Among this week's readings is a work by seminal communications expert Marshall McLuhan, "The Medium is the Message." McLuhan asserts that the medium by which content is delivered is just as important, maybe even more so actually, than the content itself. Thus the medium can be a message in and of itself regardless of the content. Hmm, very interesting.
As evidence of this mutually dependent relationship McLuhan cites technologies as ubiquitious as electric light, and figures as varied as Alexis De Tocqueville and Napoleon Bonaparte. Said Napoleon, "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." No disrespect to McLuhan but I believe his analysis is a little flawed. Let's examine for a second McLuhan's own evidence with the Napoleon quote. Napoleon had it right. A hostile press can do far more damage than a thousand bayonets. And why might that be? Because of the content. Inflammatory rhetoric has a reach that extends far beyond any battlefield and has the added advantage of being self renewing. Information is infinite and has no mass. Unlike weapons, rhetoric doesn't require proximity to be effective. Additionally, rhetoric, i.e. content, has the power to mobilize mass mobs of opposition - opposition that is of course well armed. Hence it's not the medium - the newspaper - that mobilizes but the content of said newspaper. Articles detailing the latest exploits of Ke$sha or Justin Bieber don't inspire civil unrest, (not necessarily anyway) but exposes on social injustice do. Just ask the leaders of Egypt. Oh wait, we can't.
The events unfolding right now in Egypt are yet another example of the power of the message. When the government there literally shut down the internet it begged the question, why? Were Egyptian teens spending too much time playing Cityville? Was Mubarak peeved because ElBaradei had more Facebook friends? I doubt it. However could a growing resistance movement be mobilized, organized and united by a an uninterrupted flow of information? Yes. Could the flames of discontent be fed by fresh reports of abuses and injustices? You bet. By shutting down the internet the government was attempting to stifle the flow of information because it is information that inspires uprisings.
That's not to say that the medium bears no significance in the equation. Indeed it is both the medium and the message working in tandem that challenges the status quo. My argument is simply that the message may be slightly superior to the medium because without which the medium loses it's value. Again, this is supported by McLuhan's own examples. What good would a working light bulb be if we couldn't make use of it's light to consume content? We don't read the light bulb we use the light bulb to read the paper - or the blog as it were. The relationship between content and medium is mutually dependent but not necessarily one of equals.
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Doctor, I Think I Fractured My Attention Span!
It took me over four hours to complete the Linda Stone video. That's right four hours. Now you may be asking yourself how it is that it took an otherwise intelligent person more than four hours to complete a video that is exactly twenty-one minutes and fifty-two seconds long? Well, I'm kinda guilty of Stone's thesis. I think I have Continuous Partial Attention. Although when one says it like that it sort of sounds like a diagnosis of a life threatening illness. What I mean to say is that it took me four hours to complete a twenty-two minute video because I paused it a gazillion times. Well maybe not an actual gazillion but several times anyway. Several times.
Now one may be wondering why it might be necessary to pause a twenty-two minute video more than once? An excellent question indeed. Well while watching the video I find myself surfing the web for interesting blog post ideas, monitoring CNN for nationwide election results, jotting notes for said blog posts, tweeting interesting and funny anecdotes from my day, checking my email for client inquiries, and generally fretting about my final class project. That's rather a lot to do, huh? I think Stone is certainly on to something in her analysis of the contemporary definition of multi-tasking as compared with the traditional definition. All of the tasks that I described above require cognition. None of them are automated. Hence at some point it becomes necessary to pause one or two just to have the necessary brain capacity to focus, still partially, on the others. Hence four hours after I started the video I finally finished it.
I've seen several studies recently that conclude that those who hyper multi-task actually decrease their efficiency at completing the tasks they undertake successfully. This NPR article details a French study that concluded that the human brain is ultimately set up to do no more than two tasks at a time. That's right, our frontal lobes max out at two. When the participants in the study were given a third task to complete researchers found that their accuracy suffered greatly over their initial performance when only two tasks had been assigned. So what does this mean for time starved, harried, multi-taskers like me. Well if I had time to write by hand it would be on the wall - slow down and focus. As Stone so eloquently illustrates in her examination of our social evolution from a data economy to a wisdom economy society has sort of come full circle. The information overload which currently faces today's workers and individuals begs for at least a partial return to simpler times. Value added today means time added, as in how will this particular good or service make my life easier and give me more time? Ok so maybe instead of hitting pause on the DVR I should force myself to hit the power button. Lesson learned. In fact I will no longer allow myself to hit any pause buttons anywhere any more for any reason. Hmm, I think that one may be a little harder. I'll keep working on it, anyway. Well, that's all for now, I must rush off as I have a million other things I need to get...
Just kidding! I am actually done with this particular post.
Now one may be wondering why it might be necessary to pause a twenty-two minute video more than once? An excellent question indeed. Well while watching the video I find myself surfing the web for interesting blog post ideas, monitoring CNN for nationwide election results, jotting notes for said blog posts, tweeting interesting and funny anecdotes from my day, checking my email for client inquiries, and generally fretting about my final class project. That's rather a lot to do, huh? I think Stone is certainly on to something in her analysis of the contemporary definition of multi-tasking as compared with the traditional definition. All of the tasks that I described above require cognition. None of them are automated. Hence at some point it becomes necessary to pause one or two just to have the necessary brain capacity to focus, still partially, on the others. Hence four hours after I started the video I finally finished it.
I've seen several studies recently that conclude that those who hyper multi-task actually decrease their efficiency at completing the tasks they undertake successfully. This NPR article details a French study that concluded that the human brain is ultimately set up to do no more than two tasks at a time. That's right, our frontal lobes max out at two. When the participants in the study were given a third task to complete researchers found that their accuracy suffered greatly over their initial performance when only two tasks had been assigned. So what does this mean for time starved, harried, multi-taskers like me. Well if I had time to write by hand it would be on the wall - slow down and focus. As Stone so eloquently illustrates in her examination of our social evolution from a data economy to a wisdom economy society has sort of come full circle. The information overload which currently faces today's workers and individuals begs for at least a partial return to simpler times. Value added today means time added, as in how will this particular good or service make my life easier and give me more time? Ok so maybe instead of hitting pause on the DVR I should force myself to hit the power button. Lesson learned. In fact I will no longer allow myself to hit any pause buttons anywhere any more for any reason. Hmm, I think that one may be a little harder. I'll keep working on it, anyway. Well, that's all for now, I must rush off as I have a million other things I need to get...
Just kidding! I am actually done with this particular post.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
On Writing Well
While reading this week's class assignment the following exchange between Phaedrus and Socrates practically leapt off the screen at me:
Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.
Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.
Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.
Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?
Phaedr. How so?
Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?
Phaedr. True.
Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.
Phaedr. No doubt.
Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?
Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.
While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying. That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary. However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?
Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.
Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.
Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.
Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?
Phaedr. How so?
Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?
Phaedr. True.
Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.
Phaedr. No doubt.
Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?
Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.
While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying. That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary. However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Emerging Media Ecosystem
Check out this headline: "Meet the First Plant That Requires Facebook Fans to Survive." Yes, it's about a plant - actual vegetation - that requires social media interaction to thrive. I saw this story on Mashable today and it started me thinking about all the ways in which electronic media really drive everyday life. It begs the question, "Can there be a such thing as too much progress?"
Now before you go labeling me a spineless technophobe - I'm really not, by the way. I would marry my Android phone if I wasn't afraid of how weird the wedding photos might look - consider for a moment the preceding two thousand years of human history. Somehow, remarkably, for most of existance we mere mortals have managed to live, and even reproduce, without the miracle that is Facebook. I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dad "liked" my mom the old fashioned way. In the days of yore people actually watered plants, and plants actually managed to grow and feed the population. I'm not arguing against technological progress, I just wonder if progress always well...progresses.
Think for a moment about the cotton gin. A technological wonder to some, the ruling slave owners, the absolute devil to others, the slaves who were now consigned to more centuries of servitude. Had Eli Whitney bothered to ask them I'm sure their answer would have been a resounding "Screw progress!"
A friend of mine recently told me the story of his little sister who was put on "Internet punishment" for getting a bad grade. As far as I know the boundaries of her grounding did not preclude actual human interaction. Yet in all the weeks of her miserable confinement it never occurred to her to pick up the phone or better yet invite her friends over. The kid literally did not know how to live without social media. This is the way in which I believe technological progress has actually crippled human progress. And I say this as someone who makes her living (in theory anyway) advising business owners how to promote themselves via social media.
In reading the blog of one of my classmates, Little Miss Cales - Caleigh I am struck by the fact that she predicts a veritable "Lord of the Flies" type Armageddon should the nation's electronic resources fall victim to attack. I think she is 100% right. Sadly. Somehow we genius humans have technologically advanced ourselves right out of our collective humanity. Remarkable. Can't call, text, tweet, or facebook your neighbor? Try knocking on their door.
Now before you go labeling me a spineless technophobe - I'm really not, by the way. I would marry my Android phone if I wasn't afraid of how weird the wedding photos might look - consider for a moment the preceding two thousand years of human history. Somehow, remarkably, for most of existance we mere mortals have managed to live, and even reproduce, without the miracle that is Facebook. I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dad "liked" my mom the old fashioned way. In the days of yore people actually watered plants, and plants actually managed to grow and feed the population. I'm not arguing against technological progress, I just wonder if progress always well...progresses.
Think for a moment about the cotton gin. A technological wonder to some, the ruling slave owners, the absolute devil to others, the slaves who were now consigned to more centuries of servitude. Had Eli Whitney bothered to ask them I'm sure their answer would have been a resounding "Screw progress!"
A friend of mine recently told me the story of his little sister who was put on "Internet punishment" for getting a bad grade. As far as I know the boundaries of her grounding did not preclude actual human interaction. Yet in all the weeks of her miserable confinement it never occurred to her to pick up the phone or better yet invite her friends over. The kid literally did not know how to live without social media. This is the way in which I believe technological progress has actually crippled human progress. And I say this as someone who makes her living (in theory anyway) advising business owners how to promote themselves via social media.
In reading the blog of one of my classmates, Little Miss Cales - Caleigh I am struck by the fact that she predicts a veritable "Lord of the Flies" type Armageddon should the nation's electronic resources fall victim to attack. I think she is 100% right. Sadly. Somehow we genius humans have technologically advanced ourselves right out of our collective humanity. Remarkable. Can't call, text, tweet, or facebook your neighbor? Try knocking on their door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)