Is the Wall Street Journal trying to hide something??

A new tabloid-format satire of the Wall Street Journal will go on sale this week, yet someone has already snatched all of them up from newsstands around L.A. The satire, called "My Wall Street Journal," "mostly sets out to skewer The Journal’s new owner, the News Corporation, and its chairman, Rupert Murdoch, with swipes at News properties like Fox News, The New York Post and The Journal itself." says the article. Last Thursday, a man with a Journal logo on his shirt came to a newsstand in L.A. and asked if they had any papers looking similar to the Journal. When the clerk found them, the man bought ALL of them with a corporate American Express, saying first that they had to make corrections, or that it wasn't ready to be sold yet, and finally said that it wasn't being put out by the Wall Street Journal.

I think it's pretty funny that the man kept saying different things while purchasing the satires. The article also said that the man had gone to different newsstands doing the same thing. I hope the people from the Journal don't try to purchase every copy, because I sure would like to see one. But if the Journal is trying to hide something that the satire is going to expose, I think they would be better off running something in their paper, as opposed to buying 250,000 copies of this thing.

The Times says I'm Sorry!

After publishing an article on March 17 about an attack on rapper Tupac Shakur, the Los Angeles Times retracts it after the articles credibility was questioned. "The Web site The Smoking Gun first raised questions about the authenticity of the documents on March 26." The day after The Smoking Gun's questions, a front page apology was run, stating the paper would fully investigate. Since fully investigating, The Times has removed the article and it's related materials off of the web-site, and even directs viewers to the retraction, which states the article was removed because it “relied heavily on information that The Times no longer believes to be credible.”

I think it is amazing the lengths people businesses will go to keep their customers. To actually listen to this web-sites questions, run a front page apology, research the article, then to remove it and post a 600-word retraction...that's dedication to their readers. I commend The Times for their prompt attention to this issue, and taking every step necessary to not upset their readers.

The F.C.C. is at it again!

After an episode of a new reality series, "Married by America" aired on Fox, the station was in turn slammed with a $91,000 fine by the F.C.C. This particular episode of the show, which has now been canceled, showed scenes from a bachelor and baccalaureate party, that had the F.C.C. saying, "many of the activities at the parties constitute sexual activities." Originally, Fox and it's 169 affiliates that aired the show were going to be fined a total of $1.2 million, but instead, they charged $7,000 to only the 13 stations that broadcast in areas that complained about the episode. Fox is going to appeal the fine and Scott Grogin, the company’s senior vice president for corporate communications said in the article, “Fox believes that the F.C.C.’s decision in this case was arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with precedent and patently unconstitutional.”

So after doing some research, I found out that this show aired at 9:00 PM, which is when most shows start to get a little more mature. I don't know just how graphic the scenes were, but oh my lord, when will the F.C.C. stop??? I understand children watch TV, and some things aren't appropriate for children, but when approximately 750,000 teen pregnancies occur each year in the U.S., I think it's safe to say kids are having sex. If they are old enough to have it, they are old enough to watch "sexually suggestive" things on TV.

To Extend or Not To Extend--That IS The Question

Consumer Reports, a 70 year old magazine is starting to do something they don't normally do. Starting Monday, ads are going to be run on some major car buying websites, such as caranddriver.com and Edmunds.com. The ads will be showing the magazines stand on extended warranties for new vehicles. A full page print ad will also appear in the Tuesday issue of USA Today. Consumer Reports has been against extended warranties for quite some time, but apparently that isn't enough, which is why they are willing to pay to run these ads. The article mentions a survey the magazine did on extended warranties. "The survey found that warranty buyers on vehicles from the 2001 and 2002 model years paid an average of $1,000 and received $700 worth of repairs in exchange." Vice President of the company that owns Consumer Reports hopes that these ads will better inform the public of the loss of money that comes with an extended warranty.

I have mixed feelings on this. When I really think about it, I understand where they are coming from. It's like car insurance or any other type of insurance you may have (health, home, renters, etc.). You pay so much money a month to be covered if something were to happen, and may not even use the insurance for years. At work, I have $29 taken out of my paycheck every two weeks for medical insurance. Sure, $29 isn't a lot, but then I think about it, and first off, I have an INSANE deductible, and second, I have had this insurance for almost 2 years now....and have yet to go to the doctors, which in all reality, I just lost $696 a year, for a "just in case" insurance.

Now, on the other hand, if something were to have happened to me, I would be ever so grateful that I'm paying $700 a year in medical insurance. Which is why I myself purchased the extended warranty on my new car.

"You Know It's Thriller, Thriller Night"

To promote the 25th anniversary of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album, Sony BMG advertised a little bit different. "FROM their seats on the rumbling London Underground, a group of stony-faced passengers rose at random and burst into the jerky slide kick of a zombie dance before melting away without a word," the article explains about one group involved in the advertisement. Some people think this is a great way to advertise, but others think it isn't, because you don't know who is advertising it. The advertising is referred to as "guerrilla advertising" because they go in, do what they need to do, and disappear with no words being spoken. No pamphlets are handed out, and no one is pressured into anything. It's almost like a free show, that leaves you wondering what just happened. The "Thriller" dance is known throughout the world, so as soon as these people start dancing, whether they know why or not, people minds are thinking about "Thriller."

I think this is the neatest thing ever! I personally love Thriller, and the dance is just so catchy, that if I saw a group of people burst into the dance , it would get my attention. Great job Sony BMG for your creativeness and will to take a risk that this may not work.

HBO Puts New Series Online--For Free

After recently airing it's new series, "In Treatment," HBO did something it wouldn't normally do. The first three weeks of episodes of the show are now available for free on HBO.com. The show runs on TV 5 nights a week, and had great volume of viewers the first week, but made a significant drop by week four. HBO is hoping that once people see the show online, that they will either become interested and start watching, or if they don't already have HBO, they will subscribe.

I think this is a smart tactic by HBO. With more and more people using the internet in everyday life, stations need to expand to fit their audiences lifestyles. I personally don't think watching this show online will make me want to subscribe to HBO, but it might work for others, and if it does, good job HBO!

First a Writers Strike, and now a Bloggers Strike...

Recently Hawaii experienced their own personal sort of "writers strike." Reporters at The Honolulu Advertiser blog under a labor union contract, as well as writing for the print version. The bloggers contract was up during the summer, and months went by before they began to renegotiate them, which really upset the bloggers. To prove their anger, the bloggers went on a Byline Strike, "when reporters insist that their names be removed from their articles." The editor of the paper said that the reporters had every right to go on strike from blogging, but not from writing for print, which is why the bloggers stopped putting their names on their print stories. The labor action ended on Friday, when the newspapers owner decided to go back to the bargaining table.

I support these bloggers 100 percent. With the Writers Strike just recently ending, I believe the reporters gained a lot of support that way, because it was a topic that was still fresh peoples minds. I also think that this is why the owner decided to renegotiate after just three days. I'm sure he saw how long the writers strike lasted, and did not want that happening to his blogs.