This is just something I wrote for my current 4460 assignment for Wells' class. I know this won't count as an actual post for THIS class, just wanted to get it up online somewhere. I'd love some feedback anyone!!! Thanks!
-----------------------
In mid-February, the Dallas Stars were in the midst of a franchise record-tying seven game winning streak. The competition underneath the then first-place Stars in the Pacific Division was playing mediocre hockey and the Stars’ grasp on the division title grew tighter and tighter. The Stars were getting players back from injury and seemed to be well on their way to a top seed during the upcoming Stanley Cup playoffs.
Then something changed. Something unexplained happened.
The month of March brought a multitude of questions for the team. Beginning the month by losing eight of nine games erased the work of the magnificent win streak in the month prior. The Stars were losing, not by much, but they were losing. Losses equal zero points in the standings. The rest of the Western Conference was catching up.
The pinnacle of the dismal month was a lackluster home loss against arguably the worst team in the NHL, the Los Angeles Kings. With three minutes remaining in the game, the Stars led 2-1 before surrendering three goals in under two minutes, sealing their fate in a 4-2 loss. The team then had a rare four days off before starting its last road trip of the season--a four-game trip against division rivals San Jose, Anaheim, Los Angeles and Phoenix.
At the time of their home loss to Los Angeles, the Stars were tied for the most games played in the NHL this season. The four-day rest time off seemed to settle some nerves, but the results stayed the same in a 3-2 overtime loss in San Jose. However, with San Jose being one of the hottest teams in the league over the previous month, winning 14 of 16 games, the Stars should’ve felt compelled by earning a desperately needed point.
The second game of the road trip brought forth the same Los Angeles Kings that shocked the Stars in Dallas a week earlier. This time, the Stars were out for redemption. After allowing an early first-period goal, the Stars went on to score the next seven goals of the game, holding the Kings to only 14 shots for the entire game. The Stars had 16 shots during the second period alone, where they scored four times en route to a 7-2 shellacking of the Kings.
Was the tide finally turning? Were the flood gates closing on the Stars’ worst month of the season?
With the hope of a Pacific Division title washed away by the March woes, the Stars toughest test came during the third game of the road trip. The defending Stanley Cup champion Anaheim Ducks were also playing their best hockey coming into the game against the Stars. With, finally, a glimmer of hope that the dark days of March were over, the Stars earned a point by forcing overtime and secured a playoff spot for the 12th time in 14 seasons in Dallas. The contest went to a shootout where the Ducks earned the win by winning the shootout, 2-1.
The disheartening month of March saw the Stars earn only six of a possible 22 points, a 2-7-2 record, while the Stars main divisional competition, the Sharks and Ducks, earned 26 and 16 points respectively, erasing hopes of another division crown.
But the feeling among the team is different now. Much different than it was at the beginning of March. The Stars earned points against the best-playing teams in the league. Hope has returned.
The emergence of April brings the opportunity of a new beginning. The Stars seem to be rebounding and re-emerging as the team that won a franchise record-tying seven consecutive games. But will it be enough to send them on a deep playoff run?
The Stars’ March showers are hopefully the spark that springs April flowers for the playoffs.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Week Number ??!????!?!?!!!?
Wow. I will admit, I forgot to blog. For a few weeks now. So much going on in school right now! Well, I guess I will start with the new book that we are reading: The Tipping Point.
I read the Introduction and Chapter One to discuss in class. I was intrigued by the examples and associations that were presented in the book. A lot of examples of STD's but that seems to be a very important issue today in the U.S. It is a scary thing, so using those as examples is extremely relevant in my opinion.
What I also enjoyed reading about in the first two parts of the book, was to learn about how such a small percentage can cause such a dramatic change, but also the fact that no matter how you determine why a situation "tipped", the justification is never a dramatic one.
I also enjoyed reading about the example of the "Bystander Effect." The book mentioned the story in which a woman was being attacked in the New York City area for more than 30 minutes by her assailant. She tried fending him off outside her apartment as 38 of her neighbors were witnesses. Although so many people saw what happened, not one person called the police. The attacked woman died. The Bystander Effect says the problem is not that 38 people witnessed the attack, but rather the problem is that BECAUSE 38 people saw the attack. The author mentions that if only ONE person had witnessed the attack instead of 38, the woman might have lived.
Pretty interesting stuff. I am excited about the what the remainder of the book will be like.
I read the Introduction and Chapter One to discuss in class. I was intrigued by the examples and associations that were presented in the book. A lot of examples of STD's but that seems to be a very important issue today in the U.S. It is a scary thing, so using those as examples is extremely relevant in my opinion.
What I also enjoyed reading about in the first two parts of the book, was to learn about how such a small percentage can cause such a dramatic change, but also the fact that no matter how you determine why a situation "tipped", the justification is never a dramatic one.
I also enjoyed reading about the example of the "Bystander Effect." The book mentioned the story in which a woman was being attacked in the New York City area for more than 30 minutes by her assailant. She tried fending him off outside her apartment as 38 of her neighbors were witnesses. Although so many people saw what happened, not one person called the police. The attacked woman died. The Bystander Effect says the problem is not that 38 people witnessed the attack, but rather the problem is that BECAUSE 38 people saw the attack. The author mentions that if only ONE person had witnessed the attack instead of 38, the woman might have lived.
Pretty interesting stuff. I am excited about the what the remainder of the book will be like.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Week #9: "Healthy" Water & New Yankees
What a great ethics question for this blog. If you haven't heard, a report came out within the last 48 hours stating that multiple pharmaceuticals have been found in tap water that served over 41 million Americans.
I knew that trace amounts of certain chemicals were placed in tap water for health benefits (ie= fluorine, for teeth) but the pharmaceuticals reportedly found in tap water could have lethal effects if concentrated in higher amounts.
But here lies the real question: the report stated that the names of the present pharmaceuticals would not be released due to security concerns. But shouldn't we know what governmentally-operated facilities are providing to millions of Americans? The report would not even release the names of the 24 metropolitan areas across the nation that were involved in the five-month survey.
So should the investigative body who performed the research release the vital information to the American public? Or should they keep it a secret and insist that we continue "trusting" the facilities to provide us with safe drinking water?
Taken from the story:
"Officials in Arlington, Texas, said pharmaceuticals had been detected in source water but wouldn’t say which ones or in what amounts, citing security concerns. Julie Hunt, director of water utilities, said to provide the public with information regarding 'which, if any, pharmaceuticals or emerging compounds make it through the treatment process can assist someone who wishes to cause harm through the water supply.'”
So, what is the right choice to do?
On a lighter note, I thought this was an interesting story not related to Ethics and Law in PR whatsoever. CLICK HERE.
I knew that trace amounts of certain chemicals were placed in tap water for health benefits (ie= fluorine, for teeth) but the pharmaceuticals reportedly found in tap water could have lethal effects if concentrated in higher amounts.
But here lies the real question: the report stated that the names of the present pharmaceuticals would not be released due to security concerns. But shouldn't we know what governmentally-operated facilities are providing to millions of Americans? The report would not even release the names of the 24 metropolitan areas across the nation that were involved in the five-month survey.
So should the investigative body who performed the research release the vital information to the American public? Or should they keep it a secret and insist that we continue "trusting" the facilities to provide us with safe drinking water?
Taken from the story:
"Officials in Arlington, Texas, said pharmaceuticals had been detected in source water but wouldn’t say which ones or in what amounts, citing security concerns. Julie Hunt, director of water utilities, said to provide the public with information regarding 'which, if any, pharmaceuticals or emerging compounds make it through the treatment process can assist someone who wishes to cause harm through the water supply.'”
So, what is the right choice to do?
On a lighter note, I thought this was an interesting story not related to Ethics and Law in PR whatsoever. CLICK HERE.
Week #8: Resolutions and Quicksand
I shoulda seen this coming. Every semester, the months increasingly speed up towards final exams. It never fails, the semester starts out good, and then the "quicksand effect" kicks in.
You start out doing great. Everything is wonderful. The beginning of every semester is like New Year's Eve with your resolution always being the same: stay on top of the school work; don't fall behind. And like most real NYE resolutions, you start off doing great. But then you fall behind on an assignment in one class. And then another. And before you know it, you're struggling and kicking your feet so hard to try and get back to where you need to be, but you keep falling further behind; like quicksand.
And here I stand. Or, rather, try to stand out of the sand. I fell behind on blogging for this class. My assignments for "Dr. Death" are being started by yours truly later and later in the week. It's Monday night, and I have barely scratched the surface of the PSA assignment due in 15 hours and 26 minutes and counting.
However, with the amazing teacher we have, I can be a little late, as long as I make up for it in another blog. Therefore, the sole purpose this week is a lesson to you all:
It's better late than never. But don't fall into the quicksand.
You start out doing great. Everything is wonderful. The beginning of every semester is like New Year's Eve with your resolution always being the same: stay on top of the school work; don't fall behind. And like most real NYE resolutions, you start off doing great. But then you fall behind on an assignment in one class. And then another. And before you know it, you're struggling and kicking your feet so hard to try and get back to where you need to be, but you keep falling further behind; like quicksand.
And here I stand. Or, rather, try to stand out of the sand. I fell behind on blogging for this class. My assignments for "Dr. Death" are being started by yours truly later and later in the week. It's Monday night, and I have barely scratched the surface of the PSA assignment due in 15 hours and 26 minutes and counting.
However, with the amazing teacher we have, I can be a little late, as long as I make up for it in another blog. Therefore, the sole purpose this week is a lesson to you all:
It's better late than never. But don't fall into the quicksand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
