Today’s New York Times has an article on what has become a very controversial pro-bono ad campaign.  The campaign features ransom notes to deliver messages about child maladies such as ADHD and autism with parents as the audience.  Here is a quick sample. “We are in possession of your son.  We are making him squirm and fidget until he is a detriment to himself and those around him.  Ignore this and your kid will pay.” -ADHD

Turns out, “advocates for children with autism and for other special-needs children said the ads reinforced negative stereotypes.”  End result: the ads are getting cancelled.This cancellation brings to mind a few things worth pointing out:

Realizing that people associated with these ailments are constantly seeking to create awareness, perhaps these bold methods have the potential to do more good than bad?  They may prove more powerful than the same old inspirational stock photos with a tag along the lines of “Building awareness one child at a time.” 

It’s interesting that the campaign cancellation is what generated press.  Maybe the cancellation wasn’t such a bad thing after all?  I mean, here we are talking about it, right?  And it got some coverage, right?

Finally, Dr. Harold Koplewicz of the Child Study Center said, “that this is the first time that the issues of children’s mental health has gotten attention without being precipitated by a shooting at a high school or college.”  And since that is the ultimate goal, the campaign, as short-lived as it was, should perhaps be considered a success.

So Al Gore’s come in second. Again. He might’ve been a big winner at the Oscars, but as far as TIME magazine’s concerned, he’s no Vladmir Putin.

If you haven’t seen the cover of this week’s TIME, FYI, Putin’s been named the magazine’s 80th annual “Person of the Year,” much to the dismay of message boarders on MSN.com and across the web (one poster chastised the magazine for choosing a “former KGB thug” like Putin).

The field was certainly a competitive one this year. Consider the contenders:
- J.K. Rowling, who closed the book on a miniature wizard credited for conjuring up a resurrection of reading among adolescents
- Steve Jobs, whose iPhone made mile-long lines and headlines around the world (we hear John Street spearheaded his own letter-writing campaign on this one)
- Hilary Clinton, the first woman who might actually have a shot at the title (President, that is)
- Barack Obama, the first African-American who might actually have a shot at the title

Angelina Jolie, Condoleezza Rice, George W., even Stephen Colbert. The list of names thrown around went on and on.

TIME insists its POY choice is always determined by assessment of power, not popular vote, explaining the selection of Putin in a logical, albeit defensive article in the feature. According to the article:

“TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.”

Okay, fine. So you’ve presented the facts as you see them, TIME, and while I commend you for your resolve, I have to call bull on this one. We let you slip by with last year’s stunt (when “YOU” were the Person of the Year – see “No Applause Necessary”), but now you’re just trying to get attention by picking someone you know will cause an even bigger uproar.

I didn’t vote for Al Gore in 2000. In fact, he really annoys me. And though he may have exaggerated a bit about his role in Internet development [READ: he was a big fat liar], we’ve all got to admit he’s a bona fide environmentalist. He didn’t discover global warming, but he’s revived an awareness of environmentalism to remarkable heights worthy of recognition. He won a Nobel Prize. He’s influenced national and international policies. He got NBC to do a “Green Week,” for God’s sake. If that doesn’t make him Person of the Year, I don’t know what does.

But this isn’t about debating over who’s most worthy; it’s about questioning TIME’s journalistic integrity. Yes, I said it. I think the magazine is sacrificing integrity for the sake of some publicity.

You see, everyone knows that controversy begets buzz. I’m disappointed in TIME’s choice, and for that reason, I’ll probably read every article about it. And I think that’s exactly what TIME wants. So, Putin is a business choice, not an editorial choice. Sure, the publishing industry is tough, but the line between sales and editorial should never be crossed — regardless of the bottom line impact.

So in this case, I must admit, Gore’s got a right to cry “hanging chad.”

Move over Bonnie and Clyde, Alycia Lane wants her share of the limelight!

That’s right, Lane is back in the news again this week after being arrested in New York City for allegedly cursing at and punching a NYC police officer in the face. While the charges in of themselves are significant, in the broader scope the incident rehashes the debate over the fine line between celebrity and journalist.

It seems to us that Lane has been acting more like Lindsay Lohan than Diane Sawyer. On top of being arrested for allegedly verbally and physically assaulting a cop, her personal life has repeatedly been under national scrutiny in recent months. There’s nothing quite like being exposed for sending racy photos to a married man (TV sportscaster Rich Eisen) to lend credibility to your nightly newscast. Not to mention two appearances on Dr. Phil to discuss failed marriages, or the paparazzi tracking your love life.

By nature of constantly being in the public spotlight, journalists and news anchors wield tremendous community influence. With this status comes an implicit responsibility to serve as an upstanding citizen and community role model. So when Lane’s actions begin to destroy her reputation, she not only does herself a disservice but also, in effect, does the community a disservice.

What makes her past scandals (read: bikini photos) so troubling is that they have actually improved Lane and co-anchor Larry Mendte’s nightly news ratings. In fact, just two weeks ago Philly Weekly’s blog, Philadelphia Will Do, declared that CBS 3 and ABC 6 were neck and neck in the 11 p.m. news ratings.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that viewers prefer their news delivered from a credible and trustworthy source. Perhaps this preference will finally take precedence following this latest blunder, as by all accounts Lane’s job is hanging on by public opinion – and if the public decides she’s not a proper news source, she will be out.

In the meantime, bravo to CBS for taking her out of the holiday special that will air tonight, and for removing her from station promotions. Let this be a wake up call to Lane to learn from the experience and get her act – public and private – back together.

As almost everyone in Philadelphia knows, a resident Bonnie and Clyde duo recently got caught for scamming thousands of dollars from neighbors, friends and colleagues – not to mention people they didn’t even know.

As the story unfolded, respected local and national media outlets seemed to succumb to a reporting style resembling tabloid journalism.  Racy photos of Bonnie (a.k.a. Jocelyn Kirsch, 22) were plastered on homepages, TV screens and newspapers.  The news hook of many stories centered on how her father bought her implants or sent her on exotic vacations. In a sense, she became a celebrity – even more so than her partner-in-crime, Ed Anderton.  Young, flashy, attractive, crafty, manipulative, deceitful, well-traveled, lavish … Philadelphia’s little Bonnie has become an icon.  And, I say, we have the media to thank for it. Only briefly did area coverage hit on the nuts and bolts of the crimes and the victims.  But once that was out of the way … on to the sexy photos of Jocelyn and the $1,500 handbags!

I know these are all parts of the story, but in the big picture, they are really just shock value details.  In order for the media to maintain its integrity – a characteristic that sets it apart from, oh, say the National Enquirer – it needs to stay focused on the core of the story: THE FACT THAT INNUMERABLE PEOPLE WERE ROBBED BLIND – not how many risqué photos they can dig up and post.So as the story unfolds, let’s hope our local media outlets can keep that big picture in its sights, and leave some of the big spending out of it.