"Entertainment" Today

Over winter break, I watched a lot of television. And by television, I mean I watched Grey's Anatomy on Netflix for hours at a time. Before Grey's, I had never watched a hospital based television show in my life, but now I could see myself watching another one once I finish it. This is why, when I was scanning the news over the weekend, an article about NY Med (a medical documentary television show filmed in New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York City) caught my eye. 

NY Med is a series and follow-up of sister shows like Hopkins and Boston Med, all real-life footage and stories about patients that enter their hospitals. It aired in 2012 and has had two seasons so far. The show has had mixed reviews, with medical groups worrying about patients privacy. There have been many laws and rules set by hospitals to protect their patients, however the AMA (American Medical Association) has worried that shows like NY Med potentially exploit patients and their families who aren't typically in the position to make decisions on whether or not they are allowed to be filmed. Terence Wrong, executive producer of NY Med, believes that the show inspires potential future doctors and educates the public on doctor's work. Like I said before, I have witnessed many surgeries and traumas before on the screen, but that doesn't make me more inclined to be a surgeon at all. 

A cameraman recording a surgery for NY Med

The article tells the story of a family who was featured on NY Med without their consent. Mark Chanko, Anita Chanko's husband, died in 2011 when hit by a garbage truck while crossing the street. Anita and her family were immediately rushed to NY Presbyterian Hospital where he had been brought to say their goodbyes. Little did they know that he was being filmed during his traumatic death. When Anita was watching the show months later, she immediately recognized her husbands voice and knew it was his story they were showing, without asking her if they were allowed to film. 

The family suffered greatly after hearing this news and having to relive Mark's death, so they filed complaints against the hospital and television show. In 2013, New York ruled that the hospital had violated Chanko's rights, but when Chanko's family sued the show, doctor, and hospital, they were dismissed. In court, the show claimed that since NY Med is "produced by it's news division", it's protected by the first amendment. The NY Presbyterian hospital argued that the state did not have any privacy rights against this case, and that Chanko's privacy rights ended when he passed. So basically when our loved ones die they lose all their rights? I don't think thats right at all. 

In my opinion, I think it was wrong to exploit Mark Chanko and his family on national television without their consent. Even though they blurred out his face and made him "unrecognizable", the show should have asked before airing. I think this also dives deeper into our countries privacy laws. We should feel safe and protected with regards to our privacy, but I think this show may expose patients when they are in critical conditions and possibly can't make these decisions. They shouldn't have to wonder if someone is filming them during surgery; I know I wouldn't want someone filming my intestines. And who wants to see that? Why do we want to watch people suffering in hospitals? This relates back to my previous blog post about America's obsession with death and murder; it seems like that is all we hear and watch on the news. How is this show considered entertainment?

The Serial

A couple of weeks ago, my consumer seminar teacher walked in the classroom raving about a podcast called Serial that she had just started listening to. I thought it was a little odd that she was listening to one, since I couldn't remember the last time I had heard of anyone listening to a podcast. The week after, at least three students in the class mentioned that they had started listening to the podcast as well and had immediately become obsessed with it. When I researched this further, I found that each episode of Serial has over 2.2 million listeners. Now I was intrigued; what is this podcast? And why does it attract so many viewers? 


Serial is a non-fiction story that has released one episode per week since October, produced by the public radio show This American Life. The podcast follows the story of reporter Sarah Koenig's year-long investigation into a 1999 murder case of former high-schooler Hai Min Lee. Koenig revisits the case, talking to family, friends and Adnan Syed, the man found guilty of the murder (Lee's high school boyfriend). The podcast has been surprisingly successful, which brings me back to my previous question: why are Americans so obsessed with this murder case?


The article states that the podcast may have such high ratings for many reasons, but one main reason is that listeners want to know if Syed is guilty or not guilty. The story is also non-fiction, which adds to the attraction, and you can download and listen to it whenever you please. In today's world, accessibility is key. I think another main reason is the fact that it's about a murder. As Americans, we are infatuated with crime television shows. In addition to it dominating the news programs, television seems to be flooded by shows like Law & Order and too many CSI's to count. In fact, 42% of jobs on network television dramas are related to crime and punishment. Is the podcast so popular right now because of our criminal obsession? Will it be as successful next year if it's not about murder? In my opinion, I don't think it will be as popular next year if it's not about a murder. I think viewers would not be as interested in the story without knowing it involves someone dying or going to jail. 

I also wondered about the style of the storytelling, and if that had any impact on the popularity. As I mentioned before, a new episode is released once a week, and Koenig chooses to release certain information each episode. She wants to make sure viewers keep coming back to listen to her story. "Koenig is not just a journalist trying to get to the heart of a story — she is every one of us listeners at home." I find this really interesting because although I have not listened to the podcast (yet), it explains how great of a story teller she is. She is a journalist, but she appeals to viewers, and makes viewers identify with her. The more we like the storyteller, the more likely we are going to listen. 

There seems to be a combination of factors that make this podcast be the "it" show of this year. The intrigue of a non-fiction crime, the popularity and convenience of the podcast, and the exciting story telling of the narrator all make for a riveting show. However, I think our society's morbid fascination with murder is a little frightening. 


So what do you think? Will this podcast maintain its high ratings next year with a different story, possibly one not about murder?

The Digital Girl Scout Cookie

While babysitting over Thanksgiving break, I came across something I hadn't seen in months - Thin Mint Girl Scout cookies. I couldn't believe it; I thought Girl Scout cookies in my area were a rare sight most of the year. I only ever had the cookies when my old neighbor would ring our doorbell once a year offering us the brochure. Sometimes I would see their booth set up next to the local grocery store, but that was still fairly rare. So when I was reading The Week recently and I saw an article about Girl Scouts, I was immediately intrigued, especially when I read the title: "Why e-commerce for Girl Scout cookies is a bad idea". Girl Scout cookies have taken to the internet. 

The Girl Scouts announced that starting in January, they will begin to selling and delivering their products online, calling it a "digital cookie". The program expects to have over one million scouts using the digital cookie, instead of selling it "the old-fashioned way". The article I read argues that the digital cookie won't teach Girl Scouts the same business lessons they received by physically selling them. The Girl Scouts Corporation, "the digital program will teach scouts the value of e-commerce". The girls will have to invite and contact relatives and friends in order for them to be able to place an order on their website. Even better, there's an app for that. 

I think that there are many benefits to this, but ultimately I think there is also a big loss. I can see why Girl Scouts wants to make the switch to technology, because it's more modern and accessible, but I think it changes the image of the scouts. In the article, I think the author makes a great point when she mentions that young girls already know how to use the internet; they've grown up with it, and their arguably better than adults. So when the Girl Scouts of America say that they are trying to teach girls how to do something online, it doesn't mean much. It won't be hard for these girls, and they probably won't learn as much as they did by having to budget their time and figure out how to raise a certain amount of money. The scouts are being lazy. They have to create their own website and email their relatives, but in comparison to actually physically selling the cookies it's a lot less work.  Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to be able to order my cookies online instead of having to wait for someone to show up at my door, but I don't think this is the best idea for the scouts. 

What do you think? Does it change the scout's values by making the cookies available to buy online?

The "Average" Doll

If you had the choice to buy your cousin a fantasy, typical Barbie doll this holiday season or an "average" doll, which would you chose to buy?

Consumers this year will be asking themselves this question when faced with the two different types of Barbie's on shelves. Nickolay Lamm created a new kind of Barbie based on "what the Barbie would look like if she actually had the measurements of an average 19-year-old woman’s body (based on CDC data)" , as stated in Time Magazine. He created this doll in 2013 as an art project, and since then the project has raised to a whole new level. Through social media, the Lammily doll reached thousands of parents and consumers, all inquiring about where and when they can buy the doll. Lamm then crowd funded money to produce the doll right in time for the holidays. In January, Lamm will be expanding on his creation, adding a sticker extension pack complete with acne, moles, freckles, the ability to blush, scrapes and bruises, scars, cellulite and stretch marks. Lamm also released a video of second-grade students reactions to the doll, shown below: (skip to 3:44 to see the kids comparison of Lammily to the typical Barbie doll)

Although Lammy has received a lot of positive feedback and support, he acknowledges and expects negative feedback as well. He "insists" all of his additions, like stretch marks and bruises, come from a good place, but knows that they will be questioned. "I hope there are enough people who believe what I believe. I think 25% to 30% will think the stickers are stupid and the rest will think it’s good." 

Don't get me wrong, I think this doll is great. I think that this is something our society needs and young girls could definitely benefit from. It could potentially raise self-confidence to girls from a young age, which is something that I think is amazing. However, it's hard to believe that this project will replace Barbie. Barbie is an icon, something that has been around for what seems like forever, and imagining a world without Barbie is almost impossible in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think this project will be a fad. I think it needs a lot more support in order to have the power it needs; it needs to be more than just a statement to society. The press that the doll has gotten has definitely helped and I hope this message reaches Barbie, hopefully helping them realize their dolls flaws. 

What's Your Number?

If I told my parents that I wanted to apply to 29 schools, I think they would think I was crazy. I would think I was crazy too. I have no idea how many schools I will apply to, but I'm fairly certain it will be more than 5. When my mom was applying to schools, she applied to 2 and got into both; my dad applied to 3 and got into all as well. In 1990, 9% of students applied to 7 or more colleges, however in 2011, the number has risen to 29%. This leads me to question why these numbers have increased so drastically from when my parents were applying to college, which may seem ages ago, but really was not that far in the past.

In an article I read in the New York Times about college applications, I was startled at the numbers of applications to colleges some seniors will be sending out this year. Alexa Verola, an example student from the article, applied to 29 schools already. Now, that might seem like a lot, but there are students who will double her number. Students may argue that they are looking for the best fit school for them, but are they really finding it by applying to dozens of schools?

The article claims that there are multiple factors effecting why students feel they need to apply to more than a couple of schools, but the main factor is fear. For me, this was the least surprising part of the article, because I know that I will feel the same way when applying to colleges. Colleges is something exciting, but the application process (from what I hear) is terrible. There are so many colleges to attend and so much you can do at those colleges that the choices seem overwhelming. I have friends who know exactly where they want to go, and will probably still apply to more than 5 colleges "just to be safe". For the rest of us who have no idea where we want to go, or what we want to do in college, the whole process can make you feel like a deer in headlights. I think the number of seniors in our graduating class is another contributor to student's fear. With a school as big as New Trier, student's may feel like it is almost impossible to differentiate and stand out when competing with 1,000 other student's for one spot. So is the girl who applied to 29 schools in fact crazy? What do you think?

The Pathetic Turnout for Midterm Elections

As most Americans know, last week was midterm elections. Little did most know, however, that it was the worst voter turnout in 72 years. Yes, you read that right. America had almost the same percentage of voters in 2014 as it did in 1942, which was when the country was in the middle of World War II. The country had a total voting percent of 36.3% compared to 40.9% in 2010. In a nation that prides itself in being able to vote, why did less than half of the citizens vote? 

In an article I read in the New York Times, the reason given for this incredibly low turnout are "apathy, anger and frustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns." This article argues that neither the Republicans or Democrats gave voters a real reason to vote; Republican's campaigns strictly opposed President Obama, and Democrats didn't release any plans for the future or show the effect of their changes over Obama's presidency. However, I think the greatest reason for this extremely low turnout expressed in this article is the negative ad campaigns. The intention of a negative ad campaign is to highlight weaknesses in your opponent, but the downside of these campaigns is that generally people don't like the tone of the candidate. The result? People not voting at all. I can see how this is true because I hate ad campaigns as much as the next person. It leads me to think about the candidates themselves. Why don't candidates talk about all the things that make them qualified? I know that I would like to see the candidates accomplishments, beliefs and plans for the future. Wouldn't that be better than pointing out perceived weaknesses of your opponent? 

This article lists only a few of the reasons people didn't vote at midterm elections. As a young person who is almost eligible to vote, I'm concerned with what the other reasons are. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to politics or feel knowledgable about the subject matter. I wonder if other young people feel the same way I do; do people feel disconnected to politics? From what I understand, there are two political parties: democrats and republicans. But there are also plenty of people who are in the middle of the two (the middle ground). The gap between the two sides has widened over the past couple of years, moving further and further away from a middle ground. The extremism of both sides of the political party have made it so that politicians can't work together for the common goals of the average person. This makes politicians less relatable to the real world, potentially causing less people to vote, especially those who are caught in this middle ground. I feel like this is another major reason why people didn't vote, especially for young people. What do you think is the main reason people didn't vote in the midterm elections?

Does Your Grocery List Include A Firearm?

What would you do if you walked into your local grocery store and spotted a hand gun holster on the shopper's belt loop next to you in the produce section? I know I would quickly put down whatever item I was holding and try to walk away without having her notice me. I would definitely feel unsafe, and frankly very scared. I imagine this is how most shoppers would react, which is why it is surprising to me that 31 states allow shoppers, or other citizens to carry firearms in public.

64% of shoppers in those 31 states feel the same as I do. Recently, I read an article in the Huffington Post about a poll and petition taken by the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America. This group is trying to stop permitting open firearms in Kroger, a massive supermarket chain all across the country. This Wednesday, the members of the group plan to petition outside a Kroger annual investor's meeting with 300,000 signatures supporting their position. 

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America is an extremely powerful group whose goal is to advocate for stronger gun laws. Impressively, the group has already convinced other major food chains like Chili's, Starbucks, Chipotle and Target to announce a no-guns policy in their stores. How do they accomplish this? By rallies and petitions, but especially through social media. Last month, the group started creating aggressive ad campaigns to promote their message, like the one shown below. 

The Moms Demand Action Kroger campaign

I think that the Mom's are bringing up a really important issue. Before I read this article, I didn't really think about the possibility that someone could be walking around with a gun in the local stores in my neighborhood. I realize that I live in "the bubble" therefore this is probably highly unlikely that I would see anyone with a gun in any of our stores, but this is still a little shocking to me. It immediately reminded me of another blog post I wrote about the number of handheld guns carried by woman. While I can understand that people may feel unsafe in public, I don't see why a gun is a necessary accessory while shopping at Kroger. Grocery stores are always crowded, no matter when or where you go, and they are filled with young children. What happens if a child gets access to your gun kept in your basket?