Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Happy Jackie Robinson Day! First Black In MLB
Today is Jackie Robinson day, and a time to celebrate the entry of the first African American to be allowed to - and that's an important point - play in Major League Baseball.
He entered the "Majors" on April 15th 1947, 65 years ago. And when he did, he didn't ride the pine at all. Instead, he excelled getting the first MLB Rookie of the Year and producing 124 runs-batted-in, and a .342 batting average. Moreover, he led the majors in stolen bases.
There are some who say it's not a good idea to have a "Jackie Robinson Day" but that's not the case, in fact, that's crazy. You don't want people to forget where we came from; the time when people were even more inhuman to each other than today. (Although Digital Media makes it seem the reverse because we learn so much so fast.)
But there will come a time when we, you and I, have passed on. Jackie Robinson Day is a celebration that those who come behind us must continue if only as a reminder never to allow a society that excludes people for the color of their skin to develop, ever again.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Are you a tech junkie? When tech and media collecting becomes digital hoarding
Melinda Beck, a journalist with The Wall Street Journal welcomed me as a psychological expert and contributor to her article, Drowning in Email, Photos, Files? Hoarding Goes Digital. The extent to which technology is infiltrating our lives is taking a toll on our psychological well-being, and some of us are particularly at risk. This article skillfully discusses the development, associated symptoms and treatment of digital hoarding.
An excerpt from the article:
Christina Villarreal, a cognitive-behavioral therapist in Oakland, Calif., says she has clients in the tech industry—young men mostly—who spend so much time and money amassing collections of music or games or gadgets that they withdraw from the real world. “They can’t pay their rent or buy food because they have to have this latest piece of equipment to support their habit,” says Dr. Villarreal. She notes that hoarding often starts out as a way to feel good or fill an emptiness in life, but it leaves sufferers even more isolated. She helps clients relearn basic social skills and find other enjoyable activities instead.
Advertisement
The field of psychology is still establishing healthy standards of functioning when it comes to the consumption of technology. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) does not currently recognize digital hoarding as a mental disorder however it is being considered for inclusion in the DSM-V's main manual or as an appendix for further research, which will be published in May 2013. To better understand the basis of hoarding, review Do you have Chronic Disorganization, Clinical Hoarding, or are you just a 'packrat'?
How do mental health experts currently determine when digital collecting becomes 'digital hoarding' and dysfunctional in a person?
Psychologists like myself are likely to diagnose someone as dysfunctional when their digital collecting behavior begins to impact multiple areas of their functioning in the following ways:
occupational and/or academic demands are no longer consistently met due to the quanitity of time spent researching, collecting and organizing digital devices and/or media
social withdrawal and/or isolation patterns emerge with friends and/or family
social relationships begin to deteriorate and/or suffer negative consequences
physical functioning/self care habits show decline, such as neglecting regular exercise, poor dietary choices that result in significant weight gain or loss
sleep deprivation
poorly managed finances/debt as a result of digital/technology driven spending habits
difficulty stopping or reducing their collection of digital devices and/or media files that go largely unused
noticeable changes in mental functioning that result in symptoms of depression, obsessive/compulsive anxiety, or substance abuse
poor insight/inability to see the connection between their collecting habits and the negative consequences of their behavioral choices
What kind of treatment, if any, helps someone with digital hoarding problems?
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based form of psychotherapy that can help to alleviate negative symptoms and improve overall functioning. A well planned treatment regimen may include:
Systematic Desensitization also known as Graduated Exposure Therapy
assessing the need for psychotropic medication to reduce symptoms of obsessive thoughts and behaviors, anxiety and/or depression
identifying/increasing other enjoyable activities into daily life
increasing social opportunities for support
social skill building when necessary
developing and maintaining healthy self-care for diet, exercise and sleep patterns
support for debt management
Dr. Christina Villarreal is a licensed clinical psychologist in Oakland, CA. For further questions or referrals email her at christina.villarreal@gmail.com
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
Rick Perry Gay Rumors Posts Get Blogger Banned From SF Chronicle
Here’s an update to the original Zennie62.com blog post:
it seems a Houston-based blog picked up my lasted re-telling of the “Is
Rick Perry Gay?” question the mainstream media has avoided asking.
Here’s what Chicago Pride wrote:
The point is why does the mainstream media jump all over Herman Cain on the sexual harassment issue, but leave Rick Perry alone on the gay story that’s been flying around for some time.
What was told to me by someone at SFGate.com (not Nguyen) said that “She must be getting push back from New York. If they Google ‘Rick Perry Gay,’ they find your work on SFGate. Also Houston is where our sister publication The Houston Chronicle is.”
“New York,” is where Hearst Corporation is located.
That was all before the sudden act of being blocked from blogging at SFGate.com happened on Tuesday.
What does this say? It says that suddenly, Hearst Corporation is protecting Rick Perry. My posts on this subject go back to October of 2010.
Here’s what Chicago Pride wrote:
Houston — Some bloggers want Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry to answer one simple question: “Are you gay?”This came on the same day that SF Gate.com Executive Director Alana Nguyen emailed me, and I called her back, about her concerns about my Rick Perry blog posts where, even though the first one was about Herman Cain, she totally removed the post, and did not tell me she was doing that, then I had to repost it.
The issue is being dredged up again on the San Francisco Chronicle’s website by blogger Zennie Abraham.
“It’s a good question to ask that’s not been asked: why has CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC not followed up on the long-time claims that Rick Perry may be Gay, or at least had a romantic encounter with a man, but they’re all over the Herman Cain rumors,” Abraham wrote on Monday.
The details of the Perry rumor — as presented by blogger Mike Starks and the venerable newspaper the Austin American-Statesman — are that the Perry’s wife discovered him in a compromising position with a male staff person in early 2004.
The point is why does the mainstream media jump all over Herman Cain on the sexual harassment issue, but leave Rick Perry alone on the gay story that’s been flying around for some time.
What was told to me by someone at SFGate.com (not Nguyen) said that “She must be getting push back from New York. If they Google ‘Rick Perry Gay,’ they find your work on SFGate. Also Houston is where our sister publication The Houston Chronicle is.”
“New York,” is where Hearst Corporation is located.
That was all before the sudden act of being blocked from blogging at SFGate.com happened on Tuesday.
What does this say? It says that suddenly, Hearst Corporation is protecting Rick Perry. My posts on this subject go back to October of 2010.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Jaime Zapata Case Study
Originally posted at the Future of Journalism.
Ice.Gov
In the case of the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agent Jaime Zapata the media had adequate coverage. It is actually surprising that this Latino man wasn't stereotyped in the way that other Latinos in the news may be. This could be partly due to the fact that he was part of the American enforcement team, but either way, this is a good example of the media doing fair coverage of a Latino.
A headline from one of Fox News' blogs read "Who was Jaime Zapata? Hero Remembered." In a report done by ABC News investigations go further with a headline that reads, "Random Act or Ambush? Feds Probe Shootings of U.S. Agents in Mexico." The only controversial headline and story that I came across wasn't from a big media outlet, but from a blogger for "Truth About Guns" who writes, "What Was Murdered ICE Agent Jaime Zapata Doing in Mexico," which speculated any affiliation that he could have had to the drug cartel.
Recent news from Houston Chronicle Blog about this includes a Border funding bill that was named after Jaime Zapata being passed through the House panel. This is a situation where the media can actually be commended for their coverage of this man. It was like he was given the same coverage that a white man would have received.
At the risk of sounding racist - it seems like to an extent the media covered this story like they would had if he had been white. Of course the circumstances are different and the news coverage within the articles did include the fact that he was a Latino, but the headlines for the most part didn't mention him as a Latino, and that's may actually be considered a good thing, the media focusing on the fact that a human life was loss and not focusing on what the ethnicity of the human life was. Unfortunately, the only news and media coverage I have to go by are the headlines I read online and a few of the Youtube videos I saw from news organizations, I did not see the news coverage live on television from when it first happened, and maybe if I had I would have seen something negative in the reporting.
Specifically I watched ABC News' Good Morning America video on Youtube in which Zapata was reported about and it was called "Jaime Zapata Shot and Killed; Mexico for Spring Break, Bad Idea?" I think that that was the most negative coverage that I saw - mostly because it suggests that people shouldn't go vacation in Mexico for Spring break due to what happened. The reporter, Brian Owens, spoke of Zapata as if he was an American (which he was an American, but also a Latino). There was footage of girls drinking and screaming and lots of dancing and alcohol. Then they say that all the spring break hot spots are far away from where the shooting occurred - so why even bother mentioning it?
As news representatives we learn that all stories should be reported equally, in the sense that it shouldn't matter the color of the person's skin the way that the story is reported should be universal. There shouldn't be more focus on a white person's death or something heroic a white person does - just as there shouldn't be more focus on a crime committed by a black or Latino person.
This is the video and during my oral presentation with my group we discussed how terrible this video was and what a bad job was done in the reporting:
http://youtu.be/qlfNtAQY4_s
In the case of the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, agent Jaime Zapata the media had adequate coverage. It is actually surprising that this Latino man wasn't stereotyped in the way that other Latinos in the news may be. This could be partly due to the fact that he was part of the American enforcement team, but either way, this is a good example of the media doing fair coverage of a Latino.
A headline from one of Fox News' blogs read "Who was Jaime Zapata? Hero Remembered." In a report done by ABC News investigations go further with a headline that reads, "Random Act or Ambush? Feds Probe Shootings of U.S. Agents in Mexico." The only controversial headline and story that I came across wasn't from a big media outlet, but from a blogger for "Truth About Guns" who writes, "What Was Murdered ICE Agent Jaime Zapata Doing in Mexico," which speculated any affiliation that he could have had to the drug cartel.
Recent news from Houston Chronicle Blog about this includes a Border funding bill that was named after Jaime Zapata being passed through the House panel. This is a situation where the media can actually be commended for their coverage of this man. It was like he was given the same coverage that a white man would have received.
At the risk of sounding racist - it seems like to an extent the media covered this story like they would had if he had been white. Of course the circumstances are different and the news coverage within the articles did include the fact that he was a Latino, but the headlines for the most part didn't mention him as a Latino, and that's may actually be considered a good thing, the media focusing on the fact that a human life was loss and not focusing on what the ethnicity of the human life was. Unfortunately, the only news and media coverage I have to go by are the headlines I read online and a few of the Youtube videos I saw from news organizations, I did not see the news coverage live on television from when it first happened, and maybe if I had I would have seen something negative in the reporting.
Specifically I watched ABC News' Good Morning America video on Youtube in which Zapata was reported about and it was called "Jaime Zapata Shot and Killed; Mexico for Spring Break, Bad Idea?" I think that that was the most negative coverage that I saw - mostly because it suggests that people shouldn't go vacation in Mexico for Spring break due to what happened. The reporter, Brian Owens, spoke of Zapata as if he was an American (which he was an American, but also a Latino). There was footage of girls drinking and screaming and lots of dancing and alcohol. Then they say that all the spring break hot spots are far away from where the shooting occurred - so why even bother mentioning it?
As news representatives we learn that all stories should be reported equally, in the sense that it shouldn't matter the color of the person's skin the way that the story is reported should be universal. There shouldn't be more focus on a white person's death or something heroic a white person does - just as there shouldn't be more focus on a crime committed by a black or Latino person.
This is the video and during my oral presentation with my group we discussed how terrible this video was and what a bad job was done in the reporting:
http://youtu.be/qlfNtAQY4_s
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Future of Journalism: Casey Anthony Case Study
Originally posted at NikkyRaney.com
Written by Nikky Raney
Casey Anthony is the most hated person in America and the way the news media covered her trial as well as her life in general didn't help the people in our society think highly of her. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and the rest of the televised news media tried to be objective by interviewing prosecuting attorneys as well as defense attorneys, but the look on the faces of those reporting and the tones in their voice showed that they had an opinion and the opinion was not favorable.
The print media was not much better where the blogs were overtaking the online news sites and the papers and magazines didn't paint her in a favorable light either, and Newsweek even did an article after the fact that suggested that she could be placed in the same category as OJ Simpson as someone who got away with murder. There was also an article in Newsweek titled Did Casey Anthony Get Away With Murder? With a title like that it's hard to not have a biased opinion.
Is the reason that so many people hate her due to the media coverage that was done of her? Probably. Very few people it seems actually went out and did their research, but even those that have done the research (like myself) don't have favorable opinions of her.
The media let it be known that the 22-year-old got a tattoo reading "Bella Vita" meaning Beautiful Life, and by getting that while her daughter was missing it makes it a bit confusing as to why she thought her life was beautiful if her daughter was missing and probably dead. As the aforementioned article stated:
"Thirty-one beautiful days of parties, new boyfriends, and 'hot body' contests. Thirty-one beautiful days without her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie."
That paints a picture already that makes the reader feel an unfavorable way towards Anthony. So what was bad about it?
Clearly it was bad that every single person that reported about it basically thought she was guilty.There was nothing being reported that would suggest that she didn't do it. There was not any occasion where I watched, read or listened to a news source that didn't hint toward Anthony deserving a guilty verdict. Hell, once the verdict was reached that she was proven not guilty of anything other than four counts of lying to police the news media was outraged and once jury members began to be contacted and spoke out saying that "not guilty doesn't mean innocent."
ABC News online posted a piece called Casey Anthony Juror: Jury Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict. Within that article included the interviews with jurors:
"'I did not say she was innocent,' said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. 'I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.' "
And by using phrases such as "surprising guilty verdict" like so many sources did, it just shows so much bias, but what did the news media do that was good?
The news media interviewed people who could give both sides - sort of. There were more interviews done with people who thought that she was guilty and of the interviews with people who didn't believe she was guilty a majority of them were with men who said she was "attractive." There was even speculation that the reason she got off was due to her looks and her gender, and maybe even the color of her skin.
What could have been done better would be to get more interviews from both sides and using less adjectives that would suggest that the verdict should have been guilty. Less emotion from the anchors that were covering the stories and basically people needing to be more objective and just putting the facts out there no matter how difficult that actually is.
In the future we as media representatives should try to keep our own personal opinions out of it and try to make sure that we can keep a straight face when there's a camera put in our faces or when there is someone reading our articles, unless of course it is a column or an editorial.
Written by Nikky Raney
Casey Anthony is the most hated person in America and the way the news media covered her trial as well as her life in general didn't help the people in our society think highly of her. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC and the rest of the televised news media tried to be objective by interviewing prosecuting attorneys as well as defense attorneys, but the look on the faces of those reporting and the tones in their voice showed that they had an opinion and the opinion was not favorable.
The print media was not much better where the blogs were overtaking the online news sites and the papers and magazines didn't paint her in a favorable light either, and Newsweek even did an article after the fact that suggested that she could be placed in the same category as OJ Simpson as someone who got away with murder. There was also an article in Newsweek titled Did Casey Anthony Get Away With Murder? With a title like that it's hard to not have a biased opinion.
Is the reason that so many people hate her due to the media coverage that was done of her? Probably. Very few people it seems actually went out and did their research, but even those that have done the research (like myself) don't have favorable opinions of her.
The media let it be known that the 22-year-old got a tattoo reading "Bella Vita" meaning Beautiful Life, and by getting that while her daughter was missing it makes it a bit confusing as to why she thought her life was beautiful if her daughter was missing and probably dead. As the aforementioned article stated:
"Thirty-one beautiful days of parties, new boyfriends, and 'hot body' contests. Thirty-one beautiful days without her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie."
That paints a picture already that makes the reader feel an unfavorable way towards Anthony. So what was bad about it?
Clearly it was bad that every single person that reported about it basically thought she was guilty.There was nothing being reported that would suggest that she didn't do it. There was not any occasion where I watched, read or listened to a news source that didn't hint toward Anthony deserving a guilty verdict. Hell, once the verdict was reached that she was proven not guilty of anything other than four counts of lying to police the news media was outraged and once jury members began to be contacted and spoke out saying that "not guilty doesn't mean innocent."
ABC News online posted a piece called Casey Anthony Juror: Jury Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict. Within that article included the interviews with jurors:
"'I did not say she was innocent,' said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. 'I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.' "
And by using phrases such as "surprising guilty verdict" like so many sources did, it just shows so much bias, but what did the news media do that was good?
The news media interviewed people who could give both sides - sort of. There were more interviews done with people who thought that she was guilty and of the interviews with people who didn't believe she was guilty a majority of them were with men who said she was "attractive." There was even speculation that the reason she got off was due to her looks and her gender, and maybe even the color of her skin.
What could have been done better would be to get more interviews from both sides and using less adjectives that would suggest that the verdict should have been guilty. Less emotion from the anchors that were covering the stories and basically people needing to be more objective and just putting the facts out there no matter how difficult that actually is.
In the future we as media representatives should try to keep our own personal opinions out of it and try to make sure that we can keep a straight face when there's a camera put in our faces or when there is someone reading our articles, unless of course it is a column or an editorial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)