Assignment 4: The Most Boring Day in the World

There are some days upon which the world is changed. Perhaps a great treaty is signed, or a king assassinated, or a work of art released to blow the minds of its audience. In such a hallowed canon of dates there are many great entries, and it is time to examine August 21st, 1995 against those entries. In light of the greatness of history... August 21st, 1995 was a fairly run-of-the-mill day, with basically nothing out of the ordinary. This is the truth of history: every day is going to be very, very similar, but they can be given meaning.

News of the Day: 

The news that day was fairly run of the mill, common enough. Political turmoil, banks merging or destroying the economy interchangeably, and of course the odd human interest story. One interesting article was from the New York Times, and the headline ran " C.I.A. Re-examines Hiring Of Ex-Terrorist as Agent"(Weiner). As it turned out, notable murderer Carlos the Jackal, a man who killed people with seeming impunity, and went on to be hired by the CIA. The article, while helpful, was just like modern articles: it neglected to answer the most critical question of all. Here, for example, that would be, "who thought that was a good idea."

How could anyone look at that face and say "Yeah he'll do great"?

Another solid article is "Surprising Straw Poll Gives Dole A Glimpse of the Battles Ahead", (Berke) a name that is as generic as it is common; a quick Google search yielded 1,650,000 results, across dates such as 2004, 2007, 2011, 2013, and of course, 1995. This seems quite interesting: no matter the time of history, the news is relatively the same. It's the same thing from now, the same stories. "A Politician is doing politics, and he's doing it better than another politician, according to our politics people!" shouts the media.

"'Ready, Ames, Fire': Today on Things that Newsmedia Actually Wrote"

Further articles enumerate the issues that faced the people of the 90s, and still face us today. Banks were in the middle of financial instability, and decided to begin merging or changing practices. Affirmative action was a hot-button debate, raging back and forth: with no more answer than today (Bragg). Women were being oppressed in various Second-  and Third-world countries, and protested it. (Ferrer) And all of these were relentlessly reported by a news media with constant need for articles. This led to fantastically engaging literature, such as the masterpiece of human interest, "Plastic Pipes Push Owners to Breaking Point."

This is written in jest, but it shows something very important: a lot of the "news" that goes on in a given day, whether it's a birthday or not.

Popular at the Time: 

The year 1995 was squarely in the middle of a very distinctive decade, the 90's, known for fashion trends that are very, very flashy, but in a minimalist way. This decade saw the onset of new punk chic and casual chic styles, as well as piercings. Flannel, tight pants, Converse, plaid, and microskirts all "took hold," to horrible effect. Take, for example, the "tight shiny pants" style for men,

To be fair to the 90s, we have One Direction.

or this ensemble shot,

or, if that isn't enough, the "patterned pants" style.

But then, think about the modern day. Patterned pants are back in, and huge. Just try counting how many people you see with patterns in any "hip" urban area. Skinny pants, Converse, and flannel are all staples of current fashion just as much as the 90s. So, again, in part we can make fun of how the past looks, but we repeat that very same past anyway.
Take the example of the Macarena, a dance that was all the rage during 1995. This revolutionary set of moves swept across America and the world, allowing even the most unskilled dancers to rock the floor. And they promptly did. In fact, even today, people know how to dance the Macarena --several of my friends have taught me time and and time again. The 90s, yet again, repeat to the modern day.

The Truly Important Story:  

So maybe August 21st, 1995 wasn't a terribly unusual day. But if nothing out of the ordinary, if no fashions or dances or news happened that shook the world, then why talk about it? Well, the first response would be because a healthy, normal-sized baby was born in Houston, Texas. The doctor told my mother that an epidural injection was necessary, to induce the birth. My father, a prodigious amateur photographer, took legendary numbers of pictures throughout the process, much to his wife's chagrin. Sadly, my mother's dislike of such candid photographs led to many of them being thrown away or otherwise destroyed. When my mother went to pick me up from my basinet, she found me with my arms behind my head, grinning and according to her, saying, “Here I am, world. You may adore me now.”While I doubt my speech was quite that advanced yet, I believe that August 21st is still an important day: because it is a day that changed my life.

Picture not really me.

In the end, what you find as important about a given day isn't really what the news or the culture finds important: on the day when hundreds of people were dancing the Macarena, or perhaps getting very annoyed with their plastic pipes, I was born. To my family, that is what makes the day significant, and nothing else. The same is true for others: the days that we find important are important just because of what we value. This is true even for August 21st, 1995, a day that is seemingly a "run of the mill." And yes, every day is very, very, similar, but they can be given meaning by the people around us! Or tongue-in-cheek humor. Whichever way works: it's your day after all!

 

 

 

Citations: 

-Weiner, Tim. "C.I.A. Re-examines Hiring Of Ex-Terrorist as Agent." New York Times 21 Aug. 1995. New York Times. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
-Berke, Richard L. "Surprising Straw Poll Gives Dole A Glimpse of the Battles Ahead." New York Times 21 Aug. 1995. New York Times. Web. 1 Nov. 2014. 
-Bragg, Rick. "Affirmative Action: One City's Experience; Fighting Bias With Bias and Leaving a Rift." New York Times 21 Aug. 1995. New York Times. Web. 1 Nov. 2014.
-FERRER, MAYA SALVADO. "Riding the Rails to Beijing; Women Headed for Conference Begin 6,000- Mile Journey." The Washington Post 21 Aug. 1995. Web. 1 Nov. 2014. <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-851759.html?>. 

Assignment 3: Huffington Post v. Google, "The Human Touch"

When a chef in a fancy restaurant brings his filet mignon to the table, its deliciousness is irrelevant if it is not well framed. It may be a delicious steak, well cooked and tender, but if there’s not that final drizzle of sauce and tiny sprig of parsley, the meal is considered unsatisfactory in the eyes of finer cuisine. Often times, we don’t realize when the sprig of parsley is put on, whether it’s being put on a plate, or metaphorically attached to a news site. We don’t recognize the satisfaction of the Human Touch.

This is never more evident than in comparison of the Huffington Post and Google News as aggregators. Both of them gather articles, organizing and compiling links on an an excess of topics from across the web in order to give them meaning. In this way, they seem to serve the same purpose: with very similar articles and links in any given news cycle, the content is the same. Here again we find that the final touches such as marketing, advertising, and organizational focus emphasize the human touch.

The first facet of difference between the Post and Google is indeed marketing: which articles are placed where, and with what title lines. The Huffington post is dominated by feelings, emotions, by human interest stories and action words. “Glared”, “Mighty”, “Mysteries”, “Secrets”, “Hilarious”, and “Nostalgia” all spring from the page, promising a feeling, a personal reaction to the article after the reader ends.



Compare this to Google, who focuses on concise, precise, machine-like titles. “Turkish Inaction on ISIS Advance Dismays the US…” or “IMF Asks Rich Nations for Support” Here, the words chosen are neutered, clinical, but always very good at conveying the true story. To see the difference between the Post and Google, look at some of the stories they both cover. Huffington says, “Texas Ebola Patient's Family Unable To Sleep After Seeing His Face”, while Google simply notes that “Family too upset to see Ebola patient via video.” Or, again: the Huffington Post says “These States Still Won't Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses”, but Google, in another article on the subject, says “Gay marriage bans fall in Idaho, Nevada after high court decision.”

 

All of this doesn’t even consider the choice in articles, which may be the most interesting. Google consistently examines political and economic issues such as public opinion, revolutions, and constant stock updates. The Huffington post is nearly the opposite, looking much more towards human interest stories and individuals.

Now there is an argument here that it’s not Google’s fault: after all, it’s just an algorithm, pulling these headlines from other sources and citing them. But that’s just it: it’s an algorithm, not a human editor. So of course its articles are going to be less relevant, less catchy, less emotional than that curated by a normal human.

Second comes advertising, a less nuanced difference. Less nuanced for one simple reason: Google does not have any advertising. While the Huffington Post has a few sparingly sprinkled “Presented By” articles, Google has none at all. The Post’s articles are all quite interesting, just as much so as the normal content, and that is just one of the ways they’re indistinguishable. The ads for the Post are all native, formatted in just the same way, and worked on by the editors of the magazine. In addition, they fit in the “stream” layout of the articles, not catching the eye or obstructing the flow of customer interaction.

 

It is rather puzzling that Google doesn’t choose to include advertisements here, as there many opportunities to do so. Some would object to advertisements in a news source, but the Huffington has shown that that can be done tastefully. So why doesn’t Google advertise? Simply put, because it doesn’t have actual editors. The Huff Post has the advantage of being able to curate content, choosing what to include or not include, and how to word things. They can also work on articles, finding the best place for readers and for clients. Google News, in its own words, says “The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program.” In other words, no human touch. 


The final difference between the two aggregators is a matter of layout. Just as a master cook would labor over the exact placement of his filet, both Huffington Post and Google pursue their news goals in their distinct style of organization. The Post has an interlocking stream of different articles, ranging from side to side and up and down, continually providing new content. In addition, the top or “front page” articles all focus on the accompanying picture, which serves as an easy hook for readers’ eyes. Also inset into the flow are the “Presented By” advertisements and social media interactions, further spicing up the variety. More than variety, though, this colorful arrangement is pleasing to the eye, and naturally pulls people from one story to the next in a trail of discovery.    

Google News, on the other hand, has a methodical line-ordered layout, each article in line with its neatly sized picture, and nicely edged to provide one top-to-bottom. The focus here is on the headlines: each is brought out from the text in bright bold blue, and clearly conveys the point. It’s no coincidence these headlines sit at the center of the page: they are the center of Google’s aggregating service as well.
 
Here again are found two very different purposes: one is information, and the other emotional engagement. Google seeks to make all its information visible and easy to navigate, professional and scholarly. Informative. Huffington, on the other hand, looks comparatively shoddy and juvenile, but moves viewers’ attention from one article to the next in a very intuitive, pleasing, almost conversational manner.

But the central question is not what each of these sources is like, but which is better, and why? Well, the simple answer is that it depends on if you prefer information or emotion, but this is very unsatisfactory. Given that most humans read news, discover content in order to learn or know more, it seems that the Huffington Post is the better aggregator. It gives more impact to the stories with its marketing, has a streamlined advertising that, if you’ll pardon the pun, “ads” to the experience, and has a more organic, natural, organization.

Marketing, Advertising, and Organization are all the garnishes atop Google News and the Huffington Post, and it seems that we can judge their steaks by those garnishes. Both aggregators come out as useful for their own purposes, but the Post has the edge.

Assignment 2: "Like Everything"

I have to admit something at the outset: I don't use Facebook all that much. In fact, this week was the most I've used Facebook in half a year or more, so my results may be different. One other thing: I wanted to find the tipping point that I mentioned in an earlier article, so I changed the parameters a little. I formulated the hypothesis that the writer of "I liked everything" had achieved his results because he liked ads (according to the article, 8 at a time), leading to his "unfriendly" wall.

What I found was... exactly that. There were definitely ads there, but they took up 20% or less of the space, roughly the recommended split for social media anyway. Every time I scrolled, I found an interesting story. When reading the article for the first time, I wrote  "Facebook's like doesn't mean "like": it should be relabeled "see weird stuff kind of but not really related to"... but I guess they can't fit that on one line." 

In continuing my study, it seemed to do that, more or less. I observed that certain friends who posted more (and since I liked everything, therefore had more likes) would show up almost every time, whereas friends who only posted occasionally, only showed up occasionally. On the whole, however, this was an almost infinitesimal correlation. In fact, several times I switched between my news feed as shown, and "newest posts" and there was very little difference. 

This leads me to conclude that Facebook has two Tipping Points of becoming a negative experience. The first is the obvious one: like too many ads, and they take over everything. The second one is more subtle: if you spend a significant amount of time on it, you may end up accidentally curating your content in the wrong direction. Both are equally bad, but there can be a solution: don't use Facebook that much. Works for me.

Three Tweets: Totally Unrelated

Twitter is known as a place of very quick, very varied content, and this is true of practically everyone's home page. This is well shown by the three very different tweets I retweeted this week. 

First off was one from my very favorite news account on Twitter, The Economist (@TheEconomist, funnily enough) which I've followed on basically all of my social media. Their posts almost always include graphs or illustrations to help flesh out the 140 characters, allowing it to make a greater impact in less time. For example, this post about the correlation of money and happiness was a good read, but I learned most with just the thumbnail: look at every country on there, and you see that money does indeed buy happiness. That is, until you get to the only truly third-world country on the list, Nigeria. For them, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Telling that the poorest country is the one that least seems to care about money, isn't it? All of that's from one tweet. 

Another short-but-powerful tweet is this one, from a favorite comedian of mine, Conan o'Brien: a post the day after Robin Williams' death about how great of of a comedian the late actor was. In just a few words and one embedded video, the post manages to convey a great deal about Conan: his love of making people laugh, his friendships and relationships in the business, and how much of an impact people can make. Again, one tweet: but a whole lot to learn from nevertheless. 

The final tweet is, perhaps, a little less meaningful. Scratch that, a whole lot less meaningful. It's the Wall Street Journal, in an uncharacteristically light-hearted video, giving an ode to bacon. This works as a very funny video, despite its dialogue or visible humor, because of how out-of-character it seems for the Journal. Besides that, in perfect honesty, I wrote this post at about dinner time, so bacon sort of had an advantage.