YouTube Presidential Debates

I missed the previous one, but I'll be watching on Nov. 28:

http://www.youtube.com/debates.

I think it's accurate to say that these YouTube-CNN debates can be as revolutionary to elections as were the Kennedy-Nixon debates, our first televised presidential debates.

I had a chance to watch portions of the Kennedy-Nixon debates when I visited the John F. Kennedy Museum two years ago.

I was disappointed. Now, before I explain why, I have to admit that a televised debate was revolutionary in 1960 and undoubtedly changed history. So a 21st century perspective my not be able to appreciate it in the context of its times. Still, I saw disappointing parallels with today's elections. Basically, Kennedy and Nixon sounded remarkably similar to today's candidates during debates. Both played it safe. They gave nonanswers to questions: lot's of unspecific, political cliches and generalizations; few specifics on issues. In other words, they really didn't say anything.

I also expected Nixon to look like a buffoon. After all, every reference I've ever read or seen about these debates since elementary school stressed how Nixon's untelegenic performance lost him the election. Well, I hate to admit it, but I don't think he looked so awful. As I noted, in 1960 viewers may have felt differently.

So one of my conclusions from watching part of the 1960 debate is that although the presentation of presidential campaigns changed dramatically, the content of candidate dialogue and debate has not changed in nearly half a century: avoid specifics, play it safe and vanilla.

For that reason, I don't expect the YouTube-CNN debates to change the substance of the debates or election, but I expect them to dramatically change how elections are presented.

Once again, my theme: Digital technology is not improving communication, just speeding it up and presenting it differently.

The Flip Side of Fraud

MU is celebrating Security Awareness Month with a series of workshops on identity theft, spam protection and other online security issues.

On the flip side, the recording industry is suing individuals who illegally downloaded music. Numerous stories:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96796,00.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/315599_music14.html

When I hear about record labels suing individuals, my first reaction is a loud laugh. C'mon. Way back in the '80s and '90s the recording industry wasn't suing individuals who "pirated" music onto blank cassette tapes. And how many teenagers can you throw in jail? For that matter, how many adults? Well, jail time is not what anybody is looking at, but fines ranging anywhere from $750 to $150,000 for each downloaded song. David Lee Roth's "Greatest Hits" no longer sounds that good.

Well, even though my first reaction is for the record companies to get a life, I hate to admit that they are right. Not because their industry (euphemism: their profits) need protection from all us pirates. If I have to adjust how I live my life because of changes in technology, I don't see why the record labels shouldn't have to roll with technology also. And not because stealing is bad or intellectual property is sacred or artists will starve even more if these protections aren't in place. No, even though all of these arguments are valid, they are not the ones that persuade me.
It's my own hypocrisy. If I want to be safe from identity theft, I suppose I have to accept that record companies deserve protection of their property, too. Can't have it for one and not others. That just isn't right.

So will I stop my hypocritical ways. Not. I'll still keep downloading (pirating) music when I can find ways. And I'll hate it if I get caught and have to pay a grand for those David Lee Roth singles I "accidentally" and embarrassingly downloaded. But I'll still have to admit that the recording industry is right.

Now, even though they are right, is there really anyway to keep the genie in the bottle? ... Let's hope not.

Laptop Classroom

I read a feature story in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “The Laptop Debate Rages On.”

The gist of the story is that one-third of private high schools in the St. Louis area now require or supply laptops for all their students.

Some schools are resisting the trend. Kudos for them. I think this story is a microcosm of three major issues regarding technology in our society.

Devaluing of Human Communication
As I discussed in my first post, I think the pace of technological advances is dehumanizing people. We are being conditioned to “communicate” with people as if they also were machines. This goes beyond rudeness, impatience and immediate gratification. It contributes to stunted emotional complexity. People are becoming emotionally less complex. When this happens, it becomes easier to view people as objects. Does not bode well for the divorce rate or raising healthy children.

Changing how we Think
Processing information vs. intellectual debate. Presentation over substance. Efficiency is more valued than originality and spontaneity. In other words, how we think is changing.

The Real Digital Divide
Not everybody can afford a laptop. The divide between the haves and have nots is growing.

Now, the price of laptops is dropping. So this have/have not scenario will probably decrease in the United Sates. But not across the globe.

To Summarize
Digital communication is a fantastically effecient tool. But effeciency has nothing to do with creating meaningful relationships or true intellect. Effeciency serving itself can quickly splinter individual relationships and relationships among groups of people.

Thank you for your comments to my first post. I’ll look forward to reading comments to this one.

Speed

Life is moving faster than ever before in human history because of the pace of technological change. While this speed of change has benefits, it also has downsides.

I think the speed of digital communication is having three powerful effects on society:

1. Pop culture is everywhere. And pop culture is driven by advertising, and the values of advertisers dominate just about all content that is produced, advertisements or not. So the explosion of pop culture through technology means the consumer culture is becoming even more powerful.
   
2. People’s attention spans are shrinking. The immediacy of digital communication is conditioning people to have shorter attention spans.
   
3. Electronic entertainment and communication. Whether you want to watch TV or play video games, it’s easy to find a source of electronic entertainment to indulge in. So easy, that people are spending more time with machines rather than with people. People are bonding more with television characters than other humans. Electronic communication is also easy. People are communicating more through IM, email and discussion boards. As a result, people are having less in-person interaction. Once again, we are bonding less with each other.

So, the trend that is spiraling faster is that people want a lot of consumer products, want them now, and have increasingly more human “intimacy” with these products than they do with each other. I think it is easy to see why increased technology increases dehumanization.

Agree? Disagree? Yeah, but. Let me know.