I watched the Barbara Walter's Interview with Barack and Michelle Obama on You Tube Saturday night. I thought to myself, is this media? I mean I guess it is, but it's not as "serious" or "logical", from an audience point of view (because I have no idea what Barbara goes through to prepare for the interviews). Still, I rationalized, this is part of the media. It's a kind of reporting that goes on to give us, the public, information on a person, place or thing. Walters attempts to remain removed, though her views are thinly disguised, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's very entertaining, involving and palpable (for women especially I would think) and so it communicates with audiences on different levels like emotional and psychological. Since I love to over analyze everything my brain jumped to the question "Is this right?" "Is this a fair kind of interview for a president and first lady to do" being that it hits the public at home, where they are most sensitive? My answer to my own question was in true Devil's Advocate spirit, "this interview is happening BECAUSE these people have ALREADY hit us at home, their history, their journey, has inspired people throughout this country and already worked it's way into our hearts." Oh, okay, so entertainment and journalism marry in this sort of situation. Where as traditional journalism utilizes drama to spiff up their "emotional" impact, they seek to keep it to a barely noticeable minimum (or at least they're supposed to). On the other hand most entertainment news seeks to keep fact, logic and morals at bay and survives almost entirely on its emotive qualities. Along comes Walters or Winfrey with their celebrity profiles and, especially when said celebrity is a world leader, they bridge the gap between news and entertainment, allowing them to co-exist quite neatly. It's a smart move from a politicians point of view, to endear themselves to the homes and hearts of the public. People are much more prone to listen and trust, thinking they are cooperating with their leader as opposed to obeying.
Trust does amazing things then. It allows the followers to believe they are in fact equals and have inalienable power, where maybe they do not. Once again I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, inspired by a conversation I had at the NY Public Library Skating Rink over the vacation. A young man I struck up a conversation with had voted for Obama, but decided remaining skeptical was essential to remaining vigil. I absolutely LOVE the idea of a trust worthy, sincerely GOOD human being as a president, but couldn't help but agree with him. He, an African American, pointed out how appealing and kind both Mussolini and Hitler must have first come across. I couldn't argue with him. Even though I feel that we both really believe in Obama's goodness some how I like the idea of remaining on my toes. We should rejoice at the prospect of change, but not settle of the prospect. We should continue to put our young and energetic president elect to the test, like a doubting Thomas, always showing up to the event, here if he needs us, but not close enough to get lassoed. It makes me feel, well, not so freakin' dorky and teen-bob, heart - throbbed in love with an ideal. I like the feeling of my legs beneath me.
So, getting back to the media, Obama has found his way into our hearts and into our homes. He connects regularly with us through our computers, podcasts and YouTube videos, and it's all very modern and clever. He's using the media to his EVERY advantage, and now, I'm wondering if maybe it isn't a bit much. Perhaps it isn't and he's just as clever and on the ball as I believe he is, but my doubtfulness makes me happy. It keeps me fully loaded and ready to rip in case I start to see things I don't like. He is not yet in power, so everything is still in theory at this point. He seems to be on the ball with picking out a cabinet for himself, there's a new update every day as to the rumors of new appointments or announcements of the appointments and yet, so many of these people were a part of the Clinton administration, and so, how much is really new? Or does it need to be new as long as the person in the helm is new and is pointing everybody in new directions? Everything is unclear and will remain unclear until, ohhh, four maybe eight years from now when we can look back and view everything from a distance and look at things from the arrogant safety of hind sight. So, right now all we can do is wait, and see, and remain vigil because that's what being a responsible citizen is about, always staying alert and INVOLVED, responsible for our own destinies and not expecting miracles. The only thing about our new president that is clear is that he is using the press in a way never seen before by other candidates and boy is it effective. He utilizes communications of all sorts to put himself right into our faces, our homes, our lives. Maybe it's to guide, not control, maybe... the future will tell. Still he's changing the game where political media is concerned, and right now, it's really very exciting.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My Problem
This is gonna be a short log, I can feel it. I just wanted to voice my disappointment on the subject of media coverage, or more specifically, what media chooses to cover.
I've been working in the restaurant/food service industry since I was fifteen years old. Being that I'm now 30, that's a pretty long time. I've been coffee/counter girl at 6 a.m. in the morning, busser or hostess at night and that progressed into waiter and bartender. It's a happening field. It changes with the times and as exhausting as the work is, it's exciting too. But it comes with many complications. Tips are a tricky issue, both for taxes and wages and the laws designed to protect servers are almost always ignored. I recently ran into trouble with my current boss and I've been running into trouble with potential employeers. Even with 15 years of experience and a list of patrons that will follow me anywhere I have trouble getting hired because I insist on my employers meeting CT labor law standards and they're pretty content with ignoring them.
When I researched my rights, and the laws that protect them, I found I had to dig and dig and dig to get any information at all. There were finally articles I found, most that had been posted by Law Firms themselves with regards to cases they had won. There was absolutely no main stream coverage of Lawsuits against restaurateurs, even though they did exist. According to the online law pamphletts and advertisements, tens of millions of dollars had been won by the prosecutors (in most cases the servers) in one case alone yet no significance had been given to the topic by the media.
I understand the subject is extra sensitive to me, everyone who has problems wishes others thought them important enough to print on a front page, but when workers through out the US are getting taken advantage of, where's the press? Don't they have some sort of moral obligation to uncover unfairness of this sort. The sad conclusion I came to was no, they don't. The press has absolutely no moral obligation to the public. What they decide to report is entirely inspired by how much attention they think it will get them. If a topic is about a group of people other's don't seem to give a damn about, then they don't care if laws are being broken and lives are being degraded. It's sad really.
After reading the Shudson book I wondered if this phenomenon is solely based on media's dependency upon advertising. Perhaps if their primary concern wasn't volume then they won't care as much, but it will never be realistic to think media groups won't be concerned with volume, as revenue is what drives everything they do. So how does someone get the media to care about what they themselves care about? It seems the only way is to first heighten public awareness through word of mouth, or education and inject the community with a sensitivity to it first. In this respect the media doesn't influence us, we've influenced them; we've actually gone farther then influencing them, we've down right dictated what they're going to pay attention to.
I've been working in the restaurant/food service industry since I was fifteen years old. Being that I'm now 30, that's a pretty long time. I've been coffee/counter girl at 6 a.m. in the morning, busser or hostess at night and that progressed into waiter and bartender. It's a happening field. It changes with the times and as exhausting as the work is, it's exciting too. But it comes with many complications. Tips are a tricky issue, both for taxes and wages and the laws designed to protect servers are almost always ignored. I recently ran into trouble with my current boss and I've been running into trouble with potential employeers. Even with 15 years of experience and a list of patrons that will follow me anywhere I have trouble getting hired because I insist on my employers meeting CT labor law standards and they're pretty content with ignoring them.
When I researched my rights, and the laws that protect them, I found I had to dig and dig and dig to get any information at all. There were finally articles I found, most that had been posted by Law Firms themselves with regards to cases they had won. There was absolutely no main stream coverage of Lawsuits against restaurateurs, even though they did exist. According to the online law pamphletts and advertisements, tens of millions of dollars had been won by the prosecutors (in most cases the servers) in one case alone yet no significance had been given to the topic by the media.
I understand the subject is extra sensitive to me, everyone who has problems wishes others thought them important enough to print on a front page, but when workers through out the US are getting taken advantage of, where's the press? Don't they have some sort of moral obligation to uncover unfairness of this sort. The sad conclusion I came to was no, they don't. The press has absolutely no moral obligation to the public. What they decide to report is entirely inspired by how much attention they think it will get them. If a topic is about a group of people other's don't seem to give a damn about, then they don't care if laws are being broken and lives are being degraded. It's sad really.
After reading the Shudson book I wondered if this phenomenon is solely based on media's dependency upon advertising. Perhaps if their primary concern wasn't volume then they won't care as much, but it will never be realistic to think media groups won't be concerned with volume, as revenue is what drives everything they do. So how does someone get the media to care about what they themselves care about? It seems the only way is to first heighten public awareness through word of mouth, or education and inject the community with a sensitivity to it first. In this respect the media doesn't influence us, we've influenced them; we've actually gone farther then influencing them, we've down right dictated what they're going to pay attention to.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
http://information.travel.aol.com/news-and-tips/air-traffic-controllers?ncid=AOLCOMMtravdynlprim0418&icid=100214839x1212308153x1200804449
Do you ever read something, or see something, experience something in any way that has premonition written all over it? Everything about that something screams "something really bad is about to happen" and it's made worse by the realization that absolutely nobody else sees it? After reading the article above, which I hope you all read, I got such a feeling and can't help but hope we start to talk more about this. "This" is the phenomenon that's happening in all professions every where. Experienced veterans of the field are being let go in order to replace them with three new-bees for less money then the one original was getting. All this is done for the purpose of corporate finance cut backs, under the premise of creating new jobs. One person looses a job, but three new people get one. That's progress right? What it's really doing is creating a terrible, potentially dangerous situation by putting novices in the drivers seats, before they're off their learning permits. In the case of this article, they're at the wheel of a vehicle capable of killing 300 in one misstep.
I've seen so much media coverage of the plite of airliners and gas prices. I've read so much coverage about how travel has been effected, yet this is the first time I've heard anything like this. Anything directly connected to public safety. And the quote with in the above listed article about the novice radar controller's "conspiracy" theories. I thought that deserved to be looked into. It's natural after all, since 911 occurred and we all experienced the terror that can be unleashed using the airways. Now an article like this comes out and reveals the volatile situation from day to day, it brings up some old fears. Fears that never got the answers or actions from the authorities in "control" to really be quelled or put to rest, just buried deep in attempts to hold on to our own sanity. Here I believe is an amazing opportunity for a reporter to really dig into the politics behind these cut backs. Why are veterans being let go at a time when our airways need to be tighter then ever. Cut backs began about two years ago. They happened in the midst of most of the press covering concerns and complaints about tightened air port security. Supposedly airports were getting safer then ever, yet airways were being left to novices, and 'near misses' increased from 20 in one year to 62 in two months?
WTF??????
Where was the media on this topic? And why is more not being revealed or dug up. If you all remember there were a ton of conspiracy theories about test drills run in exact replica of the Sept. 11th attacks just the day before the attacks themselves. There were conspiracy theories floating everywhere about the US government being able to clearly see the redirection of those planes, and doing nothing about it. Now air traffic controllers that have experience are being laid off, or have experience salary cut backs SOOOO insulting they have no real reason to stay on. They're being given what I (as an avid Yankee fan) would call a "Torre" ultimatum. It's the kind of ultimatum that plays so closely on everything you know about that persons character that it's really not an ultimatum at all, but a "go fuck your self" dressed up as one. These ultimatums are designed to basically displace responsibility onto the victim of the situation and relieve the guilty party of any ties to it. Any and every veteran air traffic controller will be "choosing to retire" and "leaving the industry when it needs them the most". They'll play the bad guys and the industry will get off cheap in more then just a fiscal way. There's terrible written all over it. But that's just the surface.
The bigger terrible here is that people who don't know what the hell they're doing are directing our planes in and out and around the skies. Chills and shivers couldn't be generated better by the likes of King, Craven and Hitchcock combined. Media has JUMPED on stories of industry cut backs, job reduction and foreclosures, but this story slipped through their fingers for two years now. Two years over which the skies have become significantly more dangerous, just as we started to think we were healing from the terrorist air attacks of 911. I mean, it's one thing for an advertising company to let go it's top graphic executives to hire intern designs right out of FIT for half the price. It's sad and sell out, but it's not immediately dangerous. But this IS immediately dangerous. We were being told airport security was tightening, when it was really decreasing- wasn't it?
I hope the media jumps on this. Digging further into this story would be absolutely meaty and rewarding. Perhaps not just to the media, but to travelers at large. It's a topic we need to know more about.
Do you ever read something, or see something, experience something in any way that has premonition written all over it? Everything about that something screams "something really bad is about to happen" and it's made worse by the realization that absolutely nobody else sees it? After reading the article above, which I hope you all read, I got such a feeling and can't help but hope we start to talk more about this. "This" is the phenomenon that's happening in all professions every where. Experienced veterans of the field are being let go in order to replace them with three new-bees for less money then the one original was getting. All this is done for the purpose of corporate finance cut backs, under the premise of creating new jobs. One person looses a job, but three new people get one. That's progress right? What it's really doing is creating a terrible, potentially dangerous situation by putting novices in the drivers seats, before they're off their learning permits. In the case of this article, they're at the wheel of a vehicle capable of killing 300 in one misstep.
I've seen so much media coverage of the plite of airliners and gas prices. I've read so much coverage about how travel has been effected, yet this is the first time I've heard anything like this. Anything directly connected to public safety. And the quote with in the above listed article about the novice radar controller's "conspiracy" theories. I thought that deserved to be looked into. It's natural after all, since 911 occurred and we all experienced the terror that can be unleashed using the airways. Now an article like this comes out and reveals the volatile situation from day to day, it brings up some old fears. Fears that never got the answers or actions from the authorities in "control" to really be quelled or put to rest, just buried deep in attempts to hold on to our own sanity. Here I believe is an amazing opportunity for a reporter to really dig into the politics behind these cut backs. Why are veterans being let go at a time when our airways need to be tighter then ever. Cut backs began about two years ago. They happened in the midst of most of the press covering concerns and complaints about tightened air port security. Supposedly airports were getting safer then ever, yet airways were being left to novices, and 'near misses' increased from 20 in one year to 62 in two months?
WTF??????
Where was the media on this topic? And why is more not being revealed or dug up. If you all remember there were a ton of conspiracy theories about test drills run in exact replica of the Sept. 11th attacks just the day before the attacks themselves. There were conspiracy theories floating everywhere about the US government being able to clearly see the redirection of those planes, and doing nothing about it. Now air traffic controllers that have experience are being laid off, or have experience salary cut backs SOOOO insulting they have no real reason to stay on. They're being given what I (as an avid Yankee fan) would call a "Torre" ultimatum. It's the kind of ultimatum that plays so closely on everything you know about that persons character that it's really not an ultimatum at all, but a "go fuck your self" dressed up as one. These ultimatums are designed to basically displace responsibility onto the victim of the situation and relieve the guilty party of any ties to it. Any and every veteran air traffic controller will be "choosing to retire" and "leaving the industry when it needs them the most". They'll play the bad guys and the industry will get off cheap in more then just a fiscal way. There's terrible written all over it. But that's just the surface.
The bigger terrible here is that people who don't know what the hell they're doing are directing our planes in and out and around the skies. Chills and shivers couldn't be generated better by the likes of King, Craven and Hitchcock combined. Media has JUMPED on stories of industry cut backs, job reduction and foreclosures, but this story slipped through their fingers for two years now. Two years over which the skies have become significantly more dangerous, just as we started to think we were healing from the terrorist air attacks of 911. I mean, it's one thing for an advertising company to let go it's top graphic executives to hire intern designs right out of FIT for half the price. It's sad and sell out, but it's not immediately dangerous. But this IS immediately dangerous. We were being told airport security was tightening, when it was really decreasing- wasn't it?
I hope the media jumps on this. Digging further into this story would be absolutely meaty and rewarding. Perhaps not just to the media, but to travelers at large. It's a topic we need to know more about.
John McCain on SNL
I can't help but thinking John McCain chose the wrong line of work. He never fumbled his words and was WAY into the action of the show. He was a natural! How utterly surprising! I'm not gonna lie, had this come earlier in the campaign instead of all that rumor mill mudslinging accompanied by say oh at least a few political strategies to let me know he was actually thinking of the future instead of just the campaign, oh... and most important, if he hadn't chosen that ignorant hatred generating joke of a running mate, he might of actually gotten my vote.
I never disbelieved all the positive points people pointed out about him. I just never saw them for myself, so had no choice but to believe the opposite. McCain obviously has greatness to him. Perhaps his campaign strategy should have been to be the best of himself at all times. It probably would have worked. Something else that would have worked would have been a background check on his potential running mate. Either that or he could have chosen someone he actually knew already. Pretty crazy notion I realize but, he, it's the race for president, you gotta throw caution to the wind!
I never disbelieved all the positive points people pointed out about him. I just never saw them for myself, so had no choice but to believe the opposite. McCain obviously has greatness to him. Perhaps his campaign strategy should have been to be the best of himself at all times. It probably would have worked. Something else that would have worked would have been a background check on his potential running mate. Either that or he could have chosen someone he actually knew already. Pretty crazy notion I realize but, he, it's the race for president, you gotta throw caution to the wind!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Obama- Primetime
For the first time in this election the Internet has really pissed me off. Not because some one posted something I didn't agree with 'cause honestly that happens a lot. They've pissed me off because they've let me down. The news stations are soooo eager to post their opinions of events they slack off at posting the actual events.
It's happened before Wednesday night (the Obama prime time special), I guess it just caught up to me is all. I'd been perturbed with the delay in posting the actual debates, or how frustrating it was to have to link up with a specific type of player in order to view the live footage. Why isn't a universal, MAC and PC player used on ALL networks? I mean Jesus! They're goal as media Meccas is to communicate with as many people as possible and yet here they are choosing their special media reel players, or lesser named ones that we as computer owners then have to download. Anything downloaded takes up memory space. You mean no ones invented a universal player included on all computers or compatible with them all? Seems silly, and really irritating.
That being said, the videos downloaded into YouTube, or even on CNN's video page, are all playable without these downloads. I wish I could define the difference in data file forms, but I can't, so I'll stick to basics. These kind of videos are downloaded material, not live feeds. They have to have taken place first, and then be contributed to online data bases. This is all well and good. Yet why is the posting of the events themselves coming after the posting of commentary on them. Some commentary is written commentary, other is video and yet it is being posted before the replay of the events themselves. This is just wrong. Especially concerning video commentary. If videos of people talking about the event can be downloaded, they why not the footage itself? Eventually the footage is added, inevitably actually, but why the gap, why the overlay? Shouldn't any online media station want to re post the actual event as soon as possible?
I realize that the simple sharing of events is NOT the media's job, or at least it hasn't been. In the past the media's primary purpose was to be the go between, sort of middle man, between news worthy events and the public that might be interested in them. In the past however, the Internet, email, instant messages and live feeds didn't exist. Now they do and yet it seems the media wagons still want to pull all the weight of telling the story. Their priority is not to rerun the events because they're so dead set on commenting on it. In a way I'm sure they feel they've already run the event via live feed so from there they should simple be able to progress. It's a fair assumption. Yet with as much human insight as the media is supposed to have it's hard for me to believe they think all human beings live on the same schedule. Many of us could not watch the live feeds. So why isn't their main priority to then get a video recording of the event up and then plug in their commentary on it? It may sound tedious from a time line perspective, but then remember, once a video is shot it only takes moments to up load. There really is no need for any kind of delay in posting a recording of the actual event. On all major online networks that I checked however, which included CBS, CNN and CPSAN ( not all of which had the live feed of the events) there was at least an hour between the time the event ended and the posting of the video of the event. Yet all of these networks had commentary on the event posted if not during the event, then immediately following it.
Understanding that it is the media's job to both report the facts and comment on them, I feel like it's irresponsible of them to do the later before the former. In lay man's terms, it simply steals the main event's thunder. On a more intellectual level, commentary first, event second, serves to sway the observer toward the view point of the reporter instead of allowing the observer to decide for themselves, or forcing them to do so. Media, especially modern media, has to intentionally require that people are forming there own opinions first. If they don't they're actually setting themselves up for potential "conspiracy theory" disasters. If commentary occurs without prior, or simultaneous exposure of the actual event then well, someone must have been trying to put something over on you. Really what I think that "someone" or technically the reporter was trying to do was what they've always done. They're trying to be the only source, the connecting force between "them" (the event) and "us" (the public), like they've been forever now. But they don't have to be, or more, shouldn't be anymore. They should let us, no WANT us to think for ourselves first, then open up discussion about it and be part of the discussion.
I think Beckett has been influencing me. Modern journalists are like the parents of middle school children. They've got to figure out the practically impossible task of how to let their child try things by themselves, instead of doing everything for them. They've got to except that they no longer HAVE to do everything for them, and that still trying to do everything for them is not only really PISSING their children off, but also not allowing them to grow in a positive and more intellectual direction. If you want a healthy happy child, you've got to know when to let go. Push the birdy out of the nest. And for God sake be happy about it! Okay maybe that last one won't happen, but somethings got to give. Modern media has to allow this difficult transition to occur, for societies own sake! We're actually showing an interest in intellectual growth, through responsibly being a contributing part, actually getting involved, with the world at large. Because it's so easy and accessible now! Let it happen media machine! It's a good thing. But now they have the difficult task, not only of letting their "baby" go, but also finding where they belong. They have to find out how to nurture this advanced kind of child. They're intuitive enough to know that their "baby" still needs to be nurtured, but in a completely different way. The struggle is discovering what that new "way" is.
Good thing I'm here to help out right? By piping up right now and announcing on this internationally available blog, DON'T POST THE COMMENTARY BEFORE THE EVENT!!!!!! You wanna go ahead and post it simultaneously, that's fine. It'll make the transition easier on you I'm sure. But DON'T, just DON'T post comments before you post the event. Let us have that two minutes to decide for ourselves, or at least have the option to strike that "play" button, right next to the article on what you thought about it. What the media can't do is continue to think for us, or feel it has to. That kind of media is long gone. Just guide us toward the information you'd normally receive. Let us watch it, read it, or listen to it and than let us comment on it. This will generate a whole different kind of news, one that people will trust more because they trust themselves, and because it's a whole lot easier to trust a system that trusts you.
It's happened before Wednesday night (the Obama prime time special), I guess it just caught up to me is all. I'd been perturbed with the delay in posting the actual debates, or how frustrating it was to have to link up with a specific type of player in order to view the live footage. Why isn't a universal, MAC and PC player used on ALL networks? I mean Jesus! They're goal as media Meccas is to communicate with as many people as possible and yet here they are choosing their special media reel players, or lesser named ones that we as computer owners then have to download. Anything downloaded takes up memory space. You mean no ones invented a universal player included on all computers or compatible with them all? Seems silly, and really irritating.
That being said, the videos downloaded into YouTube, or even on CNN's video page, are all playable without these downloads. I wish I could define the difference in data file forms, but I can't, so I'll stick to basics. These kind of videos are downloaded material, not live feeds. They have to have taken place first, and then be contributed to online data bases. This is all well and good. Yet why is the posting of the events themselves coming after the posting of commentary on them. Some commentary is written commentary, other is video and yet it is being posted before the replay of the events themselves. This is just wrong. Especially concerning video commentary. If videos of people talking about the event can be downloaded, they why not the footage itself? Eventually the footage is added, inevitably actually, but why the gap, why the overlay? Shouldn't any online media station want to re post the actual event as soon as possible?
I realize that the simple sharing of events is NOT the media's job, or at least it hasn't been. In the past the media's primary purpose was to be the go between, sort of middle man, between news worthy events and the public that might be interested in them. In the past however, the Internet, email, instant messages and live feeds didn't exist. Now they do and yet it seems the media wagons still want to pull all the weight of telling the story. Their priority is not to rerun the events because they're so dead set on commenting on it. In a way I'm sure they feel they've already run the event via live feed so from there they should simple be able to progress. It's a fair assumption. Yet with as much human insight as the media is supposed to have it's hard for me to believe they think all human beings live on the same schedule. Many of us could not watch the live feeds. So why isn't their main priority to then get a video recording of the event up and then plug in their commentary on it? It may sound tedious from a time line perspective, but then remember, once a video is shot it only takes moments to up load. There really is no need for any kind of delay in posting a recording of the actual event. On all major online networks that I checked however, which included CBS, CNN and CPSAN ( not all of which had the live feed of the events) there was at least an hour between the time the event ended and the posting of the video of the event. Yet all of these networks had commentary on the event posted if not during the event, then immediately following it.
Understanding that it is the media's job to both report the facts and comment on them, I feel like it's irresponsible of them to do the later before the former. In lay man's terms, it simply steals the main event's thunder. On a more intellectual level, commentary first, event second, serves to sway the observer toward the view point of the reporter instead of allowing the observer to decide for themselves, or forcing them to do so. Media, especially modern media, has to intentionally require that people are forming there own opinions first. If they don't they're actually setting themselves up for potential "conspiracy theory" disasters. If commentary occurs without prior, or simultaneous exposure of the actual event then well, someone must have been trying to put something over on you. Really what I think that "someone" or technically the reporter was trying to do was what they've always done. They're trying to be the only source, the connecting force between "them" (the event) and "us" (the public), like they've been forever now. But they don't have to be, or more, shouldn't be anymore. They should let us, no WANT us to think for ourselves first, then open up discussion about it and be part of the discussion.
I think Beckett has been influencing me. Modern journalists are like the parents of middle school children. They've got to figure out the practically impossible task of how to let their child try things by themselves, instead of doing everything for them. They've got to except that they no longer HAVE to do everything for them, and that still trying to do everything for them is not only really PISSING their children off, but also not allowing them to grow in a positive and more intellectual direction. If you want a healthy happy child, you've got to know when to let go. Push the birdy out of the nest. And for God sake be happy about it! Okay maybe that last one won't happen, but somethings got to give. Modern media has to allow this difficult transition to occur, for societies own sake! We're actually showing an interest in intellectual growth, through responsibly being a contributing part, actually getting involved, with the world at large. Because it's so easy and accessible now! Let it happen media machine! It's a good thing. But now they have the difficult task, not only of letting their "baby" go, but also finding where they belong. They have to find out how to nurture this advanced kind of child. They're intuitive enough to know that their "baby" still needs to be nurtured, but in a completely different way. The struggle is discovering what that new "way" is.
Good thing I'm here to help out right? By piping up right now and announcing on this internationally available blog, DON'T POST THE COMMENTARY BEFORE THE EVENT!!!!!! You wanna go ahead and post it simultaneously, that's fine. It'll make the transition easier on you I'm sure. But DON'T, just DON'T post comments before you post the event. Let us have that two minutes to decide for ourselves, or at least have the option to strike that "play" button, right next to the article on what you thought about it. What the media can't do is continue to think for us, or feel it has to. That kind of media is long gone. Just guide us toward the information you'd normally receive. Let us watch it, read it, or listen to it and than let us comment on it. This will generate a whole different kind of news, one that people will trust more because they trust themselves, and because it's a whole lot easier to trust a system that trusts you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
