Puff Puff? Pass.

[G'day! Can I interest you in stereotypical characterization?]

SYDNEY — A study published Friday in a British medical journal may have uncovered the secret behind Australia's laid-back lifestyle, and it turns out to be more than just sun and surf: The folks Down Under consume more marijuana than any other people on the planet.

That's coming from a Seattle Times article published January 6, "Marijuana use highest in Australia, study finds." It's a report on an article published in the scientific journal, The Lancet, titled "Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease."

The only problem is, the study didn't actually find that Australians (Oceanians in the study) consume more marijuana than any other nation.

Problem 1: The study does not look at net consumption. Rather it considers use percentage, meaning that a higher percentage of people from Oceania use pot than, say, Europeans. It does not indicate that Australia and New Zealand consume more weed than any other nation.

Problem 2: The journalist again fails in accurately explaining the research. The numbers presented in the study are sketchy, because they come from a variety of sources. Consumption of marijuana in Oceania is estimated at a range of 9.3-13.8 percent. North America, meanwhile, is estimated at exactly 10.7 percent, based on official government statistics. This means that at the highest rate of use, Oceania outpuffs North America, while at the lowest rate of use, North America outblazes Oceania.

Besides, if you're going to list the highest estimated percentage of use, west and central Africa wins the weed war hands down, with an estimated 5.2-14.6 percent use rate. This makes perfect sense, right? When most people think "laid back," the first nations that come to mind are the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone. Which leads us to...

Problem 3: Stereotyping. It is the journalist's assertion that pot is linked to a society's collective lifestyle. He leaves out that Oceania also topped the list for amphetamines. And if there's one thing you don't want to take to have a laid back shrimp-on-the-barbie-que, it's a central nervous system stimulant.



Why not comment on the North American lifestyle, which has the highest rate of cocaine use (1.9 percent)? The answer is clear: First, an indicator such as drug use is insufficient for explaining broad cultural trends. Second, these cultural trends are themselves stereotypes, whereas the truth defies simple labeling. We saw above that North America has a high use rate of marijuana, but no one would say pot mellows Americans out. America simply isn't perceived that way.

The Seattle Times may have won eight Pulitzer Prizes, but its stereotyped and inaccurate coverage of this story should go up in smoke.

History Lesson

[Update with regards to the last post: There will be no narrative journalism insert due to logistical issues. I'm still going to try to get my final article published somewhere. Let me know if you would like to see it.]

In doing research for my thesis, I stumbled upon a gem: the first issue of the New York Times, then called New-York Daily Times. The first printing was 18 September 1851. You could pick it up for a penny - that covered the physical paper; profit and paychecks came from advertisements. There was no Sunday edition.

The first edition featured "A Word about Ourselves." I will let these excerpts speak for themselves. And then I will highlight bits I think are important, as a gloss. So they won't be speaking for themselves, after all.

We understand perfectly, that great capital, great industry, great patience are indispensable to its success, and that even with all these, failure is not impossible. But we know also, that within the last five years the reading population of this city has nearly doubled, while the number of daily newspapers is no greater now than it was then; - that many of those now published are really class journals, made up for particular classes of readers; - that others are objectionable upon grounds of morality; - and that no newspaper, which was really fit to live, ever yet expired for lack of readers.

Upon all topics, - Political, Social, Moral and Religious, - we intend that the paper shall speak for itself; - and we only ask that it may be judged accordingly. We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good; - and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right, or exactly wrong; - what is good we desire to preserve and improve; - what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.

...And while we design to be decided an explicit in our positions, we shall at the same time seek to be temperate and measured in all our language...There are very few things in this world which it is worth while to get angry about; and they are just the things that anger will not improve.

We hope to make the Daily Times acceptable to the great mass of our people, and shall spare no effort to do so. We have an abundance of means, -plenty of able and experienced assistance, and every facility for making at once, the best and the cheapest newspaper in the United States.

Alice in La La Land (Spoiler Below)

Pop-ups in a newspaper? Come on, that's just tacky. The Wall Street Journal has been doing nontraditional ads as well, ever since you-know-who became you-know-what. But.

Just yesterday I thought I got the end of a roll of paper in The Journal Report's coverage of the Environment. There was the front page, then in front of that, a half-front page with the same text and graphic, connected to a full page on the back. You could pull away the false front page to reveal a one-and-a-half page BMW ad. Now that's clever! But.

But the difference between the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times is that the LA Times made it so that the entire front page was an advertisement! You could still read everything you needed to in the Wall Street Journal without a painted Johnny Depp inviting you to see his latest movie (which, by the way, was formulaic, visually riveting but soulless, and not nearly odd enough to grab my attention).

End Transmission.

SPOILER:

As I see it, the ending can be interpreted one of two ways:
1. In support of Imperialism, Opium Trade/Opium Wars, and "RAPE OF CHINA!" as one friend put it.
2. An ironic rejection of this. After all, Alice is Crazy, and only crazy people could possibly come up with ideas like trading with China, D.A.R.E. [why yes, that is from the Surgeon General], and funding drug-producing contras and turning a blind eye when these drugs make their way into America. Among other things.

I sure hope it is the second. Otherwise it's a very cold and frightening move on Burton's part. But with my disappointment in the movie, I am inclined to believe Burton's message is the first option.

Amazing Grace

Update below

At least one newspaper is doing well. Sort of. For a moment.

Is the iPad newspapers' saving grace? It's even the focus of Doonesbury comics this week.

We have two-thirds of a perfect storm right now simultaneously being explored by Gary Trudeau and others. The first is the New York Times' online "paywall." The second is the iPad.

Pay dirt (as in what I pay right now)
That's right, the New York Times will soon begin charging for access after a certain number of articles. No more all-you-can-eat buffet without a subscription. Welcome to news a la carte.

Apparently Newsday has had great success with this. Hah.

Having to pay to access any online story would hurt a lot of amateur bloggers like me because one, my audience doesn't necessarily subscribe to every newspaper, and two, my income does not at the moment support me subscribing to every online news source I read. Luckily, though, it's unlikely that free online news will ever go away. It will probably just change forms.

Check out the Nieman Journalism Labs' paywall widget.

iWhat?
Did you see the iPad? I saw the iPad. It looks like a big iPod Touch. It's "magical and revolutionary" at an "unbelievable price." But I believe the price.

The Big Money writes that a key to Apple's success is its antisocial attitude. This is true, but there is another factor as well.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee
MacWorld predicts that newspapers and magazines will benefit from portable e-readers. Just think: all the news, no physical production cost. Just lay it out in a digital format and you're good to go. The downside to this is that Apple will undoubtedly try to sell subscriptions through iTunes, meaning that Apple will be getting a cut of the hard work that newspapers do. (For ha-has: I link freely to articles, and you get added commentary!)

While this can save "print" (err, let's work on another name for that) publications, it will give Apple greater power over media. Apple is saving newspapers, and it's doing a much better job than the federal government did when it saved America's "cannot fail" institutions. Those institutions were given fairly free rein. Apple is holding newspapers by the lede. A better model for newspapers would allow you to subscribe directly through the publication's website, bypassing Apple entirely. But Apple wants to control the media because its device will be expensive. Worst case scenario for us/best case scenario for Apple: People will buy cheaper e-readers, but it will only be iPad users that can download the content they want. Let's hope it never comes to this

Update 6:30: I was just discussing this with my friend Anthony, who is an English major. His greatest concern is for the book publishing industry. The same logic applies regarding Apple's control of media. The difference is that book publishing has not lost revenue due to declining readership and a loss of advertising.