Journalism again

About two weeks ago, I heard an interview with Alex Jones, the director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111985662). Jones lamented the takeover of the news by public relations functions. While he did not go into detail, one could easily argue that he had two different ideas in mind. First, much of what gets into newspapers and on television news has it origins in public relations offices inside organizations. My university has a communications office, and part of their responsibility is to prepare press releases for news outlets so that our school gets the same amount of coverage as other schools in the area. Obviously, when our pr office writes a story, they spin it to put our school in the best light, as does every pr office in every instiution/business/sports team/etc. They then shop the story around hoping to get favorable coverage on the 6 o'clock news or somewhere close to the front page of the newspaper. The reporter covering the story will make some changes as will the editor for the news outlet, but, given the financial situations faced by news outlets, much of the story will mimic the copy provide by my school. A short Google search uncovers the appearance of firms which will help get press releases to journalists and/or gives advice on how to use the Internet and Twitter to get coverage for one's organization.

Second, news outlets themselves often rely on the techniques of public relations to generate the content of their stories. An article in the European Journal of Communication (2005) documents how in Slovenia reporters use all of the PR techniques to construct their stories: "These include using the representatives of an organization as the main source, partiality and a one-sided (favourable) evaluation of the characteristics/activities of the subject discussed; none of which are in the interest of the audience, but in the interest of the powerful elite that the news covers." (http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/2/155). As anyone familiar with the news in the US, the former Soviet state of Slovenia has a lot of catching up to do to rival the coverage of the democratic press. Several studies, beginning in the mid-90s in an issue of Mother Jones, document the fact that US network news agencies overrely on a very few "experts" in covering stories and tend to repeat the official line of the major players. In part, this follows from slashing the budgets and staffs of news rooms, prohibiting long investigations and long stories. The need to produce an abundance of news, especially problematic for the 24-hour cable news networks, creates a situation where often news outlets must rely the public relations officers or public relations techniques to provide sufficient content.

If most of what we get from the news is the official version from officially sanctioned voices, how are we to decide what really is fact and what is spin?

Afghan news coverage

A few days ago, I heard a story on the news coverage in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that the Afghan war is now our longest-running conflict and that Afghanistan has become a much more dangerous place in the past three months, news coverage remains almost non-existent, accounting for only about 2 percent of the total news. One has a much better chance hearing about Michael Jackson's death than about events in Kabul. The biggest culprit is that news organizations are losing so much money that they can no longer afford to have a bureau on site as they once did. Typically, most news outlets either send someone for a few days to shoot some video and interview key players or they rely entirely on services like the AP or on blogs by local journalists. Given those realities, reporters cannot possibly understand the backstories which result from the 100 or so different factions which exist in Afghanistan and which provide tangled nuances to anything statements made or policies drafted. A Google search reveals a fair amount of cutting and pasting as the same stories get repeated on different news sites. We have come to believe that somehow the new media (internet, blogs, Twitter) will fill in the gaps for those who really want to know, but the brief search did not turn up a significant new media presence on this issue. Are we thus resigned to letting wars become the province of specialists? Does the American public (or any other public) no longer have the right to get information from relatively non-partisan sources as it seeks to undertand, argue, and ultimately vote on representatives who advocate particular policies? The state of newpapers and television news operations raises significant questions about our ability to be an educated electorate.

For some related material see a great, short lecture by Alisa Miller, head of Public Radio International, on TED. http://blog.ted.com/2008/05/alisa_miller.php Miller demonstrates the unbelievable distortion in Americans' views of world news based on the kind of coverage of the world we get. If democracy's survival depends on an educated electorate, we might have cause for worry.

Lab-Rat-Ness of College

My response is to the first article. I feel like I am often being experimented on. The author says “When faced with a plethora of information, many people try to multitask, but scientific research suggests that this does not help. René Marois, a neuroscientist and director of the Human Information Processing Laboratory at Vanderbilt University, measured how much efficiency is lost when two tasks are carried out at the same time. The first task involved pressing the correct button in response to one of eight sounds, while the second asked subjects to say the correct vowel after seeing one of eight images. When given the tasks one at a time, the participants’ performance for each task was not significantly different. However, when asked to perform the two tasks simultaneously, the subjects significantly slowed in their performance of the second one.” My instant thought went to—“How does this apply to me?” Well, let me tell ya… Three English response essays on top of a communication blog response on top of a Calculus 2 Exam on top of a Biology Test on top of a communication article response on top of a mid-term paper due on top of a Bible mapping project on top of a meeting with the vice president on top of an SGA meeting with the president on top of thirty thank you letters to write on top of getting the information for those letters on top of a meeting with student accounts on top of sending my sister off to VA on top of arguing with financial aid on top of scheduling a car repair on top of doing my Calculus homework on top of work on top of Lab on top of Math lab on top of on top of on top of you name it. So it is scientifically proven that doing two things at a time makes you less efficient than doing one thing at a time—then I must be scientifically distracted so as to be worthless. Sometimes, like now, I am amazed at just how much each one of us really does in a day—every single moment is indescribably complex. I think that I am just a lab rat in the experiment of college that is trying to prove the hypothesis that I can do more and more and more things and still remain good at each of them. To be honest I think that that idea correlates fairly close to this experiment found in the first article—but I do believe that the variables differ greatly, and that it would be hard to find a set control and system of measuring my performance—thus we may have to leave my experience out of the science journals for now.

The world's a bunch of talentless hacks... Apparently...

Is the world really lacking in talent? Is that what we want to chock it all up to? We're all just getting too lazy or too unimaginative? I believe we're accelerating too fast for our own good. With all the information out there now, it's tough just to stay up to date on current events. Maybe it's not the lack of talent that's plaguing the world, rather the lack of such specialized and highly skilled talent. As our world progresses into the future we consequently have more to learn and more skills to attain. We're just expected to keep up with the exponential increase in information.

So how does this affect our communication? When it takes fifteen minutes to recoup from a text message, it's no wonder teachers hate cell phones in class. We can't multitask very well and that affects our grades when 90% of us text every few minutes in class. Imagine if we could eliminate all distractions in class and effectively take notes and pay attention - tests would be an easy review rather than the most loathed experience of all education. Our lack of talent problem would most likely be solved. If we could do the same for work, we'd save billions, literally.

"One estimate for the financial cost to the American economy of such lost productivity puts the figure at as much as $650 billion per year. "
~Daniel Tammet

So why is it that we let these distractions keep going without check? Maybe it's because we'd lose the human side of life if we bound ourselves to such a strict bureaucratic approach. Maybe it's because we just don't want to believe the facts. Until the problem is solved, assuming it gets solved, we'll just keep on lacking for talent and losing billions of dollars.

4 get it

If I wrote a 2151 word essay on how there is too much information in the world, I would follow that up with a 30,000 word essay on how writers kill trees. 

We live in a world where the word “information” is associated with identity theft. We live in a society where emails offer larger “lifestyles” in order to compensate for our low self-esteem.  We live in insanity when Barnes and Nobles are considered our libraries and our libraries are considered porn shops. And when we ask ourselves “Is there an information overload?” I say to everyone, “No ladies and gentlemen, just an idiot overload.”

No matter how much information is out there, certain people hit a limit on how much they are willing to maintain, but that might not be a bad thing. Meet Jill Price. She at the age of 42 she cannot forget a single day since the age of 14. She has been diagnosed with hyperthymestic syndrome. Simply understood, it means you have an extensive memory of every day of your life. It may seem like this may be a good thing, but in reality she has trouble coping with the syndrome. Imagine reliving your husband’s death over and over again in your mind.

Humans are designed to forget. If we did not forget, we could never forgive entirely, or move on towards other endeavors. So no matter how much information there are in the universe, Wikipedia stands no chance in overwhelming the forgetful mind, and we as functional humans should be thankful.

             http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Story?id=4813052&page=1

 

How much is TMI?

Daniel Tammet essentially asks us the question in his article, "Can learning too much, too fast be harmful to human beings?" He uses examples of corporate efficiency, neuroscience and the technologically strange to make his case. And to some extent, I believe his point is valid- that we, as limited human beings, can be overexposed and overwhelmed by the vastness of our own Information Age.

However, I think the answer to the question he raises is most likely obvious to anyone that has spent any deal of time surfing Wikipedia as I sometimes find myself doing. I simply do not retain even a fraction of the information I am exposed to, but I remain a functional person. I am swayed further, though, by the research of a German scientist named Gerd Gigerenzer who has made a name for himself by proving just how simply our minds actually work, even in the presence of an overwhelming amount of information. His research as the Director of the Max Planck Institute of Human Development has shown that most human thought processes follow simple rules, called heuristics, even when challenged to solve complicated tasks.

Consider how baseball players catch a ball. It may seem that they would have to solve complex differential equations in their heads to predict the trajectory of the ball. In fact, players use a simple heuristic. ... The heuristic is to adjust the running speed so that the angle of gaze remains constant —that is, the angle between the eye and the ball. The player can ignore all the information necessary to compute the trajectory ... and just focus on one piece of information, the angle of gaze."

 

I believe that even though we are now exposed to the largest tsunami and resulting flood of information humanity has ever seen, we human beings will continue to follow very simple, but effective rules as our astrolabe. What simple rules do you navigate by? http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gigerenzer03/gigerenzer_index.html 

I also strongly recommend Gerd's book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious to those further interested. 

FYI: Y have too much I

Here we are, the information age!! Has the amount of information today produced too much mental-pollution just as the industrial age produced too much pollution-spewing machinery? Has the amount of information today really "detract[ed]" from our quality of life, as David Shenk would suggest? I would certainly agree with the observation that the information overload has increased multitasking significantly. Is this healthy? I would offer that, though I've heard that some research suggests our generation is getting better at multitasking, the proliferation of multitasking has been a detriment to society- texting while driving, anyone? Texting while in class, anyone? Ever had to ask your mom to repeat something because you were... texting? Ha ha, okay, I'm not condemning texting, and I really like the ability to text and do something else at the same time. However, I think it is unwise to ignore the fatal consequences of trying to split your concentration between typing "lol" and something like driving. Heck, I've texted while driving before and I realize communication with friends is important but this is human life that's hanging in the balance. If you want any more of an idea of what multitasking can do to someone, watch Seven Pounds, 'nuff said. Again, I'm not condemning multitasking. I'm just warning that the expansion of multitasking is probably doing more harm than good.

Daniel Tammet, also brings up the point that "distraction costs people and companies time and efficiency. I completely agree- by not setting boundaries on personal communication (or just the amount of information one consumes) people are losing time and money. I know that whenever I try to facebook and do homework at the same time, I usually end up doing only one thing: not homework. In fact, Tammet cites research that suggests people need fifteen minutes to refocus after an email or instant message in order to settle into productive work. Imagine the hours of productivity wasted during a single instant message or texting conversation! Tammet, that's a long time!!

The point is made, however, that "information overload may not be quantity of info but our inability to know what to do with it." I think this is an excellent point- when people get accustomed to having information handed to them on a silver Google platter, they want everything handed to them on said platter- including their world view. I think there's a good deal of young people who can't sort through information because they're wandering around in their own TMI-funk, unsure of what they believe because they've encountered so much to believe.

Arnold Brown also provides strong evidence that there is just too much information to keep up with in our society. He says that "[b]usiness increasingly complain that communication is impeded by too much email." I have certainly found this to be true in my personal life. It's nearly impossible to keep track of old friends via facebook, email, phone, im, twitter, text and forge new relationships on top of going to school! Eventually, some of my relationships have dwindled, simply because I cannot keep up with them in the face of everything else I'm doing.

I think ultimately Americans are going to have to accept knowing a lot about a little instead of a little about a lot if we are to combine our expertise into something useful. There is just too much information to try and know everything about everything, and forcing people to ingest colossal amounts of info just to compete is hurting America.

While it's somewhat disjoint from my last point, I feel like this is a handy little quote from Brown to end things with... "Efficiencey-- doing things right-- should not be the goal. Instead, it should be effectiveness-- doing the right things."