"Texts Without Context" Michiko Kakutani, Mar. 17, 2010
The article is thought-provoking in several directions and certainly worth considering. Basically it reviews recent publications concerning the negative societal impact of the web and its effect on our mental absorption of written material, which obviously influences attitudes and actions.
============
AS a moderately "addicted" user of the internet, I'm becoming bored with much that I'm reading and watching. Long ago in say the mid-90s, I became aware that my use of the web was like a never ending hour-glass: I surfed copiously as I explored something new, but then little-by-little narrowed the focus to the bits that served me and then again widened out for the next topic of interest or necessity.
While this habit persists, it has to some extent come up against not a brick wall, but it's opposite—both the overwhelming, unending horizons or more and more material to consider ... and of course, the limits of time to do all that narrowing to get to what one wants or can use.
Let's consider that we seem to be entering a period of transition in web use, for some abrupt, disturbing; for others, challenging and invigorating. What are the solutions/options?
1. Personal: As with any habit which may become an addiction, there's a point at which most people will say, Whoa, horsey! and "TMI" in this case. It's the old pendulum swing phenomenon. After experiencing web exhaustion, the way out will most likely be an increasing search for and reliance on aggregate sites which are relevant to our individual tastes and therefore earn the term "useful."
A recent example for me is the "Open Culture" blog/website, a "quality aggregator" for my tastes and needs. Another is the twitter spin-off of Web2.0Classroom http://twitter.com/web20classroom http://goo.gl/IoZV set up by Steven W. Anderson.
2. Webwide: While the volume of sites no doubt will continue expanding with social media and people's willingness to express themselves more and more on the web in personalized forms of websites, blogs, twitter topics, etc., I believe and hope there will be more parallel development of these "smart" sites, designed to help us with the narrowing process and labeled as such.
News: front and center. As a perceived "victim" of the atomization of information, I hope and believe that news will continue to thrive primarily through local outlets, probably the most relevant for neighborhoods and families.
Bloggers not withstanding, national and international news will survive, but more and more will have to be related directly to our governing bodies. That means we will have to more easily see and understand why those international stories/issues are important to our lives and our choices of who governs us.
Just as in my Mom and Dad's time as non-university graduates and working class folk, they relied on the editorial stance of their favorite local paper to tell them whom the best candidates for office were based on local news both daily and investigative, we will more and more (or "once again," if you chose) look to specific "experts" to guide us in choices this time NOT because we don't have the wherewithall to get more information, but now it's opposite, because we're simply overwhelmed with too much to sift through within the time frame of daily life.
More and more I believe news publishers will have to begin to be more careful in choosing and more explicit in explaining the importance of stories from the rest of the world. I would not object to subheads: Relevance, Future implications, even the informal So what? as guides to understanding and remembering the relevance what we read.
Conclusion: From the article: "Given the constant bombardment of trivia and data that we’re subjected to in today’s mediascape, it’s little wonder that noisy, Manichean arguments tend to get more attention than subtle, policy-heavy ones; that funny, snarky or willfully provocative assertions often gain more traction than earnest, measured ones; and that loud, entertaining or controversial personalities tend to get the most ink and airtime."
Ah, but we choose to be bombarded, we're not "subjected" to anything. We do have choices and we can "just say no." And do. It will be a matter only of how long it takes more and more people to get to this point.
"...it becomes easier and easier, as Mr. Sunstein observes in his 2009 book “Going to Extremes,” for people “to avoid general-interest newspapers and magazines and to make choices that reflect their own predispositions.”
Whoaa. Let's go back to Mom and Dad. No matter what they read or heard, they were never ever going to become Republicans. Period. They were never going to give up their commitment to the working man, which my father was.
Based on personal observation, we are far more influenced by what happens to us, our friends, families, colleagues, neighbors than what we read. Experience felt and related personally still counts. Taxes, wars, health and education reinforce or turn voters when they feel and understand the effects.
All of which is remind that Freedom of Expression and the Press were given us so that we could better exercise our franchise. That vote is one of the three overwhelmingly vital linchpins of our democracy: the vote, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The pendulum has swung a bit to one extreme. It will return.
Mar 29, 2010
Mar 28, 2010
Old, worn criticism, but worth revisiting on Journalism's future
Ok, I should have immediately noted the date, but didn't and wrote a long rebuttal before I realized the article was three years old. But...since I put in the effort, I'll go ahead and set it out. Points are still valid.
10 Reasons There's a Bright Future for Journalism by Mark Glaser, June 28, 2007
My comment:
1. More access to journalism worldwide. Yes, and Google's translation service will make the amount available of that news far greater. But with let's say 10s of thousands more pieces become available even within one country, how will one lonely person sift through ALL of it? Google page count may be one way, but if you're looking beyond the "popular" i.e., chosen by many then you need a filter which can at least point out the reliable from the not. Who will provide that filter?
2. I don't think news publishers nor journalists ever thought that "we have all the answers here." Normally journalists deal with one very targeted topic, event, situation, person and report on that as a breaking story, normal story, feature, investigative piece.
The loyalty or esteem given that publishing org is largely based on a client's (reader, listener, watcher) perception of the quality of that targeted news. PLUS more and more these days loyalty is to those who comment on the news bloggers and paid columnists who obviously are largely fed on "news" generated in part from their own contacts, but much more so from news publishers.
THEY are the ones who have to earn revenue to pay for journalists' expenses:
• time spent on the story
• train or plane tickets
• cab fare or rent-a-car bills
• 3 meals a day per diem
• hotel bills
• phone bills
• perhaps a lunch here and there for a source
All above only to say aggregation of other news outlets on a publishers' site is NOT journalism. Please. It may be a way of attracting clicks, but I repeat, it is NOT journalism.
3. Sorry to repeat: what's being described is "distribution" of news stories unbound, not "journalism."
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Right. People who used to write letters to the editors, now have a plethora of places where they can express themselves. While there are "more outsiders and experts exerting influence over the news agenda," there's also a concentration of political views now focused on distorting, exaggerating, and above all drawing attention that is also a "concentrated agenda=setting power" radicalizing political discourse away from "truth."
7.Where are these "conflicts of interest" being published? Haven't seen them.
8. Again, if that happens, will that de-concentration and revenue "spread out to smaller independent sites" make it possible to fund credible ongoing nationwide or statewide investigations of government actions?
9. Agree on environmental concern. But...choosing online over print means millions of people with limited incomes unable to buy a personal computer will be forced to depend only on TV and radio for news, a considerable shrinking of their ability to be informed voters, the raison d'etre of press freedom. Here in Peru at least people in urban areas, even small commercial villages, can go to public computer use stores for around 60¢ at least once a week if they wish.
10. Point taken about followups...should be a lot more.
============
10 Reasons There's a Bright Future for Journalism by Mark Glaser, June 28, 2007
My comment:
1. More access to journalism worldwide. Yes, and Google's translation service will make the amount available of that news far greater. But with let's say 10s of thousands more pieces become available even within one country, how will one lonely person sift through ALL of it? Google page count may be one way, but if you're looking beyond the "popular" i.e., chosen by many then you need a filter which can at least point out the reliable from the not. Who will provide that filter?
2. I don't think news publishers nor journalists ever thought that "we have all the answers here." Normally journalists deal with one very targeted topic, event, situation, person and report on that as a breaking story, normal story, feature, investigative piece.
The loyalty or esteem given that publishing org is largely based on a client's (reader, listener, watcher) perception of the quality of that targeted news. PLUS more and more these days loyalty is to those who comment on the news bloggers and paid columnists who obviously are largely fed on "news" generated in part from their own contacts, but much more so from news publishers.
THEY are the ones who have to earn revenue to pay for journalists' expenses:
• time spent on the story
• train or plane tickets
• cab fare or rent-a-car bills
• 3 meals a day per diem
• hotel bills
• phone bills
• perhaps a lunch here and there for a source
All above only to say aggregation of other news outlets on a publishers' site is NOT journalism. Please. It may be a way of attracting clicks, but I repeat, it is NOT journalism.
3. Sorry to repeat: what's being described is "distribution" of news stories unbound, not "journalism."
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.
6. Right. People who used to write letters to the editors, now have a plethora of places where they can express themselves. While there are "more outsiders and experts exerting influence over the news agenda," there's also a concentration of political views now focused on distorting, exaggerating, and above all drawing attention that is also a "concentrated agenda=setting power" radicalizing political discourse away from "truth."
7.Where are these "conflicts of interest" being published? Haven't seen them.
8. Again, if that happens, will that de-concentration and revenue "spread out to smaller independent sites" make it possible to fund credible ongoing nationwide or statewide investigations of government actions?
9. Agree on environmental concern. But...choosing online over print means millions of people with limited incomes unable to buy a personal computer will be forced to depend only on TV and radio for news, a considerable shrinking of their ability to be informed voters, the raison d'etre of press freedom. Here in Peru at least people in urban areas, even small commercial villages, can go to public computer use stores for around 60¢ at least once a week if they wish.
10. Point taken about followups...should be a lot more.
============
Mar 27, 2010
Golden Rule a plus in economics
Findings - Researchers in the Market for Fair-Minded People - NYTimes.com
“Markets don’t work very efficiently if everyone acts selfishly and believes everyone else will do the same,” Dr. Henrich says. “You end up with high transaction costs because you have to have all these protections to cover every loophole. But if you develop norms to be fair and trusting with people beyond your social sphere, that provides enormous economic advantages and allows a society to grow.”
This sets out the major plus in getting societies more committed to the Golden Rule. Well put. This should clang a big bell here in Peru. Here it's put in the negative, Don't do to others... which means don't push the little old lady trying to cross the street, which seems to be the original Confucius version. Here's hoping leaders will get the message of this article and start talking about the economic gains of treating one's neighbors, colleagues, clients, customers with respect in the GR way.
“Markets don’t work very efficiently if everyone acts selfishly and believes everyone else will do the same,” Dr. Henrich says. “You end up with high transaction costs because you have to have all these protections to cover every loophole. But if you develop norms to be fair and trusting with people beyond your social sphere, that provides enormous economic advantages and allows a society to grow.”
This sets out the major plus in getting societies more committed to the Golden Rule. Well put. This should clang a big bell here in Peru. Here it's put in the negative, Don't do to others... which means don't push the little old lady trying to cross the street, which seems to be the original Confucius version. Here's hoping leaders will get the message of this article and start talking about the economic gains of treating one's neighbors, colleagues, clients, customers with respect in the GR way.
Mar 17, 2010
Google's CEO Eric Schmidt at Abu Dhabi Media Summit - notes
Riveting talk and Q&A about the media and the increasing shift of development of the internet toward mobile devices first. Well worth watching the whole 45 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMjtOSvMDs
On the news media's situation: " You want to see the future look at those devices [kindle, etc.] and imagine a more targeted news device. that will ultimately replace many of the printed versions of the same thing. "
Magazines/Advertising: "Magazines are phenomenal, I love magazines, i love the pictures, i love ...they even have fragrances in some cases, they're trying to figure out how to do that on computers yet, but they have beautiful photos and so forth we can do the same thing now on these mobile devices. But we can do something else, in advertising, the advertising can be more personal. it can be more dynamic.
All of the announced and all of the rumored tablets have dynamic targeted advertising as a key component of their media strategy occurring this year. ... I do know that an advertisement that is targeted is worth more money, that the ads that are shown on my television at home that don't apply to me are a waste of advertising. Wouldn't it be better if they were more targeted.
We at google are doing similar things for television. the set top boxes and so forth, it's the same principle."
Eventually the digital revenues should be higher than analog because the advertising is more targeted, the viewer more focussed, the outcome is more measurable, and we can produce a better viewing consumption innovation experiment for the user. ...The consumer will eventually get what they want, they eventually always do. And they want entertainment, they want information and they want their education and they're going to get it online.
Technology allows people to be enormously creative. Think about Facebook and Youtube, two of the leading brands in the online social age, especially if you're a young person. And they didn't exist five years ago.
.. .they'll be another one and another one... The way to think about this if you're a media person think of it as a ship [?] that iterates a scenario.. prototype early and often, gather and analyze the data, cause you can measure everything and try again and measure and try again. Instead of having someone run up to you and say I'm absolutely sure...I'd say prove it. I don't really care about what you think, I care about what your users think and you can ask them. Why? because everyone of them has a mobile phone, every one has a way of testing. If you're not doing that, you're not running your business, in my view in the right way.
YouTube and Facebook now constitute 9% of all time online.
This should be called the "Magic Summit." 24 min speech and Q&A.
Re effect of the internet: I'm very worried about the loss of what I call deep reading. What I've noticed is that everyone I work with spends all of their time in short form. Short message, short communications, short interrupt , and so forth. And all of the analysis says that we don't multitask very well, that human beings the science says, are better off on focussing on one thing, and then focussing on something else. and so forth. So I worry that there is an impact of the internet and this crazy life that we all have. So I'll say it negatively. Now I obviously believe that the benefit of what I'm describing is overwhelming.
So let's start with one of the final goals of our society which was for people to actually be able to communicate with each other. and in the next five or ten years it will be possible for essentially everyone to be able to communicate. "
Billion new people will come on line in the next 3 years because of mobile phones. "They have never been heard from before, they're in countries I've never visited, they're in countries that we ignore, they're in languages that no one here speaks in this room. and there are a billion of them. What do they want? Are they the same as us? I hope so. We're going to hear from them for the first time.But just as the globalization of the last ten years has had the benefit of lifting two billion people out of abject poverty roughly into the middle class at least in their country's middle class which is a remarkable achievement from a health and education perspective, we're going to hear these new voice, I think that is wonderful. I've always believed that the objective of all of us particularly in this region, should be about tolerance and in order to get tolerance you have to get understanding. and by translating things automatically, by allowing people to communicate, and so forth, we're going to make that.
People who live their lives on line think a little differently, they don't think quite in a stove-piped way not quite as nationalistic they're not quite as subject to identity poitics and it's possible to reach them on an individual basis about things that they care about. And that's a tool and a technology that all of us can use to make the world a better place.
One of the great success stories of our world has been the development of telecommunications networks with these basic SMS-enabled phones, the number of people who are coming in in what we think of as inexpensive phones $20-30 phones through the MTM network and so forth in Africa has really given people information that is crucial to them. Typical example is that with SMS queries, Google does a lot of this, with an SMS question you can ask a question like what's the weather, and you sit there and go, well, the weather it's sort of hot here in the Arab world. If you're a farmer in Africa, the weather will determine your planning schedule, and if your planning schedule is not correct, your family will go hungry.
So the importance of these small networks and in particular the basic level phone who have never had any communication can not be overstated."
Politicians are now well aware that they're under a microscope.
Flash mobs - word of mouth to go do something.
How powerful are these against repressive regimes...tanks still trump the internet...but people have long memories. and I think that's the contest that we're going to see in the next few years.
I obviously believe that the social good of all of this will be phenomenal. with the rise of living standards the sense of community is worth everything that I just talked about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GMjtOSvMDs
On the news media's situation: " You want to see the future look at those devices [kindle, etc.] and imagine a more targeted news device. that will ultimately replace many of the printed versions of the same thing. "
Magazines/Advertising: "Magazines are phenomenal, I love magazines, i love the pictures, i love ...they even have fragrances in some cases, they're trying to figure out how to do that on computers yet, but they have beautiful photos and so forth we can do the same thing now on these mobile devices. But we can do something else, in advertising, the advertising can be more personal. it can be more dynamic.
All of the announced and all of the rumored tablets have dynamic targeted advertising as a key component of their media strategy occurring this year. ... I do know that an advertisement that is targeted is worth more money, that the ads that are shown on my television at home that don't apply to me are a waste of advertising. Wouldn't it be better if they were more targeted.
We at google are doing similar things for television. the set top boxes and so forth, it's the same principle."
Eventually the digital revenues should be higher than analog because the advertising is more targeted, the viewer more focussed, the outcome is more measurable, and we can produce a better viewing consumption innovation experiment for the user. ...The consumer will eventually get what they want, they eventually always do. And they want entertainment, they want information and they want their education and they're going to get it online.
Technology allows people to be enormously creative. Think about Facebook and Youtube, two of the leading brands in the online social age, especially if you're a young person. And they didn't exist five years ago.
.. .they'll be another one and another one... The way to think about this if you're a media person think of it as a ship [?] that iterates a scenario.. prototype early and often, gather and analyze the data, cause you can measure everything and try again and measure and try again. Instead of having someone run up to you and say I'm absolutely sure...I'd say prove it. I don't really care about what you think, I care about what your users think and you can ask them. Why? because everyone of them has a mobile phone, every one has a way of testing. If you're not doing that, you're not running your business, in my view in the right way.
YouTube and Facebook now constitute 9% of all time online.
This should be called the "Magic Summit." 24 min speech and Q&A.
Re effect of the internet: I'm very worried about the loss of what I call deep reading. What I've noticed is that everyone I work with spends all of their time in short form. Short message, short communications, short interrupt , and so forth. And all of the analysis says that we don't multitask very well, that human beings the science says, are better off on focussing on one thing, and then focussing on something else. and so forth. So I worry that there is an impact of the internet and this crazy life that we all have. So I'll say it negatively. Now I obviously believe that the benefit of what I'm describing is overwhelming.
So let's start with one of the final goals of our society which was for people to actually be able to communicate with each other. and in the next five or ten years it will be possible for essentially everyone to be able to communicate. "
Billion new people will come on line in the next 3 years because of mobile phones. "They have never been heard from before, they're in countries I've never visited, they're in countries that we ignore, they're in languages that no one here speaks in this room. and there are a billion of them. What do they want? Are they the same as us? I hope so. We're going to hear from them for the first time.But just as the globalization of the last ten years has had the benefit of lifting two billion people out of abject poverty roughly into the middle class at least in their country's middle class which is a remarkable achievement from a health and education perspective, we're going to hear these new voice, I think that is wonderful. I've always believed that the objective of all of us particularly in this region, should be about tolerance and in order to get tolerance you have to get understanding. and by translating things automatically, by allowing people to communicate, and so forth, we're going to make that.
People who live their lives on line think a little differently, they don't think quite in a stove-piped way not quite as nationalistic they're not quite as subject to identity poitics and it's possible to reach them on an individual basis about things that they care about. And that's a tool and a technology that all of us can use to make the world a better place.
One of the great success stories of our world has been the development of telecommunications networks with these basic SMS-enabled phones, the number of people who are coming in in what we think of as inexpensive phones $20-30 phones through the MTM network and so forth in Africa has really given people information that is crucial to them. Typical example is that with SMS queries, Google does a lot of this, with an SMS question you can ask a question like what's the weather, and you sit there and go, well, the weather it's sort of hot here in the Arab world. If you're a farmer in Africa, the weather will determine your planning schedule, and if your planning schedule is not correct, your family will go hungry.
So the importance of these small networks and in particular the basic level phone who have never had any communication can not be overstated."
Politicians are now well aware that they're under a microscope.
Flash mobs - word of mouth to go do something.
How powerful are these against repressive regimes...tanks still trump the internet...but people have long memories. and I think that's the contest that we're going to see in the next few years.
I obviously believe that the social good of all of this will be phenomenal. with the rise of living standards the sense of community is worth everything that I just talked about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)