Sex Sells and Distracts

In class this week, we watched a clip of an interview from CNN between a woman anchor and a male senator. We observed that, since the male senator was not physically present in the CNN studio, the screen only showed the upper half of his body. However, the woman anchor was standing at a certain angle facing the senator's screen, with her whole body in view. We agreed as a class that the woman was attractive and that perhaps her positioning and the camera angle was planned purposely.

I recently stumbled on an article by Miller-McCune which addresses this exact issue. "Sexy news anchors." In the article, the author states that, "To capture male viewers, news networks have hired attractive female anchors. While it may boost ratings, studies show male viewers get distracted and remember less from the newscast."

The article continues with "Two Indiana University scholars report that, for male viewers, 'emphasis on the sexual attractiveness of female news anchors distracts from memory formation for news content.'"

"They found that 'men’s cognitive mechanisms favored visual over verbal processing.'" So basically the men are more focused on the anchor's appearance than what she was actually saying.

What's the point of having a news cast if half of the viewers don't even completely comprehend what's going on? I understand if networks are competing with one another for ratings, but I feel as if this takes away from the whole purpose of "the news." Perhaps, this is why Americans are so poorly informed of the world around them.

The news have become more about who has the hotter anchor than who delivers the best news coverage. Maybe these women are extremely qualified and deserve the job, but I think its the network's fault for how they objectify them. Furthermore, I think it says more about how looks are extremely important in our society. God forbid we have an ugly news anchor.

Meta Post Part Two

I would like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos to assess at my "The Truth Behind Subliminal Advertising" post.

Overall, I believe that this quarter I have really begun to realize how much of a process blogging can be. You're not always going to write an amazing post and you're not always going to have something to write about. But I believe that finding a median and not being afraid to share your thoughts are really what good bloggers and writers do.

Not always having something to write about has been an issue for me. There are times where I can't come up with anything, and then there are times where I have ten different ideas bouncing around in my head. But that's just the trials and tribulations of being a writer and to improve you have to work on coming up with something great when you think you have nothing at all. I do think I should blog a little more consistently though.

Another thing I can improve is to make my blogs a little more concise. Even with essays, I tend make everything very long. I need to just get to the point or else I can lose the reader's attention. This is something I'll definitely work on for next semester.

I do have to say though that I am proud of how my blog posts have come along this entire semester. I think one of my strong points is that I am able to provide enough historical background or a link that aids the reader in comprehending the topic I'm discussing. For example, in my "In the Interest of National Security" post I quote a New York Times article that describes the controversy of Julian Assange's releasing of 250,000 American diplomat cables. I quoted that,

"The White House said the release of what it called 'stolen cables' to several publications was a 'reckless and dangerous action' and warned that some cables, if released in full, could disrupt American operations abroad and put the work and even lives of confidential sources of American diplomats at risk."

This shows the reader the severity of the situation. My "Fear Sells" post is also another good example when I describe the Broadview Security ads. I wrote,
" the author talks of how Broadview Security airs ads 'that feature a series of scenarios that play on women's darkest fears.' Like some guy a woman met at a party breaking into her house only a couple of hours later. Obviously the commercial is used to show how effective Broadview Security is, but it also strikes a sense of panic in the women viewers. Many of the other Broadview ads follow the same pattern. A woman is alone and defenseless when a someone tries to break into her home, only to be stopped by the Broadview alarm."

I hope these enhance my post for my reader and make everything a little easier to understand.

Another thing I've been working on is coming up with good blog titles that capture my topic and are good to bring traffic to blog (from Google or wherever). Some titles include, "The Truth Behind Subliminal Adveristing, A Modern Day Witch-hunt, and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I think as a blogger you need to be able to create catchy titles that also can attract attention to your blog and that's exactly what I've tried to do.

Behind the Mind of a Murderer

It's fair to say that almost everybody has heard of the recent shooting in Arizona. If not, here's an article that explains the basis of what happened.We've even discussed it in class when talking about the difference between absolute truth and regular truth. We related it to the incident by saying that the six victims of the shooting who died are an absolute truth. We know they're not living anymore. However, while this issue continues to remain in the media with everybody weighing in on who is responsible for it, we will never know the whole truth of why he committed this act.

Recently, I read an article by the New York Times that talks about the controversy between Pima community college that had recently kicked Jared L. Loughner out for being "troubled" after a series of "bizarre outbursts and violent Internet fantasies."
The article states that,
"In September, Pima suspended Mr. Loughner and told him not to return without a psychologist’s letter certifying that he posed no danger. But it took no steps to mandate that he have a psychiatric evaluation, which in Arizona is easier than in many states. "

He was never cleared by a professional of being mentally stable after he was expelled from the college. But was it it the college's responsibility to provide care for him if they knew he was mentally unstable? Could the shooting have been prevented?

The article goes on to quote an official the school:
“It is part of our practice to provide students with information of where they can go,” said Charlotte Fugett, an official at the college. “It’s their responsibility to find a practitioner.”

But how can you leave the responsibility for someone to actually go to a psychiatrist, if they are potentially mentally unstable? Personally, I think the school should have done something. If someone has shown behavior that could be considered dangerous, the school should have the obligation to do something about it. They can't just release him and except him to go and help himself. Especially, when he deeply believes in everything he's doing. It's not just about protecting the school, its about protecting the community. Maybe if they had tried to help, this tragedy could have been prevented.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

As American citizens, we are demand the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the people right in our Declaration of Independence. Everybody deserves the right to live, right?

In class this week, we discussed Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development and related to them to the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which we are currently reading in class.

Here are Kohlberg's 6 stages:
While discussing Kohlberg, we were given a situation and had to decide for ourselves if we believed it could be justified as moral. The situation was:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from if." So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz steal the drug?

Many people answered yes. He was trying to save his wife's life. Life trumps the act of stealing the drug. But what if it wasn't his wife who was dying? Would Heinz still be obligated to steal the drug in order to save another human's life? Everybody does deserve the right to live, right?


I believe that many of us would answer that we would save anybody's life because honestly we would like to believe that when faced with that situation we would. However, I do not think that's truly the case. Our world is based on Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. If we judge someone as inadequate whether they're a bad person or they don't hold up to our standards, I think we'd be less likely to want to save their lives. However, if it was someone close to us, I believe we have a higher initiative to help them. Would you consider saving someone's life who had done bad things in their life? But what if it was a complete stranger? Or a murderer? Do they deserve the right to live? What then constitutes the value of a life?

Hall of Shame

During class this week, we discussed New Trier's new "Hall of Fame," where they honor alumni who have carried out the school's motto to "to commit minds to inquiry, hearts to compassion and lives to the service of humanity." Some of the alumni who will be honored include actor Rainn Wilson from the Office, ex-Playboy executive Christie Hefner, and former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Here is an article about the hall of fame, if you'd like to learn more.

Donald Rumsfeld

Rainn Wilson
Christie Hefner

During a press release, Superintendent Linda Yonke gave her support for all those who were chosen, claiming they fully embodied what New Trier stood for:"These extraordinary alumni truly are a testament to the quality and character of New Trier's graduates. It was difficult to narrow the field of nominees, but ultimately, these first inductees were chosen for lives and careers spent upholding the New Trier values of inquiry, compassion, and service."

Yonke says that these alumni are a "testament to the quality and character of New Trier's graduates." But it makes you wonder if that's why they were really chosen. Look at Donald Rumsfeld. He is in no way a favorite in the country because of his involvement in the Iraqi invasion.

Another New Trier alum Chad Topaz ('92) wrote a letter to New Trier in which he stated that "Despite the glossy list of philanthropic activities in Rumsfeld's award citation, his career has done anything but serve community and humanity, and he has demonstrated a compassionless heart. His activities as an architect of torture of detainees in the United States' unjust Iraq war are anti-humanitarian, are despised around the globe, and have contributed to the degradation of our country's international standing."

So should an "architect of torture" be awarded? When I look at the name of inductees, I see a Nobel Prize winning physicist, a cancer researcher, a Holocaust survivor. But I wonder in the inclusion of Rumsfeld was just because he was a prominent figure in this decade, not because he truly committed his mind to inquiry, heart to compassion and life to the service of humanity. Is celebrity valued more than good work done by ordinary people?

Sadly, I believe it does in this society and at New Trier. The school wants to be associated with a power and status of a man like Rumsfeld. We taught him, didn't we? Once a Trev, always a Trev, right?

But I think there's some people who aren't necesarily U.S. Secretaries of Defense or star in the Office, but need to recognized for what they've accomplished in their lives as well. As a society, we focus too much on the "star" or the glitz and the glamor. Because there's ordinary people who are working hard every day to make this world a better place and we constantly overlook them.