Madonna's "MDNA Show Manifesto" Defends Using Guns on Tour: Do You Agree?

As we speak, Madonna is en route to my city- Philadelphia, to launch the North American leg of her "MDNA World Tour".  In advance of her arrival, she has released a statement to the local Metro defending one of the most controversial parts of her tour...the use of fake firearms in concert.  Here is a portion of that statement:

"It's true there is a lot of violence in the beginning of the show and sometimes the use of fake guns - but they are used as metaphors.  I do not condone violence or the use of guns.  Rather they are symbols of wanting to appear strong and wanting to find a way to stop feelings  that I find hurtful or damaging.   In my case its wanting to stop the lies and hypocrisy of the church,  the intolerance of many narrow minded cultures and societies I have experienced throughout my life and in some cases  the pain I have felt from having my heart broken".

Gun violence is (unfortunately) not a new problem.  However, the topic is quite timely due to increased U.S. media coverage following several mass shootings in the past few weeks- Aurora, CO, Oak Creek, WI, and New York, NY.  The issue of gun violence has reached crisis levels in Philadelphia where Madonna will be performing.  A new open source journalism project called http://guncrisis.org/ "contends that there is an epidemic of homicide by gunfire in Philadelphia and similar cities".  They are seeking solutions.

The solutions being sought by GunCrisis: Philadelphia and others involve taking a public health approach to gun violence.  The recent high profile shootings have produced several well-written pieces about gun violence and what we need to do next:

•  Prompt policy discussions about easy access to ammunition, high-capacity magazines, and assault weapons.
• Use our public health skills to conduct further research into the causes of firearm injuries.
• Examine gun violence as a social disease- one that stems from a society "saturated with guns".

Tell me what you think:

Do you believe that the gun "saturation" goes beyond those in our homes to include those used for entertainment?  E.g., Guns in movies or video games; Madonna's concert props

Is Madonna successful? Does using guns as a metaphorical image help her reach her goals and battle against hypocrisy and intolerance?

In addition to those listed above, what other strategies should we incorporate into a public health approach against gun violence?

Cameron Diaz: The Next Celebrity Nutritionist?

Cameron Diaz is busy with her next project.  Her rep confirms her interest in writing a nutrition book to help young girls.  She wants to use her celebrity for good- to encourage girls not to fixate on being thin but instead just to make healthy choices.

A few thoughts:

Of all the celebrities that I see pitching these types of projects (I'm looking at you Gwyneth Paltrow), Cameron actually seems to model a healthy lifestyle.  She is not too thin, but instead looks muscular and strong.  We always see her keeping active with surfing and regular gym workouts.

It is reported that (in preparation for the book) Cameron will be visiting high schools to talk to teenagers about their food choices and what is important to them.  She wants to get their input, e.g., how do they decide what to eat? Although this work will not be a formal "Needs Assessment", I like that Cameron will be out in the community and talking to the teenagers who are the focus of her book.  Doing formative work before a project that engages your audience is incredibly important in public health.  Hearing and seeing what the health problem/s look like first hand allow us to craft more effective interventions.  So I applaud Cameron for planning to do this outreach versus just planning to write a book that may or may not address the challenges faced out in communities. For example, Cameron can discuss the importance of choosing fruit over potato chips, but if a teenager does not have access to affordable fresh fruit in their neighborhood, then the recommendation is not helpful.

One challenge to this effort is that even though Cameron appears to model a healthy lifestyle, she is still a member of the Hollywood community that has contributed to setting an unrealistic standard for beauty.  We have seen her on numerous magazine covers looking very thin and of course airbrushed.  In public health, we always have to think- "is this the right spokesperson"?  It is important to know how teenage girls view Cameron.  Do they see her as part of the problem?  Or part of the solution?

Another challenge is that (from my perspective), celebrity "nutritionists" do not have the best track record for safety and accuracy.  Take Cameron's friend Gwyneth Paltrow.  She has regularly promoted nutrition strategies like detox cleanses and gluten-free diets.  Her extreme choices do not send a message of moderation to teenage girls.  In addition, Gwyneth's cover photos also contribute to the unrealistic standard for beauty.

As I've discussed many times on this blog, celebrities can be an incredible resource for public health.  They have a visible platform and extensive reach to many of our audiences.  However, that can work for us or against us based on the accuracy and relevancy of their messages.  It is imperative that they work closely with clinicians (e.g., physicians, nutritionists) and public health practitioners to craft the messages and design outreach programs.

What do you think about Cameron writing a nutrition book?

The Biggest Loser: Who's Really Winning?

This week's guest post for Pop Health was written by Elana Premack Sandler, LCSW, MPH.  Elana writes a popular blog for Psychology Today called, "Promoting Hope, Preventing Suicide".  Written from both personal and professional perspectives, her blog explores suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention.  Often using current events as a starting point, the blog poses questions about what could be done better or differently, what contributions research can make to practice, and challenges and opportunities inherent in new technologies.  Elana earned a Master of Social Work and a Master of Public Health at Boston University and is a licensed social worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

There’s a lot of TV I don’t watch, but there’s one show in particular. “The Biggest Loser.”



It’s true - I systematically avoid watching one of the most popular reality TV shows in history. What seems to have drawn in viewers is what bothers me so much about most reality TV. It’s like a car wreck you can’t stop staring at, even though you know it’s a tragedy.



But watching a car wreck is watching an accident, something that wasn’t designed for an audience. With an accident, there’s something very human about wanting to see what’s happened, wanting to know if everyone’s okay.



That’s very different from what I think happens when people watch “The Biggest Loser.”



The few times I watched (I kept trying - people I love and trust told me it was such a good show!), I just wasn’t able to get behind the premise of the show. Yes, I believe that people who have struggled to lose weight can benefit from personal training and major lifestyle changes. Sure, the power of competition can drive some people to work harder than they ever imagined possible.



But, shame? Does shame really help people change their behavior?

When I watched, I witnessed trainers shaming contestants, over and over, in different ways. I heard contestants talk about the shame they experienced as a part of being obese or overweight. The whole show was a shame-fest. Which made me extremely uncomfortable.



Because, when it comes down to it, “The Biggest Loser” is a game show. And I just can’t watch people shamed into losing weight just to win a game show.

  “But it’s not just a game show!” my friends-who-are-fans would say. “People change their lives.”

Oh, wait, you’re right. It’s not just a game show. It’s a franchise.



So, I guess what I really have a hard time with is people being shamed into losing weight to support a game show-Wii-resort-1,200 calorie-a-day diet franchise.



At my professional core, as a public health social worker, I know shame doesn’t work to change behavior. I had thought it was just me who thought that way, until I started reading researcher Brené Brown’s book, “I Thought It Was Just Me (but it isn’t): Telling the Truth About Perfectionism, Inadequacy, and Power.”



Brown has been researching shame for the past 10 years. But, even before she was a shame expert, she was a social worker, working with people. What did she learn? “You cannot shame or belittle people into changing their behaviors.”



She explains in the introduction to the book:


• Can you use shame or humiliation to change people or behavior? Yes and no. Yes, you can try. In fact, if you really want to zero in on an exposed vulnerability, you could actually see a swift behavior change. 
• Will the change last? No. 
• Will it hurt? Yes, it’s excruciating. [I cringed when I read that part.] 
• Will it do any damage? Yes, and it has the potential to sear both the person using shame and the person being shamed. [More cringing.]
• Is shame used very often as a way to try to change people? Yes, every minute of every day. 


“The Biggest Loser” gets exactly how to use shame to motivate people to make a “swift behavior change.” Body image - for people struggling with overweight and obesity, and for people at healthy or “normal” weights - is a tremendous source of shame. Obesity is even worse. I wouldn’t be the first to say that oppression - hatred, bullying, and discrimination against - overweight and obese people is one of the last acceptable oppressions in our society.



What’s extra-disturbing about how “The Biggest Loser” uses shame is that it doesn’t limit shame to contestants. The show projects shame into the viewing audience, reinforcing biases against people who are overweight or obese. The audience doesn’t root for contestants to work within the challenges inherent in their bodies to figure out a healthy, sustainable way to lose weight and maintain overall health. The audience roots for contestants to not be fat. (Please excuse my lax grammar- I hope it’s worth making the point.)

Finally, the drama of the show revolves around shame. There’s a big reveal every episode, when viewers find out who won’t continue to compete to be The Biggest Loser. If contestants can’t lose weight within the show’s parameters (which include unhealthy weight loss practices, like dehydration), they get kicked off. So, the ideal of working with a supportive trainer goes out the window - and you are shamed, shamed, shamed into returning home, still fat, and, well, not a winner. A loser.



“The Biggest Loser” raises several questions for me:

• Should a game show be allowed to promote unhealthy weight loss practices?
• What kinds of messages does the show send to young people about their worth and value? 
• In what ways are people at a healthy weight influenced by “The Biggest Loser”? 

But, the most important to consider is this one: How much money is being made off of shame?

Integrating Public Health Content Into Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs

Amanda Bynes is just the latest young female celebrity to be arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).  The media coverage has been extensive, with some outlets even raising the question, "Is she the next Lindsay Lohan?"  A fellow former child star, Lindsay Lohan has consistently been in the news the past 5 years with DUI arrests, rehab stints, and poor career decisions.  However, just a few weeks ago we heard the good news that she has been taken off probation from her DUI case...so hopefully things are looking up.

Pop Health has written about related issues in the past:  how soon is too soon to find a teachable moment in a celebrity DUI death?  How does popular media help establish the public health agenda? How does media coverage of public health issues (e.g., suicide) affect the public's health?

So now let's put the pieces together and discuss the work of public health researchers that focuses specifically on media coverage of young female celebrity DUIs.  In 2009, Smith, Twum, and Gielen published "Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs: Teachable Moments or Problematic Social Modeling?" in the journal of Alcohol & Alcoholism.  They conducted an analysis of US media coverage of four female celebrities (Michelle Rodriguez, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan).  The study examined media coverage in the year after their DUI arrests (December 2005 through June 2008).  Among other things, the stories were coded for the presence of public health content (e.g., arrest, death, and injury statistics for DUI).  The authors found that the coverage was primarily focused on the individual celebrities (i.e., their legal and professional repercussions) versus broader social or public health impacts.  They recommended that future research examine both the news coverage and the comprehension and use of that content for policy and behavior change initiatives.

Coverage of a celebrity DUI has the potential to be a teachable moment, but we as public health practitioners need to take advantage of it.  We need to be monitoring pop culture news so that these teachable moments can be identified. We need to partner with journalists in order to make sure that a "public health frame" is incorporated in the development of the articles.  Most importantly, we need to continue to evaluate the media content and use that data to develop effective interventions and policy recommendations.

What do you think?

•   What strategies/information channels do you use to stay on top of public health-pop culture news?
•   How can the public health and journalism fields partner to take advantage of teachable moments and cover public health issues safely and effectively?

"E-Lane" for Pedestrians: An April Fools' Day Prank With Real Public Health Implications

Earlier this week, Philadelphians were treated to an April Fools' Day prank courtesy of Mayor Michael Nutter and the city's Office of Transportation and Utilities.  Across the street from city hall, an "E-Lane" was designated for pedestrians who use (and are distracted by) their electronic devices while walking.  While the city only expects to keep the joke "E-Lane" around for a week, they also hope that it starts a dialogue about pedestrian safety and people looking out for themselves while walking around the city.  Since this April Fools' week also happens to coincide with National Public Health Week (a time dedicated to recognizing the contributions and challenges of public health), I thought it was a great story for Pop Health.  So I took a stroll down the "E-Lane" on Monday to take these pictures and to get the dialogue started.

While I have written about (and am a huge supporter of) the vast and ever expanding benefits of mobile devices for public health, I also acknowledge the challenges that they have created.  Even though Philadelphia created the "E-Lane" as a joke, drivers and pedestrians distracted by electronic devices have become a serious issue.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website on distracted driving tells us that each day, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver. Distracted driving occurs while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.  While distracted driving can include talking on a cell phone, texting, or eating, texting is most dangerous because it takes your eyes off the road (visual), hands off the wheel (manual), and takes your mind off driving (cognitive).

As with any emerging public health problem, we are beginning to see:

• Research:  papers on distracted drivers and pedestrians are being published in the peer reviewed literature.  
• Education: cautionary tales of distracted driving are emerging in the popular media.  Just in the past few months, the Today Show has hosted several sets of parents who lost children due to texting and driving. 
• Celebrity Spokespeople:  Teen sensation Justin Bieber is partnering with the Remember Alex Brown Foundation and Phone Guard's Drive Safe.ly application to promote responsible texting.  The application reads text (SMS) messages and emails aloud in real time and automatically responds without drivers touching the mobile phone.
• Policy Change:  Just a few weeks ago, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to enact an anti-texting law.  The new law allows police to charge anyone caught text messaging while operating a vehicle with a primary offense and a $50 fine. 

As with most public health problems, we will need a combination of these strategies (i.e., individual education, social norm changes, policy/law changes, technological solutions, etc) to see a reduction in injuries and deaths.

What do you think?

• How can we balance the benefits and challenges of mobile technology for public health?
• Do you think the "E-Lane" in Philadelphia is an effective strategy for initiating dialogue around distracted drivers and pedestrians?
• In addition to the strategies listed above, what can public health and the public do to reduce injuries and deaths from distracted drivers and pedestrians?

Rainn Wilson Apologizes for "Poorly Conceived Date-Rape Joke": What Would RAINN Think?

When I saw a twitter headline today that read, "Rainn Wilson Apologizes for "Poorly Conceived Date-Rape Joke", I first thought, "Is there ever a well conceived date-rape joke?"  Next I thought, "Well- that's certainly a coincidence."

The coincidence being that the other RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) plays an important roll in calling out celebrities (and educating them) regarding the consequences of throwing around the term "rape".  The misuse of the term seems to be hitting epidemic proportions lately:

•   In June 2010, "Twilight" actress Kristen Stewart compared the constant scrutiny that she receives from the paparazzi to a woman being raped.  "What you don't see are the cameras shoved in my face and the bizarre intrusive questions being asked, or the people falling over themselves, screaming and taunting to get a reaction," she said of the constant paparazzi crush. "The photos are so ... I feel like I'm looking at someone being raped. A lot of the time I can't handle it. It's f---ed. I never expected that this would be my life." Stewart later apologized.  

•  In October 2011, actor Johnny Depp compared having his picture taken to being raped.  “You just feel like you’re being raped somehow. Raped. The whole thing,” he told Vanity Fair. “It feels like a kind of weird—just weird, man… Whenever you have a photo shoot or something like that, it’s like – you just feel dumb. It’s just so stupid.”  Depp later apologized.

• In November 2011, "Jersey Shore" cast mate Vinny released a song about raping strippers.  I will not repeat the lyrics here.  Vinny later apologized.

• In January 2012, actress Kim Novak took out an ad in Variety magazine to declare that she felt raped by the makers of the Oscar nominated film "The Artist" because the film used a score from one of her old movies.  The difference here:  Novak's team is not apologizing. 

Whether we like it or not, celebrities influence social norms.  When celebrities use the term "rape" as a joke or to describe their dislike of having their picture taken or their work borrowed, it cheapens what it really means.  It is meant to describe a violent act against women, men, and children...and it is a serious public health issue.  As with any public health issue, it is influenced at multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, community, society). The language we use everyday (whether to friends, family, co-workers, twitter followers, facebook friends) impacts our society on every level.  So think about the words that you choose and do your part to change the conversation.  

National Sexual Assault Hotline:  1-800-656-HOPE (4673)

Chris Brown's Return to the Grammys: The Other Public Health Story

Sunday's Grammys were a mixture of high and low notes (pun intended), as the joy was often overshadowed by the death of Whitney Houston.  As someone who grew up in the 80's singing her songs, I too was quite shocked and saddened.  Despite broad speculation of an overdose, I'll wait to post on Whitney until we have a confirmed cause of death.

However, there was a second public health story on Sunday night.  It was the three year anniversary of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna...and he made his return to the stage.  While Grammy executive producer Ken Ehrlich has defended the decision to bring Brown back and believes that he deserves a second chance, the warm sentiment was certainly not felt by all.  I personally turned the TV off when he began his performance.  My facebook and twitter feed blew up with comments from friends and colleagues like, "I'm no math wiz, but I'm pretty sure domestic abuser + 2 years= still a domestic abuser".  Many celebrities (both Grammy attendees and beyond) voiced the same sentiments on twitter.  For example, Wil Wheaton said simply, "everyone who apparently forgot what Chris Brown did to Rihanna should read the police report on exactly what he did."

Do you think that Chris Brown was worthy of a second chance at the Grammys? 

In addition to a discussion of giving second chances, remembering, or forgetting what he did...we must also discuss those who actually encourage what he did.  While there were outraged tweets during his performance, there were also those providing support.  The tweets that I found most disturbing were those from young women poking fun at the assault and saying that they would be happy to have it happen to them anytime.  For example, one woman said, "chris brown could beat me all he wants, he is flawless."

One of the biggest problems in our society is that we have a culture of violence where intimate partner violence is acceptable and abusers are not held responsible for their actions.     

What do you think we can do to stop the culture of violence?

In my opinion, Chris Brown is still the same angry and aggressive person that he was 3 years ago.  For example, instead of rising above and ignoring any negativity, he continues to lash out.  He took to his twitter after the ceremony to address his "haters".  He said, "HATE ALL YOU WANT BECUZ I GOT A GRAMMY Now! That's the ultimate F*** OFF!"  The tweet has since been deleted and he tried again with a slightly less offensive message.  But I don't buy it.  

For those of you interested in a more in-depth analysis of the original media coverage of the assault, I'll offer a publication.  This article was written by some fantastic colleagues at Boston University School of Public Health:

Rothman, EF, Nageswaran, A, Johnson RM, Adams, KM, Scrivens, J, Baughman, A. (in press).  U.S. tabloid magazine coverage of a celebrity dating abuse incident: Rihanna and Chris Brown.  Journal of Health Communication. Available online ahead of print.

If you or someone you know needs help, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at:  1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

Why Everyone is so Angry at Paula Deen- A Guest Post for "The Public's Health"

Last week I had the pleasure of being invited to guest blog on "The Public's Health". The blog is a collaboration between Drexel University School of Public Health and The Philadelphia Inquirer. In multiple posts each week, the authors highlight contemporary, historical, and ethical matters that challenge public health professionals.

For my post, I was able to contribute a "Pop Health" story which examined Paula Deen's disclosure of her type 2 diabetes and the media and societal backlash which followed.

What do you think? Do celebrities have the right to talk about their health information whenever and however they feel comfortable? Or do they have a social responsibility to disclose as early as possible- and to discuss it in a way that is most likely to improve the public's health?

"Starving Secrets": Does Lifetime's New Reality Show on Eating Disorders Offer a Path to Recovery or a How-To Guide to Disordered Eating?

Last night, a public health colleague (@bethg24) tweeted about the new Lifetime reality show called "Starving Secrets". The show will be hosted by Tracey Gold (who had her own very public battle with an eating disorder) and feature real individuals struggling from anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders.

According to the National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA), as many as 10 million females and 1 million males suffer from an eating disorder in the United States. Therefore, it is a serious and relevant public health problem that (not surprisingly) gets media attention. "Starving Secrets" is not the first movie or television show to take a documentary-style approach to portraying those that suffer from these disorders:

1. MTV's series "True Life" (which I have long admired for their portrayal and stigma reduction efforts regarding various medical conditions...I have been less impressed by episodes like "I'm a Jersey Shore girl"). True Life aired "I have an eating disorder" on April 3, 2003.
   


2. HBO documentary "Thin": This special followed four women during their in patient stays at the Renfrew Center in Coconut Creek, Florida. It premiered on November 14, 2006. I remember this being both incredibly powerful and difficult to watch.



3. E! "What's Eating You?": Admittedly, I only watched one episode of this show. True to E! form (Ahem- Kim's Fairytale Wedding), they are more about sensationalism versus journalism and stigma reduction as compared to other networks.

As with the portrayal of other mental health disorders in the media, I hope that these shows will do something positive. Specifically- reduce the stigma around these disorders and normalize help seeking behaviors.

However, I am also greatly concerned that shows like "Starving Secrets" will actually endanger vulnerable audience members by offering a "how-to guide" to having an eating disorder. The concern stems from research on pro-eating disorder websites. They can offer "thinsperation" to stay skinny by the images portrayed. They can also give tips and strategies for hiding/refusing food or getting rid of it. Sometimes people don't realize that by telling their story in vivid detail, they are actually sharing their "creative tips" for sustaining an eating disorder.

That said, I will definitely be setting the DVR on December 20 to see the show and assess it more accurately. What do others think? Do reality shows like these have the potential to endanger the public's health? Or do their "pros" (e.g., stigma reduction) outweigh the risks?

#NoHomos on Twitter, "50/50" looks at Cancer, Johnny Depp's Rape Comments, Chris Christie's Weight, and Steve Jobs: What Am I Reading This Week?

Whew- it has been a busy week for Pop Health! Here are the top 5 stories I've been reading:

1. Twitter is no place for #NoHomo: Should Twitter take a more proactive stance regarding hate speech that can result in trending topics?

2. "50/50"- A Hollywood movie takes on cancer: Cancer has been a theme in many movies (e.g., "Funny People") and TV shows (e.g., "The big C" on showtime)- how does this movie compare?

3. Johnny Depp offers apology for rape remarks: Depp offers an apology for comparing being chased by paparazzi to being raped. Forgivable?

4. Chris Christie's Weight- Big problem or none of our business?: Although Gov Christie has recently announced that he will not run for President in 2012, the conversation continues about his weight and its influence on his ability to be a successful Governor or President. What do you think?

5. Steve Jobs and Pancreatic Cancer: There have been many stories about the death of Steve Jobs and the contribution of pancreatic cancer to his passing. I thought Celebrity Diagnosis did a nice job of guiding readers through his diagnosis.

Please use the comment box to tell me what you think about these stories and about others that you are reading this week!

(Dis)Connected: MTV Explores the Impact of Digital Drama on the Health and Safety of Young People

On Sunday October 10, 2011, MTV will premiere "(Dis)Connected". The movie will explore the experiences of four young people. They have never met in-person, but their lives collide online and are forever changed by their digital interactions.

The film supports the network's "A Thin Line" campaign which empowers youth to stand up against digital abuse of all kinds (e.g., bullying, discrimination, etc).

The movie is inspired (in part) by the tragic death of Abraham Biggs in 2008. Biggs, a 19-year old college student, live streamed his suicide on the internet, with some users egging him on and some trying to talk him out of it.

(Dis)Connected supports an ongoing discussion in public health regarding the question: "Does technology help us or hurt us when it comes to issues such as bullying or suicide?" The answer is not clear. There are examples on each side. One year ago today, I wrote the post "Bullying: Is Technology Helping Us or Hurting Us?" The post was inspired by the dialogue of how technology may have contributed to the suicide of Tyler Clementi but also how it was being used in a positive way to prevent bullying in the aftermath (e.g., the "It Gets Better" project).

On her blog "Promoting Hope, Preventing Suicide", Elana Premack Sandler writes about research and advice for preventing teen and adult suicide. Just in the past year, she has extensively explored the issue of technology/social media and its impact on suicide prevention. Some example posts include: Facebook Support Networks (September 21); YouTube Prevents Suicide? (May 4); and Promoting Hope Through Social Media (April 13).

Let's all check out (Dis)Connected on October 10 and let the dialogue continue.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or visit their website here.

Celebrities and their Health Causes: What Happens When They Do More Harm Than Good?

Often on this blog I have spoken about the role of celebrities as the spokesperson or "champion" for various public health issues. Many celebrity names are synonymous with particular health causes (Katie Couric- Colon Cancer; Michael J. Fox- Parkinson's Disease; Lance Armstrong- Testicular Cancer; to name a few).

Over the past few weeks, several stories have emerged which beg the question, "what happens if celebrities do more harm than good?" Those in the public eye have such a broad and extensive platform to communicate with the public...what if they disseminate erroneous information or even worse- cause a panic?

The week of September 12 was quite busy! In the Republican Presidential Debate (in the context of discussing mandated HPV vaccines for children), Rep. Michelle Bachmann claimed that the HPV (Human Papillomavirus) vaccine is linked to mental retardation. To support her claims, Bachmann repeatedly told the story of being approached by a woman whose daughter suffered mental retardation after taking the vaccine. As those of us in science well know, one self-reported story does not equal a true incident. Even if true, one incident does not equal a trend or an epidemic. This story has been quickly picked up by scientists who are even offering money if it is proven true.

This same week, Dr. Mehmet Oz of the Dr. Oz Show (you may remember him from numerous appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show), claimed that apple juice contains unsafe levels of arsenic. These claims followed research conducted by the Show which had a laboratory examine three dozen samples from five different brands across the United States. The samples were compared to the limits of arsenic set for drinking water by the EPA. Since the claims, many scientists have spoken out regarding concerns about the study's protocols and conclusions (for example, not differentiating between organic and inorganic types of arsenic). Many were concerned about the widespread panic caused by these claims and likened it to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Of course, this is not the first time celebrities have caused a scandal following potentially false and dangerous claims. Jenny McCarthy has dedicated her life to proving the cause between childhood vaccines and autism. Shortly after Brooke Shields released her book, "Down Came The Rain", which chronicled her battle with postpartum depression- actor Tom Cruise (a Scientologist) publicly criticized her for taking antidepressant medication.

So what happens when these celebrities cause more harm than good? What happens when their claims are misguided, misinformed, and/or not based on evidence or science? The answer: they can have huge and far-reaching public health consequences. For example, as we begin to see illnesses like measles reappear- we have to wonder- "Is this the Jenny McCarthy effect?"

"What's Your Weapon?": Billie Jean King, Arthritis Foundation, Ad Council, and USTA Launch Arthritis Campaign

Before Twitter and the U.S. Open was a flutter this afternoon with the news of Venus Williams withdrawing due to the diagnosis of the autoimmune disease- Sjogren's Syndrome, the U.S. Tennis Association was focused on another health related issue. Today the press release went out that tennis legend Billie Jean King was joining the Arthritis Foundation, the Ad Council, and the US Tennis Association (USTA) to launch a public service campaign against arthritis (the leading cause of disability in America).



The ads, launched at the U.S. Open today, feature King (who has osteoarthritis- OA) and highlight the power of movement and exercise as "weapons" in the fight against arthritis. King tells viewers "tennis is my weapon" against arthritis. The ad then asks viewers, "what is your weapon against arthritis?" and directs them to the campaign's website in order to find out: Fight Arthritis Pain. On first view, I was not terribly impressed. The brief ad (33 seconds) does not tell you very much (e.g., King says tennis is her "weapon" but nothing is said about the benefits of movement). The goal of the ad simply appears to be motivating viewers to visit the website for additional information.



The other thing that is not clear in the ad (but clarified in the press release and website) is that this campaign is targeting OA specifically. While OA is the most common type of arthritis, it is not the only type. For example, in contrast to OA which breaks down cartilage, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (a chronic autoimmune disease) causes inflammation of the lining of the joints. Would the exercise recommendations be the same no matter what type of arthritis? I would say that distinction is unclear for viewers.



However, I did feel better when I read the press release and saw that these ads were tested in focus groups by the Ad Council. Testing your images and messages with your target population is incredibly important. It is reported that participants felt that the concept of "having a weapon" against arthritis was powerful and motivating. That is good news considering formative research by the Ad Council found that only 16% of OA sufferers surveyed felt "very confident" that they could manage their pain. Therefore, if an ad can make viewers feel empowered and confident- that is a good thing.



The press release did not describe the demographics of the focus group participants, but I am assuming they were similar to those originally surveyed (adults age 55+ with OA). If so, it would mean that Billie Jean King was an appropriate "Champion" for the cause and someone that audience admired, having watched her in the 1960s-1970s, her prime competitive years. However, I wonder if she would be the best choice for ads targeting arthritis sufferers in a younger demographic? After all, different types of arthritis can affect people of all ages. Again, this is another reason that I would have wanted to see a clearer definition of the audience for these ads. If we are focused on older adults with OA, then it is a great choice. If we are focused on people of all ages with all types of arthritis, then maybe not.



Overall, I give this campaign a "B". The impetus of the campaign is good in that it is based on research...research that shows that arthritis suffers are too sedentary and do not feel like they have control over their pain management. The campaign aims to address these barriers by empowering viewers with a "champion" who they admire and can model. The campaign also links them to a website with all the information they need about the benefits of exercise for arthritis. However, the execution of this campaign is not as strong as its foundation. It would have benefited from a more clearly defined audience and message.

Kim Kardashian is a Spokesperson (Again) for a Public Health Issue...Will the Public Buy In This Time?

This afternoon I saw a tweet from Kim Kardashian that read "Recognizing Ovarian Cancer is the 1st step in fighting Ovarian Cancer- please watch and share this video". So my first thought was- "I wonder if this campaign will be more successful than her last?" As you may remember, in December 2010 I blogged about Kim and other celebrities that staged their digital deaths in order to raise money for World AIDS Day. In addition to my concerns about the campaign's design (which included a less than clear cue to action for the audience), its "success" was also questionable because it ended up taking much longer than intended to reach their 1 million dollar goal. So I was quite intrigued to view Kim's newest PSA on YouTube.

The event called "Super Saturday Live" is a collaboration between QVC and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (OCRF). On Saturday, July 30, 2011- designer clothes sold on QVC will be 50% off and the net proceeds will be given to OCRF. The PSA informs the audience that this money is necessary because there is currently no good early detection test for ovarian cancer.

I was pleasantly surprised by the PSA. It didn't feel too long (94 seconds). It kept my interest with minimal and appropriate statistics. For example, instead of scaring the audience, the music was upbeat and focused on the positive- a 92% 5-year survival rate when the cancer is detected early. The PSA also had information presented through both audio and visual channels. Finally (and most importantly)- as an audience member, I knew exactly what I was supposed to do. The cue to action was clear. I was to share the video- "like" it, post it, forward it. And finally, I should tweet about #supersaturday. This way the "trend" can get ahead of ovarian cancer.

In addition to the look and feel of the PSA, I think it is important to discuss the strength and popularity of the chosen spokesperson. Just as I mentioned in December, Kim Kardashian is an obvious choice if you are looking for a huge reach. As of tonight, she had 8,380,553 followers on twitter. The PSA already had 5,965 views on YouTube. However, I have my concerns about her genuine interest in this public health issue. Does she have a personal connection or does she just jump on the bandwagon (like in December) for any way to promote her "brand"? I ask because I have concerns due to how she behaves on her E! show- Keeping Up with the Kardashians. For example, just a few weeks ago on the show, Kim had her butt x-rayed to "prove to the media" that it was real (without butt implants). I watched this episode while on the elliptical machine at the gym and felt enraged. First of all, what type of terrible physician allows his time and resources to be taken up with such nonsense? Also, what type of terrible physician agrees to expose Kim, his patient, to needless radiation to help her prove this point? And how much extra time does she (and her sisters) have on their hands to participate in this silly trip to the doctor? If I were the Executive Director of OCRF, even with her extensive popularity, I doubt that I would choose her for a spokesperson.

So let's all check out Twitter on Saturday, July 30th...let's see if #supersaturday is trending and if Kim's "quantity" of followers can help balance out her sometimes lack of "quality" as a spokesperson.

From The West Wing to the National Health Care Debate

Anyone who knows me well knows that "The American President" is one of my favorite movies. If it is a favorite of yours as well, you may recognize that the actress who plays Press Secretary Robin McCall also plays National Security Advisor Dr. Nancy McNally in "The West Wing". The actress is Anna Deavere Smith.

This week in my "Qualitative Research Methods in Community Health" class, we discussed ethnography. Specifically we discussed Ms. Smith's work as an example of performance ethnography. For over a decade, she has interviewed people across the country and used the "data" to develop a one-woman show. Her newest play is called "Let Me Down Easy" and its goal is to show the human side of the national health care debate. I highly recommend viewing the 10-minute excerpt and interview here.

I'm so sorry that I missed her play when it came to Philadelphia earlier this year because I think it is an amazing example of the richness of data collected using qualitative methods. It is often argued that qualitative methods are too "soft" and limited in view. I've heard them described as "basically just journalism". However, I would argue that qualitative methods are essential to the success of public health.

Instead of surveys and databases, these methods collect data via interview, discussion, and observation. The research is meant to discover the complex relationship between personal and social meaning, individual and cultural practices, and the material environment or context. In contrast to what we have learned since grade school science about the scientific method and generalizability of findings- here the focus is on obtaining a deeper understanding of a population or phenomenon.

Ms. Smith conducted over 300 interviews for "Let Me Down Easy" and ultimately condensed her findings to show the experience of contemporary health care through the eyes of 20 individuals. These kinds of stories are incredibly powerful in public health. They open our eyes to challenges that we never would have found via survey...because we wouldn't have known to ask the right questions. They allow us to share stories with policymakers so they can see the impact of their decisions beyond the sterile statistics often cited. They can allow us to explore experiences or illnesses that occur in too small a population to survey.

Ideally, quantitative and qualitative methods should be used together to create the strongest public health research design possible. It should not be us vs. them...but instead a joint effort. I encourage us all to see the human side of health care reform when Ms. Smith's play airs on PBS "Great Performances" next season.

In Honor of World AIDS Day: Can Celebrity "Digital Deaths" Prevent Real Deaths from HIV/AIDS?

Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, and Lady Gaga are all dead! No, not really...but they are considered "Digitally Dead" for today- World AIDS Day (December 1st). These celebrities and many more joined forces with a charity co-founded by singer Alicia Keys called Keep a Child Alive. The charity provides treatment, love, and support to families affected by HIV/AIDS.

For today's campaign, celebs were pictured in coffins, featured in "last video testaments", and pledging to stay digitally silent on their social media accounts (i.e., on Facebook and Twitter) until their lives were "bought back" by donors reaching a minimum of one million dollars total. Although the images of celebs in coffins were a little creepy, Keep a Child Alive co-founder Leigh Blake says:

"We're trying to sort of make the remark: Why do we care so much about the death of one celebrity as opposed to millions and millions of people dying in the place that we're all from? Its about love and respect and human dignity."

It is an interesting concept for a health communication/advocacy campaign. Usually when campaigns advocate via social media, it is done by bombarding their followers with messages and links to donate or sign up to assist the cause. Here, the campaign is trying to motivate donors by having an ABSENCE of the celebrities' voices. How powerful is that absence? Will the public really miss reading celebs tweets and facebook status updates? Apparently so. As of tonight on Twitter, Kim Kardashian had 5,467,107 followers and Ryan Seacrest had 3,683,658 followers. So whether we like it or not, the voices (and silences) of these celebrities matter in our communities.

While I do think the campaign will have large reach, I will say that their coffin posters left room for improvement. I've analyzed health communication campaigns on this blog before, and the key is always- "What is the cue to action? Does the audience know what they are supposed to do after seeing the poster/brochure/PSA?" Well- when I first saw this poster of Kim Kardashian, I had no idea what it was about. I had to Google and read the narrative about the World AIDS Day campaign for Keep A Child Alive. For this blog post, I had to blow the image up over 100% to read the text on the bottom of the poster. It reads,

"Kim sacrificed her digital life to give real life to millions of others affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. That means no more Facebook or Twitter until we buy her life back". Then the charity website and text number were provided to accept donations. In future campaigns, they would want that text to be much bigger. It should not take the audience several minutes, a Google search, and a magnifying glass to figure out what they are supposed to do to help poor Kim get out of that coffin.

Overall, I give this campaign a B+ for creativity in using the "absence" of social media messages and targeting celebrities with a huge following and reach to potential donors.

Hollywood's "Dilemma": Should "Gay" Jokes Be Censored?

Recently I went to see "The Social Network". We watched several movie trailer previews, including the Ron Howard directed film "The Dilemma". The preview included a scene with Vince Vaughn exclaiming to a conference room full of colleagues, "Ladies and gentlemen...electric cars are gay". He goes on to clarify that he does not say "gay" to mean happy, instead he compares its level of "coolness" to your parents chaperoning a school dance. I leaned over to my husband and whispered, "I thought they were taking this scene out of the trailer?". I guess it had not yet been pulled (and was instead being seen by millions, as The Social Network was #1 at the box office that week).

The controversy regarding this quote began several weeks ago. CNN's Anderson Cooper was one of the first to draw attention to the preview when he appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres Show. His argument (especially in light of the recently publicized suicides involving gay children/teenagers) was that we must "make those words unacceptable cause those words are hurting kids". In addition, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) put out a statement on the situation:

"When 'gay' is used as a pejorative, it frequently sends a message- particularly to youth and their bullies- that being gay is wrong and something to laugh at. We invite Vince Vaughn to work with us and help insure that gay youth and those perceived to be gay aren't put in harm's way by such jokes".

Last week, Vince Vaughn addressed the above concerns with his own statement that highlighted his feelings that the "gay joke" should be kept in the trailer and in the movie:

"Let me add my voice of support to the people outraged by the bullying and persecution of people for their differences, whatever those differences may be. Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly- where does it stop?"

ABC's The View also discussed this during its "Hot Topics" show yesterday. I was actually pretty surprised that there seemed to be consensus and support for Vince Vaughn's statement. How can you censor a "character"? This was not about Vince making homophobic statements...but it was the statements of his character. What if the character is a jerk? Then he/she will sound like a jerk. Whoopi Goldberg spoke about recently watching "Roots" on TV and how much of the message was lost due to the censoring of the racist language.

I can see both sides of the argument on this one. Of course, people of all ages look to celebrities and movies to be role models and to confirm (or break) social norms. Therefore, statements using "gay" as a pejorative can absolutely influence the beliefs of an audience. However, I also understand the slippery slope of censorship and the concern that stories can no longer be told with the same honesty and depth of characters. It is also unclear how this censorship would be overseen and enforced. Can we always tell the difference between a statement of someone's beliefs and their attempt at a joke? And just because something is intended as a joke, does that really mean there are no consequences? If your boss "jokes" about how your clothes fit...it is still sexual harassment.

With tomorrow being "Spirit Day" to combat anti-LGBT bullying, it seemed very timely to toss this "dilemma" out to my readers for comment. I look forward to your thoughts.

The Inspiration for Pop Health

Welcome! For quite some time now, I have been wanting to find a way to combine two of my greatest interests. Public Health- the area where I have formal training and experience...and Pop Culture- which I shamelessly love and enjoying analyzing. Last year, one of my Professors from Graduate School directed a project which conducted a content analysis of the media coverage of the Rhianna and Chris Brown "incident". I went to a talk she gave on the results and thought "That would be my dream job...a way to combine my love of public health and tabloids and E! News"!
I've also been inspired by several "bloggers" in my personal and professional life to jump in and give this a try. As a teaching assistant, I collaborated on a class project that used a blog called "Challenging Dogma" to display final papers and generate conversation about their central themes/arguments. A great friend and colleague blogs weekly for Psychology Today with a column called "Promoting Hope, Preventing Suicide". I've really enjoyed being a reader of that blog and forwarding on articles/stories that I think she may be interested in. So now I'm trying it myself with my own stories. Enjoy!