Friday, September 30, 2016
-NJF- A response to a YT video about money in politics:
This was an informative and poignant video. What are some ways America can take the money out of politics and still keep corporate money in the country? I think a great presidential platform would be: 1) make the military more efficient and use the cost saving to fund infrastructure and education; 2.) making railway and public transportation more accessible/effective; and 3.) overhauling the power grid whilst installing a fiber optic network large and powerful enough to handle the next 50 years of dramatic digital economy growth/cyber security.
I don't see anyone trying to garner meaningful information or contemplate what the Trump campaign actually means; they simply bash it for being racist, xenophobic, and farcical (which it is). While Trump's campaign success is indeed a damning indictment of the American political system, it's almost as important what it means about the current state of the American public. Americans are concerned about where the country is headed. We are concerned about immigration, personal freedom, and to put it simply: keeping America Great. Personally, I don't think we can be great without proper education and equality of opportunity but other people think it revolves more around immigration and enacting policies that stifle American growth. The rest of the world is not going to shutter expansion for the benefit of the environment or corporate transparency. Developing countries around the world are not going to enact restrictive growth policies to avoid deteriorating the already dilapidated environment. The goal of reaching "American" success is too fervent. So we need to reach a balance where we are leading the the way, setting the standard, and empowering the change that needs to take place in order to make the country and its role in the global village a prominent one. However, we need to also make it easy and efficient for companies to find business in America attractive and people to feel like hard work will actually get you somewhere.
I know this because I am a perfect example of the negative consequences of the current state of things. I am an accountant with a graduate degree and 4 years of experience. I work for less than $18 ph for one of the largest QSR management companies in the country and I do 110% of my predecessors work with 80% of the time. By the end of this year I will have saved the company more than 115% of my salary in the form of credits due from timely filing of taxes and that responsibility occupies less than 25% of my time. Management here is populated by grandfathered in accountants with degrees 20 years old and a lack of technological know-how that is downright appalling. But this has been the environment at every single job I have had since grad school. Young, smart, and capable people are having their careers stifled because we live in a time where the bratty sons of men who inherited companies built during an era of American prosperity have the ability to screen thousands of applicants which causes the illusion that talented individuals are a dime a dozen. Why invest in this guy when I have a hundred others chomping at the bit to do his job. Frankly, it sucks and something needs to change.
Monday, March 9, 2015
A Door Closes; A Window Opens...
A
Door Closes; A Window Opens…
So, I just concluded my last position as an accountant and I am revving up my
career search once again. It was an all too familiar tale; the role was
supposed to be for a few weeks but ended up turning into a few months because instead
of working just hard enough no to get yelled at, instead of taking advantage of
my status as a “temporary” employee, I took the opportunity to set my desires
aside and put my career into laser focus. For me, the goal is always to bolster
the potential for better future positions and in order to do that I had to
sacrifice a livable wage for an experience that might provide me with better opportunities in the future. This is
something that needs to be done because if you don’t have a safety net to fall
back on; if you don’t have parents to move back in with; if you don’t have the
luxury of taking time off to figure out what you want to do with your life;
then you have to choose a path and run full-steam towards the finish.
A day after completing graduate school I left
my parent’s house with $400 to my name and all my worldly possessions. I slept
in my car in the bitter cold for a week, hustled my ass off to find a job by
spending countless hours at the library, and when I found a shitty apartment
for $200 a month surrounded by smokers and drug addicts I jumped on the
opportunity. Within a week I found a temporary job assisting with AR and when
the AP manager had to go out on medical leave I was an obvious choice by
management to fill the gap and I did so at an efficiency almost up to par with
the AP manager who had ten years and a much higher salary to figure things out.
I was paid slightly above a minimum wage
salary and as the acting AP manager when I eventually processed my own paycheck,
I was not-so-shocked to learn that the company was paying the temp agency
almost double what I was making per hour so they could avoid hiring a new
employee. Nowadays if you want to get to the next level in your career you have
to be willing to take low pay/high profile jobs so you can accumulate the
ammunition necessary to fire back at the next employer who wants to fuck you
and while the whole experience didn't make my wallet any
fatter, it’s something that needs to be done in order to progress to
the next level. This is a concept a lot of people in my life right now
don’t seem to understand: Why sacrifice making money to waste time at a
no-growth position? The answer is a bit more intangible than a stack of dollar
bills.
In
today’s sanguinary job market employers are looking for the proverbial “purple
squirrel.” An employee that provides high-level competency at the lowest salary
possible. And it seems for my generation we either have to settle for a few
years of this or face an indefinitely extended wallowing within the confines of
the lower middle-class. For people between the ages 20 to 35 it is no longer
possible to be lackadaisical with building your career. Taking time to start a
family, pursue dreams, or soul search may end up constricting the possibility
of obtaining a position that can actually provide for those things. For us,
it’s much more difficult to get to a point where we can become economically
viable because if you’re not constantly working towards stepping up your game
with each new job, if you’re not relentlessly pushing towards advancement, then
you are merely running in place and by the time you get going again it will be
too late. Employers want the cream of the crop and they don’t want to pay for
it so you can either push from job to job gaining experience along the way
making yourself the best candidate possible, or you can settle for the safety
of mediocrity.
-NJF-
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Accounting at Market Basket and The International Space Station/Raptor Preserve: How Employers Have Become the Bully in the Playroom
So, I was contracted by Accountemps to conduct
general accounting work for DiCicco, Gulman, and Company LLP in the midst of
this whole Market Basket debacle and I`m excited to report that things are
going well. I`ve been working independently and with a team to help clean up
GL, AP, and AR accounts for a 2+ billion dollar company and it's interesting to
see how said company conducts its accounting work. In short: awfully. The draconian system
is highly inefficient and lugubrious. Information comes in from over 70 stores
often in a jumbled mess that needs to be resorted, reevaluated, and reorganized
3 or more times before it gets entered into the system which, by the way, is so
out of date it doesn't use decimal places. Yes, that's correct: accounting software
that doesn't use decimal points! The whole process is in need of a reboot so
bad Michael Bay is in talks with the CFO. In an age of lighting fast connection
accros international borders it's interesting to see these older companies cope
with the changing times. In less than 2 days I am brimming with ideas on how to
reduce redundancy and increase efficiency for this company but it seems an
unfortunate byproduct of being my age is lack of concern; concern for my ideas,
concern for my abilities, and most importantly concern for my untapped
potential.
Why is it that in the
Internet Age nobody, even recruiters, are concerned about the vast amounts of
untapped potential coming out of this county's prestigious universities and
colleges? The reason is...THE INTERNET! I don't know how many times I have been
posting resumes or in an interview/phone screening and felt like one single
misstep would lead to disqualification. It seems that in an era where one can
post 50 resumes in just as many minutes, employers have become so bombarded
with "talent" they became hunters of the elusive purple squirrel.
That is, a candidate who perfectly matches ALL requirements of the position and
makes NOT ONE mistake in the process. I remember once I was in a phone
screening and I`d been out of work for a few weeks, got in with Accountemps,
and received my first bite from a company that was interested in me. I was so
excited and prepared; I had notes on why I was good for the company, why the
company was good for me, how I could benefit them with my skill-set, and how I
could grow with time, problems, issues, etc etc etc...When I finally got the
call I was flabbergasted by the questions I was asked. Things like, “where do
you see yourself in five years?” and “how would you rate you performance at
your last job?” I felt like I was getting the same question 500+ other
candidates were getting in the hope that one of them might instill a little intrigue
for the recruiter.
Why is my job search reliant on the intrigue of an often times unrelated
third party? What has happened to this country when employers are so saturated
with applications they lost all concern for making an investment in their employees? You know, I don’t have the greatest skin, I`m a bit quirky, and I am
still wearing dress pants from my days in catholic high school but I damn sure
am smarter, more competent, and more capable than 90% of the applicants
applying for the same entry-level accounting job as I. But it’s my messy haircut and old clothes that get me disqualified
because the employer is so concerned with a total package they forgot about
what it takes to build a house. You don’t build a house from the top down; you build it from
the inside out. I have the educational foundation and at 29 I have the
need/want/desire to establish a strong career, but it seems all anyone wants
nowadays is a complete addition. They want to install the submarine bay to the
international space station/raptor preserve instead of building it from scratch.
Look employers, it’s no fun playing with Legos if the international space
station/raptor preserve has the submarine bay already attached. If you want to
have a kick-ass time you need to use a little imagination and invest in your
creation. If you’re not ready to step on a few bricks to make a masterpiece
then what are you even doing in the playroom?
Friday, July 4, 2014
What about Joining the Service?
One month will mark my fifth anniversary since graduating college in 2009 and I am seriously considering military service. In an era where the evisceration of the middle class by corporate America has left our college graduates engulfed by a miasma of baseless inequity I found this Yahoo question and answer to be pretty informative:
About to graduate college, should I join the military?
Hello to all who read this,
I am currently a graduating senior, set to receive my diploma in 9 days. I will be graduating with a B.A. in Biological Sciences, with a Psychology minor.
Here is my dilemma. Although I am graduating after a challenging 4.5 years of college, where I feel as though I have accomplished a great deal, had unforgettable experiences and made many friends, I am not excited to graduate. I have learned recently (in the last year or so) that with my degree I will have a difficult time finding a worthwhile job without furthering my education in a graduate school program. However, to be completely honest, I am burned out on school. I am sick of classrooms, laboratories, and studying countless hours for tests. I'm also sick of hearing the excuse of "Just go to grad school, because you're not going to get a job right now". Being the kind of person I am, I know that if I am not motivated to do something, I will not give %100 effort and will most likely be miserable doing something that I know my heart is not in. So, I have ruled out grad school at this point.
The other option I have is to enter the job market. I have already spent hours on job search sites, which are taking me nowhere. Not only are there are extremely sparse number of jobs that I qualify for with just my degree, most companies only want to hire someone with 1-5 years of experience already. I am baffled as to how a college graduate is supposed to get started in a career if companies only want to hire people with years of experience already! So, needless to say I am feeling extremely discouraged and not feeling very positive at all about finding a job.
Here is my question- is the military a good option for me at this point? I know that I will not make as much money as someone might in the civilian world (and I'm ok with that), but would the experience and training that military would provdide me benefit me in getting a job later in the civilian world? I'd also like to state that joining the military has always been something that I have wanted to do, even since I was a little kid. Despite this, I decided to not participate in ROTC during college because I wanted to live the carefree lifestyle of a college student, which I did and don't regret at all. However, I feel as though I have an obligation to serve my country, and even a sort of obligation to my family. See, my grandfather was a WWII veteran of the 101st Airborne (did everything the 'Band of Brothers' series covered, if you've seen it. He just wasn't in the 506th regiment). I have a desire to be a part of something bigger than I am, where I will find the motivation I need to succeed. Also, I'd like to add that if I do join, regardless of what branch I decide upon, I will be following the Officer path.
Yet another question (sorry, I didn't intend for this to be this long, guess i'm just sort of venting), I have at least narrowed my decision down to either Army or Marines. I'd love to be a part of the Marines, with their history, reputation and overall bad-assness, but I have heard that there are less opportunites in the Corps and that becoming an officer is harder to accomplish (as in, its harder to secure a spot for officer school). Is this true? Are the job opportunites and benefits significantly different between the Army and Marines?
Well, I suppose I have asked enough questions for one submition. Those who choose to answer don't have to respond to all my questions, just the ones that you feel you can help me the most with. I appreciate any and all responses and I thank you all in advance!
I am currently a graduating senior, set to receive my diploma in 9 days. I will be graduating with a B.A. in Biological Sciences, with a Psychology minor.
Here is my dilemma. Although I am graduating after a challenging 4.5 years of college, where I feel as though I have accomplished a great deal, had unforgettable experiences and made many friends, I am not excited to graduate. I have learned recently (in the last year or so) that with my degree I will have a difficult time finding a worthwhile job without furthering my education in a graduate school program. However, to be completely honest, I am burned out on school. I am sick of classrooms, laboratories, and studying countless hours for tests. I'm also sick of hearing the excuse of "Just go to grad school, because you're not going to get a job right now". Being the kind of person I am, I know that if I am not motivated to do something, I will not give %100 effort and will most likely be miserable doing something that I know my heart is not in. So, I have ruled out grad school at this point.
The other option I have is to enter the job market. I have already spent hours on job search sites, which are taking me nowhere. Not only are there are extremely sparse number of jobs that I qualify for with just my degree, most companies only want to hire someone with 1-5 years of experience already. I am baffled as to how a college graduate is supposed to get started in a career if companies only want to hire people with years of experience already! So, needless to say I am feeling extremely discouraged and not feeling very positive at all about finding a job.
Here is my question- is the military a good option for me at this point? I know that I will not make as much money as someone might in the civilian world (and I'm ok with that), but would the experience and training that military would provdide me benefit me in getting a job later in the civilian world? I'd also like to state that joining the military has always been something that I have wanted to do, even since I was a little kid. Despite this, I decided to not participate in ROTC during college because I wanted to live the carefree lifestyle of a college student, which I did and don't regret at all. However, I feel as though I have an obligation to serve my country, and even a sort of obligation to my family. See, my grandfather was a WWII veteran of the 101st Airborne (did everything the 'Band of Brothers' series covered, if you've seen it. He just wasn't in the 506th regiment). I have a desire to be a part of something bigger than I am, where I will find the motivation I need to succeed. Also, I'd like to add that if I do join, regardless of what branch I decide upon, I will be following the Officer path.
Yet another question (sorry, I didn't intend for this to be this long, guess i'm just sort of venting), I have at least narrowed my decision down to either Army or Marines. I'd love to be a part of the Marines, with their history, reputation and overall bad-assness, but I have heard that there are less opportunites in the Corps and that becoming an officer is harder to accomplish (as in, its harder to secure a spot for officer school). Is this true? Are the job opportunites and benefits significantly different between the Army and Marines?
Well, I suppose I have asked enough questions for one submition. Those who choose to answer don't have to respond to all my questions, just the ones that you feel you can help me the most with. I appreciate any and all responses and I thank you all in advance!
Best Answer
Navy Ocs and Air Force Ots are very competitive at the moment. Air Force Ots only had one selection board in 2010 and it was only for rated slots(flight school applicants.) The selection rate was 20%. Navy Ocs has had selection rates as low as 8% in certain designators such as Supply and Intelligence. Unlike the Navy and Air Force, Army and Marine Ocs applicants do not apply for a particular branch(Army) or Mos(Marines) except Marine Ocs Aviation applicants are awarded Aviation contracts as Ocs Officer Candidates and Army Ocs Officer Candidates have to pre qualify to branch Aviation prior to arriving at Ocs. Army Branch selection takes place at Ocs according to class rank at Ocs. Marine Officer Ocs selection takes place after commissioning at TBS for all Marine officers except those who arrive with Aviation or Jag contracts.
The Army has been running thousands of Rotc Cadets short nationwide and has had to increase the percent of officers commissioning through Ocs from the 20% rate the Army prefers to around 40%. Both the Marines and Army have been expanding while the Navy and Air Force have been contracting. All Marine Officer Commissioning programs require a 1st class Marine PFT, 225+, though many Oso's will not forward an application to a Selection Board with a PFT less than 240.
As far as income, you may not have considered the tax free housing allowance, BAH, which varies with location. O-1 to O-2 in 18 months. O-2 to O-3 in another 24 months. Change the location to calculate the level if compensation;
http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/C...
The benefits for all are essentially the same. Ocs/Ots commissioned officers are eligible for full GI Bill educational benefits with 36 months of active duty service. That includes 36 months of tuition at the rate charged to state residents by the most expensive public university in the state plus 36 months of tax free E-5 with dependents BAH. Yellow Ribbon Schools add to the benefits from their own funds.
Marines Occ:
http://www.dcmarineofficer.com/officerca...
http://www.dcmarineofficer.com/pdf/mosha...
http://officer.marines.com/marine/making...
Army Ocs:
https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/19...
http://www.goarmy.com/ocs.html
Navy Ocs:
http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/noru/orojt3/gen...
http://waynesdyno.net/generalofficer.htm...
Air Force Ots:
http://www.airforce.com/opportunities/of...
Coast Guard Ocs:
http://www.gocoastguard.com/find-your-ca...
Good Luck!
The Army has been running thousands of Rotc Cadets short nationwide and has had to increase the percent of officers commissioning through Ocs from the 20% rate the Army prefers to around 40%. Both the Marines and Army have been expanding while the Navy and Air Force have been contracting. All Marine Officer Commissioning programs require a 1st class Marine PFT, 225+, though many Oso's will not forward an application to a Selection Board with a PFT less than 240.
As far as income, you may not have considered the tax free housing allowance, BAH, which varies with location. O-1 to O-2 in 18 months. O-2 to O-3 in another 24 months. Change the location to calculate the level if compensation;
http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/C...
The benefits for all are essentially the same. Ocs/Ots commissioned officers are eligible for full GI Bill educational benefits with 36 months of active duty service. That includes 36 months of tuition at the rate charged to state residents by the most expensive public university in the state plus 36 months of tax free E-5 with dependents BAH. Yellow Ribbon Schools add to the benefits from their own funds.
Marines Occ:
http://www.dcmarineofficer.com/officerca...
http://www.dcmarineofficer.com/pdf/mosha...
http://officer.marines.com/marine/making...
Army Ocs:
https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/19...
http://www.goarmy.com/ocs.html
Navy Ocs:
http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/noru/orojt3/gen...
http://waynesdyno.net/generalofficer.htm...
Air Force Ots:
http://www.airforce.com/opportunities/of...
Coast Guard Ocs:
http://www.gocoastguard.com/find-your-ca...
Good Luck!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The 3 Factors Necessary for a Co. to Achieve Global Awareness in the Internet Age
As the world
pushes ever forward towards a globalized economy, it is becoming increasingly
important that international corporations develop global awareness. Global
awareness can be stratified into two different competencies. One characteristic
of the globally aware is the tolerance of cultural differences. Business
customs that might appear foreign and bazaar must be tolerated for the benefit
of a successful business relationship. The second stratum of global awareness
is the knowledge of cultures, history, world market potential, global
socioeconomics, and political trends (Cateora, Graham 17). With a firm
knowledge of these vital aspects of global awareness the international
businessperson can better relate to people from different cultures. Tolerance
of foreign business practices can greatly benefit working relationships because
those who buy are often hesitant to adjust to those who sell. A globally aware
businessperson is more adept to understanding the cultural, historical, and
political nuances that may significantly benefit a working international
relationship and help the person buying his or her product feel more
comfortable.
For example,
“Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, Secretary of State
Colin Powell, concerned about rising anti-Americanism abroad, hired Madison
Ave. maven Charlotte Beers to blitz the Middle East with pro-American
advertising and PR campaigns (Risen).” The PR campaign, which was “was nothing less than to rebrand American foreign policy,”
failed miserably in the United Arab Emirates because Charlotte Beers, the PR
manager in charge of the campaign, did not understand the Arabic socioeconomic
environment (Risen). “The efforts echoed the propaganda efforts of Nazi Germany
and other authoritarian regimes,” wrote Naomi Klein, a columnist at The Nation and the author of “No Logo.”
Without an understanding of Arabic culture, or global awareness in general for
that matter, the ad campaigns failed because the PR manager only used her own
self-reference criterion to create the ads. Cultural understanding is one of
the most fundamental aspects of global awareness and often the deciding factor
in the success of an international ad campaign.
This international marketing failure could
have been avoided in several ways. The first step to achieving global awareness
is to select individual managers specifically for their demonstrated global
awareness. After doing some research on Charlotte Beers it turns out she has
had an impressive career in marketing but it is almost certain that her primary
focus was on advertising to developed, modern nations. The Middle East has a
very lush and diverse history and that history largely defines modern Middle
Eastern culture. With even a brief glance at this history I think Beers would
have dramatically restructured her approach to “rebranding America in the
Middle East” because history is such a large factor in the beliefs of
contemporary Middle Eastern society.
A second approach to achieving global
awareness is to develop personal relationships in other countries. Doing
long-term business in a country is a great way to establish business
relationships but in many countries personal relationships are often more
important than business relationships. In Latin America for example, personal
ties with a business partner are considered more important than economic ties.
An American manager attempting to do business in Brazil might have to avoid
business conversations for several days just to gain the trust of the Brazilian
businessperson.
The final and most effective method of
achieving global awareness is to have a culturally diverse senior executive
staff. If the people behind the scenes making the decisions are of many
cultural backgrounds then they can better collaborate on effective means of
entering a foreign market. Collin Powell and the executive staff making the
decisions on the repositioning of America in the Middle East were most
certainly old, wealthy, white Americans with little to no cultural
understanding other than a vehement love for America. This is probably the
reason behind the PR campaigns failure—rich white Americans tend to have no
cultural understanding whatsoever.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Employers: The Major Problem in Our Economy
Y! Big Story: Why you can’t get that job
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-big-story-why-t-job-210829464.html
"Wanted: Someone exactly like my last boyfriend (see list of qualities), only better. Demonstrate success in a proven relationship, preferably a current one. You should know what I want without my telling you."
There wouldn't be enough 10-foot poles to poke at a dating ad like that. Replace that mating call with a job posting, though, and that's what many employers are asking for these days—and more.
The latest hiring numbers made markets skitter and economists gloomy. Yet this time, attention also focused on commitment-phobe employers, who can't seem to bridge the gulf between unemployed workers and job vacancies. The growing consensus—which won't surprise frustrated job seekers—is that fickle companies in a surplus labor market are demanding perfect candidates without paying market wages or investing in training. Worse, some discriminate against the unemployed, figuring if they're not taken, they must be tainted goods. And because employees are taking their sweet time sifting through so many potential suitors, they're piling the workload on existing staffers, who are often ready for a breakup.
It's not me, it's you. Dismal hiring numbers stem from plenty of sound reasons, among them fears of a Euro-thrashed market and uncertainty in an election year. Yet the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics counted about 3.7 million job openings in March—still below the 4.4 million jobs posted when the recession began, but "up significantly from a year earlier." Plus, those vacancies have been piling up since mid-2009. The reason? The supposed skills shortage of our shiftless, undereducated, out-of-touch American workforce.
Peter Cappelli, who just released his book "Why Good People Can't Get Jobs," dismisses the idea of a skills gap. Instead, the Wharton management professor says "inflexible" employers are "the real culprits."
[O]nly 15% of employers who say they see a skill shortage say that the issue is a lack of candidate knowledge, which is what we'd normally think of as skill. Instead, by far the most important shortfall they see in candidates is a lack of experience doing similar jobs... They want experienced candidates who can contribute immediately with no training or start-up time. That's certainly understandable, but the only people who can do that are those who have done virtually the same job before, and that often requires a skill set that, in a rapidly changing world, may die out soon after it is perfected. (June 4, Time)
Employers aren't just choosy about white-collar desk jockeys. Cappelli's favorite example is the cotton candy machine operator ad that required "prior success in operating cotton candy machines."
Job reportsCodependent relationships. If no applicant is good enough, then employers make do with what they have and spread the workload around. A few of those overburdened employees may have quit in a healthy economy. Instead, they cling on, slowing the normal turnover process. Companies then resort to layoffs to deal with the perceived dead weight.In the fourth quarter of 2008, the number of layoffs exceeded the number of resignations for the first time in the history of the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. It is interesting to note that the increase in layoffs roughly matches the decline in resignations in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, leaving total separations essentially flat during those quarters. (Employment dynamics over the last decade, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Next page...Next page...Despite the trend, layoffs have been used as a management tool, rather than as a measure of last resort, since the 1980s. Codependency doesn't mean you're faithful, just fearful; that fear can turn into employee restlessness or resentment.MetLife's 10th annual survey of employee benefits, trends and attitudes released in March puts employee loyalty at a seven-year low. One in three employees, the survey says, plans to leave his or her job by the end of the year. According to a 2011 Careerbuilder.com report, 76% of full-time workers, while not actively looking for a new job, would leave their current workplace if the right opportunity came along. (May 9, Knowledge@Wharton)
Worse, some workplaces don't even sense the fallen morale: USA Today reported that "employers think [employees] are just as loyal as they were three years ago." In the long run, underestimating loyalty is expensive.
Multi-taskingUnforgiving standards (and software):Technology has made applying for jobs online easier, which can flood companies with applications. But in many cases, it has also made it too hard, booting out job seekers who may not exactly fit the often vague and sprawling descriptions. In Cappelli's book, one staffing company president described the process as "looking for a unicorn."Managers pile all the credentials and expertise into the job description to minimize the risk that the candidate will fail, making it virtually impossible to find anyone who fits. ("Why Good People Can't Get Jobs")
The H1B visa: Solution or servitude? Businesses insist there's a skills gap in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mechanics) jobs, and outsourcing or importing labor keeps Americacompetitive.
A report by the Technology Policy Institute in March 2009 found that in the absence of green card and H1B visa constraints in the 2003-2007 period, roughly 182,000 foreign graduates of U.S. colleges and universities would likely have remained in the country and raised the gross domestic product (GDP) by roughly $13.6 billion. (Feb. 1, ABC News)
Critics point to the current setup as 21st-century indentured servitude. UC Davis computer science professor Norm Matloff, who supports the Durbin-Grassley bill, which seeks to reform the H1-B process, has noted that "the vast majority [of H-1B hires] are ordinary people doing ordinary work"—but who are paid below-market wages.
There is no tech labor shortage. No study, other than those sponsored by the industry, has ever shown a shortage... Employers hire only a tiny fraction of those who apply. HR departments routinely exclude CVs of applicants they deem "too expensive"—those that are over age 35. (So managers never see these CVs and mistakenly believe there are no applicants.) (Professor Norm Matloff's H-1B Web Page)
Employee appreciation time: Cappelli says that while companies are good at tracking costs, "most have little if any idea of the value each employee contributes to the organization." Understanding value—and that a job can change to suit a person's skills—would go a long way in making a good match.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
A Note I Posted on LinkedIn
Good Afternoon,
My name is Nathan J. Fragala and I recently graduated from an outstanding internationally recognized private college in Burlington, Vermont and I am currently working in retail sales surrounded by incompetent employees and inept managers who barely graduated High School. In college I worked hard to distinguish myself under the assumption that my mind would make me money. But having searched several months for respectable work with little to show for it but a bunch of automated email responses, I now feel as though my efforts would have been better spent learning a trade.
The middle management grease which facilitates the effective operation of a functioning domestic economy has all but dried up since 2008 leaving the vastly expanding educated workforce with nothing but entry level jobs left vacant in the wake of a fierce "promote-from-within" corporate belt tightening ethos. Why take a chance on an outsider who is clearly more capable of doing the job when we can promote the dropout who is clearly intent on dying at his desk? While sound in theory, in practice this type of corporate culture is severely affecting America's competitiveness as a global economic leader. It's pining responsibility on hands unfit for the job while those most capable are forced into positions where they can do the least good. The economy goes bad and its the disenfranchised and unwarranted who benefit; not the people who can actually make a difference. Like many others, I'm here bolster my chances of finding gainful employment and If anyone can provide assistance in the Greater Boston area it would be greatly appreciated.
My name is Nathan J. Fragala and I recently graduated from an outstanding internationally recognized private college in Burlington, Vermont and I am currently working in retail sales surrounded by incompetent employees and inept managers who barely graduated High School. In college I worked hard to distinguish myself under the assumption that my mind would make me money. But having searched several months for respectable work with little to show for it but a bunch of automated email responses, I now feel as though my efforts would have been better spent learning a trade.
The middle management grease which facilitates the effective operation of a functioning domestic economy has all but dried up since 2008 leaving the vastly expanding educated workforce with nothing but entry level jobs left vacant in the wake of a fierce "promote-from-within" corporate belt tightening ethos. Why take a chance on an outsider who is clearly more capable of doing the job when we can promote the dropout who is clearly intent on dying at his desk? While sound in theory, in practice this type of corporate culture is severely affecting America's competitiveness as a global economic leader. It's pining responsibility on hands unfit for the job while those most capable are forced into positions where they can do the least good. The economy goes bad and its the disenfranchised and unwarranted who benefit; not the people who can actually make a difference. Like many others, I'm here bolster my chances of finding gainful employment and If anyone can provide assistance in the Greater Boston area it would be greatly appreciated.
-NJF-
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Unplugged: A Response to MT Anderson's book "FEED"
It has been twenty-nine hours, thirty-one minutes, and twenty-six seconds since I last came in contact with technology. My eyes appear well rested; my mind is clear; and the merciless sensation to shop at Wal-Mart has somewhat dissipated during my time unplugged from the world.
In M. T. Anderson’s novel “Feed” characters are subjected to a never-ending battery of advertisements and information that almost forcibly injects relative data directly into their brains without much thought or impetus. This is something we can all relate to as we walk down the Church Street Marketplace or enter a shopping mall. “When we got off the ship, our feeds were going fugue with all the banners…I was trying to talk to Link, but I couldn’t because I was getting bannered so hard…The whole time was like that (Anderson, 8).”
During my time unplugged I couldn’t help but notice that despite my seeming disconnect from the technical world surrounding me, I was still subject to it no matter how far or how long I remained unplugged. I shut off my cell phone and the messages just piled up (much to my girlfriends dismay); I walked to the lake to play my guitar and watch the sunset but on the way I was bombarded with advertisements and technology in the form of radio programs, people on the street talking about the new shoes they just bought, and even looking down on my person I found constant reminders of this “feed” we cannot escape. Things such as my shoes, my shirt, and even my guitar seemed to scream at me like it was some subliminal plot by advertisers to remind me that no matter how hard I tried I would never truly escape the modern world and its trappings.
My girlfriend thought the whole idea was ridiculous. “Why shut off your cell phone- what if someone needed to call you,” she said with anger on her lips. To which I replied, “I was supposed to shut off or distance myself from everything technological for a day so I couldn’t get to my cell phone.” To which she replied, “Well you could have at least checked you e-mail!” That’s when I decided to end the conversation.
The time I spent unplugged from the world was a real eye opener for me personally not because I have a deep seeded connection to modern technology but rather because I personally try not to. I don’t care too much if I forget my cell phone or don’t check my e-mail for a few days so I never really felt like I had a strong connection or need for those technologies. However, when I purposely tried to distance myself from them I couldn’t help but realize that they were attaching themselves to me. Even if I wanted to I could never entirely shut off from the world so in a way I felt almost like Titus and his gang of friends in M. T. Andersons book. I began to realize that there is indeed a “feed” plugging us all in to this intangible network of technologies and advertisements and throughout this course I intend to find out how strong that connection is and what I can do to stop it.
In M. T. Anderson’s novel “Feed” characters are subjected to a never-ending battery of advertisements and information that almost forcibly injects relative data directly into their brains without much thought or impetus. This is something we can all relate to as we walk down the Church Street Marketplace or enter a shopping mall. “When we got off the ship, our feeds were going fugue with all the banners…I was trying to talk to Link, but I couldn’t because I was getting bannered so hard…The whole time was like that (Anderson, 8).”
During my time unplugged I couldn’t help but notice that despite my seeming disconnect from the technical world surrounding me, I was still subject to it no matter how far or how long I remained unplugged. I shut off my cell phone and the messages just piled up (much to my girlfriends dismay); I walked to the lake to play my guitar and watch the sunset but on the way I was bombarded with advertisements and technology in the form of radio programs, people on the street talking about the new shoes they just bought, and even looking down on my person I found constant reminders of this “feed” we cannot escape. Things such as my shoes, my shirt, and even my guitar seemed to scream at me like it was some subliminal plot by advertisers to remind me that no matter how hard I tried I would never truly escape the modern world and its trappings.
My girlfriend thought the whole idea was ridiculous. “Why shut off your cell phone- what if someone needed to call you,” she said with anger on her lips. To which I replied, “I was supposed to shut off or distance myself from everything technological for a day so I couldn’t get to my cell phone.” To which she replied, “Well you could have at least checked you e-mail!” That’s when I decided to end the conversation.
The time I spent unplugged from the world was a real eye opener for me personally not because I have a deep seeded connection to modern technology but rather because I personally try not to. I don’t care too much if I forget my cell phone or don’t check my e-mail for a few days so I never really felt like I had a strong connection or need for those technologies. However, when I purposely tried to distance myself from them I couldn’t help but realize that they were attaching themselves to me. Even if I wanted to I could never entirely shut off from the world so in a way I felt almost like Titus and his gang of friends in M. T. Andersons book. I began to realize that there is indeed a “feed” plugging us all in to this intangible network of technologies and advertisements and throughout this course I intend to find out how strong that connection is and what I can do to stop it.
5 Technology Revelations
“Top Five Media and Technology Revelations”
“He said, facing toward her feet, ‘Her mother and I didn’t want to get her a feed at all. I did not have one. Neither did her mother. I said none for my family.
‘Then one day, when her mother had left, and I needed work, I was at a job interview. I was an excellent candidate. Two men were interviewing me. Talking about this and that. Then they were silent, just looking at me. I grew uncomfortable. They began looking at each other, and doing what I might call smirking.
‘I realized that they had chatted me, and that I had not responded. They found this funny. Risible. That a man would not have a feed. So they were chatting about me in my presence. Teasing me when I could not heat. Free to assess me as they would, right in front of me.
‘I did not get the job.
‘It was thus that I realized that my daughter would need the feed. She had to live in the world…”
- Feed, page 288
1.) Transformation of the Traditional Mass Media Institutions.
“Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it…[Our Ministry of Culture] does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical, and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to amuse ourselves (Postman, 141).” In Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” the author discusses the impact of entertainment television on American sociopolitical comprehension. Television programs, advertisements, and political campaigns have been slowly adapting to the overwhelming desire people have for information and this is leading to a lack of understanding and analysis that is necessary for a functioning society. The media have become so overwhelmingly carefully with their controlled flood of information that Americans are loosing the ability to concentrate and comprehend abstract thought. What we see on the surface is becoming the basis of our understanding and this “information packaged as entertainment” is impacting our ability to make informed decisions; having consequences that reverberate not only in our daily lives, but in our democracy as well. Perhaps the Internet will provide an increased sense of dimension and context that will help subvert the media from presenting information merely as entertainment.
As we have seen in the past decade or so, the Internet is assimilating with every aspect of our daily lives. People spend almost as much time (if not moar) on the Internet as they do watching television and media outlets have been quick to incorporate these trends into their programming. “Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets…[This spares readers] the ‘less efficient’ method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles (Carr).”
It is not out of desire, however, that traditional media evolve; it is out of necessity. “The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations… Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules (Carr).” When you consider the viral nature of the web it becomes easy to see why traditional media have had to adapt to changes in the way people gather and interpret information. People can now actively participate in a dialogue with millions of others to critique the “consensus culture” mass media prescribes. “Broadcasting provides the common culture, and the Web offers more localized channels for responding to that culture (Jenkins, 211).” This diversifies the monologue traditional media had once preached to a disenfranchised public because it allows everyday people to voice their opinions, gain the support of others, and create a dialogue that introduces counter- perspective to the media’s prescribed public perception.
Modern political campaigns have also been forced to integrate the Internet as a major part of their election strategy because people are beginning to expect, nay demand, the increased dimension the web can place on information- dimension traditional media could never achieve. “The new media operate within different principles than the broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication (Jenkins, 208).” This is contributing to an increase in political transparency that is tearing down many of the perceived barriers people once thought prevented them from meaningful political action which many believe is reinvigorating the populace to become active members of a functioning democracy.
This is one of the most startling revelations I have had over the course of the semester because my classmates and I are witness to an evolution of traditional media as a consequence of the Internet. This is a relatively recent technology that is revolutionizing the entire world and as people who for a time lived in a world without Google, YouTube, and Facebook, we will be able to watch/participate/interact as new and old media collide and form a whole new media infrastructure. Hopefully, it will be to the betterment not only to our political democracy but also to society as a whole.
This is a video explaining the role the Web played on the U.S. Presidential Primaries in 2008 and how recent nominees have revolutionized “campaigning, mobilizing, and mud slinging” in the age of the Internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_TsRjiunY
2.) The Shift in the Publics Role as Members of an American Democracy.
We are in the midst of a “Digital Revolution.” Television, radio, movies, telephones, PDA’s, interpersonal communication of all forms, classrooms, bedrooms, and yes, even bathrooms are becoming incorporated into a digital realm. The web has become an almost mandatory facet of our daily lives and has allowed for a sort of collective intelligence to form. If we have an idea we can post it on a blog, receive comments, imbed media, and link to other discussions that contribute to a sort of global dialogue between those with Internet access that helps us better understand the world. This dialogue has revolutionized the way we interpret information and has given us the opportunity to delve more deeply into more subjects than was ever possible before the Internets emergence. One of the most significant contributions the Web has made is to the public’s role as members of our democracy and it is the subject of my second revelation.
When people talk about a “Digital Revolution” and its impact on American politics what they are talking about is a, “shift in the public’s role in the political process, bringing realm of political discourse closer to the everyday life experiences of citizens (Jenkins, 208).” With the tools provided by the Internet people are now able to gather information about candidates, debate policy differences, and even monitor up to the minute polling data downloaded directly to their Blackberry. The “Digital Revolution” has had its impact on many aspect of modern life in America but I think most significant is its impact on democracy. What we are seeing is a destabilization of the political groundwork that laid the foundation of our democracy for so many years. Where once the broadcast media exercised almost complete control over what was considered to be “public” opinion, now everyday Americans without network support can garner supporters, promote ideals, and contribute to a political dialogue that shapes our modern political process. “What [we] are talking about is changing the ways people think about community and power so that they are able to mobilize collective intelligence to transform governance (Jenkins, 208).” Individuals who once felt ostracized by pop-politics for having opposing positions on political issues now have a myriad of channels to voice their opposition and introduce counter perspective in what was once a very shallow pool of opinion controlled by broadcast media.
One of the most important impacts the “Digital Revolution” has had on American politics is in the Blogosphere. This is a digital realm where everyday Americans with Internet access can voice their opinions about anything and everything and publish it on the Web for all to see. But the Blogosphere’s true worth comes in its ability to foster discussion, namely political, which is able to curtail mass media’s stranglehold on public opinion and influence politics in a meaningful way. “Blogging may on one level be facilitating the flow of ideas across the media landscape; on other levels, [Bloggers] are ensuring an ever more divisive political debate (Jenkins, 216).” Bloggers are even able to take democracy a step further by encouraging the formation of coalitions and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) designed to promote their ideals and organize political action such as the February 2003 “Virtual March on Washington.” This is the logic behind what Henry Jenkins calls convergence politics: “the effort to use grassroots media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize.”
Because the Internet is a narrowcast media that is “peer-to-peer” rather than “one-to-many,” Bloggers are able to create a sort of community classroom in which policy is debated and plans for political action are formed. Like any classroom there will be a lot of blabber-mouthing and incoherent gibberish, but in a few small pockets there will be meaningful discussion taking place where people of varying positions are deliberating policy issues and forming coalitions designed for action. In this arena they are able to pose opinions, support or refute them with data, and ask the all-important question to their peers “What do you think?” This is something that cannot be achieved with traditional media’s monologue to America and it is the reason why one-to-many communication is so detrimental. Counter perspective is essential to any functioning democracy and the Blogosphere provides a avenue for people to voice their opinions and act upon them.
As mainstream journalism becomes increasingly unreliable and tainted by the concerns of private interest groups, “being driven by ideological agendas rather than professional standards, burying stories that run counter to their economic interests, and trivializing politics in their focus on power struggle and horse races,” Bloggers introduce a counter perspective that is increasing the democratizing potential of the Internet and putting an emphasis on the publics role in a functioning democracy (Jenkins, 216).
This Daily Show episode hosts guest Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and explains Blogging to viewers and its importance as a meaningful information medium in the wake of the “Digital Revolution.”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=212819
3.) Just How Much Traditional Media Continue to Manipulate the Way Americans See the World.
My third revelation came to me upon a reassessment of Alisa Millers TED talk from week four in which she discusses why the U.S. media focuses almost entirely on America despite living in an increasingly interconnected world. In the U.S. some 79% of news coverage in February of 2007 was within our borders while abroad important international events such as the IPCC’s confirmation of man’s impact on global warming received one tenth the coverage of Anna Nicole’s death by drug overdose. “The combines coverage of Russia, China, and India by U.S. newscasters reached just 1% (Miller).” And the Web doesn’t do much better. “The Internet does not facilitate widespread participation in politics, nor does it raise the level of political dialogue. The Internet leads to more information clutter; it becomes necessary for any message to get louder. Much of the political information, therefore, will inevitably become distorted, shrill, and simplistic (Noam).” While there are an infinite amount of resources for international information on the Internet, the top news sites covered the same stories as the major networks and the other news they do cover is often too simplistic to justify its importance. As Miller points out however, the amount of Americans who seek out international news regularly grew from 37 to 52% in the past 20 years so why aren’t news organizations covering a broader scope of information?
The short answer to this question might be that it’s cheaper to focus on news at home than it is to maintain an office abroad (foreign news bureaus have been eliminated by 1/2) but I think the answer is a little more endemic of the American consumer. The American consumer is not just a consumer of product he is also a consumer of information. In some ways the two are different but in others they are in fact one in the same. We are consumers of information even as we consume product and often times the products we consume tell of the character of the individual. Taken as a whole, the sum of our consumer activities can reflect our character as a nation and therefore the commercial market is a significant factor in how we consume information. Neil Postman explains-
“Indeed, we may go this far: The television commercial is not at all about the character of products to be consumed. It is about the character of the consumers of products. Images of movie stars and famous athletes, of serene lakes and macho fishing trips, of elegant dinners and romantic interludes, of happy families packing their station wagons for a picnic in the country—these tell everything about the fears, fancies, and dreams of those who might buy them. What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product bit what is wrong about the buyer. And so, the balance of business expenditures shifts from product research to market research. The television commercial has oriented business away from making products of value and towards making consumers feel valuable…the consumer is a patient assured by psycho-dramas.”
-Postman, page 128
What Postman is arguing here is that Americans are becoming increasingly susceptible to a two-dimensional interpretation of information. As we continue to allow the commercial mainstream media to manipulate the way we see the world we are limiting our ability to concentrate and articulate complex information. When we see the For Motor Company publishing commercials showcasing their new line of F150 super duties that can stop a military cargo plane we are subject to a clever misdirection of consumer interest that puts our focus on the big plane and the truck that’s stopping it rather than the logical comprehension of owning a truck in this kind of economy. But the issue here isn’t the misdirection, it’s the impact it has on our interpretation of information.
Because we are so inundated with this type of two-dimensional information presentation by the mass media, it becomes natural for us to take things at face value. Perhaps you are a construction worker or an engineer that is on the fence about purchasing a truck, Postman argues that if Ford Motor Company can accurately manipulate you into feeling valuable as a consumer of Ford product, either by absurd tests of largely useless features or maybe guilt imposed by the failing American auto industry, it can bypass more important pieces of information such as gas mileage, after purchase support, and power train warranty that seem like logical informative factors to base your decision.
The issue is that the shallow interpretation of information promoted by the commercial media has ramifications in every aspect of American life. “Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged [by the mass media] (Carr). Political, International, and local news is taking its cues from consumer advertisements, both on television and on the web, by restricting the sort of in depth analysis that is needed for such important issues. Primetime network news organization use this kind of mentality to routinely reduce the world into one big story at a time while political candidates use it to skirt the public record and appeal to voters on a strictly personal basis. "By bringing politicians close to us, the American mass media appeal to our natural cockiness about judging character. In doing so, the media also establish a model of politics that emphasizes politicians over politics and psychology over economics (Hart, 68)." This is what Hart calls “personality politics” and it has a serious impact on our nation’s ability to function as a democracy because we are effectively incapable of making complex decisions based on relevant information (such as a candidates qualifications).
Hopefully the “convergence culture” alluded to by Jenkins will set in motion a restructuring of how information is presented- in one phase information s broadcasted to millions and in the second people are given access to accompanying information that allows them to make their own judgments.
This is the Alisa Miller TED Talk in which she explains some important statistics concerning the grip mass media has on information. It is significant because she graphically illustrates how much network news organizations focus on the U.S. even as we push towards a truly interconnected world.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html
This is another provocative video with some great analysis of Mass Media’s detrimental influence on today’s society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv4_YMl9k0w-
4.) America’s Growing Addiction to Information.
“[The] explosion of information technology, when combined with an unusual confluence of dramatic — and ongoing — news events, has led many people to conclude that they have given their lives over to a news obsession (Williams).”
The fourth revelation I have made this semester is the sheer addiction to information spreading like wild fire across America. It seems that in a post 9/11 world anyone and everyone is concerned about the next “Big News” to hit the airwaves only now we needn’t rely on television to feed our addiction to information; we can simply power up our PDA, laptop, or cell phone. As Alex Williams, contributor to the New York Times, points out, “For many Americans, the hunger for information is reminiscent of those harried, harrowing months after Sept. 11, 2001. But seven years ago, there was no iPhone, no Twitter, and no YouTube.” We are now capable of getting information whenever and wherever we want to feed our information impulses and this, like any addiction, has its downfall.
“Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy…That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle (Carr). Carr’s experiences are not at all an isolated event. The Internet has flooded so our minds with pop-ups, spam, and instant messaging that we are beginning to think like a computer. Like Johnny Five from the hit 80’s movies “Short Circuit” we are on a never-ending quest for input. But the Internet, while widening the channel in which we locate data, has also limited us in the amount of extrapolation and insight we devote to it. Why form your own theories on ethnocentric interclass racism when you can read a Harvard professors masters dissertation on the subject- or even better link to an open source online encyclopedia and get bulleted outline? In a post 9/11 world it seems information is being used as a currency for people to feel a sense of comfort in a world that is largely unpredictable. “In times when people think their fate is tied to enormous events that are out of their hands, stockpiling information can give some people a sense of control, social scientists said (Williams).”
But if this sense of control is a fallacy created by the broadcast news media’s two-dimensional presentation of information, then perhaps this revelation is more startling than it appears. For if we continue to allow traditional forms of media to manipulate our interpretation of information we will be no more informed on anything which will make us incapable of making the important informed decisions that are essential to a functioning democracy.
This video showcases many of the detrimental effects of an information addiction not only in the political sphere but it the way our minds are becoming literally hardwired to the Web. I found the relationships it made with negative aspects of playing video games, impacts an information addiction have on school or work, and information based relationships provocative to say the least. This video exemplifies why I call it an information addiction in every sense of the word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related-
5.) The Growing Threat Information is Posing on Democracy Itself.
As alluded to in the conclusion of my previous revelation- our growing addiction to information has serious potential consequences if the information we digest is manipulated by the commercial mass media. My fifth and final revelation this semester is the threat our information addiction, which resulted from the “Digital Revolution,” is posing on Americans as consumers and as members of a democracy.
“Mainstream mass media and commercial websites…systematically prioritize certain types of sites and information at the expense of others, leading to a narrowing of the Internet’s value as a means by which to give voice to alternative perspectives and increase the communicative aspect that constitute the public sphere (Longford, Graham, and Patten).” Both the Net and broadcast media are in large part commercial entities designed specifically to get consumers to purchase product. Sites like Myspace and Facebook, which started innocently enough eventually succumbed to the pressures of commercial interests. According to Yahoo News, Myspace sold to News Corp for more than a half a billion dollars simply because advertisers wanted to capture the visitors attention and direct them to their products and services and if advertisers are willing to pay that much for page views, what’s to stop them from manipulated information int heir favor?
Google, Yahoo, and Ask are all commercial search engines and they, as Longford etc. suggest, systematically prioritize what information gets sent to the top of your search results, in effect burying what you were looking for under a pile of commercial interests. Broadcast news media do the same thing with the stories they cover by focusing on stories that are favorable to their commercial sponsors and we have become so inundated that we take everything at face value. We take little to no time extrapolating information and this is causing us to complacent with two-dimensional data, which has monumental negative affects on our ability to function as a democracy. Counter perspective is essential to any democracy and at least on broadcast media they have to appeal to a wide range of consumers. On the Internet people are free to limit every aspect of what information they come across. “The ability of Internet users to personalize and constrict the flow of information using browser settings, listservs, customized web portals, and RSS news feeds—may actually promote the very sort of ‘cyberbalkanization’ that is detrimental to the public sphere (Longford, Graham, Patten).”
The Internets capacity for “hyper-atomization” allows close-minded people to avoid entirely any alternative perspective that might contradict their opinions. This lack of information makes these people completely subject to their beliefs and unfit for democratic participation. And while the Internet has significant democratic potential, because it is still subject to the information manipulation of commercial interest everyday people are becoming no more fit for democratic participation than they once were. As Longford etc. puts it, “Reluctance of our governments and political parties to enhance the Internet as anything more than a supplement to existing [commercial] practices has mean that, while the Internet has change the practice of [gathering political information], democracy has not been deepened…The corporate colonization of the Internet and out lack of willingness to treat the Internet as a public good has hampered the Internet’s potential to facilitate the sort of democratic transformation of the public sphere that could deepen…democracy.”
This is potentially my biggest revelation: that information itself might threaten our very democracy and we might live in an age of misinformation.
In an excellent speech conducted by Bill Moyers on media reform he states: “In his magisterial book Media Monopoly Ben Bagdikien wrote, ‘The result of the of relatively narrow corporate ideologies has been the creation of widely established political and economic illusions with little visible contradictions in the media to which the majority of the people is exclusively exposed.’ In other words, what we need to know to make democracy work for all Americans is compromised by media institutions deeply embedded in the power structures of society.” This opening quote exemplifies exactly what I am talking about in the previous revelation. I only hope that the entire class will watch all three of these thought provoking and excellent videos on the threat mass media poses on democracy itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related
“He said, facing toward her feet, ‘Her mother and I didn’t want to get her a feed at all. I did not have one. Neither did her mother. I said none for my family.
‘Then one day, when her mother had left, and I needed work, I was at a job interview. I was an excellent candidate. Two men were interviewing me. Talking about this and that. Then they were silent, just looking at me. I grew uncomfortable. They began looking at each other, and doing what I might call smirking.
‘I realized that they had chatted me, and that I had not responded. They found this funny. Risible. That a man would not have a feed. So they were chatting about me in my presence. Teasing me when I could not heat. Free to assess me as they would, right in front of me.
‘I did not get the job.
‘It was thus that I realized that my daughter would need the feed. She had to live in the world…”
- Feed, page 288
1.) Transformation of the Traditional Mass Media Institutions.
“Those who run television do not limit our access to information but in fact widen it…[Our Ministry of Culture] does everything possible to encourage us to watch continuously. But what we watch is a medium which presents information in a form that renders it simplistic, nonsubstantive, nonhistorical, and noncontextual; that is to say, information packaged as entertainment. In America, we are never denied the opportunity to amuse ourselves (Postman, 141).” In Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” the author discusses the impact of entertainment television on American sociopolitical comprehension. Television programs, advertisements, and political campaigns have been slowly adapting to the overwhelming desire people have for information and this is leading to a lack of understanding and analysis that is necessary for a functioning society. The media have become so overwhelmingly carefully with their controlled flood of information that Americans are loosing the ability to concentrate and comprehend abstract thought. What we see on the surface is becoming the basis of our understanding and this “information packaged as entertainment” is impacting our ability to make informed decisions; having consequences that reverberate not only in our daily lives, but in our democracy as well. Perhaps the Internet will provide an increased sense of dimension and context that will help subvert the media from presenting information merely as entertainment.
As we have seen in the past decade or so, the Internet is assimilating with every aspect of our daily lives. People spend almost as much time (if not moar) on the Internet as they do watching television and media outlets have been quick to incorporate these trends into their programming. “Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets…[This spares readers] the ‘less efficient’ method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles (Carr).”
It is not out of desire, however, that traditional media evolve; it is out of necessity. “The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations… Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules (Carr).” When you consider the viral nature of the web it becomes easy to see why traditional media have had to adapt to changes in the way people gather and interpret information. People can now actively participate in a dialogue with millions of others to critique the “consensus culture” mass media prescribes. “Broadcasting provides the common culture, and the Web offers more localized channels for responding to that culture (Jenkins, 211).” This diversifies the monologue traditional media had once preached to a disenfranchised public because it allows everyday people to voice their opinions, gain the support of others, and create a dialogue that introduces counter- perspective to the media’s prescribed public perception.
Modern political campaigns have also been forced to integrate the Internet as a major part of their election strategy because people are beginning to expect, nay demand, the increased dimension the web can place on information- dimension traditional media could never achieve. “The new media operate within different principles than the broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication (Jenkins, 208).” This is contributing to an increase in political transparency that is tearing down many of the perceived barriers people once thought prevented them from meaningful political action which many believe is reinvigorating the populace to become active members of a functioning democracy.
This is one of the most startling revelations I have had over the course of the semester because my classmates and I are witness to an evolution of traditional media as a consequence of the Internet. This is a relatively recent technology that is revolutionizing the entire world and as people who for a time lived in a world without Google, YouTube, and Facebook, we will be able to watch/participate/interact as new and old media collide and form a whole new media infrastructure. Hopefully, it will be to the betterment not only to our political democracy but also to society as a whole.
This is a video explaining the role the Web played on the U.S. Presidential Primaries in 2008 and how recent nominees have revolutionized “campaigning, mobilizing, and mud slinging” in the age of the Internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn_TsRjiunY
2.) The Shift in the Publics Role as Members of an American Democracy.
We are in the midst of a “Digital Revolution.” Television, radio, movies, telephones, PDA’s, interpersonal communication of all forms, classrooms, bedrooms, and yes, even bathrooms are becoming incorporated into a digital realm. The web has become an almost mandatory facet of our daily lives and has allowed for a sort of collective intelligence to form. If we have an idea we can post it on a blog, receive comments, imbed media, and link to other discussions that contribute to a sort of global dialogue between those with Internet access that helps us better understand the world. This dialogue has revolutionized the way we interpret information and has given us the opportunity to delve more deeply into more subjects than was ever possible before the Internets emergence. One of the most significant contributions the Web has made is to the public’s role as members of our democracy and it is the subject of my second revelation.
When people talk about a “Digital Revolution” and its impact on American politics what they are talking about is a, “shift in the public’s role in the political process, bringing realm of political discourse closer to the everyday life experiences of citizens (Jenkins, 208).” With the tools provided by the Internet people are now able to gather information about candidates, debate policy differences, and even monitor up to the minute polling data downloaded directly to their Blackberry. The “Digital Revolution” has had its impact on many aspect of modern life in America but I think most significant is its impact on democracy. What we are seeing is a destabilization of the political groundwork that laid the foundation of our democracy for so many years. Where once the broadcast media exercised almost complete control over what was considered to be “public” opinion, now everyday Americans without network support can garner supporters, promote ideals, and contribute to a political dialogue that shapes our modern political process. “What [we] are talking about is changing the ways people think about community and power so that they are able to mobilize collective intelligence to transform governance (Jenkins, 208).” Individuals who once felt ostracized by pop-politics for having opposing positions on political issues now have a myriad of channels to voice their opposition and introduce counter perspective in what was once a very shallow pool of opinion controlled by broadcast media.
One of the most important impacts the “Digital Revolution” has had on American politics is in the Blogosphere. This is a digital realm where everyday Americans with Internet access can voice their opinions about anything and everything and publish it on the Web for all to see. But the Blogosphere’s true worth comes in its ability to foster discussion, namely political, which is able to curtail mass media’s stranglehold on public opinion and influence politics in a meaningful way. “Blogging may on one level be facilitating the flow of ideas across the media landscape; on other levels, [Bloggers] are ensuring an ever more divisive political debate (Jenkins, 216).” Bloggers are even able to take democracy a step further by encouraging the formation of coalitions and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) designed to promote their ideals and organize political action such as the February 2003 “Virtual March on Washington.” This is the logic behind what Henry Jenkins calls convergence politics: “the effort to use grassroots media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize.”
Because the Internet is a narrowcast media that is “peer-to-peer” rather than “one-to-many,” Bloggers are able to create a sort of community classroom in which policy is debated and plans for political action are formed. Like any classroom there will be a lot of blabber-mouthing and incoherent gibberish, but in a few small pockets there will be meaningful discussion taking place where people of varying positions are deliberating policy issues and forming coalitions designed for action. In this arena they are able to pose opinions, support or refute them with data, and ask the all-important question to their peers “What do you think?” This is something that cannot be achieved with traditional media’s monologue to America and it is the reason why one-to-many communication is so detrimental. Counter perspective is essential to any functioning democracy and the Blogosphere provides a avenue for people to voice their opinions and act upon them.
As mainstream journalism becomes increasingly unreliable and tainted by the concerns of private interest groups, “being driven by ideological agendas rather than professional standards, burying stories that run counter to their economic interests, and trivializing politics in their focus on power struggle and horse races,” Bloggers introduce a counter perspective that is increasing the democratizing potential of the Internet and putting an emphasis on the publics role in a functioning democracy (Jenkins, 216).
This Daily Show episode hosts guest Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and explains Blogging to viewers and its importance as a meaningful information medium in the wake of the “Digital Revolution.”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=212819
3.) Just How Much Traditional Media Continue to Manipulate the Way Americans See the World.
My third revelation came to me upon a reassessment of Alisa Millers TED talk from week four in which she discusses why the U.S. media focuses almost entirely on America despite living in an increasingly interconnected world. In the U.S. some 79% of news coverage in February of 2007 was within our borders while abroad important international events such as the IPCC’s confirmation of man’s impact on global warming received one tenth the coverage of Anna Nicole’s death by drug overdose. “The combines coverage of Russia, China, and India by U.S. newscasters reached just 1% (Miller).” And the Web doesn’t do much better. “The Internet does not facilitate widespread participation in politics, nor does it raise the level of political dialogue. The Internet leads to more information clutter; it becomes necessary for any message to get louder. Much of the political information, therefore, will inevitably become distorted, shrill, and simplistic (Noam).” While there are an infinite amount of resources for international information on the Internet, the top news sites covered the same stories as the major networks and the other news they do cover is often too simplistic to justify its importance. As Miller points out however, the amount of Americans who seek out international news regularly grew from 37 to 52% in the past 20 years so why aren’t news organizations covering a broader scope of information?
The short answer to this question might be that it’s cheaper to focus on news at home than it is to maintain an office abroad (foreign news bureaus have been eliminated by 1/2) but I think the answer is a little more endemic of the American consumer. The American consumer is not just a consumer of product he is also a consumer of information. In some ways the two are different but in others they are in fact one in the same. We are consumers of information even as we consume product and often times the products we consume tell of the character of the individual. Taken as a whole, the sum of our consumer activities can reflect our character as a nation and therefore the commercial market is a significant factor in how we consume information. Neil Postman explains-
“Indeed, we may go this far: The television commercial is not at all about the character of products to be consumed. It is about the character of the consumers of products. Images of movie stars and famous athletes, of serene lakes and macho fishing trips, of elegant dinners and romantic interludes, of happy families packing their station wagons for a picnic in the country—these tell everything about the fears, fancies, and dreams of those who might buy them. What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product bit what is wrong about the buyer. And so, the balance of business expenditures shifts from product research to market research. The television commercial has oriented business away from making products of value and towards making consumers feel valuable…the consumer is a patient assured by psycho-dramas.”
-Postman, page 128
What Postman is arguing here is that Americans are becoming increasingly susceptible to a two-dimensional interpretation of information. As we continue to allow the commercial mainstream media to manipulate the way we see the world we are limiting our ability to concentrate and articulate complex information. When we see the For Motor Company publishing commercials showcasing their new line of F150 super duties that can stop a military cargo plane we are subject to a clever misdirection of consumer interest that puts our focus on the big plane and the truck that’s stopping it rather than the logical comprehension of owning a truck in this kind of economy. But the issue here isn’t the misdirection, it’s the impact it has on our interpretation of information.
Because we are so inundated with this type of two-dimensional information presentation by the mass media, it becomes natural for us to take things at face value. Perhaps you are a construction worker or an engineer that is on the fence about purchasing a truck, Postman argues that if Ford Motor Company can accurately manipulate you into feeling valuable as a consumer of Ford product, either by absurd tests of largely useless features or maybe guilt imposed by the failing American auto industry, it can bypass more important pieces of information such as gas mileage, after purchase support, and power train warranty that seem like logical informative factors to base your decision.
The issue is that the shallow interpretation of information promoted by the commercial media has ramifications in every aspect of American life. “Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged [by the mass media] (Carr). Political, International, and local news is taking its cues from consumer advertisements, both on television and on the web, by restricting the sort of in depth analysis that is needed for such important issues. Primetime network news organization use this kind of mentality to routinely reduce the world into one big story at a time while political candidates use it to skirt the public record and appeal to voters on a strictly personal basis. "By bringing politicians close to us, the American mass media appeal to our natural cockiness about judging character. In doing so, the media also establish a model of politics that emphasizes politicians over politics and psychology over economics (Hart, 68)." This is what Hart calls “personality politics” and it has a serious impact on our nation’s ability to function as a democracy because we are effectively incapable of making complex decisions based on relevant information (such as a candidates qualifications).
Hopefully the “convergence culture” alluded to by Jenkins will set in motion a restructuring of how information is presented- in one phase information s broadcasted to millions and in the second people are given access to accompanying information that allows them to make their own judgments.
This is the Alisa Miller TED Talk in which she explains some important statistics concerning the grip mass media has on information. It is significant because she graphically illustrates how much network news organizations focus on the U.S. even as we push towards a truly interconnected world.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html
This is another provocative video with some great analysis of Mass Media’s detrimental influence on today’s society:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv4_YMl9k0w-
4.) America’s Growing Addiction to Information.
“[The] explosion of information technology, when combined with an unusual confluence of dramatic — and ongoing — news events, has led many people to conclude that they have given their lives over to a news obsession (Williams).”
The fourth revelation I have made this semester is the sheer addiction to information spreading like wild fire across America. It seems that in a post 9/11 world anyone and everyone is concerned about the next “Big News” to hit the airwaves only now we needn’t rely on television to feed our addiction to information; we can simply power up our PDA, laptop, or cell phone. As Alex Williams, contributor to the New York Times, points out, “For many Americans, the hunger for information is reminiscent of those harried, harrowing months after Sept. 11, 2001. But seven years ago, there was no iPhone, no Twitter, and no YouTube.” We are now capable of getting information whenever and wherever we want to feed our information impulses and this, like any addiction, has its downfall.
“Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy…That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle (Carr). Carr’s experiences are not at all an isolated event. The Internet has flooded so our minds with pop-ups, spam, and instant messaging that we are beginning to think like a computer. Like Johnny Five from the hit 80’s movies “Short Circuit” we are on a never-ending quest for input. But the Internet, while widening the channel in which we locate data, has also limited us in the amount of extrapolation and insight we devote to it. Why form your own theories on ethnocentric interclass racism when you can read a Harvard professors masters dissertation on the subject- or even better link to an open source online encyclopedia and get bulleted outline? In a post 9/11 world it seems information is being used as a currency for people to feel a sense of comfort in a world that is largely unpredictable. “In times when people think their fate is tied to enormous events that are out of their hands, stockpiling information can give some people a sense of control, social scientists said (Williams).”
But if this sense of control is a fallacy created by the broadcast news media’s two-dimensional presentation of information, then perhaps this revelation is more startling than it appears. For if we continue to allow traditional forms of media to manipulate our interpretation of information we will be no more informed on anything which will make us incapable of making the important informed decisions that are essential to a functioning democracy.
This video showcases many of the detrimental effects of an information addiction not only in the political sphere but it the way our minds are becoming literally hardwired to the Web. I found the relationships it made with negative aspects of playing video games, impacts an information addiction have on school or work, and information based relationships provocative to say the least. This video exemplifies why I call it an information addiction in every sense of the word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related-
5.) The Growing Threat Information is Posing on Democracy Itself.
As alluded to in the conclusion of my previous revelation- our growing addiction to information has serious potential consequences if the information we digest is manipulated by the commercial mass media. My fifth and final revelation this semester is the threat our information addiction, which resulted from the “Digital Revolution,” is posing on Americans as consumers and as members of a democracy.
“Mainstream mass media and commercial websites…systematically prioritize certain types of sites and information at the expense of others, leading to a narrowing of the Internet’s value as a means by which to give voice to alternative perspectives and increase the communicative aspect that constitute the public sphere (Longford, Graham, and Patten).” Both the Net and broadcast media are in large part commercial entities designed specifically to get consumers to purchase product. Sites like Myspace and Facebook, which started innocently enough eventually succumbed to the pressures of commercial interests. According to Yahoo News, Myspace sold to News Corp for more than a half a billion dollars simply because advertisers wanted to capture the visitors attention and direct them to their products and services and if advertisers are willing to pay that much for page views, what’s to stop them from manipulated information int heir favor?
Google, Yahoo, and Ask are all commercial search engines and they, as Longford etc. suggest, systematically prioritize what information gets sent to the top of your search results, in effect burying what you were looking for under a pile of commercial interests. Broadcast news media do the same thing with the stories they cover by focusing on stories that are favorable to their commercial sponsors and we have become so inundated that we take everything at face value. We take little to no time extrapolating information and this is causing us to complacent with two-dimensional data, which has monumental negative affects on our ability to function as a democracy. Counter perspective is essential to any democracy and at least on broadcast media they have to appeal to a wide range of consumers. On the Internet people are free to limit every aspect of what information they come across. “The ability of Internet users to personalize and constrict the flow of information using browser settings, listservs, customized web portals, and RSS news feeds—may actually promote the very sort of ‘cyberbalkanization’ that is detrimental to the public sphere (Longford, Graham, Patten).”
The Internets capacity for “hyper-atomization” allows close-minded people to avoid entirely any alternative perspective that might contradict their opinions. This lack of information makes these people completely subject to their beliefs and unfit for democratic participation. And while the Internet has significant democratic potential, because it is still subject to the information manipulation of commercial interest everyday people are becoming no more fit for democratic participation than they once were. As Longford etc. puts it, “Reluctance of our governments and political parties to enhance the Internet as anything more than a supplement to existing [commercial] practices has mean that, while the Internet has change the practice of [gathering political information], democracy has not been deepened…The corporate colonization of the Internet and out lack of willingness to treat the Internet as a public good has hampered the Internet’s potential to facilitate the sort of democratic transformation of the public sphere that could deepen…democracy.”
This is potentially my biggest revelation: that information itself might threaten our very democracy and we might live in an age of misinformation.
In an excellent speech conducted by Bill Moyers on media reform he states: “In his magisterial book Media Monopoly Ben Bagdikien wrote, ‘The result of the of relatively narrow corporate ideologies has been the creation of widely established political and economic illusions with little visible contradictions in the media to which the majority of the people is exclusively exposed.’ In other words, what we need to know to make democracy work for all Americans is compromised by media institutions deeply embedded in the power structures of society.” This opening quote exemplifies exactly what I am talking about in the previous revelation. I only hope that the entire class will watch all three of these thought provoking and excellent videos on the threat mass media poses on democracy itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2p2GW-HgNI&feature=related
Where People Get Information
The PEW Internet and American Life Project survey revealed some great information and empirically stratified some characteristics of the American web surfer. I have talked previously about envisioning the populace as a singular entity surfing the vast sea of information that is increasingly saturating our daily lives. Each one of us actively searches for information on a daily basis and how we retrieve that information reflects the direction of where the flow of information is taking us. It is important to remember that while primary data such as surveys and questionares like the PEW document are useful in gathering empirical data, they limit any room for elaboration and should not be taken as the final word on any subject.
Some of the most significant information contained within the PEW survey involves the disparities between politically active young and old American web surfers. While the amount of people who actively search out political information on the web has nearly doubled in the past four years the trend is almost exclusive to young people. "...More than a quarter of [Americans] younger than age 30 have gotten campaign information from social networking sites...Just 4% of Americans in their 30s, and % of those ages 40 and older, have gotten news about [politics] in this way (PEW, 5)."
The PEW survey also points out that the majority of people who find political information online do so by "coming across" it while surfing the web. The "Long Tail" of websites that acompanies the major corporate news sites (MSNBC, CNN, Google News, AOL News) illustrates how the collective utilizes the web to satisfy an addiction to information that has both positive and negative consequences.
Where People Get
Campaign News Online
Total 18-29 30+
% % %
MSNBC.com 26 30 24
CNN.com 23 30 21
Yahoo News 22 27 19
Google News 9 10 9
Fox News 9 5 10
AOL News 7 5 8
NY Times 6 5 6
Drudge Report 3 1 4
MySpace 3 8 *
YouTube 2 6 *
BBC 2 2 2
USA Today 1 0 2
Washington Pst 1 1 1
Obviously the top three news sites are MSNBC, CNN, and Yahoo News but the notable mention of independant sites is significant because it shows that people are using multiple sources to gather their information. "For every person getting campaign news from a site like MSNBC or CNN, there is a person getting campaign news from a website that targets a far smaller audience (PEW, 16)." This could lead to a broadening of perspective that will hopefully creep into the Televised Media- still the predominant source of news media in America and considered by over 64% of Americans as unfavorably bias (PEW, 21).
Two final points about the PEW survey are that nearly half of uneducated Americans actually prefer bias news coverage that "reflects their political leadings" and that 54% of Americans think the Iraq War "is not going well (PEW, 22)." Overall I think that the growing trends illustrated by the PEW document are positive but I worry about the potentially disruptive transition from old guard to new as the generation who were born with Internet access begin to lead the country. If older Americans continue to ignore the tech-revolution how will that play out as newer technologies continue to radically alter the way we receive and perceive the increasing flow of information?
-NJF-
Some of the most significant information contained within the PEW survey involves the disparities between politically active young and old American web surfers. While the amount of people who actively search out political information on the web has nearly doubled in the past four years the trend is almost exclusive to young people. "...More than a quarter of [Americans] younger than age 30 have gotten campaign information from social networking sites...Just 4% of Americans in their 30s, and % of those ages 40 and older, have gotten news about [politics] in this way (PEW, 5)."
The PEW survey also points out that the majority of people who find political information online do so by "coming across" it while surfing the web. The "Long Tail" of websites that acompanies the major corporate news sites (MSNBC, CNN, Google News, AOL News) illustrates how the collective utilizes the web to satisfy an addiction to information that has both positive and negative consequences.
Where People Get
Campaign News Online
Total 18-29 30+
% % %
MSNBC.com 26 30 24
CNN.com 23 30 21
Yahoo News 22 27 19
Google News 9 10 9
Fox News 9 5 10
AOL News 7 5 8
NY Times 6 5 6
Drudge Report 3 1 4
MySpace 3 8 *
YouTube 2 6 *
BBC 2 2 2
USA Today 1 0 2
Washington Pst 1 1 1
Obviously the top three news sites are MSNBC, CNN, and Yahoo News but the notable mention of independant sites is significant because it shows that people are using multiple sources to gather their information. "For every person getting campaign news from a site like MSNBC or CNN, there is a person getting campaign news from a website that targets a far smaller audience (PEW, 16)." This could lead to a broadening of perspective that will hopefully creep into the Televised Media- still the predominant source of news media in America and considered by over 64% of Americans as unfavorably bias (PEW, 21).
Two final points about the PEW survey are that nearly half of uneducated Americans actually prefer bias news coverage that "reflects their political leadings" and that 54% of Americans think the Iraq War "is not going well (PEW, 22)." Overall I think that the growing trends illustrated by the PEW document are positive but I worry about the potentially disruptive transition from old guard to new as the generation who were born with Internet access begin to lead the country. If older Americans continue to ignore the tech-revolution how will that play out as newer technologies continue to radically alter the way we receive and perceive the increasing flow of information?
-NJF-
The Paradigm Shift in What it Means to be a Citizen in the Information Age
According to the famous Greek theologian Aristotle the citizen is best defined as, “a man who shares in the administration of justice and in holding of office…The good citizen must possess the knowledge and capacity required for ruling as well as being ruled.”1 To the Ancient Greeks, any person without sincere concern for the commonwealth of the populace was not a capable of being a citizen of the republic. Any man whom held himself above the wellbeing of the masses was considered lacking in civic virtue and consequently was not fit for democratic citizenship. This concept originated from the sociopolitical structure of ancient Greece, which was based around those who own and those who are owned. In modern society ownership over individuals no longer exists but with the dawn of the Information Age, were computers are making vast amounts of input readily accessible to everyday people, came a new form of ownership which is threatening the very essence of what it means to be a citizen in modern society.
The ownership that defines “modern slavery” is based upon the presentation of information by the Broadcast Media. Over the past several decades Broadcast Media outlets have garnered such a dense concentration of power over public perception that they often define how the populace interprets information. Like Nazi propaganda during World War II, the corporate controlled Broadcast Media has been manipulating information in order to serve the moneyed concerns of private interest groups. Political parties, corporations, and powerful people alike have been influencing the mass media to present partisan information that is favorable to their agenda and this is conditioning the populace to become ignorant, apathetic, and susceptible to believing that the political process is a popularity contest where the winner is always 100% right. “As long as the overarching narrative of American political life is that of [a war between parties], our leaders will govern through a winner-take-all perspective. Every issue gets settled through bloody partisan warfare…In such a world, nobody can govern and nobody can compromise.”2 When we degenerate the political process into a pissing contest we loose site of the real issues and become blinded by the made up reality defined by the people whom control the information. This is the very essence of what the author refers to as “modern slavery,” the conditioning of the populace by mass media to believe that popular opinion dictates Universal Truth. But there is a rising tide swelling beneath the sea of Broadcast Media that threatens to undermine the control it exerts over public perception.
What are aptly referred to as Narrowcast Media are the channels of communication that exist largely apart from the mainstream commercial media. Public Access Television, flyers, and community discussion groups can all be considered Narrowcast
Media outlets because they are largely separated from commercial concerns but the largest and most significant Narrowcast media is a relatively recent communication and information network known as the Internet which many feel will revolutionize the American political process. “Through the democratizing power of digital technology and the Internet we can place the tools of… [democratic citizenship] into the hands of the common person- and with a truly active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will slowly but surely vanish from the earth.”3
The Internet’s significance in the political process has seen such tremendous growth over the past few elections that some see it as harbinger of a paradigm shift in the American political process; affecting everything from how we gather and interpret political information to influencing the central infrastructure upon which our nation’s political system is built. “Narrowcast media operate with different principles than the Broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication.”4 Voters can now find information for themselves about political campaigns from a myriad of sources on the net effectively bypassing the more traditional general interest intermediaries such as the Broadcast Media. This is contributing to a more decisive and diverse understanding of political candidates, which is making us more informed as citizens. “The [modern] notion of an informed citizen took shape in the context of the [Digital] revolution which made it conceivable that voters could follow the nuances of public policy debates. The [modern] notion of the informed citizen challenged more traditional notions of citizenship that deferred to the expertise of aristocrats or political parties.”5
By operating on the principles of access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication Narrowcast Media has promoted civic engagement and helped redefine the line between fact and fiction that Broadcast Media has usurped to serve the moneyed concerns of private interest groups. We longer need to depend on the general interest intermediary for political information because we now have access to thousands of information sources on the web. Ideally the ease of civic engagement provided by Narrowcast Media makes us more capable of achieving the Aristotelian virtues of democratic citizenry, however, because the majority of Americans have been conditioned by Broadcast Media to believe that Universal Truth is measured in mass appeal many Americans are now using Narrowcast Media outlets to continue limiting their scope of understanding- contradicting the very essence of what Narrowcast Media hopes to achieve. “[With the advent of the Internet] the market for news, entertainment, and information has finally been perfected. Consumers are able to see exactly what they want. When the power to filter is unlimited, people can decide, in advance and with perfect accuracy, what they will and will not encounter.”6
By using e-based general interest intermediaries such as TheDailyBeast.com to focus only on the issues that they are told to focus on these people are no better suited for democratic citizenship and are, in-fact, more susceptible to outside influence because they limit themselves to interpreting only the information that they have been conditioned to deem as relevant. “Picture parents watching small children at the community pool. They are not gathering information; they are keeping an eye on [their area of interest].”7 This, much like the predetermined information presented by the Broadcast Media, continues to threaten the very foundation of a functioning democratic society and therefore we must redefine what it means to be a citizen in the Information Age and expose the fundamentals of mass media information presentation that are specifically designed to limit our understanding and make us susceptible to outside influence.
For the purpose of exposing the new meaning of democratic citizenship in the Information Age the author has assembled a panel of four influential figures each of which plays a significant role in the affected realms of this ensuing pandemic: Fareed Zakaria, International Journalist and Realist whose media background and third party comprehension of American politics will provide meaningful insight into the paradigm shift occurring in politics as a result of the Digital Revolution; Joseph Trippi, campaign manager for Vermont senator Howard Dean and author of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything” a book showcasing the disintegration of existing political infrastructures and the integral role the Internet will play in the future of American politics; Head of marketing for News Corporation, the corporate entity owned by Rupert Murdoch which generates 25+ billion dollars in annual revenue and whom will exemplify the quintessential role Broadcast Medial plays in the manipulation of public opinion; and finally, John Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” who coupled with his team of Emmy Award wining writers should introduce a provocative satyr of the Broadcast Media, provide a Narrowcast perspective of the paradigm shift in American politics, and bridge the generational gap between young and old voters.
The panel will conduct a phased debate that will utilize the expansive reach of mass media and the peer-to-peer networking of the Internet. This is the very essence of what Henry Jenkins calls “convergence politics,” or “the effort to use grassroots (Narrowcast) media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize.”8 The panel organizers will first increase awareness of the debate by generating a presence on the web that contains relevant information, discussion boards, and links to supporting websites. This will create the necessary “buzz” and will get younger, less traditional media viewers to focus on the debate when it is aired by the Broadcast Media. The panel of experts will then conduct the debate on a respectable Broadcast News Media outlet in order to maximize public awareness of the issues being discussed. And finally, it will follow up the debate by using its existing Internet presence to foster collaboration between viewers, provide more information, and perhaps provide resources for action such as an online petition, coalition, or a virtual “march on Washington” as defined by the Montgomery text.
Political participation diminishes or even eliminates the power distance between the government and the populace. By teaching people to actively seek out relevant political information that contributes to meaningful decision-making, we promote the civic virtue that Aristotle held in such high esteem. By participating in government at the local or national level, whether in a town meeting, a jury, or even through political discussion on the Internet the informed citizen learns the habits of deliberating, creating, and obeying rules, and rising above private concerns to analyze the common good. By succumbing to apathy, ignorance, and information manipulation we become content with complacency and allow ourselves to be influenced by private interest groups. This makes us not informed citizens but rather “sheeple” ready to be lead to slaughter by the private interests of the corporate controlled media or the partisan views of corporate controlled politicians.
-NJF-
Works Cited
1.) Sinyai, Clayton. “Schools of Democracy: A Political History of the American Labor Movement.” 2006, ILR Press, Ithaca and London.
(1) Ibid., page 3
2.) Montgomery, Kathryn. “Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet.” The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, London England.
(3) Ibid., page 207
3.) Sunstein, Cass R. “Republic.com 2.0.” Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford.
(6) Ibid., page 4
4.) Jenkins, Henry. “Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.” New York University Press, New York and London
(2) Ibid., page 238
(4) Ibid., page 208
(5) Ibid., page 226
(7) Ibid., page 226
(8) Ibid., page 220
5.) Fragala, Nathan J. “-Concerning PEW Survey-“ Discussion Post. HIS 415-82AB
The ownership that defines “modern slavery” is based upon the presentation of information by the Broadcast Media. Over the past several decades Broadcast Media outlets have garnered such a dense concentration of power over public perception that they often define how the populace interprets information. Like Nazi propaganda during World War II, the corporate controlled Broadcast Media has been manipulating information in order to serve the moneyed concerns of private interest groups. Political parties, corporations, and powerful people alike have been influencing the mass media to present partisan information that is favorable to their agenda and this is conditioning the populace to become ignorant, apathetic, and susceptible to believing that the political process is a popularity contest where the winner is always 100% right. “As long as the overarching narrative of American political life is that of [a war between parties], our leaders will govern through a winner-take-all perspective. Every issue gets settled through bloody partisan warfare…In such a world, nobody can govern and nobody can compromise.”2 When we degenerate the political process into a pissing contest we loose site of the real issues and become blinded by the made up reality defined by the people whom control the information. This is the very essence of what the author refers to as “modern slavery,” the conditioning of the populace by mass media to believe that popular opinion dictates Universal Truth. But there is a rising tide swelling beneath the sea of Broadcast Media that threatens to undermine the control it exerts over public perception.
What are aptly referred to as Narrowcast Media are the channels of communication that exist largely apart from the mainstream commercial media. Public Access Television, flyers, and community discussion groups can all be considered Narrowcast
Media outlets because they are largely separated from commercial concerns but the largest and most significant Narrowcast media is a relatively recent communication and information network known as the Internet which many feel will revolutionize the American political process. “Through the democratizing power of digital technology and the Internet we can place the tools of… [democratic citizenship] into the hands of the common person- and with a truly active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will slowly but surely vanish from the earth.”3
The Internet’s significance in the political process has seen such tremendous growth over the past few elections that some see it as harbinger of a paradigm shift in the American political process; affecting everything from how we gather and interpret political information to influencing the central infrastructure upon which our nation’s political system is built. “Narrowcast media operate with different principles than the Broadcast media that dominated American politics for so long: access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication.”4 Voters can now find information for themselves about political campaigns from a myriad of sources on the net effectively bypassing the more traditional general interest intermediaries such as the Broadcast Media. This is contributing to a more decisive and diverse understanding of political candidates, which is making us more informed as citizens. “The [modern] notion of an informed citizen took shape in the context of the [Digital] revolution which made it conceivable that voters could follow the nuances of public policy debates. The [modern] notion of the informed citizen challenged more traditional notions of citizenship that deferred to the expertise of aristocrats or political parties.”5
By operating on the principles of access, participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer rather than one-to-many communication Narrowcast Media has promoted civic engagement and helped redefine the line between fact and fiction that Broadcast Media has usurped to serve the moneyed concerns of private interest groups. We longer need to depend on the general interest intermediary for political information because we now have access to thousands of information sources on the web. Ideally the ease of civic engagement provided by Narrowcast Media makes us more capable of achieving the Aristotelian virtues of democratic citizenry, however, because the majority of Americans have been conditioned by Broadcast Media to believe that Universal Truth is measured in mass appeal many Americans are now using Narrowcast Media outlets to continue limiting their scope of understanding- contradicting the very essence of what Narrowcast Media hopes to achieve. “[With the advent of the Internet] the market for news, entertainment, and information has finally been perfected. Consumers are able to see exactly what they want. When the power to filter is unlimited, people can decide, in advance and with perfect accuracy, what they will and will not encounter.”6
By using e-based general interest intermediaries such as TheDailyBeast.com to focus only on the issues that they are told to focus on these people are no better suited for democratic citizenship and are, in-fact, more susceptible to outside influence because they limit themselves to interpreting only the information that they have been conditioned to deem as relevant. “Picture parents watching small children at the community pool. They are not gathering information; they are keeping an eye on [their area of interest].”7 This, much like the predetermined information presented by the Broadcast Media, continues to threaten the very foundation of a functioning democratic society and therefore we must redefine what it means to be a citizen in the Information Age and expose the fundamentals of mass media information presentation that are specifically designed to limit our understanding and make us susceptible to outside influence.
For the purpose of exposing the new meaning of democratic citizenship in the Information Age the author has assembled a panel of four influential figures each of which plays a significant role in the affected realms of this ensuing pandemic: Fareed Zakaria, International Journalist and Realist whose media background and third party comprehension of American politics will provide meaningful insight into the paradigm shift occurring in politics as a result of the Digital Revolution; Joseph Trippi, campaign manager for Vermont senator Howard Dean and author of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything” a book showcasing the disintegration of existing political infrastructures and the integral role the Internet will play in the future of American politics; Head of marketing for News Corporation, the corporate entity owned by Rupert Murdoch which generates 25+ billion dollars in annual revenue and whom will exemplify the quintessential role Broadcast Medial plays in the manipulation of public opinion; and finally, John Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” who coupled with his team of Emmy Award wining writers should introduce a provocative satyr of the Broadcast Media, provide a Narrowcast perspective of the paradigm shift in American politics, and bridge the generational gap between young and old voters.
The panel will conduct a phased debate that will utilize the expansive reach of mass media and the peer-to-peer networking of the Internet. This is the very essence of what Henry Jenkins calls “convergence politics,” or “the effort to use grassroots (Narrowcast) media to mobilize and mainstream media to publicize.”8 The panel organizers will first increase awareness of the debate by generating a presence on the web that contains relevant information, discussion boards, and links to supporting websites. This will create the necessary “buzz” and will get younger, less traditional media viewers to focus on the debate when it is aired by the Broadcast Media. The panel of experts will then conduct the debate on a respectable Broadcast News Media outlet in order to maximize public awareness of the issues being discussed. And finally, it will follow up the debate by using its existing Internet presence to foster collaboration between viewers, provide more information, and perhaps provide resources for action such as an online petition, coalition, or a virtual “march on Washington” as defined by the Montgomery text.
Political participation diminishes or even eliminates the power distance between the government and the populace. By teaching people to actively seek out relevant political information that contributes to meaningful decision-making, we promote the civic virtue that Aristotle held in such high esteem. By participating in government at the local or national level, whether in a town meeting, a jury, or even through political discussion on the Internet the informed citizen learns the habits of deliberating, creating, and obeying rules, and rising above private concerns to analyze the common good. By succumbing to apathy, ignorance, and information manipulation we become content with complacency and allow ourselves to be influenced by private interest groups. This makes us not informed citizens but rather “sheeple” ready to be lead to slaughter by the private interests of the corporate controlled media or the partisan views of corporate controlled politicians.
-NJF-
Works Cited
1.) Sinyai, Clayton. “Schools of Democracy: A Political History of the American Labor Movement.” 2006, ILR Press, Ithaca and London.
(1) Ibid., page 3
2.) Montgomery, Kathryn. “Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet.” The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, London England.
(3) Ibid., page 207
3.) Sunstein, Cass R. “Republic.com 2.0.” Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford.
(6) Ibid., page 4
4.) Jenkins, Henry. “Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.” New York University Press, New York and London
(2) Ibid., page 238
(4) Ibid., page 208
(5) Ibid., page 226
(7) Ibid., page 226
(8) Ibid., page 220
5.) Fragala, Nathan J. “-Concerning PEW Survey-“ Discussion Post. HIS 415-82AB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)