Category: Media

#Twitter?

This is truly an indication that I’m becoming my parents.  I don’t get Twitter.  It seems to me that people use it for the same reason people buy People, InStyle,…

This is truly an indication that I’m becoming my parents.  I don’t get Twitter.  It seems to me that people use it for the same reason people buy People, InStyle, Us Weekly, etc., which I don’t get either.  Why are people so interested in the foibles of celebrities?  Why do people follow other people on Twitter, especially those they should expect will never follow them?  It seems to me that Twitter is a place to match people with self-image and confidence issues together.

I decided that I’d see what “experts” say about this.  Those that dealt with why people are fascinated with others’ lives  was summarized by Medical Daily as follows:

  1. Gossip affects the brain.  Chinese researchers asked students how each bit of gossip made them feel once they were done. And perhaps unsurprisingly, the students admitted they preferred to hear positive gossip about themselves and negative gossip about their friends and celebrities. However, while they claimed they had no preference over who they heard negative gossip about, scans of their brain activity showed otherwise.  Among these participants, the caudate nucleus — a brain region associated with pleasure and reward — showed “moderately strong” activity when the students were told negative celebrity gossip, an increase in activity when compared to hearing negative peer gossip. What’s more, brain scans also showed activity in regions associated with self-control when the participants heard celebrity gossip.
  2. People like bad news.  While celebrity bad news may be our favorite, humans are actually quite eager to read about any type of misfortune. A 2007 survey by the Pew Research Center for People found American news preferences have remained “surprisingly static” over the last 20 years, with war and terrorism being the subjects of the most popular headlines since the study began in 1986. News on bad weather and crime were also notably popular throughout the decades. This propensity for bad news spans the global population. A 2003 study on word association showed that people respond quicker to negative words, such as “cancer,” “bomb,” and “war,” than they would more positive words, such as “smile” and “fun.” This suggests a natural inclination toward the macabre, and news outlets know it — hence the popular journalism phrase, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Our inclination toward bad news is also sometimes termed “negative bias.” We all possess it to some degree, and it’s actually helpful, as it’s a possible side effect of the fight-or-flight response. According to The BBC, bad news acts as a threat, signaling that we need to change our behavior in order to avoid danger. In other words, we love to see what mistakes celebrities are making in their personal lives, so we can then avoid making those same mistakes in our own lives.
  3. It provides an escape from daily routines.  Gossip does more than satisfy an innate human instinct, however — it actually brings us true enjoyment. For some people, learning about the secret lives of people, what happens behind the scenes is a way to escape from their daily routine. The juicier the news, the better.

Stuart Fischer, an emeritus professor of media psychology at the University of UCLA, says preoccupation with the lives of others isn’t exactly unhealthy. In some cases, he says, it can actually be beneficial to our psychology. People who lack social skills, for example, can use gossip as a base to bond with others with the same interests.

On Twitter use in general, Owens Thomas summarized:

The Times of London asked experts about the Twitter phenomenon, and concluded that people use the Internet message-broadcasting service to send 140-character “tweets” relating their most mundane activities because of an underdeveloped sense of the self.

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. “Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.”

“We are the most narcissistic age ever,” agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. “Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognize you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.”

For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, Twitter represents “a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.”

Politico checked in on the service’s use in the nation’s capital, and found that the vainglorious pundits and lawmakers who crave attention in print and on TV have also flocked to Twitter. The media at large, a class of people who define themselves by the size of their audience, have turned themselves into the Twitterati, building up lists of “followers” as a reassurance that they have an importance that will outlast their dying employers.

But the narcissism of today’s over-communicators transcends one little startup, and goes far beyond the makers of media. The Washington Post profiled Julie Zingeser, a 15-year-old girl who sent and received 6,473 texts in a single month. Her mother worries about Julie’s ability to focus. Sherry Turkle, an MIT professor, worries about deeper issues.

Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wonders whether texting and similar technologies might affect the ability to be alone and whether feelings are no longer feelings unless they are shared. “It’s so seductive,” she said. “It meets some very deep need to always be connected, but then it turns out that always being trivially connected has a lot of problems that come with it.”

What do you think this about the emerging governance via Twitter?

So there!  Though I signed up for Twitter years ago I have never used it and see no need to use it.  Talk about self-esteem!

Comments Off on #Twitter?

Who reads the wall Street Journal?

Do you?  I do—I subscribe.  I also subscribe to the wickedly liberal Washington Post.  I don’t watch the news on TV or the internet because it’s all about selling ideas…

Do you?  I do—I subscribe.  I also subscribe to the wickedly liberal Washington Post.  I don’t watch the news on TV or the internet because it’s all about selling ideas and products viscerally.  Reading news allows one to take a mental break and think about things.

Anyway, yes, the Wall Street Journal is a bit conservative but clearly not foaming at the mouth alt-right, or even Fox News.  At least unlike the Washington Post it doesn’t put editorials on the front page thinly disguised as humanitarian news.  For the most part it keeps its editorial comments and opinions on the editorial page as things were originally intended in journalism.

It’s Friday and today’s WSJ includes the “Mansion” section.  I assume this says something about who they think is reading their paper.  The article on the top of the fold of the first page is “The Top 10 Upgrades to Sell Your Home for Top Dollar.”  Cool!  When my wife retires and we move to some less fast paced place, here’s what we need to do.  So what are those 10 things?  Take a look:

  1. Retractable Glass Walls.  I think there’s no need to comment on this upgrade
  2. High Ceilings.  This is an upgrade?  How do raise ceilings without effecting what’s above them?
  3. Quartzite Countertops.  Hey we already have this!
  4. Butler’s Pantry.  Say what?  This is supposed to include an extra dishwasher and an extra wine cellar.
  5. Spa Bathrooms.  Make sure you add the Toto Neorest dual-flush model, which has a heated seat, multiple wash modes and an automatic air-purifying system. Retail price: $10,200.  Wwe do have a dual flush commode.
  6. Smart-Home Systems.  I’m a bit leery of this after Stuxnet.  Whoever buys our house can see our neighbor’s thermostat and the network it’s on.  Does that count?
  7. Four-Car Garage.  We just traded in and got a new car so that we now own the same number vehicles as we have drivers; that’s not four.
  8. Barn, Carriage House or In-Law Apartment.  Where we live we need a lot more land than we have for another building on our lot.
  9. Generator.  We have a whole house UPS, does that count?  Why?  It’s a long story.
  10. Neutral Décor.  This is not possible with my wife in charge of the interior—and there’s no way I want to be in charge.

Based upon that I feel that I’m probably not part of the WSJ’s target demographics.   Though I have to admit that according to various sources our family would be part of those who own the U.S  east of Minnesota and north of South Carolina.  On the other hand “What Percent Are You?” says our family is a “4 percenter.”

Can one infer that the WSJ is aimed at those who are in the 5% wealthiest people in the U.S.?  Maybe.  Though they present a case that the income (not net worth) is more equally distributed than is claimed, even by the U.S. census Bureau.  They say in “The Myth of American Inequality” that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) using data from the Census Bureau gives the U.S a skewed Gini coefficient because it doesn’t include the $760B from the Feds and $520B from state and local governments give to the bottom 40% through entitlement programs.  If these were included in the statistics then the U.S would move from the worse of the world’s most-developed large countries to the middle of the pack; between Japan and Canada.

I’m not sure what to make of that.

Ironically in today’s WSJ there’s, “Wall Street’s Big Landlords Are So Hungry for Houses They’re Building Them.”  First off, you can correctly infer that the word “landlords” means that these house are for rent, not for purchase.  Why?  The reason is “these companies are racing to meet demand for rental homes from a wave of young families too saddled with student debt to buy, as well as from investors wagering that the suburban renter class that swelled after last decade’s housing crash is here to stay.”  What does this seem to say about the future of our wealth distribution?

Comments Off on Who reads the wall Street Journal?

Fake or Psychic Black Friday News?

  I find it a bit jarring when I look at the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal and see a headline saying, “Shoppers Flock to Phones” with a…

 

I find it a bit jarring when I look at the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal and see a headline saying, “Shoppers Flock to Phones” with a subheadline of “Consumers shun Black Friday for the mall in their pockets as retailers ease mobile buying.”  The article is written the presence tense.  How is that possible?  Today is Black Friday and my print edition of the WSJ gets delivered, when it gets delivered, between 5 and 6AM.

 

We also get the Washington Post, which is delivered by the same person who delivers the WSJ.  On page A14 there is an article titled, “The fading thrill of Black Friday bargains,” with a subheadline of, “With early discounts and the rise of online shopping, fewer consumers are lining up to nab in-store deals.”  Surprisingly for the Post, famous for confusing editorials with news, for the most part the article discusses the recent history of Black Friday only minor diversions into the present.  Furthermore, it based some of the report on the portion of Black Friday that apparently occurs Thanksgiving afternoon.

 

Checking the Times of London, the Brits don’t seem to make as many distinctions between ecommerce and brick and mortar sales as we do.  They don’t celebrate Thanksgiving, though they do have a Black Friday which starts on Friday not Thursday afternoon.  As far as I can tell all reporting about Black Friday was published no earlier than 5PM on Friday.  That’s one of the reasons I subscribe to the Times—less fake and psychic news.  One of the other reasons is to see what other countries think of what’s going on in the U.S.

 

What do they think you ask?  “An emperor who is a dotard. A population in the grip of opium addiction. An economy held back by bureaucracy and crumbling infrastructure. A culture fixated on past greatness but in fact hopelessly decadent. This was how westerners in the 18th and 19th centuries regarded China. It is how the Chinese (not to mention most Europeans) now regard the United States.”

 

Sigh.

Comments Off on Fake or Psychic Black Friday News?

All the news that fits to print—October 2017

  Have you ever wondered what newspapers think would make you want to buy their paper?  Supposedly what appears above the fold on the front page is what the editors…

 

Have you ever wondered what newspapers think would make you want to buy their paper?  Supposedly what appears above the fold on the front page is what the editors and publishers think will draw your attention enough to induce you to buy the paper.  Above is the most frequently used words found above the fold in the month of October, 2017 in the Washington Post  (in blue, considered liberal), the Wall Street Journal (in green, considered conservative though I find it pretty unbiased), and the Washington Times (in red, considered conservative).  All of these words appeared more than once over the month and the font size is an indication of the frequency of the word.  The font sizes are scaled the same for all of the sources, so if a word appeared 10 times in all three papers, it is the same size font for all.  I also used word roots so that, for example, the word “campaigns” became “campaign.”  If various forms of the words were meant differently then I didn’t reduce them to their roots, so “Senate” and “senator” were not reduced to the same root.  Also Wordle eliminates “common” words such as articles, pronouns, etc.

 

It’s not surprising that “Trump” appeared most often in all three papers, though it tied with “U.S.” in the Journal.

 

Though all of the papers mentioned the GOP, Mueller, Republicans, Russia, and Trump, they clearly emphasize different issues.  As one would expect the WSJ is the only paper that included articles about the CVS and Aetna merger and GE’s plans to drop the manufacture of trains. The WSJ also covered “health care’ and “health law” as opposed to the Times that covered “Obamacare.”  The Post had nothing about that topic above the fold.  The WSJ is the only paper to use the “president” to refer to Trump.

 

The Post is the only paper that had anything about the legislation that restricted the DEA’s power over the manufacture of opioids.  It was also the only paper to put anything above the fold about Trump’s controversial calls to families of killed military personnel.  It is the only place you’ll see any mention of Bannon, Kelly, and the upheaval in Catalonia.

 

The Times was the only paper to include the words abortion, Obamacare, social media, Democrats, and “Islamic State” above the fold.  Unlike both the Post and WSJ, it didn’t include anything about the wildfires in California or the current tax bill.

 

Comments Off on All the news that fits to print—October 2017

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search