Pulled Quotes

In Monday, January 28th article of USA Today on page 1D there was an article written by Scott Bowles named We’re seeing red (carpet) again… (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/2008-01-27-sag-main_N.htm).While I do believe that Scott Bowles wrote an informative article in the limits of only six paragraphs, I felt that it wasn’t enough. The SAG Awards may not be a huge award ceremony, but I still think that it is important to give it more coverage especially since it is one of the first award shows that many celebrities have attended since the writers’ strike. I felt that Bowles forget to really mention what the SAG Awards is and what it is all about. While I personally know what the Screen Actors Guild is, what about those readers who don’t know what it is? Bowles fails to mention how the SAG Awards differ from other award shows. Along with that, Bowles forgets to discuss what the SAG Awards present awards to? Just films? Or television shows and films? While Bowles does mention that 30 Rock’s Tiny Fey received an award and The Sopranos received awards, it still isn’t clear who and what the SAG Awards celebrate.

Since the focus of Bowles article on the SAG Awards talks mainly about the ceremony in regards to the writers’ strike, I would have liked to know if any writers appeared at the ceremony, which Bowles forgets to mention. Even though, the article is not about the awards won, I personally would have liked to know more about the winners and who won.

However, I do have to say that I did like how Bowles took a different angle in writing about this award ceremony. Instead of discussing the SAG Awards as any other award ceremony, he took a different approach by looking at the SAG Awards through and relating it to the writers’ strike, which was very interesting to me. I also thought that the headline was clever since it represented the entire theme of his article. Another thing that I thought was interesting and done well was in how Bowles concluded the article. He concluded the article with a quote from an actress who won an award and said something in her acceptance speech about the writers’ strike. Not only did I find it interesting and different that Bowles ended his article this way, I also thought that it was the perfect quote and the perfect way to sum up the entire theme and point of the article as a whole. It really tied the whole article together.

In terms of the sources Bowles used, I was a little disappointed. While I know that the article was short, I still would have liked to see other interviews. I think that it would have been useful to see the opinions that other actors, producers, directors, or even writers (if any attended) had about the writers’ strike and how it affects their lives as well as how they think (like Bowles questions) the other award ceremonies to come.

Even though the article was short, I think that the structure of this article was very well done. While I still think that some information was missing for my personal taste of what I would have liked to read, it was a nice, short, unbias and informative article that gave readers a glimpse into the SAG Awards and how the ceremony went on during a major obstacle that affects Hollywood’s life.

Now be honest, who really watches the Super Bowl for the game? These days, bathroom breaks and beer refills are reserved for precious seconds during game play rather than during commercial breaks. With millions of dollars and viewers on the line, advertisers have managed to turn the masculine, burly event into a cultural phenomenon centered around advertisers and the lines they are willing to cross. But advertisers aren’t only faced with high price tags and the need to go over the edge. Perhaps the biggest obstacle facing those clever ad gurus is the dreaded advocacy group.

According to the USA Today article, “Advocacy groups keep marketers on their toes,”  groups such as the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention are the ones with the real power when it comes to Super Bowl advertisements. Advocacy groups of all shapes and sizes are keeping a watchful eye on not only the ads that run during the games, but on the companies who run the ads. During last years Super Bowl, for example, GM, a global powerhouse with an annual advertising budget of $3.3 billion, debuted a humorous ad featuring a washed-up assembly-line robot. After the robot dropped a screw during work, he/she (it?) had suicidal thoughts of jumping off a bridge. Millions of viewers found the ad to be clever and entertaining, just as Super Bowl ads should be. Robert Gebbia, executive director of the AFSP, and his colleagues, however, did not feel the same. The advocacy group saw the message in GM’s ad turning suicide into a comic punch line and demanded that the ad be yanked. A similar situation occurred with the Mars Masterfoods USA ad for Snickers. When two brawny auto mechanics accidentally smooched while sharing a Snickers bar, followed by their attempts to regain their masculinity by ripping out their chest hair, gay-rights groups went up in arms. Human Rights Campaign bigwigs complained in the morning and by the afternoon the controversial ad and all of its remnants had vanished from the web and all network television stations.

Obviously, advocacy groups have quite some power over corporations and the advertisements they spend millions of dollars on. Advocacy groups insist that their involvement in the cultural phenomenon that is the Super Bowl is not to garner support for their causes. Rather, the goal is to keep a critical eye on what messages are being sent to millions of viewers and more so to destroy those they feel are detrimental to society.

In today’s USA Today, I came across an article that addresses an issue that has received a lot of press in recent times, in “Heat causes chemical to leach from plastic” the safety of the plastic used in baby bottles is examined. It seems that after the lead scare with toys made in China, people are becoming more aware of what the products that they are purchasing contain and the possible side effects of a product. This article presents the idea that something as simple as placing a baby bottle in the dishwasher will cause the release the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA). This chemical is thought to act in a similar way as the hormone estrogen.

I think the author did a relatively good job in this article, though I feel that they choose to address baby bottles to stir interest around this article. The fact that the study that is used to support the claims made was conducted with hiking water bottles that contain similar plastics, though no study has been actually conducted with either baby bottles or the formula cans that the author focuses on.

While the article provides insight into the basic understanding of the issue at hand I was left with a few questions surrounding this issue.

1. At what temperature is the BPA released?

2. Is the BPA only released if liquids are put into the bottle while it is hot?

3. Is the claim that the plastic in the hiking bottle and the baby bottles accurate?

4. Do all baby bottles contain the BPA? If not, which do?

5. What other products contain BPA?

6. What action is the FDA taking to test the safety of BPA?

7. What types of neural and behavioral problems stem from BPA exposure?

8. Do the same problems occur in adults who are exposed to BPA?

9. If the Japanese and European agencies have found that ingestion of small amounts of BPA is not harmful, is it necessary to scare parents away from purchasing plastic bottles?

10. What is the author’s true intention by writing this article?

Larry Copeland successfully reported the views of both sides of the animal rights movement in his article, “Animal Rights fight gains momentum” in the January 28th edition of USA TODAY.  Within this movement it was easy to classify the extremists, the moderate and occasionally involved supporters, and those who choose to ignore the issue.  Copland took the time to ask the opinions of both the animal activists, such as the Humane Society and the food industry supporters, such as Animal Agricultural Alliance.   
Copeland included photos from Animal Rights rallies that gained publicity from previous events, such as the M&M rally, and the Mepkin Abbey which was targeted because of its use of caged hens. 
The Copeland article is the best example of reporting I have seen so far, and contains many of the tips our class text included to successfully write a well written story. 
Several times throughout the article Copeland uses excerpt points or side stories to illuminate the issue and target readers. 
Mentioned in the article was an interesting fact about college statistics.  According to the article, Copeland found that over three hundred colleges have stopped or reduced the use of eggs from caged hens. 
This spurred an article idea for the Journalism class.  I began to wonder whether or not Stetson had followed in the footsteps of many other colleges and has stopped or reduced the use of caged hen eggs. 
I also began to wonder whether or not Stetson has its own animal rights group and what their involvement in campus activities has been.   
Copeland’s article was a great article because not only was it informative and cover all the angles, it also gave me an idea for a story on campus to pursue.