAo8YTeoc

http://kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/

No wonder he's not a front runner

"Ignorance is Bliss," well not all the time especially someone in a high position of authority. Ignorance is actually horrible for a person seeking to be the leader of America. Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo who's slogan is "For a Secure America" has an advertisement out about his feelings towards immigration. His first comment is "Friends we are losing our country," meaning that illegal immigrants are taking over our country. He said that there are more than 15 million aliens in this country, and the consensus website says that the population of America is well over 300 million people. Which means at least by his own comments that the number of aliens that are in America are not large enough to outnumber US citizens. We definitely still control this land. Then Tancredo goes on to say that these illegal aliens are turning our control into a bilingual nation. I do not think that our nation being bilingual is bad thing. And if it is becoming bilingual and is a problem that doesn't mean that illegal aliens are the cause of that problem. There many legal immigrants in the US that speak two or more languages. Maybe it is multicultural backgrounds and education in our schools that is turning this country into a bilingual nation. We can't omit the fact that there are other languages besides English, is it a problem to be able to communicate with people that speak other languages. Later in the ad he says that he will make English our official language. Is there even a need for our politicians to be focusing on the certification of a language when we are facing a possible recession and in the middle of a war. This guy obviously does not understand the issues that are important to the voters of the United States.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zng6I74L5QY&feature=related

Sex w/ energy.

There are many advertisements all over the world the use images that do not neccesarily relate to the product being advertised. Which is perfectly legal and can be very affective in creating an awareness for the product. There are many ads where the main idea is about sex and the product is not sex related. But every person in the world can relate so sex, which makes it a very affective tool for selling. Sometimes the tool can be used and found to be offensive to the viewers. This is true for an advertisement for the Red Bull energy drink. The commercial is a cartoon of two college in the bed. The male student is stressing about school work while the female is obviously trying to convince the male to not worry about it have sex with her. Many people found the ad to be very offensive because it makes clear references to sex that children may be able to understand. Because though young children are humans with hormones who too can relate to sex, though they shouldn't be active. This commercial about a product that is sold to particular age demographic was aired at times when children would be awake and possible watching the television shows that the networks were airing. One guy named Jeff Haines said that he saw the ad while watching the National Geographic channel. This channel is watch many children in America are interested in learning about the world we live in. Most of them probably well educated and can understand the red bull commercial. To go against the people that are offended by this commercial; This ad is has no more sexual references than one cdan see on any prime time television show. On many shows such as Grey's Anatomy a viewer can witness people in the acts that lead to sex. The shows usually do not show the people having, but neither did this commercial. That is why I feel that this ad is not offensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzt4tqIyNPQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bJ8kCdI8zs

Hillary's Eyewashing

A few months ago during this long intense democratic race the Hillary Clinton and company released an advertisement to demonstrate how she is the better candidate for the job. The message of the ad is that Hillary is more experienced to handle a national crisis. The commercial is about children sleeping in their homes while the phone is ringing at 3am at the white house, "Who would you want answering the phone is what the narrator asked the potential voters."
The problem with ad is that it is probably the best example of eyewash is action that I have ever seen. The first child that you see in the ad is now 18 years old, Casey Knowles was 10 in the video. This footage of her was shot 8 years ago for something other than an election campaign ad. The big issue is that Knowles is a huge Barack Obama supporter and her image is being used to increase support for his opponent. The problem is that this is totally legal. The Knowles family has no say in how the footage is used. The rights belong to the company that the Clinton campaign bought the video from. This is a great way to demonstrate how using stock and file photos are unethical. This is sort of false advertisement or at least very misleading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0AddSHpNrE

Is Sexuality Still An Issue? Only with the Media

What is the media’s obsession with a celebrity’s sexuality? Why is it so important that it is made public? For years, American Idol star Clay Aiken has been surrounded with rumors about his alleged homosexuality. In a recent appearance in LA to promote his upcoming album, Aiken comments about the media’s fascination with his sexual orientation.
“I think for the most part, I really think that people don’t care, honestly,” Clay told Billy Bush. “I think that the press ... people like that care more than anybody else does.” Aiken believes the public is more concerned with his music rather than his private life.
“I think for the most part, people don’t want to have that type of stuff pushed, people who are living in Omaha or in Charlotte or wherever,” he said. “They don’t want stuff like that pushed in their face, I don’t think that’s necessary and that’s also not what I’m here for. I mean I went on ‘Idol’ to be a singer, I went on ‘Idol’ to be an entertainer and that’s what my priority is.”
This article shows how the media can be a huge invasion of privacy. The media tends to bring light to an issue that really doesn’t concern the general public. It is not an issue that is on a need-to-know basis. Whatever his sexual orientation may be, I believe the media needs to respect his decision to be private.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311853/

The Attack Is On!

The race for the White House is very much alive and running, as it has been for some time now. By this point, many had hoped that the race would have become a competition between our nation’s two political parties, pitting a Democrat against a Republican. Apparently, these races don’t always go as expected. If you kept up at all with the news, then you’ve noticed that the race is not so much between two candidates from two opposite parties, but instead between two candidates from the same party.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been duking it out over who should win the Democratic nomination for the presidential candidacy for some time. While this doesn’t at all seem to bother Republicans, who undoubtedly love the bad exposure their rival party has been receiving, Democrats are (for lack of a better term) freaking out. Their two beloved candidates of “change” and “experience” are threatening to fight amongst themselves all the way to the grave.

Therefore, the Democratic National Committee decided it was time to act by themselves, and begin the offensive against Republican candidate Senator John McCain. “We don’t have a nominee, we might not have one for awhile, and the D.N.C.’s job is to not let John McCain run free and unchallenged,” said D.N.C. strategist Steve McMahon. Yesterday the D.N.C. introduced a new ad that attacks McCain on his stance on the War in Iraq. Republicans cried foul, saying that the ad took some of McCain’s words out of context, and demanded that it be pulled from TV. Only CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC will air the ad for limited amounts of time.

I enjoyed reading about this ad, for one reason especially. You may or may not remember that in my last blog posting I mentioned an ad crafted by the North Carolina GOP that used Rev. Wright to attack Obama. The ad was rebuked by the Republican National Committee and McCain before it ever aired. The ad was aired anyways. But back to the story at hand, this was a clear example of poor advertising ethics in politics that dates back to the beginning of advertising in politics. The D.N.C., instead of producing a commercial that talks about how great the Democrats are and what they plan to do to help America, create a commercial that only focuses on what the Republicans do wrong in a sense. But this goes for both sides, as I mentioned the NC GOP’s ad against Obama. What can one say? Siiigh… politics.

Miley Cyrus Basically Nude

Miley Cyrus is under scrutiny for her nearly nude photographs taken for Vanity Fair magazine. The 15-year-old Hannah Montana star was shot by respected celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz. The shot shows Cyrus partially nude, covered only by a sheet. Before the magazine hit newsstands, Cyrus made it public that she was embarrassed and regretted having the photographs taken. Many parents and fans are questioning whether these photos are appropriate for a girl of her age. Leibovitz is defending her photo of Cyrus, claiming that they viewed the shots afterwards and were in agreement that they were beautiful photos. She did however apologize for the misinterpretation of the photograph.

I think this photo is continuing the media’s portrayal of women as sex objects. Let’s be honest, the girl is fifteen! People wonder why girls are trying so hard to be sexy … it’s all over the media. Little girls admire Hannah Montana and now they will admire this photo. Think back to the Rolling Stone cover with Britney Spears and think of her now. I wonder how much influence Britney had on her little sister, Jaime Lynn who is now pregnant at sixteen. The media is influencing young girls to be more over-sexualized and continuing the cycle that women need to be sexy to be beautiful. I think entertainers need to be aware that what they do has an impact on society. Unfortunately, a fifteen year old most likely does not have clear understanding of her influence on the youth. Where were her parents for this photo shoot?

MTV News

Medication Recalls

Medication recalls in something I deal with on a regular basis being a pharmacy technician. Having experienced both sides, as a consumer and as a provider I have mixed feeling about drug recalls. An article on news inferno listed that digitek tablets have been recalled by Actavis Totowa. I personally do not like drug recalls, I don’t have a problem in any other area for recalls other than prescription medicines. Digitek is a medication used to treat heart failure and abnormal heart beats. And recently the company recalled the medication because there as a possibility that the tablets were twice the appropriate thickness and may contain twice the level of active ingredient. The double dose poses a serious risk among patients on this medication. We often talk about how so many people die due to doctor’s negligence, but we overlook big blunders like these. There is no one to double check a doctor’s work or diagnosis so it makes more sense why the mistake happened but for mediations that’s not the excuse. There FDA who is responsible to make sure that the medication is safe and meets the drug standards. And the quality control department is responsible to make sure there are no mistakes as such. Overdose of digitek can cause digitalis toxicity causing nausea, vomiting, low blood pressure and other heart problems including abnormal heart beat. From a customer’s view point if I was the patient taking this medication and I encountered any of the side effects its not fair and justified. We pay for the medicine to make us feel better not pose more serious risks. Recalls are a common phenomenon in pharmacy industry but I just feel like more attention needs to be paid in manufacturing, blunders like these can be very expensive to pay off, you don’t want a consumer die due to your negligence. I feel like the CEO’s don’t care as much as they have lawyers to take care of heir law- suits but you can’t pay off a mistake with someone’s life.

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/2987

Where is the line drawn for celebrity privacy

Celebrities lives come under constant scrutiny, as the public is seemingly obsessed with them. Often, however, extremely harmful facts are uncovered and instantly made known on a national, sometimes international level. The recent incident involving the winner of two World Cups and AC Milan striker Ronaldo is no exception. After being found with some transvestites the other night, Ronaldo embarrassing yet private incident has been broadcast all over the world. As it turns out Ronaldo thought he was only hiring female prostitutes, something that is not illegal in his native Brazil, but when it turned out they were men and the police became involved the entire world quickly learned of his strange encounter. This seems, at least to me, to be crossing the line as far as covering celebrities goes, because it is something that should be far too private to print or publish.

House of Horror

In Austria back in 2006, it was revealed that a 10-year-old schoolgirl, Natascha Kampusch, had been abducted and held captive for more than eight years. She escaped from a basement cell outside Vienna in which she had been held since she was kidnapped on her way to school. She was held for more than eight years by Wolfgang Priklopil, who later killed himself when Natascha escaped.
Recently a similar case has surfaced where 73-year-old Josef Fritzl admitted to imprisoning his daughter, Elisabeth Fritzl, for more than two decades, where he continuously raped and abused her, as well as fathering seven of her children. His wife had no idea and his neighbors simply thought he was a devoted grandfather left to raise his grandchildren after they were abandoned by their mother. Little did people know that they were his children. At the disappearance of his daughter, Fritzl told his wife that she had run away and wanted nothing to do with the family and to be left alone. Fritzl went to great measures to cover his tracks and to make sure no one suspected anything.
Fritzl locked up Elisabeth and three of her children in the cellar in the basement where they were deprived of food and clothing and none had seen the light of day the entire time of captivity.
"What does it say about the neighbors, relatives, family and friends, but also those who had to deal officially with the family? How could he have been successful keeping people fooled?"
No one suspected a thing. Many locals still express disbelief, and even his neighbors couldn’t comprehend that it was his doing.
"Mr. Fritzl and I grew up together" said Erika Manhalter who lives a few meters away from their house. "We thought this would be a family just like others, but you cannot look through people," she told Kurier.
I hope this man is prosecuted to the extent of the law. How can someone do this to their own child also his grandchildren/children. I believe it’s pure evil and cruel.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/cellar.rooms/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar.reax/index.html?iref=newssearch

Obama Needs to Ditch Rev. Wright

Senator Barack Obama is taking a stand against his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. After breaking his silence following Obama’s speech on race, Wright made controversial comments about how America has aided AIDS in the black community as well as bringing the September 11^th attacks on ourselves. Obama says he is outraged and saddened by Wright’s comments. He adds that Wright’s comments are only contributing to racial tensions and fueling those who prey on hate. Obama also argues that Wright’s comments do not accurately depict the perspectives of the black church and certainly not his own beliefs. He adds that the comments made will most likely hinder his friendship with Wright. When asked if he would still attend the church, Obama responded that he is at this point still a member of Trinity and values the community of the church, but did not want to interfere with those who continued to worship there.

I think Obama needs to cut ties with Rev. Wright and leave it at that. I find it interesting that we as a society rely so heavily on what religion people are affiliated with, when we are supposed to keep church and state separate. Rev. Wright is only going to hurt Obama. His statements are not reflecting the positive steps I think Obama is trying to make for this country. I find it strange that Wright would make these comments, because it is aiding racial tensions and contributing to the stereotypes. In my opinion, Obama should stay clear of religion and focus on what is important to our country.

CNN news

Race Card

In the article “Clinton could ease Racial Tension” in The Wall Street Journal racial tension between the candidates was highlighted. I liked this article because race card is the tool used repeatedly in these elections. Sen. Obama has been in the lime light due to the pastor episode but Clinton is using that to her advantage to lay her view point on it. Even though her camp was accused of using the race card recently she does a good job in making sure she gets her point across on what her view point is. In the article it mentioned that Clinton gained a lot of support when the Rev. incident happened, a lot of voters turned to Clinton’s side giving her n upper hand. This article also did a break down of votes based on race. It was really interesting to see that. I personally think Obama is a great candidate and a good speaker with lot of public support. But he also has to deal with a lot more criticism and comments. His racial background is always a topic of discussion. These election results are going to be a huge topic of discussion as people are always going to look at Obama as a black candidate and Clinton as a woman presidential candidate. I think if given a choice to be neutral, most people would not pick either or. But it was interesting to see the break down of votes among black voters and white voters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120941744906850827.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

McCain's Free Market Approach for Health Care

In the NY Times article, “Federal Money in Health Care Plan From McCain”, senator McCain tries to promote his health care plan. His health care plan is about a free- market approach, which says that people can shop for cheap health care plans. It also gives more power to the government as his approach has no middle man aka insurance companies. He said that people can get affordable coverage through the tax credits and shouldn’t get insurance from the employer. In the article it explained it as follows, “Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, to foster competition and drive down prices. To do so he is calling for eliminating the tax breaks that currently encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers, and replacing them with $5,000 tax credits for families to buy their own insurance.” The thing about this plan is that President Bush had a similar plan and our healthcare hasn’t changed a tiny bit in 4 years. The biggest problem I find in his plan is the cost. Even though he is saying that people with health illnesses will be covered if they leave their insurance provided by their employer and get in the tax credit program. But what if they leave their insurance policy from work and try to get private insurance would be still be the same price? And also not only that how much will the government pay. I don’t like his plan at all because his free market approach seems like a fish market to me. The employers will be upset since they employee’s don’t want to buy their plan; the insurance companies would be pissed since that’ll give them no control over anything whatsoever. Its just unrealistic, and I feel like even though he is saying they are using this money from federal account but in return if he actually gets started on this plan and try to apply it to our health care system, they’ll make a lot more money than they are putting into it. I think its an easier way of making it look less intrusive and filling up the pockets, since there is no middle man. This plan will never work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30mccain.html?pagewanted=1&ref=health

How Young is Too Young?

In the recent issue of Vanity Fair, Miley Cyrus poses for the layout to be featured inside the magazine. At the time, the 15 year old singer and actress didn’t realize the pictures would be so provocative. She thought they would be done in a tasteful and sophisticated manner. The picture was snapped by famous photographer Annie Leibowitz who had a clear vision of the shoot. But as expected fans were outraged by the photos that showed her bare back with a white sheet draped around her but eluding to the fact that she is naked. Many said this was too much for a 15 year old and was not sending out the right message to her fans that were around the same age if not younger. Executives from Disney have accused Vanity Fair of exploiting a 15 year old by showing her in an inappropriate light.
Shortly after the photos, Cyrus released an apology stating, “I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.” Although I do think the photos were a bit racy for a 15 year old, I don’t think they were intended to exploit her in any way. At that young age, she probably doesn’t know what she wants. She is surrounded by people who control her career and make her decisions for her. Regardless of what she truly thought of the photos, I’m sure her reps thought an apology would maintain her squeaky clean “tween-queen” image. Just like young stars who came before her (Hilary Duff, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera), they too were molded into a certain image.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24342953/

Jimi Hendrix Sex Tape?

Jimi Hendrix can now add “porn star” to his list of contributions to society. Known as the greatest guitarist of all time, people are questioning the truth behind this supposed video. Fox News claims Vivid Entertainment, the Los Angeles based company, has obtained the video from a memorabilia collector. The company is also credited for releasing the Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian videos. The video supposedly shows Hendrix sleeping with two women, and lasts 11 minutes long. It was shot in a hotel room 40 years ago. Skeptics say this is not Hendrix. Charles Cross, who has written a biography on Hendrix, claims the face does not depict Hendrix and shows him wearing more rings than he usually wore. A past girlfriend of Hendrix also declares the video as false, claiming he was a very private man who was too shy to engage in such a film.

This article could be considered unethical because many are claiming this is not even Hendrix. Unfortunately, he is not alive to prove if it is real or not. I think it is wrong to publicize a sex tape that depicts a man in private without his consent. He is no longer alive to confirm if it is real or not, as well as, giving consent to Vivid Entertainment to even release the tape. It shows Jimi in a negative light, when he should be remembered for his music. It’s unfortunate that Vivid Entertainment is benefiting from a man who is no longer alive, and glorifying something that should be kept private.

Wright on the Defense

Rev. Wright is on the defense, he says not for Barack Obama or even for himself, but for the “black church.” According to Wright, the criticism that he has been receiving from the American people is an attack on the black church, not on himself or Obama. He says that the things he has said don’t make him unpatriotic and don’t mean that he hates America. “Black preaching is different from European and European-American preaching,” he says. “It is not deficient. It is just different. It is not bombastic. It is not controversial. It’s different.”

I would have to disagree with him. When someone, I don’t care who it is, is speaking out against my country so strongly as to want God to damn it, that sounds rather unpatriotic to me. I’m not saying that black preaching is deficient I’m simply saying that Rev. Wright’s preaching is deficient.

Wright says, “God doesn’t bless everything. God condemns something. And D-E-M-N, demn, is where we get the word damn. God damns some practices.” This is true; God does condemn and damn some things. Maybe he does get the word damn from the word condemn – but I have always been taught that it is a short form of damnation. “Damnation” is a stronger word than just “condemn.” Condemn means: “to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment.” The definition of damnation is: “condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin.” So instead of just punishing America for what Wright believes the country has done wrong, he wants America punished eternally “as a consequence of sin.” To me, that sounds unpatriotic. Would a true patriot want what was best for his country? Wouldn’t he want his country to improve on its faults, rather than simply damning his country for eternity?

On top of this, Wright makes a clear divide between races. He makes blatantly racist remarks. Why does he feel the need to draw lines between races, anyway? What exactly does European preaching have to do with anything, and what exactly is European-American preaching? He differentiates between black churches/worship/preaching and the rest – but there shouldn’t be a difference between what they believe if they are studying the same Bible. Of course there are differences in the way individual churches hold their services, etc. But the beliefs and the teaching should not be different; but they will be if a man is interjecting his own beliefs, feelings, and racism as Wright is doing.

The fact that he wants an apology from America is simply laughable. I refuse to apologize for something I never did. Not only have I never had slaves or condoned the idea of slavery or racism, but none of my family who is alive has – nor have any of my ancestors as far as I am aware. Wright, again with his racist thinking, judges the whole country, holding them responsible for past wrongs that have been (and in some cases, are being) overcome.

Rev. Wright needs to study his Bible with an open mind, and learn from it without his own biases. America is not perfect and none of the people in America are perfect, but it is not our place to damn the whole country or a whole race. He should be praying for the country, not damning it.


Sources:
Article: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-defends-church-blasts-media/
Definitions: http://www.dictionary.com

Religious sect of Cult?

A few weeks ago, authorities in Eldorado, Texas raided a polygamist compound or said to be “cult” and removed 416 children and 138 women deemed to have been harmed or sexually abused and placed them in legal custody. Many mothers wept as they were separated from their children. The founder and leader of the compound, Warren Jeffs, have been taken into custody by officials and facing at least 10 years in prison. Jeffs took over in 2002 as prophet of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who broke off from the Mormon Church in the 1930s over the issue of polygamy. Jeffs took full authority over the cult and dictated what was right and wrong. Within this compound pubescent girls were forced into “spiritual marriages” with older men and men were allowed to have more than one wife.
When I read this article and watched it on the news, I found it to be very disturbing like most people. I couldn’t grasp the fact that stuff like this was still going on. This compound has been here for generations and no one had a clue. The children that were born into that society must be psychological damaged but don’t even realize it. When children are taught or should I say brainwashed to think and live a certain way, they think that’s the way things should be and that is how the rest of the world works. But how can kids grow up to be themselves in this male dominated society where rules are dictated by one man and women are treated like objects.
I recently read in People magazine, where they had interviewed women from the cult. They were asked if living in this compound was abuse and the women responded, “This is a regular, everyday thing: We love to learn." And by 7:30 p.m. the children are ready for bed. "I love it here," sums up Gloria. "And so do the children." They don’t think what they’re doing in the cult is abuse, and that their children are being sexually violated is abuse. I think it’s even more disturbing that they think it’s normal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24032149/page/2/

Obama Breaks ties with EX- Pastor

In the NY Times article, “Taking Sharp Tone, Obama breaks with Ex- Pastor”, Obama made a very clear and strong statement about his relationship with his Ex- Pastor, Mr. Wright. He said, “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church,” Mr. Obama said, his voice welling with anger. “They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs.” I find senator Obama’s statement very interesting, I feel like he is making a public statement because he may feel obliged to clarify it. the incident involving pastor Wright occurred about 5 weeks ago but I think people remember it. Another reason for the candidate to cut ties with the pastor could be a playing safe tactic; a lot of people were upset about what the pastor said so maybe the candidate feels like that incident maybe a reason for his losing audience. He doesn’t want to lose any voters and connections with the pastor may hold him back. Obama also clarified their current situation better by saying, “I’m outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” He added: “I find these comments appalling. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.” He further added by saying, “Whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed as a consequence of this”. Further elaborating he said, “I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign and what we’re trying to do for the American people.” I think Obama is making such statements to gain sympathy of voters and win his next primary. At the end of the day, its all about the presidential race. In order to win he needs public support and if his connection with the pastor was gonna hold him back, he cut that tie. I just think its really interesting that he is making this statement 5 weeks after the incident. Did it just hit him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1209542637-QHw6md%20nGObNU2oImg5v8w

Is this supposed to be a deterrent?

Blogger Palul Zargaj-Reynolds has the above photos posted on her blog at typepad.com. Accompanying the photos was a her comment stating: "Seeing an ad is supposed to stop pedophiles?"

While I think these ads really did drive home a point with background messages like:"if you see a child as anything more, it's wrong." I really did not feel it was the best approach. In my opinion attaching the body of a woman to the face of a child would only entice offending or potential pedophiles .

I don't necessarily think the ad was unethical...but I do believe that not much thought went behind it when assessing all potential impacts. While to normal people the message would be loud and clear......to others who are not all there in the head, it may make a child more appealing to them and have the opposite affect from what it was meant to have.
I am just curious to know what you all think about this?

What if this were your son or brother?

The above image was on the front page of the Washington Post this morning.
The little boy in the photo was identified as 2-year old Ali Hussein of Sadr City in Baghdad who reportedly died at a Baghdad hospital.
According to the article,he was pulled from rubble following an all out battle between U.S. force and their alleged attackers (who were indicated as hostile Iraq militia ) ambushed them U.S. forces say the conflict erupted when U.S. forces attempted to evacuate a soldier injured in a separate incident that involved a small arms fire.
According to the article, U.S. soldiers retaliated by firing rockets that were heavily equipped with high powered explosive 200 pound warheads (killing 28 enemies), and the proceed to drop a bomb that killed two "firing mortars".
While the above were the casualty numbers released by the U.S. but Sadr City residents had a completely different account of the incident claimed that more than 50
natives were killed and more than 130 were injured (many of whom they say were women and children).

While the picture attached serves to support the claims made by Sadr city residents, I don't feel that the picture was appropriate to run with the story.....or if so, at least not on the front page. Especially when the Washington post had other images that could have been used (as shown on the jump page).
For some Americans the image won't be offensive once they realize that the little boy was not American.
This may have been the reasoning of the Washington post for running the photo as bluntly as they did.
However, I think people need to ask themselves the question..."would this be ok with me if this were my son or brother....or even an American citizen?"
I probably would not be as against the photo if the little boy hadn't died, but he did and that makes all the difference.
Though I am not totally against the photo, I just wonder how much the Washington post thought it through (did they consider all sides of the ethical questions?)

Product Placement in the Transformers movie

How many of you have seen the Transformers movie that came out recently? It was a pretty awesome display of new age graphic imaging and technology that was fun for the whole family. I enjoyed the entire (HUMMER) movie very extensively with one reservation however. The product placement, I found, was a little over the top. It was almost passable except for the fact that every five minutes, there would be a blatant closeup of the brand logo on one of the protagonists cars portrayed in perfect lighting, cropping, and focus, so it almost looked like instead of a movie, I was siting in front of the single coolest car commercial known to man so far. Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing because it definitely got lots of money for (HUMMERs)product placement, and that probably gives us a good idea as to where the funding for the movie came from, but I personally thought the excessive use of product placement was a bit distracting. But then again, I am an advertising major. (HUMMER)This is an issue which doesn't push social decency boundaries, nor does it illicit meaningless sexual overtones, aside from the smokin costar Megan Fox who just makes this movie that much more visually appealing. Though product placement is a great way for movie makers to gain (HUMMER) much welcomed extra cash or their movies, in a new age where brands are forever searching for new ways to advertise, when is it time to say, too much? I think this movie calls it close.(THIS HAS BEEN A PAID ADVERTISEMENT FROM HUMMER. BUY A HUMMER. THIS IS THE END OF THE SUBLIMINAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT PAID FOR BY HUMMER. THANK YOU.)

B Fagan (HUMMER)

Jessica Alba

McDonalds ran an ad with a scantily clad Jessica Alba posing for the camera next to a trio of giant tasty McGriddles that not only misleads the consumer, but also does it with sex appeal. I hate to harp on this topic of sex in the media but it really is everywhere and this example especially is an obvious flagrant foul.
Along with many other Mc Donalds ads over time, this innaccurate representation of what someone will look like if they make a habit of ordering McGriddles is a disturbing misrepresentation and an out of place sexual appeal. It really isn't necessary to throw a girl in her underwear on a food ad. First of all, because the girl has less to do with the food than the paper it's printed on. Second of all, she's not doing anything productive, at least give her a nuttrition facts table to hold up or give her something to eat. And third of all, McGRiddles do not make women skinny like some people may be led to believe by looking at this ad. Now this ad can be said to be socially irresponsible, targeted towards young men and women who like Jessica Alba and consult her when making food choices. The ad is altogether irrelevant and weak due of the severe lack of theme continuity between the model and the product. I think there should be tighter restrictions against such senseless use of sexal appeal in almost every aspect of advertising. It lowers the cultural boundary for what is descent, and skews the minds of young men and women who are forming their opinions about the world.

B Fagan

Ice cream eyewash

This advertisement shows a woman eating ice cream and it actually an advertisement for old spice adn it has nothing to do with old spice at all. It symbolizes something sexual because that is the first thing that came in my mind when i looked at it. I also think it is target advertising as they used a female to do this Ad, and old spice is a male shaving product. They are not selling just the product they are trying to sell more than that. I think its highly unethical to use a girl eating ice cream to selll old spice. At first glance i thought it was an ice cream advertisement but its not. In the ad, it also says the following, "sure, she's attractive, sultry, but she is only eating it because it tastes good and it is hot where she happens to be." Now you can be the judge, that statement definitely has two meanings to it.

True.com

Dating sites have been around for a while now, but strangely enough, the novelty has yet to wear off for the millions of people worldwide who use these sites. Some people create a profile hoping to find their perfect match and live the rest of their lives with that person, assuming they don't live half way across the world. Others are using these sites for a different reason, but that's really not what I'm going after here.

My question is, why do they always pick the most attractive, fantastic people they can find to pose for the ad pictures? I wonder how many people see the model portrayed on the link and actually assume that they are going to end up talking to someone that looks like that, often skanky and unbelievably attractive.
Furthermore, I think there could possibly be a truth telling issue here... I tend to think that using models to pose in ads for a dating site can be somewhat misleading to some "patrons" of the site. Seeing someone dressed all sexy posing in a picture could cause some kind of an expectation for who is out there using said dating service. The pictures of models that are shown on many of these sites like in the ads for True.com, make it look like the website has a bunch of these girls on hand, or even on staff to make the process more enjoyable. In reality, the site is most likely full of lonely strange looking weirdos in search of the models they see in the pictures, or on those looped videos of a fake video chat.
I have a feeling that it is hard to pin a truth telling issue on the advertisers for this site for a few reasons. First of all, there is no written garuntee of "quality control" with these dating services. Their capitol is not a commodity, nor is it a good, but a service that they are offering. A place for people to meet and get to know each other through an information sharing service. How could it be proved that the company is telling the truth or lying about the attractiveness of the people who visit their site. Really there is no way of telling. Because, despite the high probability that there really is no one on the site aside from lonely strange looking, whacked out kooks, there is also a distinct possibility, that attractive, smart people, look at these sites as well, as a way to find some one who likes them for who they are, at least in writing, based on something other than immediate looks. These are the people that make it all worth while for the other 95% of the dating pool. These "diamonds in the rough" are the reason why the masses get on here and keep on trying. I guess it is important to realize that to go on a site like True.com, one is not guaranteed to find their soul mate, but they definitely have a tool at their disposal to make them feel like they're trying.

In retrospect, having said all this, the pictures and videos used to draw people in, are no more than twisted versions of seduction of eloquence ads aimed to play on people's fantasies.

B Fagan

Rove tells Obama how to win

Karl Rove, the former Bush aide, is dishing Obama advice on how to win. He offers up six different suggestions in his Newsweek column to the Democratic candidate. He calls for a break from Wright and shaking up his speech which he feels are outdated and making him seem out of touch with Middle America. Obama's popularity is declining and Rove wants to help. But is it to really help Obama or is it to help the Republican party? McCain would be better off going against Obama than Hillary as recent polls have shown that if Hillary were to win the Democratic vote than it would be more likely that she would win against McCain whereas if Obama were to win the Democratic vote than more people would be willing to vote for McCain. This is a conflict of interest as it is not likely that Rove, being a Republican, would want to actually help the Democrat candidate. He must have some other motive behind his actions though they are not clear. Obama should be weary of any help from the Republican side, even if Rove did help Bush win both presidential elections.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/rove-tells-obama-how-to-win/?iref=werecommend

Christina Aguilara selling sketchers? oh no!

Sketchers decided to do a line of ads with Christine Aguilara as the centerfold *cough* center of attention for these ads. The page I found shows the three of these ads featuring Pop star Christina Aguilara in different poses and settings not even remotely pertaining to shoes, at least not specifically. In the third one down on the page, we see Christina practicing a strange new self healing practice involving a suspiciously phallic syringe that she's planning on doing god knows what with. It looks like the patient in question has nothing more than a bump on the head.

Now why does sketchers think it is a good idea to use this picture to sell shoes? I don't think their main target market is high school guys. At least not guys who are interested in buying the pink high top pumps that are so prominently featured. I think it's also funny that they are only showcasing one pair of sketchers shoes in the ad. The Nurse is wearing boot heels. Which I don't think are Sketchers brand... or are they? It is hard to tell from these ads.
This blatantly obvious case of overt sexuality in the media is not socially responsible because it is targeting young audiences possibly even middle schoolers who will look at Christina and feel the need to start dressing like her and thinking that being a skank is a socially acceptable thing. In this, they are sadly mistaken.
I think this ad is indecent and distasteful. It makes Christina look like a dumb skank, which she may or may not be in real life.... but most of all, like I said before, the issue is the target audience. The young women and their impressionable minds. The Agency who put this up for Sketchers, should be ashamed.

B Fagan

Obama Outraged with Pastor

After siding along with his pastor for so long Barack Obama has finally spoken out against his preacher. He is said to have been outraged by his former preacher's newest remarks on race on Monday. Obama feels that the man he heard speak is not the man he met 20 years ago and was shocked by what he heard. Many people have agreed that a break would be good for Obama because Wright is hurting his campaign and undermining everything that he has worked for. Obama was not happy with the comments Wright had made earlier such as the government was responsible for the spread of AIDS in black communities and how Clinton had a better chance of winning because she was white. Obama has said that Wright's comments do not reflect who he is and what he stands for. He felt undermined by the comments made but remains a member of Trinity church though his relationship with Wright has changed. Many criticize Obama for not breaking with Wright sooner, and Clinton has not only criticized him but also last week criticized the Arizona Democratic governor candidates for having failed to stop an ad linking them to Wright. What should have been done here was Obama should have broken with Wright a long time ago, at least in the political sense. They had no damage control and the situation just blew up for Obama who's political campaign may now be tarnished by his preacher's remarks. Wright is now beyond his control and speaking his mind which is what I'm sure Obama did not want seeing as how remarks ar doing a lot of damage. What Obama needs to do is make a clean break from Wright so that he won't be associated with the racist remarks made.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

John McCain, Reverend Hagee VS Obama, Reverend Wright

In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."McCain has attempted to distance himself from some of Hagee's views, much as Barack Obama is doing in relation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But unlike McCain, Obama has not stood on stage with Wright and accepted his accolades this year.

Interviewed by Deborah Solomon, Hagee refused to discuss his statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans, calling it "so far off-base." He claims, "Our church is not hard against the gay people. Our church teaches what the bible teaches, that it is not a righteous lifestyle. But of course we must love even sinners."

He also said that charges that he had bashed the Catholic Church ("false cult system," etc.) have been "grossly mischaracterized....I was referring to those Christians who ignore the Gospels."

Asked what he thinks of Obama, he answers, "He is going to be difficult to beat, because the man is a master of communication. If he were in the ministry, he would make it in the major leagues overnight."

He also denies that he is a strong supporter of Israel because of any coming "Rapture" in the holy land.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LnWbVGkc4fE

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364

The video is very interesting. I do wonder if McCain got off easy when it came to this pastor endorsing him than Obama did with Rev. Wright. This story seemed to disappear around March but the Obama controversy is still going strong. I feel that the media is really bias concerning this whole endorsement involving these controversial people endorsing the candidates.

You can't be all you can be if you're Dead

This is an ad published in a school newspaper. The message is clearly to try and prevent students from joining the army, that if they do they will die. The ad is a black and white photograph of a graveyard with white seemingly unmarked tombstones with warnings in white. The ad claims "there are other ways to serve your country, there are other ways to get money for college, there are other ways to be all you can be, think about it before you sign your life away." While all this might be true, I believe this ad is unethical because its biased and not only that but is scaring the audience from making a clear decision that would affect their future. While the army might not be for some, a student out there could do great things in the army. Not everyone dies so in fact the ad is misleading but making one believe that by signing up you will die. Patriotic people, people with members in the army, or even people who are in the army might also find it offensive. If I were in the army and I came across an ad like this I would be extremely offended that people think I have signed my life away. The ad is biased, unethical and uses scare tactics to keep its audience from making a clear decision based on ow beliefs.

http://www.tompaine.com/upload/school%20ad.jpg

Clinton's Campaign Ad-"Children"

My final blog posting looks at one of Hillary Clinton’s new campaign ads. The ad, posted on March 2 on YouTube, is called “Children.” You first see a dimly lit house from the outside. Then there are several shots of sleeping children. Finally, a mother goes into the room of her child. A shot of Hillary on the phone at a desk ends the ad. The dialogue is as follows:

“It’s 3 am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing–something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s 3 am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

I think this ad really screams cognitive dissonance! It’s using scare tactics to play off people’s emotions, particularly parents. I personally think the ad is not effective. Being able to answer a phone at 3 am does not test whether you’re a better presidential candidate. I’m sure every president has an assistant that answers even the red phone. I also think it would be more appropriate if the ad showed Hillary doing normal things, for example, have Hillary come into the child’s room at the end instead of an actor. Instead the ad primarily focuses on sleeping children, which leaves the viewer wondering what’s going on, even if you are listening to the audio.

Do We Really Need A Hendrix Sex Tape?

News sites around the world today are reporting about a supposed sex tape from the late 60's of deceased guitar hero Jimi Hendrix. The video being distributed by Vivid entertainment comes only weeks after the controversy of a possible sex tape of Marilyn Monroe was found in the national archives and sold to a person with interest for 1.5 Million. This all begs the question, do we really need to see this stuff. Sure it might be out there and it's the publics right to search out what they want. At some point, we as a society must create a line that separates was is acceptable from our media.
It seems that the media is giving free publicity to Vivid and it's reported sex tape. Reporting about this tapes only intrigue the readers to search out such things. Is this really what journalists should be doing for a living? Spoon feeding the public to it's every carnal desires and never holding back.
I believe that the same way the news does not report bomb threats and suicides, their should be a hold on gossip reporting dealing with items that are sexual in nature. We don't need to know this things. They are simply taking up space and time in the lives of once very productive people. Please lets work together to end this push to release a new celebrity sex tape every week.

TV's "CSI" star Gary Dourdan faces drug charges

Actor Gary Dourdan, who co-stars on the CBS television hit "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," has been arrested on suspicion of possessing cocaine, heroin and other drugs, police said on Tuesday.

Dourdan, 41, was detained by police in the desert resort town of Palm Springs, about 100 miles east of Los Angeles, after he was found asleep in the driver's seat of a parked car before dawn on Monday, according to a police press release.

The car had been parked on the wrong side of the street with the interior light left on, and
Dourdan appeared to be disoriented and "possibly under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs" when approached by an officer, the statement said.
The officer found substances believed to be cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy and various prescription drugs, as well as drug paraphernalia, police said.

Dourdan was arrested, booked for possession of narcotics and dangerous drugs and jailed for about five hours before he was released on $5,000 bail, police said.
A native of Philadelphia, Dourdan got his start on the TV sitcom "A Different World" -- a spinoff of the "Cosby Show" -- and later had a recurring role on the Showtime cable network series "Soul Food."

He also starred in the 1997 film "Alien: Resurrection."
But he is best known for his role as forensics investigator Warrick Brown on "CSI," which has ranked as CBS' top-rated show, and the most watched drama on U.S. television, for much of its run. Last week's episode drew 17 million viewers.

Dourdan, whose character was implicated in the murder of a local gang member in recent episodes, is slated to leave the series in May, at the end of its eighth season.

A CBS spokesman said the network had no comment on how Dourdan's recent arrest might affect production of the show. The actor's agent was not immediately available for comment.

You know the most interesting thing about this story is? It's that right after they talk about Dourdan's arrest on drug charges, they go off about his roles in past movies and his current role on CSI. I felt like I was reading a different article half-way through. I went from drug charges to his filmography. What's the point? If your going to talk about his arrest, but don't talk about why is was made famous in the first place if it has no meaning on the current issue.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080430/tv_nm/csi_arrest_dc_1

'Girls Gone Wild': Video proves call girl agreed to appear

The founder of "Girls Gone Wild" released a video Tuesday that he said proved the call girl involved in a scandal that brought down New York's former governor agreed to be filmed in 2003.

The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.

In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.

"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.

"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.

"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.

"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.

"Of course you can," Dupre answers.

The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.

This is yet another example of how sex can make headlines in the news today. This story is also made bigger due to the fact that this girl is connected to Spitzer and his prostiution scandle. Its considered news since the girl lied about giving not her consent to be filmed. I do wish this story could post so info on how to avoid being put into such situatiosn, especially when it comes to these "Girls Gone Wild" vidoes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_en_mo/girls_gone_wild_spitzer_call_girl;_ylt=AsTef.4QZ6.bsYZMC0awdXZxFb8C

Whose got your back?

In a recent issue of Vanity Fair Miley Cyrus the teen pop sensation who stars in the Disney channel show "Hannah Montana" was photographed with her back showing implying she was naked. The fact that she has many supporters saying that its her decision and its not that bad shows that her fans are smart enough to realize that she's just human. The press on the other hand have been asking around to people such as Hilary Duff, another Disney teen star, if what she did was appropriate. They also asked Joe Jonas, of the Jonas brothers and also Cyrus' boyfriend, if this was the right decision for the teen star to take.
Cyrus apologized for her taking the shot and the photographer also apologized to the public saying " its' just a simple picture of Miley with no make-up i thought it was artistic and beautiful". Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. People take pictures of themselves in bikini's and naked pictures all the time and puts them up on facebook and myspace. I realize that she's a teen star and kids look up to her but really what 12 year old is searching for her naked pictures online? or sitting at the waiting room reading Vanity Fair?
Cyrus is growing up and i agree with the article when they quoted Duff saying "she's growing up and exploring herself" its her life and she wants to try new things. Just because she is a millionaire and loved by so many little kids doesn't mean she can't make mistakes.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1586521/20080429/cyrus__miley.jhtml

Chicago Bans GTA Ads from Public Transit

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) has pulled a series of bus advertisements promoting Rockstar games Grand Theft Auto IV off its buses and buildings in the city. The ads reveal several of the games characters in a police line up as The Usual Suspects. The ads depict the characters from the waist up and hardly seem offensive. The Chicago Transit Authority justified its actions stating, “that M-Rated ‘violent video games’ ought to be banned from its premises as they compare similarly to X-rated movies.” A Chicago branch of Fox News reported the ads to have influenced a particularly violent weekend in the city. Police reported, “36 people have been shot, 2 have been stabbed, and 9 people have consequently died in the city since Friday as a result of violent crime.” This isn’t the first time the companies ads have been pulled by the CTA as in 2004 Chicago’s governor protested similar inoffensive ads for GTA-Vice City Stories.

The ads were pulled without foreknowledge to the company. The CTA has been sued in a similar case in 2003 when the transit authority pulled “Change the Climate” ads. The CTA was sued on grounds of “viewpoint discrimination,” when refusing to run ads advocating debate of the legalization of marijuana. The US 1^st Circuit court ruled, “"[The] MBTA, a quasi-government agency, does not have the right to turn down advertisements based on the personal viewpoint of its executives."This article makes a very good point. Grand Theft Auto may be know for its mature game play but if its ads do not even portray mature content they shouldn’t be restricted from advertising. Rockstar games has as much right to advertise as any other company and the CTA can’t choose to not advertise a company if they don’t like them. The CTA provides a public service and the ads are targeted towards the public. The videogame audience is also more likely to meet an age group using public transportation so pulling the ads could hurt Rockstar games.

Aflac Up for PETA Litterbox Award for Bad Animal Ad

PETA nominated Aflac for its Litterbox Award, for using a young orangutan to portray inferior competitors in one of its television ads. PETA gives out its Litterbox Awards once a year for ads that are bad for animals. The Columbus, Ga based company Aflac has ignored evidence presented by PETA and great-ape experts about young orangutan’s abuse and other primates for entertainment. Baby primates are often taken from their parents at a young age and are beaten and shocked in order to get them to pay attention and do acts they see as senseless. PETA provided Aflac with results conducted by a primatologist who spent 14 months undercover at a California facility that trains primates for entertainment. Orangutans around 8-years-old are considered to powerful to control and are often left in old roadside zoos. . A study recently published by primatologists revealed, "The inappropriate portrayal of great apes in advertisements undermines the scientific, welfare, and conservation goals that we and many readers work hard to achieve." A reported 3,500 people have complained to Aflac for it is add after viewing PETAs Web site. "Aflac is damaging its own reputation by ignoring the public's interest in the preservation and protection of great apes," PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk said.

PETA also gives out Glitterbox Awards to company ads that depict animals in a positive manner and promote respect for animals. After viewing the ad, it doesn’t seem harmful to the animal or negative but the use of animals in ads usually is supposed to be cute and bring in sales. Aflac needs to respond to PETAs statements and either pull the ad or refute the organizations claims of animal cruelty. The negative attention from PETA could ruin the image of the insurance company and lead to Aflac no longer using animal’s period in their ads. This could spillover to the company not using their famed Aflac duck although not a real animal in its TV ads. This is the commercial in question and judged by PETAs Litterbox Awards.

Miley Cyrus says Vanity Fair photo spread embarrasses her

Miley Cyrus the 15-year-old star of the Disney channels “Hannah Montana” has come under scrutiny after posing for a Vanity Fair photo shoot reported the Associate Press. The photo under scrutiny reveals the teen idol is wrapped in what appears to be a satin bed sheet, looking over her shoulder with her back exposed. "I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed," Cyrus said. The photos of the star will be appearing in the upcoming issue of the magazine and where taken by renowned celebrity photographer, Annie Leibovitz, known for her edgy portrait photos. The pictures were to accompany an interview with Miley and her father Billy Ray Cyrus. Vanity Fair defended the photos arguing her parents to be present at the photo shoot and seeing the photos before release. The Disney channel representative said, “Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines."

The stars "Best of Both Worlds" tour sold out arenas and her successful 3-D concert film made $31.3 million in its opening weekend in February. Miley Cyrus has a big influence to the G rated market and a photo like this could ruin the star and cause a sort of defamation or false light. As a role model to many young girls, this photo although approved by the star at the shoot has caused a negative influence on the star and at the stars request should be removed or not used. Photos using celebrities should be used or taken in the stars best interest and not be used to generate sales off the star. The photo of the 15-year-old looks inappropriate for a girl her age and her parents should have made efforts to keep the stars image safe.

OMFG, The New Gossip Girl Ad Campaign

The television show Gossip Girl that airs on the CW has recently been described as “Sex and the City for young girls. The show gets very good ratings and is in the top ten for shows on television with girls ranging from ages twelve to seventeen. The story lines are risqué, but the question at hand now is directed towards the new campaign for Gossip Girl. Some believe the new campaign promotes sex. The show circles around drinking, drugs, and sex amongst high school kids. There is no doubt that the show is racy but the new ad campaign has many people outraged, including the Parents Television Council. The face of the new provocative ad campaign pictures high schoolers appearing to have sex next to the acronym ‘OMFG.’ This can be seen online, on posters, and on billboards in plain view of young kids and parents. The vice president of marketing at the CW says the acronym is open to interpretation. He says that it stands for an expression of surprise or I can’t believe it. Accusations against the ad campaign call it raunchy and borderline pornography, but the vice president disagrees. The PTC is considering pressuring advertisers and is already warning parents.

It’s nice for parents to think that if they don’t see an advertisement such as the new Gossip Girl ad campaign that their children aren’t doing what the actors in the show do. It’s also nice for parents to think that if there wasn’t a show like Gossip Girl on television their children also wouldn’t do what the actors in the show do. Yes, it’s nice for them to think that, but it doesn’t make it true. High-schoolers will drink, will do a drug of some sort, and will most probably have sex. There is no stopping this, and they already know what these things are or have heard about them, so the show isn’t really teaching them anything new. Can’t young adults be given enough credit to make decisions on their own or make a mistake to learn from it, rather than bored and narrow minded parents trying to control their every move. The more parents try to control their kids the more they will push away and be dishonest with their parents. The more parents try to shelter their kids, the worse it will be for kids when they are grown up and out in the real world.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/04/28/anderson.showbiz.monday.cnn?iref=videosearch

Hospital Worker Indicted For Selling Patient Info

An Ex-UCLA Hospital worker was indicted on charges for allegedly accessing and selling health records of dozens of high-profile patients. This comes as a severe breech in patient privacy involving at least 61 patients at the University of California Los Angeles’ hospitals including figures: singer Britney Spears, California first lady Maria Shriver, and actress Farrah Fawcett.
The indictment accuses Jackson, age 49, of illegally obtaining health information for commercial gain through business with a media outlet. Jackson is said to have received at least $4,500 from the unidentified buyer; who paid Jackson by writing checks to her husband.
Jackson claims, however, that she was “just being nosy” and that “it wasn’t for money”. She stated that she made a “mistake” but denied being paid for or giving out any of the information. In March, the hospital had planned to fire several employees, including Jackson, for snooping into Britney Spears’ records.
Mrs. Jackson could face up to 10 years if convicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_us/medical_records_breach

Controversy Over Mayor's Incriminating Text Messages

A judge allowed raunchy text messages between Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Chief of Staff Christine Beatty to be released. One of the mayor’s attorneys, Jim Thomas, is arguing that the release of these messages is a violation on Kilpatrick’s right to privacy. Thomas stated that it was “improper to print it at this time,” and that the release of the messages would “affect his(Kilpatrick) ability to have a fair trial.”
The Detroit Free Press printed some of these messages which blew the lid off a scandal involving the Mayor lying under oath when asked if having an affair with Ms. Beatty. The messages fist appeared in 2007 when Michael Stefani, attorney for a fired Detroit police officer, arrived at a whistle-blower lawsuit settlement with an envelope containing the messages. The messages contained exchanged confessions of love between Mayor Kilpatrick and Beatty; along with evidence of the Mayor and Chief of Staff working behind the Chief of Police’s back to punish and fire officers who “refused to look the other way”.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/16057009/detail.html

McCain Criticizes Obama’s Former Pastor’s Remarks

Senator John McCain stated it was, “beyond belief,” that Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., related the Romans at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion to the Marines and had suggested that the United States was acting like Al Qaeda under a different color flag. McCain, until now, had avoided speaking about the controversy of Mr. Wright’s sermons. He says he wanted a “respectful” campaign and even called on the North Carolina Republican Party to pull an advertisement that focuses on Mr. Wright. McCain understands why people are upset and angry with Wright’s remarks. He also said that he did not believe that Democrat of Illinois, Mr. Obama, agreed with views of Mr. Wright, but that he made it fair game to discuss as “a legitimate political issue,” after his interview shown on Fox News Sunday. The Obama campaign accused McCain of breaking his promise to have a respectful campaign. They said, “By sinking to a level that he specifically said he’s avoid, he has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign.” At a recent news conference, McCain said he still did not believe the advertisement pertaining to Wright should run, but he would not continue to try to be “the referee.” There are some Republicans that have worried that by not using the Wright controversy; McCain was denying himself a potentially potent weapon.

I think that McCain does have a place to comment or put in his opinion, however, not after he stated that he wasn’t going to. I believe that once you make a statement like that, publicly, you should stick to it. He said he would not comment on the Wright controversy and he should have gone with it. To be honest though, I do not even think it should be an issue at all for this campaign. Wright should have his freedom of speech to preach about what he wants and Obama should have his freedom to have practiced his religion with Wright if he wanted to. It’s not really of anyone else’s business.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?scp=5&sq=&st=nyt

Alleged Jimi Hendrix Sex Tape To Be Released

Vivid Entertainment is releasing a sex tape allegedly starring Jimi Hendrix.
The Los Angeles-based adult entertainment company said they obtained the sex tape from a memorabilia collector.

The 11 minutes of footage, reportedly shot in a hotel room about 40 years ago, features Hendrix — or someone who looks like him — engaged in various sexual acts with two women.
The company said they consulted with experts to authenticate the footage. But Charles R. Cross, author of the Hendrix biography “Room Full of Mirrors,” has seen the film and doubts the man is Hendrix.


Cross said the face and nostrils of the man depicted in the video don’t match Hendrix. He also said the man in the tape is wearing more rings that Hendrix was known to wear.
“This is somebody that looks like Jimi or is pretending to look like him, but it certainly didn’t look like a dead-on match to me,” Cross told The Associated Press during a telephone interview Tuesday.

Hendrix, who headlined the legendary Woodstock Festival in 1969, died of a drug overdose in 1970.

Seattle-based representatives for Hendrix’s estate declined to comment about the tape.

I don't see any reason why this would be considered news. If any regular person (which it seems right now it's just a regular person on the tape and not Hendrix) no one would care. Why does the media think it's so important when a sex tape hits the stands??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/30/2231171.htm?section=entertainment

Obama speaks out

Obama is trying to speak out against the comments that were made by Rev. Wright the previous day. The Rev. Wright is known as Obama's pastor that has been making a big spectacle with his recent public appearances. He has been making comments criticizing the government and hinting at racism. Obama has been trying to distance himself from this man and expresses that he doesn't have the same views as the Rev presents.


The thing that I don't like about this whole Rev. Wright thing is that the media is blowing it all out of proportion. Everywhere you look there is a new article or coverage about Re. Wright and his comments. It seems like the media wants to have the viewers connect the Reverends comments to Obama and have some kind of backlash against Obama and his campaign.
Obama has expressed many times that he doesn't follow the same views the Rev. Wright and is saddened by the fact the media has made such a big thing about it. I really believe the media should just stop focusing on the Rev. Wright and start focusing on the actual person running for President. It makes me wonder if McCain had this kind of Rev. making the same type of comments, would the media be covering it as much as they have.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

Miley Cyrus Photo Defended By Photographer

Teen heartthrob Miley Cyrus – aka Hannah Montana – expressed embarrassment about a pose in a recent provocative photograph shot by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair magazine. The celebrity photographer said, “I’m sorry that my portrait of Miley has been misinterpreted,” in a written statement. Leibovitz claims that Miley and herself looked at fashion photographs together and discussed the context of the photograph before it was shot. She says, “The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful.” A day after the 15-year-old apologized to her fans for her participation in the photo shoot, Leibovitz released this statement. Miley says in a written statement, “My goal in my music and my acting is always to make people happy. For Vanity Fair, I was so honored and thrilled to work with Annie. I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. The pictures of me on the Internet were silly, inappropriate shots.” Miley goes on to say that she appreciates fan’s support and hopes they understand that she will make mistakes and is not perfect. She also says she is truly sorry if she has disappointed anyone and most of all she has let herself down. A spokeswoman for Vanity Fair said that Miley’s parents and/or minders were on the set all day and because the photo was taken digitally, they saw it on the shoot and everyone thought it was beautiful and natural. Publicist for Cyrus said her parents departed at the end of the day, prior to the pictures being taken. One of Leibovitz’s pictures shows a topless Cyrus clutching a blanket to her chest, her back exposed, looking toward the camera over one shoulder. Miley, in response to any stipulations of this photo replies, “no” and that she thinks it’s really artsy. A Disney Channel spokesman said that the photos were meant to sell magazines and manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines.

I fully agree with Leibovitz and I think Miley is just trying to cover and protect her image. I disagree with the way Miley went about it. It seems like she’s making out that it’s Leibovitz’s fault and she or the magazine sort of made her do this provocative pose that she didn’t want to do. Bottom line, Leibovitz is an artist and has an obligation to Vanity Fair and to herself to be a credible photographer. If Miley is so afraid of the big bad industry, maybe she shouldn’t be in it, or stick to tween magazines. I understand what Miley was trying to do, which is pretty smart, but it also makes her seem flakey. If she truly felt embarrassed she never would have done it. I do not believe for one second that she really feels this way about herself, I think she’s worried about what her fans will think. She shouldn’t have to worry about this, because her fans should like her for who she is, not because she shows her back. I mean, so what it’s just her back.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/28/cyrus.photos/index.html?iref=nextin

Chinese Students in U.S. Fight View of Their Home

The New York Times this week came out with a very interesting article about Chinese exchange students at the University of Southern California who bombarded a Tibetan monk with very hostile questions regarding the situation between Tibet and China. According to these students, the media is biased and shows China in bad light. They claim that most people from Tibet are actually happy while there is really only a minority that is unhappy, that it was their own Chinese government that gave the Dalai Lama his title, and many other claims that they feel Americans are blind to. They feel the media is presenting a picture of China that is very inaccurate and as f their achievements aren't being taken into account, just the wrong doings from their government. They see Americans as being blinded by the media and having a biased attitude towards China but yet purchase their products and use their money.

I feel like these students have a right to be unhappy with the way their country is being portrayed by the media. The American media is biased and there has aways been a hostile attitude toward China. These students that actually live there see a different picture as opposed to the one that news media presents by a journalist that might only actually be there a few days and might only deal with the government or just come to cover some sort of conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/education/29student.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Naomi Campbell Arrested

Supermodel Naomi Campbell was arrested at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 in London, England for allegedly spitting at a police officer. A spokesman from the London Metropolitan Police said Campbell was arrested at the terminal for an assault on police, but she refused to disclose her identity of give her age, when asked. Campbell is a British fashion model, who has a history of getting physical with assistants and employees, and has attended an anger management program. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in a Toronto court because of an assault charge for beating an assistant while making a film in Canada in 1998. After this, Campbell expressed remorse and as released without punishment or a criminal record, under an agreement with prosecutors. Campbell allegedly slapped her next assistant in the head with her blackberry personal organizer in 2005. Campbell’s spokesman denied the incident ever happened. When her assistant accused Campbell of assault and battery, Campbell counter sued. Italian actress Yvonne Scio claimed Campbell punched her in the face and left her covered in blood. In New York City in 2006, Campbell was arrested for allegedly assaulting her housekeeper with a cell phone that resulted in a bloody head that required stitches. She was charged with second degree assault, a felony that holds a minimum sentence of one year and a maximum of seven years in prison. Campbell did not show to the required court order appearance in New York City and the judge ruled he would order her arrest if she did not turn up in court the following week. Campbell also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault for throwing her cell phone at her maid in a dispute over a missing pair of jeans in 2007.

In my opinion I think this girl seriously needs an attitude check. There is absolutely no reason for Campbell to feel like she can fly off the handle at anyone just because she is an international supermodel. It seems as though she believes she’s above anyone and everyone, including police in this latest case. I think it is totally fair that she be arrested and maybe she should do some time in jail, since it seems like the anger management programs haven’t really worked out. Just because she is a supermodel, definitely does not excuse her from the punishment she should receive and probably needs.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/04/03/naomi.campbell.arrested.ap/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Campbell

Obama’s Ex-pastor Speaks Out

Senator Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright stated, “the black church, not him, has been subjected to attacks in the 2008 presidential campaign.” He wanted to clarify some of his remarks that have sparked recent controversy while speaking before the National Press Club. Earlier in the year, Wright’s sermons were played and widely discussed on the Internet and on television. This has become a huge issue in the Democratic presidential race because Obama’s ties to his former pastor. Obama worships at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Wright was a pastor, but is now retired. Wright is quoted saying, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” during one of his sermons, in relation to him saying the U.S. brought the September 11 attacks upon itself. He was asked to explain these remarks and his response was, “Have you heard the whole sermon? … No you haven’t heard the whole sermon. That nullifies that question.” Wright continues to say that if the whole sermon had been heard, he was only quoting the ambassador from Iraq and keeping in line with biblical principles. Wright is also quoted saying, “Jesus said, ’Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic principles.” He denied that Obama has walked away from him, and chalked it up to his position as a politician and what the media has been saying. Obama’s response to what he could do to keep Wright’s comments from dragging him down was basically that he is not perfect and there is going to be folks from his past that will cause concern. In the midst of the Wright controversy, Obama gave a speech on race relations, rejecting Wright’s controversial comments but saying he could not repudiate the man himself. Sen. John McCain says he does not think Obama and Wright share the same ‘extremist views.” Wright’s final statements include, “I’ve been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I’m not tired yet.”

In my opinion I think Wright is right when he says you have to hear the whole sermon before you make your judgment. I have heard the snippets of his sermons played on news stations and they do sound intense. He also says things in not the best way sometimes, but I believe he means no harm. I don’t think it should have been a big deal with Obama either. Obama obviously has his reasons for having ties with this pastor and that is his business. Personally I’m not concerned with who Obama worships with when it comes down to his ability to be a good president.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.npc/index.html#cnnSTCText

Virginia GOP Calls DNC Ad ‘Illegal’

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) was accused of illegally coordinating with its presidential candidates making an ad attacking John McCain, CQ Politics reported. The ad depicts John McCain stating American is “Better off, than eight years ago.” The Republican Party of Virginia filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. The state GOP (Grand Old Party) charged the Democratic National Committee’s ad resulted to “in-kind” contributions to the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Democratic senators received a reported excess of the $5,000 contribution limit. The DNC refuted the claims. “This ad was an independent expenditure of the DNC. Neither campaign was consulted about the decision to run the ad . . . or any other aspect of the ad,” said General Counsel Joe Sandler. It will be a while before the complaint is resolved, because the Federal Election Commission needs commissioners to begin any investigation. They only have two seated commissioners, needing two more for business.

I’m shocked to see this ad and strongly disagree with John McCain and believe America is not better off, but just because the media says it is, we’re supposed to believe it. This ad does a good job of revealing the truth over the media so called “veil of ignorance” that it puts up. Te video of the ad was taken from a interview. I video also seems independent and i don't believe the Democratic senators received any money. It could be a sham to reuine the ads credibility get people to stray away from the ad.

Unethical Photography

In a 2003 edition of the University of Tennessee campus newspaper, the authors include an article of how there is a problem with underage drinking on campus. And to accompany this article that speaks about how more and more students are drinking underage, there is a picture of a college student with an officer that appears to be scolding him while holding his neck as if the student has done something wrong. The ethical issue with this picture is that it may not be relevant to the article, thereby casting the student in a false light. There is no evidence in the picture to suggest that the student has been drinking. Also, we do not know if the student is underage. Another thing is that the officer may not even be scolding him. They may be talking normally, but the picture may have been taken at a point where it looks as if the officer is scolding the student.

            I think that this photo is unethical, because the student’s privacy is invaded. People reading this article will most likely associate him with underage drinking. And even if he were drinking underage and the officer was writing him up for drinking, it is still embarrassing for the student to have his picture in the newspaper for underage drinking, especially because his face is clearly showing and he is easily recognizable. It is embarrassing for this student if his parents, friends, or teachers were to see him in the article; therefore, this photo is unethical. 

Poor Advertising Choice

The new Sony Playstation Portable White billboard advertisement has been one of the most controversial advertisements that has been in effect in the Netherlands. There was a huge uproar with regard to this advertisement and Sony immediately took all of the advertisements down from the billboards. The advertisement is for the new PSP white, where the previous model has been black. Sony tried to advertise that this new white version of the PSP is better than the previous black version. In order to do so, they showed a white woman who was glowing in white dominating a black man who is nearly non-existent in the advertisement, as the background is black as well. The white woman is supposed to represent the white PSP, and the black man is supposed to represent the black PSP. Although this seems like a good advertisement idea, the way that the two people in the advertisement are portrayed makes it seems like it is an advertisement for White supremacy, as the white person is choking the black person in the advertisement.

            I think this advertisement is extremely unethical. I know that the determining factor in whether an act is unethical or not is the motive, and the motive behind this advertisement was probably not to show white dominance, it definitely comes across that way. The portrayal of the white person being superior to the black person may not have been intentional, but many people can see this advertisement as offensive; therefore, this advertisement is unethical in the sense that it is culturally disrespectful. 

Video of Razor Blade Attack in Courtroom Leaked

There was a video on CNN of a convicted felon attacking a prosecuter in the courtroom and the video of it was leaked. The video shows the felon lunging at the prosecuter but what was even more interesting was that he had a razor blade. Luckily the court marshall protected the prosecuter from any major harm. However the video makes you question the security of this New York court room and the prison where he came from. It should not be easy for a convicted felon to get a weapon into a court room, and usually itThey also wanted to now how the video got leaked and posted on the internet. The marshall service uses these video tapes to help train them and identify problems. They think that the video was probably leaked to draw attention to the security problem but they are still investigating.

I think it would be interesting to find out exactly who leaked it and what there motive was. I do think that by leaking the video it does draw attention to making sure that security in federal court rooms is always tight and that there aren;t any loop holes. This could have been a very serious injury to this women and the proper steps should be taken to make sure this never happens again. I think that even though it was a leaked video that sometimes things like this help the media in showing areas that need to be paid attention to, however, in the video it says that the security is usually very tight in the courts. Therefore I don't think there is any reason for anyone to start fearing everyone next time they go in a courtroom, but it is a good way to see areas that need improvement. Also showing it publicly like this makes those in charge accountable for fixing these problems.

New York Post Story on Obama/Sharpton Falsified

A FoxNews.com story today berated a story written in the New York Post regarding Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, and the Sean Bell verdict last week. Sean Bell was an African American man who was shot and killed outside a New York City nightclub last November; three police officers were charged with the crime. Last weeks verdict found the police officers innocent of the crime, a decision that was opposed by Sharpton and others. The Post article reported that Sharpton criticized Obama for siding with the court system, saying Obama was using it as an "opportunity to grandstand in front of white people". Charlie King, national director of Sharpton's National Action Network, denied all statements that Sharpton had criticized Obama and stated, in fact, that Obama and Sharpton had a rational discussion after the verdict regarding crime rates. The New York Post retracted its article due to these statements and the obvious inaccuracies of their unnamed source.

There are a few interesting ethical point to mention in regards to this article. First of all it illustrates the importance of checking the reputability of your sources as well as the truthfulness of their statements. The New York Post should have spent more time fact checking this story, especially considering this story was probably not a front page story.

A second ethical issue is actually in this story written by FoxNews.com. When describing the incident between Sean Bell and the Police that took place in November, the author writes, "Bell was shot by the officers outside a Queens strip club in November." This is followed by the statement that the officers were found innocent last week, and while this verdict is disputed; it is risky to openly denounce the courts ruling.

The third ethical issue, although very minuscule compared to the other two, is the picture this article used with the story. The picture is of Al Sharpton and Barack Obama hugging a smiling and underneath the caption states that it was taken in 2007. While it is not really an issue because the author makes it known that this is an old photo, it should be noted that this is eyewash and perhaps Fox News should take new photos for each story.

Hitman

This advertisement for the game Hitman has caused quite a bit of controversy over the time that it was in circulation, and it was soon after pulled from the campaign. The advertisement depicts a Caucasian female wearing only lingerie in a bed. The woman also has a bullet hole in the center of her forehead, which shows that she has been executed and murdered. The text above the picture says “Beautifully Executed.” The word “beautifully” refers to both the woman, as she is portrayed to be beautiful, but also because the execution wound in her head is very clean and appears to be done so with little effort.

            I think this advertisement is unethical for multiple reasons. First of all, the fact that it is a woman that has been shot by a hitMAN implies male dominance over females. This is unethical because it is discriminating by gender. Then, this advertisement is glorifying this execution. The advertisement is showing that shooting women in the cool thing to do, as is glorifies the execution by saying it was “beautifully executed.” This is portraying the wrong message to people playing the video game and may influence behavior outside of the game. Lastly, the advertisement is so realistic that the image blurs the difference between what is video game and what is reality. The advertisement looks like a real picture of a dead woman, and the fact that the advertisement still glorifies this is extremely unethical and should not be allowed to be in circulation for children to see. 

Good advertising? Tell me what you think!

A blogger named Paula Zargaj-Reynolds on Typepad.com has an extensive blog about the aspects of the advertising. Many of her blogs contain pictures that we would classify as "shockvertising" and some of her personal commentary . A few ads in particular caught my eye. The very first one concerned me the most. It was a picture of 2 lit cigarettes standing side by side (eerily, and purposely) resembling the World trade centers on that horrible day in 2001 that Americans will never forget. The caption that accompanied the image read: "Terrorism-related deaths since 2001: 11,377. Tobacco-related deaths since 2001: 30,000,000."

It was an ad meant to drive home the potentially fatal consequences of smoking. Anyone who views it is sure to get the message, but the question remains.....was this approach appropriate?
My opinion is a resounding "NO"!

Looking further on, I saw that the ad did not originate in the US (which I figured in the first place).
It was ran by an advertising agency called DDB New Zealand.

It angers me sometimes to see ads like the previously mentioned. While I understand that it is crucial for ad agencies to get their message across in a clear, concise, and attention grabbing manner it all to often comes at the expense of others.

While many New Zealand natives would most likely be as disturbed by the image, many American citizens would be. I just don't understand how people could do things like that with such ease just because it does not affect them directly.
I am curious to know what you guys feel about this ad.....does it bother you?

Link to the ad:

Running the Wright Ad

February 26, 2008

The North Carolina Republican Party continues to stand by their decision to run a controversial television ad a week prior to the states May 6th primary calling, despite a clear disapproval by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain. The ad, which aims to portray Sen. Obama as an "extreme" presidential candidate, contains a clip of a sermon given by his former pastor in which he was said to have called on God to condemn America.

Sen. McCain took a strong stand against the run of the ad, stating that"The Republican Party of the state of North Carolina is dead wrong," he said on CBS' "The Early Show." "I'll do everything in my power to make sure not only they stop it, but that kind of leadership is rejected."He also argues that this ad will do nothing but "harm the Republican cause".
However Linda Daves, chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, insists that since the ad is being run in light of the gubernatorial race, Sen. McCain need not get involved.

In response to this "small" disparity in advertising, Sen. McCain's ability to "control" his own party is being questioned; the last kind of response that this Presidential hopeful needs.

You can bet that the Democrats took advantage of this disagreement within the party and belittled Sen. McCain's attempt to stop the ad, claiming that doing "everything [he could]" consisted simply of sending an e-mail to the state party chair.

In my opinion, if the Republican party members want to maintain their position as a majority and keep their " edge", they should be careful to remain on the same page and avoid conflict as much as possible, especially situations which undermine the authority of their presidential hopeful. After all, if he cannot get full support from his own party, then people might get the impression that he will have difficulty handling the power that comes with being the president of the United States.

It is the responsibility of those in charge of political advertising to be sure to think of all the repercussions that may occur as a result of running such a controversial ad, and if it is important enough to Sen. John McCain, then it is important enough not to take lightly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080426/NATION/978732952/1001

AD-verse consequences for NC Obama endorsers

A political ad run by the North Carolina republican party shocked many who saw it.
The ad was a direct attack on Beth Perdue and Richard Moore (two NC democratic candidates running for governor ).
The ad criticized both candidates for endorsing Barack Obama in the race to the presidency.
It is fair to say that the ad was a triple attack.Although it was a clear attack on the two candidates (Perdue and Moore) , it went even further and denounced Obama for his association with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
The ad suggested that because the two candidates endorsed Obama, they were siding with Wright by association…..which subliminally says they are unpatriotic.
According to numerous sources,Senator John McCain asked the NC GOP to do away with the ad by stating the following:


"The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.”




In my opinion this ad is tasteless, and childish. I do not support attack ads such as this one because to me it suggest that those responsible for them (in this case the NC republican party) are incapable of coming up with a legitimate reason why certain candidates are not ideal for the state.
The only way they feel they can get a leg up is to put out negative, character tarnishing ads that often have no real standing when all of the juvenile commentary is ripped away.

Little Spears, Big Drama

This article talks about Jamie Lynn Spears the teen star of Nickelodeons show Zoey 101. Spears plays a third year student at the school Pacific Coast. She is 16 years old and pregnant. This article takes the fact that she is going to be a teen mother to another level. It says that she is pregnant with her boyfriend, of many years, child.

Her boyfriend is said to be 18 years old and she had a scare of him being arrested because California is not a consent to sex state. He would have been charged of statutory rape, but since they did not know where the fornication was done they could not charge him. They are apparently engaged and looking for a house.

I honestly believe that this matter was taken out of control. In 2004 72.2 pregnancies out of 1,000 were of women and girls between the ages of 15 and 19, this was the all time low in the nation. So, the mere fact that she is a celebrity means that she must be followed and every detail about her pregnancy should be detailed.

In my middle school 40% of our 8^th grade class graduated either having a child or pregnant. Many of which did not stay with the father and some did not even speak to them anymore. The fact that Spears is now happily engaged to the father of her soon to be child should be a good thing, but instead the public are looking down upon her for taking responsibility and being an adult about the situation. Her hometown is behind her and frankly so am I. To her I say good job! It is difficult being a celebrity and when you make mistakes whether its tripping down stairs or forgetting to use a condom the media condemn you as if it is their job to judge who you are.

Basically, the media took the fact that she is a teen that is pregnant way out of context and I don’t believe Nickelodeon should have cancelled her show because she is not a good role model. Kids in this day and age have a good concept on what is right and wrong. They know that a show is just a show and if it goes off air and comes back it doesn’t mean that the person is bad, but by canceling the show it shows that she has done something horribly wrong. I don’t think that was quite necessary, it was an entertaining show and they should bring it back after she has settled with her child.

*teen pregnancy statistics*
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=11009&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1

*Jamie Lynn spears article*
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20167059,00.html

Viva Obama!

Barack Obama’s campaign strategy has taken new feats. His commercial for the Latin American voters seems to go a bit far. It stars a mariachi band singing as song about him and how voting for him will change our nation for the better. The song goes on talking about how he is a candidate that fights for what the people want and to go out and vote for him because he is here to help the hard workers of the nation. The whole song is in Spanish set to a mariachi tune. In the video he has factory workers, construction crews, mechanics, kitchen crews and other laborers as well as business men and office workers all of which are Hispanic holding up signs shouting “viva!”

The songs lyrics are as follows: “al candidato quien es barack obama este corrido le canto con el alma humilde fue nacido tambien sin pretención empezo por las calles de chicago trabajando pa' lograr una visión pa' proteger la gente trabajadora y traernos todos juntos en esta gran nación viva obama, viva! viva obama, viva! familias unidas, seguras y hasta con plan de salud viva obama,viva! viva obama, viva! un candidato luchando por nuestra nación nada importa si eres de san antonio nada importa si eres de corpus christi de dallas o del valle de huston o del paso lo que importa es que votemos por obama porque su lucha tambien es nuestra lucha y hoy que tenemos la urgencia para un cambio, vamos todos unidas con nuestro gran amigo viva obama, viva! viva obama, viva! familias unidas, seguras y hasta con plan de salud viva obama, viva! viva obama, viva! un candidato luchando por nuestra nación”

The song translated roughly says: “to the candidate who is barack obama this song I sing to him with my humble soul that was born also without pretension I begin along the streets of Chicago working to achieve a vision to protect the hard-working people and to bring us all together in this great lively nation obama, live! live obama, live! sure, united families and even with plan of life health obama, live! live obama, live! a candidate fighting for our nation he believes your important if you are of San antonio important if are of corpus christi of mow or of the valley of huston or of the step what is important is that we vote for obama because its our fight also and is our fight today that we have the urgency for a change, we go all united with our great alive friend obama, alive! alive obama, alive! sure, united families and even with plan of health I live! alive obama, alive! a candidate fighting for our nation
I honestly believe that this was target marketing. I could understand if the ad was directed to teens, minorities, or a group that includes a variety of people but having a campaign ad directed to a certain nationality of people is discrimination in itself.

here's the youtube link to the commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fd-MVU4vtU&feature=related

Visions of war (1 war 2 perspectives)

ript : 1 ½ - 2 minutes long.

Recently, AlJezzera (a television network head quartered in Doha Qatar) did a segment on the differences between the “western worlds” coverage of the war and that of Arab nations.

Throughout the segment, it was suggested that Arab people wanted to know about “plight” of their people.
While on the other hand, American citizens/western citizens preferred to see America as being victorious in its mission.
The two entities presented the realities of the situation in 2 completely different ways…..but which one was true?
As discussed in many of our classes, the truth is all about perspective.
AlJezzera was criticized by many, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld who accused the AlJezzera network and other Arab media for being “vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable” in their approach to covering the war.
Rumsfelds opinion was echoed by American citizens who were taken back by the Arab medias’ blunt approach to reporting and going as far as broadcasting images of American POWs.

One guest on the show raised a very important point.
Many U.S. networks were less inclined to cover civilian casualties and be more critical of U.S. government actions because advertisers were threatening to cancel their advertisements.

There was much more said in the segment, but this just goes to show that people see things in different ways. We have to ask ourselves the question……” if the shoe were on the other foot would I see the same truth?
Last but not least, I think it is terrible that advertisers possess so much power over networks and their messages. Journalism and it's subcategories are supposed to be for the people, but when advertisers have the power to control the message or the omission of a message, networks are no longer fulfilling their duty . While it is great that we get so much information for minimal cost, sometimes I have to wonder......would an untainted perspective be worth an additional monetary cost to the public? Maybe.....but perhaps we will never know,becuase it seems that advertising is here to stay.

Tom Ford's Naughty Menswear Ad

Tom Ford is a fashion designer who is known for his very controversial fashion ads. His most recent ad features a young man dressed in a suit holding a beer and a cigar in his hand while a completely nude woman is holding him from his private parts. This ad is very sexually explicit and isn't something that should be in public places where children could see it. Children, especially young children are very impressionable and ads like these could cause an impact on them. Our culture is influenced by the media and sexual ads like these change the norms and what we as a society deem acceptable. The more sexually explict media there is, the view towards sex becomes as making it even more acceptable. The pressure to make things and people more sexy increases and that's when we see things such as 15 year old stars posing nude in order to seem "artistic" and we as a society see it as acceptable since we are so used to seeing sex all around us. We begin to see sexual ads as nothing more than being artistic and the artist as having the freedom to do whatever he wants without taking into account the effect it could have on society.

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/tom-ford-menswear-ad

Disney Star on Vanity Fair, big deal or not?

Miley Cyrus is the fifth-teen year old star from the hit show Hannah Montana that airs on the Disney Channel. Miley Cyrus was recently photographed for the June issue of Vanity Fair, by photographer Annie Leibovitz. The photos have not yet been released on hard copy and they have already raised some controversy. The pictures that Miley posed for appear as though she is only covered up with a blanket, and shows her bare back. The photos appear as though they are very mature for the fifth-teen year old. Her show Hannah Montana is viewed by children whose ages range from 6 to 14. Is the controversy that is happening with these photos an overreaction or was it a bad judgment of Miley and her parents to allow these adult like photos to be taken and published? Miley has in fact apologized for the reaction that these photos have received. She said that she was sorry if the photos offend anyone, and that she will eventually make mistakes and it is about learning from them. Cyrus and Leibovitz intended these photos to be artistic. They were not meant to be offence and exploit Miley’s sexually. I can see it both ways. Vanity Fair does have a collection of photos from that day on their website and it does not seem to be a huge deal that only her bare back is shown. I also think that fifteen is a transitional age, and I am sure that Cyrus is trying to reach out to a larger audience who is older in age. The older audience will be the ones reading Vanity Fair and not her 6 to 14 year old young fans. Then on the other hand, it is some what a problem because she has such a young audience currently, and is an actress form the Disney Channel, it is not like a Disney star to be showing a more sexual side of them. I just do not think an apology was necessary from Miley, the media just tries to point out little things and blow them out of proportion.

Press seems to be more and more concerned with Jeremiah Wright

A year ago hardly anyone outside the city of Chicago had heard of the reverend Jeremiah Wright. However, with one of Wright's former congregation members, Barack Obama, running for president the former has the become the latter's Billy Carter. The press seems more than eager to publish stories about Wright. In an address to the NAACP last night Wright gave a fiery speech endorses his style of black churches. The reverend is clearly riding Obama's coattails, earning a story in the New York Times this morning regarding his speech last night. Wright has eagerly seized the opportunity to advance his own position seemingly without any regard for Obama's face. Obama has tried time and time again to seperate himself from the reverend, but Wright continues to use his connection to the candidate to stay in the spotlight. The presses obsession with the reverend is certainly fanning the flames of the situation, as their coverage keeps him relevant for the time being. Hopefully the press will shift away from the negative and irrelevant to the issues at hand in this election, but judging from how things have gone so far it is unlikely.

YouTube Helps Bring Media Attention to Bad Military Living Conditions

On CNN today there was an article about how a father of a U.S. military Sargeant posted a video YouTube of how disgusting barracks were that his son had to live in. After returning from a 15- month deployment in Afghanistan his son was staying in barracks with leaking sewage gas pipes, flooding and damaged toilets, mold growing on the walls, and lead based paint chipping on the walls. The building that the soldiers live in is 50 years old and a construction project for barracks was delayed. Many of the militaries officials have agreed that these living conditions are unacceptable and that they need to be fixed immediately. The father of the Sargeant said that he didn't want anyone to get fired, but that he just wanted it fixed. He also commented by saying that,"They have the slowest contractors in the world," adding,"that people in jail live in better conditions."
I think that the biggest thing this article shows is that posting things on places like YouTube can be helpful in getting things noticed. It was a way for this story to get put out so the problem could be addressed. I think without people being able to post what they think is important alot of things would go unnoticed. This isn't a small thing, but a very big deal that people coming back from supporting our country are living worse than some of our criminals. I think it is important for us to be able to put out what we want because things like this need to be shown. I wonder how many times people have tried to have a voice about issues liek this and haven't been able to be heard. The internet has made it possible for the people to make their own media outlets and publicize things that are important. I think this is a good example of how sometimes we have to take matters into are own hands to make sure important things get covered by the media.

Republican National Committee Upset Over Ad

The Republican National Committee has demanded that TV networks stop running an ad they think falsely accuses John McCain of wanting a 100 year war. The ad in question is one being ran by the Democratic Party, “The ad says President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, then plays a clip of McCain saying, ‘Maybe 100. That’d be fine with me,’” says an article by the Associated Press. The issue is that the RNC considers the clip to be a misrepresentation of what McCain actually said. So what did he say? In McCain’s answer to a question about Bush’s theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years he said, “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where, al Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” The Democratic Party has denied the accusations that anything may be misleading or false about the ad. I think this is an unethical manipulation of words to mislead people who are not informed enough to know the context under which the words were stated. McCain has come under a lot of fire for the statement he made and rightfully so, but I think the lengths to which political ads will go is just insulting to anyone who considers themselves an intelligent member of society.

Local Obama supporter shocked to see herself in Hillary ad

One of the child actors in Hillary Clinton's "red-phone ads," speaks against the ad as they are in support of Barack Obama. The local broad casting station wrote the story in the hometown of the actor, Bonney Lake, Washington. Casey Knowles is the first young girl featured in the ad, sleeping peacefully. The ad shows a sleeping child and asks voters who they would want to see answering a 3 a.m. emergency phone call to the White House. Knowles first saw the ad with her family watching The Dialy Show with Jon Stewart. The ironic part is that Knowles is almost 18 now and plans to vote for Senator Barack Obama in favor of his politics over Hillary's. The ad used stock footage from eight years ago of Knowles when she worked as a TV extra and the footage is now owned by Getty Images and used by the Clinton campaign. "I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad," she said. While she takes minor offense to the ad, she knows the footage could be used anyway desired by who owns it.
This story sheds negative light on Hilary Clinton's campaign especially for an ad that may have kept Hilary from a defeat to Obama. I think the teen speaking out about the ad presents a dilemma when deciding to use the ad for further use. I believe the ad put pressure on the other candidates but this story allowed the ad to back fire on Hilary judging her character. Casey Knowles also represents the youths support for Barack Obama and his politics. Here is a video clip of the story.

Republican National Committee Upset Over Ad

The Republican National Committee has demanded that TV networks stop running an ad they think falsely accuses John McCain of wanting a 100 year war. The ad in question is one being ran by the Democratic Party, “The ad says President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years, then plays a clip of McCain saying, ‘Maybe 100. That’d be fine with me,’” says an article by the Associated Press. The issue is that the RNC considers the clip to be a misrepresentation of what McCain actually said. So what did he say? In McCain’s answer to a question about Bush’s theory that troops could be in Iraq for 50 years he said, “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’d be fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where, al Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” The Democratic Party has denied the accusations that anything may be misleading or false about the ad. I think this is an unethical manipulation of words to mislead people who are not informed enough to know the context under which the words were stated. McCain has come under a lot of fire for the statement he made and rightfully so, but I think the lengths to which political ads will go is just insulting to anyone who considers themselves an intelligent member of society.

Advertisers BLEEPING Tactics

This from Budweiser has received over 2,762,651 views on YouTube alone. It seems that content creators are tired of the restraints placed on them by the FCC and they are looking for a way to walk around the rules. More and more we're seeing TV and Radio use Bleeps or other means of self censorship to cover up things that would be deemed offensive. But does that really take away the impact that it has on us?
For example when you are watching a TV show and they Bleep out an explicit word, doesn't it just make you say that word in your head? Or when your listening to the radio and theirs a lyric that coming up that you know is going to be different because it's foul, don't you just sing the lyric you know? It seems that Madison Avenue is working hard to gain attention again by walking the line of obscenity. And I have to admit it, it's entertaining.
It's obvious that Budweiser created this ad not to be shown on TV but to be on the internet, as a piece of viral marketing. It works as just that. The video has been seen online by more people then would ever see it on TV. It seems that advertisers will be moving in this direction from now on. Releasing one ad for TV and one for the internet only.
Domain register GoDaddy.com has been using this tactic for a few years now with it's Super Bowl Ads. Each TV ad tells viewers to goto their site to see the Ads that TV wouldn't air. But will this shift in "Blue" advertising bring the rest of the marketplace to a point where they will need to be obscene to be funny and seen?

Dr. Phil has some conflicts of interest

On Sunday, April 13, Fox News reported on their website that Dr. Phil McGraw, the television talk show host, bailed out ones of the girls charged with violently beating their classmate.
The attack on Florida teen Victoria Lindsay involved eight other teens, who filmed the incident and posted it to YouTube.
A representative of the Dr. Phil show bailed out Mercades Nichols, and walked with her and her family away from the jail.
However, the Dr. Phil show released a statement saying that bailing Nichols out of jail was “a violation of the show’s rules” and the show would not air Nichols’ story. The statement also said that staff members of the show broke the show’s guidelines by bailing Nichols out, and that those staff members would have the guidelines “reiterated” to them.
This incident involves a clear conflict of interest. The statement said that it was staff members who acted on bailing Nichols out, but those staff members are representing the Dr. Phil Show, and therefore representing Dr. Phil himself. Anyone just scanning the news might think it was Dr. Phil who went into the jail and bailed the girl out. He could have easily done that for more publicity. This case shines a negative light on Dr. Phil, because now it seems he’s supporting a criminal. If he or his staff members wanted to do a story on one of the criminals involved, I think they should have at least waited until their court cases/trials were settled. If one of their values is ‘publicity’ (as in the Potter Box values) they would have gotten publicity without casting a negative image on their show.

Free Press

The Constitution guarantees free press and free expression without government regulation. But, this does not mean media has a free-for-all. There are standards. In the journal I read, "experts explore the central role of media ethics as the core values which shape the functioning of US journalism."

While we have free media, some governments take on the role of primary regulator of the media in other countries. Here in the US, "our solution has ben to rely on market forces, competition, responsibility, and a highly evolved set of self-controls that we call journalism ethics." Broadcast media and the Internet have created a new set of challenges. Journalists have a vital role to provide the public with understanding knowledge. While the system of standards must guide their work, this is not always the case.

Ethical issues uprise everyday in journalism, PR, and other sources and whether someone tries to follow them or not is a huge issue. When is it enough to cross the line, or barely teeter on it. There is something that an ethic journalist, public relations assistant should focus on and that is the good decision that benefits the good of the people.

OMFG It's Gossip Girl

Ethical Issues for the American Media in Times of National Emergency

(THIS IS FROM AN ARTICLE IN oct 2001)

Bush's national security advisor asked television networks to refrain from broadcasting verbatim, entire tapes containing lengthy statements by Osama Bn Laden.

The writer of the article's intention was to examine the ethical issues the Bush adminstration raised for reporters, editors and publishers about how stories are covered revolving around Bin Laden. He states that the questions are not whether the media have legal rights to report whatever they find newsworthy, the issue is that the first amendment guarantees this and media managers should employ that freedom is in their own ethical decisions and professionally responsible.

While I do feel that this article brings up a good point, I do think that the point of Bush's advisor asking the "favor" because there are some things we need to know and want to know. Alas, I have used something I have learned! The need to know some things that are going on with the War on Terror is important, but some things are MEANT to be hushed and quiet. I feel as though we want to know so much, but are so liberal to understand it that it wouldn't even matter anyways.

Osama... A Double Standard?

"When it comes to the war on terrorism-one would hope- everyone should adhere to the same standards."-- PARR Center UNC

When a terrorist, less known than Osama, is accussed of something by a country other than the United States, the US seems to be "upset". The article states that we find it not surprising that one wonders whether terrorism names a definite and identifiable kind of act, or is it a politcally charged term used to capture a set of certain events. The concerns of thsi article state that if we do not have a good answer for what is considered terrorism, we may not have a justification to accept or promote another country's war on terror, while rejecting some other country's.

Well, I do feel that as a citizen of the US and as a girlfriend of a marine, I feel as though the US is the most prepared for building other countries to be better. I do feel as though we are better equipped to handle the acts of terrorism because of our highly trained militia, if you will. Please consider that we will never fully be capable of running another country. As I have been saying, we are fighting a war we cannot win and just as Britain could not control us from across the Atlantic in the 1700's, what makes us think that Iraq will be any different.

Free for all Wireless!

This issue hardly even comes up and it could be too undermined for people to really know the problem. For those of you who have wireless you know how sometimes it can get a bit expensive. How about for those of you who just use your neighbors? Free wireless kicks ass right?

Unprotected wireless connections are reported mostly in neighborhoods and apartment complexes. 36 percent of people did not consider using a neighbors wireless connection as stealing. While this may depend on the particulars of each case, heavy downloading interrupts, slows, and blocks the owners access to the internet sometimes.

Some people defend their actions by stating that if people don't block their wireless with a password, then itt is their fault that the internet is "borrowed" from other neighbors.

Since when is getting something for free when someone else has paid for it (without consent) not stealing??

The "Hillary Watch"

The first time Hillary Clinton campaigned for the Senate in New York, she violated campaign finance laws by failing to report almost $2 million in contributions.
Judicial Watch then filed an official complaint against Hillary Clinton with the Senate Ethics Committee and began a public pressure campaign on the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission. (In response to the Judicial Watch complaint, the Federal Election Commission fined Hillary’s Senate campaign fundraising operation $35,000 for failing to accurately report the contributions.)
Senate Fundrasing Data
Last report: December 31, 2007
2003-2008 Total Receipts: $118,562,366
2003-2008 Total Spent: $91,112,790
Cash on Hand: $38,470,662
Debts: $4,987,425
Fundraising by Cycle:
2006: $39,833,526
2004: $102,784,459
2002: $1,455,747
The purpose of “Hillary Watch” is to closely monitor Hillary Clinton activities and filings for any irregularities and reporting violations. Judicial Watch will take action should any problems be discovered. (Judicial Watch is also monitoring other presidential candidates with ethical issues, including Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Rudolph Giuliani, and John McCain.)
“Judicial Watch does not support nor endorse candidates and Hillary has every right to run for office, but Judicial Watch has every right to ensure she is held accountable to the rule of the laws,” said JW President Tom Fitton. "Hillary is free to run for president. But Americans are free to ask the tough questions and to hold her to account for her past crimes and ethical transgressions."


http://www.judicialwatch.org/hillarywatch.shtml

ID at the polls

Today the Supreme court ruled that requiring a voter ID card was within the rights of the constitution. Many states are saying that it may keep minorities from being able to cast their vote. Many states such as Indiana have strict photo ID regulations at their polls. They say they require this prevent fraud.

The court had a close ruling of 6-3.

I feel that in this day you must have an ID present to vote. I personally have never had the chance to go vote yet but when I do this year I am sure I will have a better perspective. But, as of right now I feel like a state asking you to prove your identity before you vote for a leader of this country is completely fine.

Just as much as people complain about how many citizens are not voting, I'd like to take the chance and complain about how many non-U.S. citizens could be voting.

Nominees and Fuel taxes

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have both stated that they would support a federal tax holiday where they would not charge a federal tax on fuel from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The tax on fuel right now is 18.4 on unleaded fuel and 24.4 on diesel fuel. This plan was originally proposed by McCain and since then Hillary has jumped on the wagon.

Now this sounds like a real fantastic idea at first, but then you must realize that this is where an estimated $10 billion comes from for federal revenue. Hillary says that she would create another tax and basically make the oil companies make up for this lost money. Which any genius with more than 6 brain cells would be able to tell that this means the oil companies are just going to charge more at the pump during this "tax holiday". Meaning we pay pretty much the same at the pump. If you don't know how gas prices work then here is a little break down. Actual cost of the fuel, state tax, federal tax, and other fees from the oil company. Some states also have additional fees such as California's environmental taxes.

If the American people would really like to complain they should really do the research and see how fuel prices really are not that bad in this country.

These figures as of the end of 2007. U.S. dollar/gallon
Finland...................$7.98
Hong Kong.............$7.56
Germany................$8.63
United Kingdom....$8.18
Turkey...................$10.13
USA.........................$3.49

Saudi Arabia..........$0.45

Obama does not support this "tax holiday" :)

In basketball-crazy Indiana, Barack Obama ends day shooting hoops

For Barack Obama, figuring out how to cap a long campaign day in basketball-crazy Indiana was easy; you shoot some hoops. After a noisy campaign rally, Obama donned sweat pants and a "USMC" shirt for a little action on the courts, with no ordinary companions. His 3-on-3 team included Alison Bales, a member of the WNBA's Indiana Fever. Blake Hancock, a Marion high schooler was picked to take part in the game because he collected 150 voter registration forms, and he picked some high school friends and they joined Obama for about 15 minutes of half-court hoops. Obama is noted for using basketball to get his exercise and is said to be a fierce competitor. He kept up with the younger competitors, but at one point joked with medics standing by that they might be needed.

And he proved to be effective, scoring four baskets that included a nifty left-handed three-pointer, along with four rebounds and a couple of steals. In what he'll certainly interpret as a sign of things to come in Indiana — which is in the next round of primaries May 6 — Obama's team won 15-5

McCain raps Obama as insensitive to poor people

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues. The GOP nominee-in-waiting rapped his Democratic rival for opposing his idea to suspend the tax on fuel during the summer, a proposal that McCain believes will particularly help low-income people who usually have older cars that guzzle more gas.

"I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his opposition to giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives," McCain said. "Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy."

The Arizona senator dodged questions about his record on the Bush administration's tax cuts he initially opposed them but now supports extending them — by again criticizing Obama.

"Sen. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax, which would have a direct effect on 100 million Americans," McCain said. "That means he has no understanding of the economy and that he is totally insensitive to the hopes and dreams and ambitions of 100 million Americans who will be affected by his almost doubling of the capital gains tax."

Clinton or Obama must drop out ...

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama must drop out of the Democratic presidential race after the June primaries in order to unify the party by the convention and win the election in November. But Dean didn't say which candidate should drop out, only that it should happen after primary voters have been to the polls.

"We want the voters to have their say. That's over on June 3," Dean said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Dean also said that while the party rules say Democratic superdelegates can wait until the party's August 25 convention to make up their minds, that would be too late to unify the party and defeat the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Obama has more delegates and popular votes than Clinton, but she is also fresh off a big-state win in Pennsylvania. Dean said that "none of the so-called party elders I talked to" think the contest should go until the convention. "I agree with that," Dean said.

"We've got nine more primaries ... Five hundred of the 800 unpledged delegates have already said who they are for. The remaining 300 will do that by the end of June and we'll know who our nominee is and that's what we need to do," Dean said on NBC's "Today" show.

"Obama's ex- pastor gives fiery speech to NAACP"

In an article that I found on the CNN website called “Obama’s ex-pastor gives fiery speech to the NAACP”http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/27/obama.wright.ap/index.html gives another look into the views of Wright. The former pastor of Barack Obama told an audience of 10,000 people at a NAACP dinner on Sunday that despite what his critics say he is descriptive, not divisive, when he speaks about racial injustices. Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. said “I describe the conditions in this country.” He also made a very strong statement where he pronounced,” I am not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate owned media made it seem like I am running for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I’ve been running for Jesus a long time, and I’m not tired yet.” By speaking at the event Wright was following in the footsteps of Obama and the senator’s rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s a $150-a-plate fundraiser named as America’s largest sit down dinner.
After becoming an issue in the Presidential race in March when the circulation of videos of old sermons in which he accused the U.S government of racism I think it was important for him to speak and make his purpose clear. I feel that after his speech he may have made an influence on the way people view Obama. I feel that people may look back on the way the media handled the situation, and take a closer look at Obama’s views verse his old pastor. At the end of his speech Wright got a long and loud standing ovation. Wright is planed to speak again on Monday to the National Press Club in Washington. I am sure that there will be many more articles coming to show the views of Wright and to confirm that he may in fact be very different from Obama.

She's Just Being Miley

The internet celebrity gossip sphere is a storm with comment about Miley Cyrus's new revealing photo in Junes Vanity Fair. Miley Cyrus, the 15 year old singer/actress is caught in a avalanche of press as the photo was revealed first in an "Entertainment Tonight" TV promo and then in a New York Times article Sunday. Immediately after the article was released, and began being reposted on other sites, Ms. Cyrus's handlers at Disney released her official statement saying:

“I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be ‘artistic’ and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed. I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.”

Vanity Fair, known for looking for controversy, stands by their actions saying that parents and minders were on set the whole shoot, and approved of the photo. The article in Vanity Fair has a quote from Miley saying that the photo was taken to be artistic and was not meant to be "Skanky".
The photo, taken by famed artist Annie Leibovitz, is really tame compared to many of the scandals floating around the internet (see post by Radar) but does call into question the motive behind Vanity Fair to take such a photograph. One can say that the photo is not artistic, that's always in the eye of the beholder, but it seems that Vanity Fair may have been trying to create controversy to sell magazines. That was the view taken by Disney.
This incident calls into question whether or not society is asking to much from our celebrities and their coverage. Last week the controversy was over pictures of Miley flashing her green bra. It seems that the only photos that Miley can get published now will be controversial ones. But when is enough enough?

CBS+CNN=Lazy Reporting

The NYT reported on April 8th that CBS was in talks with CNN over the possible sharing of news reporters. CBS would be looking to save money by "outsourcing" some of it's reporting to CNN new persons. Specifically merging teams of reporting overseas and in less "active" locations. CBS would keep all of it's identity in the reports but would simply use the large base of CNN corespondents to help build it's reporting staff while saving costs. CBS is looking to save money since signing Katie Couric to a $15 million a year contract.
It seems the journalism today is becoming more like that rest of the content industry everyday. For those that don't like the AP system of reporting, (which for some seems like professional copy and pasting), journalistic outsourcing really doesn't sit well either. It's understandable that CBS doesn't want to keep paying for this large news teams when they can buy the content that is already available via CNN. But when does this break down the essential rule of journalism, diversity. By having more than one news agency out at a scene, you receive two different perspectives on the events. This helps to element bias or at least make it apparent to the readers.
But by doing this they are creating a world and climate where we say it's O.K. for our society to receive it's news from central organizations. This is a slippery rope, and we must be prepared for it's conclusion. We should expect diversity in reporting from our media, and the increase of the consolidation of the US's news agencies is not one of them.

Whose watching you?

The article talks about how Britney Spears just ended her marriage and how the new issue in her life is paparazzi. It goes on talking about how her body guard became violent with a paparazzi when leaving a party with Spears.

I honestly believe that this whole article was unnecessary. The media takes these things way out of context. The way the paparazzi follow people like Britney Spears and other celebrities is disgusting and annoying.

I realize that people are entertained by their every move, but the way they get information is very irresponsible. Spears began to scream into a “cuss-filled tirade” and was quoted to say “I’m going to kill you”, whether the quote was true or false it was stated in anger. People have emotions and just because they are pop stars do not make them any more human then the next person.

In conclusion, I believe that these media journalists and paparazzi need to find better methods of getting their information and stop harassing stars which lead them to becoming crazy and paranoid to just go to the bathroom.

http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=723dc0d8-7eba-4335-993f-8e665628457f

Checkbook Journalism; Standard Operating Procedure?

Filmmaker Errol Morris has been questioned this week about his most recent film, a documentary on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal called “Standard Operating Procedure.” Morris has admitted that several of the interviewees in the film were paid to recount the events at the now infamous prison. An article in the New York Times by Michael Cieply and Ben Sisario quoted Morris as saying, “I paid the ‘bad apples’ because they asked to be paid, and they would not have been interviewed otherwise.” Morris would not divulge any information regarding the amount of money paid or which of the interviewees were paid. The article explains that in American newspapers, magazines, and TV news it is usually not considered ethical to pay off subjects of interviews because of, “The belief that the credibility of interviewees diminishes when money changes hands and that these people will provide the answers they think are desired rather than the truth.” The article also says that among documentarians the practice has been more common place in past years. One reason this instance has come under more serious scrutiny is because of the book that is linked to the film which was adapted in The New Yorker. The editor of the The New Yorker said that, “When stuff is done as first-order material of The New Yorker, which is to say, by our people or by freelancers who get an assignment, it is never done. And if it was done, I wouldn’t publish it, period.” Some people have said that Morris should have included a statement at the end of the film informing viewers of the payment; which the authors note that other documentaries have done. I think that in this instance it does cross an ethical boundary, although it would be debatable how serious that boundary might be. With the topic of this film being so dramatic and politically charged I think that paying subjects could easily damage the legitimacy of the interviews and, in turn, the film itself.

Ad Wars in Politics

There was an article on CNN about the amount of money Clinton and Obama are spending on advertising. It said that Obama is close to $70 million dollars already spent on advertising. To give you an idea of how high that is John Kerry only spent $20 million on advertising in his campaign. So why are they spending so much this year? Is it because it is a close race between the two and they are trying to get the last leg up? That is probably one reason because McCain has only spent $10 million on ads. The ad also said that even though Obama is spending more it doesn't seem like his ads are having as much of an impression. They said that it seems that Hilary is "dictating the tempo" with her last few ads like the 3am commercial. They said that this ad helped her out in the pennsylvania primaries because it brought up the idea that she has more experience to handle that 3am phone call.
I think one reason Obama is spending so much money on advertising is because his campaign realizes how much effect the media and advertising can have on a campaign. Like we said before when the media chooses a front runner it is usually a self fullfilling prophesy. However I think Obama's problem is that just because your spending money on advertising doesn't mean it is working. The ads themselves need to be effective and get people to think about things that will help him as a candidate. Like they said by the ads that Hilary has put out like the 3am one, she seems to be getting more bang for her buck even though Obama is putting out more money. So far it seems that Hilary's advertising strategies have been far more successful and she hasn't spent as much. I think this article is a good example of how much the media can impact campaigns for presidential candidates and that they should be wise in the way they use it. Just because Obama is spending more money doesn't mean he is getting the best result and as shown in the Pennsylvania primaries, advertising really can be a big factor in the votes.

Scientology

Abc Dateline did a special report on some of the people who left The Church of Scientology. They interviewed the niece to the leader of the church. She told about how when she was as a small child up to age 6 was only allowed to see her parents once a week because they were so busy satisfying the church. At this time she was kept on a ranch in California and they were made to get up every morning at 6:30 am, seven days a week. The children had to run long days with schooling, learning about Scientology and hauling rocks up the hill from the creek. From the age of twelve to the age sixteen she only saw her mother once for thirty minuets and her father three times for the same amount of time. Then another lady within the church that was in The Sea Org (which like the clergy at a regular church) was told that she was not allowed have children and if she got pregnant then she had to leave or get an abortion. She chose to leave a seventeen. At a young age children are a force to sign an agreement to serve the church for a billion years, because they believe that you live life after life. Brad Pitt and Jessica Alba is one of the head celebrities in this church, but also a part of this church is Christy Ally and John Travolta. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4722154&affil=wvec Honestly I think that when it comes too religious organizations that celebrities should not be use to get publicity. Because there are people out here that will let the celebrities to influence them to the extent that they might join the church. That to me is unethical, they are supposedly helping all these people but no one ever sees that. As we see in that clip from Dateline the leaders niece said she did not feel like she was helping anyone. And what kind of church is it really if it takes a person away from their family. As I see it is ok for celebrities they don't have to quit everything they do and only work for the church, because the church wants them for publicity.

Food shortage

People are in fear of the food shortage. It talks about how people in other poorer countries are malnutrition and how Americans are over weight or obese. "Yet an estimated 1.6 billion adults, about a quarter of the world's 6.7 billion people, are overweight, some of them obese." Americans also spend large amounts of money for methods of losing weight. Where in contrast other poorer countries are trying to by enough food to a gain a pound. It has been estimated that food prices will stay high due to the growing population and decreasing usable farmland. Mr. Chamie is the researcher concerned about the population growths, which are about 78 million people per year. Lester Brown believes that the short-term problem is that we are using corn and other foods as biofuels for energy. Mr. Rosegrant is not that worried because he believes all that needs to be done is in new farm infrastructure. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/CSM/story?id=4691737&page=1">>http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/CSM/story?id=4691737&page=1 So this article has many opinions. I believe that abc news should have only used two opinions. Because by using the third opinion showed bias. I say this because the two of people agreed that their is a food shortage. Which to me makes me believe that is what abc wants the reader believe. They should have just used the two contradicting  sources. This also may make some people panic and start stocking up on canned goods and other items, which could in turn make the problem worse. 

"Sean Bell's Fiancee Blasts Verdict"

As I was reading an article on the CNN website "Sean Bell's Fiancee Blasts Verdict" http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sean-bells-fiancee-blasts-verdict/20080425085009990002 about the Bell murder hearing it really took me by surprise to see how unfair our government really is. After murdering Sean Bell NYPD detectives were cleared in court n Friday. Since than there have been protests against this decision. More than 300 people marched 20 blocks through Harlem carrying signs with numbers to represent the shots that were fired on Bell and his friends. In the ruling on Friday Justice Arthur Cooperman said inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution-mainly Bell’s friends-“had the effect of eviscerating” their credibility.
Later on Friday during a protest two demonstrators were arrested near the shooting site. One was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge, the other on a charge of obstructing government administration.
I feel that this was a very well written and meaningful article. This shows how sometimes our police systems use their powers to out weight the morals that our government has. I think that these protests need to continue so that Bell’s family can get the justice they deserve. I feel that the article pointed out the facts that needed to be known to see how unjust this situation was.

Suicide Coverage

When I was looking on the CNN website today I saw a link to an article about a girl who had commited suicide on the front. I decided to read it because we had just talked about the do's and don'ts of covering suicide. The story described a 14 year old girl who killed herself by mixing laundry detergent with cleanser. The fumes had gotten out through her bathroom window and sickened many people in her neighborhood. It was nothing deadly just complaints of sore throats. The article then went on to describe a couple of other similar chenical suicides that have occured and described the ingredients used in doing so. They also talked about how many of these people are getting these ideas from internet sites that incourage people to commit suicide and tell them ways to accomplish it.

I did not think that this article did a good job in covering this suicide incident. First of all they described the exact ingredients that all of these people used to commit their suicides. This could lead to many copy cat suicides and gives people ideas of how to do it, and they were just talking about how alot of these types of suicides have been occuring. So now they are explaining that it is the popular way to kill yourself these days. Also they did not include anything saying that suicide isn't the answer and how it has a bad impact on their families at all. Another thing that suprised me was that there was no number for a hotline to call if you or someone you know is thinking about committing suicide. There is also no link to a website to help counsel those having suicidal thoughts which to me seems very unthoughtful. I mean how long does it take to make a quick link to a suicide prevention site. The only link they do have in the whole story is a link to articles about more suicides!!! It is like they are saying let's give people reading this a link to find out about how more people have found ways to commit suicide. I definitely don't think that this article did a very ethical job in writing about suicides.

Should Obama Play Rougher?

Media plays a big role in politics. They can go hand in hand. Newspaper organizations have the ability as well as the responsibility to publish more information about certain candidates that they want to keep as frontrunners. Articles and television reports will then be available to readers. In this 2008 Presidential race, the media is certainly playing their role, but are they crossing the line? “Should Obama Play Rougher?” is an article that is suggesting that Senator Barack Obama is not at the playing level of Senator Clinton and her ads. The issue here is that the media might be pushing the candidates act in certain ways just to stir things up and get it heated. It definitely already has. Barack has been campaigning to be a so called new Democrat and does not want to target Clinton (too much). The article also makes suggestions that if Barack were to start now it may be to late for him and could cause down falls for him. He has already gained his supporters and some of them are behind him because of the fact that he is playing clean. Clean meaning, that he has not been the first one to attack. Clinton has been doing things that she said that she would not do, and lost some of her supporters. It is very interesting to see where this race is going. There is always something new that emerges to change your perspectives. Media is stirring it up and it will be interesting to see if Barack changes his tactics to be more like Clinton and bring about information that could make her seem like the weaker one, the one who is not tough enough to fill the big seat in the oval office.