Nobody but Ginsburg seems to comprehend that the only locker rooms in which teenage girls strut around, bored but fabulous in their underwear, are to be found in porno movies. For the rest of us, the middle-school locker room was a place for hastily removing our bras without taking off our T-shirts.I was horrified and outraged when reading this piece, seeing how completely the judges just were in their lack of empathy. The administrators went on rumor, didn't think it worthy enough to call the parents before embarking on the humilating enterprise, and all for something that's not worth it in the least. Zero-tolerance policies--which got its root in the Columbine school shootings a decade ago last week--were always an overreaction to anything bad a kid did, and this case just brings to light how insane and inappropriate the policy has become. Many articles discussing Savana Redding's story point out the discrepancy between the laws on the books, that teenagers who willingly send provocative photos of themselves to others can be prosecuted under child pornography laws yet it's perfectly legal for them to be forcibly strip searched in front of strange adults for nebulous reasons, a point that is hampered on again and again because it's just so out of whack. Both situations cause emotional turmoil, but it is the school's responsibility that they don't sanction humilation and emotional strife at the hands of its employees.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
This is why we should have diversity on the court
The only sane voice, according to Dahlia Lithwick, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not coincidentally the only woman on the court:
Twitter, Celebrity, and Being Ambiently Aware
The genesis of this post is from the New York Times Magazine story on Twitter that ran in September. Most of it, including everything on Julia Allison, was written following its publication. This is part one out of a two-parter on Twitter; I felt that the second entry was incomplete without this one. I have tried to keep the spirit of my thoughts from several months ago intact, and tried not to reference anything that has since taken place.
A few weeks ago, I contemplated joining Twitter. I liked the idea of posing a question and getting responses, and it’s supposed to be great for business. But then I read “I’m So Totally, Digitally Close to You”, and said absolutely no way.
Although I’ve previously disparaged the service—a cross between Facebook status updates and AIM away messages—as being a little too connected, a little too much work for me, I toyed with the idea. It’s great for soliciting opinions, finding information, and a lot of businesses are using it this way. In certain industries, often involving the media (marketing, PR, advertising, journalism), it’s touted as a way for journalists to get a feel for what’s out there. Of course, at this point, I know one person on Twitter, and it’s an outgrowth of her job. It’s one of those things that people will join if others are on it. But I still cranked, sounding like a crotchety old fogey, “Why would anyone want to constantly update their profiles every five minutes with what they’re thinking or doing? Who has that kind of time?” It would also take stalking to a whole new level.
But Thompson’s piece, which discusses how social networking sites, specifically Twitter, are creating a whole new type of intimacy, made me think of the status message in a whole new way.
This brings me to Julia Allison.
I first heard of Julia Allison when she made the cover of Time Out New York’s Valentine’s Day issue. She’s holding up a paper that says “Call me!” and the phone number underneath is her actual number. This fact alone got a lot of press, though apparently she was already somewhat well-known to a type of New York media/tech/web/gossip follower.
Some have called Allison the real-life, Gen-Y version of Carrie Bradshaw, others a type of Paris Hilton, since she’s essentially famous for no reason.
Allison is both fascinating and repulsive at the same time, because she exhibits the type of exhibition and narcissism that is a hallmark of our generation and of the underbelly of our current culture. Her genius, as explored in the August issue of Wired, is that she marketed herself. She wanted to be famous—excuse me, “cult figure”—so she used the tools at her disposal—mainly the web—to get it. Although she has written for AM New York, Time Out New York and is some sort of consultant for Star magazine, these are merely footnotes in her biography. What’s greater is the relationships she’s exploited to become famous. She’s dated a lot of powerful media and tech types, and has written about this in detail in the way that is compulsively horrifying, then adding commentary upon commentary upon other’s criticism of her relationships. It gets very meta, very confusing in the way that is so wonderful and awful about the Internet.
As writer Jason Tanz put it, “Allison’s greatest accomplishment isn’t the volume of content she creates; it’s that she gets anyone to care about it. Her trick, she says, is to think of herself as the subject of a magazine profile, with every post or update adding dimensions to her as a character.”
Wired’s piece, in addition to another fantastic New York Times Magazine feature, this time by Emily Gould, discuss how the Internet blurs reality—how you can get so caught up with going online that your real life outside of the computer no longer feels real. It, essentially, takes over your life. The computer becomes a compulsion, a poor substitute for real human contact. It has saved and helped numerous people immeasurable, but it has also been used for much harm and pain, and we often do it to ourselves. Our little corner can get bigger and bigger, until it engulfs us, and we feel it’s the entire world, and that it’s the only thing that matters.
Internet hype, internet celebrity, does that. At the end of every season, it feels like, to turn on the TV or open a paper, that American Idol is the only thing going on, yet in a few weeks the names will have faded, and in a few years those same names will be reduced to trivia answers. Parlaying internet notoriety is a hell of a lot harder than it sometimes seems, because the nature of the beast is that information moves fast, too fast for most people to play.
But that is the way of the world today, and like they said in the ‘60s, you can “turn on, tune in, or drop out.” Dropping out never seems to last for long, as both Gould and Allison can attest, as they are suckered back in after vowing to keep their lives private. But this break should be more accurately called a respite, since that’s what it is; they never fully extricate themselves from the past they have written, and even if they did, their past is still there for anyone to find.
A few weeks ago, I contemplated joining Twitter. I liked the idea of posing a question and getting responses, and it’s supposed to be great for business. But then I read “I’m So Totally, Digitally Close to You”, and said absolutely no way.
Although I’ve previously disparaged the service—a cross between Facebook status updates and AIM away messages—as being a little too connected, a little too much work for me, I toyed with the idea. It’s great for soliciting opinions, finding information, and a lot of businesses are using it this way. In certain industries, often involving the media (marketing, PR, advertising, journalism), it’s touted as a way for journalists to get a feel for what’s out there. Of course, at this point, I know one person on Twitter, and it’s an outgrowth of her job. It’s one of those things that people will join if others are on it. But I still cranked, sounding like a crotchety old fogey, “Why would anyone want to constantly update their profiles every five minutes with what they’re thinking or doing? Who has that kind of time?” It would also take stalking to a whole new level.
But Thompson’s piece, which discusses how social networking sites, specifically Twitter, are creating a whole new type of intimacy, made me think of the status message in a whole new way.
At the basic level, it’s is a version of intimacy—a version that often feels so real it’s hard to remember that’s it’s not true intimacy. Who doesn’t wish for some updated profile, an away message, something, to tide you over when you want to talk to a specific person and they aren’t there?
The overarching point isn’t new; most people find social sites to be a way to keep in touch with friends far easier, a way of keeping everyone up-to-date. They’re also great for networking, for keeping “weak ties”—those people you had class with, long-ago coworkers and neighbors—within reach.
I know for me, online contact has made my relationships richer. In addition to blogs, texting, phone calls and face time, I’ve been able to see what my friends have been thinking. This sounds like I always know everything, but this is far from the case, as very few of these channels are used frequently by any one of my friends and they rarely overlap.
Social networking sites have been a godsend to me. As a kid, I was terrible about keeping in touch—I thought about my friends, I wanted to talk to them, but translating that to action, to write a letter or to call a home line and go through parents, was the hard part. It shouldn’t be, but the privacy of the technological revolution, of everyone having their own email address, Facebook profile, and mobile line, also made it easier to have a private conversation.
Yet the biggest question of all is the future, how our generation (and future ones) will react to having most or all of their life documented. How do you erase those memories when they are up for everyone to see? Before the pictures would be stashed in drawers or albums, if not thrown away—only looked at when stumbled upon, or necessitating a move or some cathartic curiosity. Can you ever get over anyone if you are in constant touch, if their picture or profile is so readily available? Thompson touches on this, using a very common example of a break-up.
I once remember a friend of mine officially announcing her relationship on Facebook. I woke up one Sunday morning, logged onto Facebook, and saw the news. It was inevitable, both the fact they made it official and that one day I would receive major news via Facebook first, but I was disappointed that I hadn’t been told in person before it was online for the world to see. I still feel this way, but I’ve realized that finding out personally first is a rarity now; the first thing most people do when they have major news (especially of a romantic variety) is to broadcast it on Facebook. After all, we realized that they put up this notice immediately after they had the conversation. It’s the easiest way; it saves time, rather than telling all your close friends personally and then letting the news filter through, this way everyone knows at more or less the same time.
But cutting off ties online isn’t so easy, as you cannot erase or force information about other people to disappear just because you are angry, unlike the age-old image of ripping up an old photo. People grow and change, move on and move away…yet you are still connected, still able to follow along the rough outlines of their life regardless of them knowing.
Sociologists call this “ambient awareness”, being aware through constant contact, but in a sort of passive way. We don’t have to actually see people in person, talk to them on the phone; we can just read their updates and “know” them. But we don’t really know them at all; even online contact with good friends is a poor substitute for real contact, as anyone who’s misunderstood an AIM message can attest.
But online interactions open one up to the world. Feeling bored, lonely, left out? Join an online community—there are millions, at least one guaranteed to find something that piques your interest. Seriously. Sounds like a kind of heaven, doesn’t it? People who are willing to talk to you about anything, anytime, sometimes even in real time!
People suddenly seem to have more friends. Quantifying relationships would be a depressing and frustrating exercise—who goes into what category?—but luckily, social networking sites do the heavy lifting for you. The biggest benefit to all of these new relationships is that you suddenly realize that you “know” a lot of people.
Twitter uses followers, not friends, delineating that even those these people are interested in what you say, they don’t know you; you follow information about them, like a favorite star, because they are funny, but you don’t know them personally. It’s just on an incredibly micro level.
But this constant self-disclosure, the openness into the mundanity of life, can define you. Twitter, as much as any other social-networking tool, can be used to foster your identity, to essentially, create yourself as you want others to see you, in all its trite detail.
The overarching point isn’t new; most people find social sites to be a way to keep in touch with friends far easier, a way of keeping everyone up-to-date. They’re also great for networking, for keeping “weak ties”—those people you had class with, long-ago coworkers and neighbors—within reach.
I know for me, online contact has made my relationships richer. In addition to blogs, texting, phone calls and face time, I’ve been able to see what my friends have been thinking. This sounds like I always know everything, but this is far from the case, as very few of these channels are used frequently by any one of my friends and they rarely overlap.
Social networking sites have been a godsend to me. As a kid, I was terrible about keeping in touch—I thought about my friends, I wanted to talk to them, but translating that to action, to write a letter or to call a home line and go through parents, was the hard part. It shouldn’t be, but the privacy of the technological revolution, of everyone having their own email address, Facebook profile, and mobile line, also made it easier to have a private conversation.
Yet the biggest question of all is the future, how our generation (and future ones) will react to having most or all of their life documented. How do you erase those memories when they are up for everyone to see? Before the pictures would be stashed in drawers or albums, if not thrown away—only looked at when stumbled upon, or necessitating a move or some cathartic curiosity. Can you ever get over anyone if you are in constant touch, if their picture or profile is so readily available? Thompson touches on this, using a very common example of a break-up.
I once remember a friend of mine officially announcing her relationship on Facebook. I woke up one Sunday morning, logged onto Facebook, and saw the news. It was inevitable, both the fact they made it official and that one day I would receive major news via Facebook first, but I was disappointed that I hadn’t been told in person before it was online for the world to see. I still feel this way, but I’ve realized that finding out personally first is a rarity now; the first thing most people do when they have major news (especially of a romantic variety) is to broadcast it on Facebook. After all, we realized that they put up this notice immediately after they had the conversation. It’s the easiest way; it saves time, rather than telling all your close friends personally and then letting the news filter through, this way everyone knows at more or less the same time.
But cutting off ties online isn’t so easy, as you cannot erase or force information about other people to disappear just because you are angry, unlike the age-old image of ripping up an old photo. People grow and change, move on and move away…yet you are still connected, still able to follow along the rough outlines of their life regardless of them knowing.
Sociologists call this “ambient awareness”, being aware through constant contact, but in a sort of passive way. We don’t have to actually see people in person, talk to them on the phone; we can just read their updates and “know” them. But we don’t really know them at all; even online contact with good friends is a poor substitute for real contact, as anyone who’s misunderstood an AIM message can attest.
But online interactions open one up to the world. Feeling bored, lonely, left out? Join an online community—there are millions, at least one guaranteed to find something that piques your interest. Seriously. Sounds like a kind of heaven, doesn’t it? People who are willing to talk to you about anything, anytime, sometimes even in real time!
People suddenly seem to have more friends. Quantifying relationships would be a depressing and frustrating exercise—who goes into what category?—but luckily, social networking sites do the heavy lifting for you. The biggest benefit to all of these new relationships is that you suddenly realize that you “know” a lot of people.
Twitter uses followers, not friends, delineating that even those these people are interested in what you say, they don’t know you; you follow information about them, like a favorite star, because they are funny, but you don’t know them personally. It’s just on an incredibly micro level.
But this constant self-disclosure, the openness into the mundanity of life, can define you. Twitter, as much as any other social-networking tool, can be used to foster your identity, to essentially, create yourself as you want others to see you, in all its trite detail.
This brings me to Julia Allison.
I first heard of Julia Allison when she made the cover of Time Out New York’s Valentine’s Day issue. She’s holding up a paper that says “Call me!” and the phone number underneath is her actual number. This fact alone got a lot of press, though apparently she was already somewhat well-known to a type of New York media/tech/web/gossip follower.
Some have called Allison the real-life, Gen-Y version of Carrie Bradshaw, others a type of Paris Hilton, since she’s essentially famous for no reason.
Allison is both fascinating and repulsive at the same time, because she exhibits the type of exhibition and narcissism that is a hallmark of our generation and of the underbelly of our current culture. Her genius, as explored in the August issue of Wired, is that she marketed herself. She wanted to be famous—excuse me, “cult figure”—so she used the tools at her disposal—mainly the web—to get it. Although she has written for AM New York, Time Out New York and is some sort of consultant for Star magazine, these are merely footnotes in her biography. What’s greater is the relationships she’s exploited to become famous. She’s dated a lot of powerful media and tech types, and has written about this in detail in the way that is compulsively horrifying, then adding commentary upon commentary upon other’s criticism of her relationships. It gets very meta, very confusing in the way that is so wonderful and awful about the Internet.
As writer Jason Tanz put it, “Allison’s greatest accomplishment isn’t the volume of content she creates; it’s that she gets anyone to care about it. Her trick, she says, is to think of herself as the subject of a magazine profile, with every post or update adding dimensions to her as a character.”
Wired’s piece, in addition to another fantastic New York Times Magazine feature, this time by Emily Gould, discuss how the Internet blurs reality—how you can get so caught up with going online that your real life outside of the computer no longer feels real. It, essentially, takes over your life. The computer becomes a compulsion, a poor substitute for real human contact. It has saved and helped numerous people immeasurable, but it has also been used for much harm and pain, and we often do it to ourselves. Our little corner can get bigger and bigger, until it engulfs us, and we feel it’s the entire world, and that it’s the only thing that matters.
Internet hype, internet celebrity, does that. At the end of every season, it feels like, to turn on the TV or open a paper, that American Idol is the only thing going on, yet in a few weeks the names will have faded, and in a few years those same names will be reduced to trivia answers. Parlaying internet notoriety is a hell of a lot harder than it sometimes seems, because the nature of the beast is that information moves fast, too fast for most people to play.
But that is the way of the world today, and like they said in the ‘60s, you can “turn on, tune in, or drop out.” Dropping out never seems to last for long, as both Gould and Allison can attest, as they are suckered back in after vowing to keep their lives private. But this break should be more accurately called a respite, since that’s what it is; they never fully extricate themselves from the past they have written, and even if they did, their past is still there for anyone to find.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Journalism School Now??
I know people do crazy things in a recession, but taking out a student loan for a degree that won’t give an edge in a wheezing industry actually makes gettingExactly.
an MBA look smart.
Forbes reported that enrollment at journalism schools is soaring. Huh? Media jobs are hard enough for undergrads to get, so why they hell are you going to pay $40,000+ a year, incurring millions of dollars in debt to become poor? And these kids aren't going to want to be working for a PR or marketing agency after a stint at J-school.
Forbes also lists that there will be a tiny increase for entry-level reporters and news anchors by 2016, and positions for experienced writers and editors will grow by 10%, which I find hard to believe, even if they are for trade publications, freelancers and digital media. Maybe it's just the cost-cutting going on now, or the fact that there's an excess of writers and editors without a large enough, supportable structure in place.
The Forbes piece, much to my disappointment, doesn't really go into the detail I'd have liked. I've read many times before that the only benefit to J-school is the connections, but nowadays I feel that's crap--follow enough people on Twitter, read enough blogs, put real effort into this kind of networking (and create your own stuff), and you too, can make it. Julia Allison is the master at it. I admire many New York writers--there's no reason I can't meet some of them someday, I reason; I don't live far, I'm familiar with their work, I just need to be at the right place at the right time.
I'm sure J-school does have a purpose, real training for real journalism, and the kinds of opportunities that aren't available for those cub reporters that can no longer be because every day a new publication bites the dust. They're an in.
This reminds me of a teleseminar I attended recently at work, where one of the editors of Good Housekeeping (or similar magazine) had a MA in journalism from a top-notch school. And you're working here?, I thought. What a waste. And then I felt bad--what if she couldn't get anything better? But writing fluff copy for midwestern moms pays a living.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
April Fool's Joke of the Day
From The Guardian:
Entry on Twitter forthcoming...
Consolidating its position at the cutting edge of new media technology, the Guardian today announces that it will become the first newspaper in the world to be published exclusively via Twitter, the sensationally popular social networking service that has transformed online communication.
[...]
A mammoth project is also under way to rewrite the whole of the newspaper's archive, stretching back to 1821, in the form of tweets. Major stories already
completed include "1832 Reform Act gives voting rights to one in five adult males yay!!!"; "OMG Hitler invades Poland, allies declare war see tinyurl.com/b5x6e for more"; and "JFK assassin8d @ Dallas, def. heard second gunshot from grassy knoll WTF?"
Entry on Twitter forthcoming...
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Interesting Fact of the Day
Did you know that gay men cannot donate blood?
The FDA put a lifetime ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men in 1983, because most HIV cases are spread by homosexual men, and fears of AIDS were rampant.
The FDA also prohibits people who have taken steroids, born or lived in certain countries, or who have had a blood transfusion in Britain or France. There's a whole list here.
The FDA put a lifetime ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men in 1983, because most HIV cases are spread by homosexual men, and fears of AIDS were rampant.
The FDA also prohibits people who have taken steroids, born or lived in certain countries, or who have had a blood transfusion in Britain or France. There's a whole list here.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Spotlight on Children and Healthy Eating
I read the Well blog frequently; I have to for work, but I read most of it because I’m genuinely interested in its content. In the past few days, Tara Parker-Pope has written two entries that deal with children and food, one of her many pet topics.
Friday’s “Slowing Down School Lunch” featured a short interview with Dr. Arthur Agatston, a cardiologist who has done studies on elementary schools and children’s eating, seeing how the shortened school lunch period negatively affects students’ eating habits. “Children in America today are often overfed and undernourished,” he said, and cites the positive turnaround that antismoking campaigns have done for children’s health, hoping that a similar initiative can be put in place to foster healthy eating.
I spent every day in middle school bitching about how short my lunch period was. The time did not change in high school, but by then I was used to it and resigned to the fact that there was nothing I could do. Lunch was twenty minutes, which included time from the bell to get out of the previous class to the bell that announced the next class begin, and in that time you had to fit in walking to and from your locker, exchanging books, walking to the cafeteria, possibly buying lunch (something I did approximately once a week), and using the bathroom. I also tried to squeeze in some homework or socializing in addition to eating my lunch.
That’s not enough time. I’m a slow eater—always have been, always will be—regardless if I’m doing anything other than eating. I just am. Inhaling my food has always been problematic, and I spent many lunch periods still choking down food as everyone exited, packing up my books with a banana in my mouth.
What Parker-Pope discusses goes hand in hand with the post from the previous day, how you can teach your child to eat healthy. Having quick meals encourages fast food of all stripes—frozen dinners, breakfast bars, a bag of chips. Eating an apple takes time, especially when your mouth and hands are small. And shorter lunch times, especially when faced with a ridiculous long line, bullies, and a Spanish test to study for guarantee that a trade-off is made, and that trade-off is usually to disregard lunch. And with meal times so out of whack (10:30 am, anyone, when school starts at 8), it’s often hard to eat too, especially if your body is severely sleep-deprived.
I am a big believer that children need to be exposed to lots of different things, and that includes food. They may not appreciate some of it until they are older, but sometimes children are more willing to try things than adults are, and they at least have the knowledge to recognize that they don’t like something for a concrete reason that’s not “because it’s green”.
Too many kid-centric entertainments consider children’s food the lowest common denominator, and as such perpetuate the horrible nutritional value and bad reputation of food that children like. There are children who like vegetables and healthy meals, and they don’t all live in San Francisco. Going to a McDonald’s party (do they still do those?), a Chuckie Cheese, or a movie theater is a recipe for a toothache and a stomachache, and really poor quality of pizza. It’s distressing to see children—even adults—who are reduced to chicken fingers and French fries, and their version of a salad is the basic “chicken ceasar”, nothing but some iceberg lettuce, cheese, three croutons, and creamy dressing. Gross. It also fosters children to be very narrow-minded food consumers as adults, and will balk when presented with anything different or fancy—even if a common dish’s preparation is altered. This viewpoint leads to finicky, picky people who often have poor habits and an even poorer diet, which can lead to problems down the road…which leads to higher health expenses, less mobility, less options, and a crappier quality of life. Sold?
I’m getting ahead of myself. My original intention was to highlight part of Parker-Pope’s interview with Tom Colicchio, the head judge on Top Chef. He discusses how hard it is to teach children good healthy habits in regard to food, and his experience with his son. I agree with a lot he says, and love that he points out the positive feedback his show has gotten. Food and cooking shows can be great family entertainment, and it’s encouraging to hear that Top Chef has changed viewers’ habits positively.
Friday’s “Slowing Down School Lunch” featured a short interview with Dr. Arthur Agatston, a cardiologist who has done studies on elementary schools and children’s eating, seeing how the shortened school lunch period negatively affects students’ eating habits. “Children in America today are often overfed and undernourished,” he said, and cites the positive turnaround that antismoking campaigns have done for children’s health, hoping that a similar initiative can be put in place to foster healthy eating.
I spent every day in middle school bitching about how short my lunch period was. The time did not change in high school, but by then I was used to it and resigned to the fact that there was nothing I could do. Lunch was twenty minutes, which included time from the bell to get out of the previous class to the bell that announced the next class begin, and in that time you had to fit in walking to and from your locker, exchanging books, walking to the cafeteria, possibly buying lunch (something I did approximately once a week), and using the bathroom. I also tried to squeeze in some homework or socializing in addition to eating my lunch.
That’s not enough time. I’m a slow eater—always have been, always will be—regardless if I’m doing anything other than eating. I just am. Inhaling my food has always been problematic, and I spent many lunch periods still choking down food as everyone exited, packing up my books with a banana in my mouth.
What Parker-Pope discusses goes hand in hand with the post from the previous day, how you can teach your child to eat healthy. Having quick meals encourages fast food of all stripes—frozen dinners, breakfast bars, a bag of chips. Eating an apple takes time, especially when your mouth and hands are small. And shorter lunch times, especially when faced with a ridiculous long line, bullies, and a Spanish test to study for guarantee that a trade-off is made, and that trade-off is usually to disregard lunch. And with meal times so out of whack (10:30 am, anyone, when school starts at 8), it’s often hard to eat too, especially if your body is severely sleep-deprived.
I am a big believer that children need to be exposed to lots of different things, and that includes food. They may not appreciate some of it until they are older, but sometimes children are more willing to try things than adults are, and they at least have the knowledge to recognize that they don’t like something for a concrete reason that’s not “because it’s green”.
Too many kid-centric entertainments consider children’s food the lowest common denominator, and as such perpetuate the horrible nutritional value and bad reputation of food that children like. There are children who like vegetables and healthy meals, and they don’t all live in San Francisco. Going to a McDonald’s party (do they still do those?), a Chuckie Cheese, or a movie theater is a recipe for a toothache and a stomachache, and really poor quality of pizza. It’s distressing to see children—even adults—who are reduced to chicken fingers and French fries, and their version of a salad is the basic “chicken ceasar”, nothing but some iceberg lettuce, cheese, three croutons, and creamy dressing. Gross. It also fosters children to be very narrow-minded food consumers as adults, and will balk when presented with anything different or fancy—even if a common dish’s preparation is altered. This viewpoint leads to finicky, picky people who often have poor habits and an even poorer diet, which can lead to problems down the road…which leads to higher health expenses, less mobility, less options, and a crappier quality of life. Sold?
I’m getting ahead of myself. My original intention was to highlight part of Parker-Pope’s interview with Tom Colicchio, the head judge on Top Chef. He discusses how hard it is to teach children good healthy habits in regard to food, and his experience with his son. I agree with a lot he says, and love that he points out the positive feedback his show has gotten. Food and cooking shows can be great family entertainment, and it’s encouraging to hear that Top Chef has changed viewers’ habits positively.
Does having a father who is a chef make a difference in your son’s eating habits?
I don’t think having a father as a chef makes you any more or less susceptible to eating unhealthy food. If he’s out with his friends he’s going to do what his friends are doing. He’s like most kids. He’s not a chicken finger kid, and we’re not big fast food eaters. But it’s still a struggle to get him to eat healthy food. He’d rather grab a Sprite. But he enjoys good food. His idea of a great meal is seafood.
What do you think is the most important thing you’ve done to shape his eating habits?
We’re eating healthier food at home, so he’s eating what we’re eating. For us the challenge is he likes soda and he likes sweets, so we have to limit that. I think the patterns are set very early when the kids are young. But at the same time, there are some flavors kids just don’t like. For him, he’ll eat peas, but he doesn’t like broccoli. Green was always an issue. For a while he wouldn’t eat anything with chopped parsley. He still doesn’t eat raw tomatoes, it’s the goop inside. I had the same issue when I was a kid. But there are also things he loves that he probably wouldn’t if he hadn’t been exposed to them. For instance, he loves caviar.
Do you talk to him about healthy eating?
Giving him a choice between something that is unhealthy and something healthy, that’s not the choice. It’s between good and bad, well prepared and poorly prepared. He used to complain that the school cafeteria food was so bad he wouldn’t eat it. He used to like boxed mac and cheese, but once he got the real stuff, he said he didn’t want the boxed stuff anymore.
Does it surprise you how popular your show is with kids?
I travel around and hear from so many kids. Their parents say they were always very picky but they watch the show and they want to try stuff. The show is entertainment, but I think it has done so much for the public perception of what food can be.
Should restaurants be doing more to promote healthful eating?
What chefs can do when it comes to getting the word out is have people understand food differently. If food is well sourced and well prepared, I don’t think the word healthy needs to be brought into it. It’s healthy because it’s wholesome. That’s what we should focus on. You can buy a box of low-fat macaroni and cheese made with powdered nonsense. I’m not worried if I’m using four different cheeses and it’s high in fat. It’s real food. That’s what’s more important.
What do you say to parents who work all day and rely on packaged foods for convenience?
I want to feed my kid something that is real and not processed. It’s hard to do. People are working and busy. The question is: Is it worth it? Is it worth stopping at the farm stand or supermarket to buy fresh ingredients? Even just choosing whether to buy a head of lettuce. Do you buy fresh or the prewashed lettuce in a bag with the nutrients leached out of it? That’s what’s more important to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)