Revisiting the question of whether journalists should vote, whether it matters and whom it might matter to …

Is journalistic neutrality a sham?

James Poniewozik recently made “The Case for Full Disclosure” in TIME Magazine:

The biggest reason to go open kimono is that the present system does what journalism should never do: it perpetuates a lie. Modern political journalism is based on the bogus concept of neutrality (that people can be steeped in campaigns yet not care who wins) and the legitimate ideal of fairness (that people can place intellectual integrity and rigor over their rooting interests). Voting and disclosing would expose the sham of neutrality—which few believe anyway—and compel opinion and news writers alike to prove, story by story, that fairness is possible anyway. Partisans, bloggers and media critics are toxically obsessed with ferreting out reporters’ preferences; treating them as shameful secrets only makes matters worse.

Disclosure: Poniewozik is TIME’s TV critic, not a regular political writer.

It seems we’re becoming more and more paranoid about this, especially in this election year. Even I admit it — when I read certain articles in certain publications or online sites, I’m always trying to keep in mind what kind of reputation the site has, and the writer has. That’s part of the reason why I can’t watch Fox News anymore. I’m sorry. I just can’t.

The way I see it, there is no way to absolutely-100-percent eliminate personal biases when you write a story, although the best in the business do an extremely thorough job. First of all, whether that story is about the 2008 election or a school recycling project, each individual approaches and views the situation through the lens of his or her own experiences. Which is great, in many ways, because you might get several variations on the same story with different angles and different details in each.

Which is why, even though I do not watch it, I can see the need for Fox News. And, yes, I do realize that my thoughts on this come from — tada! — my own personal biases.

Now, there are different ways to tell a story, but readers love to point out when it’s the WRONG way. Again, this is going to depend on your background and your personal opinion. We get this all the time at the Advertiser. Just ask the guys who answer the phones.

For a reporter, if you are covering a story, there should be no shred of doubt in your heart about your ability to write about that topic objectively IF you are trying to pass the story off as truly objective, which newspapers are supposed to be. But that assumes that anyone and everyone reading the story believes it to be truly 100-percent objective and without bias. Is this really the case?

So, back to the original question: reporting and voting.

For myself personally, I haven’t decided whom I’m going to vote for yet. I did not vote in the Hawaii’s caucuses, but I do plan to vote in the general election. I was a Political Science major, I’m interested in politics, government and the process, and I definitely want to have a stake in who will be America’s president for the next four years. So I admit that, yeah, I do care. I will eventually vote, which indicates that I will eventually come to the conclusion that one candidate is better than another.

At that point, should I cease writing about anything having to do with the election? In articles? In this blog?

Where do you draw the line?

Have you heard of “The Game“? It’s like the Bible for the male and socially awkward.

“The Game,” written by former New York Times reporter and critic Neil Strauss, is an autobiographical work that tells of Strauss’ exploration into the world of pick up artists — men skilled in the art of meeting women, who he collectively calls, “the seduction community.”

Upon its publication in 2005, the book was on the NYT Bestseller List for two months and skyrocketed almost immediately to the #1 seller list on Amazon.com.

In 2004, Strauss wrote an article about his experiences in the NYT. “The Game” also inspired a 2007 reality show on VH1, called “The Pick Up Artist” (contestants/protegees pictured above), as well as a set of pick up artist jargon and methods:

PUA -Pick Up Artist. A man skilled in the art of picking up women.

AFC - Average Frustrated Chump. A guy who has historically had issues with meeting and talking to women. May or may not be a virgin.

The “Neg” - a playful insult, the purpose of which is to “momentarily lower a woman’s self-esteem and to suggest an intriguing disinterest. (’Nice nails. Are they real? No? Oh, they look nice anyway.’)”

Peacocking - standing out in a room, often by donning louder clothing. May or may not include fuzzy hats, platform boots and black nail polish.

What gives? Do men suddenly need a new vocabulary, a book, a TV show and kohl eyeliner to get women to talk to them? Whatever happened to “Hi. What’s your name?”

At first, as a female, after doing some research about the “seduction community,” it was hard not to feel partially amused, partially enraged. Enraged, because — let’s face it — the strategies used by men described in “The Game” and on “The Pick Up Artist” objectify women. Girls in social situations, just waiting to be picked up by men skilled at the trade, might as well be bottlecaps, or some other shiny object to be collected. There is also a heavy emphasis on how to be not only a Pick Up Artist, but a seduction artist, which suggests that men aren’t exactly embarking on the experiment to find a perfect mate, but to see how many women they can sleep with.

But the amusement came from the realization that, hey, men do kind of have it rough when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex. Of course most females nowadays like to think of ourselves as The Independent Woman, but our society still relies on men to make the first move. And part of the reason why I watched the characters on VH1’s “The Pick Up Artist” with amusement and even a twang of sympathy is because I see my own guy friends in all their hesitance and adorable awkwardness trying to talk to beautiful, confident and successful women in social situations. And I gotta tell you, I feel for them.

And yeah — boy, do I feel lucky to be female.

For some men of course, “The Game” will always be about impressing your friends and seeing how many women you can sleep with. On the other hand, I suspect (I hope, at least) that there are men out there who employ the techniques because they want to meet their perfect match, who still see”The Game” as about “meeting” and “getting to know,” and not “scoring.” Call me romantic. Or at least just female.

I can say this for certain: I’d hate to see any of my sweet, slightly-awkward guy pals turn into Master PUA’s. Heck, they might start stealing my eyeliner.

Points/e-props to the person who can tell me the easiest way to get to the Advertiser blogs from the new home page.

I posted this last week, but if you didn’t click the link, I encourage you to watch this video, called Epic 2015, about the future of the news industry and the rise of Google.

Then tell me: what do you think of this concept of getting more and more people to blog on the Advertiser web site?

Is it a plus to have so many different points of view and not just have to resort to reading what we stressed-out reporters have to say?

Or is it like that commercial for that job search site that offers only 100K+ jobs — “when you let everyone play, nobody wins”?

Change is good!

As you’ve probably noticed, the Advertiser web site and blogs have a new look. I think all of us Advertiser bloggers are still kind of getting used to using the new blogging tool, Wordpress. One of the best new features is the addition of archives — entries from way back are now archived and are more easily accessible, without having to repeatedly click “Next Page” at the bottom of the screen. That was one of my biggest pet peeves with the old blogs.

One of the bad things is that we were unable to transfer your comments from some of the most recent blog entries to this new system. So, the entries are here, but the comments are not. You can still view the comments at the old blog site, although admittedly, that’s kinda humbug.

Naturally, there are still some kinks to be ironed out, and we welcome feedback from all of you about the blogs and the new site. One of the goals of revamping our online image, I believe, is to make the site more interactive for readers. In fact, it’s actually trying to turn you into more than readers — you’re encouraged to be commenters, photographers, writers and bloggers yourselves.

Feel free to post feedback on this blog, or email me at fassler@honoluluadvertiser.com. Looking forward to seeing you around the new site.

I sometimes wonder if my perspective on drinking might be different had my parents allowed me to drink when I was in high school.

As it was, my parents did not encourage drinking before I was 21. I believe that the bulk of their reasoning was: I should not drink before I was legally allowed to do so, and that was that.

But parents — and their concerns — drop almost completely out of the picture when many 18-year-olds go to college. On many campuses, alcohol is readily available to students of all ages and becomes a staple of the social scene. If students are surrounded by such a climate for three years before most reach the legal drinking age … well, peer pressure can do in even the most conscientious, law-abiding kid.

Flash-forward to the 21st birthday party. For many people I know, this involved getting absolutely plastered and passing out somewhere, hopefully near someone who was responsible — or at least sober — enough to put you in your own bed and make sure you didn’t expire overnight.

It’s tough to debate the merits of allowing students to drink alcohol before they reach 21, or before they are unleashed unwittingly upon Animal House-like frat parties every weekend. The big problem is: underage drinking is just that — it’s against the law.

Still, the growing problem of binge drinking on college campuses has led some to question if there might be a way to stop students from becoming absorbed in the “black-out drunk” culture before they even arrive on the scene, that is, years before they turn 21.

New York Times wine blogger Eric Asimov asks today in his blog, “The Pour” — “Should wine be a family affair?” In a related column, he debates the merits of introducing his two sons, 16 and 17, to wine as a complement to a meal, while trying to impress upon them the potential dangers of alcohol. He muses:

It would be easy to preach abstinence to children until they’re 21, but is it naive and even irresponsible to think that teenagers won’t experiment? Might forbidding even a taste of wine with a meal actually encourage secrecy and recklessness?

And:

In the best of all possible worlds, I suppose, young adults would not touch alcohol until they turn 25 and then would instantly understand the pleasures of moderate consumption. It seems to me as silly to imagine that as it is to expect the same at 21.

Does introducing teenagers to alcohol in moderation before age 21 encourage them to be more responsible drinkers? Asimov cites a 1983 study by Dr. George E. Vaillant, a psychiatry professor at Harvard, which compared 136 men who were alcoholics with men who were not.

The study found that men who grew up in families where alcohol was forbidden at the table, but who drank alcohol away from home, apart from food, were seven times more likely to become alcoholics than those whose households allowed wine with meals but where drunkenness was not tolerated.

Believe it? I’m not sure, and I think like with most things, it depends on the person and the situation. But if teaching a teenager how to enjoy wine with food can encourage less black-out nights, it’s definitely worth a second thought.