Fighting Fire with Fire

While thinking about my upcoming college visit next weekend, I found an article about college campuses and guns. When I first saw the title of the article, I was a little startled; I don't usually think of those two things in the same sentence. As I read on, I was even more surprised to see that colleges are considering allowing students to carry guns on campus for self protection. 

Certain colleges have been exploring the idea of allowing guns on campus as a solution to rape and other sexual assaults. The article argues that guns won't help against these crimes at all, really, because most assaults happen in social situations. I think I agree with this statement. I don't think that any student would bring their handheld gun to a party just in case they're in a bad situation--having a gun could get really bad, really fast. In my opinion, the gun is only effective if you have it physically on you at all times; you can't just leave your gun in your coat at the door. I don't think this would be a solution to sexual assault at all, even though it may intimidate sexual predators. 

Carrying a gun on a college campus is banned in 41 states, however some have been pushing to change this law. There are currently eight states that allow concealed weapons on campus. I wonder why these specific states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin) allow guns on campuses, while the majority of states don't allow it. In addition to possibly preventing sexual assault, supporters believe that it may prevent mass shootings on college campuses as well. By prevent, I mean that carrying a gun may help teachers and students to defend themselves in case of attack. Lawmakers have been discussing this bill in 10 states this year. I understand why college campuses feel like they need to ensure the safety and protection of both their students and staff, but I don't think they should use guns to solve the problem of guns. I think that colleges should first think about the kind of security they have at their school, then discuss different, less harmful and potentially very dangerous ways to help their students. For example, maybe colleges could create a mandatory self defense class for all freshman entering the school. They could also train teachers of what to do in case of danger and attack, if the school was worried about another possible school shooting. I think in order to solve the problem, we need to step away from the guns. 

Do we need to fight fire with fire?

The Lying Anchorman

What happens when the man of nightly news suddenly becomes the news? Brian Williams, arguably one of the medias best known news anchors, is faced with this problem. Recently Williams has been in the news for reporting false information about himself and his reporting in Iraq.

While in Iraq in 2003, Williams reported that he had been in a helicopter that was fired at during the war. He claimed that his helicopter had to make a crash landing after taking enemy fire, when in reality, he was not on the helicopter that had been fired at. On Wednesday, Williams apologized publicly on the news for his lie, but it was a weak apology, in my opinion. NBC has declared that they will be investigating more reports in Iraq as well as some of Williams' other work. The network will also look at his work on Hurricane Katrina, specifically. 

When Americans think of the nightly news, I think the anchorman that would come to mind to most is Brian Williams. He is the man. So, I can see why there has been a lot of criticism and backlash regarding this news. Some have even questioned whether or not he should resign from the nightly news, which is a fair question in my opinion. What do we do when the man we trust to tell us the truth lies to our faces? No one knows for sure, but I guarantee every American who watches Williams feels disappointed and misguided. By making up an elaborate story to make himself look better and get more ratings, it shows that he is not the trusted news anchor we thought he was. He's not reporting for the sake of the viewers; he's doing it for the sake of his paycheck. If Williams were to resign, or get fired, it would have a huge impact on NBC. NBC averages 9.3 million viewers for the nightly broadcast, almost 1 million over ABC and 2 million for CBS. NBC has been pretty quiet regarding the issue, and I don't think they would ever fire Williams, despite the bad press. Like I said before, he is the face of the nightly news, and responsible for 9.3 million viewers, so what would they do without him?

As we all know, the media plays a huge role in our lives today. It's no wonder that viewers are so upset; they feel betrayed by someone they trusted to tell them what's going on in the world. Does this "news" change the way we might look and trust the news?

The Commercials: Almost as Unexpected as the Game

In my last blog post, I discussed the types of commercials I expected to see air during the Super Bowl last night. However, to my surprise, I was very wrong with my predictions to what we would see from advertisers. Although there were still some commercials about cute animals and partying, I did not see many commercials using women to sell a product. Instead of seeing the usual entertaining commercials viewers look forward to during the game, there were many serious commercials as well. Is this a step in the right direction for commercials?

Some companies, like Nationwide and NFL, decided to try and convey an important message to viewers about societal problems. Nationwide's commercial about the young boy who will never grow up took a turn for the worse when he exclaimed the reason was because he died in an accident. Many viewers found this commercial extremely upsetting and dark for the Super Bowl, and Nationwide responded to the comments by saying, "We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us--the safety and well being of our children." Preventable injuries in the home are the leading cause of death for young children in America, which is surprising to me. I didn't really think of household accidents as being such a problem for youths, so I guess Nationwide did it's job in raising awareness for a cause for me at least. However, I agree with others in that it is a dark commercial for what should be a fun evening. I think they are raising an important point and discussion, especially since over 114.4 million viewers tuned in last night (a new record), but I'm just not sure if the Super Bowl was the right time for the commercial. 

The NFL also decided to air a commercial raising awareness to domestic violence. To me, this was really surprising and ironic. The league has been criticized for its handling of the Ray Rice case earlier in the season, especially for it's lack in punishment, so they decided it would be good publicity for their league to make a commercial preventing domestic violence. I have nothing wrong with a commercial raising awareness to a problem that has been very prevalent in our society recently, but I don't think the NFL made it for the right reasons. I think the league was trying to enhance their image instead of really try to make a commercial for stopping domestic violence. 

As I mentioned earlier, I really did not see many commercials using women to sell a product, which I believe is a step in the right direction for advertisers. I think the advertisers did a lot of things right, even if the commercials weren't as funny as usual. The commercial "Like A Girl" by Always was in my opinion the best one aired. I think the company conveyed an important message and it made me really think about the phrase "like a girl". Overall, I think this was a surprising Super Bowl for all viewers, at least in the commercial department. 

#CommercialBowlSunday

It's every sports fan's favorite day of the year: Super Bowl Sunday. Even if you don't watch football games every week, like my brothers do, this special sunday is still an event that even non-football fans enjoy. Whether it's the half-time show, the puppy bowl, or the actual game itself, there is one thing that almost everyone loves--the commercials. While the majority of television viewers would complain about commercials interrupting their favorite shows every other day of the year, viewers can't wait to watch them today. And why is that? Maybe because commercials are priced at the low cost of $4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds. 

$4.5 million dollars per 30 seconds of an advertisement equals $150,000 per second of airtime. That's much more than the average salary one makes per year. Granted, these are huge industries that are airing these commercials, but that is still a lot of money for one ad. Why do companies pay this much for such a little amount of time? Easy answer: the viewers. Over 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, and without fast forward options available while watching live, viewers are forced to watch. 

With lots of money comes lots of power for these advertisers. How they chose to use their airtime, however, is disappointing. We all know the types of commercials that will be on this year: the cute kids and animals, the partying, the cameos from famous actors, and of course the sexual ones. Women are used to sell products in media constantly, as we see on television everyday, and the commercials during the super bowl are no exception. In fact, numerous commercials get banned before they even air! Companies spend huge amounts of money making these elaborate and inappropriate ads, pushing the limits, yet the commercials don't even make it because they are "too sexual". So, some advertisers go the different role, the opposite role for women: the wife. We see them in the kitchen, cooking or cleaning, getting ready for their husband's football party. In an SNL clip recently aired, they spoof on these types of commercials. 

This clip obviously takes it to a new level, but I still think it is relevant to commercials we see today. It startles me how even in 2015 we still have commercials where women are either being used as sexual objects or house keepers. Will we ever find a new role for women in commercials?

Facebook Likes Could Potentially Make or Break You

"Be careful with what you post online" is a common phrase I hear from my parents, teachers, employers--basically all adults I encounter in my life. I think we hear this phrase extremely often in our world today, since social media is such a big influence in our lives. Seniors even change their names on Facebook so colleges can't find them (or so they think). But now, posting may not be the only thing that can determine your job or college; your likes can have a big impact as well.  

In a recent study, researchers used a computer model to see if they could read someones personality based on their Facebook likes. They had their test subjects fill out personality reports on themselves to test out the accuracy of the machines, and sure enough, the computers filed very accurate matches to a subject's personality. In addition to predicting one's personality, they could also predict the average life outcome of that person, like health or political views. Researchers argue that this could potentially be the future of recruitment for companies. 

I'm not sure how I feel about this new tactic for hiring processes. I agree that employers should be able to know a lot of information about the person they are potentially hiring, but I don't know if stalking them on Facebook is the right way to do that. If someone likes a lot of rap music, for example, does that  reflect a certain way on their personality or work ethic? I listen to songs with explicit lyrics, but that doesn't mean I swear all the time. I believe that the computer programs really work, if fed enough likes, to gauge a person's personality, but I still think face to face interviews and conversations are the way to go. People make mistakes all the time. I don't think one "like" should determine one's fate, and I don't think employers should judge potential employees based on their personal lives. 

"Rich People Problems"

In American Studies, we frequently discuss our community around us and how we differ from the rest of the world. We live in the "bubble", and live in an affluent community. At our school, there is thousands of students filled with anxiety and stress, especially now, right before finals week. We compete, we struggle, and we definitely don't always feel like we're in the top one percent. So when I was flipping through the news and saw an article titled "Growing Up on Easy Street Has Its Own Dangers", I decided to read on. 

This article starts with the story of a 30-year-old man who killed his father after a disagreement on the allowance he was given. My first reaction: wow, that guy must be pretty crazy. My second reaction: what thirty year old still receives an allowance from his parents? I asked my parents if they would think about giving me an allowance when I'm thirty, and they laughed in my face. I found the second part of the article more interesting than that story, however, because it talked about how studies have shown that children from affluent families often have "higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors". This is shocking to me; you would think that it would be the exact opposite! Children from affluent families, who live in suburbs probably similar to ours, have more resources and opportunities, in my opinion, than others of poorer communities. So why is it that they are the ones that fall victim to these mental disorders?

Suniya Luther, a psychologist, supported this idea by data from low-income families compared to high-income families. Teenagers of high income families have more pocket money, therefore money to spend on drugs and alcohol, and usually have the means of getting to places where they can buy it from. After reading this study, I thought about the argument more and understood her idea. However, I don't agree with this completely because I think that there are different kinds of stress and mental disorders that face low-income and high-income families. The kids come from completely different backgrounds, so I don't think it's easy to compare the two. I definitely don't think it's okay to say that children coming from wealthy families don't have any problems compared to others. The phrase "money buys happiness" is false; everyone has problems, and money isn't the driving variable that causes one to have more or less problems. I feel like the "rich kids" usually get made fun of the most for their "false" problems, whether it's on social media or in real life. Why do you think children from wealthy families are seen to have smaller problems in comparison to those from poorer families? 

Robot Cars

When I was going to pick up my brother last night, my car made a mini doughnut on the street due to the enormous amount of ice on the roads. I'm sure most people in the area have been experiencing car difficulties since it seems like we might be having our second polar vortex in two years. This morning, I found an interesting article about the concept of self-driven cars. Sorry, what?

Recently, Audi released an experimental A7 Sedan equipped with piloted driving capabilities. They sent journalists to test out these self-driven cars by having them travel 550 miles, from Silicon Valley to Las Vegas. The process included a day of training before even getting in a car, resulting in the journalist's receiving their licenses for driving an autonomous vehicle. One journalist reflected on the experience saying it was "mundane, almost boring" in his reflection on the trip. He also remarked that if it didn't have the Audi Piloted Driving on the side of the car, one would never know that it in fact was that--people would think of it as just another car. The car drives smoothly, keeps you square in the lane,  and speeds up when necessary; everything you would want your car to do if you were the one driving it. In order to gain control of the car again, all you have to do is grab the steering wheel or tap the brake.  This seems great and all, but what's the point? Why do we need a car to drive itself, what's the benefit?

It turns out that Audi isn't the only car company discussing the possibility of making a self-driven car. Google started the trend, creating a car without a steering wheel even, and other companies are deciding whether or not to try and compete. It seems as though none of the companies, even Audi, necessarily want to produce a robot car, but none want to fall behind technologically to Google either. However, Toyota says they refuse to fall victim to this idea: "Toyota firmly says that computer technology exists to compensate for the driver's incompetence; not accommodate his desire to be doing something else". I think Toyota actually makes a good point here; if the reason for making this driverless car is to multitask, then I don't think it's safe or necessary.

Many driving injuries result from drivers not paying attention to what they're doing. Either they're talking on the phone, texting, applying makeup, or other simple tasks that they believe they can do while safely driving. The reality is, this leads to dangerous behavior. The point is, I don't see why we should endorse this. By making a car that is basically hands-free, it would cause drivers to be more careless on the roads, even if the technology is so good that they don't need to be physically steering. Drivers still need to be aware and alert while driving, or else there will be even more accidents than there are today. I don't know if this trend will become larger and more companies will start making driverless cars, but I don't think it would be a good idea.

In one of the Back to the Future movies, they said in 2015 there would be hover cars. Maybe the movie wasn't so off after all. What do you think? Should there be driverless cars on the roads?