Pride and Unprejudice @coadyspaeth-blog - Tumblr Blog

Reflection

When I first started blogging for this class, these were the reasons of why I write:

I write because I am constantly thinking up stories and plots.

I want to work and write fiction stories based on real life but with unusual plot twists.

I want to learn how to flow better in my stories and papers. I want to be so much less vague, concrete and real in my detail.

For me, this is has remained true, but with some new insights. It's hard, and it'll take an enormous amount of editing and research to write a piece worth reading. Before, I thought that writing was however you wanted it--but mostly people would take you for your word. However in taking a writing for publication course, I've learned you need to do your research. You need to fact-check. You need to make it relevant, more "why would any one kill their time to read this?"

I've learned a new style to writing that somewhat combines what I've learned in my journalism courses and my writing courses. It will greatly help me on my journey outside of college, looking for jobs in editing, magazine writing, freelance writing, and reporting. All fields I want to experience.

I want to learn more about combining the this magazine style writing with my work at TCU360. To make the writing more informal and approachable to students--stepping away from the formal and strict structure and language that journalism is known for.

But my final goal and dream is to write a book, and I think this course helped me get there.

Report: Are Magazines Dying Out? Dun, dun, DUN!!!!

I thought magazines were advertisement garbage all my life until college.

In taking a magazine writing class, it opened my eyes to the intriguing transition between creative writing and journalism—both happen to be my majors. So after taking this class, I wanted to know if there was still a chance I could enter the magazine world and potentially make a career out of it.

Like newspapers and books (really anything dealing with print), I also heard that the digital era was whipping out magazines. In doing some digging around, I found like books going digital, so were magazines.

According to the New York Times, “total paid and verified subscriptions [of print magazines] declined by 1 percent in the first half of 2013, and newsstand sales, which are often an indicator of a magazine’s appeal, dropped by 10 percent.” What was also interesting was, “big names like Vogue and Vanity Fair also had problems at the newsstand. Vogue’s sales declined by 10.4 percent and Vanity Fair’s by 11 percent.”

These findings led me to the Alliance for Audited Media (AAM). Every year the AAM does a report, which includes top-line print and digital circulation data for all consumer magazine members. They’ll be releasing the results for 2014 soon, but here is the results for 2013:

What this report shows is that many subscribers and loyal readers are going to the digital versions of magazines. The digital magazines now make up 3.3 percent of total magazine circulation, with “10.2 million digital editions sold in the first half of 2013.” Magazines have less trouble than book publishing companies in going digital. In doing so, they are able to stay profitable while gaining more subscriptions in order to read these articles online. Though newsstands are suffering somewhat due to digital magazines doing so well, print is looking more like the past in this digital world.

Lastly, Lesley Jane Seymour, editor-in-chief of More magazine, gave an interview on CBS stating that those entering the magazine field, they will need to know how to encode, how to go digital. That is where magazine is going, so therefore those entering in the career need to be immersed in the digital skills, like encoding and InDesign, to be successful.

Books v. eBooks

Imagine a world, where a study doesn’t need book shelves, libraries aren’t necessary, and everyone needs glasses due to staring at a electronic screen for thousands of hours.

No more books. That’s been the fear for the lovers of hardback, paperback, and print: will books become replaced with something newer or better; antiquate.

Due to the little electronic tablets like eBook, Kindle, and the Nook that can hold thousands of books for half of the cost of hardback and paperback books, the anxious sense of interest is that slowly less books will be in demand for print so then the books will slowly die out.

While people all over the world are switching to “electronic books,” the hindrance is that the authors may not get the paycheck they understand is deserved when Amazon sells their books, but the benefit is that electronic books are cheaper (due to no labor and print cost) and any author can self-publish their work.

That’s what I first thought, that publishing/print companies are slowly dying out and therefore so would books. When I began to work in the book publishing company this last semester, most of the casual discussion was about the Kindle, why would books be necessary when you can have a tablet that is convenient for size—in hand and for travel—and takes a whopping 30 seconds max to download a book among the thousands it can hold. Who would want a nuisance of a book then?

Obsolete—Rumor or Truth?

That’s the threat, whether real or imagined. One of the greatest creations the world has ever seen—since 1455 when Gutenberg invented/created the first printed book, the Bible—will become obsolete in the near future. The Guardian had an article about the paper v. digital reading argument, claiming that as of right now the digital world is what’s on going. That digital readings are here to stay, and that unless the publication companies change their structure, print books may be questionable in the future—however not obsolete. It’s an argument I definitely agree with—that the publishing companies do need to change up their structure or there might only be a handful left on the world with less books.

Many blogs are dedicated to presenting futuristic ideas of how the book will be molded into technological inventions beyond the tablet and how our society will surely parish without the book. You get what I mean though; it’s scary to think something we’ve had since kids and have become a crucial part of who we are today might not be here anymore. But I honestly don’t think the book is going anywhere any time soon.

According to an article in Mashable they argue the book isn’t going obsolete, but is actually doing well in comparison to previous years. In a survey provided by the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project, “some 28% of Americans read at least one e-book in 2013 up from 23% the year earlier…But the percentage of people who read print books increased as well: 69% said they read at least one print book, up from 65% the year before.”

The Benefit

Amazon allows for any person anywhere to self-publish their books on their site and make money from it. A percentage of the amount made will go to Amazon, but hey, you’re a published author.

Where Random House and Penguin would have most likely have turned that author away, another company gives them a chance. So more authors are turning to Amazon to self publish and Amazon is all about the Kindle. A remarkable story is about the author of Fifty Shades of Grey. She was a huge fan of the Twilight saga and so she wrote a fan book about that series. No real publishing company would give her much of a chance due to the author not having much previous credentials in writing and the content of the book—and I mean it’s hard to when you think about it. She self-published through Amazon, and boom, she’s made millions off her book AND it become an actual book (picked up by Vintage), and now a motion picture.

The Real Hindrance.

Many publishing companies like Random House, Penguin, and Simon and Schuster are hard to break into as a first time/fresh author. The publishing company has always been like that though. They’ve made millions off this process, so they didn’t feel the need to change until self-publishing through sites like Amazon have become the biggest competition and problem.

Then what’s the problem with digital readings? It’s in the latest debate with Hachette and Amazon about how authors feel they’re getting ripped off in the sales of their books on Amazon. Amazon halted some sales of Hachette books, as there is a huge debate over setting the price Amazon sells Hachette books at. Hundreds of authors are teaming up against Amazon, saying Amazon is “harming the livelihood of the authors on whom it has built its business.” While other authors that have published with Amazon are saying the opposite.

Overall.

For me, I don’t think the physical book is going anywhere, so I hope that rumor and fear will die down as books are still in demand and are doing better than digital books. However, there is a real current problem with books. Authors can self-publish books through Amazon, where they might not have been picked up by big publishing companies, but the downside is already published authors that have worked hard for their books, are getting ripped off for not first publishing with Amazon. I believe that Amazon does need to fix that—they need to work with the authors and their publishing company and sell their books at a compromised price. So that the book it may not be as expensive as in a book store, but not as dirt cheap as many of Amazon’s books are. That way they are still affordable for bargain price readers like myself, but the author is still getting a respectable percentage of their book’s worth.

Difficulties in Balancing Journalism and Writing

This is something I have struggled with since the day I decided to be a double major in writing and journalism. I originally thought: Hey, its writing, just using words to tell a story. How hard could it be?

It's hard.

Every double major knows it's a bit difficult compartmentalizing two different things in one day. Meaning a English and history major have to be able to pick up what topic of style in writing they were on and be able to intake what's happening in the Civil War. It becomes a juggle.

My problem is that the two are very similar but have very strict differences--I am constantly mixing the two.

For journalism I follow AP Style, for writing I follow MLA style, and for my publishing internship I follow Chicago style. All similar, but with strict differences that if mixed create huge errors for my classes and assignments.

Example would be numbers. AP: spell out 1-9, but have for millions 4 million, for MLA: spell out 1-9, and for Chigago: spell out 1 thru 100.

So that can get mixed up easily.

Then with journalism, you're mostly writing articles that have to with news (i.e. new, relevant, and informal). There's opinion and commentary, but to get to that you have to right many informative reports or features--that don't include your own opinion.

With writing, you can write fiction, non-fiction, sci-fi, historal based novels, articles, blogs, stories, etc. There is much more freedom with less restrictions.

I honestly like both because while writing is free and allows more imagination, journalism has a set form that easy to follow. You basically gather the information and quotes and just slip them into the journalism structure.

The hardest part is separating the rules, especially when in a writing class that does journalism assignments--super confusing and contradictory.

The Hobbit: The Battle of CGI Armies

Lines of people will wrap around movie theaters everywhere waiting in anticipation for a movie with fake villains, over-stretched plot, and overuse of computer graphics! What “amazing” movie will have millions of people this excited and instantly hit number one in the box office? Why it’s The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies. Peter Jackson, you’ve done it again—only unlike many of his bandwagon fans, I am not easily as enraptured with his depiction of The Hobbit and the huge amount of CGI used to make everything seem cheap.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m an adoring fan of J.R.R. Tolkien’s trilogy of The Lord of the Rings and his prequel The Hobbit, and the award winning director Peter Jackson’s movie depiction of The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a tale about a hobbit (child size people) named Bilbo Baggins that goes on an adventure with dwarves and a wizard, encountering friends and foes, gems and weapons with many small battles. The book’s underlying arch is how this adventure is actually Bilbo’s journey in becoming a man and finding himself. Since the movies are based on a small children’s book, there is a lot more time for character development and displaying longer battle scenes.

Compared to Jackson’s enormous amount of success and wealth in producing The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King movies, The Hobbit almost seems lazy to me. I like to think that The Two Towers and The Return of the King was the Ben Hurr of our time. With hundreds of cast and crew, horses, costumes, and a sets all over New Zealand, Jackson actually recreated Middle Earth—all with real people, animals, props, and settings. The battles were epic with hundreds of horses, actors, and enormous sets—to really felt like you were going to battle in Gondor.

The problem with The Hobbit is that it lacks the grandeur that The Lord of the Rings presents. Digital technology has increased—meaning graphics for special effects and CGI (computer-generated imagery). Jackson is well known for loving CGI as it can easily be seen throughout the three Hobbit movies. So that when it comes time for battle in the second Hobbit movie, The Desolation of Smaug, where the troop fights the dragon, the background is CGI-ed, so are most of the dwarves when they battle with “special effects” that just look like animated fire instead of really fighting with actual swords and real fire present as it is in The Fellowship of the Ring. It becomes less of a live action movie and more animated.

When I was younger, I closed my eyes when an orc or goblin (bad guys) came on the screen during The Lord of the Rings, while in The Hobbit I just laugh. Why? Because the orc was real, with costume, make up, sound effects all coming together in a terrifying monster, while an orc in the Hobbit is almost comical because he’s computer animated. He looks like a naked Viking from a kids cartoon.

While I do love the plot of The Hobbit, it’s a small book. There shouldn’t be any need for three movies for a book any bigger than my thumb in width. It’s like Bilbo said in the movie,

“I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.”

This movie really takes a long time to get anywhere. For example, in the book of The Hobbit, the beginning scene with the dwarves is very short and while fun ends quickly. While in the movie version that part takes over thirty minutes on screen to show. I understand it’s mostly for revenue purposes and character development. But Jackson was able to fully develop characters that go on different/separate quests in The Lord of the Rings, which are huge books with more substance to work with than in the Hobbit. Since there isn’t much substance in the Hobbit movies spread out in three movies, there’s less action, unlike in The Lord of the Rings where it jumps from a battle to another scene of intense character conversations and actions. It really keeps you on the edge of your seat, excited for what next is to come.

Really, The Hobbit would’ve been more enjoyable if he made it into one movie with less computer graphics and more real live action role-playing. The one redeeming quality is that the book and movie are meant for children and adults, so making it less real or scary might be the reason. The only problem is for people like me who love and admire The Lord of the Rings movies—watching The Hobbit seems to be a let down. So, unfortunately I will see on December 14 the newest Hobbit movie, The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies, but with negative expectations.

Here's the trailer for The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies.

Introductions

Hello.

Introductions can be some of the toughest parts in writing. It's the start. It sets the stage, and honestly if it starts out neglectful or lacking (i.e. CRAP) then there's probably no point in reading the rest of the paper or piece. At least from the reader/audience perspective that's how I would take it.

Surprisingly introductions are some of my favorite things about writing, mostly because of the process my high school teacher and college professor for creative writing taught me. The hardest part is moving past my procrastinating side and actually making myself do the work.

Easy is Nice

To start, whatever your topic is the first thing that comes to mind--tends to be the best. I like to think the "easiest" answer is the one that will have the nicest answer. Then make a bullet point list of things that might be relevant or come up in an typical essay or paper. Like if it's a review over a movie it would be how you felt, good and bad, examples, etc.

Attention Getter

Then comes the start of actually writing. With intros, I like it to start with an interesting action, phrase, or simply one word. For example I did a paper about advertising principles starting with, "Sex. See I got your attention. And that there is the problem."

Changing Tradition

I like intros because it's the one part of the piece that I can make fun. It can start in the middle of the story, end, or just be an attention getter. If its a story, my professor once told me to set the story like this: Person A meets Person B, but instead of doing C does D.

Summing It Up

So with an intro start with something crazy. Forcefully grab their attention. Then either continue to play with the craziness or slowly explain what it is their reading. You don't necessarily have to give anything away, but I like to think as the intro as a surprising mystery full of style, combination of short and long sentences, fragments, and colorful verbs and adjectives. It really makes the difference and sets the stage of the piece. So try some, go crazy.

The Role of the Critic

For me, I didn't fully realize that I rely heavily on critics. When I think of critics, I think movie critics claiming this new film is amazing, the best in theaters, etc. Even food/restaurant reviews. Mostly stuff I'd rather experience than read about.

However, I didn't realize until today that I depend on book reviews to sell me a book. Not even professional book reviewers, because when money and marketing become involved my doubt on honesty decreases. But I love looking for a book on Amazon based on genre and then when finding some, looking at how many people "liked" it and what the reviews say. I like learning a bit about the plot and who the characters are but mostly what the reviewer feels and thinks about the book.

That's what a critic is supposed to do. They are supposed to be a tester for products so that people like me who don't know much about it can virtually put themselves in the reviewer shoes and see if they too would like the product. The critic helps connect the unknown to the public so that it can become known.

"The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic." -Oscar Wilde

The set-up for a review is a little summary about the product (television show, movie, book, food, blog, etc) and the positive and negative reactions towards it. Whether the acting was good, but the plot failed, etc. Many people rely on the critic because they have already tried out the product, and if they didn't like it, other people may not like it and it saves the people from wasting either time or money on the product.

"Never trust the teller, trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it." -D.H. Lawrence

The problem now is trust. Because there are so many critics in the world and a lot of them get paid for their opinion--usually to give false ones like, "Best Movie of All Time--Instant Emmy Winner" and it ends up flopping--trust becomes lost. Another problem if they review something so negatively and you love the product. For example I've seen two movies that I knew nothing about, but based my first opinion on movie.com critic Dave Reed's review. He hated two movies that I absolutely loved. So it leads to me never following his review because I find them hard to believe.

The critic is the link between the product and the consumer--they help either persuade or dissuade.

"To escape criticism -- do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -Elbert Hubbard

What's Hard/Important to Learn About Writing

Overwhelmed.

What's hard to learn about writing is not to get overwhelmed. Funny thing, I think every writer gets some what overwhelmed when even thinking of the structure of the piece they will/are writing.

The key is to learn how handle the overwhelming parts of it.

It's easy to think about what you'll write about but is another when actually writing.

For example I have a story that consists of multiple parts of research and interviews. It's overwhelming. I keep pushing off organizing the information, knowing that's key to getting to the story. But there is no real short cut in my writing by avoiding anything. So I have to allow for time to immerse myself in the piece. Only giving it proper time and thought can the piece come out O.K.

No procrastinating.

Revision.

Revision is another thing that is key. I like to persuade myself that once written, I'm done. It's perfect. But really, just cause there is spell check, it doesn't mean it's coherent. It's like spraying FreBreeze over trash--only covers up the smell temporary, but there still is a mess there.

Revision helps to not only clarify and clean up your work, but it allows for you to really understand the message you are trying to convey. In revising it allows you to fully say you understand the topic you're dissecting.

Lastly, another thing that is important to understand is,

"if your mother tells you she loves you, check it out."

Which means just because you hear/think something believable, doesn't mean it's true, so do research. All sorts of writing needs to be sourced and checked. It gives the writer credentials and allows for the reader to understand your work better.

Researching Stories

As a reporter and writer, research and fact checking are the biggest key features in writing a story.

Without having accurate proof of who said what and looking into their information, a writer's credibility is at stake. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Don't take things at face value.

For example, look what happened to the story of Joe Paterno's death. A Twitter message was sent out that caused Onward State to publish his time of death leading to large chains of news organizations like CBS to republish Paterno's death (which then other news organizations linked back to CBS regarding the report of the death). The family of Paterno within an hour or so had to publicly disclaim CBS, stating he was still alive.

The editor of Onward State, Devon Edwards later claimed that as one of his biggest mistakes of all time.

The credibility of Onward State most likely took a huge hit after that, known as the news source that reports based on rumor. Had Onward State merely checked with accurate sources instead of trying to be the first news source to break the information, they would've reported an accurate story. _______________________________________________________________________________________

Be the expert.

In researching stories, it puts the writer in the position as a potential expert on the subject. When I research my stories, I look into what potential questions I and others would have about the topic. I write as many questions as I can think of that will get my interviewee talking. Once I interview them, sometimes I get more out of the story than I intended. Then I look into the information the interviewee gave to me to verify it. I also look up other facts that might help explain my story to the audience.

The information I gather should guide the story, not what I perceive the story to be about.

For example, I went to the library expecting to write a safety piece on emergency exit signs, but what I got was an update on the construction process of the library and what to look forward to. My questions helped guide me, but it was the research I gained that shaped my story to one showing the audience the new and improved library.

Without research (even for fiction pieces) the story can become ludicrous, unrelated, and unrealistic that the reader will put no trust nor liking into the piece and probably the organization or site that published the writer.

Research creates credibility, and therefore trust.

Do your homework. Then edit that homework. _______________________________________________________________________________________

For more on the Onward State "uh-oh," you can look at the behind the scene story at The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/business/media/premature-reports-of-joe-paternos-death-roiled-web.html?_r=0

Why Telling Other People's Stories

Recently from my reporting class we dissected/came across a beautifully written article about Erma Lowe from Mary Ralph Lowe.

She recounts the life Erma Lowe led and through excellent writing, the reporter, Mary Rogers paints a beautiful story that doesn't tell, it shows.

Erma Lowe (known to the TCU community as the name on the dance building) was a very interesting woman to say the least as she left her home life (and first husband) for another life and man. He was very financially successful and she was very involved in charities and generous with the money. They lived life fully and extravagantly--traveling to far places and buying giraffes. For a life so rich as hers, it's easiest to tell her story in a chronological version focusing on dramatic points.

But Rogers doesn't do that. In fact Mary and Rogers brush over the vain and even dirty parts in her life, like when she says simply,

"She taught school, married a coach, drove a school bus and then, one fine day, looked across a ball field and was hit by a thunderbolt called Ralph Lowe."

There is so much in that simple sentence and it's easy to focus on and delve into. But Rogers doesn't, because it wasn't who Erma was--it's not the image that would define her.

Mary tells the story of her extravagant mother the way she sees her through her eyes and her memory. And in doing so we really get to see who Erma was--and she was a lot of things.

It's easy to see someone like Erma and think of her as a rich charitable woman and simply that. But through showing another person's life through someone else, real detail and depictions come out. Like when Mary says,

"'My mother was the finest woman I ever knew,' she says and beneath the words there is the unmistakable hum of love. 'Mama had a way of loving everyone I loved, even if I loved them for a small time.'”

What a interesting way to describe a person, where I bet Erma wouldn't have put it so beautifully.

In telling other people's stories there is more detail to be given with more feeling and insights. It's why at funerals there usually is a person dedicated to speak on the life of the deceased, because the stories become more real and powerful when it's from someone that sees the life instead of living it--the observer will see more.

(Painting of Erma Lowe and daughter Mary Ralph Lowe/From The Lowe Foundation)

Here's the link to the feature story: http://trendmag2.trendoffset.com/article/Mom+Feature/724738/0/article.html

Reaction of "The Innocent Man: Part 1"

I'm simply jealous.

Being able to write with a combination of story telling and informing as if the reader is in the scene is a talented gift to posses. I recently read "The Innocent Man"by Pamela Colloff and it really was a compelling read.

Colloff recounts a story of a Michael Morton, how he was wrongly accused and prosecuted; losing his wife and having his son taken away from him while knowing he is innocent. He is later given freedom and justice is found--only 25 years later. It's a long form feature of journalism turned book with 28,000 words. However unlike most long form, this piece tells more like a story, but hops around in time--which is very good in my opinion as it keeps the audience attention--and gets them wondering what will be reveled next.

Overall I thought it was amazing. Really compelling and each paragraph is designed so that it not only intrigues the reader but literally makes me ache for what happened, even though I actually know what happens in the end.

Her writing is that good. She starts a paragraph with a specific part in time and ends with phrases like:

"unencumbered by anything like the terror that had begun to creep into his mind that he might actually be found guilty,"

and

"The bandana was stained with blood,"

and lastly,

"she would prove to be a powerful witness."

All great ways to finish a paragraph like a conclusion only to pick up again on another little thrilling paragraph.

She really does a great job of organizing her interviews, facts, notes, and information so that it's not overwhelming to the reader, but genuinely enjoyable. I am still dying to know the final results because in the first part she picks out things to focus on--hinting its importance, that it may be something the reader doesn't know. Like the bandana, footprint, van, and Eric's witness. All creepy things that have me up late at night like I am now reading into the second part, thinking this could be me! Go out to dinner one night and be dead by a creeper!

She picks the details she wants to give and does an amazing job of showing and not telling what happened. It's like a play with various scenes happening in various times. Truly compelling stuff done with fantastic style. Love this.

Why I Write

I’ve struggled with reading out loud all my life.

I didn't realize I had a slight disability until my mom told me that was why I was put in another class.

I am super fast at reading in my head and creating scenes like a detailed motion picture. But slow at writing my thoughts and reading out loud. Pretty much getting anything out of my noggin is the hard part.

So after falling in love, like completely jumping off a cliff extreme love for books and plots, I knew my passion was to be a creator of these stories and that writing would be my passion.

I like to create stories that are above my simple life. I am a fiction writer, but more than that, I think more of myself as a emotionally bound writer, that it becomes hard for me to separate emotion and imagination from my writings. Writing to me is a treasured ability that is hard for me to put in literal words. I would like to continue with fiction writing—the realistic and fantastical.

I write because I am constantly thinking up stories and plots. I read about a book every one to two days, because I am immensely fascinated with the emotions displayed through words, details of the scene, and characters’ developing action and reaction to problems. It becomes a game for me to try and solve repeatedly.

I want to work and write fiction stories based on real life but with unusual plot twists. I’ve read so many predictable stories with the same fall, rise, and climax that I get giddy when I am thwarted by my expectations. I want to edit and write fiction books of all genres.

I want to learn how to flow better in my stories and papers. I want to be so much less vague, concrete and real in my detail so that the beautiful picture I have in my head can finally come to life. Those reading my work would have a clear image and scene of what I am saying.

Because of my disability, I've struggled with this for years. I really want writing to teach me how to flow, and for it to be natural to me.

Women in Politics

It's been almost a century since women got the right to vote in the United States, but only about half of that time were women treated as equals to men. Whether that be in the home, workplace, or in politics.

To me from what I've read and seen, people are more accepting of a male in the President's office than of a woman.

That's why I think there was just so much slander and hate directed towards the McCain/Palin presidential race. Women are considered the newbies in these places of power, almost like the intern at a corporation.

I don't say this to slander women too or even bring up that women can't be in politics. I merely am saying that since they are considered the newbies even after some 50 years, they still tend to get attacked maliciously and targeted easily since there are more males in politics than women.

MSNBC host Martin Bashir, is a prime example of a man on the attack.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2013/11/24/rs-sot-msnbc-anchor-sarah-palin.cnn.html

In this segment, Bashir goes on to call Palin "a 'world class idiot,' after she compared the federal deficit to slavery, and crudely suggested the gaffe-prone pol should be punished for the comment by being forced to eat feces."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-hits-back-martin-bashir-crude-remarks-article-1.1527393#ixzz2lfY3eCxe

Women get more publicity when these malicious attacks happen via the media.

I find this to actually be a good thing.

With the media involved it gets magnetized, analyzed, and gossiped about everywhere. Though this is how false conceptions can come across to the public, setting your public image (i.e. Brittany Spears) there is also much benefit.

In Bashir making that harsh comparative on live news, the media instantly picked up on it and discussed it nationally. This is a good way to eliminate slanderous remarks targeted towards women. With it being exposed to such a broad spectrum, it makes not only politicians think before they speak more, but also the media itself.

Token Friend

Since I have yet to talk about this common "trait" in television and movies, I thought I'd take the time to write about it now. While shows like "New Girl" and "Family Guy" are showing diversity by incorporating a black male in the friend group, a common theme is having only one black male in the troupe.

The token black guy.

(New Girl)

This "trait" has become more popular and noticeable during the 21st Century with movies like "She's All That".

(Grown Ups)

The movie "Grown Ups" has classic comedians Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, Kevin James, David Spade, and Rob Schnieder as men that grew up together reuniting and growing with their families. What's funny is this movie comments on how society is now becoming diverse through one black male on television shows and movies, even though "Grown Ups" only incorporates one black male (Chris Rock) in their movie.

In a scene where the grown ups (comedians) are playing a game of basketball against another group of grown ups that also have a token black guy, Chris Rock comments on how the token black guy can't really hang out with their group as his group already has a token black guy.

While this is somewhat comical, I think there actually is some truth to the meaning. Though it's becoming more common for mixed race television shows and movies, lately television shows and movies will only incorporate a token black male or token Indian woman to show diversity.

(Mindy Project)

I find this is becoming a terrible habit, as visually whatever this black male or Indian woman says are their beliefs or are comic traits in their character's persona, many viewers will full on believe this to be true. In claiming that the token black male is christian and says all his "brethren" are christian, instantly the audience believes he is speaking for all black males. Thus false stereotypes begin easily.

Diversity means, "the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness; variety" (Dictionary.com), variety being the key word. Meaning that simply opening the scope on a show or movie to include one person whom is not white, doesn't make the show a diverse scope. The ratio would need to be larger, but by simply placing a "token person" on a show or movie will create the affect that this person represents some common religion, race, or stereotype that audiences will pick up on and instantly believe because it was strong enough be broadcasted. The token person, has more power than most audiences know, but for the approach to becoming diverse the entertainment industry still has some ways to go.

#grown up #token black #token indian #diversity #chris rock

Classic Chris Brown

One of the newest stories reported on CNN.com is of Chris Brown's arrest Sunday morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/27/showbiz/chris-brown-arrested/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A little background information on this famous pop-singer is that Chris Brown is known also for physically abusing his now ex-girlfriend and additional pop-singer Rihanna in 2009.

The media and entertainment news sources went crazy with the first story about abuse, muddying his reputation as much as they could. A few years have passed since that scandal was top news and Chris Brown has slowly made a come back with his reputation and music.

Sadly this celebrity began to show old colors as CNN reports from the Washington Metropolitan Police Department (that were present and took statements at the time of the event) that Chris Brown was taking a picture with a woman when a Isaac Adams Parker, 20, of Beltsville, Maryland jumped into the photo. Then CNN wrote that police claimed Chris Brown said, "I'm not down with that gay s--t" and "I feel like boxing." Parker said that Brown then punched him in the face with his closed fist, the report said. Then apparently Brown's bodyguard got between the two and punched Parker in the face again, before shuffling Chris Brown back to his tour bus. The police arrived moments later and arrested Brown and his bodyguard.

My problem with this whole ordeal is the media's persuasive skills at allowing a male pop-star like this back into society so easily. Chris Brown has been serving probation for the felony domestic violence conviction against his ex-girlfriend and though the media bashed him during the time of the trial and a little after, the second Brown came out with a new public love song, the media praised him as a new man. That maybe he couldn't be as terrible as they initially thought. Brown only had to serve a limited probation because of his popularity and musical abilities. Where probation is a a second form of jail for majority of domestic violence "criminals," he was able to get a lenient form probation and continue to tour across the nation.

Besides his glam and music, he is a man that abuses others. Most likely these two people are not the only ones, but how is it acceptable to let the media persuade the public to love a "criminal" like him after abuse he's given out repeatedly. I for one don't think we should let some famous guy get off so easily.

He's a public role model that no one should follow.

#chris brown #never again #rise against

Who says any kind of fame is good fame?

There has been some startling controversy arising over a hair salon advertisement in Canada.

A canadian salon in Edmonton, Alberta called Fluid is well known for it's quality hair styles. However, their advertisement for the salon is something they've used for years with the purpose of starting up some drama. Here's what their ad looks like:

The image is of a girl most likely hit by her boyfriend in the back of the photo, while he holds a necklace about to be placed on the girl. A kind of pay and reward relationship I am guessing. This is advertising in a way for domestic abuse. It's statement is that it's okay to have domestic abuse as long as you have great hair. They also produced other ad similar to this one.

This one campaigning for homelessness and drugs. Basically stating it's okay to be homeless and do drugs, but you need to have good hair. That is what's essential. And lastly here's another advertisement:

Which this one is basically advocating for homicide, as long as you do it with good hair. The thing with Alberta though is that it's Canada's number one place of murders so I believe it's a parody of the homicides that happen there.

Nonetheless these advertisements got the success in having the salon become a national topic. Many people complained about the advertisements finding them offensive, yet the salon has free press and free speech. The argument I make is that just because you can say and advertise things publicly, doesn't mean they should. Not all fame is good fame and the things they have depicted in the photos, though probably intended to single out tragedies happening around the area, are seen as producers of domestic abuse, drugs, and murder. There should be some sort of moral code that should be established so there aren't sick advertisements like these displayed just to get attention.

Here's a link to ADWEEK to learn more about the Canadian scandal.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/hair-salon-defends-domestic-violence-ad-apologizes-too-134550

#ridiculous #haircrazy #infamous

Miss America?

As you can tell I love to discuss what's happening in entertainment today. And from my headline I believe most will know what I am talking about. Late the other night (last week) I was drinking hot chocolate and sitting in front of my television thinking about what I should write about this week. And as I switched between channels, I found the Miss United States pageant. I watched as I heard there was a girl from my school on the show.

Eventually when they presented the winner, I saw that she was pretty, dark skinned, cried, but nonetheless a lovely girl. However, it didn’t occur to me that her origin (or race) would be a problem with many Americans. Twitter and Facebook blew up with their angry viewpoints on the fact Nina Davuluri was an Indian-American. Many angry Twitter posts were, “Congrats America, she’s not even American” and even more hateful ones claiming, “I didn’t realize this would be Miss India”.

In an interview, Miss Davuluri stated that she knew her heritage was bound to be an outcome. She stated, “I'd experienced those same kind of remarks when I'd won Miss New York and I knew if I won Miss America it would happen again.”

Davuluri comes from a Hindu family and told newspapers that she had seen many of the negative tweets about her but hopes to change others' perspectives. She's since launched a social media campaign and invited Twitter followers to share their thoughts about culture awareness. She is truly an inspiration struggling through the hate on a day that should never be tainted with hate.

#miss america #cultural unity

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Pride and Unprejudice