The Refreshing Part of Honesty

Note: You might consider glancing at my previous blog post, Put Into The Spotlight, because this is an extension of that blog post.

I was scrolling through my twitter feed once again earlier today, and I saw another tweet about the "relationship" between the paparazzi and the children of celebrities. In a previous blog post (link above), I had said that a law that celebrities had wanted to pass preventing the paparazzi from taking pictures of their children was a completely fair law for the government to pass. Well, it seems like recently this topic is getting a lot more attention.

People Magazine, a magazine that reports on stories about celebrities, published an open letter to the public on their website. In this open letter, the editorial director of the magazine directly addresses the this issue. She says that People Magazine does not in any way support the paparazzi taking pictures of celebrities' children, and they will not publish any pictures of children without their parents consent. Most of the article I think is perfect. It is great for them, one of the biggest tabloids there is, is supportive and understanding of this subject.

The only part that stuck out at me is when she says, "Of course, there may be rare exceptions based on the newsworthiness of photos." Although I do not think that these photos should be published at all, regardless of the "newsworthiness" of them, I think it is a very honest thing to say. Honesty in the tabloid business seems to be a very hard thing to come by - you never know what stories to believe. However, props to them for being honest. Hopefully they will never post pictures without consent because it is a breaking news story, but we will never know until that moment comes. But for now, I think it is very refreshing to see a magazine so popular stand up for beliefs and be honest about their intentions. It sure is catching the attention of the celebrities.

The Opportunity of a Lifetime

With the Olympics coming to a close soon, it only felt right to blog about them. I am a huge fan of the Olympics, and every time they come around find myself watching them nonstop - even if I don't like the event I am watching. For some reason I just can't help myself. Something about the Olympics is so great - perhaps it is how there is healthy competition between countries, but they still appreciate every athlete they compete against and the great sportsmanship involved.

Now, as much as I love the Olympics, I have somewhat of a grudge against them. I play softball, and in the Summer Olympics I always loved watching baseball and softball. However, after the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, the Olympic Committee decided to take out both baseball and softball from the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) gave a few reasons for taking the sports out, one of them being that since Major League Baseball wouldn't let their players play, and the IOC was unhappy with that. But, another reason that has kind of been floating around, and I've heard people say but have never read an article that explicity says it is that, mostly for softball, the US was having too much success. There was not a lot of competition between the other countries, the US just blew them out of the water. I don't know if that is an official reason, but that is what I have heard.

This prompted me look more into the success of USA in the past Olympics. The USA has won more gold and overall medals in the Summer Olympics than any other countries, winning a total of about 2,400 medals. They also have won the second most gold and overall medals in the Winter Games. I think these statistics show the competitive spirit in the athletes from the US. These athletes have a drive and a desire for success more than anyone else. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their dream - represent their country in the Olympics. I think this is amazing, and such a great experience for whoever gets the chance. So, why would they take out sports that give that opportunity to people? Two sports that are loved worldwide. Regardless of who goes home with the gold, I think that the athletes from baseball and softball should get that opportunity.

Put Into The Spotlight

As I was scrolling through my twitter feed the other day, I saw a tweet from a celebrity that I was following that really jumped out at me. She had tweeted about how awful it was for the paparazzi to take pictures of the children of celebrities. She had said that a site called RadarOnline had taken pictures of the kids of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who recently died) on their way to his funeral. Many other celebrities then proceeded to respond to the tweet. I personally thought that this was just crazy. So, I dug a little deeper.

I was doing some research about it when I came across a bill that had been recently passed in the State of California that put much stricter consequences for paparazzi harassing and taking multiple pictures of children, mostly the children of celebrities. There were many celebrities that were a part of the Bill, including Jennifer Garner and Halle Berry (both movie stars). Halle Berry was quoted in saying that the paparazzi are "overly aggressive" and "cause so much trauma and emotional distress". Some of the stricter consequences violators could face because of this bill is up to a year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

To me this is a completely fair law. I think it is totally wrong for photographers to go up to take pictures of children, children that wouldn't know who they were. Especially because of how aggressive photographers can be. America has always paid too much attention to celebrities - there are tons of magazines devoted to celebrities lives, and so many people decide to weigh in on every moment in their life. Myself included, almost everyone looks at photos of celebrities online, and I think we don't realize that these people have to deal with paparazzi harassing them to get the pictures we are looking at. I don't necessarily know the solution to this problem, but I do think that passing this bill could be a wake up call to the paparazzi that are harassing celebrities just for a picture.

Do People Still Watch TV on their TV?

         As I'm sure many people know, the Superbowl was last Sunday, February 2nd. I come from a big sports family, so I always watch the Superbowl with friends and family. This year was no different. I was talking to my dad before the game started, and he was talking to me about the advertisements and companies' thinking behind buying ads. He works for Pepsi, so he knows all about the ads they bought for Doritos and other stuff. He was telling me that companies pay up to $4 million just for a 30 second ad slot during the Superbowl. I thought that that was insane, I had no idea that it was that much money for only 30 seconds. So, I decided to do some digging.

The Superbowl has always been one of the most watched programs in television. In 2012, it raked in 111 million viewers. So, advertisers and companies clearly see this as one of the best opportunities to promote their products. According to this article, FOX was asking for the $3-4 million range for 30 second slots. To me, this is crazy. Just the fact that people are willing to spend this much money for a time period of 30 seconds is insane. Does it really do that much to boost a companies sales by a lot? How affective are Superbowl ads?
Well, the article says that the cost is so high because the amount of people that watch live TV has been decreasing in the past years. Ever since Netflix came out, as well as people have gained the ability to watch almost all TV online, people do not watch live TV as often. Therefore, people don't see the ads that companies are airing on TV. I think this is completely true. It is interesting to hear about the evolution of technology, especially TV. TV became super popular over the years, but I kind of feel like it hit its prime. Now, at least for me, a lot of times I wait for a show to be online the next day and watch it online because I don't have time to watch it when it airs, or for whatever other reason. I find myself watching less and less TV when it first airs, and always watch stuff online. Also it has become so much easier for people to upload or find TV illegally on the internet to watch, that you don't even need to own a TV.
Do you agree that people do not watch TV as much anymore, and if so do you think that it will stay this way?