Updates from jackhardy RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • jackhardy 01:09 on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cell phones, driving, Harvard Business Review, multi-tasking, Peter Bregman   

    Multitasking Lowers Productivity 

    It seems clear that drivers using cell phones are distracted. This is an argument that seems justified and is backed up by insurance industry statistics resulting in new laws across the country. However, have you stopped to consider what the impact of multitasking is on your overall productivity? If you consider that manner in which our routines, meetings or study habits are interrupted by the long-held belief that multitasking allows us to get more done–and more quickly–I think it’s worth discussion. Consider the following blog entry by Peter Bregman, a CEO consultant writing for the Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2010/05/how-and-why-to-stop-multitaski.html
    I’ve decided I’m going to follow his example and avoid multi-tasking for a week and see what results. What are you willing to give up?

     

    • michaela 22:09 on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I honestly don’t know. I don’t want to make excuses but when you’re a college student who works two jobs, and has to deal with younger siblings and a sick Grandma it’s hard to decide what to give up. I guess I wish I was done with colleges so that I could just focus on work and family, but that isn’t going to happen for a while. As it is I’m supposed to be working on my midterm, but instead while researching I find myself remembering that I have other things due today too. And so I’m definitely someone that multitasks.

      However, the blog actually reminded me of something one of my professors talked about and that is “there is no such thing as multitasking”. He would argue that technically to multitask one would need to be able to do several things at once productively, but that is impossible because our brains can really only focus on one thing at a time. I told him that I certainly believe that I can multitask, such as doing homework while checking my email or how when I’m helping a friend move I’m technically exercising too.
      But again he said that I could only really focus on one thing at a time and instead maybe went back and forth. Either way, what I can agree with is the fact that multitasking does lower productivity.

  • jackhardy 00:27 on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply  

    Citizen Rights to Record the Police 

    Given the recent discussion of the legality of recording your local police officers in action, I couldn’t help but think of some high profile cases and a few lesser known stories. Charges were dropped against Emily Good, the Rochester, N.Y. resident who was arrested and charged with obstruction of governmental administration while filming police officers conducting an arrest from her front yard last year. That doesn’t change the fact that she now has a police record. Read the article and then watch the video and tell me what you think about whether you are willing to risk an arrest and jail time even when you know you are in the right.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-07/police-video-tape-crime/53001432/1

     

    • Matthew Bassett 08:23 on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think that regardless of what the law says about video taping police activity; the police were entirely in the wrong in this situation. In the video you can hear and see the officer warning her about stepping back, however she was on her property . The officer also does not give her a valid reason for her to go back into her house, nor does he have the right to enforce someone to do so. She asked a number of times what she was doing wrong, and the only answer the officer gave her was he did not feel safe with her standing behind him. When a citizen is on their own property regardless of where the police are, that citizen has the right to be wherever they want to be on their property.

      The last part of the video you can hear one of the witnesses saying that they let the guy they initially pulled over go free after cuffing him, for no apparent reason and then arrested her, possibly because she was taping an unlawful search and arrest. I normally have positive feelings about police activity and want to believe that most of them work this job to actually serve the people. With instances like this and the police actions during Occupy Berkley, there is no doubt there are police officers that have power egos and their own reservations, or have become jaded from the job that they no longer see what is right and wrong and why they became police officers.

      The question of whether it is worth a police record or not, I don’t think is the main focus point here. We live in a Nation where our freedom is one of the most crucial parts of our lives and we base our history as a Nation on a notion that we as a country will fight to protect this freedom, so when it is subjected to unfair ruling as skeptical police activity, this women was not thinking about being arrested, because she was doing anything wrong. So, obviously i would not like to risk a arrest for something like this, but I think the point is why should i have too?

    • Lauren 05:35 on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      “So, obviously i would not like to risk a arrest for something like this, but I think the point is why should i have too?”

      Spot on! Great post. I agree whole-heartedly.

      I do think citizens should be allowed to record police arrests and activity. If the police are following procedure, there should be no issues.

      I would risk an arrest and jail time for something that I believed in (and also if I was not “in the wrong”)

    • allisonsjothun 00:51 on February 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I agree that citizens should (and do) have the right to record what public officials do, and like the article said, this action is protected by three Constitutional Amendments. While I think it’s obvious that this officer was in the wrong (and he knew it), I think she acted a bit irrationally. It was hard for me to listen to her speak as the video progressed, she was allowing too much emotion into her voice. While I was not there, and don’t know exactly how I would have acted, I think she could have been far more effective in convincing the police that she was within her rights if she would have kept her voice at an even tone. In my opinion, she began to sound very whiny. Then, when she began to cry, I think she really lost her credibility. If she really felt she was doing the right thing, she should have remained strong through her arrest.
      I absolutely would risk an arrest if I was standing up for something that I believed in, especially if I were not in the wrong. If people don’t do this, how will awareness be raised?

  • jackhardy 00:15 on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cycling, ,   

    The Man Who Lived On His Bike 

    Publicity with video clips is a strange beast. Engaging video clips can capture imagination, tell a story, persuade, inform, offend–you name it and there is a reaction to fit any example. From a PR perspective, these are great opportunities to share and reach a large audience, particularly if it “goes viral” and it has millions of views. This particular video is particularly entertaining, but for 2-3 minutes. If there is a cause or a reason that the producer created this piece, it’s lost on me other than for pure entertainment. Take a look and tell me what you think:

    Man Lives on His Bike

     

    • Lauren 05:45 on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      reminds me of this!

    • Matthew Bassett 05:18 on February 13, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      It is interesting how viral videos are making a huge presence in the business world and everyday life. People are creating videos for entertainment and educational purposes, and getting millions of views from it. Just the other week, i bought a cell phone case that was difficult to put on my phone, and it didnt come with directions, so i youtubed it and within seconds found a directional video of installing the case.

      I think this video was created to be viewed as an artistic work piece and potentially to promote biking as an alternative to driving, It did mention in the article or at the end of the video that the creator made this video for his father who got him interested in biking. So i think maybe it had a couple meanings to the author.

    • Quanah Pike Polichetti 06:09 on February 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      If it was meant to promote biking, it did not do the trick in my book. This is the message I got: it is ridiculous to try to live on a bike. At some point you have to utilize camera magic or stop pedaling.

    • Ashley L. Folsom 04:40 on February 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Sounds to me like this was an artistic montage to his father by basically illustrating what you tend to give up with that much dedication to something like mass amounts of bicycling. If anything, I think this is meant to spotlight those who do long distance bicycling and illustrate the basic things we forget about that are incorporated into our everyday lives.

    • michaela 22:36 on February 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think that the creator was not only doing it for his father, but also to show that what people tend to do in their car can also be done on a bike. I think that in a way he was showing that people do too many things at once when they should be focusing on one thing at a time. I actually found the video to be funny and eye opening in that people try to do too much because of this need to save time. In the video he pretty much does stuff that we all do, but because it’s on a bike we think it’s just for entertainment and not to be taken seriously. In a way he was probably trying to be funny and based on the ending I can see that all involved did have fun, but I think that it would be unfair to say that he didn’t have any other intention behind it or that he didn’t have another message he wanted to convey.

  • jackhardy 23:46 on February 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , IPO, mark zuckerberg, privacy, shareholders   

    The Hacker Way 

    In the wake of the anticipated $5 billion Initial Public Stock Offering (IPO) for Facebook, a revealing portrait of founder Mark Zuckerberg’s management and company philosophy is found in an open letter to future stockholders found here: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2012/02/01/text-of-mark-zuckerbergs-ipo-letter.html?page=all

    The letter is alternatively forward thinking and snarky. Perhaps his mantra that “done is better than perfect” symbolizes his engineering-focused rule of computer programmers. Their stated company code to break it down and reinvent, otherwise known as the “hacker way,” seems troubling because of what it does not say. I did not find a long-term philosophy about building a great company. Perhaps this is an archaic business philosophy in a world where get-rich dot-com companies come and go. As a potential investor, I did not find anything reassuring about the company’s attempt to protect consumer privacy or to provide a long-term return on investment for shareholders. Does this sound like a nurturing place to work or one in which confrontation rules and no-holds-barred engineering trumps the value of the people who work there. What do you think?

     

    • Pouria Tehran 19:41 on February 14, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I believe Facebook has come a long way to achieve its social goal and mission, but the scale it is expanding seems to be too early for Facebook to grow in. As mentioned, the primarily intention of Facebook was not to become a company, however, potential growth and its great network for connecting people and businesses derived Facebook to form into a business, which just recently received its IPO worth $5billion. The company’s structure and philosophy don’t seem to have an anticipated future since Facebook culture is revolving around innovation and doing something that is ahead of what normally other companies do. Rumors about Facebook shutting down and then ending up going public has damaged consumers perception about safety of what Facebook is doing and offering over the air. Given that, it would have been a lot more assuring to the consumers or potential investors to see Facebook is focusing on engineering as well as securing the network and improvement in all of the business aspect.

    • Matthew Bassett 19:06 on February 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      From an investor outlook this letter would not be something that would attract me to this company. Obviously Facebook is doing extremely well and investing into the company, most likely will have returns for the current period. From this letter it is hard to say that Mark Zuckenburg is really defending his company on a level of competitive advantage, and profitability and looking into the future to see where Facebook stands against competitors.
      This letter touches a lot on the engineering side of Facebook and what they do to create the user face that has become so popular; it does not really go into the financials of the company and explain where the money is going and how they plan to be sustainable in the future. The assets that Facebook currently has are the members and its popular user face; another company can engineer a user face similar or better to Facebook, and all they will need to take market share from Facebook is enough members to convince others to switch from Facebook.
      Most consumers do not use more than one social media site, so they will generally go where there friends and family are; the switch from Myspace to Facebook was an example of this.
      I think that a letter to investors should have outlined the ways that Facebook will continue to attain market share, and keep a competitive advantage in the industry. This letter seemed to have a lot of fluff to it, and more personal opinions from the CEO, rather than a strategic plan.

    • Ashley L. Folsom 05:21 on February 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think this letter was more intended to prep its investors, rather than win a bunch over. If a bunch of shareholders jump ship after the first beta test a company releases, that’ll be harder on the company than the actual beta test release.

      Anyone who has a Facebook account knows that Facebook has a tendency to throw out a complete change of coding and formatting, and just put users into a new program while it’s still in Beta phase. This is not new news. Sometimes those developments work, sometimes Facebook has had to pull their “new design” out and bring back the old by popular demand. Anyone who is considering being a potential investor or shareholder should know this about the company.

      Being that social media is an ever evolving and continually growing being that thrives on its consumer needs, I don’t think Mark Zuckerberg *could* promise an outline of the future, because the demand of the market is ever-changing. I think Mark Zuckerberg promised exactly what he knew he could, which is showcasing his history of success through this constantly changing expectation driven segment of the social market.
      Is his theory of throwing people into a new Beta phas without warning the best? No. But the risk of jumping ship to another social media venue is too high, (otherwise Google+ would be #1), and not only does Zuckerberg know that, but Facebook users do to.

      I think if Zuckerberg were to try and promise *how* he plans a great company future, it would sound more like a presidential campaign promise that he might not be able to live up to. This however, sounds more like a promise to stay innovative, which in social media, is probably the most steady promise an investor could ask for.

  • jackhardy 12:53 on September 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply  

    Advertising & PR = Persuasion 

    Clients often ask what is the difference between advertising and PR. The short answer is advertising is a paid message that you control. PR is unpaid, sometimes referred to as “earned media.” What both of these unique disciplines have in common is summed up best by one word: Persuasion.

    Ultimately, you want people to feel, say or DO something when you communicate with them. Something I learned not only in the classroom at BYU, but over years of experience is that clients expect results to their bottom-line. Whether you use advertising techniques or PR, top management realizes that both disciplines are very powerful–albeit a necessity in today’s world.

    Thanks BYU!

     

    • Matthew Bassett 00:13 on February 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I agree that both of these are important in today’s world inside and outside of business. I think that with the increasing cases of ethical issues in business PR is becoming increasingly more important for firms to work with; regardless of whether your company is ethical or not, having PR support for issues that arise within the customer relation realm is important, and without proper PR some companies may collapse a lot faster and easier.

    • Linda Yuan 04:11 on February 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with this meaningful message, it gives me insights about how successful companies handle with negative events. Throughout advertising, it delivers words to the public. In addition, public relationship is trying to change public’s negative perception towards the company; public relationship is social responsible. These two words, advertising and public relationship, put together is a powerful tool and exhibits strong message to persuade the audience. Nowadays, many successful companies have powerful public relationship skills to handle tragedy.

  • jackhardy 19:32 on April 12, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: digital platforms, new media, online content   

    Consumer Appetite for Media Insatiable 

    Just read the recent Arbitron study that revealed the average person spends 1 hour and 21 minutes more each day consuming media than in 2001. This increase over the last ten years means that literally every spare minute of your time (is there really such a thing as spare time anymore?) is spent consuming content from the Internet, radio, television–literally absorbing new content. The reason is because of the proliferation of digital devices, namely smartphones, that enable 24/7 access to information that we are consuming during the time we normally take public transportation, wait in lines or offices. Smartphones, social media and online radio are the enablers of this behavior. It’s good news for content developers since it appears there is an ever increasing audience and appetite for all things digital. I only have one question: when was the last time you had a conversation with the person next to you at the grocery store, waiting room or bus stop?

     

    • Quanah P. Polichetto 15:51 on January 14, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      What is this concept you talk of called “spare time”? You are right! I know every chance I get I am on my cell phone checking email, Facebook, or texting friends. I am so addicted that I do the dangerous thing of doing so while driving… I have read many articles about people dying because they texted while driving. Myth Busters actually did an episode where they showed that talking on your cell phone, even on a hands free device, is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than drunk driving. Also in March of 2010 AT&T release a video that discourages attempts to discourage texting and driving. This is a serious problem! I have decided that I need to get serious about the dangers of texting while driving. It is a threat to everyone’s lives while on the road.
      Here’s the website to the AT & T video: http://youtu.be/DebhWD6ljZs
      One has to ask themselves the question: do I really want my last word(s) to be a text?
      It’s not worth it. A text is not worth my life or anyone elses. I do admit I have a problem. Even after all this knowledge on the subject, I still text while driving.
      I do still have conversations with that person next to me at the grocery store, waiting room or bus stop, but not nearly as much as I did as teen when I did not even own a cell phone. Technology is a wonderful thing, but like anything else excess can become a real problem. I need help! I don’t even think I could go 24 hours without my phone…

    • Michaela Specht 23:08 on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I saw a few episodes of Portlandia recently (television show starring Fred Armisen) in which they poke fun at Portlanders for being consumed in this technology loop and then again in another episode they make fun at how the possible loss of a phone would trigger a state of depression in a person. They claim that it’s an obvious exaggeration, but the fact is that the sketches are influenced by things that they actually witness. I for one, have forgotten my phone several times and have gone days without checking Facebook or watching television, and I’ve been fine, but that’s probably because of the fact that I just don’t have a lot of time to enjoy media. I get frustrated when someone says, I’m “anti-social” or ignoring them because I don’t ever respond on Facebook or take too long to respond to a text, when the truth is I still prefer normal conversation like a phone call or a chat over coffee.

    • Michaela Specht 23:26 on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Here are some links to what I was talking about:
      http://youtu.be/7jT0JT3N47g

      http://youtu.be/NPL7Snp38rA

    • Pouria Tehran 03:01 on February 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      The increase in the internet usage shows the demand for information, however, addiction to such a trait is unfortunate. Internet, TV, and phone are meant to improve lifestyle and information search quality, and the fact that not having an access to it could be held accountable for depression would be a frustrating factor. I have personally and unintentionally been dragged into the high usage of internet which lack of access to internet, by phone or computer, would make me anxious. I believe this was not the original intention of technology, but such a high demand should be taken under control by considering technology, specifically internet, a product that improper usage of it could result in undesired outcomes.

    • Jieyi Peng 08:49 on February 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      This discussion really makes me think how Media has impacted my life. First, I have to say media like internet, smart phones have brought lots of convenience to my life. For example, I can access the information that I want easily, and especially I am studying abroad now, internet and some web messengers provide more convenient ways for me to chat with my families or friends in my home country. On the other hand, I notice that since I have Smartphone, I have spent more time on media than before because Smartphone allows me to get the access more easily. Most of the times that I need to wait in line or bus stops, I usually surf the web, check my emails, or check on some social media sites through my Smartphone. Because sometimes I see people around me are doing the same things or sometimes we don’t know how to start a conversation, I just feel like these things could help me kill some waiting time. However, for communication way, although we have more ways to chat with to people now, I still prefer face-to-face communication rather than texting or emailing because I feel like face-to-face communication can cause less miscommunication.

    • Ashley L. Folsom 05:39 on February 19, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think when a person is by themselves…access to a phone is like a security blanket. If they would be otherwise in an uncomfortable situation, a smartphone can help people forget about their worries. I do however think it creates a more inhuman interaction, but it makes us cherish old forms of media like personal letters or cards.

      I think people have been predicting more technological advancements= more technological communication for years… Look at the Jetsons, or Terminator movies which have been around forever. It’s a give/ pull society…we go from one fad to the next..but just like 80′s trends and Atari games get brought back into current culture, so do concepts we miss… Like old fashion communication. Give it a few years… I bet someone will invent or re-market an old trend that will bring back old school communication lines. Then again,who can truly predict the future?

  • jackhardy 18:58 on March 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: corning, corporate video, futuristic, glass   

    A Day Made of Glass 

    My mantra of everything going Digital, Mobile and Video could possibly have another word added: Glass. I just ran across this use of corporate video, originally created to persuade large businesses to invest in the large glass conglomerate Corning,Inc. that proves that a compelling story–and futuristic applications can turn into a YouTube viral video:

    If that’s a future version of an Apple iPhone, I want one!

     

    • Emily Maxwell 00:19 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      If this is where the future is going, sign me up too! It is a good video but it does seem a little unrealistic to me as well. I like the idea of using this material instead of paper and metal if it is a more sustainable alternative. This video is visually inspiring but it leaves me feeling a little confused as well.

    • Abdulrahman Al-Homaid 06:16 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Actually, not only Apple is influencing this future, many giant companies are looking for similar future. There are already working prototypes (most of them) of these devices but they are very expensive to be sold for the consumers. The idea is how to make it cheap and then sell it for these people
      This video reminds me of the following video made like two years ago:

    • Adrianne 06:23 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I was anticipating another glass object to reveal itself before they went back to sleep, but I think I would have trouble envisioning a futuristic version of adult glass wear too, and I’m pretty creative. What I think is pretty interesting about this video and I’m potentially not changing the subject here, is the the way that they base there futuristic planning on current technologies. Of course we will develop new technologies from our current ones, but what I wonder is if they chose to use our current technologies in this video so that there was a framework of base functionality so we could understand the potential products they were proposing. Said differently, I think that for a futuristic product example, they are aiming within the next five years and they are not really proposing anything that is actually that far beyond our current capabilities. So I’m curious if it’s because they didn’t dare to think of something truly revolutionary or if they knew we wouldn’t believe in the message of glass if they strayed too far from our current understanding of the way the world works.

    • abdulalah Naseeb 07:31 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Wow this is an awesome invention I have never seen something like that. Am personally willing to use this technology if am capable to afford it, because these futuristic devises are so expensive and not all the people could afford it. In my opinion, this is very useful and helpful for business people who like to be connected with the world all the time and everywhere. But every thing in the world has some advantage and disadvantage, we can’t really judge right now we should wait until they released it and see how it could possibly affects or impacts on our lives.

    • Adam W 06:41 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      WOW! this is awesome, I want it all! I hope Corning got the funding and this stuff will be coming soon. Although it does not seem that this is that far out of reach right now, as someone said above. It just seems like alot of these applications would be more of a luxury item and not that practical. I do see how this could be quite useful in some of the business and industrial applications.

    • Pouria Tehran 01:05 on January 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I just felt the same way as when i first saw a concept phone without a keyboard and only touch screen. Its interesting how human’s imaginations are becoming our daily reality as we go along in life. I see this vedio to be maybe my house in a soon future, not just because i can afford it, but because i have seen the pace of innovative technologies to be part of majority in a short time after its discovery.

    • Michaela Specht 23:17 on January 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I like the idea that everything will be “your finger tips” but as previous comments prove, the idea seems a bit unrealistic. I’m not saying that the things in this video could never happen, just rather that not everything is perfect. I think having everything made of glass like that would be very expensive if not wasteful. We already use technology to keep us in touch with distant things, but while we’re watching television or searching for information we’re usually ignoring the things that are right by us. It will be interesting to see this idea grow, but at the same time I can wait.

    • Noah Nwokoma 23:30 on February 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Very interesting video. Now that television sets are getting thinner and are being sold with wifi technology, some of the applications shown in this video don’t seem so far fetched. I can see companies even in the next year coming out with a touch screen tv that allows you to watch programing, movies and do everything that you can currently do on an Ipad. Just like flat screen tv’s, the first company to offer it will charge as much as possible and competition will ultimately bring the price down for all others that can afford this luxury product. As for the bathroom mirror and windows, I think we could all live without technology in these areas of the home for now.

    • Quanah Pike Polichetti 07:54 on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with Michaela, the idea is quite unrealistic. Just think, the amount of money it would take in producing all of this technology, like electronic bus stops, street signs, more high tech traffic monitoring systems, etc. Given the current economy, do we really think we can even begin to dream about this stuff? Where would the government get the money? To have all this advance technology, imagine the taxes we would have to pay… I would not want to live in a world that connected. There comes a point of excess; enough is enough.

      Also, If the electrical grid system went down, can you imagine the chaos? If it went down now, there would still be chaos too, but probably not as severely. Just think, ATMs, GPS tracking, international trade, online transactions, business communications, etc would all be shut down. I think it would destroy the current world, to go even one day without being “connected.” If we lived in that fantasy world, it would be an even worse scenario. In the event of an unpredicted or accidental mass shut down of the system, imagine all the PR issues…

      • jackhardy 00:44 on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Actually, there is much of this technology already currently available–or quickly heading that direction. New technology advancements can actually save money, improve our lives and reduce environmental impacts so the investment may prove to be worthwhile in the end. For example, space exploration has provided many of the following: integrated circuits, satellite technology, GPS navigation systems, bone-density measurements heart pumps, water filtration systems that turn wastewater into drinkable water, wireless light switches, remediation solutions for sites contaminated by chemicals and the list goes on and on.

    • Matthew Bassett 05:41 on February 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think this was a great ad. It was too long to be a TV ad at about 5 minutes, but it did truly illustrate the technical engineering that some companies are coming up with. It corning were to use this in a brief or a demonstration to a client, I think it would be a successful campaign. It is interesting to think that it is possible to create technology like this, and the uses that it could serve it everyday life, while this ad was a stretch I think it every day consumer life, big firms may be able to use this technology and integrate it into business life.

      • jackhardy 00:37 on February 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Actually this video was created by the company to show to institutional investors. It was a corporate piece to persuade investors to fund the company and purchase stock. My understanding is that effort fell flat. However, when introduced on YouTube, it went viral and enjoys millions of views.

    • quanahpolichetti 06:35 on February 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I know that technology advancement moves quickly. I also know that when people say that an idea “looks good in theory, but it can never be implemented,” that those kind of beyond belief ideas change the world because they do get implemented. That being said, you are right a lot of the technology in the video does exist, is available, or will be soon. You also make a good point about New technology advancements actually saving money, I never thought about that aspect. Life improvements may come of it too, but it can also control our lives. Just ask any internet addict. As for Reducing environmental impacts, I am not so sure. A Prius is suppose to have a smaller environmental footprint than other cars. However, just to make a Prius, parts and components are shipped in from all over the world. Most importantly, It requires all sorts of rare natural resources not found in other cars, so in actuality it has a larger impact on the environment than other cars, even from the start. It is only when it is on the road that it is more environmentally friendly.
      For example, space exploration has provided many of the following: integrated circuits, satellite technology, GPS navigation systems, bone-density measurements heart pumps, water filtration systems that turn wastewater into drinkable water, wireless light switches, remediation solutions for sites contaminated by chemicals and the list goes on and on.

  • jackhardy 17:40 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: celebrity, charlie sheen, , , rehab, sheen, tmz.com   

    Charlie Sheen: The Ultimate PR Crisis 

    In more than 20 years of professional PR counseling, I’ve yet to tell a client to utter the words, “No Comment” to the press. It’s akin to saying, “I’m guilty” or “I have something to hide” in the world of public perception. However, today, I am coining a new term, “Pulling a Charlie Sheen,” which leads me to my inevitable conclusion.  If I were Charlie Sheen’s publicist–oh, that’s right, he just quit–I would tell him to simply keep his mouth shut. Whenever he does open it, he inserts his foot. Many American’s enjoy watching celebrity meltdowns on television or listening to their rants on talk radio – heck, even media sites like TMZ.com make a business out of provoking celebrities to anger in ambush interviews and paparazzi style photo opportunities. As a public relations teacher, we’ve enjoyed discussing the escapades of Charlie Sheen for the purpose of examining what not to do in a crisis PR scenario. It was actually a midterm assignment for my students. His story has all the earmarks of a disaster in the making. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is a disaster every day. What more do the students say? I will give every student in class 50 extra credit points if any of their blog comments to this post gets picked up by a national news outlet before our final exam on St. Patrick’s Day, March 17. Sorry Charlie! Coincidentally, a USA Today article here http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2011/03/charlie-sheen-this-could-be-my-final-interview-/1 quotes him as saying that yesterday’s radio call-in rant could be his last. I nearly fell out of my chair laughing in disbelief. If you believe that, I’ve got a great at-home drug rehab program for you.

     

    • Alexi Parry 20:11 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Well, for the one hour that interview probably lasted, Charlie Sheen seemed like he had his head screwed on right. If Charlie Sheen stopped talking, he would no longer be in the press. His “I don’t care” attitude seen through his comments (obviously on top of his behavior) is what got him so deep into the press in the first place. Sheen should be done interviewing; it would save him the time for having to TRY to find someone that would even want to represent him now. He has dug a whole so deep that I believe is too late to get out of. Yes Charlie, grab the zipper and shut your mouth. Throw the key away while you are still feeling sane.

    • lacy s. t. 21:27 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      People love watching the disaster that is Charlie Sheen, while the media’s attention adds fuel to his destructive behavior. It is hard to find one good quality about Charlie Sheen, other than he is entertaining. He has lost his grip on life and is lashing out because of it. Sheen has become desperate and now is pathetically trying to claw his way back by his “apologies” and his attempts to get people to feel sorry for him… As mentioned in class, for an extreme case such as Charlie Sheen, no amount of PR will fix this. He needs to be fixed first, which could take a lot longer than the amount of patience producers have. It will take a while for people to forgive the arrogant, mediocre actor.

    • Alice Cabon 00:17 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Contrary to most people, I really like Charlie Sheen. He definitely has a problem with drugs, but most celebrities have one. I like his bad boy image, of who doesn’t care about what people think.
      That’s my personal opinion, but I agree that for someone to accept to work as a PR for Charlie Sheen, he needs to have balls (even too much). There is no easy strategy to change the public’s image. A lot of people hates Charlie Sheen, because of his numerous, intolerable behaviors, and I feel sorry for that because I’m sure that with some work from Charlie’s part, this bad boy image could be perceived in a good way by the public. From the beginning of his career, with an effective PR strategy and if Charlie was less unforgivable in all his actions, he could have been the favorite bad boy of America. The problem is that he already went too far, and it might means that regaining his public is a lost cause. Charlie’s statement about the possibility of this interview be the last one is a desperate act to try to win the sympathy of someone. He is probably realizing that nobody will accept to help his career anymore, and he is scared of that. I see his interview as a desperate call from him, because he realized that it’s his last chance.

    • Chelsea 00:44 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      At this point, it’s good for Charlie to be quiet. He pasted a point of no return and there is no room for damage control. He has become a very desperate man to try and clean up his image by saying his “apologies” but it’s too late. He needs to start taking care of himself and worry about his own health rather than doing all of these interviews. It’s very sad to see how drugs can consume someone’s life. One day you have it all, then the next it’s gone before you know it. Unfortunately people are very judgmental and most likely never look at Charlie Sheen the same way so he needs to just focus on himself. No amount of PR can fix what has already happened, at this point in time it would just be nice to see him overcome this drug battle.

    • Ruby R. 01:00 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Charlie “the warlock” Sheen has a hard time keeping his mouth shut because he knows the public is attracted to his persona. We eat up his ridiculous words, as long as we can hear/watch it from afar, because really, no one wants to deal with that mess up close. For those that want to, they get to live his over the top lifestyle vicariously through his antics.

      Let’s not be hypocrites, regardless of his poor mental state, Sheen does enjoy what many people consider a fabulous life: he’s rich, he has a fun job, goes on spur of the moment vacations, has lots of sex and gets to party and do lots of blow. Sounds like a Portland hipster dream to me, just sayin’.

      Sheen is probably just like a million other wealthy, self-indulgent, drug-addled egomaniacs; the only difference is his excess and need to brag about his “winning” lifestyle. Let’s just leave him alone and maybe he’ll go away. I will do my part by never posting about “him” again.

      What we really need to do is work on the society that allows, no, encourages people to become like this, but that’s another discussion for another time.

    • Kevin N. 05:11 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Several weeks back I would have advised Charlie Sheen to lay low and avoid all media if possible. This would have been effective because we all expect Charlie to misbehave from time-to-time; unfortunately he has gone so far that simply shutting his mouth at this point won’t work. There’s so much content out there that now he doesn’t even need to say anything more for the media to have material to make a piece on him. If he would start releasing innocuous comments maybe that would help sway the balance of the coverage of him, as of now it is all very provocative.

    • Jennifer T 05:40 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I have to admit that I can’t seem to stop watching Charlie Sheen’s shame train. It is like watching something horrible that you know you should look away, but you just can’t.

      I am also in the same boat as a few other commenters’ in how I feel that pleading the fifth would be a mistake. He has been so open about his life that if he stopped the conversation now people would just assume he had something much worse to hide and the rumor mill would take over. Although I wouldn’t recommend this specific conversation, it is still one that he seems to be in charge of.

      His pop culture status has reached an all time high. People are making whole clothing lines, websites, and other small businesses just from the one-liners that have come from his crazed interviews. I don’t see a come back to One and a Half Men, but I do see reality TV in his future.

      I myself would love to see a Sheen comeback and I think the world will forgive him his misdeeds eventually… pending something truly horrible happening.

    • Sammy Al-B 06:53 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Listening to Charlier rant, and convince himself that he is in “control”, it’s clear in my mind he is most certainly is not in control. Most recovering addicts that have been interviewed and asked by the media about their opinions about Charlie, say that his rants sound much like their own and they too were confident that they were in control of their addiction. Charlie’s PR person quit on him, because he was too much to work with, but what the PR person didn’t understand, is that he is trying to cover up the symptoms of Charlie, and not addressing the real problem which is his addiction. I dont think the PR person’s first step in fixing Charlie’s image was to MAKE DAMN sure Charlie actually completed or benefited from his drug and alcohol rehabilitation program

    • Laura Cooper 19:08 on March 14, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Regrettably, the American public loves a dramatic, boisterous, train wreck. Enter: Charlie Sheen. What better way to lift the American spirit than to give them an example of self-induced pity, and an opportunity to re-frame their own circumstances and shortcomings.

      • Abdulrahman Al-Homaid 03:53 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I agree with you Laura. American public do loves this stuff. I’ve been hearing and reading Charlie Sheen name all over the place such as radio, TV channel, News, tweets, and many other media. This is like the celebrity flavour of the month. The media is making fun of him in every way which is a shame for him. I also read that they fired him from “Two and Half Men” show recently!
        I suggest for Charlie Sheen to disappear for a while (real while) and stop showing himself to the media or working. I’m sure he got a lot of money to live several years.

    • Emily Maxwell 23:06 on March 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      #fastball a whopping 2,837,318 tweeters are following the one and only Charlie Sheen.

      This is more publicity than Sheen has had in the last 10 years, there is no way he is giving it up now. Until the public officially shuns him and his irresponsible lifestyle by putting down the gossip mags, changing the channel and not responding to tweets… I’m pretty sure he will continue to “ride the wave” as long as possible.

    • Adrianne 06:42 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      So the Tsunami and earthquakes in Japan only knocked Charlie out of the media for about a day. Evidently Charlie is taking his rants on tour with a live show called “Violent Torpedoes of Truth.” I can’t think of a lunatic addict that’s had this much exposure to the public since Ed McMahon. What I think is even more impressive about hurricane Charlie’s rampage of destruction is that he is actually able to top the inane nature of the television program that helped relaunch his career. I mean Two and a Half Men was the kind of show that made me ashamed to be an American. I have no idea why it was a highly rated show. I have seen parts of the show while flipping through and I just don’t get it. Perhaps the show is so bad it’s good, like many of the Jon Cryer movies from the 80s, or Showgirls. But this new Charlie show has even more power than Showgirls, fewer boobs and dancing girls, believe it or not, but it has that same horrible power to grab you even though it’s absolutely abhorrent and you know if will end badly, you just can’t quite grab the remote and make it stop.

    • abdulalah Naseeb 07:13 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Charlie sheen is a great actor with phenomenal personalities. You can’t really think of words to describe him. Although I think he is addicted to the media but I don’t like the way that he presenting him self! I have seen a lot of celebrities have been facing troubles over and over often they handle the situation so well by using specific techniques to solve their problem. But what can you say business is business this is how Charlie makes his living/money being on the spot all the time and make people talk about him frequently to build his empire in a unique way, by creating problems and try to show the world that he doesn’t care about anything. In The other hand, i think he is smarter than you think and he knows what he’s doing, i personally admire his shows and enjoy watching him.

    • Adam W 06:24 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think that this is to be expected from a character such as Sheen. He is only doing what he always has. Sheen has gained his popularity through portraying a gambling, binge drinking prostitute user on his show. Now everybody wants to freak out and make a big deal of the situation when Sheen goes to far. I think hes right when he says “Im winning” because really he is. He’s probably going to write some ridiculous book about all of this and make a boatload of cash through manipulating the media.

    • Dahir Moalim 08:04 on January 24, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      One of my favorite show of all time would be Two and Half Man with Charlie Sheen. We all know that Hollywood celebrities are all about publicity stunt to capture people attention. Charlie Sheen case i think he used this crazy character act to see what people reaction would be. I think now America audience wanna watch the latest drama in celebrities private life. In Charlie Sheen ideal life of partying and hooking up with hookers, would actually bring his fame back to people, but in the other hand it actually made stupid to some viewers. I think shutting his mouth would be the right answer if i wan Charlie Sheen shoes.

    • Matthew Bassett 17:12 on February 5, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I think that regardless of whether Charlie Sheen had a publicist or a PR representative, it would not have made a difference. When he first started exploding there was no way he was going to stop, I think between the drugs and the fame, he felt like no matter what he did, he was unstoppable. Two and Half Men replacing him may have been the final response he needed to check himself though, the show that he thought could not continue without him went ahead and did. I personally think the show isn’t the same without Charlie, however, the only funny part about the show were his drunken antics, and it was funny in real life as well. There’s no doubt i laughed at his expense for a while.

  • jackhardy 14:46 on February 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: american thinker, CBS, censorship, egypt, freedom, , lara logan, nir rosen, , salon, twitter   

    Twitter Your Career Away 

    The power of words used on a social media platform have proven to be a destructive force for one journalist. According to Nir Rosen, a liberal freelance journalist who recently wrote about the Egyptian government overthrow, a series of unfortunate comments he made regarding Lara Logan, the American CBS correspondent who was sexually assaulted in Cairo resulted in him losing his job at New York University. In an article for Salon magazine http://www.salon.com/news/egyptian_protests/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/02/17/nir_rosen_explains_twitter_controversy, he defended his reasoning and offered an apology. Ultimately, the irony is that the same people who read his questionable Twitter posts are not likely the same people who read the Salon magazine article. Another version of this news is rather shamelessly described in a very different opinion piece written for American Thinker magazine here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/risky_business_lara_logan_and.html. In my opinion, there is little doubt that Twitter has the same power to incite a mob mentality. At a minimum, such short “tweets” can cause both misunderstanding and misbehavior on the part of the reader or the writer. In America, the freedom of the press allows both of these written articles to exist without government censorship or recrimination, however, public opinion via the Internet certainly appears to be more abrupt and career limiting.

    Lara Logan, CBS Journalist

     

    • Erin McBride 20:16 on February 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      After reading both articles listed in the above posting, the moral of the story seems to be, think before you post your comments to the world. Ni Rosen made the mistake of thinking the Twitter platform extended only as far as to his close friends and not beyond. He learned quickly that other followers did not find his comments on Ms. Logan’s horrific attack amusing or appropriate. Unfortunately, the jokes he made before knowing all the facts of her situation lead him to be fired from his university career. Twitter is a media platform that reaches millions of readers and is a strong media outlet. His response explaining his actions make sense: he underestimated her injuries, he underestimated who was reading the postings, and he underestimated Twitter’s reach. It’s unfortunate that he had to lose his job, but his arrogance is what got him into this situation and he seems to rationalize his behavior better than admitting his fault.
      The American Thinker article although brash, brings up interesting points about the safety of journalists abroad and the reality of opinions about American involvement in foreign affairs. Although I disagree that CBS should be held legally responsible for the injuries Ms. Logan suffered, I do believe that CBS needs to insure to protect its journalists abroad by disclosing the reality of dangerous situations and offering some type of protection to its crew members. Cameramen and sound technicians cannot be expected to become bodyguards when situations become dangerous. Attacks of journalists have become disturbingly common occurrences and action plans need to be implemented to protect those that we rely upon for information abroad.

    • michellefrommadison 01:42 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Lara Logan is not a victim of rape. Lara is merely the benefactor in what she was seeking in a foreign land whose people live under a different ethics and morals standard. Dressed as she was, doing what she did, she got what she deserved and should actually be prosecuted for her prostitution acts because those acts are illegal both in Egypt and in the USA when done out in the streets in public-view and she was being paid money while tricking. Send her back where she belongs to Egypt and let her bang all the guys she wants there again. The USA certainly doesn’t need such whoreship here.

      • jackhardy 17:28 on March 2, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Dear Michellefrommadison, your shocking response to this blog post is at best, ill-informed and at worst genuine libel. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims of prostitution? Your comments appear to be leaning towards anti-Arab views and I’m also concerned that your quick judgment and strong opinions about Ms. Logan are not grounded in reality. Please provide some context or factual content that contributes information that is relevant and helpful to this discussion.

    • Erin O. 20:37 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I would have to agree with Erin. These articles seem to be about thinking before you write something on the Internet. This isn’t the first time someone has lost a job though because of something they said on Facebook or Twitter. The Internet is continually changing and the rules are unclear on what should be said when. It is becoming a hazardous place for both employers and employees to write things.

    • Nathan Gancher 19:29 on February 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Twitter is interesting in that it encourages the user to post their short thoughts or comments to the world, and to show their views and/or personality, on short notice so they can convey immediacy to whatever they have to say. For the every day person this is fine, and a lot of mental filtering doesn’t really have to take place. But once a person reaches some sort of celebrity status, the ability to express thoughts to the world on short notice can become dangerous to ones career. Personally, I feel that a large portion of the Twitter posts that seem to get certain people in trouble are done in haste, without much thinking going on. Sometimes its all too easy to type a few characters into your phone, make it available for the world to see, and forget all about it. Unfortunately, even if one realizes a mistake they made in posting something questionable and deletes it later, its all too late and exists in the internet cloud forever. If you hold celebrity status and have even a slight problem with self control or judgment, its probably best to either not have a Twitter account, or to have a PR or marketing person handle it for you.

    • Kevin N. 23:43 on February 26, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Journalists who choose to interact through a twitter feed should do so with extreme caution. Although they may write objectively in their newspaper articles, they are obviously very opinionated people at heart. This personality trait is a dangerous characteristic to have when it takes mere seconds to post something on twitter. When publishing an article in a newspaper there is comparatively more time to reflect on what is written, which allows for edits to be made if necessary, part of twitter’s fast moving nature can be attributed to this lack of editing. That’s probably why there are so many provocative statements made on this medium.
      For journalists it might be a wise idea to avoid twitter altogether considering the difficulty of providing any context for statements. Most news stories are complicated ones which cannot be discussed in detail through twitter and providing general information usually doesn’t lead to better understanding. The sense of community on twitter can also lead reporters to believe that the only people paying attention to their feeds are like minded individuals, this clearly isn’t the case.

    • Alice Cabon 05:37 on March 1, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I also agree with Erin M. that CBS shouldn’t be legally held responsible for what happened. I think that CBS could have chosen a more appropriate person for the job, but the incident could have happened to any other women reporter, even one with a clear reputation or no reputation at all. CBS should have better provide security to its correspondent. This kind of dramatic incident happened a lot with journalists, and I totally agree that journalists should be better protected when sent in countries like Egypt, where religion and culture can put them in danger.
      It’s a shame that Rosen needed to loose his job to understand how open is Internet. However, I still think that a provocation with some friends about an issue as serious as sexual harassment should be private, and not just tweeted on the Internet, where everyone could have access to it.
      We all know nowadays that Internet is an international open platform. What you say there will stay forever but most of us don’t really think about it when we post about our last party as well as about a world issue.
      Once someone holds a celebrity status, or in some jobs that integrates social media, words used and opinions given should be very carefully weighted before being posted on Internet. Another issue that opinions posted on Internet raises is the differences in every culture. Who said that what is simply a fair opinion for you isn’t a serious and outrageous judgment in other cultures?
      Twitter, Facebook, etc… shouldn’t be removed of the effective tools to help your work because of the threats it raises. I’ve personally seen as much these tools are important and effective in event planning for example. And it can help in many other fields. But when it comes to opinion about international issues, issues that affect many persons, you can’t simply post what you think about it, without thinking of consequences.

    • lacy s. t. 01:26 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I would really like to know what the tweet was that cost someone their career. Especially for someone who has a reputation of being a liberal writer. It is a very serious matter, but in all honesty how intelligent has Lara Logan been throughout the 17+ years she has been reporting on war. When you put yourself in that position constantly, in some of the most unsafe environments, its almost inevitable that something very seriously bad could happen. I myself am not saying by any means that Logan deserved anything, I’m just saying she shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Its like someone who keeps putting their hand in the fire… they will get burned eventually.

      Furthermore, I think the whole idea behind the “mob” on social networks is almost a scary thing. …How people are morphing the social media into a reality follows into the whole idea of “perception is reality.” This perception is really putting our profiles, our online words, and opinions as our “identity” as a person. Something anyone with any sort of profile or blog should be very much aware of.

    • Chelsea 02:30 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      This is not surprising at all- More and more employers are starting to take social networking seriously. They are starting to put guidelines to what you can and can’t do in employee code of conducts. That seems to be the next best way to “lose” your job/ career- Facebook/ twitter.
      People have to keep in mind that everything is public. I am also curious to know what the Tweet said that cost that person their career. I think it would be interesting to hear. I would like to know what was so extreme that Logan said that cost her to lose her Career over.

      • Jennifer T 06:57 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I agree that companies are taking social media more seriously. I know where I work there are several communication experts who manage the voice of the company within the different social media platforms.

    • Brent Jorgenson 20:50 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Nir Rosen made comments directed to his friends but made these comments viewable by everyone on twitter. People act and communicate differently among their friends. Some of this talk may be vulgar and unacceptable to discuss in the public, but when your with your friends you become comfortable saying something dumb jokingly and its acceptable. Nir Rosen is an example of becoming too comfortable behind the keyboard. I believe that his inability to visualize and understand the breadth of his audience is due to a disconnection caused by the internet. He seems to be sorry towards saying those comments and I feel sorry for the guy for losing his job.

    • Adrianne 04:41 on March 7, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I keep thinking that these extreme situations will lead me to some extreme point of view. I don’t really feel that I have steadfast opinions about either of these articles, but I’ll endeavor to write something anyway. I can absolutely understand the opinion that anyone traveling to a country where genital mutilation is alright should probably travel with a great sense of perspective if not trepidation. I disagree that anyone should expect at any point to be raped or assaulted. I think that a woman lying down on the ground naked with her legs wide open screaming “please dear god some one stick something inside me” still has the right to say, “but not you.”

      Perhaps I’m being naive, but if I should expect to be assaulted when I travel, there should be signs posted in English saying as much. Then again if you’re in a giant mob and there are women being assaulted around you, a sign might be superfluous. It’s like when you go to someone’s house and you can see that they not only have wall to wall pristine carpet, they have a line up of shoes by the door. You’ll probably be expected to take off your shoes, even if you don’t like taking off your shoes. They sometimes won’t even ask. It’s kind of like that, I think.

    • Jennifer Teeples 20:15 on March 8, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I agree with the comment above, “think before you write” but I think this may go further than just not thinking. It seems hard for me to believe that a man who writes in such a spotlight like that doesn’t “think” before he writes. I am wondering if this was more of a research the topic before you form an opinion thing. Which I think is worse. Or maybe even an inability to know his audience.

      It seems to me that it would have taken him a few Google strokes to figure out the extent of Logan’s attack or at least remembered the golden rule before he tweeted. It would make me think that maybe New York University has a credibility problem because obviously their freelance reporters can’t do research.

      I also agree with some of the commenter’s on his apology, that it was a little too self serving. I also agree that he lumped a few too many folk into the “weak” pile that maybe should have been left out. That was a little off-putting and I could see how easy it would be to misunderstand there.

      These are my first gut reaction to the stories in any case. I am sure that eventually I would/will forgive his inability to Google and be a good human, but for now I will continue to think of him as a guy who decided to speak before he Google-ed, because thinking that anyone would write something so terrible on purpose is just too much for a Tuesday.

    • Chi Long Lao 09:22 on March 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know anything about this issue after I read the news here. After I read the news, I research for some videos and articles relate to the this issue. What I found interesting about is that there have a group of people feel sorry to Ms. Logan and a group of people think that the issue is a Ms. Logan’s fault. Maybe I am out of topic about the writing style or wirting structure of the news, but I really feel interesting that how reader or audience react to waht they read or heard. Doesn’t matter rape is a crime or not, some people still think very deeply why was that happen and who cause that happen? This cause me to understand about no matter how good I am with my PR skill or PR writing, there always will have someone to against me, therefore, being calm all the time as Professor said is very important for a PR person.

    • Christopher Harley 08:51 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think it’s important to realize that any written communications need to come with an attendant social-stake. We’re not anonymous when we’re carrying on a conversation in any other public space so we shouldn’t expect to be anonymous when we conduct these conversations online. Rosen’s apology and explanation isn’t worth much in the bigger scheme of things. He’ll long regret being so insensitive about Logan’s assault.

      • Laura Cooper 20:09 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I agree that public spaces are akin to public forums online, and a listening ear should always be expected. This is an all too easy illustration of written communication gone sour, and lacking regard for audience potential. Altogether, it’s a harsh reminder of internet power…thanks for being the non-example.

    • abdulalah Naseeb 08:22 on March 16, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      What I personally think, if a journalist got sexuality assaulted this is would be the worst thing that could happen for her life and for her career also. Furthermore, if a journalist is among too many uneducated and careless people especially in this situation where people are crazy and protesting against their country, CBS at least could provide some security behind her to prevent any bad actions that might happen. By the way, this kind of incident could be occurred anywhere in the world.

    • Adam W 06:29 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think this guy got what he deserved. I see how it may have been taken the wrong way but as most people know words on a screen can be perceived many different ways. When you are speaking on a public outlet you must always speak as if you are representing your organization, because you are.

    • Matthew Bassett 09:00 on February 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I would strongly agree that when using media like twitter, or facebook, the writer needs to understand the magnitude of the audience potential. Clearly you can say what you want, but if you are in a position that could cause negative publicity to yourself or organization, you have to believe that is it a possibility.

      The other interesting part of this, is that is seemed that this author was in strong opposition to Lara Logan, so writing something that can be portrayed as vulgar, even f the intentions were misread, could backfire tremendously as we can see. It is a possibility that Lara and other opponents of Nir’s used this to get him out of the industry.

  • jackhardy 15:03 on February 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: avian flu, , dead birds, editorial, journalisms, lemmings, news   

    Inflammatory News Stories or Journalism 

    Why do dead birds fall from the sky? Should you care? Seems like the news media likes to find connections in odd occurrences that continue to plague our country. The media it seems, loves a crisis or at least stories of animals dying en masse. Why is this news? It is certainly odd, one of the criteria for newsworthiness and it seems like there are an abundance of these events happening. This commentary on the recent avian news http://wp.me/pmsUw-1G suggests that this might be a case of human lemmings pushing each other over a cliff. View this video and then add your comments: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7211633n

     

    • Jennifer Teeples 18:49 on February 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Premonitions, religious and superstitious omens have always been news. Even back in the days of the Romans, some may have believed they DID need to “beware the ides of March.”

      Mysteries and unexplained natural happenings are newsworthy because people like to try to find answers to them. I think it is frustrating to folks that there are things in nature that they can’t answer. People enjoy trying to answer these mysteries with either science or religion. And science and religion seem to always have some kind of an answer.

      Specific to the bird’s incident, people already started making claims that this was an omen to the apocalypse and others say it is an omen to the Mayan ending of the calendar in 2012. Both ideas try to explain what happened, but both come from different belief foundations.
      In a nutshell, sensationalism is just that… sensational!

    • Erin McBride 20:48 on February 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      There are several articles on the World Press site that comment on birds dying in numerous states in The US and of birds dying in South America as well all around the same time. The Drum Fish deaths occurred only in the US and only in a specific pond with a specific type of fish which leads scientists to conclude that a disease of illness infected the area causing the deaths.
      Although there is not an explanation for the bird deaths, scenarios have developed as possible causes: loud noises causing panic in the poor-vision birds to take flight at night and weather patterns becoming too cold for birds to survive in. Considering the vast spread of bird deaths, the cold weather patterns seems to be most plausible explanation. Unexpected cold weather patterns can cause thunder to develop without a storm when the cold air suddenly rushes into warm air, explaining the loud noises that were heard in several states in the US.
      The only time religious explanations were given on the site was by people leaving their comments and most didn’t have any factual backing, just opinion. It’ll be interesting to see what the conclusion is once further research has be completed.

    • Erin O. 20:45 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I agree that while the deaths of these fish and birds is interesting, whether or not it is news worthy is a question. I agree with Jennifer that people want to be able to explain things and know why things happen. While I believe that it is important for scientist in the area to figure out the reason for these deaths I can’t help but wonder if the media is just trying to ‘stir the pot’. As there is no known reason for these occurrences and they are not involving the mysterious deaths of humans then why worry people with things that are unknown.

    • Ruby R. 22:07 on February 23, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think these types of events are newsworthy because they remind us of our own mortality which typically causes fear. Unfortunately, the media does do a good job of heightening fear in the public. Fear always gets a response from people especially when we don’t understand something. This can be applied to scientific as well as cultural phenomena.

      There is usually a logical reason for everything and I think it is really important to figure those reasons out, so we can then find a solution. I imagine some of the mass deaths might be attributed to some kind of human interaction, and if it is a result of environmental damage, the media should report that, instead of sensationalizing it as some kind of apocalyptic sign just because we don’t have all of the facts. That’s just plain ignorant and irresponsible.

    • Nathan Gancher 19:42 on February 25, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t think think was sensationalism at all. The video doesn’t really make any rash judgments as to why the animals died, and I actually think that a random mass death of fish and birds is newsworthy. Granted, this may be more appropriate for the local news then national, but its definitely at least above a puff piece, and is newsworthy. This probably wouldn’t have been news 15 years ago or so, but with heightened sensitivity to global warming, along with the fact that bees may be dying off (which would severely affect the human race), makes it more credible to go on the air.

      • Laura Cooper 19:41 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        “Heighted awareness” for nature and its manifestations could have been a CBS consideration when running the story. Still, this story was arguably newsworthy for its odd and mysterious qualities, and gave time to several ‘theories.’ However, the story could have been framed differently through interviews with local scientists/voices of authority. The clip of the film “Birds” was irrelevant and challenged the professional standards assumed by news institutions.

    • Kevin N. 03:04 on March 1, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Anything that’s a break from the norm is a possible candidate to make the news, in this case it just so happens to involve 4000 dead birds. I found it funny how quickly clips from Alfred Hitchcock’s film “The Birds” were woven into the news story. Whenever I see features like this I wonder if it was just a slow news day and the editors at the station were looking for something that would keep the publics interest. With no explanation being provided about what caused these birds to behave in this way every person is entitled to voice whatever opinion they have, and people do love to speculate about these things.

    • Brent Jorgenson 21:07 on March 4, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I found the video to be interesting. The mass death of birds and fish is something that I have never personally seen before and I imagine the experience of it would be odd. The death is a mystery and I believe that this contributes to the story because it allows the viewer to actively think. The story that is being presented to them allows the viewer to ponder the question of why did these animals suddenly drop dead? There is speculation of disease killing the fish and fire works spooking the birds.
      If just a couple fish or birds died then there wouldn’t have been a story. People are not very attached to wild birds and fish, but when the species of fish and bird become severely affected from a mass death then an interesting story exists.

    • Adrianne 05:14 on March 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Birds are creepy. Dead birds are even more creepy. I tend to pay attention if I’m wandering about my world and a crow or raven is suddenly around and caws at me. I try to figure out if I was thinking something important at the time and I remember it. I remember vividly four years ago that I was in the mood to take a drive to do some trivial errand. It wasn’t really important that I head out at that second, but I had decided to go and when I opened the door to walk out to my car, I noticed that there were some 13-20 crows surrounding my car. They weren’t hanging around anywhere else in the neighborhood and I’ve never seen that many out there. But they were all on the ground around my car. This was mid-day, no one else around. I walked out saw them, looked around and then quickly decided that it was okay for me to go back inside and run the errand later. No big deal, message taken. I wonder what I would have done if they were dead birds. Ew.

      I’m sorry, but I think any large number of dead anythings is newsworthy. I don’t think it’s outlandish to consider that the world might be coming to an end when large numbers of dead things happen. It is certainly worth looking into. Dear so and so, birds and fish are dying and no one knows why. Is the world coming to and end? Sincerely, Fearing the Rapture.

      Dear Fearing, Probably not.

    • Chi Long Lao 08:56 on March 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t think becasue the news medias have lack of news to report so they choose to report these kind of news. I do believe somehow these kind of news is meaningful. It is because it can remind us that our ecological environment is became weird and weird. Sometime we can’t understand the nature is because we don’t know the nature well, therefore, this kind of news is a chance for us to know more what is happening with our nature and remind us to care about the nature more. Of course, it is possible that the news medias didn’t think that much, they just want to get more audience to wathc their news because human are curious of everything.

    • Namyot Pulkasem 09:55 on March 9, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      The death of the birds and fish is the mystery that really catches the audiences’ attention because they must surely think that how those odd tragedies occurred. I think this is how the media intends to make the news newsworthy by using the mystery of death to increase the awareness. Besides, the audiences might try to find the answers and causes of the incidents by following this media, so the news channel will obtain more audiences and rating. Nevertheless, if we think about the ecosystem, it’s very serious issue that why those wired tragedies happened. To sum up, we are curios about the causes of mass of death, and we will try to figure out how much those dead animals are, and why it happened, and what’s going on with the nature, so a lot of questions will come, and the news will definitely newsworthy.

    • Chelsea 03:30 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I think this story was newsworthy. It always important to remember that out nature does matter and the cause being unknown to these deaths could affect us as people in the long run. The media is to get the word out to the public about what’s going on within our world which is exactly what this story did.

      • Jennifer T 06:20 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        I agree with you, I hadn’t thought of this story in that way. It is important to understand what is happeining in nature. Great point.

    • Christopher Harley 09:17 on March 10, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Stories like these reinforce in the reader his or her own conclusions because the objective answer is left open for interpretation. For the media, they’re easy to report because there’s no authority to tap that will provide the explanations needed to close the story. That’s not to say these stories aren’t newsworthy but, with the news media, there is an inclination to draw parallels between seemingly unrelated events. In the case of the CBS report, the viewer is expected to conclude that because of the proximity of the two events, the effects share a similar cause.

    • Alice Cabon 01:06 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      I understand why all these deaths are newsworthy. We are always trying to explain everything, and when we can’t, it stirs up our curiosity. Moreover, it’s of human nature to try to relate things as much as they can. Thousand of deaths, few days in between is enough to destabilize people. It seems that every uncommon event is worth talking about, and could make news. The media decides which of them actually are in the news, but most of them are considered.

    • Sammy Al-B 07:04 on March 11, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      One of the reasons stories like this show up every now and then, I think depends on whether it is a slow news day or week. I guarantee if there was another Lindsey lohan scandal, this story would get shoved way down the newscast that it might not even make it on air at all. As far the birds and the fish, the common denominator amongst many animals is the earth’s magnetic and electrical field. Our lifestyle constantly disrupts the, otherwise normal fields, which can hurt organisms ability to navigate. That could definitely be a possibility, amongst others.

    • Emily Maxwell 23:28 on March 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Birds falling from the sky will always be newsworthy because many people are concerned about crisis leading to disasters in nature, in social and economic life. The pubic is generally fascinated with images of glaciers melting, dead animals, polluted land fills, natural disasters and other images supporting the idea that “something bad” is happening to our world. It is interesting how the media evokes more fear by adding in the clip of people running and screaming while being attacked by birds.

      I think it would have been nice if they added a website for viewers to follow-up on the story to see if doctors actually found a cause for the events.

    • Abdulrahman Al-Homaid 03:46 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      There is always something to report in the news, good, bad, tragic, disaster, awkward, and all other kinds. Some people find some little stuff interesting and it really depends on the person who report it and who like it. Some people see it important and some people don’t.
      People these days relate many issues together trying to make sense. Of course, everything happens for a reason but sometime people just use wrong or weird reason which does not make sense to others.

    • Adam W 06:52 on March 17, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Seems pretty typical for the news media. They are always finding ways to exaggerate the truth and this is no exception. It was fairly obvious when watching this that the birds cant see at night so they ran into some stuff when they were scared out of bed. And the fish “had all the earmarks of disease” as claimed by some guy in the video. The news just likes to play to our fears because we will watch.

    • Dahir Moalim 03:33 on February 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I don’t think the news media should report nonsense news that people don’t care about. But I do believe some of the news has potential judgment towards the viewers. For example, if the news didn’t show the public what’s really going on in Somali, people wouldn’t know what’s really going on outside of the US. News media really want to remind the audience the effects that humans go through, and the ideal of serious causes that can affect people personally. I totally agree on the deaths of these fish and birds, but the main question is why it worth is to watch.

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.