The Real Africa: You think you know but you have NO idea

Poor. Undeveloped. Famished. Dirty. AIDS stricken. Illiterate. These are a few words that describe the ways in which Western media has portrayed the state of Africa. Studies & surveys have proven that the media displays inaccurate portrayals of Africa and it's progress or success. In her article "The Africa You need to Know" Gbemisola Olujobi, a renown African journalist (who researches at USC's Annenberg) discusses the Africa that the media refuses to show. It is the Africa that we all need to know.

"Famine in Niger does not mean hunger in Nigeria." Viewers have no idea how to distinguish what is taking place in the various countries and cities within Africa. Africa provides the U.S. with significant resources that some people would never know. In fact, Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Nigeria are the major petroleum and natural gas producing countries in Africa (that's 20% of the world's petroleum needs). Fifty percent of the world's gold and diamonds are also produced in Africa.

However the negative portrayal of Africa in the media hurts their economy because they are perceived as useless and poor investments. For example she states in the article:

"The TransAfrica Forum, a body which aims to influence U.S. policy on Africa and the

diaspora, surveyed two of the most esteemed newspapers in the United States—The

New York Times and The Washington Post—between March and August 2000. Its study

showed that the vast majority of news stories fell within only three categories—AIDS,

development and conflict. The study found no reports on regional economic or political

cooperation in Africa, nor one article on the private sector. "

In truth, many countries within Africa have made significant progress and advancement over the past few years. For example in 2005 places of reform and structures built to fight corruption were established in various countries. Trade between China and Africa has trippled. Mozambique has reduced its poverty level by 20 percent and has doubled the number of children in school. Furthermore, Uganda has reduced HIV from 20 percent in 1991 to about 6.5 percent in 2001.

However, these are not the stories that readers see in headlines. The media has a way of supressing their success to make the U.S. seem powerful and invinicible compared to the weak, undeveloped Africa. If consumers were correctly aware of the cultural and economic progress of Africa, they would not perpetuate the cruel stereotypes.

"HOLLY" WOOD: A Woman's World?

For decades society has perpetuated the idea that women do not belong in the business world. Fancy suits and expensive clientele are exclusive only to men who make it in the business. However, society is changing and soon men will see that America is evolving into a woman’s world when it comes new ideas and success. Women have suffered greatly to make it in the film industry. Men in the field suggest that the business is too rough for the sensitive, loving nature of women. Lynda Obst, a successful and top notch Hollywood producer has another opinion. In fact more women than ever write, direct, and produce movies. Even Hilary Clinton feels that this era should be the reign of all women. However, Hollywood has other plans and Hilary's timing might just be a little off.

Lynda has produced such blockbusters as How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Contact, The Siege, and Sleepless in Seattle. She takes her work very seriously and believes that women hold a very powerful position in Hollywood. So what is it going to take for society to agree? Women have been told throughout history that they are not good enough or they will never be able to make it. Women like Lynda Obst are walking contradictions of that old philosophy. In her article in New York Magazine, "Chicks with Flicks" Obst talks about the declining quality of films due to the decrease of women in the film industry. Nowadays, consumers are forced to watch movies geered towards young men such as 300 and Silver Surfer. Both are movies where men dominate society and ultimately save the day. What message does this send to society? Men are portrayed as the caretakers and heroes of the universe, bringing the food to the table. Well, women are just as capable of bringing a lot more to the table.

Women are never going to make a place for themselves in Hollywood if the men in the business refuse to see the problem and help do something about it. Movies like The Heartbreak Kid, The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up degrade women, making them look foolish. The leading men of these films are unemployed, socially akward, nerds. Is that what women have to look forward to in a future mate? Are women supposed to feel content with the gorgeous leading lady ending up with a chubby, unemployed loser? Although there are very successful women at the heads of Hollywood's studios such as Amy Pascal and Stacy Snider, a mode of attrition continues to inhibit talented women from entering the industry. The industry requires sleepless nights, lies, difficulty in putting a film together, and the sacrifice of any sort of life. However, women in the business do it and they find time to have husbands and raise a family at the same time. Let's see a man in the film industry do all that and still come home to make dinner and get his children ready for practice, school, and help them with their homework. For a woman?- Piece of cake!

Hollywood is clearly a woman's world.

Hollywood Execs Refuse to Share the Wealth

The hot topic of the last couple weeks has been the Writers Strike. Television and Film writers walked out on their jobs to protest against unfair compensation. CNN.com noted in an article that writers claim they should be receiving a larger cut when their work is viewed or purchased on the Internet or through cell phones and other forms of media. Network executives refuse to compromise, claiming they cannot afford to take that chance with writers. Mediators have brought the Writers Guild of America and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers together to discuss negotiations. A settlement is yet to be decided.

Not only are the creative minds behind television suffering but the viewers are going to feel the heat as well. Shows such as House and Desperate Housewives have stopped filming new episodes. Some actors have even refused to go to work in support of the writers strike. Steve Carell walked off the set of The Office and chooses not to work until their voices are heard. Viewers are upset because their favorite shows might even be cancelled. Unless they reach a compromise, networks are going to lose viewers when the quality of their programming begins to dwindle.

Jay Leno stated that he will cross the picket line only to take the protestors Krispy Kreme Donuts. He will not cross the line to go to work. Talk shows such as Leno and The Daily show with Jon Stewart are going to have to cease taping because of their lack of material. The effects will not be noticed immediately as studios have pretty much wrapped up filming for present seasons as well as production for various films coming out next year.

However, movie studios fear that if a contract does not come through by the deadline, there might be an “actors strike” on the uprising. Studios can shoot movies and TV shows that have already been written, even half- written and get by just fine without the writers. However, no one can shoot without actors. According to TIME.com this could also mean serious loss in revenue for L.A. and the industry. There is a looming fear of an estimated loss of $2 billion for the City of Los Angeles including 82, 000 lost jobs! It is amazing to see in action how much the media affects society. How will America possibly function without television?

Hollywood executives are not too worried because their content with their Hollywood mansions and flashy cars. They can hold out for the long haul. However, if they cannot come to a compromise, the power hierarchy might be shifting and writers will have a chance to take control.

Catching the "Big Fish"

He is known in the media as the man who got away with murder. Now with the desire to get back at O.J. Simpson, the FBI is caught in the middle of an alleged set up. If O.J. goes live will the FBI be exposed or has the proverbial “Big Fish” finally been caught?

In FBI resports from the Associated Press, it is discussed that the FBI was aware of Simpson’s “sting” operation three weeks in advance and they chose to do nothing about it. Is it possible that the FBI kept their information secret to set O.J. up? He once got away with homicide and the FBI refuses to have him let off the hook once again. They had him in the plan of their hands. All they had to do was wait for him to go through with it and they caught him red handed. The Las Vegas FBI chapter was completely unaware that the FBI had been given any information prior to the crime. By letting O.J. carry on with his plan, the FBI risks appearing underhanded and deceptive.

Whenever anyone thinks of O.J. Simpson, the first thought that pops into his or her head is how the system failed to catch a cold-blooded killer. There is no doubt that Simpson’s ill image in the media will remain the dominant one throughout his trial.

However, unless the FBI can come up with a good explanation it looks like Simpson might once again be able to slip through the system. The FBI claims that regardless of their information, Simpson still committed a crime. They also asserted that they had no knowledge that any weapons would be used.

Thomas Riccio, a memorabilia dealer admits to scheming with Simpson. He confessed to speaking with a collector named Mr. Beardsley regarding some of Simpson’s belongings that he was planning on selling. Riccio and Simpson wish to go live when confronting Beardsley about the items that were allegedly stolen from Simpson’s Florida home by his previous agent.

The FBI is at high risk of being exposed for withholding information and failing to prevent a crime that they knew was going to take place. If O.J. goes live, the FBI is going to have to explain why they chose to hide the information and what role their actions played in their political agenda. Everyone has wanted to nail O.J. ever since he was acquitted in 1995. Was this what the FBI has been waiting for? They had the perfect opportunity to catch a criminal in the act and they took it, a chance to finally put him behind bars- a place he should have been over a decade ago.

Buying Beauty

Hi, I would like to order one nose job, a tummy tuck, and a boob job please.

Sure, cash or credit?

From Extreme Makeover to America’s Next Top Model, media outlets have created standards of beauty that are forced on to society. Women are not appealing unless they get a facelift, buy a new nose job, or increase a couple cup sizes.

Credible doctors years of training beyond medical school dedicate their expertise to helping people get whatever it is they need to be able to accept themselves and love who they are. She provides them with the self-confidence and self-worth that some people may never understand. Surgeons take pride in the healthy, confident relationship that they offer their patients. Many patients are young and need particular surgeries in order to live and function comfortably. Some patients cannot accept their inner beauty until they are content with their outer beauty. However, the media only communicates the luxury of plastic surgery, not the scary, painful side effects that accompany it. In doing so, they force specific standards of beauty on to society.

Plastic surgery has been around for centuries. For example, the Assyrians were known for their curved noses. With the desire to look like them, Persians would stick bones in their noses to try and achieve that same curve. In addition, injured soldiers would receive reconstructive surgery when severely wounded in battle. However, plastic surgery was frowned upon and surgeons were often ridiculed for trying to “play God.” In certain cultures, it was a severe form of dishonoring one’s parents because parents are responsible for one’s looks and appearance.

American standards have also had profound influences on the plastic surgery profession. In an article on Forbes.com , Allison Von Dusen reports in her article, "TV's Medical Missteps" how the majority of patients consult plastic surgeons based on the knowledge they gain from television and the media. Firstly, the media does not accurately delineate scientific accuracy. Many of the surgeries accompany extremely uncomfortable side effects and stages of recovery.

They are not all completely about beauty and satisfaction. Many teenagers who experience gastric bypass surgery do not realize that in the long run there is extra skin after losing the weight that needs to be maintained. American media is so focused on communicating the necessity for viewers to conform to their standards of beauty that they leave out the important medical information. Dusen states that Dr. 90210 and Extreme Makeover significantly impacted a patient’s decision to consult a plastic surgeon (Van Dusen 1). Their knowledge of plastic surgery procedures was completely based on what they gained from each show.

American standards also convey to the public that plastic surgery aids in one’s desire to belong. The media perpetuates various beauty expectations, creating an image of what people are supposed to look like. Whatever is popular always catches on. In a sense, American media has driven the plastic surgery profession by bringing them patients. Shows like The Swan, E’s 10 Ways to look like a celebrity, and Dr. 90210 all influence young women in America, instilling a desire to get surgery to enhance their physical appearance. People will beg for what they need and pay for what they want. American standards have developed beauty into a pure commodity. Natasha Singer writes in a New York Times article, "Who is the Real Face of Plastic Surgery?"

“The medical industry has responded by marketing plastic surgery as if it were an

appliance or other big-ticket consumer product: a commodity to be financed with credit

cards and loans” (Singer, 1).

It is no longer something to be valued and cherished because nowadays it can be purchased. When looking for a safe surgeon, do not simply rely on television and the media. It is their job to sell beauty and they will say anything to make a sale. Some credentials to look for in a surgeon include proper residency training, Board certifications, and a certified surgery center. Consumers should understand that plastic surgery encompasses an array of services. Plastic surgery is reconstructive and aesthetic, not solely cosmetic.

Society: A Religious Democrat or Political Conservative

In his posting, Stephen Mack discusses the concept of the religious intellectual stating “both religion and democracy draw the individual into a larger cosmic or social order—then define obligations that go along with one’s place in that order.” I want to know to what extent do religious intellectuals influence the mainstream media, especially news and television? This further raises the question of how similar and how different are religiously intellectual are Democrats and political conservatives?

First of all, “religious” is not necessarily synonymous with “conservative” and just because someone is a Democrat, it does mean that they are not religious. For example, Rupert Murdoch, Head of News Corporation is very politically conservative. However, he is known for his support of liberal and more presently immoral programming. He is in so much control of the news media and he is willing to air whatever sells (whether it is sex, drugs, violence, or war). When his media ownership exceeded the limit, Murdoch had no trouble persuading the Republican congress to adjust the restrictions. People like Rupert Murdoch who has so much influence on what information is broadcasted by the media ultimately dictate or suggest what norms and values society should accept.

After the rainfall of controversy surrounding “The Passion of the Christ” and “The Davinci Code,” the TV industry has certainly seen a shift to more religiously grounded programming. An article from FOXnews.com states,

“TV networks are embracing a newfound faith. A miniseries about the Book of Revelation airs next week, while shows about a Catholic priest probing the supernatural and an Episcopalian minister who converses with God are on the drawing board.”

Television shows such as Crossing Jordan, CSI and The Guardian all promote Catholic ideals. What impact do shows like these have on viewers? While on the contrary, consumers are enjoying entirely immoral programming such as Temptation Island and Race to the Altar. Explicit television shows as well as graphic and violent news broadcasts are sending negative perceptions to the young viewers of America. There is clearly not enough religious or ethical input behind the creative process. Although, Murdoch promotes highly entertaining programming, he should concentrate on what message he is sending to the public. Although entertaining and suspenseful, violent and sexually explicit shows send a message that society should accept morally objective values, lacking any sense of conservatism. Religious and political intellectuals need to come together to form an alliance, ultimately improving programming for all viewers.

The News: A spiral of Deception?

Every morning men and women are seen at the local coffee shop, relaxing with a hot cup of espresso and stereotypically reading the newspaper. The news media is the public’s main resource and connection to what is taking place in the rest of the world. Readers and viewers have become dependent on newspapers and television news networks to report the latest stories, controversies and updates. However, it has become increasingly difficult for viewers to believe anything they see or read. Too many stories have been revealed as spirals of deception. What happens when the world’s source for the truth starts telling lies? One event that continues to cover newspapers and TV Stations is the War on Iraq. The media has admitted to reporting false stories and facts in relation to the War on Terror. They reported what they thought would sell on the newsstands because the public was so addicted to the current events surrounding the War. Hey did find it necessary to verify any of the information because it was coming straight from President Bush. This makes it difficult for the public to remain accurately updated on what is really going with our nation. Despite their acknowledgment of their blunder and through the lack of accurate reporting on the war, the news media has become a source for deception. People are skeptical and can no longer trust what they read or see on television and in newspapers.

In his article, “Now Powell Tells Us” Robert Scheer reports how Colin Powell admitted that the media communicated to the public false information in regards to the war. Powell discusses which reports were accurate and which were not. Why did the news media feel it necessary to report inaccurate information? Why did Powell choose to reveal the information years later? So many people in the Bush administration went along with his lies that by the time they were concerned about what Bush was communicating to the public, they were in too deep. The lies kept pouring out.

The media miscommunicates so often that throughout history men and women in government positions have let out the truth to tell their story and ensure that the American public gets the information right. In his article, “The so-called Protect America Act” John Dean addresses one of the many issues that have risen within the American government. For example, his experience as White House counsel to Richard Nixon aided in his enlightening the public on how accurately issues of national security were reported. Dean admitted that part of the reason Watergate was covered up was because too many leaks were occurring and Nixon wanted to get to the bottom of it, hence the infamous tape recordings. The reason for the cover up was national security. That is similar to Bush’s decision to invoke national security after the leaks following 9/11 because he wanted access to emails and phone numbers. The media was obsessed with Watergate and exposing President Nixon that no issue of national security was going to stop them from getting a story. Information was being miscommunicated to the press. The only media to really cover Watergate were the Washington Post and CBS. The media released the Woodward and Bernstein story because they knew it would sell. They had no part in releasing the tapes as it is credited to Butterfield. The media would not get it right until the tapes were finally released and men like John Dean were forced to brake rank in order to expose the truth.

The same concerns face America today in regards to the Bush administration. First there were weapons of mass destruction that American military were working hard to find. Bush insisted that Iraq’s nuclear threat could mean catastrophe for our nation. People stayed in the comfort of their homes, locked their doors and cringed at the idea of a nuclear strike from these unsightly weapons. If it were not for the news media, the public would have never been warned. Thank goodness for FOX News. All the while, top specialists at the Department of Energy knew for a fact that idea of nuclear threat was ridiculous and far from a possibility. However, Bush and his administration stuck to their story and the media believed it because it came straight from the Head of State. This is a serious issue because the media reports anything the nation’s administration says. Ultimately, the government can make the public believe whatever they desire.

The New York Times claims it was not their fault that inaccurate stories were released. If our source for truth does not know what is going on, that leaves very few people whom we can trust. The media used to be our connection to the rest of the world but that connection is fading into a ruse that no one will take seriously. In their apology letter to the public, The New York Times allocated the blame to the failure of American intelligence. Apparently, America’s most respected intelligence agency was wrong. They did not take into account emerging evidence and failed to verify their information. They printed because the government conveyed it to be true. Their sources for information were Iraqi informants and exiles. It is clear that the editors and reporters were not doing their job. They were too intent on “rushing the scoop into the paper.” The Times also printed a story about an Iraqi defector who supposedly worked at a secret Iraqi camp where trainings in chemical and biological weapons were being conducted. None of that information was ever verified as accurate. Furthermore, the newspaper admitted that they should have presented information concerning Saddam Hussein and the quest for “A-bomb” parts more cautiously. They never followed up on the claims or took the time to verify any information.

Knowing that a very respected newspaper would print a story without checking their facts raises questions about their dedication and ability to keep the public correctly informed. Readers have every right to be skeptical of anything the news media (their source for truth) has to say. Every time they make a mistake are they going to print another apology letter and expect readers to forgive and forget? There is a clearly a problem in communication between reporters and government officials and agencies. Until this impediment in communication is solved, the news media will never be able to report accurately. If it is so complicated to trust our sources for news, people are going to have turn to other mediums and sources in order to receive sufficient updates on what is taking place in our nation and around the world. Unfortunately, all that is left is the Internet, reality TV, and the tabloids.

The news media is failing to do their job which will lead in their downfall alltogether. If they keep reporting news stories the same way they cover the War on Iraq then they are going to be viewed and criticized in the same light as tacky tabloids. Until they can prove that they are doing everything in their power to check all facts and report as accurately as possible, the public has every right to always fear deception. America should continue to think twice when they sip their cup of coffee every morning, scanning the front page of the newspaper or when they sit down in front of the televsion for the nine'o clock news.

Works Cited

“The Times and Iraq.” The New York Times. 26 May 2004.

"The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage." The New York Times.

Scheer, Robert. "Now Powell Tells Us." 2006. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

"Weapons of Mass Destruction and Other Lies, Lies, Lies.” http://youtube.com/watch?v=f-PGv3XZads

TiVo: TV "MY WAY"

As an avid television watcher, I have developed a special place in my heart for the technological advancement that society refers to as TiVo. Being able to record, pause, & fast forward at your convenience…pure genius! Television Networks no longer control what I view or when I view it. We have been given the power to create personalized TV Guides, working around our schedules. So, is it worth it? With DVR boxes starting at $99.99 with a monthly service fee, how can you go wrong? You know it's a solid investment when you can record and re-watch Britney make a fool of herself at the MTV Video Music Awards or re-watch the Presidential Debates!


However, word on the street is that TiVo is not best outlet for advertisers. Viwers are free to fast forward through boring commericals and advertisements. So what does that mean for advertisers? Viewers choose whether or not thet want to listen to your ad. How do they get their products to viewers if no one is watching them? This has been one of the most widely recognized disadvantages of TiVo. TiVo has tried to incorportate pop-up ads however consumers (like myself) are not too excited about that because one of the main attractions of TiVo is it's ad-free service. Advertisers are going to have to think of another way to reach viewers who subscribe to TiVo's services. Furthermore, televison shows are not being publicized when viewers again can fast forward through all the B.S. Do TV critics find this appalling? How to they feel about putting so much control into a consumer's hands?


All together, I believe that TiVo is most certainly more of a friend than foe. It is conventient, everyone can learn to use it and it encompasses a variety of cool features and fun extras. I recorded the entire season of "Robin Hood" without having to tune in each week! How can you go wrong with that? TiVo is becoming the main interface for the "digital living room." Viewers can control and manuever televison content as well as music and videos and critics support the fear that the DVR will too soon be commoditized.


Television as a whole is changing in a variety of ways, with the advancment of TiVo and from broadcast to braodband. Sorry advertisers, but if I dont want to watch your commerical, then quite frankly, I am NOT going to. So as a consumer, my life is more complete...thanks to TiVo. It's television--My Way!