Emily Garcia and Zach Moss discuss how REI broke Black Friday trends by encouraging its employees to spend time with their families on one of the biggest days for sales during the year.

This episode was produced by Franziska Monahan. Our music was written by Evan DuPell.

Listen to the episode above. You can subscribe to Emerald podcasts in iTunes or listen on SoundCloud here.

The post Idea Industry: Black Friday and REI’s #OptOutside campaign appeared first on Emerald Media.

Emily Garcia and Zach Moss talk about how Nike because the unofficial-official sponser of the Olympics.

The post The Idea Industry: How Nike took the Olympics appeared first on Emerald Media.

“It’s time. I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me,” Donald Trump announced during his victory speech.

In stark contrast to Trump’s optimistic and promise-filled speech, University of Oregon students congregated around campus while chanting vulgar statements regarding our new president-elect.

These student protests blasted music and chants to express their extreme discontent for Trump, who throughout this election chastised an array of people from around the country.

As a whole, the protests around UO can be seen as a representation of the larger picture that is extreme anger and hatred of our next President of the United States.

However, due to the fact that Trump won the election, is it safe to say that UO students are a part of the minority who do not approve of Trump?

According to the election exiting polls from the New York Times, Clinton claimed 55 percent of the millennial vote as opposed to Trump’s 37 percent. What this means is that the general feelings of extreme dislike for Trump is expressed by the majority of millennials — even though Trump still won the presidency.

The anger from this presidential election poses the issue of whether millennials are going to allow this unsatisfactory election divide the country. Or are they going to take this chance to mold a new American Dream through political activeness, continued inclusiveness and open-minded cooperation?

Although there are deep divides within this country, there is an important point to remember: We are all Americans.

As Americans, we can protest our discontent; however, there must come a time when we unite and settle our differences.

On the other hand, if we instead decide to obstruct progress, America may become lost in violence, uncompromising arguments and ultimate despair. If obstructiveness and noncooperation is the avenue we take, we will become exactly what we hate — we will become a population that is slowing down political progression.

The inability to cooperate causes more trouble than it’s worth due to the fact that it causes people to exit politics by closing their eyes, ears and hearts to any potential for a positive change.

The success of our political system has been and will continue to be rooted in cooperation. With that said, although we may not be happy that the Republicans will now control Congress and the presidency, we must look for ways to unite together as opposed to focusing on our differences

Despite Trump’s continuous rhetoric that demeans diverse groups throughout America, he spoke words of truth in his victory speech, stating, “…it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; [we] have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.”

In the past year, this political cycle has been saturated with hatred and has identified division between Americans.

Along the line of this division, many millennials feel as though their voices have been neglected to be heard, despite comprising the largest share of American population.

However, there is a path forward. We must pick up the fragments of our crumbling system. We must remember that we are all Americans. 

We must approach our future not with apprehension but with activism.

We must go forward promoting social change, not obstructionism.

We cannot submit to hindrances, but work through with cooperation.

As American millennials, we are capable of continuing our fight to create a positive change and finally have our voices heard.

The post Opinion: What Millennials should do under a Trump presidency appeared first on Emerald Media.

In the second episode of the Emerald Podcast Network’s series on the advertising industry, Zach Moss and Emily Garcia explore the topic of sexual objectification of men and women in advertising.

The post Podcast: Sexual objectification in advertising appeared first on Emerald Media.

Emerald opinion editor Zach Moss and senior designer Emily Garcia discuss the moral code and changing world of advertising.

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” – U.S. Second Amendment 

Ironically, most people who talk about the second amendment forget the first clause that emphasizes a “well-regulated” militia.

What would you say if I told you there is a problem in the U.S. that affects over 100,000 Americans annually?  Would you want to solve this issue? Or would you turn your back on the problem?

Gun control is one of the most debated issues in the U.S right now. It is important to mention that I’m not an “ultra liberal hippie pacifist” who hates guns and loves Obama; I am, in fact, a huge fan of guns. I grew up around guns. Although I like guns, I do not let my bias blind me from the cold facts that gun violence is one of the largest problems in the U.S.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when I mention gun control and instantly hear a group of ignorant individuals scream their battle cry that Obama is going to take our guns away. Rest assured, this is about the need for more gun control to save lives — not just to take them.

President Obama recently mentioned a previously unknown fact that gun violence in the U.S. has killed more Americans than terrorism since 9/11. On average, guns end the lives of more than 80 people in the United States every day.

Imagine if we took the same statistics on gun violence in the U.S, but changed the name of the country to, say, Russia. Do you think our government would lose their mind over these facts and alert the international community? I bet that we would.

A counter argument to the gun debate is that only good guys will follow the laws and bad guys will still get guns. My answer is that this argument is right to some extent. Although it may be true that some bad guys will still find ways to get guns, my money is that there will be a significant decrease in the amount of gun violence because with more regulations would make guns less readily available.

One story that provides a personal perspective on the issue with gun regulations is the time I went to a gun convention with my dad. While I was at the convention with my father, who worked for the prison systems, I saw him look at another man in a very focused and cold stare. What I didn’t know at the time was that my dad recognized the man standing next to us; he was a recently released felon looking to buy a gun. It turns out that guns are so easy to buy that a felon could stand next to me, buy a weapon, and suffer no penalties. The outcome of the story was that the felon started to buy the gun until he turned around, recognized my dad and left because he realized my dad worked in the prison systems and recognized who he was. In this case, imagine what would have happened if my dad wasn’t there to recognize this guy. My point is that regulations aren’t perfect, but they may stop some criminals from buying guns — like the felon at the gun convention.

Although gun violence is affecting thousands of people a year, there are some proposed solutions and positive steps forward. One proposed solution is to first get rid of gun convention loopholes and increase regulations including psychological exams, extensive criminal background checks and mandatory safety courses. Ironically, we are required to have a license for driving a car but not for owning a gun — unless you get a concealed handgun permit.

Gun regulations may seem like common sense, but they aren’t common knowledge because many people still don’t know what gun regulations entail. Gun regulations aren’t about taking your weapons, they are about assuring that people who want weapons are fit to have them. If we do not continue to push  for gun regulations, then the alternative is the continual increase in mass deaths of innocent individuals. We must now ask ourselves: Will we stand for what’s right or will we continue to ignore the realities of the situation?

Follow Zachary Moss on Twitter @ZachMoss6

Violence in the name of Islam is a topic of every commercial news outlet. Furthermore, groups like ISIS feed the idea that Islam supports violence through the last 90 terrorist attacks in 21 countries over the last year that have resulted in nearly 1,400 people killed.

Although the talk of terrorism is a very touchy subject, it is important that we begin to ask the important questions like whether it is Islam preaching violence, or simply radical groups taking Islam out of context. If we don’t separate the difference between the teachings from Islam and the misuse of religion by fanatics, all Muslims will be falsely stigmatized as fanatical terrorists.

One of the top reasons why many people misunderstand Islam is through the word “jihad” which many people assume means “holy war.” Because this term is often used as a reference for Islam preaching violence through a “holy war,” it is important that we look further into this term in order to provide more insight into how Islam doesn’t preach violence.

Generally speaking, there are two different types of jihad. According to the teachings of Muhammad, the first type is the greater jihad, which refers to the struggle against one’s ego, selfishness, greed and evil. The second type is known as the lesser jihad, which means fighting injustice and oppression, spreading and defending Islam and creating a just society through preaching, teaching and, if necessary, war.

However, what is very important to mention that the use of violence is only to defend oneself, their family and their community. According to the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, the meaning of jihad isn’t an excuse to create a holy war for your family. Essentially, unless someone broke into your house and has a gun in your family’s face, you can’t use jihad as an excuse.

On the other side of this debate, someone might wonder how Islamic radicalism uses jihad as an excuse for violence if Islam itself doesn’t promote violence. The answer to this is a little bit more complicated than the simple explanation of the term jihad.

Through the advancement of globalization, the meaning of jihad has been taken out of its original context in order to fit the belief system of organizations such as Al Qaeda. Recently, the meaning of jihad has been warped in order to rationalize the violence by terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, due to the warped use of the word jihad, many people have begun to believe that it is Islam, through the teachings of jihad, that promotes violence as opposed to the terrorist organizations themselves.

Another contributing factor that leads to the unfounded idea that Islam preaches violence through jihad are the ways that many news outlets report on the issue. Particularly in the west, the term “jihad” coincides with the term “terrorist” in many commercial media and blogs. For example, CNN consistently tags jihad to articles and people to describe fundamentalists—an example would be the name “Jihadi John”. The inadvertent tagging of religious terms—like jihad—with crazy terrorists, who don’t actually follow the religion, leads to (drum roll please) the misconception that Islam preaches violence.

Due to the constant correlation between jihad and Muslim extremists, there is a growing conception throughout the West that insinuates jihad supports extreme violence. What is not understood is that jihad is used out of its original meaning by terrorist organizations.

Hopefully as we understand what Islam really stands for—like jihad— we can begin to separate the differences between the ways Islam preaches peace, and the ways groups like ISIS manipulate the teachings to fit their own self-interests.

Follow me on Twitter @ZachMoss6

“We value our team members and treat them with respect,” according to an e-mailed statement from Tyson.

I doubt executives at Tyson can say they respect workers rights with a straight face. The disgusting realities of the meat industry usually come as no surprise; however, what may be shocking now is the disgusting treatment of workers inside the U.S.

It turns out that workers in plants run by some of the largest U.S. poultry producers are being denied bathroom breaks and, as a result, some are reduced to wearing diapers while working on the processing lines. Many of the companies that believe bathroom breaks are to inconveniencing are Tyson Foods Inc., Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., Perdue Farms Inc. and Sanderson Farms Inc. Some unnamed employees of these factories were interviewed regarding the working conditions and said that the supervisors continually mock them, ignore requests for the bathroom and threaten punishment or firing.

The treatment of the workers is not only destroying their dignity, and making their management look like chicken-fried d-bags, but there are terrible health implications as well.

Many of the workers will go out of their way to starve and dehydrate themselves in order to avoid wearing diapers. Furthermore, if someone is to use a diaper, the not so surprising outcome from hours of standing in one’s own excretion is a possible likelihood of infections. And the story still isn’t over. Many of the victims who experience medical issues throughout these factories are pregnant and menstruating women who cannot leave the processing lines.

Where do these infectious diseases spread to in meat factories with poor conditions? If you guessed that they spread to all of the meat that we are going to eat then you’re correct.

After all of the well deserved publicity that the meat industries have been getting because of the workers rights both inside and outside the U.S, many organizations like Human Rights Watch have decided to jump into the discussion. Sure enough, Human Rights Watch concluded in a 175 page report that workers face a high risk of severe cuts, losing limbs or even losing their lives in unsafe work conditions. However, if you do end up in one of these jobs just remember, the employer will likely retaliate against you if you report your injury, you won’t be compensated and you’ll probably be laughed at.

The question now is what should we make of these recent discoveries? Many of us turned our heads when we thought this issue was only in other countries, but what goes around does in fact come around and we are now facing these problems for ourselves.

Although these issues appear to be daunting, and it’s much easier to just eat in shame, there are possible solutions. Bringing more awareness to problem can help more people get involved, which could lead to creating larger unions especially in other countries. If these unions can become stronger they can push for changes in better leadership, including members of the government and the heads of companies.

One example of a leader we can look up to who had the gall to fight the food industry was Theodore Roosevelt. During his presidency, he created the Pure Food and Drug Act to assist in creating dissent conditions for the food industries. Ironically, more than 100 years later we can’t manage to find a leader that will address these problems.

The new reports on working conditions provide the startling fact that history is, yet again, repeating itself. Unless there is change, factory conditions won’t improve. Food is something that we all share, and if there is a positive increase in working conditions, we by default will benefit as well.

We must now ask ourselves whether we will allow these abuses to continue, or will we open our eyes and address the issues at hand. Only time will tell, and the history books are waiting for our answer.

“I don’t think I’m going to vote. I don’t think reporters should vote.”- Anderson Cooper

Anderson Cooper, you are either lying and you actually vote, or you don’t even have your own opinion. In any case, Anderson Cooper should be the poster child for media neutrality bias because he goes out of his way to remain neutral — even if it means not voting.

A neutrality bias is the idea of favoring near perfect neutrality in every story, even stories where one side is indefinitely right.

Media neutrality bias can be positive in many ways, but can be extremely damaging at the same time—depending on the issue.

At this moment you might be asking, what’s the problem with staying neutral? Because the media pretends to be neutral even in issues where one side is clearly right, they’re misinforming their viewers. For example, during a climate change debate between Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and climate change denier Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the media framed the issue as an even debate so they could remain neutral. The reason this is a terrible idea is that it frames the issue as a 50/50 debate when, in reality, the issue is factually undebatable.

Imposing neutrality at all times is extremely damaging because it starts to affect real policies for real problems. For example, there isn’t enough done about climate change because people deny its existence, people deny its existence because the media frames the issue as an even debate as opposed to a scientifically proven fact.

Climate change does in fact exist, and yet many Americans do not agree. One reason they’re painfully misinformed is because much of mainstream media has never come out and stated the cold hard facts that prove climate change exists, even though it would help the American people. The argument that many in the media are trying to sell is that they do not want to be biased. My reply back to them is that their argument is terrible, their reporting is worse and people now believe that real problems like climate change is debatable—which will result in more disasters.

Another argument by those in the media is that they do not want to lead the conversations by taking a stand, but rather report on the issues. I believe there is a difference between distributing facts, and being the leading advocate for a particular side.

There are many social issues that warrant honest neutrality, such as abortion, where nothing is a clear and there is no fact based argument that can prove which side is right. On the other hand, there are times warrant the media to put their foot down and admit which side, according to facts, is right.

During this campaign season there have been many opportunities for people in the media to end their neutrality bias and take a stand. Donald Trump has said we should kill the families of the terrorists and we should approve waterboarding even if it doesn’t work. In both cases, the media simply stayed neutral, reported what he said, and that was it.

They should have followed up by saying the statements made by Donald Trump were against International and U.S. law—because it’s an illegal war and goes against the protection from cruel and unusual punishment. However, because the media stays neutral, people are having a debate on whether or not we should enact these illegal policies, even though it’s an undebatable subject.

My recommendation to solve the problem of media neutrality bias is to be fair to all sides, but deal with the facts after each debate. If one side just happens to be right based on facts, then so be it. Unless the media takes a stand to deliver the facts when it is necessary, then they are failing at their job.

Reporting the realities of the issue isn’t always about being neutral. True reporting will, at times, mean the media will have to report the blunt facts to accurately inform viewers on the issue.

Follow Zach on Twitter @ZachMoss6

“We must fight to keep our state straight,” said North Carolina Senator Buck Newton.

The context of the speech was North Carolina’s refusal to allow transgender people the right to use the bathroom of their choice. From the perspective of the North Carolina Republican, I guess the harder we fight, the less gay we all become.

The issues around the country regarding transgender bathroom access are just one small aspect in the larger picture that is transgender rights.

If you’re worried about businesses accommodating gender neutral bathrooms, already 70 percent of the nation’s leading Fortune 500 companies have nondiscrimination policies that cover gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. The reason major companies care so much about nondiscrimination is because when communities are welcoming places for everyone, businesses flourish as well.

What is interesting to note about the whole situation is that people are taking a strong stand against transgender bathroom rights when, in reality, they know very little about the issue. For example, many Americans are unaware that 18 states now have laws and ordinances that protect transgender people from discrimination, yet there have been no increases in public safety incidents.

Some legislators and ignorant voters might be baffled by this. Recently, there has been a lot of talk about whether these laws will cause safety problems as many assume they will allow perverted old men to dress up to get into the women’s bathroom for a sick thrill.

Well, as it turns out, even after the laws and ordinances were passed to protect transgender individuals, assault was still illegal — who would have known?

If you still think that an increase in transgender rights to choose the bathroom of their choice will result in an increase in sexual assaults, then you are arguing a point that is not based in fact.

We shouldn’t continue to believe that allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice is a problem. In this case, I would argue that if you’re focused on what genitals the person in the stall next to you has, then maybe you’re the one doing something illegal. This whole issue really shows the deep bigotry in the U.S against those who are different.

It’s not right to fight against something that makes other law abiding citizens’ lives easier, just because you feel like it. Experiencing all this hate toward a group of people is irrational, and these cynics should stay out of political and social issues.

On the other hand, if your heart really is in the right place, and you really did think that transgender individuals getting access to the bathroom of their choosing actually results in more assaults, then understand the facts and worry about the real issues.

A real issue relating to sexual assault to be concerned about, instead of the false idea of transgender bathroom assaults, is former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert who recently received only 15 months in prison for molesting children. This person should receive as much criticism as we can possibly muster up, not the transgender people who haven’t done anything wrong and just want to use a bathroom they’re comfortable in.

With everything that has been said, there is a solution to this issue. We should enact policies and ordinances that allow transgender individuals to choose the bathroom that they want, plain and simple. Allowing people to use the bathroom of their choice would also mean providing more gender neutral bathrooms.

Although transgender rights are still somehow a debatable topic, we need to continually look at the facts of the situation so we do not fall into a trap of ignorance set up by politicians who want to “keep their state straight.”