Freedom of the Press....? [this was from the week before break but I accidentally deleted the original, sorry!]

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7408451.stm

This article discusses an attack by the press on Princess Beatrice, the daughter of the Dutchess of York. This includes a barrage of criticism following the release of a photograph of Beatrice wearing a bikini while on holiday. According to the article, Beatrice has been called "horrible names" and been made fun of for her size 10 figure. The article also discusses the involvement of the Duchess of York with fighting obesity.
In particular, what really stood out to me in this article was a question posed by the Dutchess herself "I understand freedom of the press but what I don't understand is when it takes a regular, very healthy girl and tries to completely obliterate her confidence."
So how much "freedom" should the press really have? Public figures can expect criticism of their every move and feature, everyone from Brittany Spears to George W. Bush to Queen Elizabeth II are constantly under scrutiny, their every flaw or mistake publicized and often played up. But this fact doesn't make it right. It is definately unfair that public figures, particularly those born into the role, have next to near no privacy. And though I know that the press will always be searching for flaws in their subjects (and that the public will always want to know about them) I do think it is the responsability of journalists and the like, despite the freedoms given to them, to act responsibly and be concious of the feelings of their subjects. So what if Beatrice is a size 10? Isn't that her own business? Something like that has no real public importance and it really isn't the business of the press to take pictures and obsess over something personal like that. Though I agree with freedom of the press, I think they should be a little more careful in how they interpret and use that freedom. Save it for something important, a scenario where the public really and truly needs to know all the details.

The Presidential Canine Debate

link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/obama.puppy.poll/index.html

I have read many different articles in regards to what kind of dog future President Obama should bring with him to the White House and have finally decided that I have to comment on one of them. First of all, despite all the polls and debates sparked by the question I think that it should really be the Obama family's decision on what kind of dog they get. I know many agree with me. A part from anything, a dog's personality etc. cannot be determined fully from its breed. Though the breed of the dog can be an indicator of certain characteristics and needs every dog should be evaluated as an individual. Not to say that having a "type" of dog in mind isn't valuable before you go looking. Particularly as the Obama's need a hypoallergenic (or as close to as possible, many argue there is no such thing as a truly hypoallergenic dog-dander comes from dogs' saliva and skin) canine. Some breeds are better suited to those with allergies than others. So yes, the Obama's need to keep that in mind.
As far as whether they should get the dog from a shelter, breeder or a petstore I say ABSOLUTELY NOT a petstore. Not with all the puppy mills out there. There are plenty of dogs available from other sources that don't potentially support a cruel and barbaric industry. And I'd hope that the Obama's would set a concious and animal friendly example by adopting a pet in need of a home from a shelter. So many millions of dogs are in shelters across the U.S. (see article) surely the Obama's could find one suitable for their family and give it a better home. Also, having a former shelter dog in the White House would bring attention to the plights of shelter animals, hey-the Obama's pet could even be an abassador of sorts. It would certaintly send a humane and conscientious message if the Obama's were able to adopt. Or at least considered adoption as their first option, even if they are set on a particular breed. It is a common misconception that "purebred" dogs rarely show up in pounds. They do. And there are plenty of breed specific resque groups out there. Of course, the Obama's need to do what's right for their family. I just hope they will consider adoption and save a dog from a potentially unhappy fate. More and more dogs are bred every year and more and more shelter dogs are "humanely euthanized" because there is no room for them in the shelters. And as I previously mentioned, pet stores are not exactly in a good light at the moment, not with all the issues of recieving animals from puppy mills.
Obama has a responsibility to his family to make sure that he gets the right dog. He has a responsibilty to the dog to make sure he can care for it and give it it's forever home. But he also has a responsibility to avoid supporting a cruel industry by not choosing the route of buying a puppy from a petstore.
In regards to the poll mentioned in the article, I found it rather silly that such breeds as golden retrievers and german shepards were included in the selections of the vote, particularly as the article highlights at the top that the Obama's need a HYPOALLERGENIC dog. Um, golden retrievers and german shepards hypoallergenic-uh, I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, they are wonderful dogs. But they are definately not a good choice for someone with allergies to dogs. To be honest, I really don't see what the point was in including them in the poll.
And finally, I find it very interesting to see how much interest the "election" of Presidential Best-Friend has generated. It just goes to show people are interested in the more personal things AND Americans consider pets important. :) Still, I hope that in the end the Obama family ignores the polls and chooses the newest member of their family with the best interests of their family, and the dog, in mind.

Under the Public Eye **THE TITLE WAS POSTED ON NOVEMBER 5TH BUT I ACTUALLY WROTE THIS RESPONSE DECEMBER 11TH**

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7708878.stm
In regards to the issues addressed in this article, I think it is
absolutely necessary for the plight of these children to be investigated, whether by well-known public figures or others. The fact that the TV program will feature important public figures just means that the children's situation will get more attention and hopefully means that their conditions will improve sooner.
Being that The Duchess of York is involved in many children charities I do not see the visits as a political attack on Turkey. If Turkey is to enter the EU then they have to be up to standard with human welfare conditions. As the ITV spokeswoman said: " This is a valid area of public interest at a time when the UK government is endorsing the accession of Turkey into the EU." People do need to know what kind of situation the children are in, particularly as Turkey had previously stated that conditions were improving.
True, making it a secret visit
particularly
playing off that idea in naming the TV program as "Duchess and Daughters: Their Secret Mission" does make it seem less official and maybe make it seem as though the Duchess doesn't trust Turkey enough to make a public visit, which may have angered the people in charge of human welfare in that country. However, it would hardly be the first time public figures have disguised themselves to investigate a cause they are passionate about.

As for the article it is relatively balanced and does not lean to either side. It gives quotes from both sides and starts by showing the point of view of the accusers. Though there is a little bit more information from the side of the Duchess and the TV channel producing the documentary, this is only because it is countering the attack and had more people to gather information from (ie. The Duchess, her daughters and the ITV spokespeople).

How far "over the line" is too far?

Well, it had to happen sometime.
Two English media personalities who have their own shows on BBC have been suspended and had their shows taken off air until further notice. So what exactly was(were) their crime(s)?
Well, this suspension "follows a series of calls made by the pair to actor Andrew Sachs on Brand's Saturday night programme." What exactly was the nature of the calls? The two left messages on Sachs' answering machine feature Ross swearing and Brand claiming that he slept with Sachs' grandaughter. Ok, rude- but not unheard of on TV. Plenty of media personalities swear on TV and make outrageous claims, and most of their audience realize that they are simply joking around. I suppose the question is more about the fact that they physically called the actor and left the messages on his machine, not the actual content of their statements. Of course, the fact that they publicized their prank on TV is also factor.
The actual calls made were very disrespectful, Sachs did not need to come home to listen to such messages but neither does anyone who is prank called by anyone. And I'm sure Sach's grandaughter, Ms Baillie, didn't appreciate the comments either. But honestly, when you or someone you know closely is in the public eye, you expect things like this to happen on occasion. Brand and Ross don't exactly claim their programs to be mature-minded and polite.
On the issue of the calls having been recorded on the show, well, people would have found out about it anyway. Still, it was unacceptable of Brand and Ross, in my opinion, to entertain their audience by leaving lewd messages on Sachs' answering machine. The issue, in my opinion, is more that Brand and Lewd somewhat made a profit of the whole issue. They engaged their audience by being disrepectful to Sachs. Though, I have to admit that I hear people doing this all the time on the radio, just not to famous actors. Radio personalities call various people and either leave rude messages or give them false imformation to frusterate them. So Brand and Ross are definately not the first to prank call someone and broadcast the call, nor, I'm sure, will they be the last.
Sachs' was quoted as saying he was "not surprised" by the suspension of the two hosts but also added: "I am not going to take it anywhere. I'm not out for revenge." Sachs actually comes out as the least irked by the prank than anyone involved, save for Brand and Ross of course. His grandaughter said that the pair should "pay for what they've done with their jobs" and claimed that her grandfather was "really upset and says he wants the whole situation to end". She also added that the pair were "beyond contempt," and "It was bad enough that they recorded these things on my grandfather's answer machine but astonishing the BBC saw fit to broadcast it when they could have stopped it." Ms. Baillie actually raises an interesting question on whether or not it is the responsability of the broadcasting network to moderate what the TV personalities say. Whatever your take on the question, I'm pretty sure that Brand, Ross and any of the people at BBC who viewed the program before it was aired never thought it would create such a big issue. Media personalities make fun of public figures all the time. This time it may just have been a shade too far over the line, which may indicate that clearer boundaries may need to be set for these hosts. After all, all they're really out to do is entertain their audience and make money off their programs, obviously they thought the joke would appeal to much of the public. I don't think the call was made with malicious intent to hurt Sachs or his family.
Still, BBC director general, Mark Thompson apologized to Sachs and his family, publically calling the broadcast a "gross lapse of taste by the performers and the production team".

So, how far SHOULD media personalities go? How far CAN they go before their actions are questioned? I don't know but I'm sure Brand and Ross are asking themselves the same questions right now.

Here's the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7696714.stm

How can this ever be considered acceptable?

Above: A HAPPY piglet free from cruelty-he's so cute! <3
Charges filed against 6 in Iowa pig abuse case

Recently, several employees of Mowmar Farms were exposed abusing the pigs under their care on a video released to the public by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). My question is how could this ever be considered acceptable by ANYONE? The owners of the farm and the company that it supplies (Hormel Foods Corp.) claim that this video is the first they have heard of this abuse of the animals involved in their industry. Fine. If they say so than hopefully they are being honest. And I hope they take the necessary proceedings to get rid of the abusers and put standards in place that prevents this from happening in the future (the article suggests that there will be consequences for the abusers and potential reforms by Mowmar who has thus far been cooperative in the investigation/charges).
But what about the people working alongside the abusers- why didn't they say something? What about the abusers? Honestly, what could bring someone to hurt innoccent creatures like this? These pigs have a sad enough existence as it is, they are being raised for food or else raised for breeding to produce offspring for food. Wonderful. The least their caretakers could do for them is to make sure that their life before being slaughtered is decent. Come on, animals are living, breathing, feeling creatures. They should have rights too and human treatment of them should be morally and ethically appropriate. I applaud groups like PETA for exposing abuse like this to the public who would otherwise likely be unaware of the mistreatment of the animals in the food industry. And cases like this are even more reason to support Proposition 2 in California- the Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act. Though this act will not directly address the cruelty suffered by Mowmar Farms' pigs, it will support awareness of the plight of many factory farmed animals and bring relief to those cramped factory farm animals stuck in cages unable to move freeley for their entire lives. "No philosophy can justify this kind of treatment. Even the philosophy of cheapness," wrote the Times in an editorial. And they are right. Life isn't all about money. If these farms have to pay a little additional money to make sure that their animals are treated decently then so be it, it is there duty as caretakers of the animals. Many of them are suppliers to major companies and business chains, it's not as though they can't afford it. And Mowmar's pigs deserve to live the short lives we give them without abuse.
Unfortunately cases like this pig abuse in Iowa are not rare, and many cases go undocumented with the animals continuing to suffer until their dying day. Animals were not put on this earth to serve humans but since we have domesticated them they are in our care- they are our responsability now. So that means we have an obligation to protect them and make sure that their lives are lived out peacefully and enjoyably, even if they are being raised for food.
I am glad to finally see this topic covered by a well-known news source such as CNN. Now that more people are aware of the kind of treatment factory farm animals suffer on many farms there should be no excuse for not eradicating this cruelty.

Really, it's not that much to ask to provide farm animals with a decent life. Wouldn't you want it if you were in the animals' place?

Article: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=15068818&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

Another political witch-hunt?

Palin investigation can proceed, Alaska high court rules-CNN

I'm sure most of you have heard of the ongoing investigation regarding Sarah Palin's July firing of Walt Monegan, her ex-public safety comissioner who: "resisted pressure to fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten" (CNN). According to this CNN article, the investigation has recently been challenged, by "Allies of Palin" (CNN) who believed the investigation is a "Democratic-led witch hunt and that the state Personnel Board should instead lead the inquiry" (CNN). Alaska's Supreme Court has ruled that the investigation can continue as originally planned.

As far as the article went, I originally found it a little awkward (and let me clarify in what ways, because I believe my commentary was misunderstood by whoever commented on my original post, not because of its set up because I agree, its pretty much a classic, to the point article, but because of the word choice. My first complaint is actually gone now because CNN have edited the article and I actually like it better now. Originally some consecutive paragraphs used almost the exact same phrasing and words and it got to be very halty and choppy).
So anyways, on to my other points :) One thing I wish the author would have done, and maybe I'm just being too picky, was clarify the meaning of the word "subpoena" with a subtle, imbedded working definiton. I know this article is in the politics section and the author can reasonably assume that their audience can atleast follow the idea of the story, and will most likely have [i]some[/i] background knowledge of the situation in general. However, think of how simple it would have been to give the legal definition of that one word so that people like me (I admit I am not that up-to-date of legal terminology) could follow without having to go to dictionary.com and type in said word. "Subpoena" is not a word used in everyday conversation and it is reasonable (in my opinion) for some not to know its exact meaning. But maybe I'm just biased :P Originally, [until I was aware that it was a specific legal term] I would have also suggested that the author found a synonym or a different way to say what they meant, instead of repeating the word as it gets very redundant and tiring to read the same word over and over again after awhile. However, as it is a proper legal term I can see where this would not be possible.
I also think that the author could have included a few quotes from people who are not in support of Palin's innocence. The author's use of quotes solely (apart from one official statement by a state senator regarding whether or not the investigation will continue) from Palin supporters (including her husband) makes the article seem a little biased and one-sided. Though the author never implies intentional bias in the narrative, because there are no quotes from the people involved in the accusation, the article is biased. Simply put, there is no chance for the other side to have their say in their own words.
The end of the article, regarding Ted Palin's involvement in the Alaskan administration, though very slightly out of place, was actually good information to put at the end as it answered another question readers may have had about the whole situation. Leaving it to the end was key, that way people reading the article specifically for the information mentioned in the headline would get their information before they tired of reading the article. This is a classic news strategy of leaving the least important details for the end of the article so that readers (most don't read all the way through an article) will get the whole picture of the situation.
Over all though, it was a good news article, very informative and to the point.
Article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/palin.investigation/index.html

Welcome....to my blog :)

Hi guys, this is Abbie from period 5. I'm one of the Feature Editors :)