Saturday, October 30, 2010

Media's Magic Pill

The American media has distorted our perception of health. We have been force fed images of thin, idealized bodies, yet live in a society where food is literally within reach at all times. We are criticized for becoming a society of overweight individuals, and then foolishly sold the empty promises of diet trends.  Clearly, there is no reason to wonder why uttering the word “FAT” is practically taboo.
The message that the media is sending to the American public is ubiquitous, inescapably ever-present in our society.  Just pick up any magazine and skim through the images within. It is nearly impossibly to find a picture of a person with even the slightest amount of extra meat. Turn on the television or go to the movies and the same slender depictions abound. We, in turn, are trained to worship an impossible body frame that may actually be more unhealthy than healthy. Furthermore, we have no choice but to believe that a thin appearance is the answer to wellbeing when, in actuality, there isn’t much correlation at all.  According to health specialist and author of Fear of Fat, Laura Fraser, an hour of exercise three times a week and a healthy diet mean more than a couple ounces of fat.  Fraser insists a little extra skin does not equate to poor health, and “weight obsession is a fate far worse than love handles.” (Read more about this topic on CommuniKATE)
Simultaneously, America is experiencing a health crisis that our media incessantly blasts loud and clear. Public health authorities assert, “no less than four of every five Americans maintain a medically dangerous body mass, [with] nearly two-thirds of us…said to be overweight, [and] almost half of the rest of the nation…categorized as too thin” (Campos).  According to a report released in April 2010 by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, forty five percent of all adults had at least one of three chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia, related to poor diet and exercise habits (Tuttle).  Not to mention, our hard earned tax dollars go towards the aid of such domestic health issues. As Newsweek recently reported, “[o]besity accounts for nearly 10 percent of what the U.S. spends annually on health care and is linked to about one third of the increase in domestic health spending since the mid-1980s” (“We have the power…”).  Meaning, even if you aren’t obese, you’re paying for everyone else that is.
Honestly though, how are we to blame for an obesity epidemic when food is readily available at all times? Even gas stations sell something to satisfy the stomach.  What is more, unhealthy food is the most affordable. Not to mention, “everything in America is set up to eat more and move less’” (Miller). Portion sizes have grown while technological devices now enabled us to do anything we could ever want with the touch of a button.  Why chase a soccer ball when you can do so virtually on your laptop?  The media doesn’t make avoiding such temptations any easier, plastering food advertisements on billboard left and right and airing McDonalds radio commercials every five minutes.  I will be the first to say, it is hard to think of anything BUT food.
This sense of disarray has left American’s desperate for a solution and in turn, transformed the diet industry into a billion dollar business. Companies sell everything and anything, from pills to books, promising to whittle down the waistline. Yet media promotions of such short cuts to weight loss give society nothing but false hope. In fact, on October 23, 2010, latimes.com announced that the FDA rejected a newly proposed weight loss drug, Lorcaserin, intended to “work on the brain to alter metabolism and appetite.” Apparently, when further tested, Lorcaserin raised concerns regarding “marginal effectiveness” and increased chances of cancerous growth. According the Times report, the FDA, more often than not, shuts down diet drugs for similar reasons of false promises and health risks.  However, even if such drugs were indeed effective, studies have shown that, “95% of dieters who take off the weight pack it back on after five years or less” (Miller). To date there proves to be no easy way out of proper nutrition, modest caloric intake, and good old fashion exercise.  Sadly, the media is selling us a solution that’s only further fueling the issue and encouraging society to take shortcuts when addressing personal wellbeing.
Unfortunately, America’s solution won’t come in the shape of a pill. Its answer lies in our ability to create an environment that fosters good health habits. Simultaneously, it is the media’s responsibility to promote such changes.  It is time to do away with unrealistically thin images and weight loss drug advertisements.
(Haven’t tobacco ads been outlawed for similar health risk reasons?) Pills and diet “secrets” are nothing but empty promises.  The answer to weight loss remains a balance between exercise and healthy food consumption. We must make a concerted effort to eat more vegetables and find a form of exercise we actually enjoy doing. We need to embrace the “journey” of a healthy lifestyle, instead of focusing on an easy way out.




Campos, Paul. "Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health."
Not Alone. 2004. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://www.enotalone.com/article/6358.html>.

"FDA shoots down another weight loss drug." Los Angeles Times 23 OCT 2010: n.
pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/23/nation/la-na-weight-loss-lorcaserin-20101024>.

Fraser, Laura. "Fear of Fat." Fair (1997): n. pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010.
<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1388>.

Miller, Martin. "Feeding our diet obsession." Los Angeles Times 05 MAY 2003: n.
pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/05/health/he-diet5>.

Tuttle, Steve. "I Was a Male Weight Watcher." Newsweek 30 APR 2010: n. pag. Web.
30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/i-was-a-male-weight-watcher.html>.

"We Have the Power to Change Our Weight." Newsweek 10 SEP 2009: n. pag. Web.
30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/09/we-have-the-power-to-change-our-weight.html>.


Thursday, October 21, 2010

laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off...


Recently, the media has been going crazy over a publicity mishap with GQ magazine and the cast members of popular Fox tv series, Glee. For those not familiar, the show is a fictional depiction of a High School Glee club composed of some incredibly talented young adults. The show is corky, witty, and anything but PG13, which is exactly what makes this controversy so very interesting.
Apparently, photos released from the upcoming GQ issue depict scantly clad female leads Leah Michelle and Dianna Argon posing seductively in what appears to be the halls of a High School. The suggestive attire and overall image messages have left quite a buzz trail. They’ve been criticized by the likes of The Parents Television Council, gossip king Perez Hilton, and even news anchor Katie Curic, all of which have claimed to be incredibly disappointed. In fact, The Parents Television Council declared the shots to be borderline “Pedophilia,” further stating, “the creators of the program have established their intentions on the show's direction, and it isn't good for families." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/parents-group-calls-glee-_n_770295.html)
In reply, both GQ and actress Dianna Argon defended their actions with public statements and blog posts. GQ protested that the show is racy in and of itself and these actresses are indeed grown adults, not the high schoolers they play on TV. As for Dianna, she apologized for anyone that misinterpreted her intentions. She also admitted that she didn’t personally like the idea to begin with, but then reminded herself that she’s just playing a character and doing a job she’s so very blessed to do. Neither source fully admitted to be in the wrong. Dianna even questioned wittingly, “if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?”
The truth of the matter is entertainment and entertainers love to push the limits. It’s part of what makes them so darn entertaining. They thrive on these sorts of media explosions simply because of their ability to cultivate more fans, more viewers, and ultimately, more money. Ever heard the saying there’s no such thing as bad publicity? I can’t pronounce I entirely agree with this statement, but I do agree with the fact that pushing the envelope a little gets people to stand up and take notice.
 I will assert, however, that publicity should never intentionally hurt another individual or go against mainstream society’s ethical code. In my eyes, the GQ shots do neither. Yes, these images are pretty darn sexy, but so were those of Marilyn Monroe in her flowing white dress. If you are a parent and unhappy with the message media is sending, tell you children you don’t like what you see. Be a good role model yourself. I can almost guarantee that children will emulate their parents and people they actually know, more so than a celebrity, but ONLY if they have a solid role model in front of them leading the way.
To be blunt, entertainers aren’t going to stop pushing buttons anytime soon. It’s the nature of the beast. (Read more about this  topic). Getting stirred up over a racy photos, and publishing a press release, is exactly the reaction publication is going for and really not going to make worried viewers any better off. So laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off. It was only meant to arouse a little hype anyway and it will all be forgotten by tomorrow.
            

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Magazines Will Live


The “death of print” is a concept of recurring speculation. However, at present, it is just that, mere speculation. Magazines, paperback books and newspapers are still very much alive. Society has indeed become fully engrossed in the digital age and soon today’s youth, known as the “Digital Generation,” will be tomorrow’s leaders. This Digital Generation has grown up with far less print on paper and far more web surfing, text messaging, and emailing. In their eyes, everything readable can be found online. Digital is a way of life and is thus, changing the life of the print industry. For this reason, various newspapers and books have sought to represent themselves on the web as well as in print. This gradual transition has even furthered the assumption of print’s demise. Magazines, however, have yet to convert their monthly publications into a virtual experience. Their demise seems far less likely, possibly because the passion behind this medium is a force to be reckoned with. Though the magazine industry needs to change, it will not die.
History is evidence that magazines have no reason to cease existence, as their downfall has been questioned before. Approximately 30 years ago, society was considered to be in the Golden Age of Magazines. The industry itself was launching close to 150 to 200 new publications per year (Husni). This period is also considered a rebirth of sorts after the threat of television in the 1960s, which was predicted to wipe out print altogether. No such death occurred. The 1980’s were also a time of technological advancements that questioned the survival of print, alluding to talk of magazines on CD-ROM, videocassettes and DVDs. Yet, no change arose. Even with the inception of the Internet, magazines have pursued. In fact, “for every magazine that shut its doors in 2008, at least 20 new magazines were born” (Husni). However, now more than ever, innovations of 2010 appear to be giving the industry a real run for its money.
Indeed, technological advancements practically demand change. iPads, iPhones, reading tablets, and the like, beckon the transformation of material represented in print to be represented digitally as well. These devices enable immediacy and the “anytime, anywhere” ideology of wireless Internet. Moreover, such inventions have opened up alternative avenues for advertisers. As ads generate the majority of magazine revenue, this has begun to cause real problems within the industry. Less cash flow translates to job cuts and, at times, the termination of entire publications. Furthermore, the cost to advertize digitally is far less than that necessary in print. Rachel Wimberly, author of “Magazines aren’t dead yet: print products,” stated that “if a print ad costs a dollar, chances are the same ad online will go for 25 cents”. However, advertizing agencies have not pulled away from print entirely. Rather, they have begun to spread their coverage upon multiple mediums like digital and face-to-face advertizing. As Don Pazour, Access CEO and President stated, “’there are still profitable magazines, and magazines provide excellent databases of readers that relate to magazine brands’” (Wimberly). Nevertheless, as technology expands and advertisers invest less and less in print, the industry will indeed need to begin to seek revenue elsewhere.
The previous publishing model which relied mainly on ad sales and very little on reader’s purchasing power for revenue will not subsist in this day in age. Thus, it is the publishing model that is dying, not magazines themselves. “Success needs to be measured by finding customers who count and charging them for the content of the publication” (Husni). With this change, the focus should shift from quantity of ads sold to quality of material generated. In turn, this will inspire superior journalism and higher excellence from issue to issue, sans the distractions of numerous make up ads ads and scantily clad denim models. One need only analyze the types of magazines which have already closed to see that chasing advertisers and going after quantity instead of quality, is not the answer.  According to a list compiled by Advertising Age, by and large the most recently deceased publications were either created solely for market-share or advertising purposes. Author Gabriel Sherman from Big Money.com points out that when the housing market inflated, many “shelter” titled magazines were born and when the “financial bubble peaked in 2007…Conde Nast launched Portfolio, its business [titled publication].” In addition, many companies in search of further avenues for ad sales began spinoffs of popular magazines like Conde Nast’s Men’s Vogue and Heart’s Cosmo Girl, both of which have come to a close. Hence, the answer is to focus on the delivery of quality material from publications readers have grown to love, trust, and rely upon.  This model has been tested and proves to be successful with the likes of Cook’s Illustrated, Highlights for Children, and Consumer Reports, each of which do not accept a single ad and yet, circulate up to one million or more copies. Of course, advertizing for additional revenue will not disappear entirely, but the portion from which magazines rely on such sales needs to shift in order to continue to survive.
Additionally, the impact magazines have made upon our culture is yet another reason their fatality seems highly unlikely. They symbolize so much more than bound and printed matter. Magazines mean photo shoots, interviews, runway shows, journalists, celebrities, publicity events, and all sorts of glitz and glamour that society has grown to obsess over. For many involved or those aspiring to get involved, the industry is a way of life.  For example, take a look at such popular films as The Devil Wear Prada or the real-life documentary of Vogue editor, Anna Wintour, titled, The September Issue. These two films, amongst countless other books and TV shows, captivate audiences with tales of “the magazine life”. For women in particular, magazines have become more of an accessory, like a purse or a scarf, than a disposable wad of paper. Very seldom does one read and then immediately dispose of a magazine. There is an undeniable connection between readers and this material object.  A good issue is a keepsake, like a photo album interspersed with advice and interesting stories pertinent to today’s pop culture.  As journalist Gabriel Sherman put it, “Magazines are emotional products. They are objects of aspiration, passion, and desire... [which] still offer an unsurpassed ability to marry literary ambition with deep reporting, photography, and visual design. ” Devout readers feel a bond with their favorite titles. “In this new media age, people talk about the importance of transforming readers into ‘communities’“ as social networking sites like Facebook have done (Sherman). This cultivation of community is something that magazines do best and thus gives magazines ever more of a fighting chance.
Furthermore, the proud and passionate leaders within the magazine industry have chosen to stand up against any preconceived notions of termination.  In March of 2010, five premier companies (Townsend, Conde Nast, Hearst, Time Inc, and Wenner Media) began a campaign called “Magazines, The Power of Print” endorsing the lasting strength of magazines, as well as consumer devotion to the medium. In addition, the campaign has a dense web database composed of up-to-date industry statistics and reports, all of which are intended as ammunition against naysayers. Statements like ‘ during the 12-year life of Google, magazine readership increased 11%’ appear as PR pages for the campaign. A favorite ad, featuring a picture of Olympian Michael Phelps, reads  “we surf the internet [and] we swim in magazines…[but] people aren’t giving up swimming, just because they also enjoy surfing.”  Such ads have run in nearly 100 magazines, and reached nearly 112 million viewers each month. Clearly, this industry and its leaders aren’t going anywhere without a fight (http://powerofmagazines.com/).

Yet, even devoted magazine advocates agree that avoiding digital media entirely would be a mistake. According to Gordon Huges, CEO and president of American Business Media, in May of 2008, “‘Digital [was] a $4.5 billion industry, and…is growing at 20 percent [a year]’” (Wimberly). At this rate, digital has the chance of exceeding print by 2011, indicating it is clearly a force to be reckoned with. Consequently, the most beneficial thing magazines can do is view change as an opportunity. The truth is, at present, online representation is expected.  They should consider blending digital media with their print. For example, a current event, which would take at least three weeks to come out in magazine, can be represented online the very day it occurs. “As a result, [the monthly] print version will focus on feature stories and provide more in-depth problem-solving solutions” to the most important online content (Mayer). Big name publications like Cosmopolitan have already adopted a model that intertwines online and offline media quite successfully. Articles from previous issues, daily horoscopes, food recipes, and various other topics of interest are archived on the site. Nothing online repeats what follows in print, but rather, the two complement each other. The web depiction only enhances the Cosmopolitan image and provides further entertainment to diehard fans.
 Moreover, editors should continue to entertain the idea of digital publications, which can be sold like music, books, movies, and television on sites like iTunes and Amazon.com. In the near future, these digital publications may be just as successful as their print counterparts. Their creative possibilities are endless, as they can be enhanced with video footage, sound, and even link to additional sites with further information on presented topics.  And quite frankly, if the industry does not develop such electronic interpretations themselves, an outsider who does not lawfully have the right to do so, will. The last thing the industry needs is an illegal downloading nightmare like that of Napster and mp3 music files. As the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, join them.
The only, undeniable flaw in print is its environmentally wasteful nature. “According to the PAPER Project, the magazine industry consumes approximately 35 million trees each year” (“print is dead. Long Live Print”). It also takes a great deal of energy to then transport magazines to each and every subscriber, newsstand, grocery store, and the like. PC Magazine stated in 2009 that 2.9 billion of the 4.7 billion magazines printed and delivered to retailers are never even read. Furthermore, another issue, more relevant issue will be out the next month, making last months print seemingly disposable. Thus, it stands to reason that “[g]oing digital is going green” (“Print is dead. Long Live Print”). Perhaps, the industry should scale back the amount of issues produced or consider giving back to the environment. Donating revenue to plant a few more trees wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Regardless of what does occur, there will be no drastic, sudden change. At present, alternative technologies are far too expensive for the average citizen. A specialist on the subject, informed journalist Barbara Quint that “[p]articular household [facilities can] accommodate reading print publications while the same facility would not so easily accommodate a laptop computer” (Quint).  Most people can afford a $3.50 magazine, but not everyone can toss out $600 plus dollars for a new iPad. Author, blogger, and expert in the field of publication, Steve Laube, uses the introduction of the electronic reader to point out that since its inception, the volume of books sold digitally is still less than 1% of all editions sold. He further asserts that even if “e-books have 100% growth in the next year…they would still comprise [only] 2% of all sales” (Laube). As previously mentioned, there’s no need for immediate alarm.
The statement “Print is dead” is shocking at the very least. To those involved in the magazine industry, this bold statement fosters panic and fear. It leads to the loss of jobs, the mortality of life long ambitions, and the death of an industry that once made so many, so very happy. Though change is unavoidable, panic is pointless. The industry is indeed going to change, as is every industry. Society changes, times change, and so will the facilities that cater to our inhabitants. Such is the cycle of life. But, no entity that has had as big an impact on human existence as the magazine industry, should simply die, disintegrate, and disappear forever more.  Magazines will only die if let them. As ASBPE’s past president Roy Harrris stated, “When travelers are told to turn off all electronic devices on the plane, they can turn on the magazine” (Husni).


Bibliography

Anonymous, FEEDBACK. (2010, April). Adweek, 51(14), 48.  Retrieved October
11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2018766491).

Batista, Elisa. (2003). Paper trail not dead yet. Wired,
Retrieved from Konrath, J.A. (2010, May 21). Is print dead? [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ja-konrath/is-print-dead_b_583959.html

Ben Bagdikian.  (2004, March). PRINT WILL SURVIVE. Editor &
Publisher, 137(3), 70.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 575970021).

Husni, Samir. (2009). It's the publishing model-non-print-
that's dead. Publishing Exec, 1. Retrieved from

Harbison, Niall. (2010, January 19). Why traditional media
and print industry are dying and 5 things that could save them. Traditional Media, Retrieved from http://www.simplyzesty.com/traditional-media/traditional-media-print-industry-dying-5-save/


Konrath, J.A. (2010, May 21). Is print dead? [Web log
message]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ja-konrath/is-print-dead_b_583959.html

Laube, Steve. (2010, January 21). Is print dead?.

Magazines, the power of print campaign [Web log
message]. (2010, September 23). Retrieved from http://www.workbook.com/blog/1618

Mark Fitzgerald, & Jennifer Saba. (2007, August). WHO SAID PRINT IS
DEAD? Editor & Publisher, 140(8), 18-20,22-24.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1319508801).

O'Rourke, P.. (2010, June). Not Dead Yet. The Weekly Standard, 15(36), 10,12-
13.  Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Social Science Module. (Document ID: 2059364421).

Print Is Dead. Long Live Print :Print businesses aren't dead, but they do need to
change. Printing should be reserved for archival information you'll hold onto for years instead of days.. (2009, January). PC Magazine, 28(1), Retrieved October 11, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1650440681).

Quint, B.. (2008, January). Why Isn't Print Dead ... Yet? Information
Today, 25(1), 7-8.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.
(Document ID: 1410305511).


Sherman, Net to newspaper: drop dead. (2005, July 4). 

The future of print. (2000, December). American Printer,1  226(3), 11.
Retrieved October 12, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 66599816).

Twenty truths about magazines. (2009, October 14).

Vic Nathan Barkin.  (2006, December). The Future of Print. In - Plant
Graphics, 56(12), 10-12,18,20.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from Arts Module. (Document ID: 1182471731).

Wimberly, Rachel. (2008). Magazines aren't dead yet: print

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

SAFE SEX IS OUR STANDARD



Yesterday, while browsing the health section of the New York Times, I came across an article titled, “Condom Use Is Highest for Young, Study Finds.” The headline alone reeled me in to read and review. Never once would I have guessed that my generation would be the leading demographic participating in safe sex.
            According to Roni Rabin’s article, condom use has become the “norm for sexually active” teens of today. 75 percent of the 14-17 year-olds surveyed reported using condoms as compared to the 25 percent for all men involved in the analysis. On the contrary, well under half of the adults who participated in this survey stated that they used this contraceptive. Rabin quotes pediatrics professor Dr. J Fortenbeerry as stating that condoms have become an expected ingredient in the start of sexual activity among our youth. The act is likened to wearing a seatbelt when learning to drive a car--something considered mere protocol.
A follow up article was posted today, October 4th further illustrating the study taken. Today’s article was titled, “Researchers unveil biggest survey on sex in US since 1994” and penned by David Crary. Today’s article provided further statics regarding the survey used in Rabin’s write-up.
According to Crary, the sample of 57 teens used was strikingly lesser than the sample of thousands who participated in the “latest federal Youth Risk Behavior Survey last year, which calculated condom use among sexually active high school students at 61 percent.” Even though some may argue that the overall percentage in smaller, it is still shockingly evident that today’s youth takes safe sex more seriously. Researchers have grown distraught over evidence that the lowest condom usage rates were found in men above 50. Though these males are more likely to be married, 50+ men are revealed to be the most open to multiple sexual partners. Such statistics postulate an ultimate increase in disease rates. Furthermore, the study also showed that black and Hispanic men used condoms more than white men. Analysts claim this suggests that HIV-AIDS programs have been successfully infiltrated into “those communities, which have relatively high rates of the disease.”
I immediately began to rationalize these statistics. Perhaps the adults partaking in casual intercourse obtain birth control or utilize an alternative form of contraceptive? This idea was not made clear in either of the Times articles. I further postulated that “sexually active” adults might not view unplanned pregnancy as seriously detrimental to their lifestyle as a teen would. However, in hindsight, I think this hypothesis is a far cry from the truth. After all, a baby isn’t like a pet you can just get rid of when it becomes a chore.
It is my belief, that today’s teens are growing up in a more complicated society than their forefathers and not necessarily by choice. This pressure may stem from the state of college acceptance or, for that matter, what it takes to succeed nowadays. Teens are forced to take life seriously very early on. High school is no longer the last stop before adulthood. High School is now a time to look towards college, graduate school, and then opportunity to earn a living. Thus, it would stand to reason that youth take their personal sexual safety equally as serious. Per an article found on MSNBC.com, I discovered the federal government has recently voted to fund sex education programs which aren’t based solely on abstinence. Apparently, a “$375 million grant is being divided among 28 [previously successful] programs, … many [of which] distribute condoms, but about half also aim to boost teens' academics, get them involved in extracurricular activities and even improve their parents' job status.” Thank god we’ve finally acknowledged that today’s youth is sexually active and abstinence-only discussion is a waste of breath. How can you honestly tell young adults to stay away from sex when the media practically shoves it down our throats? It’s comforting to know that safe sex contraceptives will be the lesson of choice and it’s even better to know that our teens are listening. Perhaps this generation is not as ignorant and clueless as it is made out to seem.