Ellen DeGeneres' 'Idol' performance draws mixed reviews

A year after Paula Abdul quit the show 'American Idol' Ellen Degeneres took the spot as the fourth judge. Her company includes Randy Jackson, Simon Cowell, and Kara DioGuardi. Speculation on Ellen's judging skills began well before the show began. "I knew it was going to be bad as soon as they announced it," said Brian Wheaton, who started a Facebook group called "Ellen is going to RUIN IDOL!" Also, Simon Cowell announcing that this would be his last season on the show did not help. The first two shows DeGeneres was a little tentative, not using her humor, which is her strong point. But now the final 24 contestants are up, and all comments made by DeGeneres will be heard, live and unedited.
By now it should be known that the show 'American Idol' is about more then displaying muscial talent, and valid critiques of that talent. The show is equally famous for displaying people who think they are amazing singers, but sound like horrible. The judging is sometimes brutal, but has tried to be as accurate as possible when judging purely musical talent. I understand bringing celebrities to the show brings refreshing, new personalities, and might help ratings. But aren't there enough extremely popular celebrities in american society today that have a background in music? The answer is obviously yes. It's true, Ellen DeGeneres is a fan of the show 'American Idol', and she is famous. But, she has no idea what she's talking about when she's trying to direct young, aspiring singers who are serious about pursuing a career in music.
'American Idol' needs to take a step back and realize why the show is successful. It is because audiences appreciate everyday people blowing them away with a beautiful voice. Yes, the judges are popular too. Simon Cowell's notorious comments probably equally as entertaining as the singers at times. But the reason Cowell is funny is because he knows what he's talking about. So 'Idol', stick to the music.
By Joseph Fuller

Curling Down Wall Street

With NBC holding the rights to air the winter Olympic games the network is trying to fit as much of the games in on as many channels as possible. One of the channels that is owned by NBC is CNBC. This channel is focused mainly around Wall Street and the stock market. As soon as the market has closed for this past week NBC began broadcasting an Olympic sport. Most of the time, curling was shown on CNBC. This created a strange phenomenon that many people did not expect. Many of the brokers, bankers and big shots began watching this completely foreign sport. Most people in America do not know what curling is, and definitely could not tell you the rules. This is evidenced by the horrible showing of the U.S. team at the Olympic games. They lost their first four matches and were one of the worst teams competing.
So why is curling so interesting to these Wall Street tycoons? Well in our media class we have been talking a lot about media and how it relates to society. Looking at it, it seems like the marriage between the traders and curling was somewhat of an accident. After a hard day of work and diligently watching the stocks go up and down, the station would change from the high pressure of the stock market to the grace and strategy of curling. Like chess on ice, curling has a very calming affect on the traders who have been under high pressure all day.

This is an example of how media can be a trend setter among certain groups of people. Because NBC put curling on CNBC it became part of a certain group of people's routine and it became something that quickly caught on. Now this is something that will quickly fade. The Olympics are almost over, this means curling will no longer be shown on TV, and with spring right around the corner Americans can once again focus on sports like baseball and football. So while this fascination with curling is clearly not here to stay, it is very interesting to see the fads the media can create. Sometimes by just a strange accident.

Jason

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/business/26curling.html?ref=media

Ever Changing News

Today I read and article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/media/19tribune.html?ref=media) in the New York Times about how Tribune Co. is filing for bankruptcy. This is slightly shocking considering this is the company that owns the Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun. These are some of the most successful, and best known news papers in their respective cities. Now this company has a dept of billions of dollars.

How did this happen? How did one of the most successful news paper company in the world owe billions of dollars of dept. Just 20 years ago this would be completely unthinkable. For the last 100 years Newspapers have been the main form of news in America. After the invention of the radio, and even the TV, news papers were still an integral part of every day life. So how did something so important to American society lose so much money? The answer is the internet. As the internet advanced less and less people read the news paper. They were able to find their news online and therefor were not willing to pay for a newspaper. Because of this advertisers no longer found it profitable to place their adds in newspapers and so the newspapers sunk into dept. See it is not the consumer, or the person that buys the paper that supplies the company with money, that profit is minuscule compared to the money it makes by placing advertisements in the paper. Advertisers realize that it is more profitable for them to advertise on the internet because their add will be seen by so many more people. This is why so many internet companies, such as google and facebook are thriving in this internet addicted culture.

So is it good for our country that newspaper companies such as the Tribune Co. are experiencing hard times? After all our country has relied on newspapers to tell us the news for the last 100 years. I would say that it is just part of any capitalist country. Technology drives what is popular and if companies can not adapt then they fail. What I am afraid of is that all signs of professional news will fade and there will be an increase in "citizen journalists" reporting on news. I think the idea of citizens trying to report on news is ridiculous. I do not understand why this is excepted. We do not do this with other professions. No one will ever declare themselves a citizen doctor, but when it comes to news many people believe they can report better than the professionals. In this new world of the internet we have to be careful to not begin relying on uncredited sources with no accountability.

Jason

Media Linked to Children's Bad Health

People have been saying for years that too much television is bad for anyone's health. Well, Time magazine spoke with James Steyer from Stanford University, and his studies suggest that children are at risk. His study suggested that the more media a child is exposed to such as TV, movies, cellphone, or magazines, the more health risks they face. He suggested that they are more likely to smoke, drink, use drugs, or receive low grades in school. Out of thousands of studies, 173 were selected that had the highest results of poor behavior from too much media exposure. The areas graded the highest were obesity, drug use, and sexual behavior. The article also mentioned how the parents need to be more involved in what their kids are watching on TV. The average kid spends about 7 hours in front of some sort of media each day. That is a large amount of exposure, so it should be the responsibility of the parents to limit the amount of time in front of TV. They should also be aware of what their kids are watching for programs, and maybe ban certain shows.
This article discusses some great points that everyone should be aware of. When children are not performing well in the classroom and getting into trouble with drugs or alcohol because of media; that is an issue. I understand the media are filled with inappropriate things for children, but where are the parents? If they are responsible, they should be more interested in what their kids are watching on TV, and to set limits on the amount of time they spend with the media. If more parents were responsible, children could enjoy the media in a positive way, like it was intended.
Its really too bad that negative affects on children are coming out of the media. The problem is that media is consuming us and our lives, to a point where it is getting unhealthy. When children are experiencing terrible behavior due to media exposure, theres a problem. Pretty soon no generation will be safe and the media will just continually become more powerful. It is the job of the parents to monitor their child's media exposure. My parents did that when I was growing up, I had limits on how much television I was allowed to watch. That kind of lifestyle worked for me and it would probably work for most families as well. We want the media to be a great tool and something to enjoy; not to consume our society completely.


See also: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1864141,00.html

Parents, Time to Step Up and Eat the TV that Consumes your Child

I read an interesting artile by David Moore, who interviewed Jim Steyer about his new book "The Other Parent: The Inside Story of the Media's Impact On Our Children." The two talked about how Media has taken the place of the parent. For instance, childern spend on average 40 hours a week with media and only 17 with parents. Streyer writes to parents in his book, tellin them how they can overcome this phenomenon. He says that simply sitting with the childern when they watch TV and directing them to what is good and what is bad is crucial. Also from the start, parents should develop healthy media diets and habbits for their kids. He also thinks that government should step in and show public responsibilty. He thinks that positive TV has slipped out of the status quo and that no one has stepped up to be a leader in poiengering the postive change in TV media.
This article needs to be jammed into everyones cerebral cortex. Just think about the fact that media is taking the place of parents. The emerging youth is being parented by TV producer's ideals and ideology. David Moore is illuminating an important book and subject, how the media is teaching the youth how to be. Steyer is giving parents the tools to change this though, because it is a negative way to bring kids up.
We should care about this article because the future of our generation is being schooled by TV ideals that are there soley for entertainment and money. What will our childern be like who watch people getting drunk and picking up girls on MTV? What positive, extraordinary thing will come out of a generation educated on bullshit? I'm not sure. But if i was a parent i would raise my kids to the life lessons i learned and not what the TV teaches them. Parents should care about what their kids are learning about on TV. It is very easy to give up the role of "parent" to the TV. But the child will be that much better for it if the parent steps in and intervens.
http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/jun02/jun17/3_wed/news4wednesday.html

The Winter Olympics have officially began, and like all Olympics, they started with an opening ceremony. Most of the articles about the ceremonies are about the glitch at the end of the ceremony. What happened is that there were supposed four poles that rose out of the ground to form around the Olympic torch. Only three rose out of the ground. The athletes that were supposed to light the torch just awkwardly stood there for a short time. They finally jst lit the torch with just three poles instead of four.

It is unfair for anyone to focus on this one glitch during the opening ceremony. With the daunting task of following the spectacular opening ceremony in Beijing, the Canadians did brilliantly. Instead of trying to compete with the 300 million dollar show in Beijing they decided to focus on the individual and show an intimate look at Canada. They began, before the parade of nations, with welcoming the native tribes from all over Canada. In fact the whole ceremony tried to show all of Canada. They had sections displaying all of the areas of Canada. From the icy Inuit to the french speaking province of Quebec, and back to Vancouver. They even had a youtube sensation read his poetry.

So are these games as all encompassing as they seemed? There were men and women, native Canadians and french Canadians, young and old, and even a para-Olympian helped light the Olympic torch. How are these people treated outside of the Olympic games. Unlike these Ceremonies I doubt that the native Canadians are always the center of attention in the country. Most likely they are pushed around and mistreated like many of the tribes in America. On an international level Taiwan is still not allowed to march in the parade with their own flag. Is there really this peace and acceptance throughout the world? When a song like We are the World, by Michael Jackson a huge part of the Olympics in order to make money for Haiti many of us would like to think the world has achieved world peace and equality. I am still not sure we have, but events like this certainly do help.

http://www.timescolonist.com/sports/2010wintergames/Opening+ceremony+done+right/2560946/story.html

For big game, ads on tap

Beer companies do not care if the game being played takes a back seat to the commercials. An estimated one-third of all Americans watch the superbowl, and many of them drink beer while they watch. Anheuser-Busch, the maker of Budweiser and Bud Light, bought five miniutes of air time for nine ads. It is estimated that the cost for a 30 second ad is 2.8 million this year, down from 3 million last year. Whether the rates go up or down, it really does not matter to beer companies. The superbowl is the right place and the right time for beer commercials.
The biggest purchase of air time in this year's superbowl comes from the biggest beer company in the country. If people are seeing beer commercials all year watching proffessional football, why should the superbowl be any different? It has almost become an association, that when you watch football you will inevitably see someone drinking a brewski. The target audience will probably be hanging out with friends at a party, having a beer. Is there a better time to show that your product is the best? I don't think so.
Seeing beer commercials when a proffessional football is being played is pretty much a normalcy. Advertisers want to get in everyone's heads that when you watch football you have to drink beer, that its an American tradition. Anheuser-Busch, which is part of the world's largest brewing company, knows when to throw around their money. The Suberbowl is and will continue to be a stage for beer commercials.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/05/for-big-game-ads-on-tap/

Black Face Politcal Statement

I read an article by Robert Mackey on http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/turkish-tv-anchor-dons-blackface-to-address-obama/. The article talked about how a Turkish news caster, who was of white fair skin, painted his face black when addressing Obama’s speech to Turkish parliament. The news station was a witty, tabloid, sort of news station. Like it was not a serious prime time news program addressed to a vast population. The news caster painted his face not because he was racist but because of the myth “that a person who asks for a favor darkens his face, but a person who then refuses to grant that person a favor has an even darker face.” He was basically saying how Obama should be on Turkey’s side in fighting their Kurdish adversary’s.
The article is interesting because it talked about how Americans would take the painted black face differently than the Turkish people. It really hits on how America has different ideology. We would be more accustomed to completely condoning the notion when in reality it was not a racist gesture but rather playing off of a Turkish proverb. It also shows how America’s ideology has not penetrated to all corners of the globe. What we may think is wrong could be a strong political statement in another country; our view is not hegemonic.
The article is significant because it tells people to wake up to other cultures subjectivity. It makes us see the world outside of our eyes so to speak. We can get so caught up in our own worlds, so much so that when a political statement like that emerges our ideology immediately tells us that it is morally wrong when in reality it is not being portrayed that way by another culture.

The Whiter the Face the Better

There is a fascinating article titled Skin Whiter Advertisements Labeled Racist- the article is by Sara Sidner and you can find the article at http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/09/india.skin/index.html. The article talked about how in places like India and China face whitener is becoming more popular. In fact, skin whitener creams have peaked more than one hundred percent in India and the male consumption is jumping more than twenty percent annually. A recent commercial, featured in New Delhi, showed two Indian men on a balcony. One man with a dark face; the other, white. The dark faced man says to the fair faced man, I’m so unlucky that i have a dark face. And the fair skinned man replies, it’s not your face it's your dark skin. He then throws him a bottle of face whitener and the dark skinned man becomes light skinned and gets the hot girl in the end of the commercial. A member of India parliament, Brinda Karet, said that the Ad tells people you have to be white skinned to get a good job, to get a good girl or boy friend, to be socially acceptable.
This article is fascinating because in media history blacks were portrayed out of their skin so to speak. They just participated in roles that would be funny and amusing to white. They could not represent their own culture in the media; instead they had to assimilate to the white culture. Now, in India, people are going as far as lightening the color of their skin. It seems as though consumers have it in their head that being fair skinned is the way to live and be. The evidence is present, even men have a rising twenty percent consumption rate of face whitening products. The white, beautiful culture seems to be imperialistic in a subtle way. People think that looking whiter or fairer is looking more aesthetically appealing.
I think this article is a good lesson for us all. It shows how easily people can be influenced by the media to looking and acting a certain way. The media in this case, is even acting racist. It is promoting a fair skinned person as being better than a dark skinned. The dark skinned people are therefore left in the shadows unless they assimilate to the white culture and buy some face whitener. So be wary of what the media is telling you do be like, because it can be manipulative if you’re not careful.

TV News Bad

Are you sick of watching the same old, boring news? The news that only covers a certain amount of stories and is packed out with opinions as if you couldn't judge the current issue yourself. Well Mike Elgan is pretty sick of this news as well and he wrote a great article educating people on what the news does wrong and how it should be revolutionized. The article is titled Why Social Media is Killing(Bad) TV News and you can find it here http://www.internetnews.com/commentary/article.php/3803556/Why+Social+Media+is+Killing+Bad+TV+News.htm .Elgan discussed how the news only illuminates a few stories a night. But what is so bad about this is that these stories are usually propagated to "advance the careers of the people running the network at the expense of the public interest." It is not fair on the public part to sit around and see stories that only pertain to one type of class, obviously the upper, typically white, class. Elgan is also sick of listening to opinionated news anchors, such as Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jim Cafferty, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow. He says that the News media would be better off if all these people were fired. If the news covered about 20 news stories instead of just four, the news would not be so biased to a particular class interest as well. All in all, this article was hostile towards the present news media because of poor social attributes it picks up along the way.
This article was very interesting because it dealt with a lot of crucial elements that need to be dealt with. Like is it really necessary that we have opinionated news anchors. The news should inform us, educate us, so that we can make out own judgments on the situation. When news anchors present their opinions it becomes almost entertainment and belittles the American people's intelligence. But what is more fascinating is how the news acts as the people’s only source of news. People should in no way rely simply on TV news for their interests. Why? Because it is far to left or right? They act like answers to the world are either right or wrong, when in reality there is a whole array of possible answers and solutions and interests and opinions. It's not just what the News anchors say. When the News acts like it is the only power in play, they make it seem like it is normal, it is morally upstanding, it is American to believe what they say.
I think that people should fight this normalization of the news media. They shouldn’t just sit around their world be normalized to a certain upstanding standard. They should think of other solutions than what the news media offers and they should be active. That means turning off the TV and starting revolution. EAT YOUR TV.