dan oshinsky dot com A blog about journalism. And my mother.

13Jan/100

My Generation is Totally Screwed, and It’s All the iPhone’s Fault.

There is a very good chance that my generation is totally screwed.

Certain jobs are disappearing, and that's a shame. It's a shame that copy editors at newspapers are being fired. It's a shame that accountants are being replaced by inexpensive computer software. It's a shame that elevator operators are out of jobs (and have been for quite some time).

It's a shame, but that's all it is.

What's terrifying -- and maybe even dangerous -- isn't the loss of those jobs but the loss of certain skills. Technology has given us a wonderful ability to streamline our lives by pushing us past our cognitive limits. We have brains, yes, and when you sync that brain to an iPhone, you've got a tandem that's capable of sorting through infinite amounts of hard data while freeing up space to make the difficult rational and emotional choices in our lives.

But what happens when we allow the machines to wholly replace certain skills? (1)

This isn't the first time that someone's raised concerns about the loss of basic human skills, and it won't be the last. Consider the classroom, where teachers worry about the impact of calculators on students. Who needs long division when a TI-83+ can do it for you? Who needs to master proper spelling when spell check will fix your mistakes?

Technology is evolving faster than we are. It will, I believe, come to a point where it overwhelms us.

The only question left is, What do we do when we get there?

I think of poor orientation skills due to GPS technology, poor researching skills due to Google and poor handwriting skills due to computers. I wonder how my brain will hold up under an inundation of information. On a daily basis, I multi-task while monitoring cable news (including the ticker at the bottom of the screen) and a cascade of news and links via Twitter. There's no way my brain's capable of processing it all.

Then I think a bit deeper: I wonder what will happen to our interpersonal skills now that Facebook is the link connecting friends. Chivalry is dead, but text messaging has taken communication to an instantaneous level that humans have never before experienced.

There's one more level, and it's the one that worries me the most. Maybe our brains will be able to evolve with technology. Maybe my fears will go unrealized. But what if -- in 20 or 30 years -- we find out that technology has come at a human cost?

As I write this, I'm sitting in a window seat on an airplane. It's a prop plane, and the blades are whirring with remarkable noise. I can barely hear my friend, who is sitting in the seat next to mine.

Two rows in front of us, on the other side of the aisle, a man is listening to his iPod at what must be an incredible volume. He's seven feet away, but I can hear every drum snare and every bass line escaping out of his headphones.

I'd like him to turn the music down, not as much for my sake but for his. I cannot imagine how many decibels must be pumping into his ears, but I know it cannot be a healthy number. At this volume, this man is literally listening himself deaf.

So I wonder: what will my generation do if iPod use wreaks permanent hearing damage upon us? And what will we do if we find that cell phones have been pumping cancerous waves of radiation into our brains?

In previous generations, health risks were slightly less complicated. Cigarette use was linked to disease and early death, and smoking rates have declined steadily since. But cigarettes were just a tool to relax the mind; they weren't rewiring it. Even if we find out that certain forms of technology are detrimental to our health, putting down the smartphone might be a tough task, especially as we grow dependent on it as the brain we keep in our pocket.

What I'm saying is this: if technology doesn't leave us behind, we still might have to find a way to leave it behind.

That might just be the scariest thought of all.

  1. The answer -- as it concerns taxpayer dollars -- is debated at great length in P.W. Singer's "Wired for War," a wise read about the future of technology in the military.
1Nov/090

Read This, and Every Time You See the Word “DVR,” Insert “The Internet” Instead.

The New York Times has an interesting article today about the DVR and its impact on TV viewing. The article notes that TV execs once feared the DVR. Now, they love it.

What happened? It's a cycle that happens with any revolutionary technology:

1. The technology is created and released to the public.

2. The technology gains widespread adoption.

3. Everything else works to catch up to the technology.

We created cars, and paved roads came later. We created sliced bread, and toasters came later. We created the slap shot, and -- 50 years ago today -- goalies started wearing masks. Ever heard the phrase "safety first"? In hockey, quite literally, safety came second.

But TV is just starting to adapt to the DVR, even though the TiVo was introduced more than a decade ago.

The original problem with the DVR was pretty simple: TV stations need money. They sell advertising to make money. But the DVR gave the consumers the power to skip past those ads.

The secondary problem was with TVs complicated ratings system. The ratings are measured in -- and I'll put this politely -- an esoteric way. TV people don't like the Nielsen ratings system. But it's the only measure that counts when it comes to deciding whether or not a television program is successful.

When the DVR was introduced, it allowed viewers to record a show and watch it later. But Nielsen didn't account for these viewers. If you weren't watching the show live, it didn't count in the ratings.

So it took a few years for the ratings system to catch up. Explains The Times:

Two years ago, in a seismic change from past practice, Nielsen started measuring television consumption by the so-called commercial-plus-three ratings, which measure viewing for the commercials in shows that are watched either live or played back on digital video recorders within three days. This replaced the use of program ratings.

With the new system, ratings are up -- way up. Thanks to the plus-three system, Fox has added about 600,00 viewers per show. Even NBC, which has seen the smallest gains with plus-three, has added an average of 140,00 viewers per show.

Here's the crucial thought: for eight years of the DVR's existence, television stations were improperly valuing their own assets. Thousands of people were watching TV shows, but those viewers weren't being counted.

The same is happening with internet advertising. Ads are sold using a CPM valuation that doesn't work. Today, the clickthrough is the key to increasing your CPM and raising your advertising rates. But it's not particularly effective.

Why? For one, humans aren't nearly as impulsive on the Internet as you'd expect. The clickthrough method works well for products that can be delivered on demand, which is why iTunes' store is so effective, why porn sells on the web and why watching movies with the touch of a mouse is the next big thing. But say you see an ad on Yahoo!'s homepage for Chick-Fil-A. Even if you click through to the company's website to read or see more, is that really any indicator that you're heading out for a chicken sandwich at lunch?

The real money will be made when internet advertising measures -- much like the Nielsen plus-three method -- user engagement. DVR viewers are actively choosing to record and watch their favorite shows. For internet ads to be successful, those ads will have to demand a similar level of interaction with users.

Whatever the new version of CPM is, it has to measure that consumer's desire for a particular product. A clickthrough simply doesn't measure up.

13Oct/090

A Thought About Lifestreaming

The chart above is from Steve Rubel's blog, and I think it's a monumentally important step in terms of defining the scope of all this new media. (1)

I'll let Mr. Rubel explain what the chart means in terms of his blog:

How would you feel about a structure like this where I theme the content based on the day of the week? Monday we tackle models and/or mindmaps, Tuesday we talk trends, etc. I want to post more often and more creatively than just writing.

This gets to a thought that I've been working through for some months now. My blog has become much more targeted: I write about journalism, with a few anecdotes from my life thrown in. But my Twitter feed is all over the place. It's essentially a link dump; I see an interesting article, and I post it to Twitter. The thing is, the links have no common theme, except for the fact that I find them interesting. So basically, I've got a Del.icio.us page that's targeted to friends.

I know I'm not the only one with such a problem. Take the Twitter feed for the San Antonio daily newspaper, The Express-News. Follow @mysa on a day-to-day basis, and you'll find that their tweets are very strange. One minute, they're tweeting the daily pollen count. The next, they've got photos from a crime scene. And minutes later, they'll have the lotto numbers, or the score of a high school football game, or maybe a column about tacos. Point is: I've followed them for months, and I have no idea why they tweet the way they do.

That's a problem. If I follow you on Twitter or subscribe to an RSS feed of your blog, or even if I read/watch/listen to your media outlet's news on a regular basis, I want to know the answer to two questions:

  1. What do you write/talk about?
  2. Why do you write/talk about it?

I like Rubel's idea of defining days of the week, especially for new media that tends to span a variety of topics. It could be an interesting way to keep readers engaged.

As for my Twitter feed, I'd like it to be a bit more focused. The only question is: when I see a link or a topic that's outside my scope, what should I do with it then?

  1. Which would include technology like: Tweeting, Facebooking, Flickring, texting, livestreaming, liveblogging, livechatting or any other verb that didn't exist at the start of this millenium.
24Aug/090

The Little Things You Notice While Blogging.

Yesterday, in the process of writing about relativity, I went looking for a photo to lead off my blog post.  So I opened up Apture -- the program that allows you to click on a link like this without leaving the page --  and searched the word "big" to see what came up.

Here's what I got:

In particular, I'd note the "Yahoo! Image Search results:

Yahoo!, indeed.