Wiston Papers

Iconic, presumptively.

    

My iconic friend, John, and I were having our weekly iconic coffee klatch last week at our iconic cafe.

“I’ve been thinking a lot lately,” he exclaimed, “about two iconic issues.”

“Presumptively,” I agreed as I slowly sipped my iconic java from my iconic cup.

“Uh…yes, “he paused as he presumptively looked at me questioningly then continued.  “About this iconic presidential campaign and the  Supreme Court’s iconic public hearing on iconic President Obama’s iconic health care act.”

“Presumptive President Obama,” I corrected.  “The  presidential race between presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney and Mr. Obama is iconic indeed.”

“I’m convinced that Romney’s attack on iconic America’s current iconic economy will be only strengthened by the Court’s iconic ruling expected in June,” John pondered.

“Two presumptive themes at the heart of this iconic campaign, “I sipped.  “But I’m not sure that the presumptive ruling will necessary be that important or iconic,” I countered.

“More coffee, boys?” asked our iconic waitress, Beverly?

“Presumptively,” we chorused in unison.

“Didn’t you hear how Iconic Justice Antonin Scalia interrogated the government’s lawyers,” he questioned.

“Well, I did notice that iconic Justice Clarence Thomas was quiet.  But iconic Justice Elena Kagan poised her presumptive inquiries,”  I parried. 

“Look,” John leaning toward me in his iconic manner when pressing a point, “the whole future of our iconic nation depends on how these two iconic presidential candidates argue their iconic positions.  Furthermore, “he emoted, “the economy coupled with the iconic health care act decision is an iconic perfect storm for this iconic election.”

“John, your presumptive argument is based on…uh a…presumption,” I grasped for just the right word.  “That Americans presumptively worry about the economy and are presumptively angry about health care isn’t necessarily right”

“It’s iconic that you don’t agree with me,” John angered. 

“No, presumptively you misunderstand me,” I rejoindered.

“How could I misunderstand your usual iconic obstinacy,” he shouted.  “It’s so predictably…uh…presumptive.”

“That’s certainly the iconic pot calling the iconic platter black,” I sputtered.

Here’s your iconic check, boys,” approached Beverly with her iconic smile. 

We glared at each other with our iconic scowls, began to smile slowly, then John stood up to leave.  “Well, another great iconic chat as always, Steve.  You’ll get the check, my friend, …this time?”  He hinted sarcastically.

“Presumptively,” I lamented.

Steve Coon

April 30, 2012

   

Wiston Papers

I Was Being Sarcastic, Not That You Would Know.

Our daughter sent us an article about sarcasm.  The focus was how and when we learn to recognize and use it.  There were several examples.

I suspect that she was telling me something, but didn't state it overtly.  My wife, of course, had no such reservation.  

The idea of sarcasm and how early we learn both to use it and to detect it is fascinating.

I am aware that autistic children do not perceive sarcasm because of their inability to process cues of social intercourse.  For most of us, however, we learn these cues.  But how and why did sarcasm develop?

An obvious theory would be related to the social intercourse I alluded to in the previous paragraph.  If one is reared in a society where certain norms are expected of its inhabitants--and members generally abide by such rules of conduct--then how does one disagree without violating the code?

Certainly one could exhibit disagreement is several overt ways such as physical confrontation.  However, committing murder or corporal injury certainly would be frowned upon and most likely result in ostracism and banishment from the fellowship of the community.  

But disagreements are inevitable among humans beings so some mechanism must either exist or be developed to permit the exchange of different opinions yet maintain a requisite civility.

There is a wide range among cultures in the degree to which members can express independent thought or action.  In Asian societies that place a high value on conformity, I would think that specific verbal mechanisms exist to permit a display of individualism yet not upset societal equilibrium.

I have told this story before.  As a former university professor working with graduate students I had many conversations about the students’ final research projects.  Asians, at first blush, appeared to be especially docile and reticent to argue for a position contrary to my own.   They would come to my office, make a request, then seemingly agree with every statement I made as to why their idea would not be wise.

Nevertheless, I frequently realized afterward that--although I believed I had persuaded them--these Asian students often left my office having achieved much of what they sought.  I was baffled as to why.  Polite persistence certainly was one answer.  Sarcasm was never employed, but the students were adept at a level of verbal fencing that was persuasive.   Civility was maintained and no social faux pas committed.

However, in more intense debates among themselves do Asians and other deferential societies employ a high level of sarcasm?   If so, is it because it’s a vehicle for conveying potentially disagreeable ideas without expressly challenging the other?  If so, is sarcasm reserved for those forums where a single individual wants to have the widest possible dissemination of an alternative view yet not overtly challenging the status of the other?

In my recent readings of 19^th Century British novelists, I have seen authors portray characters as adept at verbal confrontation through sarcasm that does not explicitly express hostility or is opening demeaning.  

Some societies--in the West for example--individualism is valued and even encouraged.   Does this affect how its members employ language?  Is sarcasm more prevalent in the U.S. rather than Japan or China?

Sarcasm, in my opinion, seems a way of expressing a particularly mean or disagreeable attitude.   In the article our daughter sent, I’m not sure that I would label all of the remarks as sarcasm.  Other terms—that escape me at the moment—seem more accurate descriptions.  But maybe I'm not as adept at recognizing cues as I should be.

Nevertheless, we certainly learn to perceive, understand and use sarcasm at an early age.  So it certainly has a function in our association with other people.  At least for some of us some of the time.

Steve Coon

April 30, 2012

Wiston Papers

How Biased Are The Media, Really?

I assume that headline in today’s Washington Post is rhetorical.

Are the media biased?  Of course. 

But so are people.  So the media are a reflection of ourselves.

The problem is not that there are both liberal media and conservative media resulting in a "net effect of zero," in the words of Professor David D’Alessio of the University of Connecticut.   The problem is that we as consumers attend only to those media that reinforce our ideological predispositions.

We fail to scan the spectrum of ideological media to seek alternative viewpoints.  If we did so, we would more likely arrive at something approaching truth, fairness and balance than what we see, read, and hear by consuming content only from a single medium.

Compounding the issue is what Professor Robert Lichter of George Mason University correctly describes as the increasingly edginess and opinioned journalist--the reporter or blogger who makes little pretense to be balanced or fair.

Especially telling is the Pew Research Center conclusion that many of us believe that our media are fair and objective.  It's the other media that are not.

Interestingly, that's exactly the opinion expressed by  Americans  when asked about their view of Congress...another institution frequently and highly criticized.  "My guy is good; it's the other people there who are the problem."

Steve Coon

April 28, 2012

Wiston Papers

Radio and Television Station Political Advertising

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a proposal to require the nation’s radio and television stations to post from their Public Files information about the political ads or commercials the stations broadcast.  


When I first head this proposal I contacted local stations for their reaction.  Not surprisingly it was negative.  “We could do it, but it would be a lot of work,” was the reply.  That’s true.


But is the extra effort worth it?  Will the public benefit from this knowledge? 


The answers are yes and yes.  A more important question, I would argue, is whether the stations themselves need to post this information? 


Radio and television station Public Files are just that.  Open to anyone who wants to go to the station and request to see the contents.  


Proponents of electronic posting claim that the current system imposes an unacceptable burden because it requires interested listeners and viewers to physically go to the station—a special hardship for those who may be physically challenged or have transportation problems.  


True, the current procedure does require extra effort.  But that effort separates the seriously interested from either the casual reader or the voyeuristically curious. 


SOLUTION:  Why not rely on the new popularity of Citizen Journalism?  I believe some enterprising local resident could adopt this as his or her community beat.  One person could go to the station, review the information, summarize the contents, then post the information on a blog or news site.  It would not guarantee that every public file for every broadcast station in America would be posted, of course, because not community would have an interested citizen journalist.   But that’s the way it is now.


I don’t sense a groundswell of support or demand for electronic posting of this political information.  And until there is, I suggest leaving the existing system intact.

Steve Coon
April 27, 2012

Wiston Papers

Are Computers Better Journalists Than People?

I've commented on this before and my original opinions are virtually unchanged. But as the technology continues to evolve I've expanded my reaction accordingly. Tom Petner in his The 247 Newsroom had an item about Narrative Science--a company that uses algorithms to write news stories.

It's not surprising that computers began writing sports stories. Let's be honest, sports reporting and writing are the lowest forms of journalism in terms of the intelligence, discipline and sophistication required to produce them. (Groan and shout all you wish, but I'm deaf so I can ignore you).

Any basic Artificial Intelligence (AI) software program can do the job of a sports reporter as well if not better than humans beings. That's why the first experiments began there.

However, the article points out that AI has moved into other areas that--in the views of the innovators--demand not much more sophisticated reporting, e.g. stock market and financial quotations, routine weather summaries, and very basic traffic stories. I agree. Not much required there. That's not a criticism.

The challenge is whether AI can create a long-form story with all the necessary cultural and social understanding, topic antecedents and contemporary context to clearly explain the subject matter and relate it to the needs and interests of the audience? No...at least not today.

I was most struck by the section that describes how the software engineers "tweeked" the program to match the interest of their clients. But isn't just editing? Really, it's what editors do when they look at your story and suggest changes

Two final thoughts. First, surprisingly, I'm not really bothered by this development. As long as human minds are at important or key points along the path from gathering to publication to review content and make changes...especially for in-depth reporting.

But for today's 24/7 deadlines and endless pressure to publish across platforms, AI may be the solution. As long as reporters can accurately gather necessary facts and information then feed them into the program, the resulting stories may be as good or better than people produce. At least for simple stories.

Second, is a personal note. When I was a graduate students more than 40 years ago at Iowa State University, there was a young professor Jerry Nelson who predicted that computers would revolutionize the way we taught and practiced journalism. Many of us scoffed.

Decades later when I began my university career at Iowa State, I taught a class with Jerry. That was in the early 1980s and even then he was experimenting with computer-generated writing. In one assignment he required students to cover a story then enter their information into a software program he had developed. Although primitive by today’s standards, those first computer-generated stories were quite remarkable.

I hope that when the history of AI and journalism is written Jerry gets the credit he deserves.

Steve Coon
April 26, 2012

Wiston Papers

Newt to Scoot

There is word today that Former Speaker of the House of  Representatives Republican Newt Gingrich will end his 2012 presidential campaign.

Voters looked at Mr. Gingrich and decided for a variety of reasons that he was not the person they wanted in the oval office for the next four years. 

Intellect--whether real or assumed--is not a sufficient argument for trying to persuade voters to give you their vote.  You have to project other qualities. It's obvious that most Americans who met, saw or heard Mr. Gingrich concluded that he didn't have them.  His decision to abandon the campaign is wise.

Steve Coon

April 25, 2012

Wiston Papers

How do you choose?

Today there is a story in our local newspaper about one of the three finalists for Provost of Iowa State University.  He's the in-house candidate—A professor of engineering.

I have no dog in this fight as we say in my neck of the woods, but here's my problem.

Although it may be my failure, I have never attended any of these public forums without leaving with the impression that all the candidates say something akin to favoring "Motherhood and apple pie."

 The candidate’s statements are a case in point.  I knew nothing about him prior to his meeting with the ISU community despite his years on campus.  But then I retired nearly ten years ago so have little need to stay abreast of  university developments.

--He says he wants to "prioritize academic excellence"-- doesn't everyone?

--He's quoted as saying he wants to "encourage departmental collaboration"--ditto.

 --And the article writes that he wants to "Run a student-centered administration"--likewise.

One of the other candidates is speaking today as I write (no, I'm not texting or blogging from there), and I bet his comments will be similar. 

So how do you make a choice?  As an occasional student of human behavior, I suspect it often comes down to your gut feeling.  Do you like the way he/she dresses, speaks, looks?  All these, of course, have nothing to do with the candidates qualifications, but such impressions often sway our vote.

When the two finalist for the President of Iowa State University came to campus, they also said the usual positive things about higher education:  first priority is undergraduate education, greater faculty involvement in decision-making, more administrative accountability and transparency.  The list goes on; you get the idea.

For me the decision was simple.  Who made me feel more comfortable?  And he subsequently got the job.

I suspect that will be the case with the new provost.

Steve Coon

April 24, 2012