Monday, November 14, 2011

Replay: Young Girls & Body Image

Big Bliss Body Survey

We asked and you answered - you filled in our Bliss Body Survey in your hundreds and gave us your thoughts and feelings on body image ranging from celebrity plastic surgery to just how pressurised you feel about your appearance. Pick up the December issue of Bliss now to see what you all thought and for the full results, read up below...

Do you want to lose weight?
  • Yes - 65% 
  • No - 32 % 
  • No Response - 3% 

Have you ever dieted?
  • Yes - 42% 
  • No – 55% 
  • No Response - 3% 

Do you feel under pressure to ‘look good’?
  • Never - 4.5 % 
  • Sometimes - 46% 
  • Always - 47.5% 
  • No Response - 2% 

Do you feel pressured to change anything about your appearance?
  • Yes - 63% 
  • No - 34.5 % 
  • No Response - 3% 

If yes, from who?
  • Friends - 18% 
  • Parents - 5% 
  • Older sibling - 1% 
  • Younger sibling - 1% 
  • Media - 23% 
  • Other - 19% 
  • No Response - 34% 

Which celebrity do you think has the best figure?
  • Alexa Chung - 5% 
  • Nicole Richie - 3% 
  • Miley Cyrus - 17% 
  • Katy Perry - 30% 
  • Kelly Brook - 7% 
  • Jessica Simpson - 1% 
  • Beyonce - 33% 
  • Amber Riley - 1% 
  • No Response - 3% 

Which part of your body do you love the most?

  • Lips - 11% 
  • Nose - 1% 
  • Eyes - 44% 
  • Legs - 14% 
  • Bum - 5% 
  • Tummy - 5% 
  • Chest - 9% 
  • Other - 8% 
  • No Response - 3% 

Which part of your body do you dislike the most?
  • Lips - 1% 
  • Nose - 11% 
  • Eyes - 2% 
  • Legs - 19% 
  • Bum - 7% 
  • Tummy - 33% 
  • Chest - 10% 
  • Other - 14% 
  • No Response - 3% 

What do you think when you look in the mirror?

  • I love what I see - 6% 
  • I look good, but there are a few things I’d change - 66% 
  • I only look in a mirror if I really have to - 21% 
  • I avoid looking in mirrors at all costs - 4% 
  • No Response - 3% 

When you see celebrities on magazine covers, how do you feel?
  • They look amazing, I wish I could look like them - 49%
  • They look good, but I look better - 2%
  • They look gorgeous, but they’ve probably had a lot done to look that way - 39%
  • Don’t care - 8%
  • No Response - 2%

How aware are you of airbrushing?
  • I think all celebs and models in magazines are airbrushed - 20% 
  • You can tell when they’ve been airbrushed - 28% 
  • I’m aware it happens, so I take most images with a pinch of salt - 29% 
  • Most celebs are gorgeous anyway, they don’t need airbrushing - 21% 
  • No Response - 2% 

Have you ever considered plastic surgery?
  • Never, I’m happy just the way I am - 41% 
  • Not really, though there are parts of me I’d consider changing - 46% 
  • Yes, I’ve been thinking about it for some time - 11% 
  • No Response - 2% 

Each of these celebs have admitted to surgery. Give us your opinion on each...
Heidi Montag
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 8% 
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 64% 
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 24% 
  • No Response - 4% 

Ashlee Simpson
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 22% 
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 24% 
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 49% 
  • No Response - 5% 

Amy Winehouse
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 3% 
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 54% 
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 39% 
  • No Response - 4% 

Ashley Tisdale
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 27% 
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 25%
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 43% 
  • No Response - 5%

Dannii Minogue
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 26%
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 30%
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 41%
  • No Response - 3%

Jessica Simpson
  • I think she looks gorgeous. I would consider surgery after seeing her - 17%
  • I think she looked much better before. She should never have had surgery - 36%
  • I had no clue she had surgery - 43%
  • No Response - 4%

Are you worried about ageing?
  • Yes - 39%
  • No - 47%
  • No Response - 14%

Do you think it’s important to stay looking young?
  • Yes - 57%
  • No - 31%
  • No Response - 12%

Do you use anti-ageing skincare products?
  • Yes - 5%
  • No - 82%
  • No Response - 13%

Can you imagine wanting to use anti-ageing products in the future?
  • Yes - 77%
  • No - 10%
  • No Response - 13%

At what age do you think you might want to start using anti-ageing products?
  • 20s - 11%
  • 30s - 29%
  • 40s - 29%
  • 50s - 8%
  • 60s - 2%
  • No Response - 21%

What do you think of non-surgical cosmetic procedures like Botox and fillers?
  • Never heard of them - 4%
  • They’re kind of freaky and make you look funny - 67%
  • It’s just like make-up – use it when you need it to make you look better - 16%
  • It’s part of my regular beauty routine - 1%
  • No Response - 12%

Do you think celebrities should be honest about whether or not they’ve had surgery or other cosmetic procedures?
  • Yes - 51%
  • Sometimes, especially about surgery - 17%
  • No - 19%
  • No Response - 13%

Have you ever approached a clinic for cosmetic surgery or non-surgical procedures?
  • Yes - 3%
  • No - 85%
  • No Response - 12%

Have you ever had Botox?

  • Yes - 6%
  • No - 94 %


 * * * * * 
Young Girls care more about Body Image
By Rashmi Sharma • November 13, 2011

Young girls today are more concerned about how they look and their body image than the past. The constant bombardment of images in media, films, on catwalks and even in video games, along with the use of airbrushing convey a look that is many cases is never real. But it is a highly influential one.
nine out of ten said they weren’t happy with how they looked


In an age where looks appear to be everything, we are all increasingly surrounded by images of female beauty that are often unrealistic and unattainable. Research has shown that young girls are most likely to be influenced by the media as they spend more time involved in media-related activities. They are more impressionable and open to influence.

Bliss magazine asked 2000 girls aged between 10 and 19 how they felt about their own bodies and nine out of ten said they weren’t happy with how they looked. Two thirds thought they needed to lose weight. Research from girl guiding U.K shows that girls under ten are linking body image and appearance to happiness and self esteem. Research undertaken in 2004 of ninety-six adolescents and 93 adult females in Mumbai, India also showed similar results. This is clearly a worrying trend.

The media, both written and visual bombards us with images of perfectly honed and made-up models, not to mention skinny, scantily clad models that have been airbrushed to the nth degree which adds to young girls’ insecurities about their own bodies and also gives a false impression of beauty.

Most parents with young girls are finding it increasingly difficult to find age appropriate clothes for their children due to the trend for dressing girls older than they are. Low cut tops, short skirts and figure hugging clothes seem to be the predominant styles available for girls these days. Access to the latest technology is one of the reasons that children seem to grow up a lot faster, however, the media in general is not allowing children to be children, especially girls.

The fashion industry plays its part in contributing to girls’ perception of themselves and what they should be wearing as the trends from this industry influence the high street and there is a blending between adult and children’s couture, such that it is becoming harder to differentiate between the two.

The problem is becoming an issue in the Indian sub-continent where the media and Bollywood are playing a role but not yet as influential as in the West. Size zero has been banded around as the ideal look for models in India. For example, Bollywood actress Kareen Kapoor donned this look for her role in ‘Tashan.’

Some designers in India however agree that a wider choice in body type amongst Indian models could help. But most follow the herd. Thin is the win-win formula for today’s models with very few exceptions.

With Indian models following suit of the Western models, this is clearly not a reflection of real society as a whole and their images can contribute to eating related disorders such as Anorexia and Bulimia in young girls, especially those idolising models and stars.


Parents can help counteract these negative influences from the media by helping their young daughters value themselves for who they are and not how they look, and by emphasising that a range of body types is both normal and attractive.

Complimenting children for their creativity and character rather than their looks is more important to their development.

Helping young girls understand that perfect bodies are not the ideal can go a long way to help them develop self-esteem and confidence. However, sadly another trend making its way as being ‘acceptable’ is cosmetic surgery and this is introducing further complications of young girls beginning to think they can ‘fix’ their bodies to be perfect when they are older.

A sea-change is occurring and there are individuals around the world who are trying to protect children and teenagers from unrealistic ideals regarding body image. In the U.S, Seth and Eva Matlins have been campaigning for commercials and magazine’s to be accompanied by disclaimers if models have been significantly airbrushed or photo-shopped. They believe there is a need for a ‘Self Esteem Act’ which will make it illegal for the media to use such images without retraction.

In India, there was the story of Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai Bachchan being furious with Elle ­magazine after her picture was allegedly airbrushed to make her skin look lighter. The former Miss World claimed her image was ‘digitally bleached’ and its understood that ‘Aishwarya’s first reaction was disbelief.’ A sign that even stars know when enough is enough.

In the UK this year, the Advertising Standards Authority banned two heavily airbrushed ads starring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington, following complaints launched by Lib-Dem MP Jo Swinson.

High street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) had to withdraw a range of padded bras and sexy knickers for the under-10s after complaints from parents.

On a more positive note, Debenhams is taking a stance against airbrushing by using unenhanced pictures of models in its flagship store windows to launch its new swimwear lines

A British government-commissioned study has proposed putting disclaimers on digitally altered images of models, warning consumers that the too-perfect woman staring at them from inside a fashion magazine is, in fact, artificially perfect. They have also decided to meet with advertisers, fashion editors, and health experts to discuss how to curb the practice of airbrushing and promote body confidence among girls and women.

The government is also due to launch an online ‘one-stop-shop’ to allow the public to voice their concerns regarding irresponsible marketing which sexualises children, with an onus on regulatory authorities to take action. The website could help inform future government policy by giving parents a forum to raise issues of concern regarding the sexualisation of young people.

It is important that young girls are given a chance grow into healthy adults without worries and hangups about how they look to early in their life. The role of parents, government, retailers and the media are key factors to help make this happen.

Source:www.desiblitz.com/content/young-girls-care-more-about-body-image

The Caribbean: Embracing Tourism For Economic Growth


Embracing Tourism For Economic Growth
Published: Sunday | November 13, 2011
David Jessop, Contributor


Every year tourism trade fairs take place in locations from Berlin to Hong Kong. These are international events where those involved in what is now a US$1,850-billion global industry meet to strike deals, promote their image and consider industry trends.

These occasions act as a bellwether for the sector and, by extension, the fortunes of those nations and regions that depend on tourism to maintain economic stability and growth.

World Travel Market (WTM), which took place in London last week was no exception. This huge event attended, the organisers suggest, by 47,000 industry professionals, provided an indication of the opportunities and challenges that the industry generally and the Caribbean more specifically now faces.

At its most simplistic, the selling floor at WTM indicated how aggressive competition in the travel market has become.

There, enormous and modern display spaces had been created by nations like Brazil, India, Peru, Russia, Ecuador, Egypt and China; to say nothing of individual cities or sometimes remote regions around the world. By the simple measure of size, appearance, and numbers participating, government and the private sector from these nations were demonstrating their willingness to place ever more emphasis on marketing their tourism product.

Speaking to some of these exhibitors, it was apparent that the reason for this was tourism's unique ability to create rapid growth and financialtransfers at a time of global economic crises.

Fundamental changes

What was also apparent at WTM was how the fundamentals for achieving success in tourism were changing and that any nation or region that did not understand this and adapt was likely to lose any competitive advantage they may have.

Alarmingly for the Caribbean, a number of industry seminars indicated that sustained GDP growth was off the agenda in the region's main feeder markets in North America and Europe. The nature of visitor decision-making was changing.

New factors were at play. The middle classes on which the region had depended for past growth were financially squeezed and they were becoming ever more cautious.

This meant that hotel and tax yields would fall as visitors sought ways to limit expenditure by taking cruises, staying at all-inclusives and spending less in the wider economy.

The luxury travel market was also in flux with such travellers being more interested in the experience, time and peace and less in material acquisition, exuberance and personal image.

In short, the manner in which people were buying and taking vacations was changing and this had profound implications for the Caribbean tourism offering.

Talking to participants from the Caribbean and other industry professionals there, what became apparent was that if the Caribbean tourism economy was to grow, it also needed to address other challenges, some of which were systemic.

In no particular order, reference was made to the fact that the pricing policies of the externally owned hotel chains and cruise ships with large numbers of rooms or cabins were driving down the profitability of domestically owned smaller hotels; viral marketing, search engines and new media were changing the marketing paradigm in ways that was turning every destination and property into a competitor; taxes, whether domestically or externally imposed on visitors were increasing at a rate that may place the Caribbean, especially for middle-income long-haul travellers, back into the category of aspirational; Cuba's changing economic model may well bring it fully back into the Caribbean market as a competitor; airlines and cruise companies were exerting an ever increasing stranglehold over the industry and individual nation's tourism development; levels of service and cuisine are far from acceptable at many properties in relation to price; the largely unspoken issue of crime against tourists has yet to be addressed; and the fastest growth in disposable income and travel in the next decade is likely to be from markets like Brazil that the region is only slowly reaching out to.

Troubling questions

How the Caribbean tourist industry intends to address these and the other more prosaic challenges raises troubling questions.

While no one doubts that tourism will continue to play a critical role in the Caribbean economy, much less certain is whether previous levels of growth and success will still be seen a decade or more into the future.

The industry in the Caribbean is now 13th globally in absolute size; first in its relative contribution to national economies; and 10th internationally in its contribution to long-term national growth. Moreover, it is the biggest employer after the public sector, the largest single contributor to gross domestic product, and was worth in 2010 some US$39.4 billion.

Logically, this should lead to rapid recognition that tourism is one of the few areas of comparative advantage the Caribbean still has and that everything within government's and the private sector's power should be done to defend it and foster its growth, while ensuring the equitable spread of the wealth it creates and the fullest possible integration into the national and the regional economy.

One hopeful factor in developing a response to the challenges is the setting aside of many of the previous differences between the public and private sectors and then recognition of the need for joint responses on issues of significance from aviation taxation to the problems of airlift.

If Caribbean tourism is to continue to be able to compete globally, what is now required is more than a short-term fix. There needs to be a clear analysis of the challenges the industry faces accompanied by a public and private-sector road map and, after debate, a commitment to a timetable for implementing whatever is agreed.

In 2012, the Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association will celebrate its 50th anniversary in Jamaica. The event offers an extraordinary opportunity not just to commemorate the organisation's role, recognise the first hotels, and the broader contribution the industry has made to the region, but also to launch a high-level initiative to reposition the industry in Caribbean thinking as a newer generation of leaders emerge in both the public and private sectors.

David Jessop is director of the Caribbean

Tech Futures: Black Future for Blackberry? A Tech History Lesson for RIM


Black Future for Blackberry? A Tech History Lesson for RIM

By Jeremy A. Kaplan
Published November 12, 2011 | FoxNews.com

BlackBerry Down
AP Photo/Oliver Lang
BlackBerry users were hit with days of service disruptions to their smartphones in early October after an 'switch failure' cut off Internet and messaging services for large numbers of users across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and North America.

Here today, dot-gone tomorrow?

Once high-flying RIM, the maker of the very popular Blackberry line of smartphones, is today fighting for its very survival, battling to keep its core business in the face of a string of service outages and far-cooler technology from its competitors.

The company's problems seem to be growing: A Bloomberg report last week highlighted the company's struggling stock price, calling RIM "a wounded puppy." This week, Google announced it would end support for its Gmail app on Blackberry handhelds.

In the light of these market challenges, we look at six other one-time tech juggernauts that went from heavyweight to scrap heap. Is there a lesson to be learned in history?

Wang

History: At its peak in the 80s, computer giant Wang was a billion dollar company with tens of thousands of employees. Wang moved from calculators and word processors into the computer market, making a very popular word processing program and leading in the early mainframe-class computer world.

What happened: The personal computer market consolidated around "IBM-compatible" systems: cheap Windows-powered computers, while Wang PCs ran a proprietary operating system too focused on mere word processing. Meanwhile the mainframe market consolidated around far more powerful "big iron" servers by competitors like IBM. The mid-range market Wang occupied simply dried up.

Lesson: Know your market. And if that market is shifting, business needs to shift accordingly.
Lotus

History: Lotus turned the early personal computing world on its ear with its Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet app, which helped prove why a personal computer was worth having on every desk. The company owned the market for years, and Lotus Notes, the company's Microsoft Office-like collaboration suite, helped cement Lotus' tremendous success in the software market.

What happened: In a word, Microsoft. The popularity of the Windows platform and the software Microsoft built to run on it contributed to Lotus' slumping sales. The company struggled to keep pace, buying and branding other software programs to compete, but a version of its software built for Windows 95 was too little, too late.

Lesson: Beware of the smaller, more agile company. But also beware the big guy who'll steal your money and eat your lunch.

Palm/Handspring

History: Everyone remembers the Palm Pilot, a spin off from 3Com that basically created the market for personal digital assistants (PDAs). Palm inventor Jeff Hawkins left to create Handspring, which turned the PDA into a portable computer and blew open the market. Along the way the two companies helped to create the vibrant smartphone market.

What happened: Handspring was reabsorbed back into Palm, which struggled to update its operating system for years without success. By the time Palm brought out WebOS, the modern version of its smartphone platform, it was too late.

Lesson: DO mess with success. Without continued innovation, companies flounder.

AOL:
History: The name America Online is for many synonymous with Internet access. Those ubiquitous floppy disks and CDs -- distributed in seemingly every magazine and mailed out across the nation -- introduced us to the World Wide Web, not to mention email. For many people, AOL's website WAS the Internet.

What happened: Despite as many as 30 million users at one point, cheaper dial-up accounts from other companies ate into AOL's profits. And as Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers offered access to the entire Internet, the company's web portal suffered.

Lesson: Looks can be deceiving. Despite shrinking in size over the years, AOL still operates one of the world's most popular websites and has millions of customers. The company earned $191.9 million from subscribers in the third quarter of 2011 -- 36 percent of total revenues.
Kodak/Polaroid

History: Polaroid's invention of the instant film camera in the 50s transformed photography, making it a fun pastime consumers could all cheaply and immediately enjoy. Kodak has a much longer history: Founder George Eastman invented roll film in the late 1800s, and his company dominated the camera market for decades.

What happened: No one could predict how quickly digital cameras were to transform the photography business -- but both Kodak and Polaroid were far too slow to catch on. Kodak has continued research and development, and still earns billions thanks to digital camera sales, yet the company has struggled, seeing its stock delisted and share prices slump.

Lesson: Watch the trends. These are companies that failed to see an emerging market before it hit them over the head.

U.S. Robotics

History: If you wanted to get online in the 80s and early 90s, odds are good you owned a modem from U.S. Robotics. The company was largely responsible for pushing the Internet access market forward, developing proprietary technologies that meant faster and faster modems -- and continued product sales.

What happened: The V.90 standard for modems meant an end to U.S. Robotics proprietary forms of online access, and the market for modems dried up as consumers switched first to DSL access and then to cable (both using modems that came from the carrier, not the local hardware shop). The company still exists -- and still makes modems.

Lesson: Success doesn't always mean victory.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/12/heavyweight-to-scrap-heap-whats-future-for-rim/

New Book Argues That The War on Terror Is Being Lost

New Book Argues That The War on Terror Is Being Lost

November 12, 2011. 10:27 am • Section: Defence Watch

Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, US officials are speaking openly of Al Qaeda’s impending death, but stating this ignores the major geopolitical trends that could well strengthen violent non-state actors in the coming years, says Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, counterterrorism expert and author of the new book, “BIN LADEN’S LEGACY: Why We’re Still Losing the War on Terror” (Wiley).

According to Gartenstein-Ross, the second decade following the September 11th attacks and the onset of the “war on terror” is likely to be defined by the fragility of the nation-state system. Three overarching trends are driving this fragility:

  • The world is entering an era of austerity caused by record national debts and slumping economies. This makes developed countries less likely to sustain their extravagant counter-terrorism budgets – thus creating the prospect that future attacks may be more likely to succeed.

The second defining trend is resource scarcity. The past two decades have seen unprecedented global growth – especially in China and India. This growth has put a strain on the world’s resources. When there are rising food prices, it create desperation for those who worry that their basic needs will go unfulfilled.

The third defining trend is technological advances that empower non-state actors who wish to overturn the status quo. Technological developments can make upheavals hit an already unstable system at a heretofore unimaginable pace.

Fragility equals unpredictability, Gartenstein-Ross, says. “Thriving in the decade of fragility will involve a nimbleness and ability to adapt that developed countries have not displayed during the past decade.”

Gartenstein-Ross on the things to consider:

  • Looking specifically at the threat of terrorism, it is important to make counter-terrorism efforts more efficient and strategic.
  • From an infrastructural perspective, it is important to identify the vulnerabilities that a society will have in five, 10 and 15 years’ time, in order to work on these from time zero.
  • A final critical question that must be asked concerns the pace of change. The question is whether having another regime fall – another new government in need of international assistance – is a good or bad thing. Indeed, there may be something to be said for letting an already challenging pace of change remain somewhat ‘manageable.’
He adds, “Without question, the decade ahead will feature unprecedented challenges. The threat posed by violent non-state actors will probably deepen rather than recede, driven by the overarching trends that will make nation-states more fragile and already-fragile states dangerously so.”

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Report: Medically induced commas as an alternative to prison

Modest Proposal:  


To save an instant $100 billion dollars a year, it has been modestly proposed that instead of imprisoning so many American, the US ought to  hospitalize our prison population. By medically inducing comas in individuals, the cost of incarceration drops, the animal violence in prison drops, the rate of recidivism drop as individuals no longer graduate from long sentences with enhanced criminal skills and enhanced anger and any twisted notion of prison desirability.  Legislation has not yet been proposed but who knows.  




Created by Online Education 


The US is ranked #1 in some impressive areas but being #1 for incarceration isn’t something to brag about. In fact, more than 1 in every 100 adults in America are incarcerated at any given time. In some states such as Louisiana as many as 1 in 55 adults are incarcerated at any time. But even in states with fewer incarcerations like Maine, 1 in 226 are still incarcerated. In light of such numbers it isn’t surprising that the US has 25% of the world’s incarcerated population even though the US only makes up around 5% of the population globally.
Despite the huge population of incarcerated people it is far from a representative portion of the population. While the national average is 1 in 100, only 1 in 106 is a white male. Shockingly, 1 in 15 Black men are incarcerated. This is like 2 people out of every classroom. Comparatively 1 in 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated fully 300% more than their white counterparts.
The actual breakdown tells more of the story. Even though more Black and Hispanic men are incarcerated total they don’t actually dominate the prison population. Whites make a large percentage of people in prison making up 34.72% of the population, and Hispanics make up 18.26%. Unsurprisingly Blacks still make up the largest one ethnicity at 43.91% of the population of incarcerated persons. With only 3.11% combined for other ethnicities. In total we have 2.3 million people in prison in the US which is roughly 10% of our population.
To give some weight to these numbers if we compare this to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have some 435 times that number incarcerated right now. Obviously we have a problem especially since 51.8% of those incarcerated who are released wind up right back in prison within 3 years, even though the average prison sentence is only 5 years. While these numbers represent people and we should remember that, there are also some very real monetary costs to consider.
Consider firstly the yearly tax burden of the average US household which is roughly $19,000. Comparatively, it costs $23,876 a year to house, feed, and care for an inmate. To give more perspective most parents spend $7,000 per child on education and close to $9,000 in healthcare costs per person. In light of such numbers no one should be shocked to find out that we spent $44 Billion on corrections in 2007 alon

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Ten Signs of Happiness


Ten signs of happiness published by ONS

David and Samantha CameronThe survey will ask people about their relationship with their husband or wife

Related Stories

People are to be asked how satisfied they are with their husband, wife or partner, under government plans to measure the country's happiness.
The Office for National Statistics has published a list of 10 indicators of wellbeing, including health, education, income, work and trust in politicians.
A three-month consultation will now begin before a final list is published.
David Cameron's "happiness index" is intended to complement other measures of the state of the UK such as GDP.
The list of national wellbeing indicators was drawn up following a five-month debate involving 34,000 people on the question "What matters to you?"
Statisticians narrowed that down to 10 areas, including seven relating to personal wellbeing and three wider indicators - governance, the economy and the environment.
Top of the list of measures in the ONS consultation document is individual happiness.
Among the questions likely to be asked are: "Do you feel your life is worthwhile? How satisfied are you with your husband, wife or partner?"

Question shortlist

  1. Are you satisfied with life?
  2. Are you satisfied with your husband, wife or partner?
  3. How satisfied are you with your mental and physical health?
  4. Are you happy in your job?
  5. Do you feel involved in your neighbourhood?
  6. Are you happy with your personal income?
  7. Are you satisfied with your education?
  8. Data on how many voted and trust in Parliament will also be measured
  9. Statistics on the economy will also be included
  10. As will environmental factors, including greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants
People would also be asked about job satisfaction and whether they feel they achieve a balance of work and leisure activities.
On neighbourhoods, people's involvement in their local area and sense of belonging, as well as feelings of personal safety, would be considered.
Other areas explored are people's financial situation and whether they are happy with their household income.
There would also be questions about education from an individual's own education to the importance of learning new things and satisfaction with the standard of the national education system.
More general areas included are what percentage of the population voted and how many trust Parliament, the state of the economy and the environment - the latter measured in part using greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.
After the consultation exercise, which ends in January, statisticians will consider scrapping indicators from the shortlist or adding new ones. A summary of people's views will be published next spring.
The programme, launched a year ago, aims to provide a better understanding of how society is doing, and could help form coalition policy in the future.

Future of Media: Lots of Questions, But No Easy Answers

Future of Media: Lots of Questions, But No Easy Answers

The Columbia School of Journalism released a massive report on Tuesday that looks at the current landscape of digital media — the small and the large, the mainstream and the alternative — and finds what will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the industry:disruption and confusion, and a notable lack of any obvious solutions. Although there are hints of some possible new business models, the bottom line is that journalists and media companies simply don’t understand enough about what is happening to their traditional business. And until they do, the chaos is likely to continue.
The study (which is available as a PDF document here) is broken down into nine sections, which give an overview of some of the major trends that have been impacting the media business — including the rise of aggregators such as The Huffington Post, the fact that online advertising produces a lot less revenue per user than traditional media does, the various experiments with news paywalls (“many efforts to get readers to pay for content have been fitful, poorly executed and motivated more by ideology than economics”) and the rise of low-cost competitors such as Examiner.com. And all of this in the context of an explosion of information, as described by journalism professor Vin Crosbie:
Within the span of a single human generation, people’s access to information has shifted from relative scarcity to surplus.
The report also looks at some of the alternative models that media organizations are trying both on the hyper-local level — via community sites such as The Batavian in upstate New York, which is virtually a one-man operation run by Howard Owens — and at national publications such as Forbes, which has been blurring the line between editorial and marketing content in a way that some traditional journalists may find troubling. But while some publishers are having some success with new ventures such as Groupon-style “daily deals” platforms and other experiments, there are few signs of a silver bullet solution that will make it easy for existing media companies to transition from their old way of doing business to a new one.
As Clay Shirky has said, the problem we suffer from now isn’t information overload, it’s “filter failure.” That should leave plenty of room for media companies and journalists to act as filters and curators for this information onslaught — and many are doing this, including Andy Carvin at NPR. But how do media companies monetize this? And can it ever produce enough revenue to make up for the loss of the old business model? Those are the questions that media entities everywhere are struggling with.
The report notes that despite its massive online readership, the old print business still produces 80 percent of the revenue for The New York Times — and one reason why those large reader numbers don’t produce much revenue is that the majority of those readers are “flybys” who rarely spend much time on the site and don’t return very often.
As Felix Salmon of Reuters notes in his analysis of the study, the fundamental issue for all media companies is that the traditional connection between their content and the advertising that pays for the infrastructure needed to produce that content — the buildings and staff and trucks and satellite time — has been disrupted. In the past, media companies controlled the platform, whether it was the newspaper or the magazine or the TV network, and advertisers paid to have their messages inserted into that platform. The study notes:
Digital disrupts the aggregation model that was so profitable for so long. Almost no one used to read the entire newspaper every morning, and audiences frequently tuned in and out of the network news at night. Yet, news organizations sold their advertising as if every page was turned and every moment was viewed.
This is all part of the broader trend of media disintermediation, or what Om calls “the democracy of distribution.” The web — and social-media tools such as Twitter and Facebook and YouTube — allow information to flow freely and to be published instantly by non-traditional journalists in non-traditional ways. But so far media companies have yet to figure out how to deal with this in any concrete way. Even though these trends have become obvious by now, and individual journalists such as Andy Carvin and Nick Kristof at The New York Times are exploring how to use these tools to create and distribute powerful journalism, few media outlets have made these new processes a part of their business.
So far, the most ambitious attempts to reinvent the business of media on a large scale have come from companies like the Journal-Register Co., where CEO John Paton is pushing an ambitious “digital first” approach and has cut costs dramatically. But in a way, the company is more equipped to make these kinds of aggressive moves because it went bankrupt before Paton took over.That gave the company a lot of leeway to reinvent and try new things.
Other media entities have to figure out how to reinvent their businesses without effectively starting with a clean slate, and that is much more difficult. The only thing the Columbia report makes clear is that they have to do it somehow and quickly; if anything, the disruption in the industry is accelerating. Which is why experimentation is so important — unfortunately, experimentation is not something the traditional media business is known for.
Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr users Zert Sonstige and Zarko Drincic