Celebrities

As I was reading the news and deciding about all the worthy topics of discussion I for some reason I can't explain had an image of the Obama "yes we can song" go through my head. As I saw the image and thought about the effect that the music video had on some of my classmates and millions around the country it also occurred to me how ridiculous the video is. I don't mean to say that the video wasn't effective or well done-- because it was both, but I think it's so ridiculous that the video has celebrities in it. At least for me when I saw Scarlett Johanson I felt that the video must be more important, and will probably affect more people. What on earth made me think that? I don't really understand why celebrity endorsements mean anything. Charlie Sheen makes me laugh and feel sorry for him, so why are others being affected by what he tells them he thinks of politics. The guy is a nut. Paris Hilton is at least in my opinion a ditzy blonde why does she have such a strong effect on teens. Why does a celebrity endorsement make something more powerful?

I would much rather hear analysis by scholars than hear "this is one of Goldie Hawn/John Travolta/Nicholas cage/Lindsay Lohan/Ashton Kutchers" big projects.

What is it that makes their name so important? why is a product with their stamp so coveted and accepted?

I don't know why I think this, maybe I'm completely wrong, I know many actors are very intelligent (James Franco is apparently pursuing 2 degrees from 2 different Ivy's, Natalie Portman graduated Harvard, Emma Watson is at Yale... and many others have similiar stories, yet when I think of celebrities  I think of characters like Phoebe and Joey from friends. I dont generally think that celebrities are particularly intelligent. So why is it that the fight against aids is always being endorsed by a celebrities, that bills in congress are often represented by celebrities? 

Is it because Reagan was a celebrity? (I'm kidding I don't actually mean that Because a president was also a movie star that it gives actors credibility.) I just really do not get it. What makes an actor-- who many people probably stereotype as "dumb" have any effect on a product or bill at all????

DrudgeReport

Until this week I had no idea that the drudgereport.com was considered a blog. According to the wikipedia entry a blog  = Blogs are usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order.


the drudgereport.com is news outlet. it may not pull the best stories, but it gives its readers headlines of current news stories. Unlike a blog there is no place to leave comments, and the entries all link to newspaper stories, never as far I know have any of the links been to other blogs.


Today the Drudgereport is promoting/displaying many of the same stories that are on Cnn.com, Foxnews.com, and the NYtimes.com. 
They all have up stories about the potential government shutdown, the oil crisis, the first family vacation, the wars and rebellions going on across the arab world. Unlike the NYTimes and other media outlets the drudgereport.com also have up an article about Israel's irondome and the mortar and katyusha's falling left and right in Israel's south.
In a way I am thankful to Monica Lewinsky for putting this site on the radar, and enabling curious news followers a broader variety of news subjects. 
Why exactly is it considered a blog? I don't really understand the classification!?!

There are things the media shouldn't share

I think the media often does more harm than good. I also think that often the media shares information that just frightens people, and has no positive affect. I think some stories are silly, and some of the emphasis put on certain stories is ridiculous. Tonight I read about how Richard Goldstone retracted his comments, I thought the story was a waste of time. His damage was done and the only thing he shared with the media is that he felt bad, and he said what he said because Israel wasn't cooperating. another story that i found to be useless to the average citizen is that Ron Paul is raising a lot of money. In a media and politics class it is important to understand campaign finance and success, but what are the chances that your average American cares who is winning the "exploratory campaign"? I also find it very unhelpful that the media is tracking, (and quite frankly frightening people all across the nation about) where radiation and nuclear activity is being found. If I lived in Illinois, there's a chance I'd be too scared to leave my house. One other story that I found unhelpful and probably economically damaging to the airline industry, was about a plane in Phoenix that had a large hole, that made an emergency landing. I never want to get on a plane again. It seems to me that these stories are unnecessary and don't do anything for the media anyways.
There are so many important stories! The world especially now is full of breaking news and crucial events. Journalists should be covering important stories, or acting like watch dogs and exposing vital information to the public. The New York Times should not have college basketball as their front page when people on the ivory coast and in Libya and Afghanistan are being murdered. The country should not care what Michelle Obama wore in Rio when innocent Israelis are being blown up and slaughtered to death.
Where and What are the media's priorities?????