Music is a powerfully evocative medium. From the time of Stone Age, percussive music (drums) emboldened hunters and warriors in preparation for their deadly work. Even today, folks wear iPods to help get them through a workout or psyched up or down for one reason or another. In my opinion music is also perhaps the most seductive medium because it can work its magic on you without your knowing it. Think about the effects of Muzak, or the radio playing in the background while you’re working or driving. Reading a book or watching a movie/video requires your full attention and its effect on you, for better or worse, is mostly in your control. With music however, you can consciously tune it out but still be affected by it playing in the background. Some music producers, distributors and broadcasters who think they understand the power of music, try to alter, stifle or profit from it, but for the most part I think their attempts to control this media for the people's or their own benefit is largely misdirected.
For most of us, 9/11 is both a date and memory that is indelibly etched into our minds. We all have different, but vivid recollections of what we were doing when we heard news of the twin towers being hit. I for one don’t associate any music to this memory. It was early in California and I was getting ready for the day and catching up on the morning news when I saw the planes impact. That image is my memory. Perhaps it’s a different story for those people on the eastern seaboard. They were already well into their morning and listening to, among other things, their favorite tunes. Maybe their memories are imprinted with the music that was playing before their regular programming was interrupted. Or perhaps it was when they heard the crash or saw the fireball of the planes exploding. I think that’s one of the powers of music: the ease in which we associate a tune to a feeling or event. Right after the attack, Clear Channel Communications issued a do not play list whose song titles included words like: bomb, crash and fire among others. While the broadcasters were well intentioned, they “clearly” missed the mark. Unless the tune was about planes crashing into towers or terrorists doing harm to Americans, it was the music at that moment that affected the person, not the name of a tune.
Distributors also get into the altering or stifling game. Wal-Mart is the US’ #2 music retailer. It also happens to be the US’ largest gun retailer. Perhaps that’s why they put pressure on Sheryl Crow to change the lyrics of a song of hers. She didn’t and they didn’t distribute her album, but thankfully Ms. Crow became successful and Wal-Mart remains the largest gun seller in the country. It seems you can’t stop a good thing regardless of whether its good or not.
Of course we realize that while music is powerful and seductive, it’s also a money maker. That’s why distributors will tinker with music when given the opportunity, but sometimes they don’t have to. For example, take Toby Keith’s “Courtesy of the Red White and Blue”. To some this song is patriotic. To others, it’s the most blatant example of pandering to the sophomoric emotions of the American consumer. Who cares; it made a ton of money thank you. On the other hand, the Dixie Chicks stabbed themselves in the pocket book with a heartfelt, but unpopular, protest of the current administration. Only now is their music (which is good) back to its pre protest popularity. The point is, the music that inspires the consumer often times is successful regardless of the intentions of its distributors or the controversy surrounding its artists. Furthermore, music touches our most basic emotions which may be amplified when associated with specific events or the subject matter of the song’s lyrics. So the next time you queue up Alanis Morissette’s "You Ought to Know" (Jagged Little Pill) or whatever favorite tune you use to amp you up for that thing you have to do, say a little thanks the artist and to the powers that be that didn’t bleep or otherwise ruin the music for all of us.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner
In our day to day lives, we’re occasionally confronted with ideological or cultural differences which surprise or even infuriate us. These differences seem more exasperating when it involves something as simple and beautiful as one individual’s expression of love for another. For example, if you raise the topic of same sex or arranged marriages in a group, you’re likely to stir a hornet’s nest of feelings regardless of who you’re talking to. Some things never seem to change. Forty plus years ago interracial marriage would have stirred an even bigger nest of raw feelings, which is what the movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner set out to do. This academy award winning movie clearly and bluntly exposes the race prejudice, ignorance and social stigma that inter racial families must deal with in their daily lives.
Academy award winners Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray the successful and sophisticated Drayton family who live in San Francisco’s North Beach or Pacific Heights neighborhood. He is the publisher of a liberal daily newspaper and she is the savvy owner of an art gallery. They’re shocked when their twenty three year old daughter, Joanna, returns unexpectedly from a vacation to present her ten day old fiancé, Dr. John Wade Preston: respected Professor of tropical diseases at John’s Hopkins University who is himself en route to a post with the UN WHO in Geneva. Their reaction doesn’t come from the doctor’s credentials or his ten year seniority to Joanna; they’re shocked because he’s black. Academy award winner Sidney Poitier plays the impeccable Dr. Preston whose integrity and charm disarms any self respecting person of objections.
Screenwriter William Rose, who won the academy award for this picture, sets the story so the audience is confronted exclusively with the realities of racist and social stigma. Portraying Dr. Prentice as a model person with a “pigmentation problem” ensures that the parents and the audience must address their own misgivings of a black man marrying a white woman. The perspectives presented in the film are from various viewpoints. We see that a mother’s love of their children and hope for their happiness is universal and so is the father’s fear and uncertainty for their future. We see unfounded suspicion from long time employees of the Draytons (one black, another white) and the unconditional understanding of the teens of the new generation. A scene at the drive in ice cream shop serves to show the possible joy gained from adventure when Mr. Drayton tries a new flavor ice cream. The contentment of his discovery is dashed when his car gets in a fender bender with one of the twelve percent of blacks that live in San Francisco. The metaphor is clear: new discoveries and unions can be joyful, but can easily be dashed in the real world.
The movie’s release in 1967 in the midst of the Civil Rights movement and on the heels of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech highlights the challenges our country faced to achieve racial equality and acceptance. Dr. Preston’s retired father punctuates this when he remarks that the planned marriage of their children is still illegal in nearly a dozen states. What’s disappointing is that nearly a generation later, interracial marriages, not just among black and white, are still subject to irrational prejudice. It s also a small wonder that people object to marriage among loving adults because of their same sex, yet in other cases condone marriage among virtual strangers because of the tradition of arrangement. However in the end, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner gives us reason to hope that love and its infectious optimism cures us of our fear and ignorance so we can all take a little joy in these new adventures.
Academy award winners Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray the successful and sophisticated Drayton family who live in San Francisco’s North Beach or Pacific Heights neighborhood. He is the publisher of a liberal daily newspaper and she is the savvy owner of an art gallery. They’re shocked when their twenty three year old daughter, Joanna, returns unexpectedly from a vacation to present her ten day old fiancé, Dr. John Wade Preston: respected Professor of tropical diseases at John’s Hopkins University who is himself en route to a post with the UN WHO in Geneva. Their reaction doesn’t come from the doctor’s credentials or his ten year seniority to Joanna; they’re shocked because he’s black. Academy award winner Sidney Poitier plays the impeccable Dr. Preston whose integrity and charm disarms any self respecting person of objections.
Screenwriter William Rose, who won the academy award for this picture, sets the story so the audience is confronted exclusively with the realities of racist and social stigma. Portraying Dr. Prentice as a model person with a “pigmentation problem” ensures that the parents and the audience must address their own misgivings of a black man marrying a white woman. The perspectives presented in the film are from various viewpoints. We see that a mother’s love of their children and hope for their happiness is universal and so is the father’s fear and uncertainty for their future. We see unfounded suspicion from long time employees of the Draytons (one black, another white) and the unconditional understanding of the teens of the new generation. A scene at the drive in ice cream shop serves to show the possible joy gained from adventure when Mr. Drayton tries a new flavor ice cream. The contentment of his discovery is dashed when his car gets in a fender bender with one of the twelve percent of blacks that live in San Francisco. The metaphor is clear: new discoveries and unions can be joyful, but can easily be dashed in the real world.
The movie’s release in 1967 in the midst of the Civil Rights movement and on the heels of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech highlights the challenges our country faced to achieve racial equality and acceptance. Dr. Preston’s retired father punctuates this when he remarks that the planned marriage of their children is still illegal in nearly a dozen states. What’s disappointing is that nearly a generation later, interracial marriages, not just among black and white, are still subject to irrational prejudice. It s also a small wonder that people object to marriage among loving adults because of their same sex, yet in other cases condone marriage among virtual strangers because of the tradition of arrangement. However in the end, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner gives us reason to hope that love and its infectious optimism cures us of our fear and ignorance so we can all take a little joy in these new adventures.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Hullabaloo over Hulu
A couple of years ago the buzz along Sand Hill Road was they’d fund any company like YouTube that had a sensible business model. Google didn’t seem concerned with that and purchased YouTube for U$D 1.65B. Since then, other companies and web portals of established studios and networks have made websites where people can view television or movie content from the comfort(??) of their own PC. Network sites like Comedy Central and NBC offer their own content while others like Joost follow the YouTube model, listing viral videos as well as content from top tier studios. Hulu takes a different tack, focusing on premium video and movie content from notable studios like Fox, MGM and NBC to name a few. The question on many people’s minds is whether a premium portal like Hulu will overtake the likes of YouTube, or if other types of video portals will evolve beyond these current enterprises.
Two principal problems exist in the internet media distribution game: monetization and control. Studios and networks want to make money from their content and want to make sure it isn’t being stolen. That’s why Viacom sued YouTube for U$D 1B over copyright infringement. For the most part, content providers are getting sites to cooperate and protect their property, so the next challenge is to figure out how to make money. Hence the commercials leading or following the programming you watch. This is common with content portals and so it is with Hulu. Joost and YouTube don’t embed, but set ads aside the content, not unlike margin layouts common on most websites. There are also tradeoffs with content quality. Content provider material seems higher quality; Hulu even offers HD quality content. On the other hand, content distributors seem to offer lower quality product. The variety in distribution models plus the different varieties of video content seem to differentiate the video portals, so now the question is: who’s got the better mousetrap?
If we turn our attention to internet video viewers we need to understand which demographics are watching which content and by what means. Unlike old school movie and television audiences who sit in front of their respective big screens, internet viewers can also see programming from their PCs, phones, gaming consoles or MP3 players. Being small, these devices don’t need high quality resolution, so network sites don’t have an advantage. On the other hand, users of these portable devices may be more distracted and it is unclear which, if any, advertising mechanism would be more effective in this environment. Additionally, the entire point may be moot if users don’t use their portable devices to watch video and return to big screen media. This is possible since virtually all video and movie content is designed for large screen devices.
What is irrefutable is the reach and interest that internet content can gather. A feature of Google’s purchase of YouTube is the 45 million viewers that watch the site each day. The number is a sizeable share in any market. Add in the international appeal and you realize a properly run portal is a goldmine for its operator. Equally obvious are the numerous complexities in terms of content, viewership demographics and issues of viewer capture (for advertising) that must be sorted out to create a successful product. While some may argue content producers have the upper hand, the distribution and packaging challenges must also be solved to leverage users’ ability to pick and choose their content whenever they want and wherever they want it.
Two principal problems exist in the internet media distribution game: monetization and control. Studios and networks want to make money from their content and want to make sure it isn’t being stolen. That’s why Viacom sued YouTube for U$D 1B over copyright infringement. For the most part, content providers are getting sites to cooperate and protect their property, so the next challenge is to figure out how to make money. Hence the commercials leading or following the programming you watch. This is common with content portals and so it is with Hulu. Joost and YouTube don’t embed, but set ads aside the content, not unlike margin layouts common on most websites. There are also tradeoffs with content quality. Content provider material seems higher quality; Hulu even offers HD quality content. On the other hand, content distributors seem to offer lower quality product. The variety in distribution models plus the different varieties of video content seem to differentiate the video portals, so now the question is: who’s got the better mousetrap?
If we turn our attention to internet video viewers we need to understand which demographics are watching which content and by what means. Unlike old school movie and television audiences who sit in front of their respective big screens, internet viewers can also see programming from their PCs, phones, gaming consoles or MP3 players. Being small, these devices don’t need high quality resolution, so network sites don’t have an advantage. On the other hand, users of these portable devices may be more distracted and it is unclear which, if any, advertising mechanism would be more effective in this environment. Additionally, the entire point may be moot if users don’t use their portable devices to watch video and return to big screen media. This is possible since virtually all video and movie content is designed for large screen devices.
What is irrefutable is the reach and interest that internet content can gather. A feature of Google’s purchase of YouTube is the 45 million viewers that watch the site each day. The number is a sizeable share in any market. Add in the international appeal and you realize a properly run portal is a goldmine for its operator. Equally obvious are the numerous complexities in terms of content, viewership demographics and issues of viewer capture (for advertising) that must be sorted out to create a successful product. While some may argue content producers have the upper hand, the distribution and packaging challenges must also be solved to leverage users’ ability to pick and choose their content whenever they want and wherever they want it.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Seven words you can never say on television
Among the manifold responsibilities of the FCC are the policing of broadcasters to ensure their programming isn’t offensive or obscene to viewers. Over its nearly seventy years of existence we’ve seen examples of this oversight and control in various humorous or absurd forms. Take these examples: the parents in "Father Knows Best" and "Leave it to Beaver" slept in separate twin beds, Lucille Ball in “I Love Lucy” was expecting, not pregnant. Fast forward some forty years and Madonna says on TV the word that rudely describes how Lucy became pregnant. The irony of the FCC’s prudish waffling is compounded when they determine that cable television is exempt from such monitoring (since its not licensed by the FCC) and also has no jurisdiction over satellite based broadcasting (XM, Sirius & Dish TV). The core problem lies less with the FCC’s authority to police content and more with the arbitrary nature of their censorship policy.
When George Carlin passed away last Saturday, a comedy revolutionary took his last bow. Born and raised in New York, Mr. Carlin started comedy after a stint as a disk jockey, but he wasn’t very successful at first. He styled his work after other staid humorists like Mort Sahl. However after he saw the (in)famous underground comedian Lenny Bruce, Carlin’s world was turned upside down. Bruce coupled a raw, inflammatory, confrontational comedic style with social commentary and political criticism. Carlin instantly knew this frankness was what he needed in his act. Since Carlin was most comfortable with the oddities of the English language, he integrated all aspects of humorous metaphor and alliteration into his act. It was only a matter of time before offensive words also made their way in.
Carlin was arrested, ironically, for resisting arrest (obstruction) at a Lenny Bruce concert. Bruce had used obscenities in his act and was arrested by the local police. When Carlin refused to answer police questions, he was taken in too. Soon after, Carlin introduced the “Seven words you can never say on television” material into his act (1972). It was an instant success and soon after while performing it he was arrested and charged with obscenity. The court dismissed the charge citing first amendment protection. In 1973 his album was broadcast uncensored on radio and the FCC filed a complaint. Years later, the Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) that the FCC has the authority and right to prohibit obscenities on the air. But while broadcast television and radio remained bounded, the tide of alternate electronic media was turning into a tsunami.
With the advent of private cable television, comedians, musicians and filmmakers now had an alternative distribution medium. They could broadcast their content without the limits from the FCC. The explosion of talent propelled growth of cable networks and other broadcast media as they became economically feasible. Now, congress is investigating options for controlling offensive and obscene content. But in a comedic twist of irony, congress has contradicted itself with the looser restrictions of the internet and the more restrictive ones for broadcast TV and radio. No doubt, free speech advocates and artists may ultimately have the last laugh if congress and the courts try to standardize the definition of obscene and offensive content. Perhaps they should ask a comedian for advice.
When George Carlin passed away last Saturday, a comedy revolutionary took his last bow. Born and raised in New York, Mr. Carlin started comedy after a stint as a disk jockey, but he wasn’t very successful at first. He styled his work after other staid humorists like Mort Sahl. However after he saw the (in)famous underground comedian Lenny Bruce, Carlin’s world was turned upside down. Bruce coupled a raw, inflammatory, confrontational comedic style with social commentary and political criticism. Carlin instantly knew this frankness was what he needed in his act. Since Carlin was most comfortable with the oddities of the English language, he integrated all aspects of humorous metaphor and alliteration into his act. It was only a matter of time before offensive words also made their way in.
Carlin was arrested, ironically, for resisting arrest (obstruction) at a Lenny Bruce concert. Bruce had used obscenities in his act and was arrested by the local police. When Carlin refused to answer police questions, he was taken in too. Soon after, Carlin introduced the “Seven words you can never say on television” material into his act (1972). It was an instant success and soon after while performing it he was arrested and charged with obscenity. The court dismissed the charge citing first amendment protection. In 1973 his album was broadcast uncensored on radio and the FCC filed a complaint. Years later, the Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) that the FCC has the authority and right to prohibit obscenities on the air. But while broadcast television and radio remained bounded, the tide of alternate electronic media was turning into a tsunami.
With the advent of private cable television, comedians, musicians and filmmakers now had an alternative distribution medium. They could broadcast their content without the limits from the FCC. The explosion of talent propelled growth of cable networks and other broadcast media as they became economically feasible. Now, congress is investigating options for controlling offensive and obscene content. But in a comedic twist of irony, congress has contradicted itself with the looser restrictions of the internet and the more restrictive ones for broadcast TV and radio. No doubt, free speech advocates and artists may ultimately have the last laugh if congress and the courts try to standardize the definition of obscene and offensive content. Perhaps they should ask a comedian for advice.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A Comparison of Social Strata
Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants is a tale of an elderly man remembering his days in the circus during the Great Depression. Flashing back from the present time in a nursing home, Jacob Jankowski recounts the tragic loss of his parents while in veterinary school and the unfolding events which ultimately led him to run away to the circus. There, Jankowski quickly learns the social pecking order of circus workers as he starts out as a roustabout, then progresses to circus veterinarian. At the same time, however, the author offers us a view into the social structure found in a nursing home. As Jankowski lives in the present, we see his interactions with other nursing home residents, the staff and his extended family. This essay will analyze the social strata of these two eras and where appropriate, show the likenesses between them.
1931 is the third year of the great depression and a young Mr. Jankowski is preparing for his last finals at Cornell Veterinary School. He receives tragic news of his parents’ death and on returning to his home town finds that they had mortgaged everything to pay his college education. Jankowski, who until recently thought himself lucky to have a livelihood after schoo,l finds he’s virtually destitute in the midst of the depression. Unable to cope with the loss of his family, Jankowski abandons his exams and jumps a train in escape, now in every sense an untouchable in the depression. By chance, he’s jumped a circus train and before getting thrown off (red lighted), he befriends the circus’ working men or roustabouts and hopes to find some kind of work.
The roustabouts are the lowest class of the circus social hierarchy. Their job is hard labor: moving, cleaning, setting up and tearing down. Their pay is essentially food to eat and a place to sleep. Their position is tenuous. Should the circus’ fortunes suffer, they’re the first to be let go, sometimes being violently thrown from a moving train. While their work is essential, it’s generally unskilled, and in the depression, they’re replaceable. That’s why they don’t complain about their condition because they know they have it better than the unemployed masses crammed in shanty towns. There are levels within the roustabout society. The physically imposing workers become security men, charged with keeping the others in line. There are also clear boundaries between race and ethnicity. Jankowski starts out as a roustabout, but in a confrontation with Uncle Al, the circus’ manager, it’s discovered Jankowski is all but a bona fide veterinarian which earns Uncle Al’s interest and a promotion.
As the circus veterinarian, Jankowski is elevated to the level of the “kinkers,” or circus performers. Performers are among the highest classes in a circus owing to their unique skills which makes money for the circus. There are numerous strata in the performer’s class as well. Show barkers, patch men and concession men are among the lower ranks, then clowns and sideshow performers above them. Among the top of this class are the animal trainers and big top performers. These are the star attractions which entice people (rubes), and their money, to the circus. Their degree of specialization earns them pay and additional perks in the circus, like denigrating the roustabouts. Their position is relatively assured as long as they can continue to perform and draw the crowds. Top among the performers, or perhaps in a class of his own, is the circus manager. Both feared and respected, the manager is responsible for the circus’ creative direction, travel itinerary, community relations and show logistics. He is the ultimate authority of who works in the circus, from the lowliest roustabout to the star aerialist. He also decides the shows content as well as the composition of attractions on its midway. His authority comes at a great responsibility for if he’s right, the circus is profitable and people stay employed. If not, the circus will fold and everyone can be instantly destitute.
There remains one last group of people whom everybody in the circus is beholden to: the customers or rubes. While their nickname connotes a degree of gullibility, they are the lucky people in the depression who still have wages and spare money to spend on circus entertainment. And while PT Barnum’s maxim promises at least one sucker in the crowd, rubes have their limits and will cause the circus great grief if they think they’ve been crossed, so the circus people have it in their best interest to keep the customers happy.
In the present day, Jankowski is a 93 year old in a nursing home with other residents. He and the other residents are supported by a cadre of orderlies, nutritionists, nurses and doctors. Like life in the circus, life in the nursing home has its clique of workers, support people, stars and bosses. The main attraction in the nursing home is the residents. They’re cantankerous, finicky, and obstinate, but the residence staff must do what they can to appease them. While the residence workers may be annoyed by the challenges posed by their charges, they also know the residents are their meal ticket, and they must strive to appease them. Staffers know that just like circus performers, happy residents stay in the nursing home and that ensures the livelihood of the workers.
There also exists a social hierarchy among Jankowski’s co residents. Men are a rarity due to their shorter life expectancy, and consequently draw more attention from other residents and staff. Lucid residents are held in higher regard than those who are feeble minded. We see Jankowski’s judgment of a dimensional Iphesia and his fears of diminished capacity when he discovers his caregiver, Rosemary, witnessed Jankowski’s own dimensional episode. Sadly, one can see a parallel to the performers and show animals of the circus. The self aware residents, like circus performers, are self sufficient and engaging with staff members and visitors. Meanwhile, the feeble minded, like the circus animals, require more care, and in the end are little more than a spectacle to staff and family.
The last class in the nursing home society is the visiting friends and relatives. Metaphorically, these “rubes” come to see the spectacle of the nursing home residents, not unlike circus customers who go to see the big top show. In the context of this book one suspects that family members visit the nursing home residents not just to fulfill a parental obligation but also to escape from the worries of daily life. In a passage from the book, Jankowski recalls how his family members shield him from the daily goings on in their lives. It makes you wonder if the visitors have a dual purpose: to shield the elderly and themselves from the daily hardships of everyday life. Conversely, the residents’ existence, both physically and spiritually depends on the family visitors as well. Not only do they provide the means for their care, but they also help give meaning to their lives as they look forward to their visits and conversation. Here again, one sees the parallel of the relationship between the rubes and circus performers and the nursing home residents and their visiting family members.
While the eras of the Great Depression and the present day are vastly different, its interesting to note the parallels of social interdependence in a circus and nursing home. Water for Elephants clearly shows how lives are interwoven in a depression era circus, but it also hints at the interdependencies in modern society, particularly extended families with elderly nursing home members. The juxtaposition of the circus show and nursing home life shows that people are interdependent, that mutual needs are fulfilled and a social equilibrium is established. The book also punctuates the fragility of these societies. If needs are unfilled or an individual or class feels wronged, the delicate balance is upset and sometimes violent change will recast societal structure or permanently dismantle it.
1931 is the third year of the great depression and a young Mr. Jankowski is preparing for his last finals at Cornell Veterinary School. He receives tragic news of his parents’ death and on returning to his home town finds that they had mortgaged everything to pay his college education. Jankowski, who until recently thought himself lucky to have a livelihood after schoo,l finds he’s virtually destitute in the midst of the depression. Unable to cope with the loss of his family, Jankowski abandons his exams and jumps a train in escape, now in every sense an untouchable in the depression. By chance, he’s jumped a circus train and before getting thrown off (red lighted), he befriends the circus’ working men or roustabouts and hopes to find some kind of work.
The roustabouts are the lowest class of the circus social hierarchy. Their job is hard labor: moving, cleaning, setting up and tearing down. Their pay is essentially food to eat and a place to sleep. Their position is tenuous. Should the circus’ fortunes suffer, they’re the first to be let go, sometimes being violently thrown from a moving train. While their work is essential, it’s generally unskilled, and in the depression, they’re replaceable. That’s why they don’t complain about their condition because they know they have it better than the unemployed masses crammed in shanty towns. There are levels within the roustabout society. The physically imposing workers become security men, charged with keeping the others in line. There are also clear boundaries between race and ethnicity. Jankowski starts out as a roustabout, but in a confrontation with Uncle Al, the circus’ manager, it’s discovered Jankowski is all but a bona fide veterinarian which earns Uncle Al’s interest and a promotion.
As the circus veterinarian, Jankowski is elevated to the level of the “kinkers,” or circus performers. Performers are among the highest classes in a circus owing to their unique skills which makes money for the circus. There are numerous strata in the performer’s class as well. Show barkers, patch men and concession men are among the lower ranks, then clowns and sideshow performers above them. Among the top of this class are the animal trainers and big top performers. These are the star attractions which entice people (rubes), and their money, to the circus. Their degree of specialization earns them pay and additional perks in the circus, like denigrating the roustabouts. Their position is relatively assured as long as they can continue to perform and draw the crowds. Top among the performers, or perhaps in a class of his own, is the circus manager. Both feared and respected, the manager is responsible for the circus’ creative direction, travel itinerary, community relations and show logistics. He is the ultimate authority of who works in the circus, from the lowliest roustabout to the star aerialist. He also decides the shows content as well as the composition of attractions on its midway. His authority comes at a great responsibility for if he’s right, the circus is profitable and people stay employed. If not, the circus will fold and everyone can be instantly destitute.
There remains one last group of people whom everybody in the circus is beholden to: the customers or rubes. While their nickname connotes a degree of gullibility, they are the lucky people in the depression who still have wages and spare money to spend on circus entertainment. And while PT Barnum’s maxim promises at least one sucker in the crowd, rubes have their limits and will cause the circus great grief if they think they’ve been crossed, so the circus people have it in their best interest to keep the customers happy.
In the present day, Jankowski is a 93 year old in a nursing home with other residents. He and the other residents are supported by a cadre of orderlies, nutritionists, nurses and doctors. Like life in the circus, life in the nursing home has its clique of workers, support people, stars and bosses. The main attraction in the nursing home is the residents. They’re cantankerous, finicky, and obstinate, but the residence staff must do what they can to appease them. While the residence workers may be annoyed by the challenges posed by their charges, they also know the residents are their meal ticket, and they must strive to appease them. Staffers know that just like circus performers, happy residents stay in the nursing home and that ensures the livelihood of the workers.
There also exists a social hierarchy among Jankowski’s co residents. Men are a rarity due to their shorter life expectancy, and consequently draw more attention from other residents and staff. Lucid residents are held in higher regard than those who are feeble minded. We see Jankowski’s judgment of a dimensional Iphesia and his fears of diminished capacity when he discovers his caregiver, Rosemary, witnessed Jankowski’s own dimensional episode. Sadly, one can see a parallel to the performers and show animals of the circus. The self aware residents, like circus performers, are self sufficient and engaging with staff members and visitors. Meanwhile, the feeble minded, like the circus animals, require more care, and in the end are little more than a spectacle to staff and family.
The last class in the nursing home society is the visiting friends and relatives. Metaphorically, these “rubes” come to see the spectacle of the nursing home residents, not unlike circus customers who go to see the big top show. In the context of this book one suspects that family members visit the nursing home residents not just to fulfill a parental obligation but also to escape from the worries of daily life. In a passage from the book, Jankowski recalls how his family members shield him from the daily goings on in their lives. It makes you wonder if the visitors have a dual purpose: to shield the elderly and themselves from the daily hardships of everyday life. Conversely, the residents’ existence, both physically and spiritually depends on the family visitors as well. Not only do they provide the means for their care, but they also help give meaning to their lives as they look forward to their visits and conversation. Here again, one sees the parallel of the relationship between the rubes and circus performers and the nursing home residents and their visiting family members.
While the eras of the Great Depression and the present day are vastly different, its interesting to note the parallels of social interdependence in a circus and nursing home. Water for Elephants clearly shows how lives are interwoven in a depression era circus, but it also hints at the interdependencies in modern society, particularly extended families with elderly nursing home members. The juxtaposition of the circus show and nursing home life shows that people are interdependent, that mutual needs are fulfilled and a social equilibrium is established. The book also punctuates the fragility of these societies. If needs are unfilled or an individual or class feels wronged, the delicate balance is upset and sometimes violent change will recast societal structure or permanently dismantle it.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Truth in political advertising?
Over 40 years ago, advertisers became accountable for their product's claims when the Supreme Court held Colgate-Palmolive stretched the truth about Rapid-shave’s capabilities. The Lanham act essentially states that advertisers can’t lie, and if they make claims, they better have the facts to prove it. Now on the eve of perhaps the most critical national election of the Union, I come to learn that political advertisements are not subject to the same tests of truth. While it’s easy to understand that this loophole is the design of politicians, has it really given candidates a persuasive edge, or has it lowered the overall effectiveness of political advertising?
Eight years ago, after winning the republican primary against George Bush, John McCain seemed poised to win the second primary contest in North Carolina. Karl Rove worked with pollsters to spread a rumor of McCain fathering an illegitimate black child. The tactic seemed to work. Bush won that primary and went on to become the republican presidential nominee. When confronting Senator John Kerry, Rove dug back into his bag of tricks and with the help of a 527 organization called, swift boat vets and POWs for truth, they mounted a smear campaign discrediting the senator’s military record. Again, Bush went on to win the Presidency. There are countless other political stories where innuendo is used to discredit an opponent: Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis, Governor Anne Richards and alcoholism and the progenitor of negative campaigning, Richard Nixon and Jerry Voorhis. These political tricks have been perpetrated in print and electronic media as well as in leading polls, but people seem to take them in stride. It seems people have come to accept shenanigans from political candidates, or have they?
Since political innuendo and lies have existed as long as politics, one might assume that people have come to expect the lies and exaggerations and have learned to filter it out or disregard it entirely. But American history shows how the founders exaggerated events of the Boston Massacre, and much is written about the innuendo surrounding President Lincoln and his family. As Lincoln himself said, some people are gullible all the time and some can be duped only some of the time. As a result, these lies have led the country to some serious errors of judgment with equally serious consequences.
We’re fortunate that in our time we have the means to look for the real truth that lies in politician’s words. Our wired world lets journalists and individuals root out the facts of an issue, determine the truth and if they’re inclined, post it on the internet for others to see. The problem is that it takes lots of work and may itself sometimes be incorrect. So in the end, what are people supposed to do to learn the truth of elected officials? For certain, they won’t be looking to political ads for the answers.
Eight years ago, after winning the republican primary against George Bush, John McCain seemed poised to win the second primary contest in North Carolina. Karl Rove worked with pollsters to spread a rumor of McCain fathering an illegitimate black child. The tactic seemed to work. Bush won that primary and went on to become the republican presidential nominee. When confronting Senator John Kerry, Rove dug back into his bag of tricks and with the help of a 527 organization called, swift boat vets and POWs for truth, they mounted a smear campaign discrediting the senator’s military record. Again, Bush went on to win the Presidency. There are countless other political stories where innuendo is used to discredit an opponent: Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis, Governor Anne Richards and alcoholism and the progenitor of negative campaigning, Richard Nixon and Jerry Voorhis. These political tricks have been perpetrated in print and electronic media as well as in leading polls, but people seem to take them in stride. It seems people have come to accept shenanigans from political candidates, or have they?
Since political innuendo and lies have existed as long as politics, one might assume that people have come to expect the lies and exaggerations and have learned to filter it out or disregard it entirely. But American history shows how the founders exaggerated events of the Boston Massacre, and much is written about the innuendo surrounding President Lincoln and his family. As Lincoln himself said, some people are gullible all the time and some can be duped only some of the time. As a result, these lies have led the country to some serious errors of judgment with equally serious consequences.
We’re fortunate that in our time we have the means to look for the real truth that lies in politician’s words. Our wired world lets journalists and individuals root out the facts of an issue, determine the truth and if they’re inclined, post it on the internet for others to see. The problem is that it takes lots of work and may itself sometimes be incorrect. So in the end, what are people supposed to do to learn the truth of elected officials? For certain, they won’t be looking to political ads for the answers.
Is Big Brother watching over you?
In recent years there’s been concern of the government’s censoring powers stemming from the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. As a result of 9/11, this well intentioned but hastily written legislation conveys extraordinary powers to the FBI to remove information from the public domain which it deems harmful to the nation’s security. It further authorizes the government to obtain records of online and published documents viewed by individuals. The entire process is secretive, without independent review, so civil libertarians have argued the government has too much power to censor information. Taking its lead from the US, both the European Union and the Australian government are now enacting similar legislation empowering them to ban print and electronic materials that would promote or aid terrorists. The question is: can the government be trusted with this editorial power to ban the right books?
Book banning and censorship has existed probably since Guttenberg invented his printing press. Banning books in the US has mostly occurred at the community level where non-governmental civic groups have lobbied or forced libraries, school districts and bookstores to not order or remove books from their shelves. The American Library Association (ALA) has a website listing famous and popular literature that has earned the distinction of being banned in recent times (George Orwell’s 1984 included). Until recently, the US government’s banning practices mainly focused on blocking the distribution of obscene or pornographic materials. While most cases were cut and dry, there are instances where its reasoning was more mob driven rather than morally determined. Yet while the government has occasionally erred in its responsibility to protect its citizens, its mainly gotten it right, and in the instances where it has failed, the courts have been the recourse to set things right.
The problem we are facing today is that the 200+ year old formula that protects free speech has been short circuited by well intentioned, but myopic, lawmakers. Given the government’s ability to block or remove information from the public domain without reason, review or disclosure, it has the potential to manipulate information of any form at any time. While some may argue that literary works aren’t as likely to be targeted as technical information that can be used to harm the country, I would argue that social or political literary works (or most meaningful fiction) can be subjected to the same scrutiny or control. The point is, without the ability to know or challenge the censorship, or banning of books, there’s no way to check our government when it inevitably goes astray. Yet while the ACLU and other organizations fight to undo the damages done by the PATRIOT act, I wonder why more people don’t get the injustice perpetrated against them. I can’t help but think of Lord Acton’s dictum of absolute power and Orwell’s other banned book Animal Farm and ask: why are we’re letting the pigs get away with it?
Book banning and censorship has existed probably since Guttenberg invented his printing press. Banning books in the US has mostly occurred at the community level where non-governmental civic groups have lobbied or forced libraries, school districts and bookstores to not order or remove books from their shelves. The American Library Association (ALA) has a website listing famous and popular literature that has earned the distinction of being banned in recent times (George Orwell’s 1984 included). Until recently, the US government’s banning practices mainly focused on blocking the distribution of obscene or pornographic materials. While most cases were cut and dry, there are instances where its reasoning was more mob driven rather than morally determined. Yet while the government has occasionally erred in its responsibility to protect its citizens, its mainly gotten it right, and in the instances where it has failed, the courts have been the recourse to set things right.
The problem we are facing today is that the 200+ year old formula that protects free speech has been short circuited by well intentioned, but myopic, lawmakers. Given the government’s ability to block or remove information from the public domain without reason, review or disclosure, it has the potential to manipulate information of any form at any time. While some may argue that literary works aren’t as likely to be targeted as technical information that can be used to harm the country, I would argue that social or political literary works (or most meaningful fiction) can be subjected to the same scrutiny or control. The point is, without the ability to know or challenge the censorship, or banning of books, there’s no way to check our government when it inevitably goes astray. Yet while the ACLU and other organizations fight to undo the damages done by the PATRIOT act, I wonder why more people don’t get the injustice perpetrated against them. I can’t help but think of Lord Acton’s dictum of absolute power and Orwell’s other banned book Animal Farm and ask: why are we’re letting the pigs get away with it?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Whither the paper news?
About a dozen years ago when my wife and I moved to the Silicon Valley, one of the first things we did was get a subscription to the daily newspaper. That way we were sure to get some in depth news coverage before heading to work. Our reasoning was that talk radio was too shallow what with its 60 minute news cycle. We also weren’t much into TV, and the network news schedule never seemed to work with our lifestyle, so the newspaper was our primary source of information. But a lot has changed in a decade. Craig’s list and EBay have cut off newspaper advertising at the knees and on-line advertising and web shopping has also taken its share from the local paper. A few years ago the McClatchy group sold our local paper, and since then the ranks of staff reporters has fallen as much as the pages in our daily paper; so much so that the Monday edition seems lighter than the weekly advertising supplement. So is it only a matter of time before print news, as we know it, disappears altogether?
I’ve already alluded to some of the financial causes affecting most US print newspapers; advertising revenue is moving from print media to internet based classified and e-tailing venues. But advertisers go where people are watching (or at least the people whose interest they want to get), so what is available on-line that’s not in print? Quite a lot it seems. The fact that print and electronic media have presences on-line already puts print at a disadvantage. Folks can surf the web and access multiple news resources. You can’t do that with a paper. News sites can also track viewers actions on-line, so they can better tailor, if not customize, content and advertising for the viewer. Strike two for print. Living in real time, the internet can deliver news as its happening from professional and amateur sources. The juxtaposition of sources brings the user much closer to what’s happening than print news can ever hope to. Finally, if you factor in the multitude of tools that gain you access to the internet (iPod, phone and PC) you can’t but help wonder if print news has a snowball’s chance of survival.
While print news in a traditional context is all but guaranteed obsolete, some elements of the brick and mortar newspaper will continue to exist. Differentiating editorial style will remain an important feature to the merged on-line/print newspaper. Merging news from disparate news sources is tedious for even the most technical people so its likely users will look for a news source that fulfills their specific interests. Their first step will be to look at the e-presence of their local paper because it’s more likely have content that fulfills their preferences. What’s unclear is if internet news consolidation will occur because of the varied tastes of internet users, but it is clear that e-news portals will have stiffer competition on the web and they’ll have to distinguish themselves to appeal to readers or prepare to be absorbed or made irrelevant by another web site. Then again, print news may still have an ace up their sleeve since they’re so low tech: its inherently easy to browse, you never have to worry about the paper’s batteries running low, signal strength isn’t an issue, and it’s so cheap you don’t have to worry about leaving it somewhere :^).
I’ve already alluded to some of the financial causes affecting most US print newspapers; advertising revenue is moving from print media to internet based classified and e-tailing venues. But advertisers go where people are watching (or at least the people whose interest they want to get), so what is available on-line that’s not in print? Quite a lot it seems. The fact that print and electronic media have presences on-line already puts print at a disadvantage. Folks can surf the web and access multiple news resources. You can’t do that with a paper. News sites can also track viewers actions on-line, so they can better tailor, if not customize, content and advertising for the viewer. Strike two for print. Living in real time, the internet can deliver news as its happening from professional and amateur sources. The juxtaposition of sources brings the user much closer to what’s happening than print news can ever hope to. Finally, if you factor in the multitude of tools that gain you access to the internet (iPod, phone and PC) you can’t but help wonder if print news has a snowball’s chance of survival.
While print news in a traditional context is all but guaranteed obsolete, some elements of the brick and mortar newspaper will continue to exist. Differentiating editorial style will remain an important feature to the merged on-line/print newspaper. Merging news from disparate news sources is tedious for even the most technical people so its likely users will look for a news source that fulfills their specific interests. Their first step will be to look at the e-presence of their local paper because it’s more likely have content that fulfills their preferences. What’s unclear is if internet news consolidation will occur because of the varied tastes of internet users, but it is clear that e-news portals will have stiffer competition on the web and they’ll have to distinguish themselves to appeal to readers or prepare to be absorbed or made irrelevant by another web site. Then again, print news may still have an ace up their sleeve since they’re so low tech: its inherently easy to browse, you never have to worry about the paper’s batteries running low, signal strength isn’t an issue, and it’s so cheap you don’t have to worry about leaving it somewhere :^).
Are there equal sides to a news story?
A couple of days ago, I got to see George Clooney's "Good Night and Good Luck (2005)" starring himself, David Strathairn and a host of other top actors. It's filmed in black and white, documentary style, weaving actual footage of Edward R. Murrow's "See it Now" with speeches given by the famous journalist. The plot line highlights the editorial pressures coming from CBS' management and the smear campaign mounted by Senator McCarthy's allies. While highlighting the hysteria of the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings, the underlying message for today's audience is to be suspicious of our government, its intentions in the war on terrorism and that "dissent is not disloyalty." It's a great movie even if you don't agree with the producer's sublime message. The acting is great and I think it sheds a little light on a dim period in our nation's history.
One line that caught my attention came from the Murrow character. He said, "I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument. Call it editorializing, if you'd like." Well, is it? Is it editorializing if a journalist reports more of one side of the story than another? Additionally, is that reporter obligated to present both sides of a story equally, like time given to politicians for public comment? I'd say no because at times its impossible to give equal coverage to a story and sometimes impractical to present both sides of an issue with equal reason and conviction.
The movie shows the case of an Air Force Lieutenant, Milo Radulovich, who was fired on suspicion of associating with known communists. The movie shows how CBS was able to interview Radulovich, his family and friends, but was stonewalled by the Air Force and War Department. It even showed two colonels visiting the producer to warn them to kill the show if they knew what's good for them. Stepping back, its pretty easy to argue that Murrow and CBS couldn't equally present both sides of this issue simply because one side chose not to participate. The same can be said of many news stories involving people being indicted. From Barry Bonds, to Richard Jewell, these news worthy(?) people couldn't or wouldn't present their side of the story because they're often advised not to. The fact is whether the story is right or wrong, one can't claim a story is editorially tainted simply because both sides haven't had an equal say.
On the other hand, "fair and balanced" doesn't mean a story is unbiased either. Fox News uses this very tag line and few would argue its journalism isn't editorially biased. Hannity and Colmes could be an example of fair and balanced punditry, if you believe pitting a badger against a bunny is fair too. More seriously, the recent Supreme Court ruling, reinstating Habeus Corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees shows that the very reporting of this ruling may reveal editorial bias. While most of the major cable networks like CNN reported on the ruling, Fox News' own Supreme Court web page has no reference. For the record, I couldn't find any reference to yesterday's ruling on Fox News.com Clearly, the least Fox would have done is paste a news service story to their web. Their silence speaks volumes.
Given some of these examples, its clear that journalists and news organizations, being human and subject to perspectives shaped by their lives and surrounding environment, invariably put their take of truth into the stories they report. Furthermore, equal and fair coverage doesn't guarantee a story will be unbiased because these professionals can insinuate their perspective into both sides of an issue. In the end, we, as consumers of news have to look at these stories with a critical eye. Even when we see articles that we agree with, we have to take a moment to look for a bias and be the final arbiter of truth.
One line that caught my attention came from the Murrow character. He said, "I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument. Call it editorializing, if you'd like." Well, is it? Is it editorializing if a journalist reports more of one side of the story than another? Additionally, is that reporter obligated to present both sides of a story equally, like time given to politicians for public comment? I'd say no because at times its impossible to give equal coverage to a story and sometimes impractical to present both sides of an issue with equal reason and conviction.
The movie shows the case of an Air Force Lieutenant, Milo Radulovich, who was fired on suspicion of associating with known communists. The movie shows how CBS was able to interview Radulovich, his family and friends, but was stonewalled by the Air Force and War Department. It even showed two colonels visiting the producer to warn them to kill the show if they knew what's good for them. Stepping back, its pretty easy to argue that Murrow and CBS couldn't equally present both sides of this issue simply because one side chose not to participate. The same can be said of many news stories involving people being indicted. From Barry Bonds, to Richard Jewell, these news worthy(?) people couldn't or wouldn't present their side of the story because they're often advised not to. The fact is whether the story is right or wrong, one can't claim a story is editorially tainted simply because both sides haven't had an equal say.
On the other hand, "fair and balanced" doesn't mean a story is unbiased either. Fox News uses this very tag line and few would argue its journalism isn't editorially biased. Hannity and Colmes could be an example of fair and balanced punditry, if you believe pitting a badger against a bunny is fair too. More seriously, the recent Supreme Court ruling, reinstating Habeus Corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees shows that the very reporting of this ruling may reveal editorial bias. While most of the major cable networks like CNN reported on the ruling, Fox News' own Supreme Court web page has no reference. For the record, I couldn't find any reference to yesterday's ruling on Fox News.com Clearly, the least Fox would have done is paste a news service story to their web. Their silence speaks volumes.
Given some of these examples, its clear that journalists and news organizations, being human and subject to perspectives shaped by their lives and surrounding environment, invariably put their take of truth into the stories they report. Furthermore, equal and fair coverage doesn't guarantee a story will be unbiased because these professionals can insinuate their perspective into both sides of an issue. In the end, we, as consumers of news have to look at these stories with a critical eye. Even when we see articles that we agree with, we have to take a moment to look for a bias and be the final arbiter of truth.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
No censorship now???
A couple of days ago, while waiting for the parking lot attendant to come back from break (so I could get my car and drive home), I walked across the street to the courthouse just to kill time. There's a bronze mural there, a large rectangular slab, which has depictions of the Japanese internment cast on both its sides. I was thinking how far we had progressed since our country's reactions were more restrained to people who's only relation to 9/11 was their middle eastern and/or Islamic faith. Of course, I had to catch myself from so simple a misjudgement because I've heard enough of the goings on with the CIA and Guantanamo Bay to suspect that what I don't know due to censorship would make me lose sleep at night.
I comforted myself by reasoning that while the current administration may be guilty of grave acts, the American people, for the most part, have shown understanding and restraint. I think we all know that the acts of a few aren't reflective of the many. I hope my sentiment is shared by foreigners who weigh the actions of the current administration.
Not that we know what the administration is actually doing due to their liberal use of censorship. We seem to be more in the dark of the actions of our government than any other recent administration. Yes, government censorhsip has existed forever, but it hasn't been so brazen, so "in your face" for as long I can remember. We can look at the history of secrecy and censorship from administrations on both sides, but I can't think of another time when the pattern of censorship has been so frequent and so brazen as now.
Take Guantanamo Bay (please :^). The Khalid Sheik Muhammed trial is underway, but the military is severely limiting the reporting of the tribunal's proceedings. The military's argument is that testimony may reveal state intelligence gathering secrets in its presentation of facts. OK, so excuse the reporters then. Wait, wait, you say that all the incriminating facts come from compromisable human intelligence? That's too incredible to believe, especially when you consider you still haven't found Bin-Laden. Forgive my skepticism in trusting the government, but given its mismanagement of the war in Iraq and its almost comical defense of its indefensible actions, I take issue to its predilection to censorship.
Take the rampant redactions in Valerie Plame's book "Fair Game." The CIA's use of black marker would put my seven year old to shame. Its inconceivable that so many parts of a book can contain information critical to the nation's security. Granted, its a tell all book and its written by a spy with an axe to grind, but when you see redactions surrounding excerpts of her first days with her baby, it makes you wonder; did she pack an Uzzi in her diaper bag or have the CIA gone over the edge?
In retrospect, this censorship shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Within a short time of taking office, the White house ordered the return and re classification of documents from libraries of previous administrations, including those of Ronald Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. While one may argue if the reclassification of administration documents is or isn't censorship, you have to wonder about this administration when the Vice President's residence (the Naval Observatory) is redacted from Google Earth!
I comforted myself by reasoning that while the current administration may be guilty of grave acts, the American people, for the most part, have shown understanding and restraint. I think we all know that the acts of a few aren't reflective of the many. I hope my sentiment is shared by foreigners who weigh the actions of the current administration.
Not that we know what the administration is actually doing due to their liberal use of censorship. We seem to be more in the dark of the actions of our government than any other recent administration. Yes, government censorhsip has existed forever, but it hasn't been so brazen, so "in your face" for as long I can remember. We can look at the history of secrecy and censorship from administrations on both sides, but I can't think of another time when the pattern of censorship has been so frequent and so brazen as now.
Take Guantanamo Bay (please :^). The Khalid Sheik Muhammed trial is underway, but the military is severely limiting the reporting of the tribunal's proceedings. The military's argument is that testimony may reveal state intelligence gathering secrets in its presentation of facts. OK, so excuse the reporters then. Wait, wait, you say that all the incriminating facts come from compromisable human intelligence? That's too incredible to believe, especially when you consider you still haven't found Bin-Laden. Forgive my skepticism in trusting the government, but given its mismanagement of the war in Iraq and its almost comical defense of its indefensible actions, I take issue to its predilection to censorship.
Take the rampant redactions in Valerie Plame's book "Fair Game." The CIA's use of black marker would put my seven year old to shame. Its inconceivable that so many parts of a book can contain information critical to the nation's security. Granted, its a tell all book and its written by a spy with an axe to grind, but when you see redactions surrounding excerpts of her first days with her baby, it makes you wonder; did she pack an Uzzi in her diaper bag or have the CIA gone over the edge?
In retrospect, this censorship shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Within a short time of taking office, the White house ordered the return and re classification of documents from libraries of previous administrations, including those of Ronald Reagan and G. H. W. Bush. While one may argue if the reclassification of administration documents is or isn't censorship, you have to wonder about this administration when the Vice President's residence (the Naval Observatory) is redacted from Google Earth!
What’s a millennial?
Its always interesting and a little funny to compare interests with other people, and sometimes you’re drawn to form generalizations based on these differences. Sharing a common passion for computers and everything electronic, I’m always amazed at how my younger peers casually accept the technology at their fingertips. I’d tell the “new kids” that a decade ago, computers as powerful as their laptops cost a couple of million dollars. Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg in defining the differences of the millennial generation and my own.
I’m not one for labels since they generalize the difference between people. Just like demographics, you tend to get pigeonholed and lose the nuances that define individuals For example, I’m technically a baby boomer, but I grew up with kids of divorced parents, and went to Berkeley which is ultra liberal and suspicious of the establishment. Those are traits commonly associate with Gen Xers. I feel more a kinship to the Gen Xers, but my exposure to my millennial classmates lets me identify with them as well.
Of course, I’m not a millennial (see difference between Gen Xers and Millennials)! I’m a programmer and have been using technology for years, yet I don’t use a fraction of the technology that my younger peers use. I rarely text people for example. It’s more costly and too cumbersome to fumble with the cell phone keys. To me, its easier to just call somebody and leave them a message. But my friends not only pass electronic notes to each other, they IM amongst themselves and have a virtual get together I think that’s cool (a phrase coined by my generation :^), but I don’t get the benefit of it. Sure, they argue that they can get a hold of their friends regardless of where they are and what they’re doing, but honestly, it seems a little invasive to me.
Alone time notwithstanding, my young friends’ facility at using cell phone, the internet, digital cameras and video games is what sets them apart from the rest of us. Baby boomers can’t program VCRs (I can), but my millennial friend was able to show me features on my cell phone I never knew existed. The ease in which they can merge cameras, printers, mp3 players, wireless access and they’re favorite video game consoles is what distinguishes them from any generation before them. I only hope my brain can keep up with their innate knowledge of gadgetry.
Another virtue I enjoy of the millennial generation is their love of life. Some call them self centered (see 60 Minutes), but I think they get it. There’s no sense living unless you have a life. So if they text their friends to set up a beer rendezvous before quitting time, some may say they’re not loyal to their work, but I submit they’re loyal to themselves and have their priorities straight. At times, I question their wisdom, particularly when they’re surfing the web or playing evercrack(EverQuest) in class, but they’re big boys and girls and they can make their own decisions.
The real question among people in the non-millennial generation is: how will these people fare in the world. Pretty well, I think. Look at Google’s founders; they seem to be doing OK. While they’re the exception, on the whole these people are bringing so much innate talent to the workforce, its only a matter of time before they get traction and start taking all of us in new directions. Personally, I think the real challenge lies in folks like us lending them a hand and showing them the ropes, just like our mentors did for us (see Clair Raines', Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook). Some have theories about how the millennials might have political leanings like baby boomers, except on steroids (Politics and the Millennials), but I refer back to my label theory. Just like us, the young men and women of the millennial generation can’t be pigeonholed. They’ll do what they’re individually capable of doing, only faster and more effectively than we’ve ever imagined before.
I’m not one for labels since they generalize the difference between people. Just like demographics, you tend to get pigeonholed and lose the nuances that define individuals For example, I’m technically a baby boomer, but I grew up with kids of divorced parents, and went to Berkeley which is ultra liberal and suspicious of the establishment. Those are traits commonly associate with Gen Xers. I feel more a kinship to the Gen Xers, but my exposure to my millennial classmates lets me identify with them as well.
Of course, I’m not a millennial (see difference between Gen Xers and Millennials)! I’m a programmer and have been using technology for years, yet I don’t use a fraction of the technology that my younger peers use. I rarely text people for example. It’s more costly and too cumbersome to fumble with the cell phone keys. To me, its easier to just call somebody and leave them a message. But my friends not only pass electronic notes to each other, they IM amongst themselves and have a virtual get together I think that’s cool (a phrase coined by my generation :^), but I don’t get the benefit of it. Sure, they argue that they can get a hold of their friends regardless of where they are and what they’re doing, but honestly, it seems a little invasive to me.
Alone time notwithstanding, my young friends’ facility at using cell phone, the internet, digital cameras and video games is what sets them apart from the rest of us. Baby boomers can’t program VCRs (I can), but my millennial friend was able to show me features on my cell phone I never knew existed. The ease in which they can merge cameras, printers, mp3 players, wireless access and they’re favorite video game consoles is what distinguishes them from any generation before them. I only hope my brain can keep up with their innate knowledge of gadgetry.
Another virtue I enjoy of the millennial generation is their love of life. Some call them self centered (see 60 Minutes), but I think they get it. There’s no sense living unless you have a life. So if they text their friends to set up a beer rendezvous before quitting time, some may say they’re not loyal to their work, but I submit they’re loyal to themselves and have their priorities straight. At times, I question their wisdom, particularly when they’re surfing the web or playing evercrack(EverQuest) in class, but they’re big boys and girls and they can make their own decisions.
The real question among people in the non-millennial generation is: how will these people fare in the world. Pretty well, I think. Look at Google’s founders; they seem to be doing OK. While they’re the exception, on the whole these people are bringing so much innate talent to the workforce, its only a matter of time before they get traction and start taking all of us in new directions. Personally, I think the real challenge lies in folks like us lending them a hand and showing them the ropes, just like our mentors did for us (see Clair Raines', Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook). Some have theories about how the millennials might have political leanings like baby boomers, except on steroids (Politics and the Millennials), but I refer back to my label theory. Just like us, the young men and women of the millennial generation can’t be pigeonholed. They’ll do what they’re individually capable of doing, only faster and more effectively than we’ve ever imagined before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
