Did Scientology ad cross line?




The Church of Scientology is also at fault for thinking the advertorial would survive The Atlantic readers' scrutiny, Ian Schafer says.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The Atlantic published and pulled a sponsored Scientology "story"

  • Ian Schafer: On several levels, the ad was a mistake

  • He says the content was heavy-handed and comments were being moderated

  • Schafer: Experimenting to raise revenue makes sense, but standards should be clear




Editor's note: Ian Schafer is the founder and CEO of a digital advertising agency, Deep Focus, and the alter ego of @invisibleobama. You can read his rants on his blog at ianschafer.com.


(CNN) -- "The Atlantic is America's leading destination for brave thinking and bold ideas that matter. The Atlantic engages its print, online, and live audiences with breakthrough insights into the worlds of politics, business, the arts, and culture. With exceptional talent deployed against the world's most important and intriguing topics, The Atlantic is the source of opinion, commentary, and analysis for America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." -- The Atlantic 2013 media kit for advertisers


On Monday, The Atlantic published -- and then pulled -- a story titled "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year." This "story" went on to feature the growth of Scientology in 2012.



Ian Schafer

Ian Schafer



Any regular reader of The Atlantic's content would immediately do a double-take upon seeing that kind of headline, much less the heavy-handed text below it, shamelessly plugging how well Scientology's "ecclesiastical leader" Miscavige has done in "leading a renaissance for the religion."


This "story" is one of several "advertorials" (a portmanteau of "advertising" and "editorials") that The Atlantic has published online, clearly designated as "Sponsor Content." In other words, "stories" like these aren't real stories. They are ads with a lot of words, which advertisers have paid publications to run on their behalf for decades. You may have seen them in magazines and newspapers as "special advertising sections."


The hope is that because you are already reading the publication, hey, maybe you'll read what the advertiser has to say, too -- instead of the "traditional" ad that they may have otherwise placed on the page that you probably won't remember, or worse, will ignore.



There's nothing wrong with this tactic, ethically, when clearly labeled as "sponsored" or "advertising." But many took umbrage with The Atlantic in this particular case; so many, that The Atlantic responded by pulling the story from its site -- which was the right thing to do -- and by apologizing.


At face value, The Atlantic did the right thing for its business model, which depends upon advertising sales. It sold what they call a "native" ad to a paying advertiser, clearly labeled it as such, without the intention of misleading readers into thinking this was a piece of journalism.


But it still failed on several levels.


The Atlantic defines its readers as "America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." By that very definition, it is selling "advertorials" to people who are the least likely to take them seriously, especially when heavy-handed. There is a fine line between advertorial and outright advertising copywriting, and this piece crossed it. The Church of Scientology is just as much at fault for thinking this piece would survive The Atlantic readers' intellectual scrutiny. But this isn't even the real issue.


Bad advertising is all around us. And readers' intellectual scrutiny would surely have let the advertorial piece slide without complaints (though snark would be inevitable), as they have in the past, or yes, even possibly ignored it. But here's where The Atlantic crossed another line -- it seemed clear it was moderating the comments beneath the advertorial.


As The Washington Post reported, The Atlantic marketing team was carefully pruning the comments, ensuring that they were predominantly positive, even though many readers were leaving negative comments. So while The Atlantic was publishing clearly labeled advertiser-written content, it was also un-publishing content created by its readers -- the very folks it exists to serve.


It's understandable that The Atlantic would inevitably touch a third rail with any "new" ad format. But what it calls "native advertising" is actually "advertorial." It's not new at all. Touching the third rail in this case is unacceptable.


So what should The Atlantic have done in this situation before it became a situation? For starters, it should have worked more closely with the Church of Scientology to help create a piece of content that wasn't so clearly written as an ad. If the Church of Scientology was not willing to compromise its advertising to be better content, then The Atlantic should not have accepted the advertising. But this is a quality-control issue.


The real failure here was that comments should never have been enabled beneath this sponsored content unless the advertiser was prepared to let them be there, regardless of sentiment.


It's not like Scientology has avoided controversy in the past. The sheer, obvious reason for this advertorial in the first place was to dispel beliefs that Scientology wasn't a recognized religion (hence "ecclesiastical").


Whether The Atlantic felt it was acting in its advertiser's best interest, or the advertiser specifically asked for this to happen, letting it happen at all was a huge mistake, and a betrayal of an implicit contract that should exist between a publication of The Atlantic's stature and its readership.


No matter how laughably "sales-y" a piece of sponsored content might be, the censoring of readership should be the true "third rail," never to be touched.


Going forward, The Atlantic (and any other publication that chooses to run sponsored content) should adopt and clearly communicate an explicit ethics statement regarding advertorials and their corresponding comments. This statement should guide the decisions it makes when working with advertisers, and serve as a filter for the sponsored content it chooses to publish, and what it recommends advertisers submit. It should also prevent readers from being silenced if given a platform at all.


As an advertising professional, I sincerely hope this doesn't spook The Atlantic or any other publication from experimenting with ways to make money. But as a reader, I hope it leads to better ads that reward me for paying attention, rather than muzzle my voice should I choose to interact with the content.


After all, what more could a publication or advertiser ask for than for content to be so interesting that someone actually would want to comment on (or better, share) it?


(Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said native advertising accounts for 59% of the Atlantic's ad revenue. Digital advertising, of which native advertising is a part, accounts for 59% of The Atlantic's overall revenue, according to the company.)


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ian Schafer.






Read More..

Football: Rodgers slams Suarez over diving admission






LONDON: Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers on Thursday said that his controversial striker Luis Suarez could face punishment from the club after admitting that he dived to try to win a penalty in a league game with Stoke City.

In an interview with Fox Sports Argentina, Suarez admitted "falling" during October's 0-0 draw between the clubs at Anfield, prompting Rodgers, who had defended him from criticism at the time, to hit out.

"I think it is wrong. It is unacceptable. I have spoken to Luis and it will be dealt with internally," said Rodgers. "(Diving) is not something we advocate. Our ethics are correct."

Rodgers spoke to Suarez on Thursday and said he had been "totally understanding on where I am coming from as manager of the club.

"What was said was wrong. He takes that and we move on," he added.

Suarez hit the headlines for a theatrical fall in the Stoke game after he went to ground under a challenge from Marc Wilson in an unsuccessful attempt to win a second-half penalty.

FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce was moved to describe Suarez's tumble as "cheating", adding that the tendency for players to easily fall to the ground was a "cancer" in the game.

Suarez has been accused of diving at regular intervals during his time in England and he admitted in the interview that he had gone down on purpose.

"I was criticised for trying to win a penalty by falling in a match against Stoke," said the Uruguay international. "It's true I fell because we were drawing against Stoke at home and we needed to do something.

"But afterwards, the coaches of Stoke, Everton, all of them, came forward. I came to realise that the name of Suarez was a (newspaper) seller."

Suarez sparked controversy again earlier this month when he handled the ball prior to scoring Liverpool's winning goal in their 2-1 victory at non-league Mansfield Town in the FA Cup.

"The other day, a ball hit my hand without me meaning it to," he said. "I kissed my wrist (in celebration) and everyone started rounding on me."

Suarez also claimed that foreign players are treated differently to home-grown players in the Premier League.

"It's difficult," he said. "It's what Carlitos (Tevez) said, it's what Kun (Sergio Aguero) said: foreigners, and especially the South Americans, are treated differently to local players."

Suarez added that his run-in with Manchester United defender Patrice Evra, which saw him hit with a 40,000 fine pounds and an eight-match ban for racial abuse, was long forgotten.

"When people come and insult me, saying I'm South American, I don't start crying. It's something that stays on the pitch, part of football. My conscience is clear," he said, before claiming that Manchester United control the British press.

"They've got a lot of power and they'll always help them."

- AFP/fa



Read More..

Opinion: Don't use Bible at inauguration






Part of complete coverage from















By Dean Obeidallah, Special to CNN


updated 10:35 AM EST, Thu January 17, 2013







Barack Obama's hand lies on a Bible held by Michelle Obama as he is sworn in as the 44th U.S. president on January 20, 2009.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Dean Obeidallah: President Obama will take presidential oath with his left hand on two Bibles

  • Obeidallah: Presidents swear to uphold the Constitution, so why not use that document?

  • The Constitution doesn't mention a Bible, he says, and two presidents didn't use one

  • Obeidallah: John Quincy Adams swore on a book of laws, emphasizing his first loyalty




Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah, a former attorney, is a political comedian and frequent commentator on various TV networks including CNN. He is the editor of the politics blog "The Dean's Report" and co-director of the upcoming documentary, "The Muslims Are Coming!" Follow him on Twitter: @deanofcomedy. Join Dean for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about using Bibles in presidential swearing-in ceremonies. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance with a post.


(CNN) -- U.S. presidents should not be sworn into office with their hand on a Bible.


At Monday's inauguration of his second term, President Barack Obama will raise his right hand and place his left on not one, but two Bibles: One owned by Abraham Lincoln and the other by Martin Luther King Jr.



Dean Obeidallah

Dean Obeidallah



The Constitution requires he give this oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


You might recall that at his 2009 inauguration, President-elect Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts played some kind of "mad libs" with this oath during the swearing-in ceremony, muddling it so badly that they had to redo it a few days later. But why does the president swear on a Bible? Why doesn't he place his hand on the U.S. Constitution -- the very document he's promising to "preserve, protect and defend"?



The Constitution does not require that the president take the oath of office by swearing on a Bible. That would have been a very simple requirement for the constitutional drafters to include. To the contrary, the Founders wanted to ensure that Americans of any faith -- or no faith -- could hold federal office.


They set it forth plainly in Article VI: "... No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


Placing a hand on a Bible while reciting the presidential oath is simply a tradition started by George Washington. Indeed, two presidents, Teddy Roosevelt and John Quincy Adams, did not use a Bible at their swearing-in ceremonies.


Although Roosevelt's reasons are unclear, John Quincy Adams' reasons could not be more plain.








Adams, the son of President John Adams, was a religious man. But he chose to be sworn in with his hand on a book of U.S. laws. He wanted to demonstrate that he recognized a barrier between church and state and that his loyalty was to our nation's laws above all else.


Adams also refused to campaign for the presidency because he believed it was beneath the dignity of the office to make promises that might not be kept. Clearly, Adams was not a man who acted because of tradition alone. He had to truly believe in what he did.


Some will argue that swearing on the Bible ensures the president adheres to his oath. But let's be honest: We have seen presidents and other elected officials swear to uphold the laws of our country with their hands on a Bible and go on to break many laws and ethical rules. It comes down to the person's moral code, not a 30-second oath.


And just so it's clear, my objection is not only to the Bible. I would hold the identical view if it were the Quran, the Book of Mormon or any other religious scripture.


The Founding Fathers made it clear that the U.S. Constitution, "...shall be the supreme law of the land." It is the living legacy they bestowed upon us. It is the framework for our government. And as such, that's the document our president should place his hand on.


It should be clear to all that the president views the Constitution as our nation's genesis.


Editor's note: Join Dean Obeidallah for a live discussion from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. ET Thursday about taking the oath of office on a Bible. He will respond to your thoughts in the comments section below. Have questions for him? Ask in advance by posting a comment.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Dean Obeidallah.








Read More..

Some children may lose autism diagnosis with age

Some children diagnosed with autism in early childhood may no longer have the disorder as they grow older, according to research funded by the National Institutes of Health.

"Although the diagnosis of autism is not usually lost over time, the findings suggest that there is a very wide range of possible outcomes," said Dr. Thomas R. Insel, NIMH director, said in a press release. "For an individual child, the outcome may be knowable only with time and after some years of intervention."

Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disorders that cause behavioral, social and communication problems. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate one in 88 children have an ASD.





Play Video


Headlines: Report says kids can grow out of autism




The new study looked at 34 children between 8 and 21 who had an "optimal outcome," meaning they were diagnosed with autism earlier in life but functioned normally compared to their peers later on. These subjects were matched by age, sex, and nonverbal IQ with 44 children with high-functioning autism and an additional 34 typically developing peers.

The researchers reviewed their initial diagnoses to make sure they were accurate and enlisted a second diagnostic expert, who didn't know the child's status, to review reports where the initial diagnosis had been removed.

What they discovered was the "optimal outcome" children had milder social problems than those in the high-functioning autism group in early childhood. Verbal IQ of "optimal outcome" children were slightly higher than high-functioning autism individuals. However when it came to communication and behavioral problems, there were similarities to the high-functioning subjects.

The researchers then examined all the subjects using standard cognitive tests and parent questionnaires. The "optimal outcome" children were all in regular education classes with no special education aimed at autism. The whole group showed no signs of problems with language, face recognition, communication, and social interaction.

Researchers cannot speculate which percentage of children will outgrow their ASD, but they are hoping that through the research they gathered they can see whether the diagnosis changed because brain function normalized or the brain was able to make up for autism-related deficiencies.




10 Photos


Is it autism? Facial features that show disorder



"All children with ASD are capable of making progress with intensive therapy, but with our current state of knowledge most do not achieve the kind of optimal outcome that we are studying," study author Deborah Fein, a professor at the Department of Psychology at University of Connecticut, said in a press release. "Our hope is that further research will help us better understand the mechanisms of change so that each child can have the best possible life."

The study published Jan. 16 in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Researchers are also looking at which therapies led to the most success. Fein told HealthDay she believed behavioral treatments were the most likely to result in an "optimal outcome." However, even for children that lose the diagnosis, she said that parents should not stop therapy "prematurely" since these children are still at risk for attention problems and anxiety.

"But I want to point out that this is the result of years of hard work," she added. "This is not anything that happens overnight. I would say that at minimum we're talking about two to three years of intensive therapy to produce this outcome, but it could also be five years. It's variable.

"This is the first solid science to address this question of possible recovery, and I think it has big implications," added Dr. Sally Ozonoff of the MIND Institute at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study, to the New York Times. "I know many of us as would rather have had our tooth pulled than use the word 'recover,' it was so unscientific. Now we can use it, though I think we need to stress that it's rare."

But, other experts warned that parents shouldn't get their hopes up that their child will outgrow their diagnosis.

"This study is looking at a small sample of high functioning people with autism and we would urge people not to jump to conclusions about the nature and complexity of autism, as well its longevity," Dr. Judith Gould, director of the National Autistic Society's Lorna Wing Centre for Autism, told the BBC. "With intensive therapy and support, it's possible for a small sub-group of high functioning individuals with autism to learn coping behaviors and strategies which would 'mask' their underlying condition and change their scoring in the diagnostic tests used to determine their condition in this research."

Read More..

Football Star Manti Te'o Faces Tough Questions













Notre Dame's star linebackerManti Te'o faces a problem bigger than any running back he's had to bring down.


As the elaborate hoax about his dead "girlfriend" unravels, many questions remain to be answered, chief among them whether he was complicit in promoting the dramatic story of his girlfriend's death from leukemia. Te'o may soon be forced to tackle those questions himself.


"A lot of people are very suspicious when Te'o says he had no idea and he was just a sucker in this," Deadspin writer Timothy Burke said on "Good Morning America" today. "Why would somebody go to such great lengths to hoax him like that?"


Click here for 'Catfish' stars' advice on online dating.


Burke's Deadspin story broke the scandal, forcing Te'o and Notre Dame to admit the girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, never existed. Notre Dame claims that Te'o is the victim of a "cruel hoax."


"[Notre Dame is] sticking to his story and they're going to, I think, fight and make every sort of attempt they can to prove he had no idea this was going on and that he was the unfortunate victim of a year-long prank," Burke said.


But it won't be easy.






Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images











Tale of Notre Dame Football Star's Girlfriend and Her Death an Alleged Hoax Watch Video









Notre Dame's Athletic Director Discusses Manti Te'o Girlfriend Hoax Watch Video









MTV's 'Catfish' Series Pulls Back Curtain on Online Profiles Watch Video





"I think that there are some questions about when he became aware of it, simply because Notre Dame and Te'o's statement have indicated that he found out about it in late December, but he chose not to correct or identify when he was asked before the BCS Championship game about his girlfriend," he said. The championship game was played on Jan. 7.


Burke said he is particularly eager for answers about the story Te'o told of meeting his girlfriend in 2009 and his father Brian Te'o's statements about how the purported girlfriend used to visit Manti in Hawaii.


The university's athletic director Jack Swarbrick said at a Wednesday night news conference that the school was not speaking for Te'o.


"At the end of the day, this is Manti's story to tell and we believe he should have the right to tell it, which he is going to do," Swarbrick said.


Swarbrick said that Te'o and his family came to the university last month with concerns that Te'o had been the victim of a hoax.


"The university immediately initiated an investigation to assist Manti and his family in discovering the motive for and nature of this hoax," he said. "While the proper authorities will continue to investigate this troubling matter, this appears to be, at a minimum, a sad and very cruel deception to entertain its perpetrators."


The school's investigators monitored online chatter by the alleged perpetrators, Swarbrick said, adding that he was shocked by the "casual cruelty" it revealed.


"They enjoyed the joke," Swarbrick said, comparing the ruse to the popular film "Catfish," in which filmmakers revealed a person at the other end of an online relationship was not who she said she was.


"While we still don't know all of the dimensions of this ... there are certain things that I feel confident we do know," Swarbrick said. "The first is that this was a very elaborate, very sophisticated hoax, perpetrated for reasons we don't understand."


Click here for more scandalous public confessions.


Swarbrick also said that he believed Te'o's representatives were planning to disclose the truth next week until Wednesday's story broke.


Te'o, who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and finished second for the Heisman Trophy, has only issued a written statement so far.






Read More..

Should we give Lance another chance?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Mike Downey: I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for the dope "pedaler"

  • Randy Cohen: If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping

  • Jeff Pearlman: Lance racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42

  • John Hoberman: Any lifting of his lifetime ban should be based on his total cooperation




(CNN) -- CNN asked for views on whether disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong deserves another chance in light of his apologies to his charity, Livestrong, and his soon-to-be-aired interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which it's widely reported he admitted he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong is banned from professional cycling for life and was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles.


Mike Downey: No sympathy for the dope "pedaler"


I was at the Champs-Elysees finish line on July 27, 1986, when the bike of Greg LeMond whizzed by, making him the first American to win the Tour de France. It was a monumental achievement: 210 cyclists, 23 grueling days, long and winding roads, treacherously steep hills.



Mike Downey

Mike Downey



Equally hard had to be the abuse LeMond endured in retirement after publicly decrying the sport's hypocrisies and daring to suggest that seven-time winner Lance Armstrong, the All-American boy himself, had not been on the up-and-up. Vilified and disdained, LeMond was treated like a tobacco company's insider who blew the whistle on the industry's methods or like Carl Lewis speculating that his rival Ben Johnson had not won foot races fairly and squarely. As if he had an ax to grind.


I haven't a smidgen of sympathy for Armstrong now that he is exposed for the dope-pedaler -- that's pedal, not peddle -- he truly was. He played the Jean Valjean part of the persecuted man for every franc that it was worth. Let us resist the magnanimous gesture to forgive, forget and give Lance a second (eighth?) chance. He was caught, unlike certain baseball players who have been merely suspected or accused, and has, evidently, confessed. Seven strikes and you're out.


Professional athletes do exist who 'fess up, serve a suspension, then are welcomed back. They, as with the ballplayers, did disgrace their life's work, yet none single-handedly won their sport's championship with their chicanery. None stood apart as Armstrong did and hogged credit for being a champion, a hero. None won a championship by compelling teammates to also cheat, at risk of being shunned, smeared or dropped from the team.


I say we say goodbye for good to Monsieur Armstrong, farewell, adieu. Off to Elba and exile with you, you rogue. Vive LeMond.


Mike Downey is a former columnist for The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune.


To Armstrong's critics, doping admission would be sweet


Roxanne Jones: He's not trustworthy


When my son comes to me with a guilty apology for some horrible-at-the-time wrong he's done, of course, I forgive him - over and over again. That's a mother's love. If my partner asks forgiveness for a wrong turn he's taken, I look a little closer at the root of his sincerity. If it's there he gets a second shot, too, if he's worth my trust again.



But Lance Armstrong, who maliciously lied for more than a decade, who I watched from my sideline seat in sports try to crush the voice of anyone who dared to call him a cheater. No, he gets no second chance from me. There are too many reasons to question his apology. Is he trying to stave off fleeing endorsement dollars? Save his LiveStrong Foundation? Avoid paying back all the sponsors he defrauded? He could at least pay back the U.S. Postal Service, especially if those are taxpayer dollars.


I've had it with these public crying-after-you-caught apologies. Armstrong has had a decade of second chances to come clean but he was too arrogant, too caught up in his God-like stature. And now, he should live strong among us mere mortals and show the world - his supporters and his doubters what kind of man he really is when the camera's are off.


Roxanne Jones is a founding editor of ESPN The Magazine and a former vice president at ESPN. She is a national lecturer on sports, entertainment and women's topics and a recipient of the 2010 Woman of the Year award from Women in Sports and Events. She is the author of "Say It Loud: An Illustrated History of the Black Athlete" (Random House) and is CEO of Push Media Strategies and is working on her second book.


Randy Cohen: All big-time cyclists who doped should confess


The important ethical question isn't whether Lance deserves a second chance. Chance to do what? Cheat in seven more Tours? Lie about it seven more times? Bully seven more teammates into doping? He behaved badly and is rightly censured.



Randy Cohen

Randy Cohen



But that should be the beginning, not the end, of this disheartening story. There's a lot more blame to go around. Cycling's governing bodies also have an ethical duty, and that's to provide a setting in which honest athletes can participate.


If many cycling fans are right, most of the top riders engaged in doping. You simply can't compete against them without doing the same. What was Lance to do? Quit the sport? And who inherits his Tour titles? Some other cheat?


It would be thrilling if one by one, they declined in a Spartacus moment -- an honest, I-am-drugged-Spartacus moment. This is a community problem; it demands community solutions. Unless those who run big-time cycling institute real reforms, Lance's fall will be merely a celebrity scandal, and there's little good in that.


Randy Cohen wrote The Ethicist column in The New York Times Magazine till 2011, and he is a former writer for "Late Night With David Letterman." His latest book is "Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of Everything."



Jeff Pearlman: He's almost 42, forget about it


Back when I was 8 or 9, my parents took me to my first trip to Disney World. I remember Space Mountain, and I remember Mickey Mouse's enormous head. For some reason, though, what I remember most is a sign posted within the borders of Epcot. It read: If you can dream it, you can do it.


"Dad," I said, "I dream of being 8-feet tall. But that'll never happen ..."


"Well, son ..."



Jeff Pearlman

Jeff Pearlman



"And, Dad, I dream of being able to fly just like Superman. But that'll never happen ..."


"Son, the thing is ..."


"And Dad, I'd really like to win an Olympic gold medal for my Joanie Cunningham impersonation, but ..."


"Son," my father said, "It's a sign. It's just a damn sign."


Sigh.


Throughout Lance Armstrong's recent fight to prove he hadn't cheated, and throughout the plights of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire and the alleged PED abuses of dozens upon dozens of others, I've often thought about that day at Disney and, specifically, of that sign.


As a boy, it spoke to me as a kid longing for greatness. Maybe, just maybe, I can accomplish anything. Maybe ...


As a sportswriter who has chronicled much of the past two decades, however, it strikes me as foolish nonsense. As Armstrong's recent admission shows, the words must be altered to -- if you can dream it, you can do it -- as long as you leave your ethics at the door and cheat your ass off and don't mind throwing your supporters under a bus.









Lance Armstrong over the years



























HIDE CAPTION





<<


<





1




2




3




4




5




6




7




8




9




10




11




12




13




14




15




16




17




18




19




20









>


>>








That, now, is the sad, pathetic legacy of men such as Armstrong and Bonds. Once upon a time, they dreamed of doing wonderful things: Of hitting baseballs 500 miles; of speeding down the largest mountains; of being special. Then, however, they learned (as we all do) that we are bound by the confines of humanity. Within the rules and regulations, there is only so strong. There is only so fast. There is only so big. Hence, one can either accept his lot in life and put out the best possible effort, or he can cheat and lie and enjoy the temporary fruits while trying to avoid the inevitable plummet.


Do I think he should be allowed to race again? No. Lance Armstrong racing again is not truly an option anyway -- he's almost 42.


Just the same, I am thrilled that he has -- at long last -- begun to come clean. There are lessons to be learned here, beyond those pertaining to cycling. And day's end, when the cheering has stopped, there is something to be said for trying your best, even if your best doesn't result in triumph.


There is empowerment in knowing you gave your all. There is satisfaction in achieving your own PR. There is the sense of community and camaraderie that comes in the aftermath of a sporting event. Cold beers, casual conversation, sore muscles -- bliss.


Armstrong and Bonds forgot that long ago. For them, it was all -- and only --about winning. They got lost in a corrupt world of enhancers and boosters and had their heads turned by the fame and accolades and money.


Now, though, they are outcasts. They are the tombstones of long-ago dreams.


Jeff Pearlman is the author of "Sweetness: The Enigmatic Life of Walter Payton." He blogs at jeffpearlman.com. Follow him on Twitter.


Oprah interview won't reduce sanctions against Armstrong, officials say


Wayne Norman: Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong


Lance knows that a quick mea culpa is not enough -- otherwise, he would have admitted to doping long ago. Instead, he made a calculated gamble that he could preserve his reputation and brand by lying, defrauding corporate sponsors, impugning the authorities pursuing him and actively slandering and suing honest whistle-blowers who stood in his way.



Wayne Norman

Wayne Norman



That bet has not paid off.


Like a convenience store robbery that goes wrong and leads to a hostage-taking and a high-speed chase, Lance's doping is by far the least of his transgressions. A highly calculated confession about the doping still looks like Lance gambling to advance his interests. Former fans will need contrition and a sense that he genuinely regrets the gamble. Those he slandered and defrauded should demand even more.


Lance cannot get another chance as an athlete at this point. That would make a mockery of all sporting rules and their enforcement. When you've been that blatantly dishonest, it won't be easy to convince people to trust you again.


Wayne Norman is the Mike & Ruth Mackowski professor of ethics at Duke University.


John Eustice: Armstrong can make a deal and get leeway


What Lance has, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency wants, and Lance is not going to give it to them unless he gets his (athletic) life back. USADA knows that Lance stands at the nexus of two distinct cultures, two completely different mindsets: The ideals and dreams of Olympic sport and the harsh, ratings-driven business of the professional game.



John Eustice

John Eustice



They view this conquest of Lance as their great chance to have the Olympic vision triumph over the cynicism of the pros. But they need his cooperation to win.


Despite the admitting of pros into the Olympic Games, in truth, the two cultures do not mesh. Pro sports are businesses where talent, ratings and the subsequent cash flows from them, must be protected just as in any other entertainment business.


USADA needs to understand how the professional mentality has "infected" the Olympic movement, and Lance is the key. Was he protected by the International Cycling Union? Was the Tour de France involved? Did it go even higher that that?


USADA makes deals. If Lance can provide them with information on the underground system that fuels athletes worldwide, and explain, for example, how of the 6,000 drugs tests given at the London Games, only one came back positive, allowing him to participate in some triathlons seems a very small price to pay.


Cycling analyst John Eustice was one of the pioneer Americans to break into the world of European pro cycling. He co-founded and captained the first American team to race in the Tour of Italy, and is a two-time United States Professional Champion.


John Hoberman: Is it possible to acquire a conscience overnight?


The report that Lance Armstrong choked up during his apology to Livestrong Foundation employees earlier this week would seem to mark an abrupt departure from the cold, calculating and manipulative personality he has displayed throughout his celebrated athletic career.


Having closely followed the Armstrong saga as a doping researcher, I have come to doubt whether this is man is capable of genuine contrition. One can only imagine the apologetic telephone calls he has been making to the former teammates and other victims he persecuted, threatened, bullied and slandered over so many years.



John Hoberman

John Hoberman



Is it really possible to acquire a conscience overnight? Can a person who has long-demonstrated reckless self-assertion, a lack of empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm and irresponsibility suddenly repent after months of hostile intransigence?


One is tempted to say no, since this ensemble of traits bears a disturbing similarity to the psychopathic personality. Let us hope that Armstrong is capable of leaving his old self behind and building a healthier personal identity.


Any lifting of his lifetime ban from officially recognized competitions should be made contingent on his absolute and total cooperation with the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency. Armstrong must demonstrate some good faith by revealing everything he knows about the illicit trade in doping drugs as well as the cynical and opportunistic doctors who have profited from these corrupt arrangements.


John Hoberman teaches at the University of Texas at Austin and is the author of "Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport." He was a consultant in 2005 for the SCA Promotions of Dallas, the insurance company demanding that Lance Armstrong repay a total of $7.5 million it paid to him in Tour de France bonuses.


Shawn Klein: If he cooperates, maybe the lifetime ban could be reduced


After years of adamant denials and protestations of his innocence, Lance Armstrong has reportedly come forward to admit his use of prohibited performance enhancing drugs. If Armstrong is sincerely contrite and forthright in his apology, most people, including myself, will forgive him for his use of prohibited drugs.



Shawn Klein

Shawn Klein



He cheated in a sport known for its widespread cheating; that doesn't justify his use but it does put his actions into an understandable context that makes it easier to excuse the use. Further, if Armstrong cooperates with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, his lifetime ban from cycling ought to be reduced to something more reasonable.


The more troubling aspects of the Armstrong case are the allegations that he harassed and intimidated team members and potential whistle-blowers. Violating the arbitrary rules of a sport shows a character flaw and poor judgment, but it is hard to see who else is truly harmed by such actions. But to threaten, intimidate and coerce others (either to use performance enhancing drugs themselves or to cover up his team's use) causes real harm.


Even if only some of these reports are accurate, Armstrong will have to do more than sit on Oprah's couch to earn forgiveness. 


Shawn Klein teaches at the Department of Philosophy and Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship at Rockford College in Illinois and writes the Sportsethicist blog.


What do you think? Comment below and join us on Friday for a live chat on Twitter @CNNOpinion about Lance Armstrong.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors.






Read More..

Elton John has second baby via surrogate






LONDON: British pop star Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents for a second time, they confirmed on Wednesday.

The couple told Hello! magazine that they were "overwhelmed with happiness" at the birth of their son Elijah Joseph Daniel Furnish-John, who was born in Los Angeles on Friday to a surrogate mother.

"Both of us have longed to have children, but the reality that we now have two sons is almost unbelievable," they said.

The couple's first son Zachary was also born via a surrogacy arrangement in California in 2010.

"The birth of our second son completes our family in a most precious and perfect way," John and Furnish told the magazine.

"It is difficult to fully express how we are feeling at this time; we are just overwhelmed with happiness and excitement."

The "Candle in the Wind" singer, 65, has been in a relationship with 50-year-old film producer Furnish for almost 20 years and they have been in a civil partnership since 2005.

Last week, the couple's spokesman denied reports they had become parents again, but they have often spoken of their desire for Zachary to have a sibling.

The baby shares his middle name, Daniel, with one of John's 1970s hits.

- AFP/fa



Read More..

Opinion: Real hypocrits are at NRA




The National Rifle Association has released a video game, "Practice Range," a month after the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NRA releases shooting video game rated for ages 4 and up for free download

  • Christopher Ferguson: NRA condemned video game industry less than a month ago

  • Ferguson says the NRA doesn't even take its own claims seriously

  • As queasy as the app is, video games do not cause more violence, he says




Editor's note: Christopher J. Ferguson is chair of the psychology and communication department at Texas A&M International University. He is the author of the novel "Suicide Kings."


(CNN) -- The nation has struggled with addressing how best to reduce gun violence following last month's tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Responding to calls for gun control, the National Rifle Association attempted to shift blame for mass homicides away from guns to cultural influences such as video games or entertainment. No one can accuse the NRA of not being clever. At least not until it released a gun-themed shooting game less than a month after condemning the video game industry.


In fairness, "Practice Range," rated for ages 4 and up and free on the iPhone and iPad, is no blood-soaked, first-person shooter game. The trailer shows that it allows the player to engage in target practice using realistic-looking weapons. One of the weapon options appears to be an AR-15, the same weapon used at Newtown. The game also includes some gun safety tips.



Christopher J. Ferguson

Christopher J. Ferguson



I have no objection to the game per se, although the NRA's app smacks of hypocrisy.


Releasing a gun-themed shooting video game a month after the Newtown massacre reveals that the NRA doesn't even take its own claims seriously. As for the NRA's assertion that games create violence, it is nakedly self-serving.



But, as queasy as the whole thing is, violent video games do not cause more violence. Several researchers, including myself, met with Vice President Joe Biden on Friday to inform him that studies are unable to support the contention that violent video games contribute to societal violence. Rather, it is untreated mental health symptoms that contribute to outcomes including youth violence, dating violence and bullying.


As Fareed Zakaria aptly noted, nations that consume more video games per capita than the United States such as Japan, or share our media culture almost identically such as Canada, have much lower violence rates than our country.


That's true even if you exclude gun violence and consider only simply assaults. And mass homicide perpetrators are no more likely to be gamers than the rest of us. Our society experiences confirmation bias, focusing on video games when the shooter is a young male, and ignoring video games when the shooter is an older male such as 62-year-old William Spengler, who shot two firefighters the week after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This confirmation bias creates the false impression of a correlation where none exists.








The NRA is apparently unaware that most theories of media effects make little distinction between a game such as "Practice Range" and one such as "Grand Theft Auto." According to such theories, seeing a picture of a gun or reading "Grimm's Fairy Tales" is as likely to stimulate aggression as a blood-soaked movie or game.


Granted, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't buy that argument in 2011 when it considered a California law regulating the sale of violent games to minors, and criticized the quality of the research attempting to link violent games with aggression more broadly.


I don't believe either "Practice Range" or "Grand Theft Auto" harms minors, although of course some games may have morally objectionable content. But the NRA can't claim, "Video games create mass killers. Oh wait, hey, not this one!"


There are reasonable things we could do to reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. For example, better and more consistent background checks and required reporting by mental health professionals when patients make violent threats (requiring the removal of firearm licenses from those individuals) would go a long way. We can also put out public health campaigns to warn people of the risks of gun ownership so they could make informed decisions of their own without their constitutional rights being violated.


Sensible changes will not occur if the nation indulges in a moral panic about violent video games as it did after the Columbine massacre. This, undoubtedly, would be exactly what the NRA would like to see happen.


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Christopher J. Ferguson.






Read More..

Americans believed to be among hostages in Algeria

ALGIERS, Algeria Islamist militants attacked and occupied a natural gas field partly operated by BP in southern Algeria early Wednesday, killing two people and holding an unknown number of foreigners hostage while surrounded by Algerian forces.

U.S. officials believe that Americans are among the hostages, but how many exactly was still unclear, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

A militant group claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it was in revenge for Algeria's support of France's operation against al Qaeda-linked Malian rebels groups far to the southeast. It said it was holding dozens of foreigners hostage.

In a statement BP said the site was "attacked and occupied by a group of unidentified armed people," and some of its personnel are believed to be "held by the occupiers."

Ireland announced that a 36-year-old married Irish man was among them, while Japan and Britain said their citizens were involved as well. A Norwegian woman said her husband called her saying he had been taken hostage.

A man who identified himself as Mokhtar bel Mokhtar told the al Jazeera television network in a phone interview that he was leader of the jihadist group which carried out the attack, and that the hostages included British and American nationals. His claim could not be independently verified, and he spoke only of six hostages.

The U.S. Embassy in Algiers said in a statement it wasn't "aware of any U.S. citizen casualties."

In addition to the two foreigners killed — one of them a Briton — six were wounded in the attack, including two foreigners, two police officers and two security agents, Algeria's state news agency reported.

Algerian forces surrounded the kidnappers and were negotiating for the release of the hostages, an Algerian security official based in the region said, adding that the militants had come from Mali. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

A group called the Katibat Moulathamine, or the Masked Brigade, called a Mauritanian news outlet to say one of its affiliates had carried out the operation on the Ain Amenas gas field, taking 41 hostages from nine or 10 different nationalities.

The group's claim could not be independently substantiated and there would be fewer than 20 foreign staff members on site on a typical day, along with hundreds of Algerian employees.

The caller to the Nouakchott Information Agency, which often carries announcements from extremist groups, did not give any further details, except to say that the kidnapping was carried out by "Those Who Signed in Blood," a group created to attack the countries participating in the offensive against Islamist groups in Mali.

He said the operation was to punish Algeria for allowing French jets attacking rebel groups in Mali to use its airspace.

French President Francois Hollande launched the surprise operation in its former West African colony on Friday, with hopes of stopping al Qaeda-linked and other Islamist extremists he believes pose a danger to the world.

Wednesday's attack began with the ambush of a bus carrying employees from the gas plant to the nearby airport but the attackers were driven off, according to the Algerian government, which said three vehicles of heavily armed men were involved.

"After their failed attempt, the terrorist group headed to the complex's living quarters and took a number of workers with foreign nationalities hostage," said the statement.

Attacks on oil-rich Algeria's hydrocarbon facilities are very rare, despite decades of fighting an Islamist insurgency, mostly in the north of the country.

In the last several years, however, al Qaeda's influence in the poorly patrolled desert wastes of southern Algeria and northern Mali and Niger has grown and it operates smuggling and kidnapping networks throughout the area. Militant groups that seized control of northern Mali already hold seven French hostages as well as four Algerian diplomats.

The natural gas field where the attack occurred, however, is more than 600 miles from the Mali border, though it is just 60 miles from Libya's deserts.

The British Foreign Office confirmed that "British nationals are caught up in the incident."

BP, together with Norwegian company Statoil and the Algerian state oil company, Sonatrach, operate the gas field. A Japanese company, JGC Corp, provides services for the facility as well.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the kidnapped foreigners possibly include Japanese employees of JGC.

"We are certain that JGC is the one affected," Suga said, adding that the government is now negotiating with local officials through diplomatic channels, asking to protect the lives of the Japanese nationals.

Statoil said that it has 20 employees in the facility. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry said it could not confirm that any Norwegian citizens had been abducted. The Norwegian Newspaper Bergens Tidende, however, said a 55-year-old Norwegian working on the site called his wife to say he had been abducted.

Algeria had long warned against military intervention against the rebels in northern Mali, fearing the violence could spill over its own long and porous border. Though its position softened slightly after Hollande visited Algiers in December, Algerian authorities remain skeptical about the operation and worried about its consequences on the region.

Algeria is Africa's biggest country, and has been an ally of the U.S. and France in fighting terrorism for years. But its relationship with France has been fraught with lingering resentment over colonialism and the bloody war for independence that left Algeria a free country 50 years ago.

Algeria's strong security forces have struggled for years against Islamist extremists, and have in recent years managed to nearly snuff out violence by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb around its home base in northern Algeria. In the meantime, AQIM moved its focus southward.

AQIM has made tens of millions of dollars off kidnapping in the region, abducting Algerian businessmen or political figures, and sometimes foreigners, for ransom.

Read More..

Obama Unveils Sweeping Plan to Curb Gun Violence













Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s.


Obama is asking Congress to implement mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, including private sales; reinstate a ban on some assault-style weapons; ban high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds; and crackdown on illicit weapons trafficking.


The president's proposal also includes new initiatives for school safety, including a call for more federal aid to states for hiring so-called school resource officers (police), counselors and psychologists, and improved access to mental health care.


Obama also signed 23 executive actions on gun violence, policy directives not needing congressional approval. Among them is a directive to federal agencies to beef up the national criminal background-check system and a memorandum lifting a freeze on gun violence research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


"I intend to use whatever weight this office holds to make them a reality," Obama said at a midday news conference. "If there's even one thing that we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try.






Maqndel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images













Congressman, survivor of Tucson shooting, says Gabby Giffords will personally lobby members of Congress on gun legislation Watch Video









Andrew Cuomo Signs New York Gun Control Law, Obama Readies Federal Plan Watch Video





"And I'm going to do my part."


The announcement comes one month after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., left 26 dead, including 20 children. Obama called it the worst moment of his presidency and promised "meaningful action" in response.


The proposals were the work of an Obama-appointed task force, led by Vice President Joe Biden, that held 22 meetings on gun violence in the past three weeks. The group received input from more than 220 organizations and dozens of elected officials, a senior administration official said.


As part of the push, Obama nominated a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which leads enforcement of federal gun laws and has been without a confirmed director for six years. The president appointed acting director Todd Jones, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, to the post, if the Senate confirms him.


The administration's plan also calls for aid to states for the hiring of more school resource officers, counselors and psychologists. Obama also directed the Department of Education to ensure all schools have improved emergency-response plans.


He also called on Congress to make it illegal to possess or transfer armor-piercing bullets; it's now only illegal to produce them.


Officials said some of the legislative measures Obama outlined could be introduced on Capitol Hill next week.


"House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations," a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said in response to Obama's announcement. "And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that."


The proposals are already being met with stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, led by the National Rifle Association, which overnight released a scathing ad attacking the president as an "elitist hypocrite."


"Are the president's kids more important than yours?" the narrator of the NRA ad says. "Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?"






Read More..