Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 18, 1997)
ft ' i r s ^mmmkPatrickurn# - - —+. MACDONALD A ‘gravity’ Survey sheds light on the heaviest cities in U.S For those of you about to gradu ate and enter the ranks of the gratefully employed, the search for work may take you far aqd wide or right around the coma-. As part of your search for employment, finding a good city to live in will also be important. In making this determination, many factors have to be weighed. Income, cost of housing, crime rates, quality of education and local taxes all figure when deciding where to live. Every year, surveys list the 10 best and worst places to live in America. Now there is another study that may help you decide where to live. The study involved 33 cities across the United States and ranked these cities based upon the percent age of obese people living there. Which city wins the award for having the most “heavy hitters?” New Orleans gets the gold with a whopping 38 percent of the popula tion being overweight. I first caught the results of this survey on CNN as reported by CNN correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. Being rather well proportioned myself, you might think that I would find this report offensive. Not true. The silver lining in this report is that 1 now possess information about my “peer” group — and I have a majority of peers living in New Orleans. The study was conducted by the Coalition For Excess Weight Risk Education and was funded by pharmaceutical companies develop ing anti-obesity drugs. Its primary goal is to educate America about the dangers of obesity, which is the second leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Obesity contributes to diseases such as cancer, diabetes, hypertension and stroke. About 300,000 deaths annually can be attributed to the effects of obesity. In the search for weight control, consumers spend an average of $2.5, billion per year according to Entrepreneur Magazine. It certainly appears that the pharmaceutical - companies have a vested interest in developing the “cure.” The study lists several reasons some cities have a higher population of horizontally-challenged residents. These include high unemployment rates, low per capita incomes, high annual precipitation and large numbers of food stores per capita. CNN also noted that the survey has significant flaws because the study’s data came from the National Center for Health Statistics, which uses weights reported from individu als — not medically reported weights. Maybe the people of New Orleans are just more honest about their weight. So what is the thinnest city in America? Denver cranes in as the “light weight” with 22 percent of the population being overweight I believe that the real reason for the difference in New Orleans and Denver is not among the reasons cited in the survey. I suggest that altitude is the key factor in deter mining where obese people live. OK, maybe gravity is a contributing factor, too. The way I understand it, gravity and weight are related in some way. Isn’t there less gravity at higher altitudes? But that is not important now. What is important is understand ing the motivation behind the survey. People who struggle with .obesity do so because society has declared war on fat. There is a misconception that obese people are heavy because they want to be. For anyone who has ever spent money on a diet or piece of exercise equipment to lose weight, you know that’s just not true. People who are overweight are also acutely aware of the risks involved with carrying a few extra pounds. My doctor once told me that if I am comfortable at a certain weight and neither gain nor lose weight, I should not worry about dieting. Continue to exercise, don’t smoke and eat a balanced diet. Those are the keys to avoiding the problems caused by obesity and constant yo-yo diets. As for the study, it sure gives new meaning the term “Fat Tuesday.” MacDonald is a freshman electrical engineering major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. Kasey KERBER . , .. .... .. . ... ... ... . .... . . . .... - l Americans hate journalists. It’s a hard thing to accept, especially when you’ve devoted your life to one of the lowest paying fields in the country. And then, to add insult to injury, you are shown cold, hard facts saying the public hates you. I’m referring to the Roper Center/Newseum poll conducted in January, which has been printed in numerous periodicals. Here are just a few of its findings: ■ 82 percent of poll respondents think reporters are insensitive when covering disasters and accidents. ■ 64 percent think reporters spend too much time offering their own opinions. ■ 63 percent think die news is too manipulated by special interests. ■ 46 parent think the news is too negative, while 52 percent think the news is too biased. Yet what do the findings of such a poll mean? That journalists use people to get stories? That journal ism is a business? If only the answers came as easily as the questions. Or as easily as the poll of 1,500 people meant to convey the opinion of a nation. But we must make a distinction this poll fails to make—one between broadcast journalism and print journalism. Two of the poll facts clearly point out the media’s anger with broadcas journalism. Neither of these poll findings apply strongly — if at all — to print journalism. When dealing with insensitivity during a disaster, the public rarely has a chance to see how print journalists deal with such victims because their efforts leading to the written story go unwitnessed. But if you could see them, you’d see that a newspaper reporter handles him or herself far better than a broadcast journalist. We’re under pressure to get the news, sure — but not under nearly as much pressure to visually create a picture. Meaning, we don’t shove huge video cameras in people’s faces. We don’t manipulate their pain with sound checks, micro phones and artificial lighting. We ask them what we need to ask and then we get out. And when it comes to adding our “opinions” to what we do, print journalists will tell you that the first thing they leam is to keep their opinions buried in the depths of their minds. Flip through the paper you’re holding. I doubt you’ll find any news article with the phrase “I think that... “ or “this reporter thinks he was ugly.... “ There’s a reason for that — the public is entitled to both sides of the story. We might lean toward one side, but we’ll never express it in our articles — it’s in our job description not to. In my mind print journalism is more dedicated to the sensitive and truthful reporting of news. Broadcast journalism is more influenced by ratings. I still haven’t touched three of the [mil findings, and for these, I must speak strictly from a print journalist’s point of view. First, we find that 63 percent of people think the news is too manipu lated by special interests. And you know, to a certain degree it’s true. Yet I don’t think we formulate the content of a paper around special interests. But we do consider special interests when it comes to writing stories. And there’s an important reason for that: They offer informa tion. If journalists spent all their time searching for story ideas, we’d never have time to write stories. Special interests often offer information, knowing fully that it could benefit their cause. Besides —just because you are offered a news story idea by a special interest doesn’t mean you have to write the story supporting their view. As a matter of fact—if you’re a good journalist, you won’t. You’ll show all sides of the issue. Finally there are the poll findings that say 52 percent of Americans think news is too biased, and 46 percent of Americans think news is too negative. What you may perceive to be a bias is sometimes a lack of informa tion from the “other side.” A good example is election coverage. If you see more articles about (me party, you may think the paper favors that party. Instead, the other party might be poorly organized. Or its spokesper son is failing to contact the paper. In either case, die paper is not being biased — it is simply working with the information it has. Yet, I’m more disturbed about the 46 percent of Americans who think the news is too negative. This makes rhe sick. And it makes me sick because the people who said they want less “negative” news want journalists to paint a prettier picture than what actually exists. Let me say this: No journalist ever got into the profession to make you laugh or anile. They got into journalism to tell that thing called truth. And truth is often depressing, angry, boring and tedious. I, as a journalist, refuse to limit myself to reporting “good news” if it means I’m not reporting bad news as well. Don’t limit journalists when it cranes to the negative. This world is negative. Look around and you’ll recognize that. Until then, try walking around looking fra “positive” stray ideas. And at the same time, pick up a paper and decide which stray ideas should be sacrificed to put your stray ideas in print. It might be a lot harder than you realize. Kerber is a sophomore news editorial major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist r.-x : • . -«~ •• - - AAEON StcCKELBERG/DN
