Baring her naked, 60-pound figure, French model Isabella Caro posed for a series of advertisements warning of the dangers of eating disorders. Suffering from Anorexia Nervosa, Caro's photos captured the grim physical and mental effects of the eating disorder. Her gaunt frame and vacant, hopeless stare conveyed the life of many who suffer from the disorder (Grimes, 2010). Typically, eating disorders are categorized by a persistent disturbance in eating and eating-related behaviors.For this Discussion, consider the eating behaviors of the male client in the attached case study. Think about how an individual's control of eating habits becomes an abnormality in eating behavior.With these thoughts in mind:Post a diagnosis for the male client in the case study and explain your rationale for assigning these diagnoses on the basis of the DSM-5. Then explain how gender and culture impact the presentation of an eating disorder. Give at least 2 specific examples. Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to current literature.3-4 Paragraphs. APA Format. In-text Citations to Support Literature. Minimum of 2 Peer Reviewed References.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy that held that broadcast media such as news had an obligation to offer equal airtime for all sides of a particular issue. It was determined in 1987 that the Fairness Doctrine did not have to be enforced by the FCC since it was not specifically mandated by Congress. Since that time, a great deal of news coverage has become much more partisan, even with the pretense of offering opinions on multiple sides. Initial Post: Do you think the Fairness Doctrine should be re-established? Why or why not? The Fairness Doctrine has never applied to print media like newspapers. Should it be applied to media other than broadcasting? Are there limits to the Fairness Doctrine? (For example, does a show about outer space need to provide equal time for flat Earth information?) Reply Posts: Select two of your peers’ posts and address the following: Do you agree with the posters’ main points? Why or why not? Have they overlooked some important aspects of how the Fairness Doctrine could be used? Apply the posters’ response to the original discussion questions to a hypothetical situation of providing equal time for opposing viewpoints. Are there potential problems that have not been addressed? Would their suggestions create more potential for misinformation to be spread? Why or why not? Fairness Doctrine is a former federal policy in the US requiring television and radio to broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. I think it should come back only if the radio and television broadcasters are going to be real and honest about controversial issues. Per the definition of fairness doctrine they were to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest. I feel we only get one side of the story when it comes to controversial issues. I wish the news would just be honest and tell it how it should be. I think the fairness doctrine could be applied to media but really who reads the newspaper as much as watching looking at things on television. The broadcasting is the best route to go for the fairness doctrine. I think there should be limits to the Fairness Doctrine, such as news. There is certain graphic pictures and video that don’t need to be shown all the time. When you’re at home watching the news you may have children who walk past the TV and see that stuff and could be freaked out by what they saw. I also feel there should always e equal airtime for each category they talk about. peer post number 1 This discussion post couldn't have come at a better time. The last 17 months have brought a great example of the importance of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. All sides of an issue need to be equally expressed. Look at the pandemic, the election, and government corruption everything is one-sided, and any view outside of what is broadcasted is deemed invalid. We live in an ever-changing society that acts upon what is disclosed, whether it's considered valid or not. The Fairness Doctrine must be re-established, which will dilute the controversial, one-sided media content. The Fairness Doctrine should be applied not only to television but to newspapers and multi-media offerings. Due to the decline of individuals utilizing newspapers in today's age, the Doctrine should be applied to all social media segments. Not everything needs to have the Fairness Doctrine applied, as called out in the third question of this discussion. However, things have gone way too far, and the Doctrine's use can hopefully bring significant reform to what and how things are expressed to society as a whole. Not all media and social media coverage, such as the ridiculous callout on earth being flat, requires multi-sided coverage in scenarios like this; many know the truth. Although if there is a documentary on this topic, it may be significant for the same to be published on why the earth is round, it could bring great aid to those in society that had the misfortune to be misinformed. Thank you for your time, and if you feel that the earth is flat, could you explain why? I didn't mean to offend anyone. This could offer great debate to this class. peer post number 2