The Missing White Women's Network

There are a string of unsolved homicides that have taken place in North Carolina over the last couple years that have recieved little national attention (click here). 10 young African-American women have been murdered, or are still declared missing out of the same small town of only 60,000. More than likely, you haven't heard of this story either. However, not a single person in this country believes, if 10 young white women from the same town go missing... that story would be buried. Sheesh... even 2... that would get non-stop coverage on HLN. Seeing this story on the newsweek.com site immediately reminded me of a similar (more general) report I saw on Dateline NBC about four years ago. A short article on the topic from the Host of the Dateline piece can be seen here.


Let me first state my position: I'm NOT in favor of coverage of any of these stories. Missing persons is NOT national news. Let me repeat... missing persons... is not... national... news. They are local stories. Its just another example of corporate news being driven by ratings. People who sit down to watch tv find these stories interesting. Giving your audience what they want, instead of what they need. And the problem is... you can't cover every missing person's story... so if you choose to cover any, you have to pick and choose which ones are "news worthy." You could have a Missing Person's Channel, and still may not be able to cover each and every person declared missing in this country. The problem is... it looks like its more of a Missing White Women's Network, in terms of the stories that the news organizations choose to cover.

If you look at the totality of all missing persons... young attract white women are not the group most likely to go missing. Did you know that men are declared "missing" more than women? I will say that, since the 2005 NBC report, the media has been mildly more conscious of this, and there have been more minority cases, but they seem to come and go quicker, whereas some of these white women stories linger for months. You see none on men, and very few on boys. I guess boys going missing isn't that big a deal. The bread and butter is still young attractive missing white women.

How many people knew that, during the same time period of Chandra Levy's disappearance... there was a young Asian woman who went missing? And in the same area, no less? Why was her name and face not blasted 24/7 over the cable news networks? Was her disappearance any less important? Why was there a decision to push one woman's story, and not the other? This is the... in my opinion... VERY fair criticism that media outlets open themselves up to, when they choose to cover any of these stories.

What we don't see... are the friends and family... who... due to this culture... actively try to "push" their missing loved-one's story into the social conscience. It's a no brainer as to why... just like America's Most Wanted... the more people who are aware of a person's disappearance, the more likely we are to find her... or, catch her assailant. There are many minority families out there, who are nothing short of frustrated, that their numerous attempts to get their stories on the national television networks are ignored. What makes their daughter's story any less sad or compelling?

Its not that the media doesn't care. I dont believe the mainstream news outlets care about any of these people. The news media cares about ratings... and they know that the public-at-large are not concerned with some of these other stories. At best, they're not AS concerned... in terms of how many people tune in to watch a show segment. 'Wow, a hispanic girl went missing... gee, thats too bad... anyway, turn the channel... turn to um... Nancy Grace... so we can find the latest updates on that poor little white girl who disappeared. I'm so fascinated with her story."

I think its about a conceptial prototype of a "damsel in distress." A beautiful, kind-hearted, sweet young lady. Oh... and um... usually white. Such a compelling story. And as one who is familiar with American history... nothing is more compelling to America than a beautiful young white woman in dispair. What has happened to her? Who could do such a thing? Who will save her? Oh, the humanity! I've seen 19th century ads using the safety and security of "our women" used to influence public opinion before. Currently, white America is the majority of this nation at about 68%. Substantially less than 50 years ago, but still a high percentage. Does racial identification with the victim matter? Do blacks and hispanics not tune in when Laci Peterson or Natalee Holloway are on tv? I do not know the answer to these questions. What I do know... the media isn't creating the hunger, they're merely feeding it... they watch their numbers based on what is broadcast and they know that the public-at-large tend towards... missing white women in missing persons' stories more than any other group.

BEWARE... if you are an old white woman... or a fat white woman... or an unattractive white woman... your family may be prone to get the "minority treatment" if they're trying to get your picture out to the public.

The Future of India

What will be the economic future of India? For the past 5 to 7 years, you've heard that the surge of the Indian economy is right around the corner. They, like China, were right on the precipice of a great economic boom... right on the edge of being a premiere economic power. We've seen a large expansion in Chinese markets since the year 2000, but where is India? A lot of Americans immediately associate India with outsourced American telecom jobs, and while that is definately true... as with any nation, there is a wide array of other markets. With this potential bright new day, there are many internal debates in India, about what direction their nation will take.

If you compare India to the United States, you will see that India has three times the population, with only one third the land mass. So, with 9 times the potential population density, you will see that the ability to acquire commercial land will be of utmost importance... and difficult to come by.

Now, that is a DENSELY populated neighborhood! Remember, India has one billion people, second behind only China. There are industries that would like to move in and open local factories, but they are having difficulties acquiring land in many areas. Its like the nation is right on the cusp of an Industrial Revolution and for this reason, there have been innumerable land disputes (and reported violence in some instances) between private land owners and local government who want to give these global firms the ability to establish their coorporations in these local communities. It would create jobs and tax revenue, making it easier for government to improve roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and the like. So there is a tremendous potential upside for not only individuals who could take these jobs and increase their earning, but also for the community as a collective.

According to the Association of Indian Chambers of Commerce, there are approximately 200 various corporate projects (worth an estimated $100 billion in investment) that are currently being held up due to various types of land related issues. Will investors pull out? Will companies relocate? Will people living in poor slums and rural farms be forcibly removed from their homes? Case in point, Mumbai Airport has had designs for expansion for a couple years, but nothing has been done due to the fact that the airport currently borders a large slum area, and the tenants have refused to vacate the area. Do the local government go in with troops and clear the area? Not a very good way to win over voters for the next election cycle.

As rural India farmers blockade construction sites in some areas in an attempt to prevent corporations from tampering with their traditional cultural environment, will these economic opportunities ultimately go to China? China's population approximately two billion, twice the size of India... however, they have 280 million people currently working in factories, whereas India currently has 45 million. That will give you a comparative idea of the current underproduction. Their current industrial output is about the same as Spain's, a country of much smaller size and population. The entire nation is not rural, by no means. There are Indian cities that have been transformed by tech field and services. But tech can only do so much. There are currently 10million people (about 1% of total population) associated with tech in India, but in order to grow a large working class, a nation needs to produce... they need factories. Most present day Americans dont know the growth of the US middle class during the 40's and 50's, was due in large part to manufacturing... and we decline now as a lot of those high paying blue collar factory jobs have gone overseas. Japan can focus on tech, however, a large nation needs to produce.

But, can you force people to change? Can you make people living in Indian villages, who want to keep their traditional rural lifestyle... can you make them adapt? These questions have been asked in many countries over time, and it becomes even more precarious a situation, when you consider just how densely populated this country is. Will the Indian government allow these markets to grow in their country or watch them migrate to their Chinese neighbors to the East? China will be more than happy to take those opportunities off their hands.

And even if you're open to the possibility of change, where do you go when you're a farmer, you've always been a farmer and thats all you know? The government has offered free training in addition to the purchase of land to add extra incentive to people debating this issue. And speaking of the value of the land... what is it? Should you be paid what its worth now, or what it may become worth? Some people have felt like they've been undercompensated for their homes. Some savvy neighborhoods have not sold their plots individually, but have started companies (the power of collective bargaining!) and LEASED out their land to private companies. In one case, a neighborhood that started renting out a decade ago currently owns land that is now valued at ten times what it was when the corporation initially came knocking. Imagine if each of those home owners went individually to get a quote. This will not be an easy transition for India, and the eyes of the world will be watching, in this time of globalization, as the action of individual nations... whether positively or negatively... truly affect us all.

Prescription Drug Advertising

Everyone has seen the commercial with the bee talking about nasal allergy medication. Everyone who lives in America that is. America and New Zealand are currently the only two countries in the world who allow prescription drugs to be adveritised/marketed directly to the consumer. Let me say this again... America... and New Zealand... are the ONLY two... countries... on this ENTIRE planet... who think its okay for drug companies to market directly to consumers.



The main question is... why does a drug company need to make ANY direct contact with consumers? These drugs are powerful... powerful enough that they can not be purchased over the counter. "Ask your doctor, if ____ is right for you." Its a prescription... it must be prescribed to me... by someone who has more info than a 30 second commercial can give. Shouldn't my doctor tell me if I need the drug?

Drug companies claim they just want to inform the public... but advertisements aren't meant to inform... they're meant to persuade. Most people who NEED long term medication are either old or infirmed... not young and attractive actors. The first Viagra commercials targeted older men, had a serious tone, and featured people like Bob Dole (the true market of need), but as other companies came around fighting for marketshare, Viagra followed suit and went with the "its a party" advertising, marketing the drug for something it was not approved by the FDA for. A lot of commercials that deal with products for the old or ill use young actors to market their drugs to a wider base. That is to say... you THOUGHT Viagra was just for old people... you can use it to.

Modern marketing of prescription drugs began in 1997. In 1900, the American Medical Association (AMA) tried to stop the advertising of drugs with magical claims... things that would sound something like... Maddame Turner's Magic Healing Elixir. The AMA urged medical journals not to publish ads that "advertised directly to laity." The American Medical Association recognized that these drugs were too specialized and complicated for laymen to understand without their doctor.

It was a practice that stood in place for almost a century. After a 1983 British ad about ibuprofen, the FDA saw the potential for danger and conducted a study about television ads about medicine and their affect on viewers. They found that even listing the side effects... for many people, the commercial was a reassurance... a reaffirmation of approval... not a warning against. So, the FDA said that drugs ads could be done, HOWEVER... the ad must list all side effects and conditions VERBATIM.

Whatever the warnings that were printed on the packaging, they must be read in their entirety during the commercial. So, as of 1983, it was legal, but with that restriction, noone ran commercials. The FDA would then compromise on what were called "reminder" ads. If you ran a commercial about a prescription drug, but you didn't tell what that drug was suppose to cure, you didn't have to tell what the side effects could be. It was purely a "reminder." Putting the name of the drug in your mind. Only a few years ago, it was not uncommon to see ambiguous drug commercials showing happy people... running through fields... or skipping and whistling through a meadow... but the commercial didn't tell you why they were now happy. That is a reminder ad.

Doctors started getting flooded with calls from their patients about drugs they didn't need, because they didn't know what they were. That type of impulse response alone should be red flag about marketing pharmaceuticals.

August 12th, 1997... the FDA revised its guidelines. TV and radio commercials could give details about their drugs without giving the full details of side effects. They were now only required to give some level of warning as you will hear (spedily recited) at the end of drug commercials these days. Prior to the change, it was impossible for them to run a commercial in less than 60 seconds reading all the warnings from the prescription package label. Now the warnings, which were abbreviated, could now be given in consumer friendly speak, rather than pharmaceutical verbage.

Not surprisingly, prescription drug use has skyrocketed in recent years (blogged about that recently). With more marketing creating more prescription drug users... were we undermedicated in the early 1990's...? or are overmedicated today? What percentage of these drug users are people taking medicines they truly didn't need, but pressed their doctor until their doctor allowed them the drug the requested?

Domestic Violence During Recessions

The eyes of pain. More and more, across the "greatest nation" we are finding out that we are not immune to civil rights abuses that affect the rest of the world. There have been several state and national studies that have found an alarming increase in domestic abuse reports. To a view a few articles about the noticeable increase, click these hyperlinks...

Britain

Oklahoma City

Florida

General Op-Ed

It seems that human beings are always looking for something to control. A way to have some form of purpose or power... and in these trying times... where more and more men are finding that their illusions of power and control over their position in America is waning... they will find control "somewhere." All domestic violence is not from men, but most is... and because men are significantly larger and genetically built with more muscle mass (on average), it is easier (and more dangerous) for a man to give into these feelings of "physical control." Domestic violence isn't the same as murder, but I remember a story about Ted Bundy... as he described his pleasure from murder saying that in the moment when he's attacking a woman, he enjoyed the idea of looking into a woman's eyes and he could tell that she knew that he was in total control.

Its a taboo subject, and one that gets no airplay in the mainstream media... because the mainstream media is corporate driven garbage focused on ratings not whats important, and they know this type of story will do nothing but drive viewers away, but something that happens to too frequently... to women all over the nation, and something that needs to be addressed... more and more.

I dont watch a lot of "weekly" tv shows, but Bill Moyers is a public access, i.e. not corporate driven, show that comes on Friday nights on PBS. Click here to watch a March interview with Marta Palaez, president and CEO of (San Antonio based) Family Violence Prevention Services, Inc. as she talks about a rise in the women and children silently dealing with the increase in domestic violence over the last year.