It's an old phrase used to describe people of privileged backgrounds. The kind of person who has always had everything they wanted and needed, though those two may not be the same thing.
Those are the enviable, and not so enviable, people who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth.
They are perhaps the kind of people everyone wants to be because they don't have to worry about getting anything.
But when it comes to information, far too many people seem to think they need to be "fed" everything on a silver spoon.
I find this tendency to be quite annoying because I am a very independent woman. I don't like to rely on other people if I can avoid it. And while it isn't easy for me to do, I do know when to ask... Even if it makes me uncomfortable.
When it comes to information, if I don't know what something is or understand an idea, then I go and look it up.
Thanks to the Internet, there is plenty of information available, literally at your fingertips! You just have to be a little careful of the information you look at because sources online may not be reliable.
Despite the fact that not all the information on the Internet is reliable, it is there and easily available.
For an example, I saw a comment on an online story a while back that kind of irritated me. The story was about HOV lanes in Northern Virginia. The person's comment was basically a demand for information on what HOV lanes are. Actually it was more of an accusation that the news outlet wasn't providing enough information.
I am old enough to know what HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) and HOT (high-occupancy traffic) lanes are, though they have existed for almost twice the number of years I have been around. And with just a few quick key strokes, I was able to look up even more information than I could possible want to know about HOV/HOT lanes.
I personally believe that it is better to seek out information for yourself rather than sit around and prat that I don't know what something is because people won't tell me.
I see a word I don't know... A good old dictionary will help solve that. And if my old hard copy of the dictionary doesn't have the word (which does sometimes happen, especially since language changes - see my last post - and words come into the language or drop out), there are quite a few online dictionaries you can use.
I see a topic I don't know much about... A quick Google search will probably bring up lots of resources about that topic, which I can then peruse at my leisure.
For an example of one of these, anyone who has seen the special collector's edition of James Cameron's Avatar will have seen the scene in which Jake talks about the Hallelujah Mountains and what holds them up. He says Grace told him it was a MagLev Effect.
Now I had an inkling of what that might be, but I wanted to check. So I looked up Magnetic Levitation, because that was what I thought it was. Turns out I was right, but I still looked it up!
No one told me to do so. I did it on my own for my own personal edification.
Why am I making a point about all this?
The ease of access to information is one part of my point.
But the other part is that these kinds of comments are being made on online stories. That means who ever is posting those kind of comments is using a computer, a modem, a browser... This means that person has almost instant access to a whole lot of information.
So posting something that in essence is accusing a news organization of not posting enough information is kind of silly, don't you think?
Information is readily available. You don't need to have it fed to you. Look things up for yourself and draw your own conclusions based on what you learn.
There are many points of view you can select. Please try not to limit yourself to only things that make you feel comfortable. Comfort can be misleading and change is rarely comfortable.
Showing posts with label online. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online. Show all posts
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 1 - Coin Toss
The race for the White House has already begun again even though the election isn't until November 2012. And soon it will be flooding the airwaves and newspapers with oft-repeated, tired refrains and money.
Believe me, there are quite a few smaller market television stations that are gleefully awaiting that money because campaigns rupture cash into markets across the country.
I get the image in my mind of a greedy little gnome anxiously, or perhaps hungrily, rubbing his hands together and cackling in anticipation...
But you know what? It doesn't matter who's in office, which party that person represents, what color they are, what orientation, gender, etc...
There will always be people screaming, hollering out that who ever's in power is to blame for absolutely everything that's wrong in the world, in society, in culture and so forth today. Seems it's always the same people who are screaming, or at least the same rants being expressed.
However, everything is built on top of something else, much like how ancient cities have been found beneath modern ones in countries like Italy. It's a progression. No one thing is completely separate from everything else and everything that came before.
If the problems are coming to a head now, then they began to build sometime in the past, most likely before the last election. Probably even earlier than that.
On top of that, problems that are beginning to grow now will come to a head sometime in the future... Possibly after the next presidential election or even later.
But like the political cartoon in 2008 that showed Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all wearing bulging diapers and shouting, "Change!" or like Robin Williams' character in "Man of the Year," Tom Dobbs, who jokes, "Politicians are a lot like diapers. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reason." (quoting Benjamin Franklin), there will always be a call for something different.
The old saying, "The grass is always greener..."
Well, guess what? It's not. It's the same stuff, just in a different spot, or a different rhetoric. And the same goes for pretty much all politicians as far as I have seen.
They boast and prance, pose and declare, but when it comes down to it, no matter what promises they made while campaigning, they will have to work with what ever currently exists. So a bad budget will continue to be a bad budget no matter who's trying to balance it.
People are going to respond to what's happening. Some of the commentary I have seen is outright hate-filled, outrageous and even completely ignorant.
Take, for example, the people who rant against one person now, and who will also rant against that person's successor in the future, saying almost the exact same things. Such is the case I have often seen when people get into political arguments.
"We're better, they're not." "We'll do what needs to be done and they won't." Us and them, two sides ever divided, no matter how alike they really are.
Good song for this - "Both Sides of the Coin" from "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" by Charles Dickens. Part of the duet:
"For is it I or is it me?
"And if I'm him and if I'm he/each on of us might not/Agree on what to do.
"And if I take opposing sides within myself,/Then who divides up what is right or wrong?
"I'll go along with you.
"Ha'penny, one penny, tupenny, thrupenny/Twelve to a shilling, twice that to a florin/To find the same face on both sides of the coin?/Bob is your uncle from pennies to guineas,/The two-sided mint is the rule, not exception,/And would you not quite feel quite the fool of deception/To find the same face on both sides of the coin?"
To hear the song - click here.
If you don't recognize the currency, those are old English coins. Nor am I either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern who find a coin on the side of the road that keeps coming up heads.
Politicians and their supporters sling mud back and forth, trying to dirty the other side, no matter which side of that proverbial coin happens to be facing up. But guess what? The person throwing the mud will still be spattered by the spray and will have a filthy hand in the meantime.
Even though I am not a Christian, did not Jesus say that he who is without sin can be the first to throw a stone? According to the Bible, since all people are born "tainted" with the so-called Original Sin of Eve, even if it is supposedly absolved by baptism, doesn't that indicate there is no one who is without sin?
Thus we end up with hate-filled ads on television or in the newspaper. For what else was the whole rigamarole with the Swiftboat Veterans or any of the other similar ads that come out with every single election for just about every single race, large and small?
They will attack. Sometimes they go after a specific thing a person has done, like how John Kerry supposedly kept harping on his Purple Hearts. Sometimes they go after an issue, such as current President Barack Obama's vote on the debt ceiling while holding a seat in the Senate.
Among the people screaming the loudest are those who protest what has already happened.
In this particular instance, I'm talking about an issue that was abolished more than 100 years ago: slavery and the Civil War (which actually began over state rights, not slavery). And all the angst that continues to broil to this day.
We're currently "celebrating" 150 years since the beginning of that war, an event most people agree occurred on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. I have seen a reference to an earlier skirmish that took place in Florida in January 1861, but I haven't seen that much information on it, so I'm going to go with the April origin.
To this day, certain groups continue to wave the slavery flag, saying the descendents of the slaves are owed something. To be blunt, when was the last time they picked cotton or lived in a commune with no shoes, running water, dirt floors, etc. or were sold as chattel? It's in the past, so leave it there.
Of course, most people forget who the original slaves were: the American Indian tribes. Unfortunately, vast numbers of those people were wiped out by diseases brought over from Europe like small pox, typhus, measles, various sexually transmitted nasties, among others. Doesn't do the land owner any good to have a work force that drops dead, now does it?
So the land owners turned to another source of labor: the various African tribes that were constantly fighting amongst themselves in a region where enslaving the losers was traditional. So here we are with certain people still screaming over what was done in the past.
However! Those same groups keep throwing fits over references to that past. For instance, reprinting Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" to remove all references to the "hated" n-word. Can't be that hated since it's used all the time in a certain style of music that began with the very culture that claims to hate it...
Of course, the people screaming over this one are forgetting one very simple fact: This book was written for its time period. That WAS a time when people of darker skin were sold as chattel with no name but their use (thus all the Smiths and Bakers and other such common surnames) or the name of their owner. So read it for its historical and cultural reference, but changing it now is a moot point!
Or in another example, the teacher trying to help students understand what a human auction was like by holding a mock one in her class (this happened in Virginia, a state that was a part of the Confederacy and where slavery was a common practice, including by such notable figures as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington). I will admit, this may not have been in the best of taste, but because slavery is a part of our history, we can't forget it.
We are not Stalinists who would rewrite the history of our country to make of it what we would wish and to eliminate that which is distasteful, unfortunate and uncomfortable.
I have been mocked for "going off" on certain topics and this is one of them. I am not Aunt Polly and I don't need my fence whitewashed. (That's a literary reference in case you would like to look it up.)
Teach me the history as it was, in as unvarnished a way as possible. (And in as objective a way as possible since all history books are written by the victors, which automatically means such texts are already biased.) What is important, what is significant behind the dates our children try to memorize in school?
Why? There's another saying that's very fitting here - Those who do not learn history (or forget it or ignore it) are doomed to repeat it.
Whitewashing the unpleasantness, covering it up, doesn't eliminate the fact that it existed.
My view - Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds prejudice. Prejudice breeds hate. Hate breeds destruction. And that in turn breeds deeper ignorance.
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 2 - Playing on Fear
Believe me, there are quite a few smaller market television stations that are gleefully awaiting that money because campaigns rupture cash into markets across the country.
I get the image in my mind of a greedy little gnome anxiously, or perhaps hungrily, rubbing his hands together and cackling in anticipation...
But you know what? It doesn't matter who's in office, which party that person represents, what color they are, what orientation, gender, etc...
There will always be people screaming, hollering out that who ever's in power is to blame for absolutely everything that's wrong in the world, in society, in culture and so forth today. Seems it's always the same people who are screaming, or at least the same rants being expressed.
However, everything is built on top of something else, much like how ancient cities have been found beneath modern ones in countries like Italy. It's a progression. No one thing is completely separate from everything else and everything that came before.
If the problems are coming to a head now, then they began to build sometime in the past, most likely before the last election. Probably even earlier than that.
On top of that, problems that are beginning to grow now will come to a head sometime in the future... Possibly after the next presidential election or even later.
But like the political cartoon in 2008 that showed Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama all wearing bulging diapers and shouting, "Change!" or like Robin Williams' character in "Man of the Year," Tom Dobbs, who jokes, "Politicians are a lot like diapers. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reason." (quoting Benjamin Franklin), there will always be a call for something different.
The old saying, "The grass is always greener..."
Well, guess what? It's not. It's the same stuff, just in a different spot, or a different rhetoric. And the same goes for pretty much all politicians as far as I have seen.
They boast and prance, pose and declare, but when it comes down to it, no matter what promises they made while campaigning, they will have to work with what ever currently exists. So a bad budget will continue to be a bad budget no matter who's trying to balance it.
People are going to respond to what's happening. Some of the commentary I have seen is outright hate-filled, outrageous and even completely ignorant.
Take, for example, the people who rant against one person now, and who will also rant against that person's successor in the future, saying almost the exact same things. Such is the case I have often seen when people get into political arguments.
"We're better, they're not." "We'll do what needs to be done and they won't." Us and them, two sides ever divided, no matter how alike they really are.
Good song for this - "Both Sides of the Coin" from "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" by Charles Dickens. Part of the duet:
"For is it I or is it me?
"And if I'm him and if I'm he/each on of us might not/Agree on what to do.
"And if I take opposing sides within myself,/Then who divides up what is right or wrong?
"I'll go along with you.
"Ha'penny, one penny, tupenny, thrupenny/Twelve to a shilling, twice that to a florin/To find the same face on both sides of the coin?/Bob is your uncle from pennies to guineas,/The two-sided mint is the rule, not exception,/And would you not quite feel quite the fool of deception/To find the same face on both sides of the coin?"
To hear the song - click here.
If you don't recognize the currency, those are old English coins. Nor am I either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern who find a coin on the side of the road that keeps coming up heads.
Politicians and their supporters sling mud back and forth, trying to dirty the other side, no matter which side of that proverbial coin happens to be facing up. But guess what? The person throwing the mud will still be spattered by the spray and will have a filthy hand in the meantime.
Even though I am not a Christian, did not Jesus say that he who is without sin can be the first to throw a stone? According to the Bible, since all people are born "tainted" with the so-called Original Sin of Eve, even if it is supposedly absolved by baptism, doesn't that indicate there is no one who is without sin?
Thus we end up with hate-filled ads on television or in the newspaper. For what else was the whole rigamarole with the Swiftboat Veterans or any of the other similar ads that come out with every single election for just about every single race, large and small?
They will attack. Sometimes they go after a specific thing a person has done, like how John Kerry supposedly kept harping on his Purple Hearts. Sometimes they go after an issue, such as current President Barack Obama's vote on the debt ceiling while holding a seat in the Senate.
Among the people screaming the loudest are those who protest what has already happened.
In this particular instance, I'm talking about an issue that was abolished more than 100 years ago: slavery and the Civil War (which actually began over state rights, not slavery). And all the angst that continues to broil to this day.
We're currently "celebrating" 150 years since the beginning of that war, an event most people agree occurred on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. I have seen a reference to an earlier skirmish that took place in Florida in January 1861, but I haven't seen that much information on it, so I'm going to go with the April origin.
To this day, certain groups continue to wave the slavery flag, saying the descendents of the slaves are owed something. To be blunt, when was the last time they picked cotton or lived in a commune with no shoes, running water, dirt floors, etc. or were sold as chattel? It's in the past, so leave it there.
Of course, most people forget who the original slaves were: the American Indian tribes. Unfortunately, vast numbers of those people were wiped out by diseases brought over from Europe like small pox, typhus, measles, various sexually transmitted nasties, among others. Doesn't do the land owner any good to have a work force that drops dead, now does it?
So the land owners turned to another source of labor: the various African tribes that were constantly fighting amongst themselves in a region where enslaving the losers was traditional. So here we are with certain people still screaming over what was done in the past.
However! Those same groups keep throwing fits over references to that past. For instance, reprinting Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" to remove all references to the "hated" n-word. Can't be that hated since it's used all the time in a certain style of music that began with the very culture that claims to hate it...
Of course, the people screaming over this one are forgetting one very simple fact: This book was written for its time period. That WAS a time when people of darker skin were sold as chattel with no name but their use (thus all the Smiths and Bakers and other such common surnames) or the name of their owner. So read it for its historical and cultural reference, but changing it now is a moot point!
Or in another example, the teacher trying to help students understand what a human auction was like by holding a mock one in her class (this happened in Virginia, a state that was a part of the Confederacy and where slavery was a common practice, including by such notable figures as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington). I will admit, this may not have been in the best of taste, but because slavery is a part of our history, we can't forget it.
We are not Stalinists who would rewrite the history of our country to make of it what we would wish and to eliminate that which is distasteful, unfortunate and uncomfortable.
I have been mocked for "going off" on certain topics and this is one of them. I am not Aunt Polly and I don't need my fence whitewashed. (That's a literary reference in case you would like to look it up.)
Teach me the history as it was, in as unvarnished a way as possible. (And in as objective a way as possible since all history books are written by the victors, which automatically means such texts are already biased.) What is important, what is significant behind the dates our children try to memorize in school?
Why? There's another saying that's very fitting here - Those who do not learn history (or forget it or ignore it) are doomed to repeat it.
Whitewashing the unpleasantness, covering it up, doesn't eliminate the fact that it existed.
My view - Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds prejudice. Prejudice breeds hate. Hate breeds destruction. And that in turn breeds deeper ignorance.
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 2 - Playing on Fear
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 2 - Playing on Fear
Like I said above, we can't forget what happened. Still, we really shouldn't dwell on it either.
Remember it, learn from it and move on.
In recent years, numerous states have issued "apologies" for slavery (though how truly sincere those "apologies" were I rather question since they are politically driven) or had to change state flags to remove Confederate emblems or students have been ordered to remove Confederate flags from their vehicles so as not to intimidate classmates and community members.
It's the whole racism versus cultural/historical pride argument. Plus those "apologies" are never addressed to the first slaves, only to the loudest.
And I'm no white supremacist. I hold that no one group is better than any other just because of skin tone, eye color or hair color, let alone faith or beliefs. I feel that all people of all creeds are worthy of respect and fair treatment. As a person who is different based on my beliefs, if not my olivine-skinned appearance, I understand far better than I think many realize what it is to be judged based on one aspect of who and what I am.
On more than one occasion, people have asked me what my background is, based on my appearance. I've been asked if I was Muslim or Jewish. I've even been asked which country I'm from, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece, Italy and India among others. In essence, it's not a good thing to judge a person based on their looks alone or to separate people based on appearance, beliefs (religious or political) or any other "us-or-them" tactic.
Indeed, I think such isolationist views will and have done far more harm than ever they did any good. And the symbols associated with them need to again be considered in their cultural and historical context.
For example, take the swastika. Adolph Hitler, a very superstitious man who had a great interest in the occult, took an ancient emblem and "twisted" it to his own ends. Thus, a symbol that had existed for thousands of years as one of eternity and the cycle of life became instead a symbol of death and hate.
The rolling logs, as the original symbol is often called, has been found in cultures all over the world, from the American Indian to the Hindu. Few people remember that now because all we hear are the people who continue to use this symbol to intimidate those who are different. They scream their hate and torment those who don't agree. What else would a burning cross in a yard or a noose hung in somebody's locker represent?
Unfortunately, it is human nature to destroy that which is not understood or unknown and is thus feared. And in the end, some media outlets play on this fear by broadcasting or printing extremist opinions and pundits... Not going to name any names there as I'm sure you can think of a few for yourself, perhaps even different ones from the ones I'm thinking of based on your view.
Even in such pieces, we don't hear or see the whole story. Only one aspect of it because of the editing, the video clips, and the time or space limitations.
Thinking about it, this is along the same lines as the religious "tensions" that exist, whether between the differing sects of one religion or between differing religions entirely.
Plenty of blood has been spilt in the name of a god with both sides screaming that whichever god is on its side! Thus we had the Crusades, of which there were several over a span of about two centuries, all fought over who controlled what is known in all three major, monotheistic faiths currently in existence as the Holy Land. These bloody campaigns were sanctioned by faith! And politics. Unfortunately, thousands lost their lives to them, on both sides and from all of the faiths involved. These "wars of faith" were extremely bloody and brutal, set as they were in a brutal time.
So much lost in the name of religion and politics, from lives to history to culture and more.
Basically all this, in the political and religious fields, boils back down to one thing: Fear.
Fear of change, fear of losing control, fear of what might be, fear of letting go, equals fear of difference.
As President Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas in "The American President) says, "And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you that Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Politicians will take any advantage they can, including attacking the past of their opponent or of someone close to that opponent.
For example, Shepherd's speech continues, "You gather a group of middle-aged, middle class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time. You talk to them about family and American values and character. Then you wave an old photo of the president's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them she's to blame for their lot in life and you go on television and you call her a whore..."
Another example of this could be the questions asked over where Obama was really born, and those who demanded to see the original documents, the "birthers," who then refused to believe in the validity of the documents when both versions were produced.
Being afraid of something doesn't mean you have to tear it down. Face it and make your self stronger by understanding it. Don't scream your fear and rant against the people in power. That just makes you look like a fool.
From Frank Herbert's "Dune" -
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
(There are also variants to this that says "I shall not fear" or "And when it has gone past me I will turn to see fear's path." Depends on which you prefer.)
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 3 - End Game
Remember it, learn from it and move on.
In recent years, numerous states have issued "apologies" for slavery (though how truly sincere those "apologies" were I rather question since they are politically driven) or had to change state flags to remove Confederate emblems or students have been ordered to remove Confederate flags from their vehicles so as not to intimidate classmates and community members.
It's the whole racism versus cultural/historical pride argument. Plus those "apologies" are never addressed to the first slaves, only to the loudest.
And I'm no white supremacist. I hold that no one group is better than any other just because of skin tone, eye color or hair color, let alone faith or beliefs. I feel that all people of all creeds are worthy of respect and fair treatment. As a person who is different based on my beliefs, if not my olivine-skinned appearance, I understand far better than I think many realize what it is to be judged based on one aspect of who and what I am.
On more than one occasion, people have asked me what my background is, based on my appearance. I've been asked if I was Muslim or Jewish. I've even been asked which country I'm from, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Greece, Italy and India among others. In essence, it's not a good thing to judge a person based on their looks alone or to separate people based on appearance, beliefs (religious or political) or any other "us-or-them" tactic.
Indeed, I think such isolationist views will and have done far more harm than ever they did any good. And the symbols associated with them need to again be considered in their cultural and historical context.
For example, take the swastika. Adolph Hitler, a very superstitious man who had a great interest in the occult, took an ancient emblem and "twisted" it to his own ends. Thus, a symbol that had existed for thousands of years as one of eternity and the cycle of life became instead a symbol of death and hate.
The rolling logs, as the original symbol is often called, has been found in cultures all over the world, from the American Indian to the Hindu. Few people remember that now because all we hear are the people who continue to use this symbol to intimidate those who are different. They scream their hate and torment those who don't agree. What else would a burning cross in a yard or a noose hung in somebody's locker represent?
Unfortunately, it is human nature to destroy that which is not understood or unknown and is thus feared. And in the end, some media outlets play on this fear by broadcasting or printing extremist opinions and pundits... Not going to name any names there as I'm sure you can think of a few for yourself, perhaps even different ones from the ones I'm thinking of based on your view.
Even in such pieces, we don't hear or see the whole story. Only one aspect of it because of the editing, the video clips, and the time or space limitations.
Thinking about it, this is along the same lines as the religious "tensions" that exist, whether between the differing sects of one religion or between differing religions entirely.
Plenty of blood has been spilt in the name of a god with both sides screaming that whichever god is on its side! Thus we had the Crusades, of which there were several over a span of about two centuries, all fought over who controlled what is known in all three major, monotheistic faiths currently in existence as the Holy Land. These bloody campaigns were sanctioned by faith! And politics. Unfortunately, thousands lost their lives to them, on both sides and from all of the faiths involved. These "wars of faith" were extremely bloody and brutal, set as they were in a brutal time.
So much lost in the name of religion and politics, from lives to history to culture and more.
Basically all this, in the political and religious fields, boils back down to one thing: Fear.
Fear of change, fear of losing control, fear of what might be, fear of letting go, equals fear of difference.
As President Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas in "The American President) says, "And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you that Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Politicians will take any advantage they can, including attacking the past of their opponent or of someone close to that opponent.
For example, Shepherd's speech continues, "You gather a group of middle-aged, middle class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time. You talk to them about family and American values and character. Then you wave an old photo of the president's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism and you tell them she's to blame for their lot in life and you go on television and you call her a whore..."
Another example of this could be the questions asked over where Obama was really born, and those who demanded to see the original documents, the "birthers," who then refused to believe in the validity of the documents when both versions were produced.
Being afraid of something doesn't mean you have to tear it down. Face it and make your self stronger by understanding it. Don't scream your fear and rant against the people in power. That just makes you look like a fool.
From Frank Herbert's "Dune" -
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
(There are also variants to this that says "I shall not fear" or "And when it has gone past me I will turn to see fear's path." Depends on which you prefer.)
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 3 - End Game
Political Screaming... AKA Whining and Fear Mongering - Part 3 - End Game
To live is to change. There is no point in fearing it and we can't know until it has already happened whether the change has improved our lives and situations or whether it made matters worse.
Charles Darwin is known for observing such a series of events or instances when he reached the Galapagos Islands all those decades ago. He found similar, yet different, species on each island that had adapted to their specific climes in order to survive. He postulated, and proved, that these animals had to evolve, thus change, to live.
You can even see a similar progression in the formation of zygote which grows into an embryo which grows into a fetus within the human womb. At first, it is tiny and may even resemble a tadpole, with gills and a tail. As it grows, it changes, eventually becoming the oh so familiar image of a human infant. And from that bald, squalling infant comes a man or woman who grows, and changes, over the years until that person reaches the grizzled, hump-backed (and possibly bald) time of old age.
Indeed, old age will happen no matter how much you try to fight it. So all the Botox, the tucks and other tricks, all they will do is hide your age, not reverse it. So what if I have some silver in my hair that really stands out against my dark auburn locks? I'm not a spring chicken, and I have had some silver mixed in for close to ten years already, even though I am still some distance from middle age.
Like one of my favorite bumper stickers says, "Growing old is mandatory, Growing up is optional."
It's rather interesting watching the so-called "career politicians" who get into office when they are fairly young and then serve into their dotage. Some, like Robert Byrd of West Virginia, have even died in office after serving for several decades.
Too bad the politicians can't see that their old, tired refrains are losing the audience's interest. For as the bard (William Shakespeare) once wrote in "As You Like It,"
"All the world's a stage,/And all the men and women merely players;/They have their exits and their entrances;/And one man in his time plays many parts,/His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,/Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms;/And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel/And shining morning face, creeping like snail/Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,/Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad/Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,/Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,/Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,/Seeking the bubble reputation/Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,/In fair round belly with good capon lin'd,/With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,/Full of wise saws and modern instances;/And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts/Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,/With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;/His youthful hose, well sav'd, a world too wide/For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,/Turning again toward childish treble, pipes/And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,/That ends this strange eventful history,/Is second childishness and mere oblivion;/Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
They are the players with the thicker script book, though how well they stick to their lines might be questionable.
In some productions, most notably melodramas like "Edwin Drood," the actors want the audience to participate. Of course, actors and any performers on stage would love to get that coveted "Standing O" at the end of every performance.
I personally have never been to a political rally, but my sister and her husband have gone to one and I have watched clips from rallies on television and online.
Candidates will do all in their power to entice the voters. They rev the people, their audience, into a frenzy with passionate declarations for change. They adapt their phrases and phraseology to whatever they think the people want to hear the most in order to lure them to that person's "side," to that person's line on the ballot.
And despite the promises and passion of the campaign trail, once any politician is vested in his or her office, these politicians become trapped in the web that has become our government. And thus does the audience begin to boo, for the promises are left in the dust of reality's truth.
All the people that praised the candidate for candor or promise or vision, they are the first that cry foul when that candor is muddled, that promise is broken and that vision grows dim.
In quoting Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, Dr. Lyman Hall, a colonial congressman from Georgia (played by Jonathan Moore in the movie version of "1776"), says, "And in trying to resolve my dilemma, I remembered something I once read. 'That a representative owes the people not only his industry but his judgment and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.'"
Heck, opinions can be altered by numbers. And the very numbers upon which those opinions are based, the statistics behind the polls, can be manipulated by many factors including the wording of questions, the attitude of the questioner, the passion of the responder and more. These are but a few examples out of the myriad ways numbers can be massaged to seem to say one thing even if they actually show another.
Truthfully, it seems to me that it's nothing more than a farce these days. Especially because the changes simply can't happen overnight, no matter how many brave promises are sworn on a campaign trail.
Used to be that when a person broke a promise, broke an oath, that person would become besmirched. That person's reputation would be ruined and he or she would be shunned as untrustworthy, an oath-breaker. Some cultures would even kill such people.
How far we have come from those days of true integrity to now. Promises are broken left and right, on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress. Doesn't matter which party made the oath.
Still, the populace continues to cling to the shred of hope left within Pandora's Box. Without hope, there can be no thought of a future with happiness and safety. Thus, the people keep turning on the television, making campaign contributions, attending rousing rallies and even wending their way to the polling booth on Election Day, all for hope.
They hope the promises will be kept, that change will be made. That dreams will come true.
Though when you walk into the polling place and the only thought in your mind is, "Which of these would be the lesser evil?" Is this anyway to make such an important choice?
However, all things, especially reaching any goals, any change, take time.
Now I'm not saying that all change is progress. And progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's nice to keep things simple. And sometimes the change is actually a step backwards instead of one forward.
As Andrew Shepherd said in the same speech quoted above, "America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land is the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can standup and sing about the land of the free."
Freedom could be considered a two-edged sword according to that description. But the sword can be turned to good, can take the head of the hydra that has become politics in this country.
However, hydras are notorious for one major thing: take one head and the neck will split into two, thus actually creating a worse situation than what already existed. That is unless you burn the stump of the neck, which prevents it from splitting.
The same could be said of the killing of Osama bim Laden for he is now a martyr and his people will hold him up as an example, thus demonizing the SEAL team and the Americans cheering them on for their actions.
So in the end, these fights based on politics, or religion, will be futile. As the computer Joshua said in the movie "WarGames," "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
Charles Darwin is known for observing such a series of events or instances when he reached the Galapagos Islands all those decades ago. He found similar, yet different, species on each island that had adapted to their specific climes in order to survive. He postulated, and proved, that these animals had to evolve, thus change, to live.
You can even see a similar progression in the formation of zygote which grows into an embryo which grows into a fetus within the human womb. At first, it is tiny and may even resemble a tadpole, with gills and a tail. As it grows, it changes, eventually becoming the oh so familiar image of a human infant. And from that bald, squalling infant comes a man or woman who grows, and changes, over the years until that person reaches the grizzled, hump-backed (and possibly bald) time of old age.
Indeed, old age will happen no matter how much you try to fight it. So all the Botox, the tucks and other tricks, all they will do is hide your age, not reverse it. So what if I have some silver in my hair that really stands out against my dark auburn locks? I'm not a spring chicken, and I have had some silver mixed in for close to ten years already, even though I am still some distance from middle age.
Like one of my favorite bumper stickers says, "Growing old is mandatory, Growing up is optional."
It's rather interesting watching the so-called "career politicians" who get into office when they are fairly young and then serve into their dotage. Some, like Robert Byrd of West Virginia, have even died in office after serving for several decades.
Too bad the politicians can't see that their old, tired refrains are losing the audience's interest. For as the bard (William Shakespeare) once wrote in "As You Like It,"
"All the world's a stage,/And all the men and women merely players;/They have their exits and their entrances;/And one man in his time plays many parts,/His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,/Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms;/And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel/And shining morning face, creeping like snail/Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,/Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad/Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,/Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,/Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,/Seeking the bubble reputation/Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,/In fair round belly with good capon lin'd,/With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,/Full of wise saws and modern instances;/And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts/Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,/With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;/His youthful hose, well sav'd, a world too wide/For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,/Turning again toward childish treble, pipes/And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,/That ends this strange eventful history,/Is second childishness and mere oblivion;/Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
They are the players with the thicker script book, though how well they stick to their lines might be questionable.
In some productions, most notably melodramas like "Edwin Drood," the actors want the audience to participate. Of course, actors and any performers on stage would love to get that coveted "Standing O" at the end of every performance.
I personally have never been to a political rally, but my sister and her husband have gone to one and I have watched clips from rallies on television and online.
Candidates will do all in their power to entice the voters. They rev the people, their audience, into a frenzy with passionate declarations for change. They adapt their phrases and phraseology to whatever they think the people want to hear the most in order to lure them to that person's "side," to that person's line on the ballot.
And despite the promises and passion of the campaign trail, once any politician is vested in his or her office, these politicians become trapped in the web that has become our government. And thus does the audience begin to boo, for the promises are left in the dust of reality's truth.
All the people that praised the candidate for candor or promise or vision, they are the first that cry foul when that candor is muddled, that promise is broken and that vision grows dim.
In quoting Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament, Dr. Lyman Hall, a colonial congressman from Georgia (played by Jonathan Moore in the movie version of "1776"), says, "And in trying to resolve my dilemma, I remembered something I once read. 'That a representative owes the people not only his industry but his judgment and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.'"
Heck, opinions can be altered by numbers. And the very numbers upon which those opinions are based, the statistics behind the polls, can be manipulated by many factors including the wording of questions, the attitude of the questioner, the passion of the responder and more. These are but a few examples out of the myriad ways numbers can be massaged to seem to say one thing even if they actually show another.
Truthfully, it seems to me that it's nothing more than a farce these days. Especially because the changes simply can't happen overnight, no matter how many brave promises are sworn on a campaign trail.
Used to be that when a person broke a promise, broke an oath, that person would become besmirched. That person's reputation would be ruined and he or she would be shunned as untrustworthy, an oath-breaker. Some cultures would even kill such people.
How far we have come from those days of true integrity to now. Promises are broken left and right, on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers of Congress. Doesn't matter which party made the oath.
Still, the populace continues to cling to the shred of hope left within Pandora's Box. Without hope, there can be no thought of a future with happiness and safety. Thus, the people keep turning on the television, making campaign contributions, attending rousing rallies and even wending their way to the polling booth on Election Day, all for hope.
They hope the promises will be kept, that change will be made. That dreams will come true.
Though when you walk into the polling place and the only thought in your mind is, "Which of these would be the lesser evil?" Is this anyway to make such an important choice?
However, all things, especially reaching any goals, any change, take time.
Now I'm not saying that all change is progress. And progress for the sake of progress isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's nice to keep things simple. And sometimes the change is actually a step backwards instead of one forward.
As Andrew Shepherd said in the same speech quoted above, "America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land is the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can standup and sing about the land of the free."
Freedom could be considered a two-edged sword according to that description. But the sword can be turned to good, can take the head of the hydra that has become politics in this country.
However, hydras are notorious for one major thing: take one head and the neck will split into two, thus actually creating a worse situation than what already existed. That is unless you burn the stump of the neck, which prevents it from splitting.
The same could be said of the killing of Osama bim Laden for he is now a martyr and his people will hold him up as an example, thus demonizing the SEAL team and the Americans cheering them on for their actions.
So in the end, these fights based on politics, or religion, will be futile. As the computer Joshua said in the movie "WarGames," "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
Monday, March 14, 2011
Weathering the Weather
I've heard it more times than I care to count - Viewers are most interested in the weather, so even though the homepage of a given site will be the first to come up, many will click immediately on the weather tab.
So one of the main functions of a person like me is to help viewers get the information they need as quickly as possible when it comes to weather alerts.
I've seen it happen that on a day when there is severe weather, views on a news Website will skyrocket.
Where I currently work, one of our busiest online days involved a very nasty winter storm that dumped a huge amount of snow on the area. We hit more than 200,000 views on that day alone.
And the weather has been very freaky these last couple of years. From the record-breaking snowfall amounts in my part of Virginia in 2009/2010 to the kind of nasty, super humid heat you don't normally see this far inland. Now we're got the kind of biting cold I haven't felt since I moved out of New Jersey more than a decade ago.
The effects of this crazy weather will be felt on all levels of society from the outdoorsy who like to hunt but won't have as large an opportunity to do so because of falling wildlife populations, to people looking at supplies in the grocery stores where prices are climbing, to people born under that wandering star who want to get away but can't afford it because gas has gotten so high...
So I understand that people want to know what the weather's going to do. Then there are the calls from people asking, "Is it gonna storm tomorra?" Well, when they start giving you their exact address and expect you to give them a weather forecast for that location, it's just a tad ridiculous.
I think my biggest beef with weather complaints comes when I get yelled at by a viewer because the station is cutting in every 15 minutes for a weather alert, say a tornado warning, and the person couldn't watch one of his or her favorite shows. The complaint being that the warning didn't cover that specific person's area, so why was the station interrupting his or her entertainment?
Take a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for example. Or that Tornado Warning. Or a Winter Weather Warning. First off, the National Weather Service is NOT going to issue one of these alerts just on a whim!
Like people who scream "global warming" (though the newer "global climate change" may be more applicable) is a myth, that it's just a fantasy, but fail to consider that scientists must use the Scientific Method to reach conclusions and that method requires data to be replicable... There is science behind what the NWS predicts.
Predictions may not be all that good days out, but within a couple of hours or even minutes, they're usually pretty accurate. There is no such thing as a "guaranteed forecast," because that's an oxymoron!
So we've got a warning out there. Even if it's a hyper-local one, say for just one town, there is still a need to get that information out to all. Such weather developments, when they occur, can be quite fast moving, which means they may affect more than just the initial place under the issued warning.
This is especially true for tornadoes, to which anyone who has lived in "Tornado Alley" will attest as they have seen such storms tear across the landscape at breakneck speeds, wreaking havoc and destruction in their wake.
Sometimes warnings only cover one part of an area, say the eastern section of a given county. And then a second one can crop up that covers a different portion of the same county for a different time frame... So more people affected!
The sheer numbers are what matter here. Television stations want to keep people safe, so even if your favorite show is being cut off by the weather alerts, it's still a heads up, especially in smaller markets that cover a "small" area. Why? Because of the size of the area, you're more likely to be affected by the same situation.
And in truth, the Shenandoah Valley is not that big.
In order to get the relevant information out in a timely fashion, news outlets are using numerous resources ranging from cut-ins on air to text alerts to statuses on Facebook.
For the text messages, a person can sometimes sign up to get alerts for just a specific place, say the county in which that person lives. But for the on-air and online stuff, they can't be that specific.
So if I put up a marquee on the Website, a Desktop Alert crawl or a status on Facebook announcing a weather alert, everyone is going to see the same message no matter where they are. I can't assign such a thing to only show itself to people living in a certain area or using a certain IP address.
On top of that, weather situations sometimes change so quickly, no one person can keep up. On those kinds of days, I will often put up a message saying, "Tune in for information as it becomes available" rather than try to update a marquee or status with every change...
Even I know seeing a ton of similar messages gets irritating, so I try and keep such messages to a minimum if I can... Though I've gotten in trouble for both sending out too many and sending out too few... If that makes any sense.
One the one hand, some people appreciate it and the higher-ups encourage frequent messages to the viewers. Then you have the people that find it annoying and say they are going to stop watching/reading because of it...
Caught between the viewers/readers and the boss. Never a fun position in which to find yourself. And so the fulcrum continues its endless dance to find balance...
The weather is always changing, as any meteorologist will tell you. You don't like the weather right now? Out in Columbia, Missouri, people say just wait a few minutes because it'll change.
And news people like me can only try to keep up. I'm no Data! Nor am I Watson. (Not even Sherlock's companion...) So I'm along for the ride just as much as anyone else in the community.
We want to help people know what's coming and how they can protect themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. And we will use every resource at our disposal to do so.
So keep a sailor's weather eye to the sky and an emergency TV or radio nearby!
So one of the main functions of a person like me is to help viewers get the information they need as quickly as possible when it comes to weather alerts.
I've seen it happen that on a day when there is severe weather, views on a news Website will skyrocket.
Where I currently work, one of our busiest online days involved a very nasty winter storm that dumped a huge amount of snow on the area. We hit more than 200,000 views on that day alone.
And the weather has been very freaky these last couple of years. From the record-breaking snowfall amounts in my part of Virginia in 2009/2010 to the kind of nasty, super humid heat you don't normally see this far inland. Now we're got the kind of biting cold I haven't felt since I moved out of New Jersey more than a decade ago.
The effects of this crazy weather will be felt on all levels of society from the outdoorsy who like to hunt but won't have as large an opportunity to do so because of falling wildlife populations, to people looking at supplies in the grocery stores where prices are climbing, to people born under that wandering star who want to get away but can't afford it because gas has gotten so high...
So I understand that people want to know what the weather's going to do. Then there are the calls from people asking, "Is it gonna storm tomorra?" Well, when they start giving you their exact address and expect you to give them a weather forecast for that location, it's just a tad ridiculous.
I think my biggest beef with weather complaints comes when I get yelled at by a viewer because the station is cutting in every 15 minutes for a weather alert, say a tornado warning, and the person couldn't watch one of his or her favorite shows. The complaint being that the warning didn't cover that specific person's area, so why was the station interrupting his or her entertainment?
Take a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for example. Or that Tornado Warning. Or a Winter Weather Warning. First off, the National Weather Service is NOT going to issue one of these alerts just on a whim!
Like people who scream "global warming" (though the newer "global climate change" may be more applicable) is a myth, that it's just a fantasy, but fail to consider that scientists must use the Scientific Method to reach conclusions and that method requires data to be replicable... There is science behind what the NWS predicts.
Predictions may not be all that good days out, but within a couple of hours or even minutes, they're usually pretty accurate. There is no such thing as a "guaranteed forecast," because that's an oxymoron!
So we've got a warning out there. Even if it's a hyper-local one, say for just one town, there is still a need to get that information out to all. Such weather developments, when they occur, can be quite fast moving, which means they may affect more than just the initial place under the issued warning.
This is especially true for tornadoes, to which anyone who has lived in "Tornado Alley" will attest as they have seen such storms tear across the landscape at breakneck speeds, wreaking havoc and destruction in their wake.
Sometimes warnings only cover one part of an area, say the eastern section of a given county. And then a second one can crop up that covers a different portion of the same county for a different time frame... So more people affected!
The sheer numbers are what matter here. Television stations want to keep people safe, so even if your favorite show is being cut off by the weather alerts, it's still a heads up, especially in smaller markets that cover a "small" area. Why? Because of the size of the area, you're more likely to be affected by the same situation.
And in truth, the Shenandoah Valley is not that big.
In order to get the relevant information out in a timely fashion, news outlets are using numerous resources ranging from cut-ins on air to text alerts to statuses on Facebook.
For the text messages, a person can sometimes sign up to get alerts for just a specific place, say the county in which that person lives. But for the on-air and online stuff, they can't be that specific.
So if I put up a marquee on the Website, a Desktop Alert crawl or a status on Facebook announcing a weather alert, everyone is going to see the same message no matter where they are. I can't assign such a thing to only show itself to people living in a certain area or using a certain IP address.
On top of that, weather situations sometimes change so quickly, no one person can keep up. On those kinds of days, I will often put up a message saying, "Tune in for information as it becomes available" rather than try to update a marquee or status with every change...
Even I know seeing a ton of similar messages gets irritating, so I try and keep such messages to a minimum if I can... Though I've gotten in trouble for both sending out too many and sending out too few... If that makes any sense.
One the one hand, some people appreciate it and the higher-ups encourage frequent messages to the viewers. Then you have the people that find it annoying and say they are going to stop watching/reading because of it...
Caught between the viewers/readers and the boss. Never a fun position in which to find yourself. And so the fulcrum continues its endless dance to find balance...
The weather is always changing, as any meteorologist will tell you. You don't like the weather right now? Out in Columbia, Missouri, people say just wait a few minutes because it'll change.
And news people like me can only try to keep up. I'm no Data! Nor am I Watson. (Not even Sherlock's companion...) So I'm along for the ride just as much as anyone else in the community.
We want to help people know what's coming and how they can protect themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. And we will use every resource at our disposal to do so.
So keep a sailor's weather eye to the sky and an emergency TV or radio nearby!
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Oddities of Inspiration
I recently noticed something about my blog that somewhat displeases me.
My last three posts all say they went up November 1.
The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.
However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.
I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.
I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...
I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.
Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...
As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.
I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.
As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.
For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.
Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...
For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.
It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.
I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.
So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.
So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.
My last three posts all say they went up November 1.
The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.
However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.
I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.
I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...
I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.
Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...
As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.
I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.
As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.
For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.
Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...
For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.
It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.
I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.
So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.
So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Addendum to Benefit or Bane
Very early on, I wrote a post about most news outlets using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even back then, I had noticed a rather disturbing trend in viewer/reader interaction through such sites.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Benefit or Bane?
Facebook and Twitter, they've appeared everywhere now. People are often saying follow us or tweet us... Share with us every thing in your lives. For journalism, the question I think needs to be asked is quite simply is this trend a benefit or a bane?
For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.
I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)
People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.
Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.
You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.
Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.
Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.
Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.
Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.
Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!
So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.
I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.
For the people using these social media, they feel they can talk about anything and everything without thought of who might see it. (Privacy settings are a wonderful thing though, aren't they? Even if they are only a fleeting thing...) So sometimes people may say or write something that isn't exactly flattering of others or of themselves. (I'll admit, I've done this a few times...) But those posts can often been seen by more than just friends... There might be a few enemies... A few people you might not consider "right in the head" but two of the greatest groups that might see those things? Potential/current employers and journalists.
I'm sure the employers comment makes sense. It has been talked about, on the news of all things. People who may be considering you for a job want to see what kind of person you are and what better way to do that than to look at what you write, post and do on a social networking site where you most likely would feel comfortable to say just about anything you want without editing. (Again, I'll be the first to admit I've let my typing to get the better of me on those times when I have been especially upset, disturbed, lost or otherwise perturbed.)
People are using such social networks for their daily diaries, writing their thoughts, feelings, emotions, et al. for the world to see.
Thus, in order to keep up, journalistic organizations have taken their places among the members of these social media. Most have RSS feeds set up to automatically post things to Twitter or Facebook. So as soon as something is completed, bang there it is! Such posts take potential readers straight to the main source of the story, thus the news organization's Website.
You can search so many people's names and sometimes even find the person you're wondering about. Or you can search for a memorial page posted for someone who has gone. On such sites, journalists might find a contact to interview, to get their impression on what has happened or a topic of interest.
Organizations, both for-profit and not, also use the social networks to find people who are interested in them. From the SPCA to Coldwater Creek and so many others, the social networks give them a place to offer specials for friends, fans or followers. Thus such organizations and businesses generate new business, new contacts, new sources of donations and revenue.
Some days it seems there is just no such thing as privacy anymore, especially in the face of such social networks. Even though a resource like these can be a treasure trove for people specifically searching for information, but there is a negative side.
Take the whole Erin Andrews and the man who videotaped her situation. Those videos ended up posted online and could be linked to various pages on social networking sites, including Facebook, Twitter and even YouTube. So in that instance, her privacy (and the privacy of all the other women he taped) was violated and that violation was out there for all to see.
Perhaps even worse is the fact that once something is posted online... It's very hard to get removed.
Take the example of the little girls at the dance competition and the "outrage" generated by both their costumes and their dance moves. The parents of at least one of the girls said in an interview they had tried to have the video taken down, but that because of how many places it had been posted, they were unable to do so. Truthfully, as someone who once danced (many years ago) I think the outcry was ridiculous because the people who were fussing probably don't know much about modern dance or the outfits that go with it. Those girls were fantastic! Especially for their age group!
So, in the end... Is the social network a benefit or a bane? I certainly cannot answer that question, and if anybody else can, feel free! However, I doubt there is any one or any complete answer. In some respects, these networks are amazing sources of information and more. In others, they are an invasion.
I cannot call myself any sort of expert on the issue. I can only go on what I have seen, what I have heard and what I have experienced.
Monday, March 22, 2010
And the body says... STOP!
Probably one of the really bad things about the Internet is that it never stops. It's on all day, every day. But eventually, the physical body working to maintain anything online simply has to stop. We have to eat, sleep, recharge our bodies. If we don't, we pay a heavy fine.
I'm just getting over paying that fine. Having pushed myself too far, I over-extended. And came down with pneumonia. While I have had pneumonia before, it hasn't knocked me down quite this hard before. Three days during which I could hardly breathe. Simply standing became an arduous task, almost as hard as trying to keep a constantly changing breaking news story up to date.
Thus, the long spell during which I haven't posted.
I can only hope I don't have to go on a second round of antibiotics, because keeping up with that is pretty hard when it comes to working online. It happened several times I was so occupied with my job that I forgot to take my pill... The janitor in the building got a good chuckle out of watching me dive for it one evening when I realized I was about two hours late.
So even though the Internet is constantly updating, it takes people like me to do it in many cases. But we are nothing more than people, which means we have limits. If we hit those limits and we ignore our bodies (or other aspects of our physical and mental well being), then our task must fall on other shoulders until we get back on our feet. Sometimes that recovery is quick and sometimes it isn't. I can be very glad I didn't end up in the hospital with this one, but that's no guarantee I won't someday in the future if I keep going the way I have.
In this market, simply having a job is a relief, but it also places extra stress on the people with jobs to do everything they can to keep that job and keep their bosses happy. Thus we fall victim to our own fear. The fear that we may be next, the fear we will wake up one day and be handed that pink slip, the fear that we simply aren't good enough no matter how hard we try. Even if we consciously know our jobs won't (or maybe can't) be eliminated, our unconscious minds still dwell on the "what ifs."
It takes dedicated people to keep the Internet up and running with all that information, especially on news sites. However, even the most dedicated person must eventually close the program, shut down the computer and leave the desk. Even when working from home, the Internet-based worker has to stop at some point.
Even if you are one of those that would be willing to expand your training (and I do count myself as such a one), this kind of field makes that very difficult. Between the need to keep up with daily tasks of posting and editing, trying to learn the new technology that is constantly coming out adds yet another stress to an already overloaded person.
It gets rather freaky when you start to dream of work. For example, watching text scroll across the screen (or sometimes pull a Matrix on you and be scrolling down in random-seeming columns) behind your eyelids. Even after that computer is off, you still see the screen and the slots that must be filled. It's like you never leave the computer behind, even when you burrow into your pillow. Please do not consider this a complaint. I am merely describing something that has actually happened to me. I have even overheard some of my co-workers describing strange dreams that took place at "work" while their minds and bodies were supposed to be resting.
Because of such things, rest is not restful and stress can continue to build in the subconscious. That makes our bodies weaker when it comes to staying healthy. We can try and try and try, but eventually, it will catch up and take you down. So beware. Listen to what your body has to say. If it says, "Stop," you had best listen.
I'm just getting over paying that fine. Having pushed myself too far, I over-extended. And came down with pneumonia. While I have had pneumonia before, it hasn't knocked me down quite this hard before. Three days during which I could hardly breathe. Simply standing became an arduous task, almost as hard as trying to keep a constantly changing breaking news story up to date.
Thus, the long spell during which I haven't posted.
I can only hope I don't have to go on a second round of antibiotics, because keeping up with that is pretty hard when it comes to working online. It happened several times I was so occupied with my job that I forgot to take my pill... The janitor in the building got a good chuckle out of watching me dive for it one evening when I realized I was about two hours late.
So even though the Internet is constantly updating, it takes people like me to do it in many cases. But we are nothing more than people, which means we have limits. If we hit those limits and we ignore our bodies (or other aspects of our physical and mental well being), then our task must fall on other shoulders until we get back on our feet. Sometimes that recovery is quick and sometimes it isn't. I can be very glad I didn't end up in the hospital with this one, but that's no guarantee I won't someday in the future if I keep going the way I have.
In this market, simply having a job is a relief, but it also places extra stress on the people with jobs to do everything they can to keep that job and keep their bosses happy. Thus we fall victim to our own fear. The fear that we may be next, the fear we will wake up one day and be handed that pink slip, the fear that we simply aren't good enough no matter how hard we try. Even if we consciously know our jobs won't (or maybe can't) be eliminated, our unconscious minds still dwell on the "what ifs."
It takes dedicated people to keep the Internet up and running with all that information, especially on news sites. However, even the most dedicated person must eventually close the program, shut down the computer and leave the desk. Even when working from home, the Internet-based worker has to stop at some point.
Even if you are one of those that would be willing to expand your training (and I do count myself as such a one), this kind of field makes that very difficult. Between the need to keep up with daily tasks of posting and editing, trying to learn the new technology that is constantly coming out adds yet another stress to an already overloaded person.
It gets rather freaky when you start to dream of work. For example, watching text scroll across the screen (or sometimes pull a Matrix on you and be scrolling down in random-seeming columns) behind your eyelids. Even after that computer is off, you still see the screen and the slots that must be filled. It's like you never leave the computer behind, even when you burrow into your pillow. Please do not consider this a complaint. I am merely describing something that has actually happened to me. I have even overheard some of my co-workers describing strange dreams that took place at "work" while their minds and bodies were supposed to be resting.
Because of such things, rest is not restful and stress can continue to build in the subconscious. That makes our bodies weaker when it comes to staying healthy. We can try and try and try, but eventually, it will catch up and take you down. So beware. Listen to what your body has to say. If it says, "Stop," you had best listen.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Filling in...
I sometimes can't help but feel that I didn't quite explain something correctly. For instance, I feel as though I have left something out of my earlier post, some key stone that completes a thought.
It often happens that some connection forms in my head that just doesn't translate well into the written word. So while what I think makes sense (at least to me), explaining to someone else the process and the connections in my mind just doesn't work.
For instance, anyone in journalism will probably already know that it is a very detail-orientated field, but someone outside the field might not realize just how detail orientated it is. Fact checking and accuracy are just two of the words used to describe this.
When it comes to the Internet, there are all kinds of "sources" a person can access, but how do you know the accuracy of that "information?" In some instances, you can't know. Some people will simply write whatever they want without checking to make sure their information is correct. For journalists, that could almost be counted as a crime, say libel. For an online journalist, that makes it even more difficult to make sure information is accurate and correct.
Indeed, expanding into the blogosphere makes the going even more treacherous. Because a blog is simply one person writing their thoughts, beliefs and notions, those writings do not have to be checked for accuracy. There are more blogs out there than can be counted, but most are not acceptable sources of information for a professional writer.
So usable online sources are mostly reduced to Websites produced by government agencies and known organizations (certain charities, local groups or the like).
Journalistic sources try for accuracy, but they can make mistakes. That's where a person like me comes in for I'm is supposed to catch the mistakes before they become a problem. Still, no one person can catch everything. So mistakes are bound to happen.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can, in most cases, go back into the original and make whatever changes you need. There is no real requirement to print a correction or re-air a story with a correction.
While a Website like Wikipedia may not be the best resource to use for information, it is an excellent example of just this process, because members can go in and make corrections when called for without a lot of fuss. But remember the scandal that broke a while back when Wikipedia found out some of its "contributors" were lying about their credentials and similar other activities.
The Internet has its own advantages and disadvantages, just as any information source does. Being an online journalist means I'm one of the people trying to make sure the information is correct, accurate, easy to access and more.
I'm sure I'll think of more concerning what it is to be an online journalist in the future days. And I'll write it down as it comes to me.
It often happens that some connection forms in my head that just doesn't translate well into the written word. So while what I think makes sense (at least to me), explaining to someone else the process and the connections in my mind just doesn't work.
For instance, anyone in journalism will probably already know that it is a very detail-orientated field, but someone outside the field might not realize just how detail orientated it is. Fact checking and accuracy are just two of the words used to describe this.
When it comes to the Internet, there are all kinds of "sources" a person can access, but how do you know the accuracy of that "information?" In some instances, you can't know. Some people will simply write whatever they want without checking to make sure their information is correct. For journalists, that could almost be counted as a crime, say libel. For an online journalist, that makes it even more difficult to make sure information is accurate and correct.
Indeed, expanding into the blogosphere makes the going even more treacherous. Because a blog is simply one person writing their thoughts, beliefs and notions, those writings do not have to be checked for accuracy. There are more blogs out there than can be counted, but most are not acceptable sources of information for a professional writer.
So usable online sources are mostly reduced to Websites produced by government agencies and known organizations (certain charities, local groups or the like).
Journalistic sources try for accuracy, but they can make mistakes. That's where a person like me comes in for I'm is supposed to catch the mistakes before they become a problem. Still, no one person can catch everything. So mistakes are bound to happen.
The good thing about the Internet is that you can, in most cases, go back into the original and make whatever changes you need. There is no real requirement to print a correction or re-air a story with a correction.
While a Website like Wikipedia may not be the best resource to use for information, it is an excellent example of just this process, because members can go in and make corrections when called for without a lot of fuss. But remember the scandal that broke a while back when Wikipedia found out some of its "contributors" were lying about their credentials and similar other activities.
The Internet has its own advantages and disadvantages, just as any information source does. Being an online journalist means I'm one of the people trying to make sure the information is correct, accurate, easy to access and more.
I'm sure I'll think of more concerning what it is to be an online journalist in the future days. And I'll write it down as it comes to me.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Being an online journalist
The Internet has been changing the face of journalism everywhere... Newspaper reporters might need to know how to shoot and edit video or television reporters might need to rewrite their stories for an online newspaper. People like me have to know some web design, Internet language, text editing skills and more just so we can put content online where people can see it. The University of Missouri School of Journalism (from which I got my degree) even created an entirely new department just to help reporters be able to cross media: Convergence Journalism.
You might ask, "What is Convergence Journalism?" I'm sure other people out there will have a slightly different idea of what it is, but for me, Convergence Journalism is taking aspects of newspaper, magazine, photography, television and radio journalism, and combining them all online.
However, there's a twist... The Internet has changed dramatically since news outlets first started posting content. It still is changing and will continue to do so. New programs, new languages, new design options, all these make it very hard to keep up. It seems that no matter what skills I learned, parts of them are outdated within months. I could probably study new online skills 24 hours a day and still not be able to keep up.
It often seems the same for computer technology. Hello! Anybody been paying attention to how many new OSs have come out in the last few years? At least businesses aren't investing in the new technology as soon as it comes out! So there I can at least continue to do my job with most of it...
This is not an easy field. It never has been. The hours are long; the mental strain sometimes overwhelms; news never stops. The Internet is just taking that further because people can connect 24/7/365. It might be an overload, and it might not. Still, as long as there is a demand, there will have to be people, like me, to fill it.
Here is something you might find interesting, even though it's a little outdated now... Epic 2015. It's a very interesting take on how technology has changed media...
You might ask, "What is Convergence Journalism?" I'm sure other people out there will have a slightly different idea of what it is, but for me, Convergence Journalism is taking aspects of newspaper, magazine, photography, television and radio journalism, and combining them all online.
However, there's a twist... The Internet has changed dramatically since news outlets first started posting content. It still is changing and will continue to do so. New programs, new languages, new design options, all these make it very hard to keep up. It seems that no matter what skills I learned, parts of them are outdated within months. I could probably study new online skills 24 hours a day and still not be able to keep up.
It often seems the same for computer technology. Hello! Anybody been paying attention to how many new OSs have come out in the last few years? At least businesses aren't investing in the new technology as soon as it comes out! So there I can at least continue to do my job with most of it...
This is not an easy field. It never has been. The hours are long; the mental strain sometimes overwhelms; news never stops. The Internet is just taking that further because people can connect 24/7/365. It might be an overload, and it might not. Still, as long as there is a demand, there will have to be people, like me, to fill it.
Here is something you might find interesting, even though it's a little outdated now... Epic 2015. It's a very interesting take on how technology has changed media...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
