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.

Cartoons taking over the news?

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric added a little twist to it's newscast on Feb. 8. Josh Landis and Mitch Butler are the two men behind a three minute segment of the newscast, called Fast Draw, "an animated series created with dry-erase markers that tries to shed light on news developments." This segment of Fast Draw was to try and better explain the political power wielded by superdelegates. Landis said that with Fast Draw, they can easily, and in a more simple way, explain complex topics in the news. As well as the segment during th Evening News, Fast Draw has appeared on CBS News Sunday Morning three times.

I love this! I am the kind of person who learns better if you break things down into "kindergarden terms" and give me visuals, so this would be perfect for me. I think CBS made a great decision to add this to their newscasts, as I feel people will be more inclined to watch it if it can be explained to them, not just read off of a teleprompter.

HarperCollins to offer free book samples

Starting Monday, people can log on to the HarperCollins website to read some books online. The entire contents of five books, including a cookbook, will be available to view online, but only on the HarperCollins website. These books will only be available for one month, and will have the print functions disabled, as well as not allowing readers to download them to a computer. Also, two weeks before hard copies of select books go on sale, 20% of them will be offered on the site for sampling. HarperCollins is doing this because they believe that people will be more inticed to buy the book if they can see what it is about, much like people who are able to flip through books at the library or book store.

I think this is a great idea for this company to offer this. I'm not very big into reading, but if I find a book that sucks me in within the first 15-20 pages, I'm normally sold! With being able to go on this site and read the first 15-20 pages or more, people will know if it is even worth it to buy the book and continue reading.

Bush Has Gone "Mad"

Mad magazine has recruited 10 Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonists to illustrate a 2-page spread in their next issue. The spread, or expose as the magazine is calling it, is titled, "Why George W. Bush Is in Favor of Global Warming." A writer for Mad came up with all of the different reasons Bush likes global warming, such as, “His worries about how future generations will remember his presidency won’t matter if there are no future generations,” and "Other potential upsides are that Iraq could literally be melted off the earth, and rising oceans could submerge lefty strongholds like New York, Boston and San Francisco," and the cartoonists took over from there. Mad's editor, and art director were the masterminds behind finding the cartoonists, and said that all 10 were happy to participate.

I think this is such a interesting spread, and it comes at such a great time, when our nation is all reved up about elections. Mad is known for it's cartoons on politicions, and getting 10 award winning cartoonists to do the spread on Bush, will just give it a little something special. I don't read Mad, but I think I may get this issue, as I am very curious as to what this will turn out like.

Is smoking as bad as sex?

A new rule by the Motion Picture Association of America was set last May, stating that movies with excessive cigarette smoking will now be given a more restricted rating. The association is considering cigarette smoking to be in the same category as sex and violence, when rating movies.
Woody Allen's newest movie, “Cassandra’s Dream”, managed to slip through the cracks with a PG-13 rating, despite it's excessive smoking. Few other movies have also managed to get lower ratings, due to them being rated before this new rule was set. A spokesperson for the Weinstein Company, which holds distribution rights to the film, said although the film managed to not get an R rating, the Weinstein Company was the "first motion picture company to include anti smoking public service announcements on DVDs of movies that depict smoking."


So what do you think? Should cigarette smoking be considered just as bad as sex and violence for younger audiences? I feel this is semi-stupid, as most people know movies are not real, and the people smoking are just actors. I grew up in a house where BOTH of my parents smoked, and giving a movie an R-rating to prevent me from seeing what I see at home everyday, I find to be pointless.

The Washington Post could be going out of "Style"

The Communications Workers of America union has started an advertising campaign in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area against The Washington Post. The union represents about 400 employees of the newspaper, known as mailroom workers, who work in the printing plants, assembling the newspapers. The article states that "The workers have not had a raise in over five years and have gone four years without a contract, according to the union." The union has paid for this campaign, which includes print, radio, and billboard messages. The billboard messages have been posted in two separate Metro stations, and print versions will be run in The Washington Post, and also in the free tabloid Express. All of the ads have sentences or phrases, which include a section name from the newspaper in them, like, Style, Business, and one even includes the name of the chairman and chief executive of The Washington Post Company. The ads also give the address to a web-site set up by the the union: washingtonpostunfair.com.

I think that this is a great way of getting a point across, and letting the public know what is going on behind the closed doors of some very large companies. T.V. and radio ads are great ways to do this, but putting up these billboards in TWO separate Metro stations is genius. (Here is a link to view the ads being posted - Ads) If you're unfamiliar with Metro, it is the Washington D.C, Maryland, and Virginia equivalent of the New York subway, but runs above ground as well as under. If this union picked the right two stations to post these ads, they have the chance of them being seen by thousands of people a day, most of which are probably holding today's Washington Post in their hand as they're reading the ad. This makes me think, why am I paying money to this company everyday to read their newspaper, when they won't even give raises to the people who assemble the paper?

Predator problem or parenting problem?

An agreement was announced Monday that MySpace, the most popular social networking Web site, was going to make changes to better protect it's users from sexual predators. The agreement was made with MySpace, and the attorneys general for 49 states, and the District of Columbia, (Texas was the only state not to sign). MySpace currently has over 70 million users, and allows them to make a personal profile, displaying pictures and other information about themselves. Current security barriers used by MySpace include the reviewing of all videos and images, for sexually explicit content, and making the profiles of users ages 14 and 15 private. In the new agreement, all profiles of users under the age of 18 will automatically be set to private, and parents can send MySpace their children's email address to have it permanently blocked from the site. Also, a task force will be implemented to verify the ages and identities of the site's users.
OK, so really, not that I in anyway feel we shouldn't be protected from sexual predators, but I find this to be semi-pointless. I have had a MySpace account for about 4 years now, and I have yet to encounter a sexual predator. Could it be because they don't want to talk to me? No, it's probably because I don't allow them to talk to me. MySpace gives you the option to set your profile to private, even to the point where someone may have to give your last name or email address to even REQUEST to be your friend. Yes, that's right, request. Which means, you don't have to approve them. Also, as most people with a MySpace account know, you have to be at least 14 years old to have one. So if all your friends are 14 and they have a MySpace, but you are only 13 and you HAVE to have one, what are you gonna do? You're gonna lie. Now they are upping the age of the profiles they set to private. If you don't want your profile to be private, all you have to do is lie about your age. Let's say you're a sexual predator, and you want to use MySpace to solicit children. Well since they delete all of the profiles of sexual predators, your gonna lie.
I don't think that MySpace has a problem with sexual predators. I think that MySpace has a problem with parents. I truly believe that parents these days do not have enough control over their children to prevent them from doing things that could put them at risk of encountering a sexual predator.
If a parent cannot control their child on their own, then they will raise concern about an issue, leading government officials to step in and parent their child for them.

This is a practice link to BuzzMachine!

Watch Out, Here I Come...

Hello World! I'm here and I'm excited to write to you this semester!