Personal Ads

The other day I was watching Jay Leno's headlines (my favorite).  He happened to pull up one that was a 'personal ad'.

This left me with a lot of questions.  Do people still place personal ads?  Is this the match.com for the 50+ crowd?  Do any SEMI-NORMAL people use the personal ads?  Has anyone ever called on a personal ad?  Has anyone SEMi-NORMAL called on a personal ad?  Does anyone know a "normal" couple that met through a personal ad?

That being said, I know quite a few what I'll call "normal" couples that met in some unconventional quasi-weird way.  In other words, not at a bar, at a party, through friends, at work, or on a "normal" online dating site.

Does anyone know anyone who has ever placed or called on a personal ad?  Would any of my readers ever consider it?  Do any of my readers know a "normal" couple that met in a very "weird" way?  Your thoughts?

Milestones.

Tomorrow, August 13, is my three year anniversary at The Chicago Sun-Times. 

A moment. 

An Additional Blog?

So, as most of my readers know, I work for a newspaper.  I constantly hear people (usually people ten+ years older than me, but not always) making comments about how they like physical newspapers - they like holding a newspaper, etc.

Additionally, I spoke (well, wrote) in a previous post about how I am just not sure about the Amazon Kindle (and various identical products, etc.).  I like the physical book. I am not sure, exactly, why, but I do.  Maybe it's simply for the sake of being set in my ways, but I do know that, for sure, I am not alone in feeling this way.

So, I like the physical printed word.  I know I am not alone.  Maybe I am clinging to something that some say will eventually be gone, but I don't want to think this way.  I don't want the actual book or paper to ever fully leave us.

In honor of  my love and respect, I created an additional blog.  I am not sure what to put in it, but I did snatch up the domain - www.friendsoftheprintedword.blogspot.com.    I am open to suggestions/thoughts.

Let me save you some time - yes, I do realize the extreme irony of me staring a BLOG on this subject.

Some Thoughts on the Healthcare Bill

I really can't fault the newspaper industry on this one. Way to attempt to up circulation!

Do People Still Wear Watches?

I hear this is a big debate out there.

There are some people who feel watches are very old-school (archaic, if you will) - that our generation doesn't (or shouldn't) wear them; only those who do things such as use phonebooks and read newspapers wear watches. The general presumption is every has a cellphone, therefore, he or she could check the time on that instead.

I don't know. I, of course, have a phone, but I wear a watch anyway. I like it. I'm used to it. I don't plan on changing it any time soon. It's quicker to look at one's wrist than it is to pull out one's phone. There's probably the argument that looking at one's phone is more discreet way of doing things; one doesn't know if one is checking to see if she has a text, etc. (although, some could say - no less rude).

Anyhow. I like my watch. It's a beauty like the one above. I don't plan on giving it up any time soon. I don't plan on giving up newspapers either. Am I just old fashioned? Any other watch enthusiasts out there? Are watches getting phased out? Your thoughts?

Oh Sarah.

You're breaking my heart. Which newspaper do you read? All of 'em! Back in high school, my ability to BS questions was much better than this. Stop disappointing me Sarah.

These are a Few of my Favorite Things....

Maybe as a one-time journalist (or journalist wannabe. whatever) I have a better appreciation for this than the non-journalist folk, but regardless, I find it hilarious.

Overheard in the Newsroom

Check it out. Maybe they'll back reference my blog. Or not.

The Future?

A quote from 'Overheard in the Newsroom' (on facebook):

#1924: Reporter: “I’m going to go as a journalist for Halloween. All I need for my costume is an empty bottle of vodka and my shattered dreams.”

In all seriousness - where is the future of journalism? It is an entire field of work that seems to be disappearing (I realize this has happened to many other careers, but still). Journalism is an entire college major! It's an entire school at some colleges.

What is going to happen? As people find their news in different ways, will the whole job of a 'journalist' become obsolete? Are there credited, accurate, well-researched sources of news out there on the internet? If newspapers, magazines, etc., become obsolete, will there be anyone out there fighting to keep citizens informed? Were newspapers/magazines/what-have-you doing this in the first place? What will become of all the journalists/journalism majors?

My Childhood Dream....

So when I was young, my dream job was to be a journalist - but not the reporting the news type, moreso the 'writing my opinion' type. (I am sure my readers find this VERY hard to believe.) Specifically, I wanted to write an advice column. I wanted to be 'Dear Abby'. I wanted to write and I wanted to give advice to people about their problems. I'm also not sure what makes one qualified to give others advice via a column, and what the steps are to get on this career path. I'm also not sure this career path exists anymore. Does anyone know the answers to these questions?

For the above reasons, it's hard to say if I'll ever get to live out this dream. Perhaps I could turn this blog into an advice column? Maybe my readers could write me their problems in the comments section and I could respond. Go ahead readers, don't be shy! Help a girl with her dream!

Two Thoughts on a Day Like Today....

1) I feel the newspaper industry deserves a bailout. Say what you will, it is no more inflexible, less modern, or hopeless than the big three, and the govt's already thrown money at them once. (Although I do realize the plethora of problems this would cause for the 'free press'. Anywho.)

2) Where is the future of journalism? Sure, there are a plethora of blogs and places for people to get their 'news', but where is the future of researched stories/investigative reporting. (Sidenote: I do understand and agree that there's plenty of an argument that newspapers aren't always non-biased or completely credible sources, etc., which I do agree with at times. However, my question is moreso who is the watchdog these days?)

I'm hoping for some answers. Perhaps anon has one or two.

O Really?

A Million Little Pieces.
The Secret.
Barack Obama.

Don't doubt the Oprah effect people!!!

As a Blogger, I Live for This....

The other day, I wrote a post about newspapers.  I got a response from "anonymous".  Special sidenote - I have a couple guesses at who this "anonymous" might be.  However, the one thing that confuses me is, although I know many who might say something like this, ALL would sign their name to it.  Hmm. 

Anyhow, anonymous says:

"Print newspapers are a dying breed. Coverage of the G-Rod arrest is a perfect example of how print news has little use anymore.

He was taken into custody on Tuesday around 7 AM. If you learned of this news via the Wednesday morning paper, you are probably living in an area which not only doesn't have internet or TV; you probably don't even have electricity."

All right.  Ding, round two....

There is definitely a point that news happens more than once every 24 hours.  Newspapers probably aren't the best when it comes to 'breaking the news', but this isn't new.  Yes, the radio, tv, internet, etc. are probably all better at this.

However, a newspaper's sole purpose isn't 'breaking the news'.  There is something tangible, real and lasting about a newspaper.  At one time there was a certain buzz and excitement after a big event about 'seeing the headlines tomorrow' (yes, anonymous, headlines of stories about events that people were, indeed, already aware of).   Whether or not that buzz still exists is another argument entirely, however, I do know this - the day after Obama's election, there was a huge rush of people in line to get a copy of the morning after's paper (and I HIGHLY HIGHLY doubt it was to find out who won the election).  I know a lot of people were interested in preserving their copies and keeping them for years to come.  I question if these same people were printing up blog headlines and putting them in a safe place.  

Anyhow, one can most definitely question the future of newspapers in today's world, however, as I see it, there is undeniably something newspapers bring to the table that other forms of news media do not.  

I Wonder....

It was not a good day for The Chicago Tribune.  I feel for them.  There are also rumors about the future of The New York Times.  

There are a lot of companies in general in turmoil right now.  (I know, f'ing duh!)

However, for me this raises a series of questions.  Where are people getting their news these days (if not from newspapers)?  Cable news shows?  I know there's a cult following of junkies, such as yours truly, however, I don't know if they are facing an increased audience as some others are facing a decreased audience.  The internet?  Perhaps.  More specifically - are people getting their news from blogs?!  Are they credible news blogs written by researchers/reporters (such as the newspapers' websites), or any random blogs, like THIS ONE?!?!

(I guess maybe that's better than getting your news Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity.  Couldn't resist.)

Or, I guess maybe there's another option.  Are people not 'getting their news' at all?  

Do Nice Guys Finish Last?

So, as all my readers know, my mother periodically saves me articles from the "other" paper.  Here was one I found particularly of interest:

Apparently, in a previous column (this is what I've gathered from what I read), a man, "Greg", wrote in expressing his frustration that....wait for it....Nice Guys Finish Last!  Hrumph!  He apparently is a self-described "5" out of 10 with a great sense of humor, and, of course, is nice, yet he keeps striking out with the women he pursues.  It must mean, of course, that women just don't like nice guys.  (Insert blogger's eye roll here.)  

  

In this column, both women and men wrote in with advice in response.  There was a general consensus amongst women and a general consensus amongst men, but not between the groups.

Women claimed that this, indeed, in not true.  Greg's issue is that he is going after the wrong women.   He is a 5, perhaps he is going after 8s and 9s...maybe he'd have much better luck in the 4-6 range?  Maybe the problem isn't women, but rather, the kind of women he's attracted to.  Maybe if he's nice but average looking and he really wants to be in a relationship he should look for a nice but average looking girl?

The men had quite a different take - yep, women like nice men when they need someone to drive them somewhere, listen to them, or fix their sink.  Nice guys are great when a woman needs to complain about the jerk they are sleeping with.  However, when it comes to someone to date/sleep with, women want the hot bad boy.  A twice-divorced fifty-something man wrote something to the extent that when women say they want a nice guy, they really are saying 'we want a really really good-looking nice guy'.  

Obviously, I find these men's views of women and what we want to be rather ill-contrived and almost humorous.  However, I could see men finding a lot of flaws in the women's views on the subject - we don't date someone just because they are fair match-up on the looks scale nor is someone simply being equally appealing as ourselves a good argument to date that person.  

I raise a question to "Greg" - what exactly is he looking for in a girl?  We will all say that it's important that we are 'attracted' to our mate - how much this involves actual physical attractiveness varies from individual to individual.  If he expects to lean on his 'niceness' to generate attraction - is he attracted to niceness?   What exactly IS he attracted to?  (Or, what are these other guys attracted to if they are being used for favors by these women they pursue?  I wouldn't call that the work of 'nice girls'.)   These men who complain women don't like nice men - do they like nice women?

So, here is my advice to Greg all of the nice yet romantically frustrated people of the world:  if you are a person whose greatest, and rather noble, selling point is that you are nice - perhaps this isn't an opposites attract kind of deal.  Maybe you should look for someone who, first and foremost,  possesses the same quality.  I can't help believing that he's not quite doing this at the moment, and maybe if he does, it will generate considerably less frustration.  

Frivilous Lawsuits!?!

Taken from today's Sun-Times:

A man who drank five margaritas before arriving at a Connecticut train station, boarding the wrong train and then injuring his ankle as he tried to jump off, has sued Amtrak for not taking sufficient steps to prevent a man who had drunk five margaritas from getting on the wrong train and trying to jump off.

Dating Double Standards

So, there was an article in the, ahem, other paper - it was an excellent piece entitled something like "Why Can't Carrie Think Big?"   In short, it addressed that fact that many people comment on Carrie Bradshaw (SJP) dating a man (Chris Noth) who might be 'out of her league' per societal standards.  

I've heard criticisms of the Carrie/Big relationship from women moreso than men (most likely because more women are familiar with SATC).  Here's my beef though - we VERY often see and seem to accept the beautiful girl paired with the average joe guy - Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen in Knocked Up, Heather Graham and Mike Myers in Austin Powers, Christie Brinkley and Billy Joel in real life, etc.   However, we RARELY see the reverse.  I honestly can't even think of another example other than Carrie and Big.

Why is that?

Whenever there's the latter mismatch, there's always the whole 'oh, he's really funny' (Sidenote:  funny is ALWAYS the first quality society seems to think women want in their man - if this is true, why aren't we all dating clowns or stand-up comedians??!).    Or, if not funny, it's assumed that the man has some other attractive quality, such as intelligence, successfulness, or kindness.  

However, Carrie Bradshaw is witty and independently successful - she should get the same absolution less than perfect looking men get, no?  Why is it assumed that men will pick their romantic partners solely on superficial qualities, yet women are expected to look at the big picture?

On a similar note, I remember, a couple years ago, one of the networks had a dating reality show called "Average Joe", in which a bunch of moderately-attractive-at-best men were vying for the hand of an attractive woman.   I didn't watch this show, but from the few commercials I saw, it didn't appear as though this leading lady was going to win Miss Congeniality any time soon.  So, what was their reason for pursuing her (aside from the fact that it was a reality show and there was probably some financial prize they were pursuing as well)??   

I find the whole situation ironic - it was fine for these men to apply superficial standards when picking a mate, but this woman was urged to look beneath the surface.  On the same note, I do not remember there ever being an 'Average Jane' counterpart to this show.  Why is it that a woman dating a less than perfect man is widely embraced, but a man with a less than perfect woman is generally non-existent - at least in Hollywood?

It seems as though the double-standard is alive in well in the eyes and minds of both men and women.   Do we still see a woman's primary role in a relationship to be 'sitting pretty'?  Why can't we accept the idea of a man being attracted to wit, ambition, or a kind soul over appearance?  Are looks really THAT important to men?

I honestly don't know if I think men are more superficial than women on the whole - a faithful part of me wants to think they are not.   However, why do we struggle with the idea of the hot guy with an average girl, but the pairing of the hot girl and average guy is a duo of heroes?