TMI

John Stossel

Too Much Information. We’re not just swimming in it – we’re soaking in it.

I’ve long held the notion that children in the United States would do better in school if they just had the confidence to believe they could in fact understand things. Instead, in my humble opinion, they are psyched out by the overload of data that envelopes us all. And if you can’t possibly keep up with all that stuff that’s already happened, then how can you ever be hip to the now?

I’m going to break this meme up, because I see where TMI is warping our sensibilities at two different levels – macro and micro. As I finish those particular essays, I’ll link across to them.

Micro Inundation

At the micro level, TMI strikes us in two ways: inbound and outbound. Outbound, we obsess about ourselves, and are willing to share anything and everything about us because that’s the only way we can be heard above the din. Additionally, we get so enamored with the endless variety of trees, we not only miss the forest – the forest is burning! We’ve allowed these trivial pursuits to pollute our thinking. If a little information is a good thing, then by all means let’s pile on more! Our worship for detail has diverted our appreciation for small truth, undiluted. We can’t write a short, clear sentence anymore. Inbound, we stream tickers and surround ourselves with a river of news, because it makes us seem in touch with the things we aren’t reading. We feel important because of our proximity to the information, and are tickled that it is available.

Macro Inundation

At the macro level, our institutions are continuing to focus on ever smaller units of time. Significance is placed on the tipping points, and not on the years of leaning and shoving that got us to that equilibrium. Context is all but gone in modern reporting.

Take the Dow Jones and NASDAQ for example. There were people, years ago, who got the daily newspaper just to see what the stocks had done yesterday. Those with significant investments couldn’t wait that long, and had special devices installed that would automate the information in something approximating real time. When computers starting becoming ubiquitous, a younger Michael Bloomberg changed the platform of the ticker, made a billion dollars with his service, and now is able to run for President if he so chooses. Where we used to look at trends and natural flow, we now react and jump to spikes and dips, as if there were any legitimate explanation other than random events and non-linear dynamics.

All I know is that in my former career, if we ever had a 200-300 point drop in the Dow, we’d invariably have a producer waving arms in the air, scrambling us at DefCon 5 across town to find a stockbroker, so we could Generic chart 2tell people what they need to do with their 401-Ks.” I had a suggestion. “How about we tell them to increase their investment percentage. If stock prices are lower, they’ll be in a better position for a rebound.” Naturally, I was usually met with stares, as they looked for someone more “normal” to assign the story to. As you can imagine, I also gave up on trying to pitch the Dollar Cost Average Explainer piece.

It’s not enough that we swim in Too Much Information — both in the forests and in the trees. When all you had was a daily newscast, you had 24 hours to digest an event and place it in context. When there were several newscasts in a day, you had a matter of hours to discern, divine, and divulge the truth. Now the clock never stops, and it’s a matter of pure regurgitation. Since every event now carries the significance and weight of being “Now,” we have no choice but to treat all moments as being equal.

I really like the news philosophy of John Stossel, who feels important news happens slowly:

John Stossel“We do the worst on the slower stories. Most of the important things that happen… are, I think, the slow developments: the development of the computer chip, the way Hewlett-Packard was run, the invention of the birth-control pill, the sexual revolution, changing attitudes. Those things don’t happen today; they happen this month, this year. We do a bad job covering that.”

Lest you think this is a new threat, that quote was first published in April 1997. We’ve always been tempted by the lure of Too Much Information. It’s just that now we have ever more opportunities to drown ourselves in it.

Literally

TV Icon

(tip of the hat to Ariel Waldman, from Shake Well Before Use.)

This is literally the last post I will write. Until the next one. Literally.

For years, I have joked about the broadcast news definition of “literally.” When you hear that word, what the reporter or anchor is really communicating is:

“Hello, we thank you for listening and paying attention, but for the benefit of all our other audience members who might not take the time to key in on important details, we’d like to offer the following reminder: before the last sentence or so disappears forever out the sieve of your short-term memory, please reflect upon the care and craft of said sentence construction. You may have noticed a subtle inflection that appeared out of place, and here is the explanation.

You see, language is a difficult proposition. Words that appear to have one inherent meaning might also carry a completely different thought or essence once placed in a parallel context. Upon those occasions where the aforementioned word might fulfill the necessary requirements for meaning upon different planes of context, we reserve the right to note that occurrence. While some of these double-meanings are strictly accidental, or the result of some regional differences in casual language, others are given a “Freudian” implication, as though there were subconscious desire attempting to surface from suppression.

TV IconBecause we are broadcasters, our time is very precious, and we would hate for you to spend the energy to ponder whether our use of a double-entendre was indicative of happenstance or an actual sublimated thought. To prevent misunderstandings such as this in the future, we have instituted the following convention: immediately after any such clever turn of phrase, no matter how simple or non-clever, we will point out that it was in fact deliberate by waiting for a semi-humorous pause, then boldly adding ‘LITERALLY!’ It should be noted that all words in the teleprompter are capitalized, and the proper punctuation involves a leading ellipsis… LITERALLY!

If the resulting realization of our attempt at cleverness results in your greater appreciation for our skills as communications professionals, then consider yourself an insider to our great fraternity of brevity and charm. If, however, you view the occasion as nothing more than a trite pun – well, then an intern wrote it. LITERALLY.”

As far as I know, no one is cataloging the vast litany of ‘literal sins’ that are certainly hiding on YouTube or Google Video, but for those of you looking for more mainstream abuses of the word, Ariel says this is the most brilliant weblog she’s seen today.

Literally.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, language, broadcast news, television news, Ariel Waldman, communication[/tags]

More Net Debris

I recently wrote about Net Debris – the little unfinished droppings and leavings we scatter across the internet. Recently, I got an e-mail from a young man named Colin McAvoy, reminding me of a piece I wrote years ago:

Dear Ike:

Thank you for contributing this article to TV Jobs. I’m not a member, but I do have the site bookmarked so I can come back and read the advice of broadcast veterans such as yourself. I myself am trying to break into the industry and will take all the good advice I can get. I hope you can contribute more articles to TV Jobs for youngsters like me to read and to better prepare ourselves for what awaits us out there…if we happen to break in, of course. Thanks again. It was a fun read.

I used to get several comments a week from college students, and over time that waned. (Over time, my e-mail address has changed, and somehow has now been fixed in the link at the header of the article.) I hadn’t thought about that article in months, but out nowhere I get a polite reply.

I’d like to think there are many others out there finding benefit in things I’ve written and subsequently forgotten about. I’d rather not think about the impressions they are making about my character, based on the things I’ve written and tried to forget about.

The hidden danger here is we all have so little control over our online oeuvre. Most of us didn’t start on webspace we own – it’s usually someone else’s hosted forum that we couldn’t delete if we tried. Never mind Google’s cache or the Internet Archive.

Maybe I need to take Occam’s RazR “off the grid.” Let it hide from the robots, and be a secret destination for the initiated. What kind of event would it take to make web-publishers so paranoid that they kicked the crawlers away, and refused to add to their Net Debris? Has anyone even thought of that? What would happen to Google’s value if enough people with real content started hiding?

It’ll never happen. That’s what they always say before it does.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, internet, blogging, communications, email, Google, websearch[/tags]

Crisis is a Rodeo

“In this modern era of television news, it’s not enough to be right. You have to win on both Logic and Emotion in eight seconds.”

- Ike Pigott

Newsworthiness

“So, when you go to a council meeting, how do you know which part is the most important to go in your story?”

- unnamed new reporter,
to one of my ex-interns

“Oh, I am so blogging that!”

- Ike Pigott

More on my pet project

I’ve still been plugging away in my quest to bring online tools and social media to the realm of disaster relief.

Here is a message I recently posted on the Red Cross Online Disaster Portal – which is being hosted at WordPress.com for the time being.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The links there roll back to my webspace – partly because you can’t upload mp3′s directly to WordPress.com – and partly because I am using a php-based link tracker to follow the downloads.

Twitter.comThe other piece of this project is still in Beta. (I’ve been waiting to say that for a while, heh heh…) The Red Cross Twitter channel is open. We’ll push that out in selected trials for evacuations and such, but we want to limit the traffic at first. We don’t want to establish it as a primary channel until we’re sure the traffic volume won’t crash Twitter.

The idea is that people in evacuation zones could “follow” the Red Cross Twitter feed from their cell phones, and find out about shelter locations and service delivery sites.

Please let me know what you think – or if you’d like to help us test some of this stuff.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, American Red Cross, Red Cross, disaster relief, communication, social media, Twitter, WordPress[/tags]

A Modest Proposal

The tenor of public discourse is changing. In some ways, it is good that market forces are starting to clean up what we see and hear through the mass media (no one took a principled stand on Don Imus – it was a matter of advertisers voting with their feet, marching to different programs…)

The negative comes in the form of those who feel as though we need some other artificial intervention: one imposed by government. The stirrings have begun, as some are now calling for the renewal of “The Fairness Doctrine.” Not long ago, I shared my personal definition of what I consider to be fair. Few have ever quibbled with me about it, but the Fairness Doctrine certainly would. “Ole F.D.” measures political punditry on the radio and television, and requires stations to provide “equal time” for those who have an opposing viewpoint. It was practical in an age when there were only a couple of media options, now it’s just silly.

(Silly because one of the key arguments against talk radio hosts is that they are already preaching to the choir – which means no one of an opposing view is listening anyway…)

I’m not going to get into the weeds on this one, because the only thing sillier than those wanting to reinstate this policy are those over-reacting to it. In the spirit of true Fairness and Compromise, I offer the following Modest Proposal:

In the future, all radio talk shows shall be required to simultaneously broadcast liberal opinions out of the left speaker, and conservative opinions out of the right speaker. In addition to being more fair, it gives the sales staff twice the opportunities to sell air. Also, we achieve the perfect balance of opinions in real time, instead of having to wait for the inevitable court-mandated quibbling about “daypart equivalence.” Just think about all of the jobs we could create! In the internet age, there is no dearth of opinions out there, and no national shortage of those willing to share. What better way to encourage healthy debate than to legislate it!

Of course, each individual listener would have the power to adjust their own balance knobs, and drown out the side they find less interesting. This would not be a detriment, as the talk format rarely gains any appreciable benefit from broadcasting in stereo. (Yes, I know that most talk radio is on AM, and that most AM is mono. If the FCC can mandate the conversion to HDTV and digital signals for television, it can make AM Stereo tuners mandatory in vehicles. And yes, you can look it up. There is such a thing as Stereo AM.)

UPDATE: One “rabid-rightie” talk show host has already signed on as a backer of my proposal. He plans to hire a third grader to read “It Takes a Village” on a continuous loop through the left channel.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Fairness Doctrine, FCC, radio, politics, parody, humor[/tags]