<![CDATA[Gawker: the way things work]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: the way things work]]> http://gawker.com/tag/thewaythingswork http://gawker.com/tag/thewaythingswork <![CDATA[How to Turn a Correction into an Exclusive]]> New York Post, November 13: "Lou Dobbs walked away from more than $9 million when he quit CNN." And today, the Post has a brand new "EXCLUSIVE".

CNN was so sick of Lou Dobbs, it gave him an $8 million severance package to leave, The Post has learned.

They don't teach you that move in J-school.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5405663&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Depressed? Anxious? Internet Addiction Could Be For You!]]> We always thought that just nerds were felled by the 21st century's most over-hyped ailment: internet addiction. We were wrong. Some smarty pants scientists have crunched the numbers and figured out exactly who falls prey to the World Wide Web.

After studying 2,300 11-year olds, Taiwanese researchers found that internet addicts are, shockingly, a lot like drug addicts:

Across the sexes, they found depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), social phobia or feelings of hostility to be the most prevalent predictors of which children would go on to develop an internet addiction as adolescents.

For girls, social phobia and depression were markedly the strongest predictors, the team report.

The report's writers declare they want to "alert pediatricians to what might become a major public health problem," which now means that parents, doctors and other busy bodies can take this information and apply it to virtual addiction camps which, oh yes, have been cropping up across China.

Then kids, overwhelmed by all the meddling, will take up good old fashioned addictions, like weed and smack. World order, restored!

Image via altemark's flickr.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5374997&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Five Politicians Who Get Halliburton Love, Money]]> It's likely been a while since you thought of Halliburton, the oil-loving company once headed by Dick Cheney. Well, Halliburton hasn't stopped thinking of you. Or, at least, the U.S.A. It's PAC continues throwing money at politicians.

Since the start of the current election cycle, the Halliburton PAC has donated about $32,500 dollars to multiple lawmakers, most of them Republicans. That's no surprise, of course, for the company has a long history of cuddling up to the GOP. During the last cycle, they gave $147,500 to that party. So, who are they rooting for this season? A lot of people, but, as the Supreme Court again takes a look at corporations and campaign financing, here are the top five.

 <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged BOB BENNETT" title="Click here to read more posts tagged BOB BENNETT" href="http://gawker.com/tag/bob-bennett/">Bob Bennett</a>: This Republican Senator from Utah has previously been hailed as one of the more liberal members of his party, but that hardly means much. He rejects affirmative action quotas, supported Bush's wiretapping program and calls himself an architect of TARP. And, by some strange coincidence, the man vying for his seat, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, says Bennett's <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13102309?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com">top five political donors</a> have received millions of dollars from the TARP scheme. Why did Halliburton give his reelection committee $3,000? Our guess: Bennett's a big-wig on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
 <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged JIM DEMINT" title="Click here to read more posts tagged JIM DEMINT" href="http://gawker.com/tag/jim-demint/">Jim Demint</a>: This Senator, who comes from South Carolina, received $2,500 from Halliburton's PAC. While he doesn't have a seat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he is a conservative favorite and currently ranks as the number one Republican fundraiser. Even Mitt Romney has given him money, which has some people &mdash; ie, this editor &mdash; wondering if Demint has larger aspirations.
 <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged LISA MURKOWSKI" title="Click here to read more posts tagged LISA MURKOWSKI" href="http://gawker.com/tag/lisa-murkowski/">Lisa Murkowski</a>: Like Bennett, Murkowski, seen here with <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged SARAH PALIN" title="Click here to read more posts tagged SARAH PALIN" href="http://gawker.com/tag/sarah-palin/">Sarah Palin</a>, sits on the ENR Committee and also received $2,500. And, like a lover of good old fashioned energy, this Arizona native supports offshore drilling, especially in Alaska. Could it be that Halliburton's hoping she'll give them an advantage for a planet-decimating project?
 <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged DAVID VITTER" title="Click here to read more posts tagged DAVID VITTER" href="http://gawker.com/tag/david-vitter/">David Vitter</a>: You no doubt know about David Vitter, who has received $2,000 from the Halliburton PAC. He's the Louisiana Senator who admitted to hiring prostitutes. He does not sit on the ENR Committee, but is a voracious opponent of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which set parameters on how nations can treat their ocean territory. Not surprisingly, that document sets limits on how far out nations can go to mine in their waters. He's also a die-hard conservative who opposes gay rights and supports prayer at school board meetings. Bleck.
 <a class="autolink" title="Click here to read more posts tagged BLANCHE LINCOLN" title="Click here to read more posts tagged BLANCHE LINCOLN" href="http://gawker.com/tag/blanche-lincoln/">Blanche Lincoln</a>: Lincoln's the Halliburton PAC's favorite Democrat and has received $2,000 from the organization. She comes from Arkansas and, yes, sits on the ENR Committee. Also, just as a note, she opposes the public health care option.
Want to see more of Halliburton PAC's preferred candidates? Head over to <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00035691">Open Secrets</a>.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5351566&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[That Oxygen? Thank Seafaring Virus!]]> Oxygen. It's a blessed, life-sustaining thing. We all need it. We all love it. And for so many years we were giving kudos to trees, whose photosynthesis takes in yucky carbon dioxide and gives us that life gas. No more!

A cyanophage virus may sound scary, but it turns out the little bugger, which infects sea algae, may be responsible for as much as 5% of our lovely planet's oxygen. Though scientists always knew C.V. maintained photosynthesis while infecting the ocean's simple cyanobacteria, a clever Israeli researcher named Oded Béjà discovered that cyanophage virus actually accelerate photosynthesis, creating a "life support" system through which it keeps its paralyzed, single-celled victims alive as it infects them. It's grim, yes, but it's all for the best.

Eric Wommack of the University of Delaware in Newark says the discovery suggests these viruses may play a role in global oxygen production. "Their hosts produce half the world's oxygen and roughly 10 per cent of these cells are infected by cyanophages," he says. "So it is possible that as much as 5 per cent of the world's oxygen production results from cyanophage infected cells."

The lesson here? Well, that's the way the world works: we humans thrive off of and, in fact, need the misery of dumber, lowlier creatures to continue wreaking our own brand of parasitic havoc. It's called the "circle of life" and it works!

But, sadly, we're polluting our oceans — there's a huge trash heap floating in the Pacific — so who knows how much longer this little arrangement will last. Could be the cyanophages will die out and we'll all find ourselves hugging those trees again.

Image via jurveston's flickr.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5349012&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Pigs, Pinkos Fail to Unite For Love]]> The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.The 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago was a hellish haze of violent street battles between self-righteous Commie bastards and self-righteous violent pigs. Forty-one years later, both groups are still self-righteous!

To commemorate the historic bloodshed, the fucking cops got together to congratulate themselves on smiting the lawless hippie menace:

"From the pictures the media showed, it always looked like poor little Jimmy was getting attacked by the police, but what they didn't see was what Jimmy did just a minute before," said Tom Rowan, 65, a retired officer. "Everybody who got hit during the convention may not have deserved it, but 95 percent of them did."

Meanwhile, the anarchist protesters who came to Chicago as college kids to throw bricks and some poor terrified young cop who was just out there doing his job to feed his family are still acting just as outraged about the mere existence of police:

Some among the thousands who had demonstrated in 1968, meanwhile, said they were appalled by the notion of a reunion party, and others who have objected to Chicago police officers' behaviors in more recent years and even months considered the meeting an affront worthy of a protest march, which materialized with signs and musical instruments and old convention photographs just down the block from where the former officers had gathered.

In this way we see that—no matter how passionate our political differences—the healing passage of time can calcify those differences into resolute hatred for one another.

[NYT. Pic via]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5303635&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Where Greeting the UPS Guy Counts as Journalism]]> What does an 'editorial' assistant do at Condé Nast? Fill in for fired receptionists.


]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5212785&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Hollywood's New China Rule]]> stonetibet.jpegSharon Stone has finally apologized for her "inappropriate" comment that the recent massive Chinese earthquake was a product of "bad karma" for the country for its treatment on Tibet. She's sorry, okay! Nevertheless, fashion house Christian Dior announced that it's pulling all of its ads featuring the actress from all department stores, and the entire country of China. Though the comment itself was stupid, Stone's hasty retreat from her brash Tibet-championing—and Dior's even harsher public rebuke of her—are a great illustration of what is becoming the New China Rule: "Do Not Talk About The New China Rule." It's been de rigeur for top stars to prove their class by endorsing luxury brands, and to prove their morality by pontificating about Tibet. But guess what: pretty soon you're going to have to pick one or the other, Hollywood. And it's not looking good for the Dalai Lama.

Everybody wants IN to the Chinese market. This particularly goes for high-end luxury brands, which are slobbering over the prospect of Chinese people—more than a billion of them!—soon having enough money to start buying their products. As the country gains a stronger middle and upper class, Dior and Armani and Chanel and Vuitton and all their friends are counting on a huge new customer base. Politics be damned!

And all the stars who model for, receive freebies from, or endorse all these brands? They're going to have to shut their traps about Tibet. China accepts no dissent on the issue. The Chinese government will happily blacklist any company foolish enough to publicly raise the issue, and no company would ever do such a thing. Nor will they allow their endorsers to. It's as simple as that. Every major company on earth has, thus far, folded in the face of Chinese totalitarianism, because the promise of their untapped customer base is too good to sacrifice for an abstract political cause. The shareholders want profits, not slogans.

So here's a prediction: In the future, the only Hollywood stars to loudly adopt the Tibet issue will be those who are too old or unpopular to land the juiciest luxury endorsements. Or maybe some of them will willingly ditch their endorsements in order to continue arguing for the cause? Ha ha! Yea, we hope so too. Maybe Richard Gere will stick it out.

Think that's cynical? The same thing has already happened in the sports world. NBA superstar Lebron James refused to sign a letter from ten of his own teammates condemning China's business connection to the atrocities in Darfur. Why? Because he has a $100 million contract with Nike, and the Olympics are coming up in Beijing, and Nike wants a big piece, as well as big peace. Most other big name athletes have already fallen in line as well.

Hopefully the Dalai Lama can do without Beverly Hills.

[Photo via Getty]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=393914&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA["It Takes A BIG IDEA To Jolt The Consumer Out Of His Indifference"]]> ogilvyad.jpeg"Our Mercedes-Benz advertising is positioned to fit noncomformists who scoff at 'status symbols' and reject flimflam appeals to snobbery." So wrote David Ogilvy, founding father of the classic ad agency Ogilvy & Mather, four decades ago. If you can figure that quote out, you will understand just about everything there is to know about the effect that advertising has on our minds. It's taken from a 1,900 word, 38-point treatise by Ogilvy called "How to create advertising that sells," which gives a punchy rundown of his personal knowledge as one of the premier ad men in America. But Ogilvy would not have been able to predict what he has wrought. It only takes three key points to tell the story of conventional wisdom gone awry.

"5. A first-class ticket. It pays to give most products an image of quality—a first-class ticket."

godaddyad.jpeg


"12. Testimonials: Avoid irrelevant celebrities...Either celebrities or real people can be effective. But avoid irrelevant celebrities whose fame has no natural connection with your product or your customers."

parishiltonad.jpeg


"21. Animation & Cartoons. Less than five percent of television commercials use cartoons or animation. They are less persuasive than live commercials...However, Carson/ Roberts, our partners in Los Angeles, tell us that animation can be helpful when you are talking to children."

joecamel.jpeg

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=364798&view=rss&microfeed=true