The Weakest "Ink"

Tattoos are nothing new. For thousands of years, different societies and cultures have used permanent ink on their skin for multiple purposes. Whether it be a sign of status, a rite of passage, an artistic expression, or cultural trend--tattoos have been seen throughout history and across cultures, dating back to the Ice Age.

For cultures such as the Japanese and Polynesian islanders, tattoos have been seen as a symbol of high status or a commemorative marking of an act of bravery. Few members of ancient cultures would bare these symbols unless respected or honored by other members of the society.

Our society generally has had an opposite opinion. While most tattooed people see tattoos as a positive expression of personality, fine art, and creativity, much of our culture still associates tattoos with negative qualities such as trashiness, low-class, and rebelliousness. Visible tattoos are a sure fire way to get eliminated in the interview process for a job opportunities.

My personal experience with people's opinions of tattoos in the professional world has come from many different sources who generally have had the same opinion: if you want to be a successful professional these days, you can't be covered in ink. I think that this is an unfair assumption considering many professionals have tattoos as well almost every public celebrity figure today.

There is no denying that tattoos are everywhere these days. According to a report by Pew Research Center, about half of people ages 18-25 have at least one tattoo. Tattoos are definitely becoming more and more popular among young people but are still being seen as inappropriate and "trashy" by older generations.  Another recent report by the Pew Research Center on current decade changes cites that 40% of those surveyed view people getting more tattoos as "for the worse," while only 7% view them as for the better and 45% say it makes no difference. 

If tattoos are becoming more popular and have been a symbol of high status in the past, then why is it so difficult for society to accept the 'inked' individual in a professional setting. Sure--a tattoo of a skull and crossbones on your neck is probably not a great image to put forth if you are performing open heart surgeries everyday. But what about the majority of tattooed people--who have one or two images in a full to partially concealed location on their bodies. How does the decision to enter a tattoo parlor and commemorate the death of beloved family member on your upper arm mean that you are not qualified to run a company?

CNN's news report, "Tattoo's Taboo in the Workplace?" describes the mixed reactions of today's employers. (Unfortunately, YouTube will not allow me to access the embed code for this video)

The idea of a more accepting society, when it comes to tattoos, is starting to catch on in a few places. Although the vast majority of corporations still probably feel the same about a tattooed candidate. An enlightening article from CBS News called "Tattoos Becoming More Accepted at Work," states that a Philadelphia boss hired a woman as vice president of his company despite her decision to get 'inked' across her chest and on her wrist. His response, when asked about his decision, mirrors the view that more employers should take into consideration when judging a tattooed job candidate. 

Jim Hoisington, the young woman's boss, said "Courtney is one of the brightest women I've ever met. She's fast, she's smart, if I passed on her because of her tattoos, I'd be out one phenomenal employee."

Source: CBS News/The Early Show

While many employers may associate teenage rebellion and poor morals with body art images, it may be in their best interest to consider a moderately tattooed person who meets all their qualifications, a possible candidate for the job who is open-minded and a creative thinker.

How has journalism and mass communications changed over the past decade?

The introduction and rapid growth of the internet has dramatically changed the way the world accesses, interacts, and interprets the news. Ten years ago, the internet was available but journalism was still operating under an objective, informational model. Newspapers were read by more people--in a variety of age ranges. TV news programs were information-based and allowed for little viewer response and the internet was used more for research and email communication. Companies used the web as an additional source of contact information and websites were available for the main purpose of availability to online users. Today, the internet has made the field of journalism much more subjective. Viewers of the mass media can access any news program online, comment on its content, and easily access more information about the topics that may  not have fit into a 30 second spot on the primetime news. More TV news programs involve commentary from qualified professionals and average viewers. Personal opinion has become more important than objective reporting on some issues. Newspapers in print format have been struggling to gain readership while their online counterparts thrive. The Newspaper Association of America reports that newspaper websites have about 20,000 average daily visitors Now anyone, anywhere in the world can become a "journalist" in their own right. The internet and its popularity and complexity has allowed average viewers of mass media to create their own commentary, provide their own information about an issue or event, and they are able to do it instantly. Social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs are almost a necessity for a successful company. The merging of all outlets of the mass media has been the most significant change in the mass media over the past 10 years. Where will it go from here?