Online Distance Learning Forum

I have been writing a column on fashion design and fashion marketing for a year now on a sister site, so I have been watching the seemingly never-ending awards show train that started a few months ago and will end with the Oscars in March.

Celebrity - and celebrity marketing seem to have become the most important thing on the planet, so it is hardly surprising how much exposure these events get. Am I the only person, however, who gets a little tired of them?

Gwyneth Paltrow has attacked recent reports of her being viewed as “boring,” simply because her and her megastar husband Chris Martin shun the red carpet as much as possible and prefer to be at home together with their child. True to the world of celebrity marketing, even these comments have been used as tools for marketing the stars.

I’m fascinated by marketing - I used to work in marketing, I am fully aware that now it makes the world go round. MBAs and marketing degrees continue to be some of the most successful subjects to be transferred to online degrees. Just sometimes, however, when I’m surrounded by marketing and celebrity success and excess, I remember the late, great Bill Hicks, who asked, “Is there anyone in the audience who works in marketing? Go home and kill yourselves right now.”

He was only barely joking. I of course recognize how vital marketing is. I just wish we could see less marketing of celebrities and more marketing of real issues: the continued plight of the New Orleans residents; the continued aftermath of the tsunami and the recent earthquakes in India. Now they are the type of successful marketing campaigns I’d like to see.

Doing my usual trawl through online press yesterday, I came across two very conflicting pieces of data in the world of public health from two different sides of the Atlantic. The first, from my UK newspaper of choice, The Guardian, talked about how certain natural chemicals can boost the body's ability to repair damaged DNA and may prevent cells turning cancerous. The research was undertaken by scientists from Georgetown University in Washington DC.

The second piece of public health news came from The New York Times. It talks of research undertaken by Women's Health Initiative of the National Institutes of Health that suggests that a low fat diet will not reduce the risks of getting cancer or heart disease.

This second piece of news will strike fear into the heart of many public health professionals. It also goes against what has been established thinking for many people in the world of public health, especially in terms of heart disease. The first piece of news, advising the increased consumption of foods such as broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower and soya beans, is much more in common with modern public health professionals.
I’m no scientist, but I am concerned at the mixed messages here. Surely anyone with any sense would believe that a low fat diet is better for public health. There are also many qualifications to these findings which may get lost in the wake of this publicity. It’s time for some clearer messages in the world of public health. Are there any budding public health professionals who think they can do anything about it?