We all have our dirty little secrets. One of mine is that I read every story I find about Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.
It's definitely a curse. If I see a headline about the famous feud, I'm sure to click on the story even if it's two in the morning. It's like I can't help myself; the tabloid gods take over my body, and I absorb every nitty gritty detail.
Today's news from Entertainment Tonight: Aniston told ELLE UK magazine that 'there are no sides' in the apparent feud between the actress and Jolie. Yep, it's pretty lame, but I enjoyed every minute detail anyway.
About the "fight,"Aniston said, "There are no villains and there is no heroine in this story." I disagree. I think whoever decided that they needed to flash Angelina and Brad across the screen while Aniston was presenting at the Oscars is definitley evil. Really, this was Jenn's moment. Brangelina can go have another baby if they want more publicity.
Obviously, I'm on the pro-Jennifer side of things. I'll never forgive Brad and Angelina for sneaking around on Jenn during the filming of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I dislike home wreckers. (Even if Aniston has forgotten about it, apparently I never will.)
Then again, I probably should just move on, because I'm trying to decide if Jolie is more pitiful for interfering with a marriage or if I am more pitiful that I'm actually still reading about it three years later.
Whatever, I'll figure that question out later. I've got more pressing matters at hand. I must read Pitt: 'Jolie didn't wreck my marriage.'
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
You've got to be kidding!
This may not be necessarily media related, but it definitely needs to be reported. An airline wants to charge its passengers for using the toilet!
Company head Michael O’Leary told the BBC that Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using an airplane’s toilet, according to blogger Karen Datko.
What’s more is that O’Leary said the charge could be one British pound, which amounts to about $1.40, per use. Holy cow! Way to exploit people for performing a very basic body function! And the sad thing is that people will actually pay that much if they really have to go.
Though charging people for using in-flight toilets seems like an atrocity at the least, it is just the extreme in a long line of airlines’ hidden fees. For example, fees for checked baggage, in-flight amenities, paper tickets and booking have become very popular in the United States, according to MSN Money.
I have to say my favorite hidden fee, though, is the curb-side baggage check-in fee. I can just see myself being stressed and loaded down with luggage when a nice old airline man comes up to me and asks if I want help. I would most definitely say yes, to which he would reply, “That’s $2 and a tip, please!”
When it comes to airline travel, so much for goodwill and bathrooms for all!
Company head Michael O’Leary told the BBC that Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline, might start charging passengers for using an airplane’s toilet, according to blogger Karen Datko.
What’s more is that O’Leary said the charge could be one British pound, which amounts to about $1.40, per use. Holy cow! Way to exploit people for performing a very basic body function! And the sad thing is that people will actually pay that much if they really have to go.
Though charging people for using in-flight toilets seems like an atrocity at the least, it is just the extreme in a long line of airlines’ hidden fees. For example, fees for checked baggage, in-flight amenities, paper tickets and booking have become very popular in the United States, according to MSN Money.
I have to say my favorite hidden fee, though, is the curb-side baggage check-in fee. I can just see myself being stressed and loaded down with luggage when a nice old airline man comes up to me and asks if I want help. I would most definitely say yes, to which he would reply, “That’s $2 and a tip, please!”
When it comes to airline travel, so much for goodwill and bathrooms for all!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Coffin photos
In the last week, the new administration has decided to lift the ban on photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers returning from war. In the new rule, families will decide if their soldiers' coffin can be photographed.
According to Martin C. Even of Newsday, the previous ban on these photos was put in place in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush.
As a media person, I applaud the administration's effort to make the military more transparent. In the Newsday article, one mother of a fallen soldier said she would have liked to have the media at the airport because that meant that someone was acknowledging the sacrifice her son had made. Other mothers said these photographs could put the war in "human terms" for people who have not been terribly affected by the war.
On the other hand, those on the other side of the issue have valid concerns, too. In an article by Eric Timmons of The Register-Mail, one mother argued that showing these pictures was just hard on the family. The moment when the soldier comes home is personal and private, and she didn't want her son's coffin all over the front page of a paper.
Another concern with the new rule is that more than one coffin may come back to the U.S. at the same time. In this situation, one family could potentially agree to allowing pictures while another does not want anyone to photograph the solider's coffin. That could create problems because the photographer might not know which coffin is okay to photograph and which one is not.
In the end, I am pleased with the new rule. I think the photographing question should be up to the families since they are the ones being the most affected. Many of the families have strong feelings one way or the other so I think giving them a say in how the media will cover their soldier's funeral, etc., is the best way. If nothing else, it will probably give them more respect for the media since someone actually called and asked how they wanted the situation handled.
According to Martin C. Even of Newsday, the previous ban on these photos was put in place in 1991 by then-President George H.W. Bush.
As a media person, I applaud the administration's effort to make the military more transparent. In the Newsday article, one mother of a fallen soldier said she would have liked to have the media at the airport because that meant that someone was acknowledging the sacrifice her son had made. Other mothers said these photographs could put the war in "human terms" for people who have not been terribly affected by the war.
On the other hand, those on the other side of the issue have valid concerns, too. In an article by Eric Timmons of The Register-Mail, one mother argued that showing these pictures was just hard on the family. The moment when the soldier comes home is personal and private, and she didn't want her son's coffin all over the front page of a paper.
Another concern with the new rule is that more than one coffin may come back to the U.S. at the same time. In this situation, one family could potentially agree to allowing pictures while another does not want anyone to photograph the solider's coffin. That could create problems because the photographer might not know which coffin is okay to photograph and which one is not.
In the end, I am pleased with the new rule. I think the photographing question should be up to the families since they are the ones being the most affected. Many of the families have strong feelings one way or the other so I think giving them a say in how the media will cover their soldier's funeral, etc., is the best way. If nothing else, it will probably give them more respect for the media since someone actually called and asked how they wanted the situation handled.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Get on board, British
Aren't the British always supposed to be one step ahead of us? Fashion, social movements, etc.?
Apparently, they aren't as open-minded as we are about one topic: disabilities. According to a Today show/ MSNBC article, BBC viewers are complaining about a children's show host since she has an incomplete right arm. Parents claim that their children will have nightmares from watching the host.
In the article, disability advocates claim that something like this would never happen here in the United States. They say people with disabilities go to public schools, and they are accepted in the mainstream.
I think for the most part this is true because I was upset when I heard that people were trying to get the host fired. Just because she has one incomplete arm, that doesn't mean she isn't fit for her job. She could be the most charismatic and loving person ever, and in my opinion, I would rather have a charismatic and loving person with one incomplete arm hosting a children's show rather than a mean and nasty person with the most perfect appearance.
Plus, I think it would be good for children to have the host, Cerrie Burnell, as a role model. For children with disabilites, it shows that people with disabilities can do anything they want. For other children, it might inspire conversations with their parents about disabilities and in the end, make them more comfortable with people with disabilities.
"I'd never comment on anyone's parenting or the time for them to have a discussion with their child about disabilities," Burnell said in the article. "It's a totally personal thing and people have to do it when they feel comfortable to do it. But I would just hope that, I guess, me being on CBeebies would present an opportunity for them to do that in the comfort of their own home."
I agree Ms. Burnell. The British need to have discussions with their children about disabilties and help them become more comfortable with people who are "different." In this respect, the British need to follow our lead.
**For more information on this story, you can also watch a Today show video.
Apparently, they aren't as open-minded as we are about one topic: disabilities. According to a Today show/ MSNBC article, BBC viewers are complaining about a children's show host since she has an incomplete right arm. Parents claim that their children will have nightmares from watching the host.
In the article, disability advocates claim that something like this would never happen here in the United States. They say people with disabilities go to public schools, and they are accepted in the mainstream.
I think for the most part this is true because I was upset when I heard that people were trying to get the host fired. Just because she has one incomplete arm, that doesn't mean she isn't fit for her job. She could be the most charismatic and loving person ever, and in my opinion, I would rather have a charismatic and loving person with one incomplete arm hosting a children's show rather than a mean and nasty person with the most perfect appearance.
Plus, I think it would be good for children to have the host, Cerrie Burnell, as a role model. For children with disabilites, it shows that people with disabilities can do anything they want. For other children, it might inspire conversations with their parents about disabilities and in the end, make them more comfortable with people with disabilities.
"I'd never comment on anyone's parenting or the time for them to have a discussion with their child about disabilities," Burnell said in the article. "It's a totally personal thing and people have to do it when they feel comfortable to do it. But I would just hope that, I guess, me being on CBeebies would present an opportunity for them to do that in the comfort of their own home."
I agree Ms. Burnell. The British need to have discussions with their children about disabilties and help them become more comfortable with people who are "different." In this respect, the British need to follow our lead.
**For more information on this story, you can also watch a Today show video.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Presumption of Openness
The South Dakota Senate decided on Feb. 25 that the government should operate under the "presumption of openness." SB 147 passed unanimously on the Senate floor on Feb. 24. The bill was first read in the House on Feb. 25 and was referred to the House State Affairs committee. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing.
This bill would be great for the media because it would give them substantially more access than they have today and help them keep public officials accountable. It would be good for the public because it would give them access to records about how its money is being spent. According to the Argus Leader, this bill needs to pass because the state should be able to "conduct its government business openly and protect private information at the same time."
I agree with the Argus. Why can't government be a bit more open? Do government officials have something to hide; is that why they want to keep the records closed? Really, with the exceptions that are included in the bill (medical and personnel records, trade secrets, correspondences about campaign finance issues, etc.) I don't see how any of the information released could hurt the state.
No, the state is being hurt by a government who doesn't believe in the public's right to know.
This bill would be great for the media because it would give them substantially more access than they have today and help them keep public officials accountable. It would be good for the public because it would give them access to records about how its money is being spent. According to the Argus Leader, this bill needs to pass because the state should be able to "conduct its government business openly and protect private information at the same time."
I agree with the Argus. Why can't government be a bit more open? Do government officials have something to hide; is that why they want to keep the records closed? Really, with the exceptions that are included in the bill (medical and personnel records, trade secrets, correspondences about campaign finance issues, etc.) I don't see how any of the information released could hurt the state.
No, the state is being hurt by a government who doesn't believe in the public's right to know.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Welcome to "The Jungle"
In this assignment, we had to find someone who was an expert on something and make a short how-to. The video needed to have studio interviews and B-roll. My partners and I chose to give other students some tips on parking at SDSU.
This was really our first outside video project, and I learned a lot. I now know that the Flip camera doesn't always adjust well to moving objects, you shouldn't try to do an interview in a crowded Union and Final Cut can sometimes have a mind of its own. All in all, my FCE experience was decent, and I am excited that I learned a few new tricks: like giving the video a green tint, speeding up or slowing down clips and making the image flash.
I also discovered that a person an easily get addicted to editing video. I spent way too much time on this project. But at least I know I was having fun because otherwise, I wouldn't have been so picky. Well, I hope you all enjoy!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Economy through photos
I found today's featured photos on the BAGnewsNotes Blog to very interesting. These photos, originally found on Newsweek, highlighted some part of the recession.
The first photo features cans of Spam in focus in the right third of the photo while a shopper is blurred out in the left third. I thought this was a great, attention-getting photo. Professor Klock would really be proud with the classic rule of thirds and depth of field principles being used.
I also liked how the blog described the photo. The post says, "At the edges of the photo, both the fate of the American grocery shopper, as well as his or her nutritional status, grows more blurry."
The first photo features cans of Spam in focus in the right third of the photo while a shopper is blurred out in the left third. I thought this was a great, attention-getting photo. Professor Klock would really be proud with the classic rule of thirds and depth of field principles being used.
I also liked how the blog described the photo. The post says, "At the edges of the photo, both the fate of the American grocery shopper, as well as his or her nutritional status, grows more blurry."
The second photo is obviously of a man in a bar, and it highlights the fact that many people will drink more in response to the hard times. I really like the composition of this photo because the way the man's face is framed by the bottles, it seems like the viewer is sneaking up on the man and catching him during a very vulnerable moment. For me, just the framing makes the man's expression (and what I see as despair) all the more genuine, and after seeing the photo composed this way, the viewers can see why more and more are turning to the bottle for comfort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
