Love expert got game?

While flipping through the channels Sunday afternoon, I came across a show I had never heard of before, called "The Pick-Up Artist" on VH1, so I decided to tune in. Granted, I don't watch much TV anymore, since I am taking three film classes this semester, my DVD player has been getting all the attention, so I'm sure I have been one of the only people in the dark about this show. This article on vh1.com provides more information, including a summary and links about the series. For those not familiar, the premise of the show is based on transforming eight "socially awkward nerds" into the "Master Pick-Up Artist." The host, Mystery ("former nerd turned best-selling author and ultimate pick-up artist") and his crew teach the guys a lesson about how to talk to/appeal to women and then send them off on little adventures to a bar or other social arenas to try out their new skills, or lack there of. Based on each guy's performance, there are elimination rounds and those who aren't making progress are told "Game over." 

I know I have grossly overanalyzed this series, but there is bias in that the contestants are relying on the teachings and opinions of only one man, Mystery, in order to learn the "language of love."

Secondly, the show is clearly stereotyping poor nerds all over the world, though funny, it is up to everyone's personal judgment to decide what is considered "nerdy" and "awkward" and what is charming and attractive. 

Lastly, the only females who show any kind of authority in the show, share their knowledge of lovemaking and the right things to do to grab and keep a woman's interest. Yet, they do all of this wearing only bras and panties or some kind of racy lingerie. Are we supposed to actually take them seriously? 

Seems like an entertaining show, full of embarrassing moments, girls wearing next to nothing, and plenty of bragging rights for Mystery, but what about the messages the content of the show can send? What happens when this kind of bias content begins to make impressions on viewers' minds, most notably teens? 

What kind of messages about the opposite sex will be impressed on young teenage boys' minds when they see a woman dressed in lingerie sitting in a "pillow room" waiting for each of the "masters in training" to come into the dark room to turn her on? 

On the other hand, most teenage girls are already extremely self-conscious about their bodies and craving attention from boys. What will they think when they see these men slobbering all over half-dressed women, who just happen to be sex analysts? 

Overall, great show for adults if you are in the mood to watch something with seemingly no intellectual depth and lots of laugh-out-loud moments of male humiliation.

Fox Attacks Obama

Video about Bias in Media

Hindsight vision is 20/20. How appropriate that this video is posted the day after Obama is made president elect. While the majority of attacks come from FoxNews, I was surprised to see MSNBC included in the bash-fest. I find it appalling that news sources allow this kind of false information to be leaked into the airwaves influences the fragile minds of young voters. Yet, who am I to complain now. As I said before, hindsight vision is 20/20 and while I hope these news pundits have been reprimanded or even fired, Barack Obama is our next president.

Footsteps of the 2-yr Campaign Trail

The video exclusive, "Choosing a President," narrated by NY Times reporter, Katharine Q. Seelye, reveals a truly one-sided view of the presidential candidates and their journey through the election process to post election today. It is clear to me that she narrates the video from a Democratic perspective by using sarcastic tones and impliciations. The beginning of the video traces their campaign movements and what supporters have said in their praise. It is not until the narrator begins to speak that the video turns into a biased history in Obama's defense.

The video is split into 3 chapters that describe the campaign trail. Chapter one focuses on the political parties involved and their backgrounds, two regards the candidates, their views and movements and three's focal point is the voters.

Her first statement when tracking the candidates on their trail describes Senator McCain as "unconventional and freewilling" whereas she considers President-elect Obama as "traditional and crafty." Granted the terms unconventional and freewilling do not necessarily connotate a negatvie meaning, when you compare the two sets of qualities for the men, it is evident that the story reflects a more positive image of Obama than McCain. (This video was posted prior to the election, thus before Obama's victory.)

As the video progresses to map their trail, she gives McCain less appeal as a presidential candidate and is more aggressive to point out his faults and weaknesses. Yet, when she refers to Obama she is adamant on poitning out his strengths as a future president. She also made it clear that she does not support the "unpopular" President Bush in his efforts either.

The narrator puts emphasis on certain phrases she uses to describe Obama and McCain, usually indicative of negative feelings toward the latter of the two. She also uses very sarcastic tones (around the 7:30 minute point) when she said "McCain bounced from theme to theme until he finally settled on one," and "Obama remained consistent," then later (around 11:15 point) "he made a maverick move" regarding his choice of Palin for running mate.

Although there is some positive regard of McCain during his supporters' interviews, the narrator indicated her lack of support for him, and in Obama's favor for his policies as well as the way he has handled the campaign trail thus far.

Concerned about Barack Obama?

click on the above picture to view the ad....

Since when did it become the role of an organization to tell its members what to think, to decide for them what is right or wrong, what is black or white? I came across this ad in the newsroom of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Every sentence of the ad, from headline to content, is a great example for a textbook about propaganda. Hardly can you find any sentence that presents a neutral point of view, or to word it more precisely, a more neutral way of interpreting the facts.

I am yet not judging the information provided in the ad, but just by looking at the way the ad is worded, anybody with a little bit of judgement can say claim that it is biased against Obama.

The ad starts out judging Senator Obama as "dangerously naïve," as not having the "wisdom, experience, or strength on issues important to Israel."

And based on what the above judgements are made? '
Because Obama refused to call Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Because he is willing to "meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and other hostile nations without any preconditions."
Because he is surrounded by friends and advisors who are "anti-Israel," and who shape his world views.
Because he "flip-flopped" and said that the future of Jerusalem would have to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians.

These facts are clearly not sufficient to claim that Obama is "naïve" and not qualified to be the president. The facts don't even prove that Obama has anything against Israel. Just because there has been conflict between Jerusalem and Tehran doesn't mean that if somebody is willing to negotiate with one, he is against with the other.

The author(s) of the ad is just trying to direct Jewish votes away from Obama. They may have their own opinion and interpretations of Obama's words and actions, but imposing them on other people through an ad is just too inappropriate!

Obama 'unaware' of aunt's immigration status

Headline: Obama didn't know aunt's immigration status

The reason this article caught my eye was because of the headline link on cnn.com that reads,

Obama was 'unaware' of his aunt's immigration status.

Not only does this article evoke a condescending tone that implies a stupidity and ignorant on Obama's behalf, but the reporter of this article, (who did not write the actual headline) included quotes from Obama's memoirs regarding his aunt.

An official familiar with the aunt's immigration status told CNN on Saturday that Onyango remains in the U.S. four years after she was ordered to leave.


This quote from the article uses biased language in the phrase "she was ordered to leave." The In a perviously published AP article, it was reported that a judge rejected Onyango's request for asylum four years ago, and "the Kenyan native is living in public housing in south Boston."

While the above remarks are not fabricating any truths, the language and way the information was presented leads to an implied bias against the Senators aunt.

Furthermore, later in the article it is revealed that Obama has not spoken to the woman in two years. Yet, the quotes included in the article from his memoirs suggest otherwise.

In his book, Obama describes meeting his aunt when he visited Kenya as a young man.

"A tall, brown-skinned woman was smiling beside us, and Auma [Obama's half-sister] turned and said, 'Barack, this is Auntie Zeituni. Our father's sister," Obama wrote.

"'Welcome home,' Zeituni said, kissing me on both cheeks."

While this article is not entirely false or biased, many aspects of the text are subjective and could have been checked by a copy editor from another political party.

CNN's Mike Ahlers, Jeanne Meserve and Rebecca Sinderbrand contributed to this report. It was posted on November 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm on CNN.COM

The half-sister of Sen. Barack Obama's Kenyan father reportedly lives in this complex in South Boston.