I sold my soul for the 3GS, but the 4 isn't much cheaper

With the most profound technological revolution in modern history currently at hand, it would appear that being an early adopter of technology – someone who is first in line for the newest tablet, smartphone, or cloud-enabled device – would be the most “cool” someone could be.

But maybe not.

Very recently, both Sony and Amazon, two large companies that have taken advantage of the newly popular “cloud computing” model, have come under fire for what are being called “elementary error[s]” resulting in hacked systems (in Sony’s case) and some logistical glitches that caused major network slowdowns (in Amazon’s case). While this makes for a some great critique of the still-nebulous cloud technology at large, what’s to be made of technology’s earliest adopters?

Well, in Sony’s case, if you were an early adopter, there’s a chance that hackers had brief access to your secured credit card information. And that’s not fun. In an age where it has become not only increasingly handy to possess a high-powered smartphone but also fashionable to be seen carrying one, it’s no surprise that being an early adopter is something to be desired. But should it be?

Get it now, laggard.

Quite often, the finances of adopting new technologies (part of the innovation and information diffusion theory) are taken into account, and customers wait for price cuts before making a purchase. But much more is at stake. While we can search CNET for tech reviews at all hours of the day, no one predicted the glitches experienced by Sony and Amazon. Glitches may be minor or require a quick software update, but the true risks associated with many of these technologies are still unknown. This is also the case with any and all social media (think privacy).

All this to say that until it is no longer “cool” to be an early adopter, a lot of innocent people may unnecessarily be putting themselves at risk without fully understanding the potential consequences. That fraternity party sounded like a blast a few hours before when all the fun people couldn’t stop talking about it, but from under the kitchen table where everyone woke up, things look a lot different.

For some common relief, here’s a cartoon from The New Yorker:

Donald Trump has more "important" work to do before he can become the President

For the last few years, it has become more obvious among casual TV viewers and newspaper readers that what the media focus on tends to ignite little fires here and there. But this week we’ve seen just how frustrating mainstream news coverage can be, especially when everyone watching or reading wants to watch or read something else.

A New York Times editorial in print today recalls the following: “People are out of work, American soldiers are dying overseas and here were cameras to record [Obama] stating that he was born in a Hawaii hospital. It was particularly galling to us that it was in answer to a baseless attack with heavy racial undertones.” Of course, this refers to Donald Trump’s attempt to politically and emotionally dethrone President Obama while further asserting his own domination in our media-centric minds. And, he seems to be doing a very, very good job of it – while President Obama weeps about not attracting media coverage when he speaks on important things, Trump asserts, now with the birth certificate thing somewhat wrapping up, that he is in fact moving on to more important things – like the President’s grades at university. Yes, it would appear that if Trump continues on this trajectory the media will happily react to just about anything he says.

And why shouldn’t it? For media practitioners, it does not matter what you think about the stories they run, as long as you continue to watch or read them.

This morning brought with it another story taking over the air waves: the royal wedding. Britain has made Friday into an official bank holiday, and at the rate our public square is becoming obsessed with this wedding, it would not be surprising if more than a handful of people “got sick” and had to miss work tomorrow. This, of course, couldn’t possibly be due to one’s waking up at 4 a.m. to watch the anticipated ceremony, could it?

What is most interesting about these two stories is their relative import in our own lives. Whether Trump continues to attack the President or whether Kate leaves William at the altar, most of us will (after blogging of course) go on happily with our lives until the next controversy, disaster, or otherwise hits the news stands. And, as long as we choose to support the media frames we encounter on a daily basis, regardless of whether we hate them or not, we will continue to get the same coverage of the same issues of the same relative un-importance.

Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN.

NPR’s scandal made national headlines just weeks ago.

Fox News is constantly in the crosshairs of “liberal” media folk.

This post will explore some of my knee-jerk normative assumptions about volatile opinions among popular media folks.

There is some research to back up the belief that individuals will choose to use news media they feel most accurately represents their ideological commitments. This particular paper uses the selective processes as a primary theory. This is very important as it seems the concepts of cognitive dissonance and consistency have experienced a sort of rebirth in modern scholarship since the mid-1900s. The authors attribute this revival to the influx of new media choices, not the least of these options being a plethora of cable news networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.). The line of thinking goes: more choices are the result of more niche markets, and people will be more likely to seek out only those sources of information they feel support their typical worldview.

You can also thank the Internet for this.

But the Internet may not be fully to blame either. The Internet differs from typical cable talk shows in that Web users have the opportunity to seek a variety of sources that are not politically volatile. Television users, on the other hand, have fewer opportunities to exchange talk shows for more “objective” news analysis. Instead, prime time entertainment opportunities abound that lend little to the current conversation.

By now enough scholarship exists pointing out political biases in the largest news media outlets (and this shouldn’t be a surprise if you’ve read even one book on journalism history – this one on Pulitzer is a winner). Yet the outlets themselves do not take the critique seriously unless it is directed toward competitor networks – here’s one of the handful of opinion pieces from Fox News concerning the allegations of NPR’s liberal bias. Pieces like these, regardless of the network, that look not to point out but attack the doings of economically competitive enterprises are doing citizens a disservice rather than aiding in their ability to participate publicly.

With decently strong evidence in support of cognitive processing at the cable news media use level, ethical practice seems to dictate that opinion makers not use their platform to foster attitudes of disdain, especially toward others in the public eye who also happen to be citizens of the same country.

As with most ethical appeals, this is extremely normative, holding a strong belief that the community associated with common citizenship should be protected. It seems then that rhetoric and actions that divide the community are harming the country at its core. Disagreements and even heated debates are not negative but rather formative forces in nations where free speech is a founding ideal. But to focus on those disagreements rather than on the normative goal is a mistake that should be avoided.

Other research suggests that the heavy television users are more susceptible to the sort of cognitive processes that cause them to utilize the opinions of “unrepresentative exemplars” in their decision making than are newspaper users. Thus, while this could and should be followed up with research into how Op-Ed pages affect readers, I suggest that the bulk of opinion research be focused on television and new media due to the ease with which these enterprises can openly espouse controversial opinions to awaiting audiences.

I was on a Southwest flight from Dallas to El Paso last weekend and happened to sit next to a woman who I know enjoyed popping her gum more than she did sitting next and entertaining her four-year-old child. Actually, my guess is that she pops her gum as a way to relieve the stress of having to deal with, I came to find out, three kids in total and a rather uninvolved, backhand-at-the-ready husband.

She popped once every five or six minutes with that kind of split-second crack that makes you jump when you’re within a few feet.

This practice, I have come to realize, is both extremely popular and extremely annoying. And at some point between the time I, and the rest of my generation, began chewing gum, the practice of both chewing and developing novel ways to pop the stuff has become mainstream, even within the serious business culture.

What happened to all of our language teachers who laughed at us as we sat there, ruminating like a group of cows? What happened to school rules, which banned gum chewing within the walls of learning?

If anyone out there cares to share thoughts or research, I’m open to it.

I finished reading Pulitzer, a biography about the very man, a while ago, but still think a lot about it. Reading that volume has since caused me to seek out other quality works about some of the most prestigious figures in American journalism – Henry Luce for example.

While the records are sparse when compared with many of the other historic periods in America, those men and women acting during the late 1800s and early 1900s became famous, not because of their faces, but because they truly changed how America works today.

It seems that America is in the middle of another media and technology revolution that could have a centuries-long impact on the way our world works. But, this is also a time when independence is being valued maybe more than in any other generation. This may just be the result of my social context (a university, where everyone is going to ‘run the world one day’), but it seems the American ‘go get yours’ spirit is alive and well.

The question is, Who are you emulating, if at all? It’s easy for us to think that the most famous innovators of our age were self-made, uninfluenced by their predecessors. My guess is that they were, at least somewhat, influenced by someone down the line. Even heroes have heroes.

In 50 years, who will you want to read a biography about? Is there anyone out there making a bigger name for him or herself than Pulitzer? Hearst? Luce?

To gain credibility in news, writers must have credible sources who feed the story’s information and provide support for any claims made. Sources can help writers be more objective in their approach. And, even if the source selection process is biased, simply having a quoted source is enough for most readers – a sad fact.

Source inclusion for the community blogger can, at times, be extremely complicated, however. See this story from The New York Times about Daniel Cavanagh, a blogger who made more than a few community members sour with the investigative pieces he’d taken on. The following excerpt from The Times represents view points taken by both parties after Cavanagh exposed some illegal activity leading to the downfall of a local nonprofit.

To Mr. Taylor [nonprofit chairman], the posts were attacks on GB Cares [nonprofit] and a betrayal of the Beach’s culture of volunteerism. And he was furious that Mr. Cavanagh had not given him an opportunity to comment before the entries were posted.

To Mr. Cavanagh, the posts exposed how things had always been done at the Beach. He said he did not speak with anyone at the organization before posting the entries because Mr. Taylor had said his car “would end up in the creek” if he wrote about the project. (Mr. Taylor said he did not “remember anything like that.”)

At this point, readers should be asking two questions. The obvious is, Why did Cavanagh not seek out Taylor for comment? The author of this Times story did just that, and Cavanagh answers that he was threatened when he sought comment. The second question is, Who is lying and who is telling the truth?

It’s beyond any of us who have no access to the facts behind this story to actually answer these questions – most readers of the story are likely to answer them in accordance with the predispositions they bring to their reading. But, what’s important is not answering those questions correctly. It’s what we perceive in asking them. Cavanagh is a blogger, which means his source list is, well, short relative to the greater journalistic population. Therefore, he must build credibility through his writing. In this particular case, a potential source, most likely more well known in the community, is calling Cavanagh’s work unethical. The protection Cavanagh once had behind his blog has collapsed, and the burden is on him to prove his credibility and his ethics.

Most journalists working for a media outlet are afforded some protection by the fact that journalism is their job. Thus, they are free to use whichever sources are available to them at the time, without much personal repercussion for using, “So and so was unavailable for comment.” They are also free to select sources based on biases not readily understood by the reading public.

Source selection can both help and harm a journalist’s story, but the reading public should be informed about the facts and predispositions behind a specific piece lest the credibility of the source or the writer is is called into question.

The relevance of that conversation was renewed in an article written in The Economist, which may perhaps say more about the need to read fewer American publications in order to actually understand American goings-on. Have a read here at where America stands in Internet functionality:

But all the bickering misses the wider point. Having led the world in internet access, America has slipped over the past decade to 22nd (behind Latvia and the Czech Republic) with an average download speed of a mere 3.8 megabits per second (Mbps) compared with South Korea’s average of 14.6Mbps. Worse, Americans pay through the nose for their high-speed access. According to the New America Foundation, a 100Mbps internet connection costs $16 a month in Sweden and $24 a month in South Korea. In high-price Japan, 160Mbps can be had for $65 a month. Thanks to the lack of competition, Americans have to stump up $145 a month for 50Mbps—less than a third the Japanese internet speed for over twice the price. By any measure, that is a terrible deal.

So, I suppose that sooner or later all the figures about how America isn’t number 1 will wake someone up out there.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how confused is Ron?

It strikes me that Harry Potter is remarkably similar to our apps-centered world of technology. In the 7th book/movie, Hermione conjures up a spell that turns her bag/purse into a voluminous contraption that can hold just about anything without resulting in added size or weight. The boys, Harry and Ron, are impressed with this, and it’s obvious that they’d never thought of such a thing.

In our world of technology, Hermione would be considered an “early adopter” or possibly even an “innovator,” who finds out about spells, incantations, and enchantments earlier than most and essentially influences others to use them. What if we thought of our smartphones and other gadgets, complete with their never-ending world of apps, as the wizard or witch’s magic wand? Certainly we’ll never learn about all the spells, and may never really want to. But, we can know about some, and in exploring their uses, their pros and cons for ourselves, we will simplify our lives with the use of magic – something not created or even fully understood by us.

But, we also have to be aware of the side effects of dependence on “magic.” Magic is costly ($$$ per app), addictive (think of the Windows Phone Commercials, watch below), and will almost always result in controlling its user when it is not respected.

So, are you Hermione, whose use of magic is the result of her own exhaustive research? Are like Ron, who, although rather inept at performing magic, still pushes forward despite his shortcomings, even if such effort results in nothing but frustration? Or are you more like Harry, whose natural talent and distracted personality leave him somewhere in the middle knowing how to use some of the existing magic most applicable to his situation very well?

You know what comes next: I hope you’re not a Voldemort, punch-drunk on magic and the power it brings him.

The first article was a short piece in which one expert asserted that Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of the British SkyTV could put him on pace to “control half the U.K.’s newspaper and TV markets within a decade.” Murdoch, of course, being a figure associated with conservative media in the U.S. Here in the U.S. any distaste for what Murdoch as done with his money has led to inflammatory rhetoric on all sides of the political spectrum. However, this kind of talk has done little to halt his corporation’s advances, even as FOX News employees have come under fire for their comments about competing news organizations.

But as we continue to moan about radical media in the U.S., and ultimately don’t watch it as our solution (individualism at it’s finest finding actualization in the TV clicker), Italians are subjected to an entirely different fate. The second article I’m referring to deals with the state-run media in that country, which continues to embrace and portray non-progressive stereotypes of gender roles. The report states that the only action citizens can take in protest is to change the channel, but even that seems counter-productive to crafting a proper civilization when the channel you’re leaving is the nightly news, which features anchors and weather girls in suggestive attire. The rest of the article goes on to point out that Italian society, for the most part, prefers this, with some 90+ percent of men from one survey reporting never having run a dishwasher. More than 70 percent a stove. And, we can’t simply chalk this up to ‘Europeans being Europeans,’ either. On the whole, the article points out, other European countries are far more progressive than Italy.

This leads one to draw parallels between the oppressive media environment in Italy and the ‘normal’ one at home. Media in the U.S. exist to (1) make money and serve the country’s economic interests, and (2) to meet some specific need for the audience (information, entertainment, etc.). The first of these is not likely to change in form anytime soon. The second, however, is where the public has at least some chance of becoming involved and helping us avoid the fate of Italy. A prime difference between the American and Italian media is that we have more choices. This is a luxury, which, like all other luxuries, causes us to become more passive in our viewing habits. Truthfully, if we don’t like something, we don’t watch it. The marketplace of ideas theory is alive and well, if only in our own minds. I find myself too often wondering why Glenn Beck is still so popular or why CNN hasn’t replaced T.J. Holmes. I think they should lose their jobs, and because of my high opinion of my own opinions, I think others must think the same way I do (once again, the weakness of individualism).

We believe that our channel switching rebellion will be enough to expunge unworthy media from the airwaves, but it will not. And, this is where the Italians are correct. They recognize their individual efforts are useless to combat a system heavily injected with financial backing and cultural support. Thus, if Italians want Italy to change, they’re going to have to find some new buyers for Italian TV. In America, we have to stop believing that individual effort is enough to subvert the dominant paradigm. If we desire any change at all, powerful opinion holders have to bond with one another rather than attack the problems they see from a solo platform. And, the entire public as to realize that, whatever issues they’re concerned with, a magic bullet does not and will not exist.

Once any noticeable change has taken place, there will still be cries for other changes. Messages of change should no longer be dominated by a normative end because that end can never be reached. There are too many factors and arguments against every normative end to keep this from happening. We must change how we understand change and view it, not through the lens of Western individualism, but take account for those around us who operate in the same geographical space and, if we would listen, most likely share our concerns. No matter how individual they might seem.

I.  Introduction (or Intro)

You might remember the umbrella diagram...which looked nothing like this

Here, we were required to set up our topic of interest and, most importantly, include a final sentence called a “thesis.” I remember being critiqued for a multi-sentence thesis or locating it somewhere else within the intro paragraph rather than at the end. I also remember agonizing over whether my thesis would be good enough for my teachers and spent a lot of time drawing some “umbrella” diagram where my thesis was my umbrella and everything under it was “support.”

II. – IV.  Body Paragraphs (1-3)

Body paragraphs made up that “support” underneath the thesis umbrella. Each paragraph included a “topic sentence,” which acted like a mini umbrella for its paragraph, three statements of support (for both the large and small umbrellas), and a conclusion statement. Mathematically, paragraphs could be no less than five sentences. Unless you started using transition sentences, which threw everything off.

Transitions were those things we learned that always included words like, “however” and “therefore,” or phrases like, “on the other hand.” I admit to always being confused by transitions, especially since, within the five paragraph system, there was no place for them. You certainly couldn’t create a paragraph from one transition sentence, but you couldn’t include transitions as the first or last sentences of a body paragraph because those were topic sentences or conclusions.

Unless you were really good. The skilled scribe could creatively weave the transitional phrase into the topic sentence, ultimately pleasing the grading teacher.

That was not me. I liked my umbrellas plane and gray, uncolored by fancy flowers or cartoon characters. I created my new, one-sentence paragraphs. In hindsight, I can now see my disposition for journalism flourishing back then. If only I had paid attention.

V.  Conclusion

You could never begin a conclusion without, “In conclusion ….” Once you’d done that, I believe the conclusion ended up being a jumbled collection of umbrella phrases, reworded, of course, for originality. But, who were our teachers kidding? Young kids weren’t thinking about how their argument all came together in that final paragraph. For us, it was a formula without any argument.

Somewhere along the line, we were also supposed to begin using vocabulary and creative rhetoric to show that we were masters of our language rather than just barely capable of vomiting up a few messy pages. And, while I see the value of the form, I’m wondering how it’s influenced me and others today. If we focus so heavily on the thesis, do we disregard the support? The conclusions? And, what has that support or data been used for? You can shape data to support your thesis, or you can craft your thesis based on your data.

I distinctly remember my college freshman English professor teaching us to read the sources first before we made our argument. However, I also distinctly remember beginning my term paper with a solid argument in my mind. Luckily, none of the data supported my value-based thesis, and I think my paper ended up being better because of it.

For scholars, the “data first” approach is logical. You can’t approach research from any other way. For everyone else, arguments and predispositions guide thought and speech.

Have these differences created a gap? How do we bridge it?