What do Tiger Woods and Max Hall have in common?

Jason Whitlock. "Media should be ashamed for Tiger Woods coverage" 5 December 2009. http://www.sacbee.com/846/story/2373107.html

Summary: A few weeks ago tiger was seen as a "high-profile celebrity who makes a lot of money based on his good-guy image." But in just one week the media tore him apart and magnified to the world that Tiger cheated on his wife. The media's reaction to Tiger's actions is one that will do much harm to his career. But don't expect an apology from them; its what they do. The author of the article says he doesn't necessarily agree with this approach, but he's "willing to accept it, as long as [they're] honest about it and enthusiastically accept the consequences of [their] decision." The media has convinced the media that Tiger owes us an explanation.

My Opinion: This is definitely something that would keep me from being famous. Plus also the fact that I can't act or sing or influence the nation to start a war, but if i DID have one of those talents, I would have to reconsider being famous for this reason: the media can drive you INSANE! They have the power to make you sound like a saint or ruin your career. Take Max Hall for example. He makes one comment in the heat of the moment and rather than everyone focusing on the fact that BYU BEAT Utah...wait let me say that one more time...BYU BEAT Utah (dang, that sounds good), the media focused on his hate comment. The media is doing the same thing for Tiger Woods. They completely changed the world's opinion on him by capitalizing on what he did.
I'm definitely not trying to defend these athletes, however, I am trying to prove that the media has a lot of power.

more than words

Edward Wyatt. "More Than Ever, You Can Say That on Television. 14 October 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/business/media/14vulgar.html?_r=1&ref=media

Summary: In 1972 George Carlin laid out the "Seven words you can never say on Television". But it seems that since then tv show producers have found many ways to sneak around this. The article has stated that directors are tired of always using the word "jerk" which has led to the word "douche". The use of the B-word (you all know what I mean) tripled in the last decade. The H-word jumped from a rate of 5.5 times an hour in 1990 to 9.8 in 2005. It used to be that this kind of language was "reserved" for hours after ten, but lately they have managed to sneak their way into even the family shows. Its not just the langauge that has become worse on televesion, it's also the sexual content.

My response: This is a big pet-peeve of mine. I'll be watching something as innocent as "sister sister" on disney channel, thinking I am perfectly safe, when all of a sudden they throw a swear word at me. Woah! where did that come from? Sometimes I honestly think the shows could go with out all of the sexual content and profanity. The best tv shows and movies are the ones without it. For example, "biggest loser" and "extreme makeover-home edition". These are the most inspirational shows and they have almost none of the crude remarks. I might be able to understand the profanity when its in adult tv shows, but putting it on channels like ABC family is not a good idea. How many of us have little siblings who say a word that we know they didn't pick up from your home?

Media in Campaigns

Living in a house where someone is running for a political office has opened my eyes to so many issues. Unlike my father I'm not a good debater and although I'm not dumb, I'm not the first to voice my opinions on what I think needs to be done. However, about a year ago when my dad decided to run for mayor, a match was lit inside of my soul. Throughout these past few months this match has grown to become a fire; its not quite the cozy Christmas fire place type of fire, more like a forest fire that doesn't really know where to go.  Now, to shift gears a little bit I'd really like to talk about the politics and the media. I realize that I don't have an article to go along with my post, only pure first hand experience, but I'll take the grade deduction, for this is a subject I have become passionate about and it's been on my mind a lot lately. 

The majority of the population receives their news through Television, papers, mail, internet, etc... Every once in a while I'll open my morning paper to find a nice post about my dad and Steve Clark. My first thoughts are "Cool, thats my dad." and then I continue to think, "I wish I was in the paper!" (Haha but no really, it's a secret dream of mine). At first the articles were on something irrelevant to the issues like my dad's opponent bribing someone or using his email for campaigning. To be honest I thought the articles were weak, luckily it wasn't my dad they were targeting or I would have been furious. Even with our last presidential race the media had an effect on the voters. It is sometimes obvious to tell which news channels are democratic and which are republican. Now we have to ask: do these news channels have a power in persuading the public to vote a certain way? My answer: yes! 

Another place we find media in elections is on facebook and websites. I know that my dad has a facebook page just for his campaign, and most candidates have a website for voters to go to. In my opinion, this is the best place for voters to go if they want to truly figure out who the best candidate would be for the job. 

Overall, the media has a huge effect on who gets a elected for a position; we just have to remember that we form our own foundation or opinion before we let the media swallow us up.

"It's just a texting relationship"

Mcguire, Judy. "Texting and your love life". 9 October. 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/10/09/tf.text.etiquette.romance/index.html

"Can you imagine what a different movie "Casablanca" would be if, instead of suavely growling, "Here's looking at you, kid," Rick instead texted Ilsa: ;-)." This article explains the way texting has become a part of a relationship. It addresses the fact that a call means something more when texting just means "a booty call". More and more people are becoming lazy when it comes to communication in the relationship. They can ask every girl/boy if their busy that night at the same time just by picking up their phone and punching in a few words. The article makes it clear to never break up with someone over texting, its tacky and cowardly. However, Some people feel that phone conversations are awkward and they would rather have someone text them. As for emoticons, the article states that most women would rather the men leave them out.

First off, I completely agree with the emoticon thing. I find it disturbing when I'm texting a boy and he is constantly putting :) in our conversations. Honestly now, are you really smiling that much? Second, I think texting is great and I do it all the time but I hate when relationships are based off texting. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I would much rather have a face-to-face talk with someone than text. Its hard to have a deep conversation when your just texting because you can only say so much, thus resulting in only skimming the surface of the topic. Third, I completely agree with the article when it says to never break up with someone over a text. Its completely pusillanimous and is something only a middle-schooler should be able to get away with. I realize that we live in a technological time and without texting/facebook/twitter/email it would be hard to stay up to date with whats going on, but everyonce in a while a good old-fashioned conversation can't hurt.

Can tech personalities break into politics?

Hall, Linda. "Can Tech Personalities break into politics?". CNN. http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3628008386551780171

Recently we've movie stars, astronauts, and basketball players get involved in politics. Now ebay CEO Meg Whitman is looking to do the same. She wants to prove that the tech-savvy can be trusted enough in politics. This isn't the first time a high-tech person has got involved in politics, there are many minor positions filled but whitman is running for governor in California. The article also talks about how its becoming more and more important for the contestants to show skills in this new technological world. President Obama could use a blackberry like there was no tomorrow while John McCain didn't even have email, he now uses twitter. "Technology and innovation have improved every business and saved millions and millions of dollars," Meg Whitman said, promising to do the same for California.

I love the fact that the media world is becoming mixed in with the political world. Its Just like my first blog post on Obama trying to "make it cool again". This is a new generation, one where trying to function without an email is nearly impossible. Ebay is definitely one of the biggest markets online and I think if Meg Whitman can oversee ebay with all of its success then she is clearly going to be a big competitor in this next California governor election. Even in slightly smaller, yet still very important, elections like the mayoral election in provo the candidates have facebook pages, blog sights, and websites you can visit to get all sorts of information. The media is everywhere. Having a tech-savvy person in politics would be great!

"Stay in school, study, and do your homework"

"Obama urges students to work hard, stay in school" CNN. http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3628008386551780171

The President of the United States delivered a speech to students k-12 on Tuesday morning during school. The President was able to do this through the media. It is amazing how the whole nation has the ability to tune into the same channel at once. Many Parents didn't want their kids being "brainwashed" by the president into his political views. They had little do fear. The president addressed the importance of staying in school and getting an education. He expressed that sometimes its hard depending on the circumstances to get good grades, but it is possible. Although this was the case and no politics were involved many parents still checked their kids out of school for the twenty minutes the speech was delivered. This was not the first time the President of the United States has chosen to speak to the kids in school. In 1991 George Bush the first gave a speech to kids in a Washington school telling them to say no to drugs and stay in school. Some of the controversy originated when the first draft of the speech seemed to be about how we can do more to help our president. But after some more analyzing they decided that was not the right angle to go at it.

I would understand some of the controversy if the speech had been about "serving Obama" but, um...that wasn't the speech! They changed it because obviously they knew it was not the right thing to talk about. So why are we worrying here? The final draft wasn't anything more than we hear our teachers tell us everyday. I think its crazy that parents wouldn't want their kids listening to Obama. Come on America, this is our president! He is the man we elected to lead our country and make important decisions. I think its important that, although we may not always agree wish his choices, we at least give him the respect he deserves. Personally, I thought the speech was inspiring. He made me feel important knowing that we are the future generation. One day some kid my age will be leading this country while today's leaders sit back having already done their job.

p.s. sorry my font is always so messed up,I get really confused on blogs sometimes

“John, we’ve got to make it cool again” - Barack Obama

Buskirk, Eliot Van. "What Obama Is Learning from Facebook, Google and Ideo." Wired. http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3628008386551780171

This article address the fact that most of the brightest and creative graduates seem to be "snatched up" by tech start-ups. The Government is tiring of the old men who are due for retirement and are looking to have more hip and young, yet still very intelligent, aged people working for them. After all, the USA was able to put a man on the moon in the 1960's with a team of people in their late twenties. Obama is looking to get this youthful, tech-savy generation involved with the government and keep everyone up to date. Berry, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, met with Facebook and Ideo and said this, “It was just great,” he said, “phenomenal people, outside-the-box thinking, creative approaches to how they manage people — and they’re wrestling with some of the same issues we’re wrestling with… what is the fairest way to appraise peoples’ performance, how do you hold employees accountable, so that they’re doing a good job but you’re not micromanaging them to the point where they just throw their hands up and quit?" According to the article Obama is the last president besides Kennedy who really understand the importance of having "the best and the brightest".

I agree with our president, Obama. How can we look towards building our future if we are so caught up in the past? The world is constantly changing and it is crucial that something as important as the United States Government is staying as up to date as possible. Who knows, maybe someday we will have flying cars or have the ability to hallo gram ourselves into a basketball game and have automatic front row seats or sit at the half line in the middle of a soccer game as the athletes run right through you because you are invisible (yes, an invention I plan to make real one day). The older generation will never advance unless they take these leaps of faith and put trust in the new generation. While it is important that we include the "brightest and best" in the recruiting process I think it is also critical that we involve the older, wiser, and better experienced age at the same time.