We’re on the road to nowhere

Posted on June 28, 2018 by bvanrysdam

How did we get here? That’s a question that’s being asked more and more. Where has civility gone? Have we come to the point where people are so tired of feeling bad that they feel the need to lash out at others?

I attended a recent conference that featured Evan Smith from the Texas Tribune. He spoke about how, as a society, we are choosing to get our information from sources that think like we do. Consider yourself a conservative? You’re probably watching Fox News. Lean more liberal? You are probably turning to CNN for your news.

The problem is that you are only getting one side to story that may have several (meaning even more than two!). Americans are not looking to get information to learn something, but rather looking for someone to validate their own beliefs and that’s where the trouble starts.

Doing this leads us to thinking we don’t need to compromise because there are plenty of people who think like we do right? Why should we give in, let the other guy deal with it. This leaves us running in place for the most part because nothing gets done (which actually could be a good thing).

Here’s something else to remember. While the right is getting their information from Fox and the left from CNN, there is a common denominator between both media giants, they are driven by profits which means, just like politicians, they play to their base (or audience).

I am not suggesting it’s #FakeNews, but than again, it’s not very good coverage of the news either.

Who is minding the store?

Posted on September 19, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Computers and big data are getting smarter and smarter, but are we relying on them too much?

Bogus ads and fake news on Facebook are getting people’s attention. Being able to super-target a consumer down to age, gender, location and web browsing history is a marketers wet dream, but a question of who is minding the store is starting to be raised.

There is currently an investigation underway to determine if the Russian government tried to influence the recent presidential election, but there is even a darker element to targeting certain groups of people that defies common sense.

ProPublica, an investigative news organized reported on how Facebook’s automated ad software allowed them to target people interested in ‘Jew hater’, ‘History of why Jews ruin the world’ and ‘How to burn Jews’. The Houston Chronicle’s Chris Tomlinson tested those targeted groups with his own ads which Facebook approved within 15 minutes.

Facebook eventually removed those options after it was brought to their attention, but the question remains, how could that have been an acceptable target demo to begin with?

Buying ads on social media that are automated allows companies to keep profits high and costs down, but at what cost? Free speech is protected by the First Amendment, but do these companies really want to be known for promoting and profiting from these messages?

Disinformation is nothing new, Tokyo Rose was a fabricated name given by Allied troops in the South Pacific during World War II to all female English-speaking radio broadcasters of Japanese propaganda. The soldiers knew it was fake, but in today’s social media world, it’s getting harder and harder to spot them.

What responsibility does Facebook have? In the end, not much unless you are fan of credibility. Letting the consumer figure out what’s real and what isn’t does not sound like a solid business approach. Your friends might not stop posting, but companies might have second thoughts of having their ads next to a Jew hater ad.

There is another dark side to this automation without human oversite. During Hurricane Irma, people were scrambling to evacuate Miami. Travel websites starting jacking up fares that were $547 to over $3,200. Price gouging? No, just a computer doing its job of seeing high demand for an item and pricing it accordingly. Again, removing the human element from the equation.

How did consumers respond? They turned to social media to publicly shame companies for their practices (and to their credit, most responded). Until we learn to better humanize computers, we should be even more wary of what is being served to us in our feed.

The most watched music video of all time

Posted on July 11, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Gangnam Style is finally no longer the most watched YouTube video. The mega-hit by South Korean Psy was the most played video on YouTube for the last five years.

How popular was Gangnam Style? It broke the play counter and forced YouTube to rewrite the code, but now there’s a new No. 1; “See You Again” by Wiz Khalifa and featuring Charlie Puth.

“See You Again” has whizzed by Psy with an astonishing 2,896,978,257 views (at the time of writing). The song, released in 2015 on the Furious 7 Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, was commissioned as a tribute to the late actor Paul Walker.

A lot has happened since Gangnam Style was released. Obama was re-elected to a second term, Whitney Houston passed away, the Boston Marathon was rocked by a bomber, Pope Benedict XVI resigned, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, the Winter Olympics were held in Sochi, Microsoft introduced Windows 10 and Donald Trump was elected president.

It is astonishing when you think about the number of times these two videos have been seen when you consider that 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute with almost 5 billion videos being watched every day.

Video may have killed the radio star, but today it looks like YouTube killed MTV.

What’s the frequency Kenneth?

Posted on July 6, 2017 by bvanrysdam

The Federal Communications Commission is considering whether or not to keep the main studio rule which requires stations to maintain “main studios” in their primary coverage area.

Organizations like the National Association of Broadcasters claim this rule is inconsistent” with listener and viewer expectations, and suggested that eliminating the rule would result in cost savings, better deployment of resources, efficiency and better service.

The broadcast industry, like many other industries, has seen massive challenges and change over the last few decades. Years of consolidation, debt and emerging technologies like the internet have forced to it to come up with new ways to remain viable and profitable.

Long gone are the days where powerful radio stations were owned by families like the Jones (who owned KTRH & KLOL). Those families were part of the fabric of the community, and while making a profit was important, so was service.

LPTV operator Venture Technology Group said “the purpose of the rules has been bypassed by technology,” but has it? I thought the purpose was to serve the community that the station was licensed to.

There is fear that broadcasting emergency information can be impacted. Can you imagine someone in Los Angles providing coverage of a hurricane that is headed toward Houston? There is also concern if you eliminate the main studio rule, you run the risk of losing places for talent to pay their dues and gnaw their teeth. It is very rare for someone to be an overnight sensation and make it to the major markets.

So where do new and aspiring broadcasters start? Internet radio? Pod-casting? YouTube? All are possible, but that begs the question, who needs a broadcast station to begin with.

Many feel the industry shot themselves in the foot when they opened the door to consolidation and allowed companies to own multiple stations in a single market. They might be shooting themselves in the other foot if the main studio rule goes away which will make it very hard for them to remain standing.

To tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

Posted on June 8, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Donald J. Trump likes to tweet. He has turned to Twitter to announce his Director of the FBI nomination, criticize his critics and his thoughts on why the ratings were poor for The Apprentice.

While pundits have been talking for days on how seriously people should take his tweets, there is another discussion taking place regarding the constitutionality of how he manages his Twitter account.

It seems @realDonalTrump has blocked several accounts that reply to his tweets with comments that are, shall we say, not very nice (and really, who could blame him?). Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them and there-in lies the potential problem.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York sent a letter to President Trump, requesting he unblock certain Twitter users on the grounds it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They claim blocking the tweets is a form of suppressed speech in a public forum which is protected.

President Trump isn’t the first politician to block users, members of congress, governors and other elected officials have all blocked/deleted people on various social media channel. The problem, according to Deborah Jeon, American Civil Liberties Union legal director, is that many politicians are using social media in place of town hall meetings. It makes sense in the fact that it’s much easier to control the conversation.

Legal experts have said that President Trump’s tweets have effected public policy, hampering efforts to have his so-called travel ban become law. It has also been reported that many White House staffers learn of new initiatives by his tweets.

So where could this lead us to? Most likely that proverbial road to the courthouse.

The art of optics

Posted on May 12, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Op.tics

Noun

the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

Optics have always played a major role in politics. The way something is seen can be just as, if not more important, than what it’s trying to accomplish. Politicians work feverishly to make sure they are put in the best light, so it’s a little strange to see someone buck that trend.

President Trump is a person who has always done things his way. From The Art of a Deal to the Trump “brand’; it has always been his way or the highway. This week, Trump meet with the Russian ambassador one day after firing F.B.I. Director James Comey for either being mean to Hillary, or for continuing to look at connections between the Trump campaign and Russia (I report, you decide).

This is not about why Trump dumped Comey, but about the optics of meeting with the Russians the next day. Trump explained to NBC’s Lester Holt that he “never thought about the optics” of welcoming Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the White House the day after he fired Comey.

“It was set up a while ago, and frankly, I could have waited but what difference does it make? I’m not looking for cosmetics. I’m looking to do a great job for the country,” said Trump.

Now some people will find that honesty refreshing. Maybe if we worried less about how the public might react to something and focus more on the job at hand, we would be better off.

Trump’s problem is that his so-called negative optics are as plentiful as opinions and are causing people to question his ability to lead and trustworthiness. Conflicting information, dismissing high level staffers like Mike Flynn and James Comey; and an ever changing narrative from his spokespersons erode the level of confidence and willingness (if you can find one democrat) to work with him.

During the campaign, the word unconventional was used ad nauseam to describe his campaign. I’m surprised we don’t hear that word more to describe his presidency.

Any volunteers?

Posted on April 24, 2017 by bvanrysdam

Boy it’s tough to fly these days. From airlines squeezing passengers into smaller and smaller seats, charging for checked bags and overbooking flights, it’s no wonder the friendly skies are becoming more and more tense.

By now, I’m sure you along with the entire world has seen the video of a United Airlines passenger being forcibly removed from a flight from Chicago to Louisville. The video, which includes audio of the man screaming while being lugged down the aisle, is difficult to watch, but does not tell the whole story.

United was trying to make room for a flight crew to get to Louisville. An announcement was made that they needed four passengers to give up their seats which were already taken. When no one volunteered, three passengers were asked to get off with little fan-fare (although I’m sure they were not happy) and no video to post on social media. David Dao, the fourth passenger, refused to give up his seat, resulting in Chicago airport police dragging him down the aisle.

The problem? The airline was actually in their rights to ask the passenger to get off the plane. In the fine print (that nobody ever bothers read) it basically gives the airline the right to remove anyone for any reason. Each airline has their own policy on how a person is to be reimbursed, but make no mistake, United Airlines was in their rights to do what they did.

Now you can argue that isn’t fair and that United Airlines totally mishandled the entire incident (and you would be correct), but what about the actions taking by Mr. Dao? A law officer made a request which he chose to ignore. Does that mean other passengers in the future can disregard a request/command from a law officer? I’m not sure I’m comfortable going down that pathway either.

United Airlines was in the wrong, but so was Mr. Dao. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but maybe, just maybe it will generate a discussion on passenger rights for future travelers.