Futurist vs. Futurist and Kerry's Media Bitchslap
Friday, 3. November 2006, 20:03:05
On ABC News, I was looking for some good ol' American political trashing, but oddly enough didn't find anything. Maybe I'm desensitised. Maybe ABC News realised that the Kerry story was not about Kerry, but about them (the media) and decided to stay away from political news for a day or two to avoid their shame. In any case, I saw an article about a World-Renowned 'Futurist'. I immediately thought "I can't believe they're talking about me on ABC News!" But no, it was about some guy I've never heard of by the name of Paul Saffo.
It's too bad that neither ABC News nor any other media outlet knew what they were doing with the Kerry story. The same thing is true of Paul Saffo with the future. Whenever you don't make sense, the content isn't the story. It's you.
Let's start with a quick recap of the Kerry story. Kerry took a jab at the president. Kerry forgot to pronounce a two letter word ('us') and the sentence took on a whole new meaning. Instead of taking a jab at the President, it sounded like he was insulting the troops. The story became about the media the instant it was reported. It garnered ZERO traction and the public was actually bored of it. On Conan O'Brien last night, the audience was dead silent during the Kerry part of his intro and Conan made a side remark of "Ok, next with the weather..." meaning that it wasn't particularly interesting to anyone. Why was this?
It wasn't news. Where was the 'new' information that makes it news? Kerry botched a comment. We all knew he was going to apologise. Nothing new there. We all know he served in Vietnam, so he couldn't have possibly intended to insult the troops. In order to do so, he'd have to insult himself too. The story doesn't even make sense. And he's not running. BORING! This is as empty a story, a lame duck, as you can get. Today, you can't find the story anywhere except on Faux News, but it's quite short; a mere 3 paragraphs that isn't even about Kerry. So why was this about the media? Because it showed the media could be completely man-handled into reporting the obvious, non-news stories that have no business being reported. The media was being taken for a ride and they didn't even know it. Yet the public knew it. The media received a bitchslap. It was shameful.
Now if you look at the 'Futurist' story, the same thing happens. Just that I don't believe he's as 'world renowned' as they claim. I've never heard of him, so how big could he be? He says we won't have TV or flying cars in 25 years. BOO!!! The only smart thing he says is "Despite technological advancements, the world hasn't actually changed much". The rest is fluff. I just summed up the entire article. Bitchslap!
So what makes for an interesting article? Well, controversy works well. But more to the point, issues that have different possible 'reasoning' behind them where the public relates. This is a software blog, so here's a recent example from OSNews. The audience has a first hand knowledge about the article. They can decide if it's true or not. And if they disagree, even better. They'll feel compelled to tell you how you're wrong. Otherwise, well, there's nothing to say.
So I'll tell you what will happen in the future. The media will be more decentralised. It's already starting. Things at the public level will become more open. For example, no one sees or can comment about what happens in the legal system. This will open up as more and more people get fucked over. It'll take a long time. But this is a fundamental change in society. This may seem like a good thing, but it will have serious consequences. It'll cause a greater divide.
Here's a trend that is currently happening in society. Clash between science and religion. Women's rights going too far such as what happens in divorces and unfounded sexual harassment cases, especially in the workplace. Divisions between whites, blacks, hispanics. Divisions between French and English such as Quebec wanting to separate. Gay rights vs. traditional rights. Work taking up so much of your time that you have none left over for anything else, making helping or educating yourself impossible. Being poor means that you're not able to do anything. When people have no 'outs', they take it out on whoever is near them at the time. Families break up and friendships break down. Anyone that's ever been broke for extended periods of time knows this all too well.
Although we're involved in all this, we're not the losers. The real losers are the children and the next generation because they will inherit all of this and will think that this is normal behaviour. These are real issues. These are hard realities. We live in a world where we're always right and no one else has the right to say you're wrong. Doing so is considered an assault on their integrity. *WE* are right. Everyone else is wrong. That's the mentality of anyone who gets in any position of authority. The reason being that they've been on the losing end for so long that they take advantage of it while they can. But they go too far.
That's the future. Technology in 25 years won't matter a damn. Sure, we'll have some things that will be easier or have some new toys. But the fundamentals won't change. We, people, define the future. As technology makes it easier to communicate, it will also make it easier to pit us one against another. Society will be dealt a global bitchslap before we wake up. It's a sobering thought and not something that gets reported because it's a lot more fun to be told we're the best and others are dumb.
Will technology play an unexpected role? I don't think so. Other than bigger (or smaller), better and faster, the trend will be the same. Necessity will eventually solve technological problems. What may happen is that as more and more fields are open to scrutiny, this could cause a fundamental shift. Technology has always been more aptly used in the hands of the youth. The youth has always had more idealistic goals than the rest of the population. They have WAY more energy too. The biggest breakthrough that could happen is the realisation that poverty can be solved within 24 hours. This would be a catalyst for further change. It takes ONE carpenter and 2 untrained assistants to raise a house including the roof in under a day. Now you've tripled the number of people who can raise a house. That's the big secret. We, as humans, can do anything we put our minds to. The catch is working together and being allowed to do so. In order for poverty to exist, someone has to be keeping the means for a better life intentionally away from them. Otherwise, you could just pick a piece of land, chop down some trees and build a house the old fashioned way in under a week with primitive tools. What did you think our ancestors did? But no, access to the land and tools is restricted by those that came before us.
Real stories are about real lives. About real consequences. Does the story confront or change the way we used to view the world? Does it make you think? That's what makes a story interesting.
Everyone has faults. Have you ever given a second thought about what yours are and what you can do about it? If not, you're being bitchslapped. The real stories are within us. They are never in the front page news. And those are the stories that make the world go 'round now, and 25 years from now.
It's too bad that neither ABC News nor any other media outlet knew what they were doing with the Kerry story. The same thing is true of Paul Saffo with the future. Whenever you don't make sense, the content isn't the story. It's you.
Let's start with a quick recap of the Kerry story. Kerry took a jab at the president. Kerry forgot to pronounce a two letter word ('us') and the sentence took on a whole new meaning. Instead of taking a jab at the President, it sounded like he was insulting the troops. The story became about the media the instant it was reported. It garnered ZERO traction and the public was actually bored of it. On Conan O'Brien last night, the audience was dead silent during the Kerry part of his intro and Conan made a side remark of "Ok, next with the weather..." meaning that it wasn't particularly interesting to anyone. Why was this?
It wasn't news. Where was the 'new' information that makes it news? Kerry botched a comment. We all knew he was going to apologise. Nothing new there. We all know he served in Vietnam, so he couldn't have possibly intended to insult the troops. In order to do so, he'd have to insult himself too. The story doesn't even make sense. And he's not running. BORING! This is as empty a story, a lame duck, as you can get. Today, you can't find the story anywhere except on Faux News, but it's quite short; a mere 3 paragraphs that isn't even about Kerry. So why was this about the media? Because it showed the media could be completely man-handled into reporting the obvious, non-news stories that have no business being reported. The media was being taken for a ride and they didn't even know it. Yet the public knew it. The media received a bitchslap. It was shameful.
Now if you look at the 'Futurist' story, the same thing happens. Just that I don't believe he's as 'world renowned' as they claim. I've never heard of him, so how big could he be? He says we won't have TV or flying cars in 25 years. BOO!!! The only smart thing he says is "Despite technological advancements, the world hasn't actually changed much". The rest is fluff. I just summed up the entire article. Bitchslap!
So what makes for an interesting article? Well, controversy works well. But more to the point, issues that have different possible 'reasoning' behind them where the public relates. This is a software blog, so here's a recent example from OSNews. The audience has a first hand knowledge about the article. They can decide if it's true or not. And if they disagree, even better. They'll feel compelled to tell you how you're wrong. Otherwise, well, there's nothing to say.
So I'll tell you what will happen in the future. The media will be more decentralised. It's already starting. Things at the public level will become more open. For example, no one sees or can comment about what happens in the legal system. This will open up as more and more people get fucked over. It'll take a long time. But this is a fundamental change in society. This may seem like a good thing, but it will have serious consequences. It'll cause a greater divide.
Here's a trend that is currently happening in society. Clash between science and religion. Women's rights going too far such as what happens in divorces and unfounded sexual harassment cases, especially in the workplace. Divisions between whites, blacks, hispanics. Divisions between French and English such as Quebec wanting to separate. Gay rights vs. traditional rights. Work taking up so much of your time that you have none left over for anything else, making helping or educating yourself impossible. Being poor means that you're not able to do anything. When people have no 'outs', they take it out on whoever is near them at the time. Families break up and friendships break down. Anyone that's ever been broke for extended periods of time knows this all too well.
Although we're involved in all this, we're not the losers. The real losers are the children and the next generation because they will inherit all of this and will think that this is normal behaviour. These are real issues. These are hard realities. We live in a world where we're always right and no one else has the right to say you're wrong. Doing so is considered an assault on their integrity. *WE* are right. Everyone else is wrong. That's the mentality of anyone who gets in any position of authority. The reason being that they've been on the losing end for so long that they take advantage of it while they can. But they go too far.
That's the future. Technology in 25 years won't matter a damn. Sure, we'll have some things that will be easier or have some new toys. But the fundamentals won't change. We, people, define the future. As technology makes it easier to communicate, it will also make it easier to pit us one against another. Society will be dealt a global bitchslap before we wake up. It's a sobering thought and not something that gets reported because it's a lot more fun to be told we're the best and others are dumb.
Will technology play an unexpected role? I don't think so. Other than bigger (or smaller), better and faster, the trend will be the same. Necessity will eventually solve technological problems. What may happen is that as more and more fields are open to scrutiny, this could cause a fundamental shift. Technology has always been more aptly used in the hands of the youth. The youth has always had more idealistic goals than the rest of the population. They have WAY more energy too. The biggest breakthrough that could happen is the realisation that poverty can be solved within 24 hours. This would be a catalyst for further change. It takes ONE carpenter and 2 untrained assistants to raise a house including the roof in under a day. Now you've tripled the number of people who can raise a house. That's the big secret. We, as humans, can do anything we put our minds to. The catch is working together and being allowed to do so. In order for poverty to exist, someone has to be keeping the means for a better life intentionally away from them. Otherwise, you could just pick a piece of land, chop down some trees and build a house the old fashioned way in under a week with primitive tools. What did you think our ancestors did? But no, access to the land and tools is restricted by those that came before us.
Real stories are about real lives. About real consequences. Does the story confront or change the way we used to view the world? Does it make you think? That's what makes a story interesting.
Everyone has faults. Have you ever given a second thought about what yours are and what you can do about it? If not, you're being bitchslapped. The real stories are within us. They are never in the front page news. And those are the stories that make the world go 'round now, and 25 years from now.
