Former BYU receiver Austin Collie said after a 2007 Cougar victory and amazing catch against the U, “I wouldn’t say it was lucky. Obviously, if you do what’s right on and off the field, I think the Lord steps in and plays a part in it. Magic happens.”
The enchanted Holy War will soon continue. In a 113-year tradition, the Utes will face off against the Cougars at LaVell Edwards Stadium in what many consider to be the state’s biggest football game of the year. Even though the same man, Brigham Young, founded both schools, a deep-rooted rivalry exists. The U holds a 53-33-4 lead in the series.
Fueling this competitive rivalry is a history of pranks by students on both sides, pranks that earn the disapproval of both academic institutions. Pulling pranks on the team you love to hate has long been a rite of passage and display of school pride. Since 1907, when the giant limestone Y and U block letters were constructed on their respective mountainsides, both symbols have been targeted by pranksters.
BYU wraps its statues in cellophane this time of year, and both schools have a security guard monitor the giant mountainside letters because of pranks committed in the past.
In 2002, the Y was covered in buckets of multi-colored paint, which caused an estimated $8,000 in damages. Little red U’s dotted the white surface in 2003, and in that same year, the Brigham Young statue in front of the Provo City Library was doused in pink paint. Cougar fans are equally culpable for pranks at the U, including 2007’s drapes of toilet paper dangling from the base of the mountainside U, creating a “crappy” Y. Successful pranks have ranged from painting the block U blue to dying U campus fountains blue.
Perhaps the most costly prank occurred in 2004, when eight U baseball players were arrested for painting the Y red. Because damages exceeded $1,000, felony charges were applied. Eventually, the players were charged with class A misdemeanors and had to pay more than $6,000 for repairs.
“We haven’t seen (a recent) increase in pranks, and part of that is both schools allocating resources to protect property, and the other part is that painting the Y invokes stronger consequences than just a fine, as it has become a legal issue,” said Carri Jenkins, BYU spokesperson. “Pranks are discouraged not only because of the damage, but primarily because of the lasting impact on a student if they are cited.”
Clearly, there are consequences for being stupid when showing your school spirit.
One example is sitting in the opposing team’s student section wearing the wrong color. You must have a death wish to bait the rival’s fans while within striking distance. Happily, the emerging trend is for schools to encourage students to cheer for their team and not trash their competitor’s lineup or property.
“Sportsmanship is connected to the broader campus values and standards of behavior including civility, integrity, and responsibility,” said U Dean of Students Annie Nebeker Christensen. “We request that our students treat opponents, fellow fans and coaches with respect and courtesy. We also encourage them to enthusiastically support our team and recognize outstanding performances by all participants.”
To channel the prankster spirit to a more productive cause, the schools partnered to create the annual food drive. Instead of damaging property, a competition is held to raise the most cans of food and cash donations for those in need.
“Rivalries get heated, and I don’t know if the pranks will ever stop,” said John Fackler, director of alumni relations at the U. “We certainly don’t condone pranks and feel a better way to fuel the rivalry is to participate in the food drive, where we’ve raised hundreds of thousands of pounds of food and tens of thousands of dollars for people who are hungry.”
Ultimately, the rivalry challenge is to beat the other guy, flat out, no holds barred. For the players, it’s a victory on the field. For the fans, it’s creating the biggest stash of food for the needy. After all, at the end of the day, it is just a game…right?
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/channel-rivalry-in-positive-way-1.2098645
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Business ranking sets U at the top
Most of us are going to school hoping that an education will help us successfully compete in the workforce upon graduation. The stress and pressure of making good grades, studying late into the night to ace a test and developing lifelong friendships is all part of the college experience.
Often, we measure ourselves, our classmates and our school based on external benchmarks such as the winner of a Saturday football game, the number of national food chains on campus or magazine reviews and rankings.
Although it’s reassuring to know that BusinessWeek magazine named, for the first time, the U’s Professional Master’s in Business Administration Program as one of the best in the nation for people returning to college, it doesn’t shift a student’s responsibility to continue striving for excellence.
Things such as this are not only good for the business school, but also for the university as a whole. National recognition will bring in more alumni dollars and more competition among students. That will cause the best students competing for spots in the U’s classrooms and better job prospects for graduates since future employers will know they are hiring the best possible candidate.
Most master’s students work full-time and have families. Juggling the obligations of work, school and family is definitely a challenge, but BusinessWeek showed that students at the U are succeeding in these efforts. More than anything, it’s reassuring and a great pat on the back to be acknowledged by a publication read by more than 4.7 million people every week.
The BusinessWeek ratings are based on the quality of the academics, the students’ prospects and achievement after graduation and the overall satisfaction of graduates. Students reported seeing a 25 percent increase in average salary after they graduated. It placed the U’s Professional MBA Program sixth in the nation for its graduation rate and 11th for the number of tenured faculty.
Ninety-nine schools are evaluated every two years when the list is created. The U’s Professional MBA Program went from no mention at all to halfway up the list. Although the truth is that the program probably hired a good public relations person who made sure it met the specifications to be considered on the list, the business school has also done a fabulous job building an effective program that empowers students and prepares them for their careers.
A hearty congratulations is in order to the students, professors and administrators of the David Eccles School of Business, specifically the Professional MBA Program.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/business-ranking-sets-u-at-the-top-1.2090717
Often, we measure ourselves, our classmates and our school based on external benchmarks such as the winner of a Saturday football game, the number of national food chains on campus or magazine reviews and rankings.
Although it’s reassuring to know that BusinessWeek magazine named, for the first time, the U’s Professional Master’s in Business Administration Program as one of the best in the nation for people returning to college, it doesn’t shift a student’s responsibility to continue striving for excellence.
Things such as this are not only good for the business school, but also for the university as a whole. National recognition will bring in more alumni dollars and more competition among students. That will cause the best students competing for spots in the U’s classrooms and better job prospects for graduates since future employers will know they are hiring the best possible candidate.
Most master’s students work full-time and have families. Juggling the obligations of work, school and family is definitely a challenge, but BusinessWeek showed that students at the U are succeeding in these efforts. More than anything, it’s reassuring and a great pat on the back to be acknowledged by a publication read by more than 4.7 million people every week.
The BusinessWeek ratings are based on the quality of the academics, the students’ prospects and achievement after graduation and the overall satisfaction of graduates. Students reported seeing a 25 percent increase in average salary after they graduated. It placed the U’s Professional MBA Program sixth in the nation for its graduation rate and 11th for the number of tenured faculty.
Ninety-nine schools are evaluated every two years when the list is created. The U’s Professional MBA Program went from no mention at all to halfway up the list. Although the truth is that the program probably hired a good public relations person who made sure it met the specifications to be considered on the list, the business school has also done a fabulous job building an effective program that empowers students and prepares them for their careers.
A hearty congratulations is in order to the students, professors and administrators of the David Eccles School of Business, specifically the Professional MBA Program.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/business-ranking-sets-u-at-the-top-1.2090717
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah Palin's publishing and political worlds in collision
In today's publishing market, "Going Rogue" is a fat book at 432 pages, at a high price point of $28.99, with a massive (rumored 1.5 million) first printing, launched on the book world's version of a Royal Tour, where Oprah is Queen of the Universe and Barbara Walters is Duchess of the D.C.-Manhattan cognoscenti.
In today's political market, well before it was officially released, "Going Rogue" was reduced to a pinprick-sized, petty insiders squabble. How do we square these disparate perspectives?
As a person with alternating publisher and political hats, who knows the players but wasn't inside the John McCain campaign, who cares deeply about the current conservative movement and the future of the country (which are inextricably intertwined), may I offer a few thoughts to the friends on CNN.com's site?
The publishing "frenzy"
Full disclosure: Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, (for which I serve as editor-in-chief, a misnomer of a title, since my editing is confined to reading; for you political types, think, "operative/organizer") would have loved to acquire Sarah Palin's book.
She didn't really shop it and it's not certain we would have paid what she was reputed to have commanded, but upon notice she was considering writing, we, like the rest of the book world, were in a frenzy at the prospect of publishing it. Many were prepared to offer Palin's lawyer, Bob Barnett, their first-born male child for it.
We are now all watching very closely how it plays out (and more precisely, "earns-out") in a book market that's unpredictable and fickle always, but in major transition today. The pre-orders immediately kicked it onto the best-seller lists, but a dirty little secret of publishing (where spin is as prevalent as in politics) is not all best-sellers earn out (i.e., the publisher sells enough books to cover an author's advance, which is the threshold for making a profit).
"Going Rogue" will now be a "comp" (or baseline) for assessing the value of and advances for political "big books," so all you big book writers of the future better hope it sells big -- or your future advances won't be.
"The Political Palin"
On to politics. While having your own title is now de rigueur for politicians and policy makers, and the upshot is usually no harm-no foul, the goals of the publishing and political worlds are not always in tandem.
Though there is much, much more in Palin's book that fleshes out her inner core, her grounding in faith and family, as well as her policy achievements and forward-thinking philosophical framework of common sense conservatism, so far the coverage of it has constrained her in a defensive backward-focused box, re-litigating the darkest days of the campaign and reliving difficult family moments.
Though all the breathless chatter about 2012 is premature, the way Palin lays out her world view throughout the book and especially in the eloquent closing pages is sure to attract conservatives yearning for an unapologetic articulation of first principles. But because of the inordinate mainstream media focus on the political insiders' tiff, the Political Palin is getting sucked down and mucked up by the Published Palin.
Listening to her on Rush Limbaugh as I write, she is digging out of the box her detractors would like to bury her in for once and all and needs to keep on it: Get off their message and onto her own.
Now, for a point of personal privilege. I have been and will continue to be an advocate of Sarah Palin and her principles. Had I been asked about how to use her publishing opportunity to maximum political benefit, I would have proffered to Palin the received wisdom of the unlikely duet of my mother and Lee Atwater: Never burn bridges.
As campaign memoirs go, "Going Rogue" napalms bridges, incinerates detractors, hoses gas on what were smoldering embers. It is without refutation anywhere, even among rabid Palin haters, that she received political hazing of a magnitude previously unimaginable.
More mother wisdom: Two wrongs don't make a right (to which my Obama-loving daughter always replies, "Yes, but three rights make a left"). There was a way to defend her honor, make her case, pivot to the future while showcasing her moral foundation by doing unto others as she wished they had done unto her, so to speak.
Campaign pressure cooker
Anyone who has ever been in the Defcon One pressure cooker of a national campaign knows that "mistakes are made," feelings are hurt, tempers are short, bitching is background noise. There is no such thing as Emily Post for political campaigns. Except for maybe Poppy Bush, good manners do not exist on any campaign planet. For good reason: They take time.
Time is the most valuable commodity on a campaign and you just can't waste it thinking about how to choose your words carefully or get your job done more diplomatically. If someone isn't in tears every day, that day wasn't all it could be advancing the campaign. I once witnessed an experienced (big) man slap a professional female colleague across the face over an ad buy... and no one thought anything of it, starting with the woman. In fact, she would have been insulted if anyone told her she should have been insulted.
Though the two primary Palin antagonists, McCain campaign senior strategists Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, have said little about the Molotov cocktails thrown at them in "Going Rogue" (other than a true Schmidt, aka, "The Bullet," retort, "Why are the bald guys always the villains?"), both have made it clear the accounts of their actions in "Going Rogue" are "fiction." And while I wasn't there, I have worked with and adore them both. They are uniquely talented, cool under fire, cutting-edge creative professionals, admired and respected by their peers of all political persuasions and their many high-level bosses.
And ironically, however it ended, the relationship began as a match made in heaven. Both Steve and Nicolle were ecstatic with Palin's selection as vice presidential nominee; and both were appalled at the outrageous, unspeakable, unparalleled media treatment heaped on Palin and her family.
Steve, normally the toughest guy in the room, called me at home on multiple occasions, just flabbergasted and flummoxed about how to protect Palin and her family and, of course keep the campaign on track. He was in genuine pain for her -- not a good state of mind or use of energy for the campaign guru, which he knew -- but he devoted much concentration to the astounding set of circumstances. Ditto for Nicolle.
That Palin recalls her experience with them so negatively and ugly incidents so vividly does not make her a liar, as people with neither her nor the party's best interests in mind have charged. The operating principle of campaigns, perception is reality, works inside as well as outside.
Once her perception of reality locked in negatively, particularly on Schmidt and Wallace, there was only one prism through which all their actions flowed. And it wasn't pretty. I have seen this phenomenon on countless campaigns and in the White House. It is unavoidable in any operation that is always under stress, where clearing-the-air sessions aren't possible given time or physical constraints. That campaign people tend to be uncommonly focused, which can come off as insensitive, might exaggerate the perception, but it is just an occupational hazard.
The plight of the number two
Another common source of campaign discomfort is the role of the VPOTUS (that's vice president of the United States) candidate. It is always secondary to the POTUS in every respect.
His/her operation is always subservient to the principal one. They do not set strategy or adjust message; they are assigned to B markets. They are an echo chamber. They do not give unique speeches unless they are given a specific and pointed attack, which might appear unseemly coming from the principal.
Granted, Palin was a unique nominee, with uncommon charisma and fire-power, but number two is number two. It was ever thus and will ever be. Adjusting to being number two, after being number one (as a governor) is a process. Even if you were never number one, it is a trial -- witness Joe Biden, in perpetual adjustment mode.
Bottom line: The book is a good read, an unusually detailed front-row seat view to how strained campaigns always are, and a compelling insight into Palin's perspective. Its long-term publishing and political impact are unknown for now, though as Palin moves out of the mainstream media monster publicity machine and into more hospitable, relevant political terrain, the prospects for success on both fronts improve exponentially.
But its impact on personal and professional relationships is a sad one indeed and one I hope conservatives don't let it divide us just when we are marching toward a promising midterm, which reflects an ascendant common-sense conservatism and requires all the good guys in the foxhole together.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/18/matalin.palin.book/index.html
In today's political market, well before it was officially released, "Going Rogue" was reduced to a pinprick-sized, petty insiders squabble. How do we square these disparate perspectives?
As a person with alternating publisher and political hats, who knows the players but wasn't inside the John McCain campaign, who cares deeply about the current conservative movement and the future of the country (which are inextricably intertwined), may I offer a few thoughts to the friends on CNN.com's site?
The publishing "frenzy"
Full disclosure: Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon and Schuster, (for which I serve as editor-in-chief, a misnomer of a title, since my editing is confined to reading; for you political types, think, "operative/organizer") would have loved to acquire Sarah Palin's book.
She didn't really shop it and it's not certain we would have paid what she was reputed to have commanded, but upon notice she was considering writing, we, like the rest of the book world, were in a frenzy at the prospect of publishing it. Many were prepared to offer Palin's lawyer, Bob Barnett, their first-born male child for it.
We are now all watching very closely how it plays out (and more precisely, "earns-out") in a book market that's unpredictable and fickle always, but in major transition today. The pre-orders immediately kicked it onto the best-seller lists, but a dirty little secret of publishing (where spin is as prevalent as in politics) is not all best-sellers earn out (i.e., the publisher sells enough books to cover an author's advance, which is the threshold for making a profit).
"Going Rogue" will now be a "comp" (or baseline) for assessing the value of and advances for political "big books," so all you big book writers of the future better hope it sells big -- or your future advances won't be.
"The Political Palin"
On to politics. While having your own title is now de rigueur for politicians and policy makers, and the upshot is usually no harm-no foul, the goals of the publishing and political worlds are not always in tandem.
Though there is much, much more in Palin's book that fleshes out her inner core, her grounding in faith and family, as well as her policy achievements and forward-thinking philosophical framework of common sense conservatism, so far the coverage of it has constrained her in a defensive backward-focused box, re-litigating the darkest days of the campaign and reliving difficult family moments.
Though all the breathless chatter about 2012 is premature, the way Palin lays out her world view throughout the book and especially in the eloquent closing pages is sure to attract conservatives yearning for an unapologetic articulation of first principles. But because of the inordinate mainstream media focus on the political insiders' tiff, the Political Palin is getting sucked down and mucked up by the Published Palin.
Listening to her on Rush Limbaugh as I write, she is digging out of the box her detractors would like to bury her in for once and all and needs to keep on it: Get off their message and onto her own.
Now, for a point of personal privilege. I have been and will continue to be an advocate of Sarah Palin and her principles. Had I been asked about how to use her publishing opportunity to maximum political benefit, I would have proffered to Palin the received wisdom of the unlikely duet of my mother and Lee Atwater: Never burn bridges.
As campaign memoirs go, "Going Rogue" napalms bridges, incinerates detractors, hoses gas on what were smoldering embers. It is without refutation anywhere, even among rabid Palin haters, that she received political hazing of a magnitude previously unimaginable.
More mother wisdom: Two wrongs don't make a right (to which my Obama-loving daughter always replies, "Yes, but three rights make a left"). There was a way to defend her honor, make her case, pivot to the future while showcasing her moral foundation by doing unto others as she wished they had done unto her, so to speak.
Campaign pressure cooker
Anyone who has ever been in the Defcon One pressure cooker of a national campaign knows that "mistakes are made," feelings are hurt, tempers are short, bitching is background noise. There is no such thing as Emily Post for political campaigns. Except for maybe Poppy Bush, good manners do not exist on any campaign planet. For good reason: They take time.
Time is the most valuable commodity on a campaign and you just can't waste it thinking about how to choose your words carefully or get your job done more diplomatically. If someone isn't in tears every day, that day wasn't all it could be advancing the campaign. I once witnessed an experienced (big) man slap a professional female colleague across the face over an ad buy... and no one thought anything of it, starting with the woman. In fact, she would have been insulted if anyone told her she should have been insulted.
Though the two primary Palin antagonists, McCain campaign senior strategists Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace, have said little about the Molotov cocktails thrown at them in "Going Rogue" (other than a true Schmidt, aka, "The Bullet," retort, "Why are the bald guys always the villains?"), both have made it clear the accounts of their actions in "Going Rogue" are "fiction." And while I wasn't there, I have worked with and adore them both. They are uniquely talented, cool under fire, cutting-edge creative professionals, admired and respected by their peers of all political persuasions and their many high-level bosses.
And ironically, however it ended, the relationship began as a match made in heaven. Both Steve and Nicolle were ecstatic with Palin's selection as vice presidential nominee; and both were appalled at the outrageous, unspeakable, unparalleled media treatment heaped on Palin and her family.
Steve, normally the toughest guy in the room, called me at home on multiple occasions, just flabbergasted and flummoxed about how to protect Palin and her family and, of course keep the campaign on track. He was in genuine pain for her -- not a good state of mind or use of energy for the campaign guru, which he knew -- but he devoted much concentration to the astounding set of circumstances. Ditto for Nicolle.
That Palin recalls her experience with them so negatively and ugly incidents so vividly does not make her a liar, as people with neither her nor the party's best interests in mind have charged. The operating principle of campaigns, perception is reality, works inside as well as outside.
Once her perception of reality locked in negatively, particularly on Schmidt and Wallace, there was only one prism through which all their actions flowed. And it wasn't pretty. I have seen this phenomenon on countless campaigns and in the White House. It is unavoidable in any operation that is always under stress, where clearing-the-air sessions aren't possible given time or physical constraints. That campaign people tend to be uncommonly focused, which can come off as insensitive, might exaggerate the perception, but it is just an occupational hazard.
The plight of the number two
Another common source of campaign discomfort is the role of the VPOTUS (that's vice president of the United States) candidate. It is always secondary to the POTUS in every respect.
His/her operation is always subservient to the principal one. They do not set strategy or adjust message; they are assigned to B markets. They are an echo chamber. They do not give unique speeches unless they are given a specific and pointed attack, which might appear unseemly coming from the principal.
Granted, Palin was a unique nominee, with uncommon charisma and fire-power, but number two is number two. It was ever thus and will ever be. Adjusting to being number two, after being number one (as a governor) is a process. Even if you were never number one, it is a trial -- witness Joe Biden, in perpetual adjustment mode.
Bottom line: The book is a good read, an unusually detailed front-row seat view to how strained campaigns always are, and a compelling insight into Palin's perspective. Its long-term publishing and political impact are unknown for now, though as Palin moves out of the mainstream media monster publicity machine and into more hospitable, relevant political terrain, the prospects for success on both fronts improve exponentially.
But its impact on personal and professional relationships is a sad one indeed and one I hope conservatives don't let it divide us just when we are marching toward a promising midterm, which reflects an ascendant common-sense conservatism and requires all the good guys in the foxhole together.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/18/matalin.palin.book/index.html
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Stimulus package ineffectual
A Nov. 6 Associated Press headline was alarming: “Obama: Gov’t working to ease pain of joblessness.”President Barack Obama’s administration’s goal is to create 3.5 million jobs, which will completely miss the mark from what the economy actually needs, according to USA Today. About $1.5 billion was spent in Utah to save or create 6,598 jobs in schools as well as contractor and government agency positions. Divided out, it cost taxpayers $227,341.60 per job, according to www.recovery.gov. It goes without saying, the person working in that “saved” job isn’t receiving a quarter million dollar salary. Certainly we can’t afford the wasted spending the government indulges in to maintain jobs.
Two weeks ago, the White House tooted its horn saying Obama’s stimulus package is working because it created or saved 640,000 jobs this year—that tackles 4 percent of the 15.7 million unemployed. One week ago, Obama soberly reported that the national unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent (6.2 percent in Utah). Economists believe the unemployment rate is still growing and could reach 10.5 percent in the nation before the end of the year. Spending us into obscurity, Obama’s promise for change seems to be taking America down a road best left untraveled.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, job openings have decreased from 4.4 million to 2.4 million, while the number of unemployed persons grew from 7.5 million to 15.7 million. Given this data, the unemployed only have a 15 percent chance of finding a job.
The government doesn’t like the private sector because it is driven by profits rather than the “greater good,” and the private sector detests the government getting in its way. Pouring salt into an open wound happens when elected officials don’t listen to their constituents, deciding they know best. These officials pass bills requiring billions of dollars in new funding. With inflated egos, they refuse taking the tried-and-proven course of smaller government with tax reductions for citizens and business owners. With more available money, capitalists take the risks necessary to create new business, and thus, new jobs. The private sector, not stimulus spending, will drive new hires. The government pumping money into unsustainable positions and borrowing from our children is untenable and unsustainable.
Pushing irresponsible decisions through Congress in the form of convoluted, confusing 1,900-page bills is not only missing the mark, it further fuels America’s unhealthy appetite for buy-now, pay-later strategies. America is facing a serious onslaught of issues that must be met with personal accountability, hard work and letting the people develop solutions, not being force-fed by a socialist-oriented government.
“I will not rest until all Americans who want work can,” Obama said.
“Unless the Chicago Bulls are playing or I have a one-night, $24,000 date in New York with my wife,” he should add.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/stimulus-package-ineffectual-1.2064240
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Reports should be scrutinized for bias
Professors at the U are responsible to not only teach classes and be available during office hours, but they also have the privilege of doing research and publishing their findings in trade and professional journals. University studies and published articles often affect public policy decisions since the research implies a “best-fit” solution for a particular issue. However, we should be wary and learn to read between the lines of these studies.
Interestingly, in March, researchers at UC Berkeley said a fast-food restaurant within one-tenth of a mile from a high school means that ninth graders are at least 5.2 percent more likely to be obese. Last month, researchers at the U came to a different conclusion. In the U’s study, people who live more than half a mile away from a restaurant tend to be fatter. Granted, the studies were conducted under different conditions, but it seems strange that their research on a nearly identical topic reached different conclusions.
The Berkeley report concluded that restricting access to fast-food options near schools could have significant effects on obesity among students. The U’s conclusion is that healthier options should be presented to individuals through multiple food destinations within walking distance.
“A full-service grocery store means more in low-income neighborhoods where access to private transportation may be limited,” said Cathleen Zick, co-author of the U’s study and professor of family and consumer studies. “It is residents with no nearby food options who are at greatest risk of obesity. Not only are they without healthy grocery options nearby, there are no destinations to walk to, not even fast food. They must drive.”
Because these studies are used to influence urban and community planner decisions of how our neighborhoods should be structured, we need to be aware of why the research is conducted in the first place. It’s also important to know that numbers say what you want them to say. Berkeley researchers said cities concerned about battling teen obesity should consider banning fast-food restaurants near schools. This sounds like a plug from lobbyists for farmers markets and independent restaurants that dislike competition from McDonald’s or Wendy’s.
Hundreds of miles away, the U study suggests that placing restrictions on fast-food outlets might not be effective, but that initiatives to increase healthy neighborhood food options that people can walk to can reduce obesity risks. Either way, readers should be wary of study discrepancies before buying in completely.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/reports-should-be-scrutinized-for-bias-1.2051906
Interestingly, in March, researchers at UC Berkeley said a fast-food restaurant within one-tenth of a mile from a high school means that ninth graders are at least 5.2 percent more likely to be obese. Last month, researchers at the U came to a different conclusion. In the U’s study, people who live more than half a mile away from a restaurant tend to be fatter. Granted, the studies were conducted under different conditions, but it seems strange that their research on a nearly identical topic reached different conclusions.
The Berkeley report concluded that restricting access to fast-food options near schools could have significant effects on obesity among students. The U’s conclusion is that healthier options should be presented to individuals through multiple food destinations within walking distance.
“A full-service grocery store means more in low-income neighborhoods where access to private transportation may be limited,” said Cathleen Zick, co-author of the U’s study and professor of family and consumer studies. “It is residents with no nearby food options who are at greatest risk of obesity. Not only are they without healthy grocery options nearby, there are no destinations to walk to, not even fast food. They must drive.”
Because these studies are used to influence urban and community planner decisions of how our neighborhoods should be structured, we need to be aware of why the research is conducted in the first place. It’s also important to know that numbers say what you want them to say. Berkeley researchers said cities concerned about battling teen obesity should consider banning fast-food restaurants near schools. This sounds like a plug from lobbyists for farmers markets and independent restaurants that dislike competition from McDonald’s or Wendy’s.
Hundreds of miles away, the U study suggests that placing restrictions on fast-food outlets might not be effective, but that initiatives to increase healthy neighborhood food options that people can walk to can reduce obesity risks. Either way, readers should be wary of study discrepancies before buying in completely.
http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/opinion/reports-should-be-scrutinized-for-bias-1.2051906
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)