http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/health/research/24abuse.html?ref=science
The article topic looked interesting to me, but I was prepared to be dissappointed. Much of the articles I find in the NY Times science section are overwrought with data and terms, so much so that I feel I need a dictionary to get through it. Still, I think the author did a good job of explaining a seemingly difficult to understand topic. To think that there would be actual scientific evidence to support the widely accepted idea that children who suffer abuse have increased risk for mental illness, depression, and suicide, is mind-boggling to me.
I found his breaking down of the information to be perfect, specifically when Carey said "When people are under stress, the hormone cortisol circulates widely, putting the body on high alert. One way the brain reduces this physical anxiety is to make receptors on brain cells that help clear the cortisol, inhibiting the distress and protecting neurons from extended exposure to the hormone, which can be damaging." I am no fan of science, and still was attracted to this article topic, and so I can imagine much of the people reading this article would be in a similar position. It woudln't be right if science articles were written by scientists, for scientists, with no in between.
My understanding of suicide, mental illness, and depression are greater now that I've read the article, and so I can honestly say I learned something, which doesn't happen with every article I read.
Still, I think the article could have been enhanced significantly if the author included one personal account to accompany the idea, such as someone who experienced abuse as a child and grew up depressed. Then a study could have been done on this specific person, and more examples and data could have been given. That way it would be less general.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A Few Mistakes
"Mistakes, I've Made A Few" says Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13bush.html?ref=politics
I like this article. I was worried at first because most articles that have to do with President Bush (well, I shouldn't say most, but there have been a substantial few) have hints of (or outright use of) bias. Now that his presidency is at an end, I expected journalists would be even more lax in their articles on him, not taking any special care in presenting both opinions of him. This journalist, however, did a fair job. She made sure after pointing out a question Bush would not answer, that it was the only one he declined to answer. She could have easily left that out to make it seem as though President Bush was denying the press or trying to avoid certain topics, but she gave the full picture, and that's something I respect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13bush.html?ref=politics
I like this article. I was worried at first because most articles that have to do with President Bush (well, I shouldn't say most, but there have been a substantial few) have hints of (or outright use of) bias. Now that his presidency is at an end, I expected journalists would be even more lax in their articles on him, not taking any special care in presenting both opinions of him. This journalist, however, did a fair job. She made sure after pointing out a question Bush would not answer, that it was the only one he declined to answer. She could have easily left that out to make it seem as though President Bush was denying the press or trying to avoid certain topics, but she gave the full picture, and that's something I respect.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Woman Pregnant with Monkey: Misleading headlines.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/09/monkey.smuggling/index.html
Woman "pregnant" with Monkey is convicted:
This misleading headline is just another example of how journalists trick people into reading their stories. The woman mentioned was not pregnant with a monkey (I thought maybe there was some type of illegal transplant deal going on) but instead hid a monkey under her shirt and tried to smuggle it. There are a million other ways to say this - "Woman caught smuggling rare monkey out of Thailand" or something like that. That way, the reader knows what they are going to read about. These mystery headlines only lead to dissappointment.
AOL is the main culprit of it, as I've had too many experiences where I read an interesting headline, and the story following has nothing to do with it. I imagine there must be other people out there who feel tricked after clicking a seemingly interesting headline, only to find a boring story at its end. Still, this highlights the daunting task we as journalists have: keeping people interested. I personally think it is a cop-out to use the headline to say something that may not really be what the article is about. This pulls the readers in, for sure, but in the end what has the journalist achieved? They got people to waste a couple of seconds reading their headline and the first paragraph of their article before realizing the truth: the article really isn't that interesting.
I personally try to find more interesting article topics to write about so that I don't bore myself, let alone others. As for my headlines, I'm a fan of the creative and catchy ones, but sometimes it is more important to alert readers to what you wrote about, specifically if your article is more serious. The article is immediately read as a joke when the headline is treated as one. In the case of this monkey article, I tried to read it as someone who would find this topic vitally intersting, and realized that if I were overly-concerned with illegal animal smuggling into the United States or something like that, I wouldn't even read this article, thinking it was about something else.
In short, with headlines you should be less confusing, more informative. Either way you can still be creative.
Woman "pregnant" with Monkey is convicted:
This misleading headline is just another example of how journalists trick people into reading their stories. The woman mentioned was not pregnant with a monkey (I thought maybe there was some type of illegal transplant deal going on) but instead hid a monkey under her shirt and tried to smuggle it. There are a million other ways to say this - "Woman caught smuggling rare monkey out of Thailand" or something like that. That way, the reader knows what they are going to read about. These mystery headlines only lead to dissappointment.
AOL is the main culprit of it, as I've had too many experiences where I read an interesting headline, and the story following has nothing to do with it. I imagine there must be other people out there who feel tricked after clicking a seemingly interesting headline, only to find a boring story at its end. Still, this highlights the daunting task we as journalists have: keeping people interested. I personally think it is a cop-out to use the headline to say something that may not really be what the article is about. This pulls the readers in, for sure, but in the end what has the journalist achieved? They got people to waste a couple of seconds reading their headline and the first paragraph of their article before realizing the truth: the article really isn't that interesting.
I personally try to find more interesting article topics to write about so that I don't bore myself, let alone others. As for my headlines, I'm a fan of the creative and catchy ones, but sometimes it is more important to alert readers to what you wrote about, specifically if your article is more serious. The article is immediately read as a joke when the headline is treated as one. In the case of this monkey article, I tried to read it as someone who would find this topic vitally intersting, and realized that if I were overly-concerned with illegal animal smuggling into the United States or something like that, I wouldn't even read this article, thinking it was about something else.
In short, with headlines you should be less confusing, more informative. Either way you can still be creative.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Newspapers fly after Obama win
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/obama.newspapers.ap/index.html
Last issue I wrote my op ed about how written journalism is about to die out to internet journalism. This article proves that while the trend is there, there is something about written news that will most likely live on. Why? It could be habit – people have always bought newspapers, so when an important news story comes along, their subconscious minds make them by the papers. I, however, don’t think that’s it. I think that while millions of Americans watched the election on television and knew the results ahead of time, and while the articles proclaiming President-Elect Obama’s victory didn’t reveal any “new” information other than his win, Americans wanted that tangible proof of the historic event.
In my life I’ve come across historic newspapers a few times, and there is something about them that pulls you in, or at least, pulls me in. When man first walked on the moon, when Pearl Harbor happened, newspaper articles declaring the events feel almost like landmarks – marks in time in our country’s history. The Internet changes everyday, and while there is that stigma that what gets on the internet never leaves, stories do change, and aren’t physical in the way that newspapers are. I think that element of constant change (cnn’s webpage is different ever day, as are most online news sources) and the idea that reading an article online is so instant – you pull it up, read it, and click off – can be viewed as negative. Sure, the Internet is fast, but do we really want this information to go by so quickly? When there is an important historic moment in time, people don’t want it to end just like that. I know I don’t. And so perhaps the Internet, while expanding and overcoming all other written media, won’t push over the edge to replace newspapers entirely – at least, not when something truly life-changing happens to our country, or to the world.
As for the way this article was written, and I liked how the writer followed my train of thought with the internet vs. newspaper thing. The inclusion of so many quotes enhanced the article, I feel, because it gave it less of a straight news style and made the story more relatable - you got to find out why people were buying so many newspapers and how they felt, rather than just hearing statistics on how many newspapers were sold out in how many minutes.
Last issue I wrote my op ed about how written journalism is about to die out to internet journalism. This article proves that while the trend is there, there is something about written news that will most likely live on. Why? It could be habit – people have always bought newspapers, so when an important news story comes along, their subconscious minds make them by the papers. I, however, don’t think that’s it. I think that while millions of Americans watched the election on television and knew the results ahead of time, and while the articles proclaiming President-Elect Obama’s victory didn’t reveal any “new” information other than his win, Americans wanted that tangible proof of the historic event.
In my life I’ve come across historic newspapers a few times, and there is something about them that pulls you in, or at least, pulls me in. When man first walked on the moon, when Pearl Harbor happened, newspaper articles declaring the events feel almost like landmarks – marks in time in our country’s history. The Internet changes everyday, and while there is that stigma that what gets on the internet never leaves, stories do change, and aren’t physical in the way that newspapers are. I think that element of constant change (cnn’s webpage is different ever day, as are most online news sources) and the idea that reading an article online is so instant – you pull it up, read it, and click off – can be viewed as negative. Sure, the Internet is fast, but do we really want this information to go by so quickly? When there is an important historic moment in time, people don’t want it to end just like that. I know I don’t. And so perhaps the Internet, while expanding and overcoming all other written media, won’t push over the edge to replace newspapers entirely – at least, not when something truly life-changing happens to our country, or to the world.
As for the way this article was written, and I liked how the writer followed my train of thought with the internet vs. newspaper thing. The inclusion of so many quotes enhanced the article, I feel, because it gave it less of a straight news style and made the story more relatable - you got to find out why people were buying so many newspapers and how they felt, rather than just hearing statistics on how many newspapers were sold out in how many minutes.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
two dimensional love
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20081030/tod-japanese-man-petitions-to-marry-comi-c359f57.html
There are a lot of crazies out there. Fortunately, whoever wrote this article isn’t one of them. I can’t say how impressed I was at how the author of this article wrote on a topic most people would find ridiculous.
Firstly, they gave some background on Japan for anyone unfamiliar with the culture. That is important to try and see the problem from this man’s point of view.
“Comic books are immensely popular in Japan, with some fictional characters becoming celebrities or even sex symbols. Marriage is meanwhile on the decline as many young Japanese find it difficult to find life partners.”
With that piece of information, it is still hard to relate, if not impossible, but at least readers are aware that we aren’t dealing with this problem in the U.S. for a reason.
Also, I liked how the author hinted that the internet might be an instigator in this situation. The man set up a petition online, and through the wide web he has found people who (amazingly) agree with him that marriage should be opened to include fictional characters.
If this problem were happening in the U.S., I’d be very afraid for our country, but mainly for the future of marriage. Already the idea is being expanded to include same-sex couples (which I am not opposed to, because they are human, and there would be physical and emotional love involved, the same as opposite-sex-marriage), but if it is expanded to include inanimate objects, animals, cartoons, then the entire idea of marriage becomes a joke. The idea of loving a two dimensional character, though “it is still love,” it is not, and cannot be returned. A marriage is supposed to be between two people who want to be together. If anything, it is unrealistic to suppose that the two dimensional character loves the human back. So on any level, sane or crazy, this guy’s idea doesn’t work.
There are a lot of crazies out there. Fortunately, whoever wrote this article isn’t one of them. I can’t say how impressed I was at how the author of this article wrote on a topic most people would find ridiculous.
Firstly, they gave some background on Japan for anyone unfamiliar with the culture. That is important to try and see the problem from this man’s point of view.
“Comic books are immensely popular in Japan, with some fictional characters becoming celebrities or even sex symbols. Marriage is meanwhile on the decline as many young Japanese find it difficult to find life partners.”
With that piece of information, it is still hard to relate, if not impossible, but at least readers are aware that we aren’t dealing with this problem in the U.S. for a reason.
Also, I liked how the author hinted that the internet might be an instigator in this situation. The man set up a petition online, and through the wide web he has found people who (amazingly) agree with him that marriage should be opened to include fictional characters.
If this problem were happening in the U.S., I’d be very afraid for our country, but mainly for the future of marriage. Already the idea is being expanded to include same-sex couples (which I am not opposed to, because they are human, and there would be physical and emotional love involved, the same as opposite-sex-marriage), but if it is expanded to include inanimate objects, animals, cartoons, then the entire idea of marriage becomes a joke. The idea of loving a two dimensional character, though “it is still love,” it is not, and cannot be returned. A marriage is supposed to be between two people who want to be together. If anything, it is unrealistic to suppose that the two dimensional character loves the human back. So on any level, sane or crazy, this guy’s idea doesn’t work.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
the college suicide dilemma
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1194020,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom
Although America is called the Great Melting Pot, discrimination is always close at hand. Post-9/11, Americans slipped into a state of fear that called for a radical change in our security policies. It was common for people to discriminate against those of the Muslim faith because of this heightened paranoia. Post-2007's Virginia Tech Massacre, Colleges are now dealing with a similar state of fear affecting college students and their families across America. In this instance, students are being discrimated against for their mental state.
The article I read in Time Magazine discussed the specific case of Anne Giedinghagen, a Junior at Cornell University with a history of depression and anorexia. After word got out that she had been dealing with some level of suicidal thoughts, Cornell gave Giedinghagen an ultimatum - get healthy or go home.
It is obvious that in light of the VT massacre, colleges are taking more careful measures when addressing students with problems. Cho Seung-Hui, the VT shooter, had a history of intense anger and instability, writing "very graphic" and "extremely disturbing" plays and poems, according to his former classmate Ian MacFarlane. If the new expulsion policy had been implemented earlier, Seung-Hui is someone who most likely would have benefited from this policy. Even if he didn't seek treatment, he would have been forced from the campus, saving the 27 lives that were lost that day, including perhaps his own.
The policy seems logical, when looking at someone like Seung-Hui, but Giedinghagen and other students with less of an intent to hurt others as an intent to hurt themselves, are a slightly separate case.
I can't help feeling that Giedinghagen's case is more personal than Seung-Hui's was. Seung-Hui fostered a deep hatred toward the world, and showed little sign of insecurity or self-loathing. This is most likely why his intense writing and/or antisocial behavior went unaddressed. When dealing with students who find fault only in themselves, I would have to think that therapy would be the better option.
It would seem to me that Cornell's decision had little to do with the actual student, and more to do with how its policy would come across. With it, the university is sending a "no mental people" message, and with it gives that same reputation to the school, which can be comforting to prospective students and much moreso to their parents. Also, it is important to note that there have been recent court rulings leaving universities partly responsibly for the suicides that happen on their campus. I can't help but think that Cornell may have had that fact in mind when pressuring Giedinghagen to leave their premisis.
Still, for those students unsure of what they are feeling, the policy sends a "hide your problems" message, something that any therapist would agree is dangerous. Isn't it the golden rule to open up about your problems in order to help solve them? Take Seung-Hui for example: the kid barely talked to anyone, wrote unnerving poetry as the only outlet for his frustration, and ended up pulling a gun on 30 people and then himself.
In Giedinghagen's case, she eventually left the school and entered into a psychiatric program. There had been no calls from Cornell, five weeks into the proram. Seems as though they really care about how she is doing, hmm?
This new trend in the world of academia has created yet another area of discrimination. Not only can prospective college students be discriminated against due to their gender, race, sexual orientation, or income level, but now schools seem to be "watching out for" those with mental/emotional problems.
This would be acceptable if it were coming from a place of concern, but there is doubt there. It is a fine line between caring for the student and caring for the reputation of the school.
Sometimes people with problems remain in denial until the very last, so this issue really isn't black and white. That is why I believe there shouldn't be a protocol for this type of thing. The universities are going to be criticized either way: they help the student, they are discriminating; they do not help the student, they are ignoring. I think the real issue is the word "help." Colleges, students, and their families need to decide what exactly they want/need/expect when dealing with students who may be thinking or behaving in an unhealthy manner. Drug addiction, suicidal thoughts, depression, anorexia, bulimia, social anxiety, what-have-you - every case is different, and so every case should be dealt with accordingly. Maybe there needs to be a person hired to deal specifically with such cases - a go-between for the school, the student, and the family. Our economy could use the help with job creation now, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
