Saturday, October 18, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
In Memoriam: Tim Russert
Tonight, I retire a sadder man knowing of the tragic death of Meet the Press host and NBC News’ Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert. Russert, who has hosted Meet the Press for over 16 years and provided commentary, insight and even moderation for a few recent presidential debates, collapsed and died today while at work for NBC News today, apparently due to a heart attack. He was 58 years old and is survived by his wife, his son, Luke, who recently graduated from Boston University, and his father, who Russert affectionately referred to as “Big Russ” and whom was the main subject of Tim’s two best-selling books, Big Russ and Me and Wisdom of our Fathers.
I learned this news a lot later than many, as I was taking a break from video gaming and went to my downstairs TV to see what the news of the day was, as I do every evening. I had switched my TIVO to Fox News earlier in the day and seeing as the primetime programs had already started, I rewound my TIVO to see what I had missed. As it was rewinding, I saw a lot of footage of Tim Russert and then noticed a brief flash of the dates 1950-2008 and I knew that something horrible had happened.
I quickly played the section and found out that Russert had died earlier in the day and was overcome with shock and disbelief. How could the man who turned Meet the Press, a show that was in dire straits upon his arrival in 1991, and whom I had seen reporting as recently as this week, have died so suddenly? It seemed so surreal, as it often feels when someone suddenly dies. I think Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said it best when interviewed by Laura Ingraham; “As cliché as it may sound, I thought that I’d soon just wake up and it would all just be a terrible hoax.” But it wasn’t, and it was verified earlier today by none other than NBC News reporter, colleague and close friend of Russert’s, Tom Brokaw.
As an aspirant journalist, I have been following this year’s political campaign very closely, both in terms of the candidates, as well as the media coverage of said candidates. For months, I’ve been saying that the press, by and large, has been blatantly biased, particularly in terms of Barack Obama who, according to multiple independent media reports, has garnered around 85% favorable stories, compared to those of Hilary Clinton and John McCain, who booth found themselves in the 50% range. Ironically, it has been NBC News, particularly their cable branch, MSNBC, that has been criticized as the most slanted, and has recently come under fire by both Democrats like Hilary Clinton campaign chairman Terry McCullough (for unfair treatment and commentary of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign) and by Republicans like President Bush (for an interview he did with Richard Engel, which was reportedly edited to reflect negatively on the administration). However, Tim Russert was a breath of fresh air at NBC as well as in the entire media, or as ex-CBS News journalist Bernie Goldberg put it, “he was one of the good guys.”
To be honest, I wasn’t the kind of person who always watched Meet the Press religiously (despite him helping to turn it into an American Sunday staple alongside church, relaxation, and football), but I have seen Russert in the context of the show, as well as in his multiple appearances on NBC and MSNBC throughout the campaign, and based on what I saw, he brought something to political analysis and all of journalism that is still very unique to this very day; a complete lack of bias and an intense interest in every side of a story.
As I continued watching the cable news shows after finding of Russert’s passing, I remember one person, I think it was Jack Welch, the former head of General Electric, NBC’s parent company, and a long time mentor and friend of Russert’s, who talked about how he remembered Tim doing an interview on Meet the Press one time and saying something to the guest, along the lines of, “This is my opinion and what I believe, but that’s irrelevant.” With that one statement, it becomes apparent that Russert understood the fundamentals of journalism; honesty, integrity, balance, and the exploration, reportage and respect of multiple viewpoints. Those are the elements that truly benefit viewers, by arming them with the information needed to form their own identity and beliefs system on various issues, instead of merely listening to one side of a debate and then simply following the respective crowd. In his own way, Russert gave viewers more than hard-hitting and fair journalism; he provided them with a path to becoming the distinctive and unique individuals that each and every one of us is.
Furthermore, Russert was one of those journalists who did his homework. Whenever he was going to do an interview, he did exactly what great journalists needed to do; he did extensive research on all the relevant elements of a story and guests. Whenever I saw Meet the Press, I was amazed at all the paperwork he had next to him on the desk, as well as how his notebook was almost overflowing with written information. And it wasn’t necessarily just written elements he came up with, but also videos of his guests (particularly politicians) who had in the past, said something that was contradictive to their current positions.
One of the more memorable examples of this occurred this very year in the MSNBC presidential debate, which he co-moderated, when he pinned down Hillary Clinton on her stance on giving illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses (for the record, she had said during the campaign that she was against it, but Russert found evidence from her time as New York senator when she supported it). And when you moved over to Meet the Press or his own show on MSNBC (which will air its final new episode this weekend), Russert was exactly the same, to the point where guests of the show would certainly be treated fairly, but they’d have to be ready, because Tim wouldn’t back down if there were any incongruencies. Russert’s hard-hitting approach was praised by many who knew him, including conservative commentator Sean Hannity who, on his TV show, Hannity and Colmes, joked that whenever he got together with Tim, he always told him “I’m never going on your show, because I know that you’ll dig up some horrible thing of me from when I first got into radio in 1987 and I wouldn’t be able to hold my own with that.”
Of course, not being in the business, I did not personally know Russert, but as I watched interviews with many of his colleagues and those who had met him, I understood the more personal side of Tim Russert, as well as gained a greater understanding into the person we have lost today. As previously mentioned, he was a family man, with a wife and adult son, as well as his father, who dropped out of high school to fight in World War II, took two blue-collar jobs to raise and support his family, and is now in his late 80s. Also, in his two books, Russert explained just how much his father influenced the person that he became, particularly as he watched Big Russ work so hard for his family. The work ethic of Big Russ certainly passed onto Young Russ and, as he said in his books, Tim had three keys to having a happy life: “work hard, laugh often, and maintain your honor.” Of course, he also added that the people around you (friends and family) will also have a positive effect.
I continued to watch the news programs and heard personal accounts from those who knew Russert, including journalists like Mike Wallace, Brit Hume, Dan Rather, Geraldo Rivera and others. However, there was also something touching about hearing the reflection of politicians from both sides of the aisle on Russert’s life, many of whom had previously gone one-on-one with Russert on Meet the Press. One such person was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who stated that “we lost a great man and an even greater journalist,” adding that he was one of the few who refused to “participate in gotcha tactics.” Both of the presumptive presidential candidates, Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama, also had kind words to say about Russert when reached for comment on the campaign trail.
Hearing more and more about Russert, I have to be honest; it really caused me to reflect upon myself a great deal. To be frank, I’ve been pretty lazy this summer, having not sought any kind of a job, not taking any summer college classes (that will change soon) and have basically been waiting in limbo until the beginning of my four-year college experience at UMUC this fall. I haven’t really kept up on any writing at all for the past month and a half and I began to wonder if maybe my sloth-like lifestyle was beginning to have a negative effect on more than my social life and my transition into modern society as an adult, but on the passion for writing and journalism that I’ve had for so long.
After watching a bit of the coverage on Russert’s passing and when I became too depressed to watch anymore, I began thinking about what made me interested in writing and journalism in the first place, and who in the media were the true inspirations of not just hopeful journalists like me, but of every writer/journalist currently at work. Furthermore, who were the people who if we had more of, would be able to make the current and depressing journalistic air, complete with gotcha games and bias, finally dissipate. I could only come with two names; John Stossel of ABC News, and Tim Russert, both of whom are men who work hard and strive to achieve a sense of balance that the media today seems to lack.
It’s because of this reflection, combined with the media reminiscing about Russert, that drove me to run up to my computer and type this. For whatever reason, I felt my journalistic urges rushing back, and I felt an uncontrollable desire to write; namely about the loss of a great journalist who I aspire to emulate, both in my professional life, and now, my personal life. And I hope that everyone in and attempting to enter the business of journalism will reflect upon Russert’s life and one-of-a-kind techniques tonight and strive for success in the way that he did in his far too brief 58 years on this planet. This piece is dedicated to the memory of Russert and to easing the pain that his passing has caused to his family, friends, and viewers all across America. Good-bye, Tim; things just won’t be the same with you.
I learned this news a lot later than many, as I was taking a break from video gaming and went to my downstairs TV to see what the news of the day was, as I do every evening. I had switched my TIVO to Fox News earlier in the day and seeing as the primetime programs had already started, I rewound my TIVO to see what I had missed. As it was rewinding, I saw a lot of footage of Tim Russert and then noticed a brief flash of the dates 1950-2008 and I knew that something horrible had happened.
I quickly played the section and found out that Russert had died earlier in the day and was overcome with shock and disbelief. How could the man who turned Meet the Press, a show that was in dire straits upon his arrival in 1991, and whom I had seen reporting as recently as this week, have died so suddenly? It seemed so surreal, as it often feels when someone suddenly dies. I think Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said it best when interviewed by Laura Ingraham; “As cliché as it may sound, I thought that I’d soon just wake up and it would all just be a terrible hoax.” But it wasn’t, and it was verified earlier today by none other than NBC News reporter, colleague and close friend of Russert’s, Tom Brokaw.
As an aspirant journalist, I have been following this year’s political campaign very closely, both in terms of the candidates, as well as the media coverage of said candidates. For months, I’ve been saying that the press, by and large, has been blatantly biased, particularly in terms of Barack Obama who, according to multiple independent media reports, has garnered around 85% favorable stories, compared to those of Hilary Clinton and John McCain, who booth found themselves in the 50% range. Ironically, it has been NBC News, particularly their cable branch, MSNBC, that has been criticized as the most slanted, and has recently come under fire by both Democrats like Hilary Clinton campaign chairman Terry McCullough (for unfair treatment and commentary of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign) and by Republicans like President Bush (for an interview he did with Richard Engel, which was reportedly edited to reflect negatively on the administration). However, Tim Russert was a breath of fresh air at NBC as well as in the entire media, or as ex-CBS News journalist Bernie Goldberg put it, “he was one of the good guys.”
To be honest, I wasn’t the kind of person who always watched Meet the Press religiously (despite him helping to turn it into an American Sunday staple alongside church, relaxation, and football), but I have seen Russert in the context of the show, as well as in his multiple appearances on NBC and MSNBC throughout the campaign, and based on what I saw, he brought something to political analysis and all of journalism that is still very unique to this very day; a complete lack of bias and an intense interest in every side of a story.
As I continued watching the cable news shows after finding of Russert’s passing, I remember one person, I think it was Jack Welch, the former head of General Electric, NBC’s parent company, and a long time mentor and friend of Russert’s, who talked about how he remembered Tim doing an interview on Meet the Press one time and saying something to the guest, along the lines of, “This is my opinion and what I believe, but that’s irrelevant.” With that one statement, it becomes apparent that Russert understood the fundamentals of journalism; honesty, integrity, balance, and the exploration, reportage and respect of multiple viewpoints. Those are the elements that truly benefit viewers, by arming them with the information needed to form their own identity and beliefs system on various issues, instead of merely listening to one side of a debate and then simply following the respective crowd. In his own way, Russert gave viewers more than hard-hitting and fair journalism; he provided them with a path to becoming the distinctive and unique individuals that each and every one of us is.
Furthermore, Russert was one of those journalists who did his homework. Whenever he was going to do an interview, he did exactly what great journalists needed to do; he did extensive research on all the relevant elements of a story and guests. Whenever I saw Meet the Press, I was amazed at all the paperwork he had next to him on the desk, as well as how his notebook was almost overflowing with written information. And it wasn’t necessarily just written elements he came up with, but also videos of his guests (particularly politicians) who had in the past, said something that was contradictive to their current positions.
One of the more memorable examples of this occurred this very year in the MSNBC presidential debate, which he co-moderated, when he pinned down Hillary Clinton on her stance on giving illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses (for the record, she had said during the campaign that she was against it, but Russert found evidence from her time as New York senator when she supported it). And when you moved over to Meet the Press or his own show on MSNBC (which will air its final new episode this weekend), Russert was exactly the same, to the point where guests of the show would certainly be treated fairly, but they’d have to be ready, because Tim wouldn’t back down if there were any incongruencies. Russert’s hard-hitting approach was praised by many who knew him, including conservative commentator Sean Hannity who, on his TV show, Hannity and Colmes, joked that whenever he got together with Tim, he always told him “I’m never going on your show, because I know that you’ll dig up some horrible thing of me from when I first got into radio in 1987 and I wouldn’t be able to hold my own with that.”
Of course, not being in the business, I did not personally know Russert, but as I watched interviews with many of his colleagues and those who had met him, I understood the more personal side of Tim Russert, as well as gained a greater understanding into the person we have lost today. As previously mentioned, he was a family man, with a wife and adult son, as well as his father, who dropped out of high school to fight in World War II, took two blue-collar jobs to raise and support his family, and is now in his late 80s. Also, in his two books, Russert explained just how much his father influenced the person that he became, particularly as he watched Big Russ work so hard for his family. The work ethic of Big Russ certainly passed onto Young Russ and, as he said in his books, Tim had three keys to having a happy life: “work hard, laugh often, and maintain your honor.” Of course, he also added that the people around you (friends and family) will also have a positive effect.
I continued to watch the news programs and heard personal accounts from those who knew Russert, including journalists like Mike Wallace, Brit Hume, Dan Rather, Geraldo Rivera and others. However, there was also something touching about hearing the reflection of politicians from both sides of the aisle on Russert’s life, many of whom had previously gone one-on-one with Russert on Meet the Press. One such person was Democratic Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia, who stated that “we lost a great man and an even greater journalist,” adding that he was one of the few who refused to “participate in gotcha tactics.” Both of the presumptive presidential candidates, Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama, also had kind words to say about Russert when reached for comment on the campaign trail.
Hearing more and more about Russert, I have to be honest; it really caused me to reflect upon myself a great deal. To be frank, I’ve been pretty lazy this summer, having not sought any kind of a job, not taking any summer college classes (that will change soon) and have basically been waiting in limbo until the beginning of my four-year college experience at UMUC this fall. I haven’t really kept up on any writing at all for the past month and a half and I began to wonder if maybe my sloth-like lifestyle was beginning to have a negative effect on more than my social life and my transition into modern society as an adult, but on the passion for writing and journalism that I’ve had for so long.
After watching a bit of the coverage on Russert’s passing and when I became too depressed to watch anymore, I began thinking about what made me interested in writing and journalism in the first place, and who in the media were the true inspirations of not just hopeful journalists like me, but of every writer/journalist currently at work. Furthermore, who were the people who if we had more of, would be able to make the current and depressing journalistic air, complete with gotcha games and bias, finally dissipate. I could only come with two names; John Stossel of ABC News, and Tim Russert, both of whom are men who work hard and strive to achieve a sense of balance that the media today seems to lack.
It’s because of this reflection, combined with the media reminiscing about Russert, that drove me to run up to my computer and type this. For whatever reason, I felt my journalistic urges rushing back, and I felt an uncontrollable desire to write; namely about the loss of a great journalist who I aspire to emulate, both in my professional life, and now, my personal life. And I hope that everyone in and attempting to enter the business of journalism will reflect upon Russert’s life and one-of-a-kind techniques tonight and strive for success in the way that he did in his far too brief 58 years on this planet. This piece is dedicated to the memory of Russert and to easing the pain that his passing has caused to his family, friends, and viewers all across America. Good-bye, Tim; things just won’t be the same with you.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Give me Liberal or give me death
Recently, a newspaper ran an editorial about colleges essentially being liberal propaganda instead of being learning institutions. Although there are many professors that in fact may be liberal(Kevin, cough cough), there are also many professors that are staunch conservatives. Sure we all have had that wacky liberal arts professor who couldn’t go two minutes into a class period without reminding you how much they dislike George W and his cronies. But we have also had the professor that is still convinced the confederacy won the civil war. The point is that there are two sides to the coin, it just depends which one you ask.
When that was done at Anne Arundel Community College, the responses from the teachers who were asked about the liberal propaganda situation, surprised me with their answers. My one teacher who I believed to be a liberal, gave me a very interesting answer, She said, “What do people expect when they go to a liberal arts school? If you go to a trade school or study more math oriented subjects, you’ll find conservative professors.” An answer that makes a lot of sense to some people, but obviously the people who wrote the editorial had different expectations.
The other professor who I asked to comment on the matter was someone who I believed to be a conservative. When he responded to the editorial it was much bigger surprise. Since he was conservative I figured he was going to attack liberal teaching styles and basically reciprocate the message made by the article. He said, “People at the college level need to be exposed to other trains of thought than the ones that they are accustomed to, regardless of how extreme.”
So before people go bashing the liberal regime, people might want to see what the conservative members of the academic community think about the situation. Then again according to the author of the editorial, there are none.
When that was done at Anne Arundel Community College, the responses from the teachers who were asked about the liberal propaganda situation, surprised me with their answers. My one teacher who I believed to be a liberal, gave me a very interesting answer, She said, “What do people expect when they go to a liberal arts school? If you go to a trade school or study more math oriented subjects, you’ll find conservative professors.” An answer that makes a lot of sense to some people, but obviously the people who wrote the editorial had different expectations.
The other professor who I asked to comment on the matter was someone who I believed to be a conservative. When he responded to the editorial it was much bigger surprise. Since he was conservative I figured he was going to attack liberal teaching styles and basically reciprocate the message made by the article. He said, “People at the college level need to be exposed to other trains of thought than the ones that they are accustomed to, regardless of how extreme.”
So before people go bashing the liberal regime, people might want to see what the conservative members of the academic community think about the situation. Then again according to the author of the editorial, there are none.
Shhh, It's A Secret
Hot, Juicy, inspiring and shocking secrets for the whole world to see, don’t worry their anonymous, but that doesn’t make them any less intriguing. PostSecret is a community of collected secrets written down on artfully decorated postcards, mailed, and displayed for the public to see. PostSecret offers a safe environment for people to express their innermost thoughts, shocking realizations, and private recollections.
Some secrets are light hearted, some are dark, and many have never before been shared or spoken out loud. The secrets written are about life, nostalgia, and guilty confessions. they span from fears and successes to sex and sexuality, drugs, death, and even professions of love.
The project of PostSecret began in December of 2003 by founder Frank Warren. Since then postsecret has been responsible for the creation of books and the showing 0f exhibits around the nation in museums and colleges. Their exhibits and creations have attracted people of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities, and histories. 
This community is meant to inspire, share stories, and evoke emotions. It can act as a form of therapy, storytelling, or mark an accomplishment, goal, or memory. PostSecret knocks down barriers and encourages unity among people based on the sharing of their most personal thoughts and stories. It displays the way all people are connected through similar fears, wants, needs, and goals. Why take an interest in other people’s secrets? Because their secret might bring you hope, it might make you smile, or teach you a lesson. Their secret might be your secret.
Start reading now at http://postsecret.blogspot.com/ created by Frank Warren.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Miley Cyrus...seriously?
"She looked like she is freshly f**ked in these photos," says a former fan. The recent photo of a topless Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair has caused extreme reactions such as this. Although not many people over the age of 16 are into her, they most likely have younger siblings emulating Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana. One can find plenty of Hannah Montana clothing and toys in almost any children's store. Young girls look up to her and enjoy her show and concerts. These girls lives are greatly affected by whom they admire. They adore her and pretend to be her even though she's living in a completely different world then they are. Maybe that's why.
Miley Cyrus has sold out shows all over the country. In Houston, TX, tickets for her concert sold out in just minutes. The arena held 73,500 people. According to People magazine, she is set to earn $1 billion in Hannah Montana related sales from 2007-08. Also, it is reported that she will receive $17.5 million from sold out concert tours, $65 million from her 3-D concert movie and 7-figures for her autobiography. At only 15, she makes more in one year than most will ever see in a lifetime. For girls all over the world, being Miley Cyrus would be a dream come true. So why would Miley do something to tarnish the innocent and sweet reputation for which girls love her?
Unfortunately, it seems that Miley has fallen into the same trap as nearly every other Hollywood teen. They have all started fun and moderately innocent and then spiraled out of control and ended up in all kinds of trouble. Kirsten Dunst, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and many more have led a more than privileged life and ended up with legal troubles, addiction problems, etc. More recently, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Lynn Spears have found themselves in the limelight for all the wrong reasons. Vanessa Hudgens, 18 at the time, send nude photos of herself to her boyfriend Zac Efron. Jamie Lynn, Britney's sister, is only 16 and she's pregnant. And now Miley Cyrus. Over the last couple of months, racy pictures of her have surfaced. While some seem harmless...
...others could be cause for concern. There is a picture with her midriff exposed while laying on a boy, one of her pulling her shirt down to show her bra and breast and the topless Vanity Fair photograph.
Some say it's not that big of a deal and that's it's just a bare back. Annie Leibovitz, the famous photographer who took the picture, has since apologized. "I'm sorry that my portrait of Miley has ben misinterpreted," said Leibovitz. Leibovitz understands many are offended, but she defends her work saying, "The photograph is a simple, classic portrait, shot with very little makeup, and I think it is very beautiful." There are those who agree with her, however, many of their statements begin with the words, "Maybe I'm just jaded, but..."
A number of parents of children who are fans are very upset because they hoped Miley would be someone their girls could look up to. The situation leads to a bigger issue today's teens struggle with. Teens today find it hard to figure out for themselves how to deal with the issue of sex. From the media, they see all of the hot and popular girls having sex and being intimate with their boyfriends. If they want to be like these girls, that's what they should do.
Parents need to be more involved in their children's lives and making sure they have appropriate role models. The people they look up to have such a strong influence on choices they make. Is Miley Cyrus is just another victim of Hollywood's early and over sexualization of young girls? Is it okay to allow, worse yet, encourage a 15-year old girl to be topless for an "artistic" purpose when it often attracts the wrong type of attention? Teens today are dressing sexier because that's what they see on T.V., and all of their favorite celebrities are doing it so why shouldn't they? After telling themselves it's alright and girls are jut growing up faster, America is shocked when things happen like the increase of girls with STD's or another teen is raped. These acts aren't justified or condoned. The girl is not at fault. She doesn't know any better; that's how all the cool girls dress on her favorite show. Not all rapes happen because of how a girl looks, but it does attract men who want their body because that's what their showing. Feeding into the fantasies of these degenerates doesn't help the problem or make young girls any safer. America needs to wake up and realize that allowing young girls to dress too sexy often hurts them in the long run. They may not be the victim of sexual abuse or murder, but they learn that dressing that way gets them certain attention and things which is no way to build self-confidence. Parents should be parents, not best friends. They need to monitor their child's dress in order to protect them which, some parents seem to have forgotten, is their job.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
America's girls: Dying to be perfect
“Right before I went in, I was like, what if I don’t wake up? Oh, this is scary. Then I thought, I don’t care. If I don’t wake up, it’s worth it. I just wanted it so badly.” these are the words of Heidi Montag, of the hit MTV show, The Hills. She was describing her feelings before getting breast implants. The Hills is targeted at the college-aged person. Every Monday night, the lives of extremely wealthy California kids are seen by many. It is a reality show that’s quite unrealistic, except for the plastic surgery aspect. When saying goodbye before the surgery, her boyfriend said, “I’m so proud of you.” This is the sad reality of what American teens have in front of them as an example today. How is that an “I’m proud of you” moment? What is she doing that’s so great or deserves admiration?
According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS), over the last decade, the number of women 18 and younger who have had breast enlargements has risen by nearly 500%. Living in a culture so engrossed in celebrity lifestyles, money and looks, makes it hard for a young girl to feel adequate if that’s the unrealistic standard upon which she’s measured. For that reason, there are so many girls today receiving plastic surgery. It used to be the ideal woman had curves and wasn’t pressured to starve herself to be accepted. So many of the Hollywood glamour girls were more normal looking. Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor and the infamous bond girl, Ursula Andress, all had meat on their bones. They looked healthy. Ow, in the days of Pam Anderson, Tori Spelling and Victoria Beckham, it’s all about being a size negative 2 with unbelievably out of proportion breasts. These women have also gone through a number of surgeries either due to problems with their breasts or being unsatisfied with how they look.
With the pressure to be “perfect”, young girls tend to ignore or downplay the dangers involved in cosmetic surgery. It is a surgery, not a game. As with all surgeries there is risk involved; a risk the parents of Stephanie Kuleba allowed her to take. 18-year old Stephanie was the captain of her Florida high school cheerleading team. She had a nearly perfect GPA and was accepted to the University of Florida. Her friends loved her and nicknamed her “sunshine”. They say she was “perfect”. Stephanie had apparently though differently. She was born with a defect that, her parents say, left her with asymmetrical breasts and inverted areolas. For this, she had been wanting to go through with a corrective procedure and implants. Not two hours after the procedure was finished, Stephanie was rushed to the hospital after, what her mother calls a “state of the art” clinic, did not have the appropriate preparations to deal with what was going on. 24-hours later, on March 22, 2008, Stephanie died from a rare genetic disorder called malignant hyperthermia. The disorder is a severe reaction to anesthesia that causes the body temperature to spike as high as 112 degrees. The families attorney, Roberto Stanziale, says that after talking with other experts in the field, her surgeon, Dr. Stephen Schuster, did “one-tenth of 1%” of what was needed to save her. Apparently he only offered 1 dose of Dantrolene when it was well-known that her situation required 8.
The issue, however, is not about who’s wrong. Did Stephanie Kuleba have such a bad defect that she desperately needed to go under the knife? These photos say otherwise. In the first she’s in white, the second she’s in the middle and the third she’s on the left.
If she was indeed so insecure she absolutely had to get the surgery, why did she expose so much of her breasts? The argument is not whether she was insecure or not. The question here is if she felt so strongly the need to be perfect that she would risk her life. Her father told Matt Lauer, “There’s such a lot of information that is provided to you when you get into this setting, but it’s more or less being handed a form and being told complacently that there’s a risk.” It is his duty as her father to not take it complacently. Being nonchalant in these situations can lead to exactly what happened.
Although this is a tragic story, it isn’t frequent because the number of 18-year olds and younger is a small percent compared to older women getting surgeries. The American Society for Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) notes that while a large portion of surgeries for girls under 18 was cosmetic (47.4%), that age range only accounts for 2% of the 400,000 who get procedures. However, Dr. Stephen Greenberg, a plastic surgeon from New York and author of “A Little Nip, A Little Tuck”, reports seeing a 20-30% rise in cosmetic procedures in young people. “Often a girl will come in with her parents, who are buying her a breast augmentation as a birthday or high school graduation gift,” said Greenberg.
Walking around on campus, one can see that there are plenty of different body shapes, each of them beautiful in their own way. Parents need to appreciate that beauty in their children and constantly affirm that they are perfect just the way they are. It is partially the parents’ faults for the constant rise in cosmetic plastic surgery. Mothers, especially, should be letting their daughters know that they don’t need to be what Hollywood dictates they should be to be considered beautiful. It is hard enough being a young woman and balancing school, life and bodily changes. The culture we live in, however, doesn’t help by shoving airbrushed, fake female images down their throat and making girls think if they don’t look as perfect as these girls, they need to change. The women on the covers of the magazines aren’t even as perfect as their pictures in real life. Hollywood needs to promote more positive and realistic role models and parents need to do the same.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Fashion Industry to Blame for Anorexia?
The French parliament's lower house adopted a prodigious bill last Tuesday that would make it illegal for anyone, including fashion magazines, advertisers and Web sites, to publicly promote extreme thinness.
The National Assembly approved the bill last Tuesday and it goes to the senate in the next few weeks. If the law is passed, it would be the strongest of its kind anywhere, and it’s linked back to the 2006 death of a Brazilian model that died from anorexia.
An estimated 8 million Americans have suffered from an eating disorder and nearly half of them know someone who has struggled with the ever-growing issue. This law may not be as ridiculous as some may say it sounds, and the bill could possibly be promoted in the United States as well.
Anorexia is the 3rd most common chronic illness among adolescents and 95% of those who have eating disorders are between the ages of 12 and 25. During the ages of 11 and 13, half of them believe they are overweight.
Obesity may be a growing problem in the U.S. as well, but being thin has always been a struggle for many young girls, including AACC students, who are constantly pressured to maintain that size zero. Nobody glorifies obesity. We're bombarded with messages from all forms of media that say thin is in and anything else is deviant and ugly. Has a plus-sized model ever graced the cover of Vogue? Or modeled in a couture runway show? Are there pro-obesity Web sites akin to pro-anorexia Web sites where they try to get people to believe if they gain unhealthy amounts of weight, they'll be beautiful and it isn’t unhealthy?
"Never will we accept in our profession that a judge decides if a young girl is skinny or not skinny," Didier Grumbach, president of the influential French Federation of Couture, said, "That doesn't exist in the world, and it will certainly not exist in France."
He disagrees with the bill and states that the bill is way too broad. How is someone to determine who is too skinny? It’s nearly impossible to prove that the media causes eating disorders. There is no part of the dominant media promoting obesity. Smoking ads have been banned from television since 1971, smokeless tobacco ads have been banned from television since 1986, billboard advertisements were replaced with anti-smoking ads in 1999, and most ads, as of 2003, have been phased out of magazines and newspapers. Those that persist have a health warning on them. But, in the end, does that really matter?
“I smoke cigarettes, and I know it’s bad for me, but that doesn’t stop me or others from doing it. I see ads all the time telling me I’m going to die of lung cancer but, like I said, it doesn’t stop me,” Ashley Roughton, a student at AACC, stated. “I don’t think ‘banning’ anorexia will actually stop it.”
Maybe, they should simply put warnings on everything promoting a low body mass index for vanity’s sake. "Having a low BMI (under 18) can be a health risk and can cause hair loss, hormone imbalance, weak bones, infertility, and death."
It's "food" for thought!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)