<p>After the study of the sexism of magazine covers in Buffalo, it appears that analyzing the impact of gossiping is worthy of the interest of the University of California. </p>
<p>Perhaps time has come to spread a message that austerity is past due and that money should be spent a tad more “wisely” is NOT gossip, but a reality. Seriously, how do such subjects not only are proposed but … funded? </p>
<p>All the “researchers” needed to do was to remember that “The tongue has no bones but has broken many.” Oh well, the 2012 version might be “Facebook has no heart but is has broken many!” :)</p>
<p>Are you talking about the Equal Opportunity Objectification study at UB? I don’t know who funded the UB study, this type of study is not hugely expensive anyway, but sometimes what appears to be a “trivial” endeavor actually has a serious purpose. The comments made by one of the authors of that study suggest that was the case, so I’ll reserve judgement for now. Besides, aren’t all professors at research universities actually expected to do research?</p>
<p>Wow rather sad when even educated Americans read a magazine or news story to discern what research is about. Newsflash: what my PR department sends out as a press release for the masses to consume actually has very little to do with the actual study and the point of the findings. Often the context isn’t remotely relevant but the tested theory is (even if journalists would find it too complex to write about). Lots of more complex studies that add a huge value to a body of knowledge- that has nothing to do with common sense- can have a splice of it covered in the popular press for lay people to read. Those fluff pieces are about as meaningful and deep as celebrity news, and usually have little resemblance to the real point of the study.</p>