Analyzing love

On Saturday, I saw Valentine's Day (the movie) with two friends. While I enjoyed ever bit of the cliche plot as well as the unexpected parts too--I won't ruin the ending--I still left the theater deep in thought about, you guessed it, love.

Toward the end of the movie, Jason (Topher Grace) comes running back to his girlfriend (Anne Hathaway) and tells her, "In a relationship, you have to accept the other person for all of who they are and not just the parts that are easy to like. And you're stupid if you turn your back on something as important as love."

At first, I LOVED this quote; what hopelessly romantic girl wouldn't want some guy to say this to her?

But then reality (and my skepticism) kicked in as I dissected the quote.

So wait, if you don't accept someone for all of their flaws, you're stupid for breaking it off with them and giving up on love?

Yes, I agree that it's important to accept someone for their flaws; no one is perfect. I also feel that some of the best friendships or relationships are ones in which both parties recognize and accept each other's flaws. But I guess the skeptic in me can't help but wonder, "What if he isn't right for me? If there is some major deal breaker that I stumble upon one week, one month, three months, six months, or even a year into our relationship, am I really giving up on love if I break it off?"

Over the last year, I've had a countless number of discussions with my friends--both guys and girls--about love. The conclusion we come to almost every time is that if there's one thing girls have trouble with, it's ending relationships when they really should.

Last week in my theater class, two friends were telling me about another friend of theirs--let's call her Sally--who had been dating her boyfriend--let's call him Mark--for two years. Although the couple had been dating for so long, my friend told me that Mark had cheated on Sally at least once, if not more, and that while Sally knew about it, each time Mark apologized, she forgave him and kept their relationship going.

After hearing their story, my two friends and I agreed that Sally should have dumped Mark a long time ago. However, I still find myself wondering what the writers of "Valentine's Day" would have to say about a situation like this. Would Sally be giving up on love?

What about another friend of mine, who, after her last break up, admitted that she always overlooks her boyfriends' flaws, even when some of them are major deal breakers that should immediately set off that "break up" signal in her head? What would the writers of "Valentine's Day" tell her if she tried to justify her actions with Jason's quote on acceptance?

Some characters, like Kara (Jessica Biel) and Kelvin (Jamie Foxx), expressed their distaste for the commercialized holiday that forces people to give their loved ones flowers, candy or expensive gifts in order to prove their love. But even these characters fall in love by the end of the movie and seem like they're starting to buy into the V-Day hype.

I think that the writers of "Valentine's Day" should've taken a hint from the writers of "He's Just Not That Into You." While some of the couples in "He's Just Not That Into You" did stay together and end up living happily ever after, other characters, like Janine (Jennifer Connelly), found that same happiness on their own.

Once again I'd like to reiterate that I'm not saying that every woman should break up with her boyfriend if he does just one thing wrong. However, if she stumbles upon one of those deal breaking qualities, she should end the relationship; there's no use in wasting time on someone whose actions she has to justify or someone she wouldn't normally see herself with.

She'll find "The One" and her happily ever after soon enough, but in the mean time, she should enjoy everything else she has going for her, whether its her career, education, or time with friends and family. Because, as they say, you stumble upon love when you least expect it; there's a reason they call it "falling in love."

Following in their footsteps

Well, like many other modern day journalists before me and with much reluctance, I've decided to finally embrace Web 2.0 and create a blog.

This isn't the first time I've ever blogged before, though. Although I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, in middle school I was a seasoned LiveJournal blogger who wrote angsty freewrites and poetry about love, friendship, and the trials and tribulations of being a teenager, but that, my friends, is not real blogging.

I've started to learn about what constitutes "real blogging" this semester in my Public Affairs Reporting class. Our teacher, Professor Stevens, had us create blogs on the first day of class, and every few days we write a journalism-related post (they vary from week-to-week based on what we're learning about in class).

While I've enjoyed blogging about the state of the modern media and Rathergate in my Public Affairs Reporting blog, each time I've posted for the class I've found myself wanting to write more, to post again about a related topic. Or I read about something in the news, find myself shocked by it, and can't help but think, "I should be blogging about this," like yesterday when I read in Seattle Times article that passengers flying on Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air can now check in using their cell phones. And although it scares me, lately I even want to blog about the future of the media or what my future holds.

So I created this blog as a way to do that. Not all of the posts will be serious--later today or tomorrow I'd like to write about the movie, Valentine's Day, and how romantic movies affect our perception of love--but I ultimately created this blog so that I could break through the noise that the media and advertisers overwhelm us with each day and express my own views.

American journalist H.L. Mencken once said, "The duty of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," and I believe his credo still holds true today. However, many modern day journalists have gotten a bad rap for allegedly forgetting about this duty (although, after looking through journalism quotes in "The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations," it seems as though this problem may not have developed as recently as we'd like to think).

A journalist's primary duty today is to tell the truth and speak out about the injustices they observe in today's world, as well as to be a voice for the voiceless, and that's exactly what I intend to do as a journalist--to follow in the footsteps of journalism's greatest whistleblowers. It is my hope that with the help of other future journalists, we may restore the media's credibility and regain society's trust.