When you turn on the evening news, chances are, you’re going to hear the broadcasters pitching today’s top stories with a liberal slant—meaning they’re in favor of progress or reform. You often hear stories about culture or society revolving around a particular story from the far side of the spectrum. These stories act as the beating drum to drive change and prop up political soap boxes demanding reform.
Last week, at the Hinckley Institute of Politics, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski of the MSNBC show “Morning Joe” spoke about bias within the media and the potential dangers that come from the talking-head discourse. Although both are moderate in their political views, both reaffirmed the media’s essential role as an additional checks-and-balances protector in society’s political and cultural process.
“One of the dangers in America right now is that you can wake up in the morning with a prejudice and turn on the television and have that prejudice reinforced,” Scarborough said. “By the time you go to bed at night, you don’t think that someone who disagrees with you is wrong; you think they’re evil. That’s dangerous talk.”
Some people will point out that today’s mainstream media are quick to receive whatever messages the White House releases without asking the tough, probing questions to understand what is really going on. These people will argue that Obama, one of America’s most popular presidents when he was elected, has the media in his back pocket.
However, this slanted view is inaccurate because a similar thing was done by the Bush administration when it needed to sell America on the war on terror. A strong patriotic message calling for retaliation after the 9/11 attacks permeated evening broadcasts and headlines across the country. There were some outlets that challenged the administration by breaking classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists. This is the liberal slant to which our “Morning Joe” friends refer.
The media’s job is not to entertain or present news that tests or polls well with Americans. But, because of the current structure in which advertisers write media paychecks and condone content they want pushed, it compromises the media’s true purpose. The media should be a watchdog that holds public personalities, institutions and businesses accountable. When that mission is corrupted by censorship and lazy journalists, we all lose.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/media-needs-to-be-nation-s-watchdog-1.2238306
Friday, April 23, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
PETA’s solutions worse than the problems
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has pulled a ton of publicity stunts over the years. When the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile hit the road to find a new child singer, a PETA employee dressed in a pig costume and commandeered the Wienermobile. It launched an ad campaign comparing what happens in slaughterhouses to the horrendous crimes committed by Jeffrey Dahmer. In addition to dumping red paint onto fashion runways or unsuspecting wearers of fur, PETA dumped a ton of manure on chef Gordon Ramsay’s restaurant doorstep after he served horse meat on his television show.
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
It is an admirable effort to give a voice to animals who are often mistreated or killed to grant the comforts or frills of humanity. The majority of people want to see that soft, furry baby seals grow up with a mother and that lab rats aren’t unnaturally mutated.
Although the freedom to voice your opinion is part of what makes America great, the ground rules of respect and fairness need to be followed. PETA’s latest campaign targeting the U’s animal research facilities last fall breaks the rules.
The U was charged for allowing its animals to suffer and die from experimentation and gross neglect. Unfortunately, PETA obtained this information from an undercover employee who misrepresented herself to her employer and went to great lengths to produce emotional propaganda that was taken out of context.
The PETA complaint led to a pending investigation by the USDA and changes in state law that now give municipal animal shelters the discretion as to whether or not they sell animals to be used for research purposes. Previously, they were required under law to sell animals to research labs—upon request—for testing. This in turn has slowed the supply of animal test subjects for the U’s research lab and will lead to increased research costs when it must turn to other suppliers. Congratulations, PETA, you were able to dishonestly push your agenda at the expense of ever considering the bigger picture.
Without animal research, there are no new antibiotics, no vaccines, no transplants and no new medical advances that keep people—and animals—alive and healthy. Tom Parks, U vice president for research, said the “undercover footage was edited to show only the worst scenarios in the lab’s recent history and is not indicative of any systemic problems with the institution.”
Most interesting is that the PETA employee worked at the lab during a period when they passed an unannounced annual federal investigation with no problems. Clearly, when you maintain a community of 50,000 lab rats, there will be mistakes made and some will die. The U is not above making errors and it has committed to carefully examine the PETA allegations and address each complaint. It is in the U’s best interest to keep its animals healthy so accurate data points can be collected. Meanwhile, animal labs now face the ever more attractive option of simply breeding their own lab animals—PETA’s hope to completely remove animals from U labs is a pipe dream.
No one likes having the spotlight turned on them and being told they have a booger hanging out their nose. PETA bombarded the U with strong accusations and demanded it respond in the public forum. If the game had been played fairly, this should have taken place only after the U was made aware of the accusations and given time to respond accordingly.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/peta-s-solutions-worse-than-the-problems-1.2226681
Friday, April 9, 2010
Ethics in business a tough sell
Rod Blagojevich was fired by Donald Trump on “The Celebrity Apprentice.” The former Illinois governor, who is accused of selling President Barack Obama’s senate seat and still faces charges, talked a twisted political game in an effort to shift blame in his team’s failed attempt to promote a new theme park. Blagojevich was perceived as a nice guy by many of his teammates, despite trying to throw them under the bus. Unfortunately, the trend is all too frequent in business today.
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
We can look at dozens of ethical dilemmas presented by a wide range of companies. For instance, many fast food restaurants post the nutritional details, not because they want their customers to be excited about consuming 900 calories in a single burger, but because they are choosing to help people make more informed decisions. Toyota didn’t have to recall all the cars that took off speeding for reasons still unknown, but it chose to in order to ease the public relations nightmare.
Still, people who think they are being ethical often find themselves acting in a contrary manner when a high-stakes situation is presented. Kristina Diekmann, a management professor at the U, is one of the authors of a new study that illustrates how business people are not necessarily as ethical as they would like to portray. We are all constantly battling the way we should be against our own self-interests.
Diekmann defines these two differences as the “should-self,” or the ideal ethical person we all should be, as well as the “want-self,” which is often more dominant and puts ethics aside for a favorable self-interested outcome. The study identifies that one successful ethics violation will likely lead to others in the future.
“Of course, people want to do the right thing,” Diekmann said. “(However), many can have answers that are not consistent with their values.”
It is true that when companies deal unethically, it seems the problem perpetuates because individuals turn a deaf ear and continue to receive the product or service at the price or place the provider is giving. There are clothing stores that were busted for violating labor laws, yet they still have loyal customers who enjoy their fabrics and styles. Banks failed for mismanaging debt, yet they were bailed out by the government in an effort to avoid a total collapse.
All of this leads us to wonder if there are examples of success and ethics in the real world, or are we all just part of a giant cesspool of scams. Multi-billionaire Jon Huntsman’s book, Winners Never Cheat, outlines specific values that he lived under in order to build his fortune. His is an example of success and fairness where he didn’t change the rules of the playing field, instead he let his core values guide him.
Truly, it is not always convenient to recognize when we are being taken for a ride, but people have to be both informed and active in ensuring they are striving to condone ethical behavior.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/ethics-in-business-a-tough-sell-1.2217330
Friday, March 19, 2010
Recent suicides highlight need for awareness, prevention
Unsettling headlines have spotlighted several recent cases of suicide. Within the past two weeks, the key witness in the Southern Utah artifact case killed himself as did two others associated with the case. The man in Austin, Texas, who flew his airplane into the IRS building and Marie Osmond’s son both committed suicide. Since the beginning of the year, three employees at the Hill Air Force Base have killed themselves.
Because these deaths should be preventable, suicide statistics in the country are startling. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the seventh leading cause of death for males and the 16th leading cause of death for females in 2006. They also report that suicide was the third leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24.
Most concerning is the statistic that an estimated 12 to 25 non-fatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death, according to the NIMH. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides a 24-hour hotline that offers confidential suicide prevention services to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Like many other agencies, Lifeline encourages individuals to prevent suicide by looking for the warning signs.
These signs include threatening to hurt or kill oneself or even talking about it. Another sign is to talk often or write about death, dying or suicide when these actions are out of the ordinary for the person. These signs also sometimes accompany a feeling of hopelessness, rage or uncontrolled anger.
“We encourage any faculty, staff member or student to use our crisis walk-in service when they need help,” said Frances Harris, a psychologist with the U’s Counseling Center. “As a preventative service, we offer gatekeeper training and provide information to faculty and student leadership groups to recognize the signs, take them seriously, and decrease any risks as they step in to assist.”
Although no one can fairly judge someone who kills himself, it can be one of the most selfish acts a person can commit. Family and friends are left behind with no answers to the question: “What more could I have done?”
SAVE, a suicide awareness organization, says on its website that suicide survivors not only have to face the grieving process of losing a loved one, but they have additional challenges to face because of the stigma that accompanies suicide.
Perhaps the most important point to consider regarding this issue is that we have an obligation to help each other. The responsibility falls to each one of us. Suicide hurts too much and eliminates our God-given right to offer our best effort. We all bump into different challenges during our journey and we overcome those challenges with a lot of patience, an optimistic outlook and lending a hand to one another along the way.
Because these deaths should be preventable, suicide statistics in the country are startling. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, suicide was the seventh leading cause of death for males and the 16th leading cause of death for females in 2006. They also report that suicide was the third leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24.
Most concerning is the statistic that an estimated 12 to 25 non-fatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death, according to the NIMH. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline provides a 24-hour hotline that offers confidential suicide prevention services to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Like many other agencies, Lifeline encourages individuals to prevent suicide by looking for the warning signs.
These signs include threatening to hurt or kill oneself or even talking about it. Another sign is to talk often or write about death, dying or suicide when these actions are out of the ordinary for the person. These signs also sometimes accompany a feeling of hopelessness, rage or uncontrolled anger.
“We encourage any faculty, staff member or student to use our crisis walk-in service when they need help,” said Frances Harris, a psychologist with the U’s Counseling Center. “As a preventative service, we offer gatekeeper training and provide information to faculty and student leadership groups to recognize the signs, take them seriously, and decrease any risks as they step in to assist.”
Although no one can fairly judge someone who kills himself, it can be one of the most selfish acts a person can commit. Family and friends are left behind with no answers to the question: “What more could I have done?”
SAVE, a suicide awareness organization, says on its website that suicide survivors not only have to face the grieving process of losing a loved one, but they have additional challenges to face because of the stigma that accompanies suicide.
Perhaps the most important point to consider regarding this issue is that we have an obligation to help each other. The responsibility falls to each one of us. Suicide hurts too much and eliminates our God-given right to offer our best effort. We all bump into different challenges during our journey and we overcome those challenges with a lot of patience, an optimistic outlook and lending a hand to one another along the way.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Scott Matheson’s nominate raises eyebrows
Scott Matheson is stirring quite a debate in the conservative blogosphere. Last week, President Barack Obama nominated Matheson to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a position considered among the most powerful and influential in the United States because this court often serves as the final decision on federal cases.
Matheson, who has been a U faculty member since 1985, seems to be well qualified for the position. The honors on his résumé include Stanford alumnus, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School graduate, Harvard professor, U.S. Attorney and U law school dean. Plus, Matheson recently served as a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars during the 2006-2007 academic year.
Glenn Beck would hate the fact that Matheson has any kind of association with Woodrow Wilson, a progressive whom Beck deplored in his Conservative Political Action Conference speech when he said, “I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me.” Beck believes the progressive movement is destroying the republic the Founding Fathers created. Maybe that’s another reason why conservative bloggers are going crazy.
Many are playing the corruption card on Matheson’s nomination because Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson is his brother. Jim Matheson voted against Obama’s health care proposal in November, but bloggers are concerned his vote will now change with his brother’s nomination.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing that the allegation was “very silly.” It’s hard to trust a guy who thinks it is funny to use his White House platform to mock someone by writing a to-do list on his hand, similar to what Sarah Palin did during a Tea Party convention, but Matheson’s office seconds Gibbs’ assessment, saying the quid pro quo claims are “patently ridiculous.”
Even Utah Republicans Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz are supportive of Scott Matheson’s nomination to the court and dismiss the allegations.
“I’m very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench,” Chaffetz said. “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”
With Matheson’s qualifications and Republican support, it is a baseless claim that the conservative blogosphere is making. The timing of the nomination is unfortunate and does raise questions as to whether it is merely a coincidence that the newest nominee is brother to a congressman who has a critical vote that Obama desperately wants.
One blogger, Michelle Malkin, called Obama “incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid” to miss these red flags and show such terrible timing in the nomination. The good news in all of this is that Jim Matheson is a solid “no” vote on Obama’s health care bill.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/scott-matheson-s-nominate-raises-eyebrows-1.2188538
Matheson, who has been a U faculty member since 1985, seems to be well qualified for the position. The honors on his résumé include Stanford alumnus, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School graduate, Harvard professor, U.S. Attorney and U law school dean. Plus, Matheson recently served as a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars during the 2006-2007 academic year.
Glenn Beck would hate the fact that Matheson has any kind of association with Woodrow Wilson, a progressive whom Beck deplored in his Conservative Political Action Conference speech when he said, “I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me.” Beck believes the progressive movement is destroying the republic the Founding Fathers created. Maybe that’s another reason why conservative bloggers are going crazy.
Many are playing the corruption card on Matheson’s nomination because Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson is his brother. Jim Matheson voted against Obama’s health care proposal in November, but bloggers are concerned his vote will now change with his brother’s nomination.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing that the allegation was “very silly.” It’s hard to trust a guy who thinks it is funny to use his White House platform to mock someone by writing a to-do list on his hand, similar to what Sarah Palin did during a Tea Party convention, but Matheson’s office seconds Gibbs’ assessment, saying the quid pro quo claims are “patently ridiculous.”
Even Utah Republicans Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz are supportive of Scott Matheson’s nomination to the court and dismiss the allegations.
“I’m very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench,” Chaffetz said. “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”
With Matheson’s qualifications and Republican support, it is a baseless claim that the conservative blogosphere is making. The timing of the nomination is unfortunate and does raise questions as to whether it is merely a coincidence that the newest nominee is brother to a congressman who has a critical vote that Obama desperately wants.
One blogger, Michelle Malkin, called Obama “incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid” to miss these red flags and show such terrible timing in the nomination. The good news in all of this is that Jim Matheson is a solid “no” vote on Obama’s health care bill.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/scott-matheson-s-nominate-raises-eyebrows-1.2188538
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tip amount should be a personal decision
Last week, the North Carolina ABC affiliate reported that a woman was banned from a Japanese restaurant for bad tipping.Reportedly, the woman—a habitual bad tipper at the restaurant—complained about an 18 percent gratuity that was added to her check. When she returned again to the restaurant, the servers wouldn’t even seat her.
This incident raises the question of whether restaurant patrons should be forced to tip when they pay for their meal or if that payment is to be assumed in the cost of the meal.
People go out to eat because they don’t want to cook. They appreciate the atmosphere and restaurant service, and they enjoy the company of others. All of these factors are taken into consideration as menu prices are created. Included in the meal price is the server’s wage. Perhaps the woman from North Carolina was assuming this as she decided not to tip, as Japanese restaurants can be expensive.
A restaurant’s profit margin depends on food selections and combinations, customer service, pricing and how efficiently the restaurant is managed. For the most part, the average profit margin is 5 percent of each meal that is served, according to www.donrockwell.com. The same site says labor and food costs account for roughly 30 percent of the meal price.
For the most part, the standard suggested tip amount is 15 percent of a pre-tax bill. This expectation is in place because servers are paid notoriously meager wages.
Since 1991, the U.S. Department of Labor has set minimum wage for restaurant workers at $2.13 per hour with the reasoning that tips will bring their pay up to a living wage. Servers are given incentive to provide attentive and quick service because it directly affects how much of a tip they will earn. Considering food service is traditionally a popular industry for college students, many of us are familiar with this situation.
Further complicating a restaurant’s tipping process is last week’s ruling by a federal appeals court in Portland, Ore. If a restaurant pays servers more than minimum wage, the court ruled the restaurant can create a “tip pool” in which servers’ tips are pooled together and split accordingly, not only among servers, but also kitchen staff. The waitress who brought the appeal claimed that the tip pool violated her rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but the court disagreed.
As servers feel further slighted and vulnerable to this ruling, it’s probably time to get out of the food service business.
Ultimately, the amount patrons choose to tip their servers should be determined entirely by the patrons, not the restaurant. Recommended gratuity charges are misleading because that amount should be determined by the customers. They shouldn’t feel obligated to tip but should also take into account that good service has value.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Social-networking sites can threaten more than grades
We’ve all seen the way social-networking sites such as Facebook connect us to friends and family.The site, started by computer science students, has more than 400 million users and is quickly changing the way we communicate with each other.
Although it’s a great distraction during lulls in lecture and homework, users are beginning to notice some negative consequences of Facebook use.
Last April, an Ohio State University study found that college students who use Facebook spend less time studying and have lower GPAs than students who don’t use it.
“We can’t say that use of Facebook leads to lower grades and less studying—but we did find a relationship there,” said Aryn Karpinski, co-author of the study. “There’s a disconnect between students’ claim that Facebook use doesn’t impact their studies and our finding showing they had lower grades and spent less time studying.”
Connecting with others on the web causes users to experience a range of emotions, particularly in romantic relationships.
A study, published in the CyberPsychology & Behavior Journal concluded that there is a “significant association between time spent on Facebook and jealousy-related feelings and behaviors experienced on Facebook by college students.”
Some observers are even noticing that Facebook is exposing them to health risks. Because profile updates often include only a brief sentence, users aren’t given time to assess the value of the statement and its true meaning, says Jim Schumacher, a suite101.com contributor.
“In the long run, such a habit forms insensitive and numb personalities, as they are reading the most intimate and sometimes most horrible details of others’ lives without the need of reacting to them as they would have to in a real conversation,” he said.
Although there still hasn’t been a complete and credible study proving the negative effects of social-networking sites, the field of questions is green for behavioral scientists.
“We have to ask the questions, ‘What happens to young people when they spend hours and hours with the computer? Are they getting outdoors? Are they exercising? Are they learning to talk to each other face to face?’ ” said Gary Small, professor of psychiatry at UCLA.
One of the big questions is whether social networking is actually bringing people closer together. Users often connect without the deep interaction or one-on-one physical contact that allows people to gauge each other’s sincerity and veracity needed to achieve a close relationship.
Maybe it’s just good enough to use social networking as a way to stay in touch, kill time and quickly access information, such as someone’s phone number or address.
The very fact that we engage on these sites means we care and want to connect with each other. In terms of the depth of that connection, it’s up to the individual user to decide what that means.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/social-networking-sites-can-threaten-more-than-grades-1.2159483
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)