Just Asking. Because there seem to be an increasing amount of scurrilous, sarcastic, and scatological items in what passes for the news. And they are not just found in places and on sites you would expect. You know 'em. Even grand old news organizations publish more than their share of snarky comments and opinions when putting the facts out there without the everyone-is-a-comedian comments would work better. Leave comedy to the comedians. They know what they are doing.
The Internet may be the Great Leveler but must we all sink to the lowest level? On the Internet, so the adage goes, no one knows you are a dog. But must everyone know you are a moron?
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Monday, November 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Speed, III
It seems that these days, as far as our economy is concerned, bad news can be good and good news can be perceived as bad, and we don’t have time to really assimilate it, let alone to do anything with or about it. One company’s earnings are bad but they are not as bad as analysts had predicted so the negative earnings become good news and the stock price rises. Another firm’s good news is perceived as negative since the good news is not as positive as analysts had calculated. So that firm’s stock falls.
The Internet, of course, is what makes this recession (if that’s what this depressing state of affairs is) different from the others. We learn about possibilities, scenarios—worst-case, best-case, disaster, etc—as soon as the theories leap from someone’s keyboard or mouth. There is a race to see who can get what information that has even a remote possibility of being something new—out there the quickest. Then wait a nanosecond for a reaction and then go on to the next exclusive. Now, this is how news gets publicized, and that’s the way it works, of course. But when it comes to markets and investors, each nuance can have an echo effect, or even an aftershock, that can actually cause what has been predicted. At least, that’s what we heard the past few months. And it is a bit unsettling.
Internet use has, obviously, been growing. Leading up to and during the 1990-1992 recession, the Internet didn’t play an important a role in the dissemination of information, misinformation and rumor, as it does today. According to Pew Internet and American Life, in mid 1995 about 14% of people in the U.S. were online. During the recession of 2001-2003, which was the result of the dotcom bubble burst, about 60% of people in the U.S. used the Internet. That 60% pretty much was a plateau of sorts during the period from Aug-Sept 2001 thru Feb 2004, with only a slight increase, followed by a small dip and then a rise to around 75% by the end of 2007.) http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Internet_Adoption_3.18.08.pdf And here we are today drenched in as much information we can get.
And how to know if we really are a recession? It used to be that we had to wait for the official word from the National Bureau of Economic Research to tell us. They are still the official arbiters but now, we have almost as much information as they do. Whether that is good or bad, depends on what we do with it, I guess.
[Thank you to Aaron Smith, Research Specialist with the Pew Internet and American Life Project based in Washington, D.C. for providing us with the Internet use data.]
The Internet, of course, is what makes this recession (if that’s what this depressing state of affairs is) different from the others. We learn about possibilities, scenarios—worst-case, best-case, disaster, etc—as soon as the theories leap from someone’s keyboard or mouth. There is a race to see who can get what information that has even a remote possibility of being something new—out there the quickest. Then wait a nanosecond for a reaction and then go on to the next exclusive. Now, this is how news gets publicized, and that’s the way it works, of course. But when it comes to markets and investors, each nuance can have an echo effect, or even an aftershock, that can actually cause what has been predicted. At least, that’s what we heard the past few months. And it is a bit unsettling.
Internet use has, obviously, been growing. Leading up to and during the 1990-1992 recession, the Internet didn’t play an important a role in the dissemination of information, misinformation and rumor, as it does today. According to Pew Internet and American Life, in mid 1995 about 14% of people in the U.S. were online. During the recession of 2001-2003, which was the result of the dotcom bubble burst, about 60% of people in the U.S. used the Internet. That 60% pretty much was a plateau of sorts during the period from Aug-Sept 2001 thru Feb 2004, with only a slight increase, followed by a small dip and then a rise to around 75% by the end of 2007.) http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/Internet_Adoption_3.18.08.pdf And here we are today drenched in as much information we can get.
And how to know if we really are a recession? It used to be that we had to wait for the official word from the National Bureau of Economic Research to tell us. They are still the official arbiters but now, we have almost as much information as they do. Whether that is good or bad, depends on what we do with it, I guess.
[Thank you to Aaron Smith, Research Specialist with the Pew Internet and American Life Project based in Washington, D.C. for providing us with the Internet use data.]
Friday, May 16, 2008
Desperately Seeking.......What?
So, let’s see, the best use of the Internet is to….........make fun of celebrities, as if we were mean and desperate 3rd graders looking to make ourselves feel better by making someone else with maybe more exposure/aptitude/talent/luck look bad?
Here are some recent puerile examples :
Msn.com tagged BJÖRK as being a fine example of one of the “Worst Fashion Flubs.”
First Impression—
--- Do we all want to look the same? So what if she surrounds her head with tennis-size puff balls in every hue of the rainbow and then some? This is who she is. Isn’t she a singer anyway? This wonderful weirdness is what she is known for…should she look like everyone else?
Second Impression:
Why do we care about this? What about the worst Financial Flubs? What about hedge fund managers making obscene amounts of money hedging bets that the rest of us will have to eventually pay?
A nastier example—one of many, I’m sure-- can be found on “Trusted AOL partner” TMZ’s site—“You make the stars…We make them real,” they announce proudly. Uh-huh. Real subjugated.
Accompanying a photo of Sarah Jessica Parker:
SJP: You're So Vein
Posted May 13th 2008 11:03AM by TMZ Staff
"Sex and the City" isn't the only thing being brought back to life -- so are Sarah Jessica Parker's hands!
The 43-year-old trendsetter stepped out in London on Sunday sporting the latest It accessory of the summer -- a pair of Frankenstein hands! Carrie Bradshaw doesn't need a man -- she's got man hands!
Is this something anyone cares about? Does this make others else feel a lot better about themselves? This person has a job as an actor and okay, to some extent she puts herself out there since that is part of the fame game. Two sides to that coin. But these people aren’t walking PIÑATAS. And it makes journalism, or whatever this is, look really really bad.
Here are some recent puerile examples :
Msn.com tagged BJÖRK as being a fine example of one of the “Worst Fashion Flubs.”
First Impression—
--- Do we all want to look the same? So what if she surrounds her head with tennis-size puff balls in every hue of the rainbow and then some? This is who she is. Isn’t she a singer anyway? This wonderful weirdness is what she is known for…should she look like everyone else?
Second Impression:
Why do we care about this? What about the worst Financial Flubs? What about hedge fund managers making obscene amounts of money hedging bets that the rest of us will have to eventually pay?
A nastier example—one of many, I’m sure-- can be found on “Trusted AOL partner” TMZ’s site—“You make the stars…We make them real,” they announce proudly. Uh-huh. Real subjugated.
Accompanying a photo of Sarah Jessica Parker:
SJP: You're So Vein
Posted May 13th 2008 11:03AM by TMZ Staff
"Sex and the City" isn't the only thing being brought back to life -- so are Sarah Jessica Parker's hands!
The 43-year-old trendsetter stepped out in London on Sunday sporting the latest It accessory of the summer -- a pair of Frankenstein hands! Carrie Bradshaw doesn't need a man -- she's got man hands!
Is this something anyone cares about? Does this make others else feel a lot better about themselves? This person has a job as an actor and okay, to some extent she puts herself out there since that is part of the fame game. Two sides to that coin. But these people aren’t walking PIÑATAS. And it makes journalism, or whatever this is, look really really bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
