Coverage in a Time of Conflict

I was listening to developments in Libya, I heard coverage of Qaddafi's comments about the no fly zone enforcement being "terrorism". It struck me as incongruous that we are seeing the conflict from both sides. Today, conflicts are carried out in the media, including the Internet, as much as on the ground. But coverage on the Internet is international and seen from both sides. So as much as it might encourage one side, it convinces the other that there point-of-view is spot on.

Why do you follow (friend, favorite, . . . ) me?

Although we all tend to think that the words we commit to our blogs are golden, I have been wondering why people follow those of us who are not the opinion leaders in a particular topic. I have done some looking and found that, generally, these are people who are hoping I will follow THEM in the hopes of selling me something.

I suspect that they search for tags, keywords which relate to the product/service they are pushing and friend/follow a user in the hope that they will, in turn, follow them and purchase their goods and services. Oh well, there goes what little hope I had that someone actually cared what I think!

Celebrities as News?

On NPR recently, they had an entire piece on Charlie Sheen's meltdown. Why is this news? Is every news outlet becoming a tabloid newspaper in the search for profits, even non-profit organizations like NPR? OK, I can see some value in this story. After all, he is the star of the most popular sit-com on US television and that property means scads of cash for the company which produces it and the network that airs it, not to mention the other places where it is in syndication. So, maybe that part part belongs on the business page detailing how these organizations are loosing (making?) money from Charlie's antics. But do I really have to sit an listen to a 4-5 minute piece on NPR like it was on the same level as the activity in the Arab world? Of course not, I can change radio stations or choose another form of news like podcasts or such. I am really tired of the cult of celebrities which the world seems to have fallen into where people make news just because they are rich or famous or something . . . Come on world, more about what really matters and less about the rich and famous.

OK, now I'll stop mentioning celebrities just because . . .

Become a Better Reader

Take a look at this article. The write makes some good points about reading things on the web. I think the best is the first:

Don't take things at Face Value

Even if the article was written by an unquestioned expert take the time to question it. The author says

. . . every article ever written has something in common: they were all written by a person, and as much as we’d all like to be perfect, sometimes we get things wrong.

Yep, and sometimes the writer has some sort of motive. Whether it's to get you to vote a particular way or to buy something or even to continue reading to support the advertising on the site. Be cautious and take note of that nagging little voice in your head.

Question, try, comment, and participate to get the best out of an article. Mull it over, just because it appears on the web doesn't mean that it is gospel.

I'm not on Facebook

I have said it before in posts on this and other blogs. But, yesterday, one of the impacts of this statement was brought home to me by my teenage daughter. She said she did not receive an invitation to a party because she was not on Facebook. The implication among her peer group is that everyone is on Facebook.  She isn't. We see no reason for her to go there an share the personal details of her life with the world and, perhaps, cause other harm by posting things that shouldn't be there. By we, I mean her parents and my daughter.

But this is one of the consequences of this decision. The question becomes, should it be a consequence? Should I be forced onto some social media platform in order to be included in the group? What is our society becoming that we can't communicate except by friending someone on a particular platform. Sure, it's a great deal for advertisers and others who make money off the platform, but is it such a great deal for the society as a whole?

I, personally, think that the more direct contact methods, e-mail, text, phone, even physical mail are preferable for this sort of thing. Heck, the user could even send and e-vite that comes to a person's e-mail, thus not forcing them to join a social media platform just to be part of the group.

Maybe we should form our own group . . . the "Don't force me to join" group . . . or maybe UNgroup.

Linked to People

I have said before that I'm not on FaceBook for various reasons, but I am on LinkedIn and I see that litte statistic that the 82 links result in 533,638+ connections to other professionals. Now that's a pretty interesting statistic, but it's like a lot of statistics in my life when it results in a so what reaction. It's not like I'm going to invite all those people over to dinner.

Working like a dog?

I'm not sure why people say that. From the looks of our dog, I'd like to "work like a dog!"

Merry Christmas and the best of the New Year to you and yours!