A Headache for Advil

According to a recent article on CNN.com, the maker of Advil, Wyeth, will be running ads to clarify that a stronger dosage of pain reliever will not be available. Some retailers were advertising in flyers that the new medicine would be on store shelves soon. Advil’s new ads state, “Any notice of the availability of Advil Maximum Strength was in error: Advil Maximum Strength is not available for sale. We apologize to our retailers and their shoppers.” The article goes on to report the different types of Advil that are currently available to consumers and then reports the recently dropped stock price.

I was surprised that this article was one of the top stories on the health page at CNN.com. It seemed to be extremely biased, shifting the blame to the retailers, claiming that they falsely advertised the product. In the article, Advil is framed as a responsible corporation fixing the retailer’s mistake and using the miscommunication to explain the lowered stock price. The story does not cover any details regarding why the FDA did not approve the new drug. A news story should offer the audience significant information presented with balance and objectivity to be considered newsworthy. There are many other health dilemmas that are far more important that CNN.com should be covering.

source: http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/28/news/companies/wyeth.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

Saying Less Might Be Best for Bill O'Reilly

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly says his review of soul food Harlem restaurant Sylvia's is being taken out of context and was not racist. On his radio show, O'Reilly spoke of taking civil rights leader Al Sharpton to Sylvia’s and "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's Restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City.

This comment and others prompted a broader discussion on the persistence of prejudice in American society, circulated by Media Matters for America, a media watchdog group that has been highly critical of O'Reilly. In a snowball effect, other media organizations then picked up the comments. In a written statement, Bill Shine, Fox's vice president for programming, added, "This is nothing more than left-wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings. It's sad.”

Take a look at some of O’Reilly comments:

• “I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship."It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference."
  


• "Wasn’t any kind of craziness at all" during his dinner with Sharpton: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M.F.-er, I want more iced tea.”

In typical O’Reilly fashion, Bill O’Reilly comments about Black America has once again come under scrutiny. When will it stop? Will I call this man racist? No. However, to be considered a so-called professional American political communicator, he sure is full of stereotypes and misconceptions of Black America.

For example, there are several stereotypes in his recent comments. For starters, why even bring up the fact that a black own restaurant is no different then any other restaurant in New York City? If I’m not mistaken restaurants are categorized by food origin, not labeled by race of owner. O’Reilly also mentioned there was no craziness. Are you implying that black establishments are known to be run chaotically? Lastly, his use of word ‘M.F.-er’. This word is linked to the stereotypical perception of lingo that's used within the Black community.

If O’Reilly continues to produce constant stereotypical remarks, the fire that fuels media watchdog groups like Media Matters for America will continue to stay lit. He can not continue to throw controversial dialog and not expect people to respond or even misinterpret his words.

It’s safe to say that O’Reilly community relations efforts are substantially damaged, especially in the Black community and there’s no real solution other then to watch what he's says.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/26/oreilly.race/index.html?iref=newssearch

Censoring Text Messages

This past week Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, approached Verizon Wireless with a deal that would allow their supporters to sign up for free text messages from the organization. Verizon initially rejected the request which would give the organization a short code. Short codes allow people to sign up to receive messages from companies. All other major wireless carriers agreed to the deal except for Verizon. However, days after its decision was announced, Verizon changed its mind and agreed to the deal.

Verizon’s initial rejection raises a number of questions about net neutrality. Verizon claimed that it does not accept any issue-centered programs, those dealing with subjects such as war. Even with its reversal Verizon maintained that it has the right to decide what messages can be transmitted on its network.

With text messaging increasingly becoming a popular form of communication, the idea that the information that is transmitted can be censored is more than troubling. Does Verizon have the right to censor communication on its network or should the network be open access for any information? The issue of censorship is one that we should all start to consider.

I use text messages as often as I use emails to communicate. I can receive them at all times (even when away from my computer), and the messages I receive are of greater importance to me than the numerous emails that fill up my inbox on a daily basis. As a Verizon customer, it worries me that my text messages aren’t fully controlled by me. As time goes on, what else could be censored? With censorship becoming a bigger issue in our society, it will be interesting to follow this issue and see how it gets framed by the various organizations involved.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?ex=1348545600&en=be862e29bc5b54e9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Spin Zone

Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's on his September 19 radio program, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding, "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.'"

This statement was obviously deemed extremely insensitive, uninformed and racially charged. O'Reilly responded that the remarks were taken out of context and the real issue was that "the corrupt media culture where outlets like CNN and MSNBC do stories about his remarks because they're getting killed in the ratings."

As the host of a show called the No Spin Zone, O'Reilly is using spin to his defense by claiming the issue is a left-wing conspiracy of which he is the victim. If O'Reilly was at the dinner to build a relationship with Rev. Al Sharpton and the black community, this controversy is destructive to not only his image, but the relationships he was there to foster. O'Reilly is famous for being outspoken and abrasive but in the wake of the Don Imus scandal, it wouldn’t hurt for him to consider the social repercussions of his statements.

Source:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3649416
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/63651/?page=2

Photo Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254922,00.html

Are Rap Lyrics Really the Most Pertinent Issue Right Now?

According to a New York Times article published earlier today, rappers Master P and David Banner went in front of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today. Unfortunately, their testimony wasn't about urban impoverishment or healthcare for the poor. It was about words. Specifically, the "B," "H," and "N" words.

Let me preface my thoughts by saying that I do not condone the use of these words, nor do I use these words myself. However, I find it absurd that Congress is focusing its efforts on something that is largely a freedom of speech issue when there are so many more pressing issues. How about if Congress gets its ducks in a row and starts paying attention to the issues that really matter, like the...

• 3 American soldiers that die each day in Iraq (link).
• 47 million Americans who don't have healthcare (link).
• 36.5 million Americans living in poverty (link).
• 700,000 to 2 million Americans who are homeless on any given night (link).
• 400,000 innocent Darfurians killed thus far in the Darfur genocide (link).

What about these people? Where do they fit in? I know that Congress probably devotes a large amount of its time to these issues, but shouldn't they fix the big problems before they start worrying about the little ones? To put it bluntly, Congress has bigger fish to fry...

Framing Cervical Cancer

This week a study was released by the company that makes Gardasil, a vaccine that protects against cervical cancer. The findings suggest the drug is even more effective than previously thought.

The vaccine, manufactured by Merck, had formerly been thought to only protect against 70 percent of cervical cancer caused by the Human papillomavirus (HPV). The new research indicates however that it may also have at least some effect against viral strains that cause the other 30 percent.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world. Eighty percent of sexually active US women acquire the virus according to the Centers for Disease Control’s estimates.

When The Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil, the Centers for Disease Control's immunization committee recommended less than a month later that the shots immediately be given to all females between the ages of 9 and 26. The committee acted on data indicating that the vaccine works best before girls are sexually active.

This recommendation incited a national moral and social debate. Health advocates aggressively urged the use of the shots to prevent thousands of malignancies, while social conservatives felt that by making the immunization available to teens, would encourage sexual promiscuity. Merck was also called into question. Consumer advocates argued that the cost of Gardasil, at $360 for each shot series, was forcing Merck to push the drug for profit, and not acting in the best interest of young women.

In an effort to defuse the controversy, last February Merck issued the statement, "We are pleased that Gardasil has been so widely embraced and do not want any misperception about Merck's role to distract from the ultimate goal of fighting cervical cancer, so Merck has re-evaluated its approach at the state level and we will not lobby for school requirements for Gardasil."

While I understand the many concerns expressed about the drug, I believe the HPV vaccine does not promote promiscuity, but protects women's health. It will be interesting to see what communication strategy Merck uses to frame their new findings and reshape how the drug is perceived.

Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/20/health/main3280750.shtml
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/houppert

Photo Source: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2007/02/02/gardasil-cp-2380136.jpg

National Geographic's Boyd Matson Speaks at AU

I recently had the opportunity to hear Boyd Matson speak during the Center for Environmental Filmmaking and Conservation Filmmaker’s third annual fall film series at AU. Boyd Matson hosts the PBS show, “Wild Chronicles,” and previously hosted “National Geographic Explorer.” Maggie Stogner, an assistant professor in the School of Communication, introduced Matson as a passionate and fearless man, who has been known to take on any challenge. From bush camping in Africa to climbing through the Khumbu Icefall on Mount Everest, Matson has seen it all.

Matson suggested that preparation is key before embarking on any adventure. He also stressed that assessing the risk of a situation is very important. He often covers stories by participating directly in the action, and he advised students that when journalism equals passion, the work reveals it. In any profession this advice can be applied, and it is worth preparing and spending time to find work that you are passionate about.

The Center for Environmental Filmmaking at AU believes that environmental and wildlife films are essential educational and political tools in the struggle to protect the environment. They do this by training filmmakers to produce films that are highly entertaining, ethically sound, and powerful and effective at producing social change. Matson mentioned that most environmental issues are extremely difficult to cover on commercial television. His latest show is on PBS, and he checks in with scientists, adventurers, and conservationists working around the world on issues that affect us all. He is effective in raising awareness because he offers the audience enthralling experiences and entertaining stories. This ability to provide an entertaining element in the message is important in certain communications campaigns. I think the CEF is on the right track teaching students this component of creating awareness for environmental issues. I came away from Boyd Matson’s presentation more knowledgeable about environmental concerns in many parts of the world.

A Case of Bad PR: Top GOP Presidential Candidates back out on Black College Debate

Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson backed out of the Republican presidential debate scheduled for September 27 at the historically black Morgan State University, with the excuse of a scheduling conflict. The debate is part of the All-American Presidential Forms, paneled by various journalist of color and moderated by Tavis Smiley of PBS. The foursome also back out of the You Tube and Univision debates.

As a product of a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), I understand the values and logic behind these intuitions and how they craft the most intellectual and creative minds the world has to offer. So, it’s a slap in the face to hear that these candidates pulled out of a debate at a HBCU. It gives the impression that the audience at a HBCU is not vital enough for these candidates to even show.

A proper PR professional would have informed these candidates that HBCU’s are the backbone of the African-American community. A politician’s message would not only be heard by the students but also the community around the university. This would have been a great way for the GOP candidates to gain some respect or at least give the notion that they are trying to reach out to a demographic that normally votes democratic.

A quick and minor solution for one of the candidates would simply provide a taped apology during the debate that gives the impression that they cared or acknowledge the historical presence of the debate.

Sources:
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur36862.cfm
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/stateof/hutchinsonreport921

Censoring Jesus?

Should Kathy Griffin be censored for her critical remarks against Jesus and religion in her Emmy Award's acceptance speech? FOX thinks so, and the comedienne's comments have indeed been removed from the show, along with certain anti-war statements from another Emmy winner, Sally Field. Christian activists have spoken out against Griffin's statement that "a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus." Is there anything wrong with what she said?

Griffin clarified what she meant during her appearance on CNN's Larry King Live. In her conversation with King, Griffin stood up for herself and her comments, saying that she firmly believes that Jesus should be doing more important things than helping celebrities win awards. She mentioned the fact that children are dying in Darfur, and yet some celebrities insist that God or Jesus should be there for their award rather than addressing more important issues such as that.

The incident with censorship at the Emmy Awards has started other discussions on religion. Today on CNN Headline News, viewers were invited to send in emails regarding whether or not the issue of religion is a private matter, or whether it is acceptable to speak openly about one's religious beliefs in such public settings as award's ceremonies and sporting events, where atheletes often thank God and Jesus for trivial things such as homeruns and touchdowns. The conversation is ongoing and given the diversity in America it is unlikely that there will ever be a consensus on the issue, yet it is interesting to see how it has impacted communications today. Censorship should not be taken lightly, no matter how trivial the setting. Yet perhaps the FCC should decide upon regulations for such instances, so that everyone will know in advance what can or cannot be shown on television. Kathy Griffin will get her opinion out either way.

The iPhone Strategy

By now if someone doesn’t own the iPhone, they at least know what it is (and probably want one too). When it first came out in early June, the early adopters flocked to Apple and AT&T stores. Mac worshipers and technology enthusiasts created plans of attack in order to be one of the first purchasers of the phone. Exclusivity came at a price though. Customers shelled out $599 for an eight Gigabyte phone and $499 for a four Gigabyte. Those of us who couldn’t afford the phone or the hassle of switching to AT&T for our phone service felt a pang of envy when we saw someone playing with their iPhone.

Luckily, just less than three months after the release of the phone, Apple decided to cut the price by $200 for the eight GB phone and eliminate the four GB version altogether. Those who were on the fence about purchasing the phone because of its high price were now motivated to go out and buy it, leading Apple to sell its one millionth iPhone in just 75 days.

Unfortunately, those who paid full price for the phone expressed their anger in as many ways as they could. Not only did they pay more for the phone, but they no longer were the elite few who owned it. Apple soon posted an open letter on their website, recognizing the anger that their customers were feeling, but making it clear that their decision was one based on business. However, the company also realized that it would not be wise to alienate one of their most important niche audiences, the early adopters. So, they offered $100 towards the purchase of any product at an Apple Retail Store or Apple Online Store for those who bought the phone prior to the price cut. Apple was not apologetic about the price cut, but they offered a compromise.

Many people wondered why Apple committed such a mistake. Did they not anticipate consumer backlash from the price cut? I think it was nothing but a strategic decision on Apple’s part. The price cut allowed them to expand their audience in time for the holiday season. Their marketing first targeted the early adopters, and the price cut moved on to their next target, the persuadables. Apple is a smart company with a smart, strategic plan. The only question left is, what will they do with the iPhone next?

Airport Bathrooms, the Newest Tourist Attraction

Preamble: I plan on using this blog as a forum to discuss my opinions on what I consider to be "hard" political news. That said, today will be a complete exception to that rule. Enjoy...

Who would have ever thought that there would be a photo opportunity for tourists in an airport bathroom? However, according to an article in the Sunday edition of the Idaho Statesmen, it seems that a certain men's room stall at the Minneapolis Airport has become quite the tourist attraction. That's right, you guessed it, it's the stall made infamous by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho). As sick as it may seem, Jeanne Huff reports that many people have been actively seeking out the bathroom while at the airport, and have been "going inside, taking pictures of the stall" and "taking pictures outside the bathroom door." People working in the Minneapolis Airport are now receiving multiple requests each day from tourists and passerby's to point them in the direction of the "Larry Craig bathroom." 

When I first read this article, the first thing that came to my mind was, "REALLY?" As much as I hate to admit it, I have come to expect a certain amount of inane behavior from our celebrity infatuated culture. However, the idea of people taking pictures of a BATHROOM just because some Senator tried to get a little action in it has brought my opinion of a certain sect of the American public down to a new all time low.

I understand why people wanted to know what happened (he's a United States Senator who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor). I even understand why it became such a big story (he's a Republican who has vehemently opposed gay rights in the past).  However, I fail to see how the site of the potential sex act attracts any sort of interest at all. Honestly, I'm not so sure that it isn't more disgusting to be taking pictures of the site of a potential public sex act, then it is to engage in the actual act. Also, when did it become legal or even socially acceptable to take pictures inside of a bathroom? I know I would be the first person to be calling for airport security if someone came into the bathroom snapping pictures while I was trying to relieve myself. 

Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minneapolis Airport. If you're going to allow the bathroom to become a tourist attraction, take advantage of it! Start charging admission to the bathroom. Heck, why not even get a wax replica made of the Senator sitting in his "wide" stance tapping his foot. They could even put up a big TV outside of the bathroom with a reenactment of the incident. $3 to enter, $5 if you want your picture taken...

How an Upstart Influenced the Industry

Friday I attended the American University Forum celebrating USA Today’s 25th anniversary: “How an Upstart Influenced the Industry.” The panelists, editors David Colton, Richard Curtis, Robert Robinson and Kinsey Wilson, lauded USA Today for being an innovative populist publication that pioneered vivid color graphics and micro articles while spotlighting pop culture and sports.

In a television and internet age that demands instant gratification, buyers expect to be entertained and informed--fast. As the nation’s top selling newspaper with an average circulation of 2.3 million and a daily readership of 4.4 million readers, this type of journalistic approach is in the best interest to Gannett Corporation’s bottom line. I wondered, however, if its heavy emphasis on entertainment and sports is in the best interest of the American people.

As David Colton explained, “Journalism is built on trust.” But can we trust USA Today to inform us about world events in a significant manner, or is it merely feeding America's endless fascination with pop culture to sell newspapers? It is my hope that journalists recognize their responsibility to frame the public agenda, advocate for the truth and act as the fourth estate to inform the public in a substantive way. It is insulting to our intelligence that football and scandalous pop stars are given the same priority as the ongoing war in Iraq.

While I respect USA Today for revolutionizing a structural design to news delivery, the forum only reinforced my frustration that American media is doing a poor job of informing the public on vital matters. To earn my "trust" as a publication, USA Today must put a higher premium on the audience's needs over their perceived wants. That's all I could think of as the USA Today editors patted themselves on the back.

Photo Source: http://www.wydmedia.com/

Richard Branson contributes $200,000 to help search for Madeleine

On Sunday, Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin, pledged $200,000 to the McCann family to help in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine. This is in addition to the money he has already contributed to the search fund, along with other celebrities such as David Beckham and J.K. Rowling.

The significance of the timing of this contribution cannot be ignored. After Madeleine's parents have recently been named suspects in the disappearance of their daughter by the Portuguese police, a lot of scrutiny is being placed on the search efforts that the family has been heading since the girl's disappearance in May. By stepping up and making another large monetary contribution, Branson is essentially reaffirming his faith in the family and his support for them both financially and emotionally. While many people may be reluctant to continue support of the family after the parents were officially named suspects in the case, Branson instead chose to divert attention back to the fact that the girl is still missing.

Branson's donation comes one day after the McCanns announced that they will plan an extensive advertising campaign also aiming to divert the attention the case has been getting away from the parents and back to Madeleine. The family hopes that by reminding the public that a child is missing they will perhaps have some luck in finding leads.

The public relations team that will be working on this case will certainly have its work cut out for it. All of the press lately regarding the case has centered on the parents suspicious behavior and the latest evidence against them. The parents have made themselves very prominent in the public eye since the beginning of this case, with endorsements from celebrities and seeking help from the Pope, and now they are experiencing some backlash from that media frenzy and in need of some damage control. It will be interesting to see how the McCann family approaches the advertising campaign blitz and the case itself in the coming months.

Source:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/16/madeleine.mccann.ap/index.html

Would you like Apple Fries with that?

Recently Burger King announced that it had plans to offer healthier fast food items for children under 12. Menu options are to include flame-broiled chicken tenders, unsweetened applesauce, and low-fat milk. Additionally the fast-food chain is developing what it calls BK Fresh Apple Fries, which are skinless, cold apples cut to resemble French fries and served in the same container. Burger King’s plan is part of a trend to offer healthier products at fast-food restaurants as people are becoming more aware of what they eat. McDonald’s and Wendy’s have added fruit, salads, and yogurt with granola to their menus.

When it comes to children, it is more important for the parents to teach them how to eat healthy rather than holding Burger King responsible. Fruits and vegetables should be an essential part of every meal, and a meal at Burger King should be a treat, not an everyday occurrence. While it is nice that fast-food restaurants are making an effort to improve the nutritional value of some menu items, it is not up to them to teach children healthy eating habits or solve the problem of childhood obesity. Parents need to make sure they are feeding their children the right kind of food. It is smart of Burger King to put itself in such a positive, healthy light, but I’m not sure that tricking kids into eating apples by marketing them as French fries is the best way to do it.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/09/12/burgerking.kids.ap/index.html

Improving Military Image

A recent CNN.com article titled “Grub, chow, mystery meat – combat food 2.0” discusses the quality of food that our servicemen and women consume while out on the battlefield. More generally, the article appears to be an effort to shift the focus to a more positive view of military-life.

First, the article helps the reader identify with the soldiers who “‘really want pizza and beer’” like any other average American. Obviously food is something we as Americans value and to think that our soldiers have to eat food that most of us wouldn’t touch as a result of protecting our country strikes a chord in people.

However, the article makes it clear that “Meals Ready to Eat” or MREs are rapidly improving to meet the needs and wants of soldiers. Food technicians are listening to the soldiers’ requests and responding to them. If you’re considering joining the military, it might help to know that even in Iraq you can have coffee, Red Bull, and beef stew. Military families are probably relieved to know that their family members or spouses are well-nourished and fed while abroad.

Beyond that, the article conveys the message that the military doesn’t view its troops as a means to an end; it cares about their health and nutrition. At a time when many Americans are losing faith in those in charge of the military, this article is a small step to frame the military and the government in a more positive way as people who care.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/13/combat.food/index.html

Oprah Provides Her Mojo for Obama

On September 8th, Oprah Winfrey hosted a star studded fundraiser for Democratic Presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at her estate in Montecito, California. Over 1,500 guests attended the event which included special donors and celebrities like Lou Gossett Jr., Cicely Tyson, Forest Whitaker, Stevie Wonder, Sidney Poitier, Chris Rock, and many more. The event brought in $3 million for the Senator, making it his biggest single-day haul to date, however more importantly showing the power of the “might” Oprah.

This invite only event was publicized on Oprah’s talk show and other news outlets for almost a month. This has been a powerful endorsement for Obama because Oprah has been the number One Talk Show Host for 20 consecutive seasons with an estimated 48 million viewers a week in the United States alone. She has a devoted fan base and a wide range of demographics viewing her show, which is a great place for a presidential candidate to get exposure during an election. Oprah has the power of social validation and a powerful form of persuasion. Her decision to support Obama could possibly sparked some of her fan base to do the same. If you question that, just think about how many times you heard “Well I seen it on Oprah”.

So in all, great endorsement for the grateful Obama.