Spin city

An over issued newspaper

Newspapers are a waste of paper. Now I'm not saying that news isn't valuable or that the newspaper itself isn't worth reading. I'm clearly stating the fact that if I want to pick through articles and figure out which I want to believe. I don't feel I should have to do it because I'm subscribed to it. Also being the fact the last time I said "I'm gonna go buy a news paper" was when I was in 7th grade and I had a paper mache project that needed to be done. But this isn't about paper mache. It's about The New York Times and why so many people care what someone they don't know says. From what I've gathered from the online version of it, this paper is loosely based around "news". New is defined as: A report of a recent event; intelligence; information. Now I really don't think this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/world/americas/25cigar.html?ref=todayspaper
 Is intelligent. It is information without a doubt, but lacks a crucial part of the definition. One would think "The new york times is pretty reputable and is one of the most popular newspaper in the world. It's gotta have some great news in it!" But, the problem with this line of thought is that newspaper are a dying business. It's like being the healthiest person in malaria clinic. Just because you look the best doesn't mean your doing well. So now this newspaper is trying to make money more than anything so crediting this newspapers on belief is not too wise. Here is a another story lacking a crucial part (intelligence) is this story that basically just bashes another news station http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/nyregion/25roger-ailes.html?ref=todayspaper
So from now on think twice before buying a newspaper. Look it up online. Trust me it's easier. That’s what Google and ctrl+f is for.

Believe in the times.

Planet Mental

      So I'm in line staring at these magazines, and i keep drawing a blank. Not about the subject matter that I'm supposed to be studying/looking for, but the fact that i can't compose a single reason for the existence of any magazine like vogue, vanity fair, or cosmopolitan. I feel that looking at these photo shopped men and women is in essence legal voyeurism. I mainly looked at cosmopolitan. On the cover of this magazine seems as if it's not even trying to sell to strong dominant females anymore. The cover depicted a a very "fine tuned" woman with a pink background(way to be a original cosmo) with a caption right next to it that said sexy eyes, irresistible lips. Do you not think i can't see that cosmo? Or maybe it's that you don't feel that you photo shopped enough so you have to tell me how highly fake beauty has become. Which brings me to my next topic which is opening the magazine. Right as you open the magazine there is an ad for a make up company which had Julia Roberts on it, But it took me a few minutes to realize it was her. This also happened when I  flipped a few pages forward and saw a picture of "beyonce", but the only way i knew it was her was after a few seconds of looking around the page to find her name in a small print at the bottom. Now let me tell you that every time i flipped the page I came to not an article but an advertisement, I flipped through again another advertising, so on, so on. It seems the advertising industry is frustrating us into buying a product, like if they shove it down our throats enough we will think about it constantly and eventually try it. like a kid eating a food that he hates when he's older. And every advertisement i passed was either make up or perfume; two of the most unnecessary products on the market other than guns and cigarettes. Is cosmo really trying to say that women are ugly and they stink? I'm just so sick of seeing these girls with caked on make up going out on Friday, obsessed with the outside world. So scared of how people might see them that they don't even wash their fake up off when they sleep. Magazines are the start, and the end result shells of people needing print to lead them.