communication. community. cognition.
Carl Paladino went on Good Morning America to put his weekend statements into a better light. Instead, he got the journalistic equivalent of a bait-and-switch.
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.
“Smart” is not a matter of having smart answers; it’s developing smart questions. And often, to be Smart, we have to play Dumb.
How many of these statements go unchallenged?
Insert your own favorites, and they don’t have to be from the realm of communication and marketing. They might be from economics, might be from politics, might be from sociology. The point remains – you have a new job.
Self-editor.
Self-corrector.
Self-adjuster.
And just what did we all do to earn that demotion? We started opting into technologies that allowed us to fill our cups with the same stuff we drank yesterday. We listen to the same voices, visit the same websites, and breathe the same air as we did yesterday. Technology has imploded the media, which is now understaffed and can’t deliver on the promise of covering everything – and business models have adjusted to give us what we want, instead of what we need.
Bottom line? We’re spoiled, and we’re wallowing in our own by-products.
We surround ourselves with the same people – or in the case of social networks, the same types of people as the people we’re connected to now. We add in those we used to go to work with, and those we used to go to school with… and that’s okay. As long as it doesn’t get in the way of our need to be challenged.
When you surround yourself with 100 people who repeat the same mantra, day in, day out, you do more than start to believe it. You accept it as a fundamental premise by which everything else is to be judged. And when reality doesn’t jibe with our expectations, we’ll cling to the premise and start figuring out what other contributing factors got in the way of Natural Law.
We did this to ourselves. We wrap ourselves in these cocoons of interest, bound tight to those just like us. Identical peas in pods. We have shut out news and information sources that might challenge those premises. Self-exile from truth. We parrot the rest of the flock rather than be seen raising a squawk.
What starts as a silly or dumb question can shake a loose foundation. We just have to be willing to ask it.
What you might find is that others have been skating along, assuming others have known what they are talking about – and never taking the risk to be Dumb. But “Dumb” allows you to rethink everything, free of the untested and unsupported assertions of a crowd.
And in the end, what do you want? Popularity? Or impact and effectiveness?
Nick Adenhart was a pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels, killed last night in a car crash. It was billed as a hit-and-run accident, but those under the intense deadline pressures of modern media are always groping to find some deeper meaning.
It is a senseless death. Literally. Trying to make sense of random occurrences is an exercise in futility and frustration. At the far end, it is a dangerous exercise. Our minds often aren’t capable of writing off the random as just that, and in placing significance on meaningless correlations, we perpetuate ideas that just are not valuable.
Lisa Fletcher is the reporter who covered the story Friday morning for Good Morning America. She’s the ‘face’ of the piece, and in no way do I hold her entirely accountable. My dander is up over the legion of producers and news managers who pushed a story, and even vetted one that has zero significance. Not Adenhart’s death – but the ridiculous tangent of “hit-and-run” accidents being on the rise.
Here’s a quote from Fletcher’s piece:
“California has the highest number of hit-and-run deaths in the country, but other states are seeing an increase in these accidents, many of which go unsolved.”
Let’s examine that for just a moment.
A “hit-and-run” accident is a crime, and is reported as such. The accident, in and of itself, might be the result of a separate crime. In other words, the driver might be drunk, or might be driving with a suspended license. Those are crimes that may or may not have contributed to the collision.
The “hit-and-run” itself is nothing more than leaving the scene of an accident. So there are “hit-and-runs” where no crime was committed initially, but the driver left the area out of fear or panic or confusion. Which means we have many different kinds of hit-and-run accidents.
You see where this is going. There are simply too many possibilities present to lump all of these together as “hit and run accidents” with no context. It’s a meaningless distinction, because the tragedy is that people are dead, not that a participant in the accident ran away.
In her report, Fletcher followed the statement about California with a couple of anecdotal incidents from the east coast, bearing no statistical context. She then stated that 37,000 Americans every year die in hit-and-run accidents.
Tell me, how do you prevent a hit-and-run? Wouldn’t you rather prevent the accident in the first place?
And why is it that some states “lead” others in hit-and-run accidents? Might it be that California is the most populous? Let’s assume for a moment that the people vetting this story aren’t completely brain-dead, and they factored in “per capita” or “per hours on the road?” What factors might play a role in a high incidence of hit-and-run accidents?
In the above, we have one factor that actually has something to do with the accident (drunk driving), and three that have to do with behavior linked to wanting to avoid police/judicial contact. And of those, we have two that indicate that in states where enforcement is uniform and there’s zero tolerance for DUIs, there is a greater incentive to run.
That’s right. In states where you know you’ll be punished severely for driving while intoxicated, there is more incentive to run.
This emphasis on “hit-and-run” accidents is one based on emotion, not fact. Stories where bereaved family members have “no justice” and “no one to hold accountable” are quite sexy. It makes the journalistic endeavor seem more noble than exploitative. It brings a community together to solve this crime, and bring the offender to justice.
And it’s just plain wrong, because it stirs up anger and resentment at the wrong thing.
Be angry about the accident. Be angry about the fact someone fled the scene. Don’t confuse the two, because the higher rate of “hit-and-run” accidents might in fact be a sign that the rest of the justice system is working.
