Just Because You Can Report it, Doesn’t Mean You Should…

So, I’ve blogged a few times about the speed at which technology moves and how we, as humans, have become far less patient over time because we’ve got used to things moving so fast.

Nowadays, we don’t have to wait for much. In the ‘olden days’ people used to find out their news via word of mouth or, more likely, via the newspaper. Readers used to pour over their newspaper each morning to find out what was going on in the world. Then TV news became popular and people started watching that to find out what was going on. It was a little quicker and the news was freshly reported.

Nowadays, though we still have newspapers and TV news, we also have the internet. You can find what seems to be an infinite number of places to read news online. You can choose the category of news you want to read. It’s a virtual way of thumbing through a newspaper and pulling out only the sections you enjoy reading.

It’s quite useful, really. We no longer have to wait for breaking news to pop on TV with the verdict in a sensational trial or to find out there’s been a mass shooting or natural disaster. All you have to do is click on MSN.com or Yahoo.com or igoogle.com and the headlines can be right there, tempting you to click on the link and read the latest.

It’s a nice feature. It satiates our need for instant gratification. News is posted only seconds after it happens.

Yet, as with so many things in life, here’s a downside. It means that for every useful, worthy piece of news, there’s a lot of junk that goes with it.

For example, let’s just take something current: The Casey Anthony trial. What’s relevant in that news should be the verdict of a trial that’s been going on a while. A little girl died. Her mother was accused. A trial occurred. The jury deliberated. The verdict was reached.

This is the basics of what should be reported. Instead, the internet is saturated with everything from Jay Leno’s bad jokes about the trial to comments from jurors to editorials about why the jurors are idiots, why Casey should get murdered and why her parents are evil.

Today, I was on MSN’s main page. I got there because I sent an email from my Hotmail account and when I log out, this is the default page. I was assaulted by headlines. Yesterday, there was a story focuses on one of the alternate jurors who defended the verdict. Today, there was a story with an actual juror who defended the verdict. Except, they were the exact same article, the lead was different, the headline was different.

Why did I click on it, you ask? Because I couldn’t help it. I was curious. As a human being, it’s interesting to a) form an opinion and then b) have the tools to find out if you’re the only one to have this opinion. In addition, it’s interesting to see what other opinions/news is out there because it’s in my nature to be curious and get all the facts.

Except, the news stories that are popping up aren’t really facts as much as filler. The legal case is hot news so the internet resources are capitalizing on that. Even Entertainment Weekly has a lot of stories on the Casey Anthony case even though, technically, it’s an entertainment magazine and doesn’t really need to focus on current affairs.

What I’m saying is that I think we tend to abuse the instant nature of technology. I confess, I’m an enabler because I do click on a lot of the links because I’m being lured in by the promise of something interesting when, nine times out of ten, there’s nothing new, just more recycled information.

What I think about Casey Anthony doesn’t matter here or anywhere. I’m just using it as an example because it’s new and it’s current.

It’s not just oversaturation of the media with news stories that’s a problem. It’s the fact that some things just aren’t news worthy but they end up getting an article/blog anyway because there’s a precedent to ‘keep up with the joneses” as far as the internet goes.

This means, in short, that there’s a lot of absolute, ridiculous crap that masquerades as news. This is the stuff I don’t click on. For example, today, I saw a headline “Worst Celebrity Sunburns.”

Um, no offense to the poor burned celebrities but, who cares? I’m sure the intention was to show ‘celebrities are just like us’. We get sunburned, they get sunburned. WOW!

Except, again, who cares? Do we really need that? It’s just like an article the other day that I saw on several magazine sites about an actress cutting four-inches off her hair.

Again, who cares? I’m sure it was a big change for the actress but do we really need to know that? Do we really need headlines all over the internet telling how Natalie Portman has finally told the world the name of her baby. I’m happy for Natalie and her boyfriend. I’m more happy for the baby that it has a name because that makes life easier for everyone. Sure, it’s a bit of news, I suppose but does it really rate as many links online as…real news?

Then there’s Charlie Sheen. I find him just ridiculous, honestly. I never thought he was much of an actor and while I find his whole drug-addled meltdown slightly fascinating from a psychological point of view, I think that if the media didn’t report every idiotic thing he said and did, he might stop doing them and get some help for his drug problem.

Generally speaking, most celebrities thrive in the spotlight. They like attention. They do silly things for attention. Sometimes, because of the blur between reality and slanted media coverage, we tend to forget they’re human beings. Take Lindsay Lohan. Everything that girl does is covered by the media whether genuine news or paparazzi-fueled rubbish. I think she’s made some terrible choices. She’s got terrible parents. Frankly, she sort of makes me want to take a shower because, well, she has that effect.

Yet, she has a problem. She’s clearly an alcoholic. Her attempts at rehab have all been spotlighted in the constant presence of the internet news/paparazzi sites. How can she ever attempt to get real help for her problem when she can’t do it in private? She likes the attention, I’m sure that’s part of the reason she’s always doing silly things. Yet she doesn’t seem to have anyone sensible around her to tell her to drop out the public eye, get some real help and work on reconstructing her life.

I’m soapboxing, I know. I apologize. My real point is this: Just because it could be news doesn’t mean it should be. I think every site online that reports news should be forced to run their stories through a filter consisting of the following questions:

1) Is it really news?
2) If it is really news, what is the who, why, what, when, where and how of it?
3) If those five W’s and the H aren’t there, it’s not news. It might be a feature article.
4) If they are there, have they been the same for a story of the same topic in recent days/hours/minutes?
5) If it’s a feature article, is it something that people NEED to know? Will it benefit their life at all to see, for example, Jennifer Anniston with a sunburn?

I’m sure there are more questions but that’ll do for a start. Of course, I can help contribute to the cleaning up of internet news junk by not bothering to read it.

Which is why I refuse to read about sunburns, haircuts, jilted celebrities and who said what about Casey Anthony.

You have to start somewhere, right?

Thanks for letting me rant.

Happy Friday and have a great weekend!

Facebook: Our Grown-Up Playground....

We seem to be stuck in a system of gloom. The humidity outside is so thick that inside, everything feels almost sticky. The easy solution for this would be to put the air conditioning on but, so far, at home, I refuse. It's almost October and the temperature gauge is only reading 82 degrees. It seems extraneous to turn it on when fans are sufficing. It's just that blasted stickiness which isn't going away.

I listened to the weather this morning. I know, I know, it's pointless as I complain regularly. Yet I was hoping to find out when this nasty, humid, gloomy front would pass us by. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Mr. Weatherman doesn't seem to know. All he can say is, "you might have thunderstorms." Seriously, he seems positively befuddled at what's happening and hasn't any idea how long it will last and if, in fact, it will even rain, even though it always seems to look like rain. So....basically, I have absolutely no idea if it's going to rain or if the humidity is going away any time soon.

Ah well, I suppose it means it'll be a surprise if anything actually happens with the weather. It doesn't mean I don't often wonder how Mr. Weatherman keeps his job. That's just one of the mysteries of life.

Still, I'm sure there's much more to not knowing what the weather is going to do than it seems on TV.

While I was waiting for Mr. Weatherman's vague forecast, I had the news on. I like to listen to the news in the morning. I did prefer it when I didn't have to leave quite so early for work because they do a segment that's called, "News from around the U.S." that airs later in the morning. This report usually features cute stories about bears that wander into people's yards, monkeys that do cute things in various zoos and dogs that are awfully clever. There's something nice about seeing animals on the news instead of just hearing about people shooting each other, shooting policemen or shooting themselves.

One of the stories I did hear is that the Florida Bar Association (or something similarly named) is now using social networking sites such as Facebook to research candidates for law jobs and law school. Apparently, they're using it to research job candidates who might have joined Facebook groups like, "Lawyers Suck!" or "I HATE my lawyer" and then decide to become lawyers.

Now, personally, I think this is a little bit too much. Also, I'd like to think if I hired a lawyer who had joined a Facebook group like that and then become a lawyer, he or she would be smart enough to unjoin the group before actually becoming a lawyer.

Still, even so, I still think that's a bit of a snoopy job practice.

I admit; I love Facebook. I used to be on MySpace when that was the trendy place to be. Unfortunately with MySpace, it got overrun with porn, stupid spam mail and just became a bit of a ghost town because all my friends were defecting over to Facebook.

I followed them only to reconnect with the most bizarre assortment of friends I could ever have expected. I found old friends in England, friends from high school whom I had lost after graduation, cousins, aunts, uncles...it was and is fantastic for that.

I don't spend quite as much time on the site as a lot of my friends do. Most days, my time on there is spent updating my status to something rather asinine and reading my friends' statuses. It's a fantastic way of knowing what people are up to without having to make too much of a commitment. I love it.

I don't use Facebook for sharing really personal information. Some of my friends give a lot of personal info in their status updates, stuff I wouldn't want the entire world of my facebook making to know. It's a personal choice, I get that. It's not one I make but it doesn't mean I frown on those that do share information.

For me, the key word there is personal. Facebook is a place to electronically socialize, to catch up, to take silly quizzes and just have fun. I found out that if I were a character in True Blood, it would be Pam; I actually was quite pleased with that. She's sarcastic, hilarious, a snappy dresser and best of all gets to hang around with Eric. I also discovered my personality type, got addicted to Bejewelled Blitz and found out that my Patronus (from Harry Potter) would be a polar bear.

What it comes down to is that Facebook is a big old place for us grownups to go play as if we were kids again. The games and toys are not dolls and miniature cars, they're quizzes, silly games and becoming fans of TV shows, authors, groups, chefs...you name it, there's probably a group. It's a big old electronic playground and the time we spend there is like our playtime, our recess.

So, naturally, feeling the way I do about Facebook, I find it a little off-putting that employers seem to think this is a good way to spy on potential candidates. I'm not saying that I don't see why they're doing it. I suppose it is a good way to get a sense of a person. Also, you can make your profile private so that they can't see more than your picture. But if it means employers are asking permission to see a profile, that's a different story. That, to me, is a violation of my personal life. I wouldn't allow them to come over and search my house to find out who I am, what I like, what I do in my spare time. IThat seems to be what they're doing by looking around Facebook. I'd get it if I were applying to be in the FBI or CIA or something classified. I mean, you wouldn't want someone whose addicted to Farmville and can only think about that to become a CIA agent, would you? Then again, I don't think a person like that would be applying to the CIA so it's a non-issue.

So, really, I don't think there's many excuses for an employer to be snooping on my Facebook profile. Granted, if I'm silly enough to befriend my boss, I don't think I'm daft enough to do anything on Facebook that's incriminating. In that case, it'd be my choice that I'm allowing them into my personal life; at least I know my boss and I'm consciously allowing them to snoop.

For potential employers though, it doesn't seem quite right. I know there are arguments to my point and I'm absolutely willing to hear them. For me, personally, however, I just don't think it's right that because in 2009 we have an electronic 'playground' like Facebook, employers are exploiting that. After all, when we were in our early years of school, we'd huddle on the playground and swap erasers, pencil sharpeners and stickers. Granted, it was in the more innocent days when underage drug deals were still an unreal notion but teachers didn't stop us; they'd take one look at the bright coloured swap-materials, smile and walk away. They knew that playtime (recess to you American readers) was for the kids, not for the teachers. Provided we didn't do anything obviously naughty, they left us to our own devices.

The obvious point is that just because employers can do that, doesn't mean they should. I could argue that it's different for employees than it is for potential employees because then, at least, that employee has an obligation to the company for which they work in that they don't do anything to put it or it's reputation in jeopardy. Yet, even then, Facebook snooping should only be utilized in the most necessary of circumstances: Suspected murder, pedophilia and the like. Otherwise, it should be off limits and for the nosy boss who can't resist, they should NOT be allowed to hold anything they read from the employee against them.

I suppose it's all debatable really. As always, I'm just stating my ranty opinion. There's always two sides to an argument. Still, for me, as long as I know I can hide behind a 'private' setting on Facebook, I'm only letting people I know 'friend me' on Facebook. I don't even do anything on there that I'm embarrassed to share... It's more just the point of the thing. Facebook is my play place and I shouldn't be afraid to be me on there in case someone holds it against me or decides that because I belong to Mario Batali's fan group, I'm a pig and I eat too much...

Overall, I guess what I'm trying to say is that Facebook allows people to judge unfairly based on how they utilize the website. It's easy to dismiss someone for the groups they belong to, for the jokes they share when, in truth, that may not affect the fact that they'd be a stellar employee and could reap great things for a company.

When we were kids, we used to do things like run around with our coats extended, pretending we were superheroes, flying around. Teachers just let us do it because it blew off steam. We needed that. We still need that. Sure, it's probably not smart to declare you hate lawyers and then become one but...so what if you do? Unless you have a Dexter-like habit of waiting in the shadows and taking them out one-by-one, does it really do any harm? Does it mean you're not a good lawyer because you don't like other lawyers?

I suppose it's all in the interpretation.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

Happy Wednesday.

Big News in a Small Town...

I've realized why I blog about snow so much. Ok, so yes, I love snow and enjoy putting lyrical odes out into the blogosphere. However, I've also realized that I live in a small town in Ohio and, when it snows, that's the main event.

Take for example, yesterday. Our brilliant weather forecasters reported that we would get possibly one to three inches in the next 24 hours. So, when it started blizzarding down around 11 a.m., we were a little surprised. More surprised were we when the snow did not stop. By the time I left work at 5 p.m., we'd had at least 6 inches, it seemed. Needless to say, driving home...not so fun.

The nice thing is that my coworker and I live in the same apartment complex so we followed each other home in case we got stuck. You see, there is this major hill just down the road from our complex. It's a roller coaster-type hill, all the way down then all the way up. Since the snow was coming down so hard, we were afraid that the hill would be shut off as sometimes happens in bad weather. Fortunately, it wasn't closed and they'd done a great job of clearing it so that it was mostly slushy. The rest of the trip home....not so good.

Even parking the car in this heavy snow is nuts because it was blowing and driving through a drift to find the approximate of a parking space can be a challenge. Fortunately, I purchased Digger, my handy dandy snow shovel. He was very useful this morning. I managed to plow a path behind my car. And yes, I actually enjoyed that.

What I didn't enjoy was, once more, my stray was waiting to ask for a ride. Because I find it hard to be mean, I told him I would but I'm really, really hoping he gets his car fixed soon because he's getting in the way of my 'me-time'. I like to drive to work in the mornings and slowly wake up. I don't mean wake up in the sense that I'm driving down the road, fast asleep because that would be both scary and daft.

No, I mean that I'm awake when I drive but I like to let the day slowly approach me as I'm making my way to the office, not come at me in a rush. I listen to a CD and use my ten minute commute as a wake-up meditation of sorts. Well, unless some moron cuts me off and then I wake up quickly enough to think of many a crude insult.

This morning, I had company on my commute. The roads weren't too terrible this morning; I salute the snow plows who must have been at it all night. Yet my stray is a chatter which is something I prefer not to deal with until later in the morning. He lived in a city before and is horrified that, so far, I haven't felt the need to go into Cincinnati, the nearest city to us. The truth is...I haven't. I love the things that a city offers: Ethnicity, Arts, Culture...all that. Yet, living in L.A. for eight years gave me plenty of it and I think it's ok to take a break for a while and let the peace of this small town wash over me. Eventually I'll have the urge for some Vietnamese food or something else that's hard to find in the little towns near me but in the meantime, I'm loving the simplicity of a place in which a heavy snowfall is the big news.

It also helps that I'm still enamoured with snow and, even in spite of the complications it causes, am quite happy to watch it fall from the safety of my apartment.

Happy Wednesday.