The following article is a real eye-opener. I feel almost guilty posting it, but this has to go into my collection of online articles that might trigger future research ideas both for me and for others! :)
M.
Greening the Internet: How much CO2 does this article produce?
Story Highlights
Every second spent web-browsing generates 20 milligrams of CO2
Estimates that the Internet will produce 20 percent of the world's GHGs in 10 years
Data centers often labeled worst offenders; many taking steps to reduce emissions
'Ultimately IT is an efficiency tool, better to move electrons than atoms,' say Google
By Lara Farrar
For CNN
(CNN) -- Twenty milligrams; that's the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article.
Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of C02 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.
This may not seem like a lot: "But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number," says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.
Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.
As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.
"It is part of the whole sustainability picture," Chris Large, head of research and development at UK-based Climate Action Group, told CNN.
"Scientists are saying to us that we have 10 years to take some serious action to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change so taking some sort of initiative is absolutely vital."
A number of studies have highlighted the growing energy demands of computers. A 2007 report from research firm Gartner, for example, estimates the manufacturing, use and disposal of information and communications technology generates about two percent of the world's greenhouse gases -- similar to the level produced by the entire aviation industry.
Anti-virus software firm McAfee reports that the electricity needed just to transmit the trillions of spam emails sent annually equals the amount required to power over two million homes in the United States while producing the same level of greenhouse gas emissions as more than three million cars.
"Most people don't appreciate that the computer on your desk is contributing to global warming and that if its electricity comes from a coal power plant it produces as much C02 as a sports utility vehicle," said Bill St. Arnaud of Canarie, a Canada-based internet development organization.
"Some studies estimate the internet will be producing 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases in a decade. That is clearly the wrong direction. That is clearly unsustainable," added St. Arnaud.
What do you include when working out IT's carbon footprint?
Calculating the carbon footprint of the entire web however is not as easy as measuring the greenhouse gas emissions of a car.
Data centers -- massive buildings housing hundreds, if not thousands, of power hungry servers storing everything from Facebook photos and YouTube videos to company web sites and personal emails -- are often labeled as the worst offenders when it comes to harming the environment.
In 2002, global data center emissions amounted to 76 million tons of carbon dioxide -- a figure that is likely to more than triple over the next decade, according to a 2008 study by the Climate Group and Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI).
The footprint of network infrastructure, which is responsible for transporting information from data centers to personal computers, mobile phones and other devices, is harder to pinpoint.
However the same study estimates fixed broadband accounts for around four million tons of carbon emissions and could account for nearly 50 million tons of emissions by 2020.
The manufacturing, transport and use of personal computers and laptops also has what some say is the most significant impact, producing roughly 200 million tons of emissions in 2002.
As millions of people buy new laptops and computers every year, this figure could triple by the end of the next decade, according to the Climate Group report. And it is also true that, like driving a car compared to taking public transportation, some online activities produce more greenhouse gases than others.
More electricity is needed to store, transmit and download a video compared to a simple email, for example. A single search using Google releases 0.2 grams of C02 into the atmosphere, according to Google.
"And what that includes is the energy that we at Google use to be able to receive your search, process it and then send it back to you," Erik Teetzel, one of Google's "green" engineers, told CNN.
"If people are counting things outside the activity that we do, then we don't have control over that so we don't factor that into the equation," said Teetzel.
"We can measure exactly the number of queries that we service and come up with a very accurate estimate and answer from measured results of our actual emissions or energy use per query that we serve."
The drive for energy efficiency
Citing competitive reasons, Teetzel declined to divulge Google's annual power bill, yet he said the internet company has been taking steps to make its main six, five megawatt server farms green as well as the other, smaller data centers it has around the world. It is doing this by using more renewable energy, recycled water and efficient software that requires less electricity to run.
"From a business perspective, it makes sense to get the most what you want to call useful work done using the least amount of resources," said Teetzel.
"Our energy efficiency efforts really did stem from us making our business more competitive."
A number of other companies are also working to take the various pieces that comprise the infrastructure of the internet in a more sustainable direction. Wissner-Gross of Harvard has a company called C02Stats that enables businesses to monitor and manage the environmental impact of their web sites and then purchase renewable energy certificates based on their sites' monthly carbon footprint.
Netherlands-based Cleanbits lobbies web sites to go green by either by purchasing carbon offsets or switching to green hosting providers, like AISO.net, a solar-powered data center based in California. And, like Google, Yahoo also incorporates renewable power and other efficiency measures in its data centers.
However as more of the world joins an age characterized by global flows of information and communication, some say the role the internet plays in making the lives of millions not only more efficient but also environmentally friendly should not be discounted.
"I don't think we've done a good deal with articulating the fact that IT is inherently an efficiency tool," said Teetzel. "That is why you and I use the internet now to find out a lot of information that would have previously been found by us getting in a car and driving somewhere."
"It is a little bit unfair to say that you have this huge carbon cost of the IT industry without articulating the fact that in many, many cases it offsets what I would call heavier, more carbon intense activities that we do in our daily lives," he added.
"Moving electrons is far more efficient than moving atoms. It is actually a paradigm change."
All AboutInternet • Nature and the Environment
Links referenced within this article
climate change
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/global_climate_change
internet
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/internet/
Google
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/google_inc
renewable energy
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/alternative_energy_technology
IT
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/information_technology
Internet
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Internet
Nature and the Environment
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Nature_and_the_Environment
Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/10/green.internet.CO2/index.html
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Media Madness!
What I will never quite understand is our fascination with all things sad. People today, are fed by incessant news, round the clock, over and over, of violence, terrorism, murder, suicide, kidnapping, rape, drug abuse, etc..Its either that or its our fascination with all things hollywood..brangelina, britney spears..heck we have our very own saifeena now! The entertainment section of any newspaper has the same old stories over and over again, with just new names in it..its almost like the folks over at the newspaper office have templates for who's dating whom, who's marrying whom, who's getting divorced, which is the latest boxoffice hit/dud..and so on..Why are we so fascinated with all this? More seriously, where does this constant information overload end?
And having said this, I've got to talk about MJ..I've never been a big fan of his music or anything, but like Obama said of MJ, some people grow larger long after they're gone..the ensuing media madness surrounding MJ's passing has got the entire planet transfixed..never mind third world poverty, hunger, Darfour, Somalia, the Indo-Pak relationship, climate change, the G8 summit, etc..all thats on TV these days is about MJ..one way or another. Why, I ask must we be so interested in MJ or his life? If its his work we value, lets just celebrate that, why focus on his life outside of music? Does it really matter?
We have got to become more discerning viewers, listeners and readers. Learn to filter information before we take it all in. As I write this, I'm going to tune out a few things from my mindspace for a few days, and this includes news updates, social networking and email forwards (I wish I could do away with email altogether, but that doesn't seem likely).
On a different note, been reading Salman Rushdie's novel, Shame. Like other Rushdie novels, it makes you reflect, its dark in parts, and makes you reflect on the novel long after you've finished reading it. I've struggled with it, its by no means an easy read, going back and forth in time, and moving from real to the imaginary very quickly..hope to finish reading this quickly and move on to somethin lighter, maybe I'll pick up Wodehouse all over again.. :)
M.
And having said this, I've got to talk about MJ..I've never been a big fan of his music or anything, but like Obama said of MJ, some people grow larger long after they're gone..the ensuing media madness surrounding MJ's passing has got the entire planet transfixed..never mind third world poverty, hunger, Darfour, Somalia, the Indo-Pak relationship, climate change, the G8 summit, etc..all thats on TV these days is about MJ..one way or another. Why, I ask must we be so interested in MJ or his life? If its his work we value, lets just celebrate that, why focus on his life outside of music? Does it really matter?
We have got to become more discerning viewers, listeners and readers. Learn to filter information before we take it all in. As I write this, I'm going to tune out a few things from my mindspace for a few days, and this includes news updates, social networking and email forwards (I wish I could do away with email altogether, but that doesn't seem likely).
On a different note, been reading Salman Rushdie's novel, Shame. Like other Rushdie novels, it makes you reflect, its dark in parts, and makes you reflect on the novel long after you've finished reading it. I've struggled with it, its by no means an easy read, going back and forth in time, and moving from real to the imaginary very quickly..hope to finish reading this quickly and move on to somethin lighter, maybe I'll pick up Wodehouse all over again.. :)
M.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Best career moves
Sound career advice-M.
Best career moves: King of Pop or Prince?
Posted: 604 GMT
HONG KONG, China — Since the death of Michael Jackson, I’ve been thinking a lot about Prince.
Prince performs at the halftime show of the 2007 Superbowl.
That these two would weigh on my mind is unusual. As a teenager in the 1980s, you’d be more likely to find Jimi Hendrix, Pat Metheny, the Cure or the Violent Femmes on my turntable.
The seminal MTV moment for me wasn’t “Thriller” but the first time the psychedelic Bo Diddley riff of the Smiths’ “How Soon Is Now?” poured out of my TV. For a small-town kid stuck in the sonic prison of Top 40 pop and country radio the music was like tuning into signals from a distant planet.
And yet this week it’s Prince I can’t get out of my head. The career arc — if not trajectory — of Michael Jackson and Prince were closely matched. Both came out with brilliant career-making albums in the early 1980s. Both were credited with crossing color lines and musical genres. Both saw sales ebb in the next decade.
Musical taste and popularity aside –Jackson outsold Prince 10-times over — their careers are a contrast in two executive traits: the perfectionist versus the workaholic.
In the 27 years since “Thriller,” Jackson released only four albums of new material. Since his breakout album “1999” the same year, Prince has released 21 new albums.
While preparing his “Thriller” follow-up, “Bad,” Jackson reportedly had this note taped on his bathroom mirror – “100 million” – his sales goal. (The album sold well but never approached “Thriller” status.) When Prince’s album sales were at low ebb in the 1990s, he ignored industry advice and released a triple-CD of new material. When that did poorly, he followed it with a five-CD collection of unreleased songs. That also tanked.
In recent years, the music industry model has switched from album sales to live events as a major source of revenue. On this landscape, Prince staged a remarkable comeback: a nearly $90 million tour in 2004, the 2007 Super Bowl halftime show and 21-concert residency at London’s O2 Arena. Prince often follows his two-hour concerts with small-club after-shows of improvised jazz that stretches as long as three hours.
Jackson’s 50-date stand at the O2 Arena starting this summer would have been his first tour in 12 years. The start was pushed back to allow more time for Jackson, the perfectionist, to rehearse.
Post “Thriller,” Jackson’s life was tailor-made for the tabloids: chimpanzees, Neverland, dangling a newborn out of a five-story window. His arrest, trial and acquittal on child molestation charges got more airplay than his music before he died.
Prince was no stranger to tabloids and eccentric behavior (such as changing his stage name to an unpronounceable symbol). Yet he seems to protect his private life. When Prince’s son died in 1996 from a rare disorder shortly after his birth, the singer eschewed press and sued the nannies that sold the painful details of the death to the tabloids.
Looking at the two lives, it seems to me Michael Jackson could have learned some lessons from Prince. High goals are important for career success, but pinning “100 million” to a mirror strikes me as the wrong ambition, especially in a creative profession.
Jackson and Prince both burst onto the scene when their talent and public taste happened to coincide – that rarely can be planned. While Jackson’s career got lost in “Neverland,” Prince focused on his work despite a fickle public. Fans went and then came back again – Prince’s work ethic never changed.
As a commercial act, Michael Jackson was the undisputed “King of Pop.” But as a career model, perhaps it’s better to be a Prince.
Posted by: CNN business producer, Kevin Voigt
Filed under: Michael Jackson • Music industry
Best career moves: King of Pop or Prince?
Posted: 604 GMT
HONG KONG, China — Since the death of Michael Jackson, I’ve been thinking a lot about Prince.
Prince performs at the halftime show of the 2007 Superbowl.
That these two would weigh on my mind is unusual. As a teenager in the 1980s, you’d be more likely to find Jimi Hendrix, Pat Metheny, the Cure or the Violent Femmes on my turntable.
The seminal MTV moment for me wasn’t “Thriller” but the first time the psychedelic Bo Diddley riff of the Smiths’ “How Soon Is Now?” poured out of my TV. For a small-town kid stuck in the sonic prison of Top 40 pop and country radio the music was like tuning into signals from a distant planet.
And yet this week it’s Prince I can’t get out of my head. The career arc — if not trajectory — of Michael Jackson and Prince were closely matched. Both came out with brilliant career-making albums in the early 1980s. Both were credited with crossing color lines and musical genres. Both saw sales ebb in the next decade.
Musical taste and popularity aside –Jackson outsold Prince 10-times over — their careers are a contrast in two executive traits: the perfectionist versus the workaholic.
In the 27 years since “Thriller,” Jackson released only four albums of new material. Since his breakout album “1999” the same year, Prince has released 21 new albums.
While preparing his “Thriller” follow-up, “Bad,” Jackson reportedly had this note taped on his bathroom mirror – “100 million” – his sales goal. (The album sold well but never approached “Thriller” status.) When Prince’s album sales were at low ebb in the 1990s, he ignored industry advice and released a triple-CD of new material. When that did poorly, he followed it with a five-CD collection of unreleased songs. That also tanked.
In recent years, the music industry model has switched from album sales to live events as a major source of revenue. On this landscape, Prince staged a remarkable comeback: a nearly $90 million tour in 2004, the 2007 Super Bowl halftime show and 21-concert residency at London’s O2 Arena. Prince often follows his two-hour concerts with small-club after-shows of improvised jazz that stretches as long as three hours.
Jackson’s 50-date stand at the O2 Arena starting this summer would have been his first tour in 12 years. The start was pushed back to allow more time for Jackson, the perfectionist, to rehearse.
Post “Thriller,” Jackson’s life was tailor-made for the tabloids: chimpanzees, Neverland, dangling a newborn out of a five-story window. His arrest, trial and acquittal on child molestation charges got more airplay than his music before he died.
Prince was no stranger to tabloids and eccentric behavior (such as changing his stage name to an unpronounceable symbol). Yet he seems to protect his private life. When Prince’s son died in 1996 from a rare disorder shortly after his birth, the singer eschewed press and sued the nannies that sold the painful details of the death to the tabloids.
Looking at the two lives, it seems to me Michael Jackson could have learned some lessons from Prince. High goals are important for career success, but pinning “100 million” to a mirror strikes me as the wrong ambition, especially in a creative profession.
Jackson and Prince both burst onto the scene when their talent and public taste happened to coincide – that rarely can be planned. While Jackson’s career got lost in “Neverland,” Prince focused on his work despite a fickle public. Fans went and then came back again – Prince’s work ethic never changed.
As a commercial act, Michael Jackson was the undisputed “King of Pop.” But as a career model, perhaps it’s better to be a Prince.
Posted by: CNN business producer, Kevin Voigt
Filed under: Michael Jackson • Music industry
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Overnetworked-continued!
The following blogpost mirrors my concerns about being overnetworked in my post yesterday..
_____________
Quote Begin
Dear President Obama #164: Not another Michael Jackson story
Posted: 08:28 AM ET
Reporter’s Note: President Obama has not said much about Michael Jackson, which distinguishes him from pretty much everyone else in America. I’m saying plenty, however, in my daily letters to the White House.
Tom Foreman | Bio
AC360° Correspondent
Dear Mr. President,
Want to guess how many e-mails I received about Michael Jackson by 4 o’clock this afternoon? More than a hundred! You could chase Kim Jong-Il across the Korean peninsula with a ping pong paddle and I wouldn’t get that many updates. Unbelievable. One of the greatest weaknesses in my sense of judgment (and there is a lot of competition for that trophy) is my tendency to underestimate the public’s interest in celebrities, and how we, the media, will react to that.
This nationwide tendency for star gazing is worse now (or better, depending on your point of view) than I’ve ever known it before. And you know who I blame? Tanya Harding. That’s right, the figure skater.
Back when she and her thuggy pals tried to break Nancy Kerrigan’s knee to thin the competition at the Olympics, I was dispatched to Oregon to chase down the elusive Tanya. So around 2 in the morning, I and a large mob of newsfolks found ourselves huddled in the dark outside of a shopping mall/ice rink where she was practicing, calculating our odds of getting a statement as she left. As it was, she slipped out a back door, we never saw her, and I rode back to my hotel thinking, “This is a bad sign.” It was the first time I felt like my profession had utterly caved to public “interest” versus public “importance.” Come to think of it, I guess that wasn’t really Tanya’s fault.
Now, I’m not just heaping scorn. Beating up on the media is way too easy and not always fair. Kind of like pretending to throw a tennis ball just to watch your dog jump.
And I know celebrity stories in the past have sparked media storms. The Lindbergh kidnapping, for example. And hey, I covered Jon Benet as much or more than any reporter in the country. So I’m not blameless. It’s just that this age of the mega-news story, combined with our celebrity obsession, combined with our cell-phone-tweeting-texting-instant messaging-Facebook posting culture creates a runaway train at times like this; with part of the public screaming “more, more more,” and another part yelling, “less, less, less.” (I have to admit, btw, I’m in the latter category; fascinating guy, great entertainer, important cultural icon, but enough already…)
So as long as that is going on, my advice to you is pretty simple: If you are interested in the latest MJ news, stay tuned to just about any media outlet you choose. If, however, you want the rest of the news…be very, very patient. It will come back, but not in force until this hurricane has passed. And that’s assuming some other big name doesn’t wind up “hiking the Appalachian trail” (if you know what I mean) setting off another media frenzy.
Call my office if you have a moment or any additional information about Michael Jackson. Like the song says, for the foreseeable future, I’ll be there.
Regards,
Tom
_______________
Quote End
_____________
Quote Begin
Dear President Obama #164: Not another Michael Jackson story
Posted: 08:28 AM ET
Reporter’s Note: President Obama has not said much about Michael Jackson, which distinguishes him from pretty much everyone else in America. I’m saying plenty, however, in my daily letters to the White House.
Tom Foreman | Bio
AC360° Correspondent
Dear Mr. President,
Want to guess how many e-mails I received about Michael Jackson by 4 o’clock this afternoon? More than a hundred! You could chase Kim Jong-Il across the Korean peninsula with a ping pong paddle and I wouldn’t get that many updates. Unbelievable. One of the greatest weaknesses in my sense of judgment (and there is a lot of competition for that trophy) is my tendency to underestimate the public’s interest in celebrities, and how we, the media, will react to that.
This nationwide tendency for star gazing is worse now (or better, depending on your point of view) than I’ve ever known it before. And you know who I blame? Tanya Harding. That’s right, the figure skater.
Back when she and her thuggy pals tried to break Nancy Kerrigan’s knee to thin the competition at the Olympics, I was dispatched to Oregon to chase down the elusive Tanya. So around 2 in the morning, I and a large mob of newsfolks found ourselves huddled in the dark outside of a shopping mall/ice rink where she was practicing, calculating our odds of getting a statement as she left. As it was, she slipped out a back door, we never saw her, and I rode back to my hotel thinking, “This is a bad sign.” It was the first time I felt like my profession had utterly caved to public “interest” versus public “importance.” Come to think of it, I guess that wasn’t really Tanya’s fault.
Now, I’m not just heaping scorn. Beating up on the media is way too easy and not always fair. Kind of like pretending to throw a tennis ball just to watch your dog jump.
And I know celebrity stories in the past have sparked media storms. The Lindbergh kidnapping, for example. And hey, I covered Jon Benet as much or more than any reporter in the country. So I’m not blameless. It’s just that this age of the mega-news story, combined with our celebrity obsession, combined with our cell-phone-tweeting-texting-instant messaging-Facebook posting culture creates a runaway train at times like this; with part of the public screaming “more, more more,” and another part yelling, “less, less, less.” (I have to admit, btw, I’m in the latter category; fascinating guy, great entertainer, important cultural icon, but enough already…)
So as long as that is going on, my advice to you is pretty simple: If you are interested in the latest MJ news, stay tuned to just about any media outlet you choose. If, however, you want the rest of the news…be very, very patient. It will come back, but not in force until this hurricane has passed. And that’s assuming some other big name doesn’t wind up “hiking the Appalachian trail” (if you know what I mean) setting off another media frenzy.
Call my office if you have a moment or any additional information about Michael Jackson. Like the song says, for the foreseeable future, I’ll be there.
Regards,
Tom
_______________
Quote End
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Overnetworked!
God created Man
Man created email
...and chat..
...and orkut..
...and facebook..
...and now twitter..
There's such a thing as being 'overnetworked'..I wonder if there is research out there that supports this idea..that the answer to staying connected is not using multiple channels to do so, but to use a different strategy (wish I knew!) to keep in touch, and reap the benefits of networking. I for one have about four email accounts (that I can recall, off the top of my head, there are others that I created for entirely different purposes), several chat ids, an orkut and facebook account, and now a friend has tempted me to join twitter as well! I resisted at first, then complied..and having created one more online avatar of myself, I'm yet to figure out how best it will help me. :)
And to think that right now, I'm lying low as far as networking is concerned! ;)
Later,
M.
Man created email
...and chat..
...and orkut..
...and facebook..
...and now twitter..
There's such a thing as being 'overnetworked'..I wonder if there is research out there that supports this idea..that the answer to staying connected is not using multiple channels to do so, but to use a different strategy (wish I knew!) to keep in touch, and reap the benefits of networking. I for one have about four email accounts (that I can recall, off the top of my head, there are others that I created for entirely different purposes), several chat ids, an orkut and facebook account, and now a friend has tempted me to join twitter as well! I resisted at first, then complied..and having created one more online avatar of myself, I'm yet to figure out how best it will help me. :)
And to think that right now, I'm lying low as far as networking is concerned! ;)
Later,
M.
Catwalk or Wimbledon?
Was more than a little surprised to see the following story about Wimbledon. I thought it was all about sport..since when did it become a fashion statement? It goes without saying that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tease apart the fringe benefits of sport (celebrity status, fame, endorsements, etc) from actual sporting talent (our very own Sreesanth is a good example of this!), but I thought it was restricted to cricket..looks like tennis has succumbed to the pressures of looking good as well, and has at last acknowledged it. What next? I wonder.
Till later,
M.
_________
Quote Begin
Beauty preferred over class at Wimbledon?
Sonali Chander, NDTV
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 (New Delhi)
Print | Comments: Read (0) Post A+ A-
The top four seeds traditionally play their semi-finals on Wimbledon Centre Court, but that's not quite been the case in these championships. That's because Wimbledon has become the first Grand Slam to admit that they do consider looks over ranking when deciding on who should play on Centre Court. They don't call it sex appeal but box office appeal.
Unseeded players like Gisela Dulko and Maria Kirilenko got to play on Centre Court. Sorana Cirstea, who's seeded 27th also played on Centre Court, while top seed Dinara Safina, 2nd seed Serena Willaims and 5th seed Svetlana Kuznetsova were pushed to court number 2.
So a large scale conspiracy at play on how to get the better looking players on the show courts or just a case of listening to the demands of box office appeal as per Wimbledon Organisers?
A spokesperson from the All England Club said there was nothing wrong in scheduling a Sharapova vs Dulko game on Centre Court considering one was a former champion and the other an upcoming player, though neither were ranked in the top 40 right now. It's a different matter that most fans on websites and blogs dubbed this as Wimbledon's Battle of the Babes.
So Wimbledon Organisers have become the bad guys for being politically incorrect, while the players themselves don't entirely disapprove. Serena Williams said she had no problems being on court number 2 and she knew that sexiness sells.
Serena, the highest earning woman sportsperson of all time with about 24 million dollars in prize money, is considered a fashion icon and she has 10 Grand Slam titles to her name.
While Maria Sharapova, easily one of the most popular women tennis players right now, also has won 3 Grand Slam titles. All going to prove these girls have style and substance.
And the tennis girls have support when it comes to looking good. Yelena Isinbayeva, the Olympic gold medalist in pole vaulting and a self styled sex symbol said: "Every girl in sport has a duty to be womanly and to look good."
As for the men maybe they don't need to wear make up but there is no denying the fact that charm, charisma and media savviness all contribute to making any athlete more popular whether they are male or female.
Quote End
______________________
Till later,
M.
_________
Quote Begin
Beauty preferred over class at Wimbledon?
Sonali Chander, NDTV
Wednesday, July 01, 2009 (New Delhi)
Print | Comments: Read (0) Post A+ A-
The top four seeds traditionally play their semi-finals on Wimbledon Centre Court, but that's not quite been the case in these championships. That's because Wimbledon has become the first Grand Slam to admit that they do consider looks over ranking when deciding on who should play on Centre Court. They don't call it sex appeal but box office appeal.
Unseeded players like Gisela Dulko and Maria Kirilenko got to play on Centre Court. Sorana Cirstea, who's seeded 27th also played on Centre Court, while top seed Dinara Safina, 2nd seed Serena Willaims and 5th seed Svetlana Kuznetsova were pushed to court number 2.
So a large scale conspiracy at play on how to get the better looking players on the show courts or just a case of listening to the demands of box office appeal as per Wimbledon Organisers?
A spokesperson from the All England Club said there was nothing wrong in scheduling a Sharapova vs Dulko game on Centre Court considering one was a former champion and the other an upcoming player, though neither were ranked in the top 40 right now. It's a different matter that most fans on websites and blogs dubbed this as Wimbledon's Battle of the Babes.
So Wimbledon Organisers have become the bad guys for being politically incorrect, while the players themselves don't entirely disapprove. Serena Williams said she had no problems being on court number 2 and she knew that sexiness sells.
Serena, the highest earning woman sportsperson of all time with about 24 million dollars in prize money, is considered a fashion icon and she has 10 Grand Slam titles to her name.
While Maria Sharapova, easily one of the most popular women tennis players right now, also has won 3 Grand Slam titles. All going to prove these girls have style and substance.
And the tennis girls have support when it comes to looking good. Yelena Isinbayeva, the Olympic gold medalist in pole vaulting and a self styled sex symbol said: "Every girl in sport has a duty to be womanly and to look good."
As for the men maybe they don't need to wear make up but there is no denying the fact that charm, charisma and media savviness all contribute to making any athlete more popular whether they are male or female.
Quote End
______________________
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)