Balanced reporting of News

More than a week ago, the balloon boy gripped the USA as people sat glued to their TV screens, as they watched a home-made weather balloon float over Colorado, causing officials to disrupt flight plans and even temporarily shut down Denver airport. The family later created an even bigger stir when the young Falcon replied 'you said we did this for a show' when asked by his father why he had been hiding. The family claimed that the child was just confused after all those interviews, and brushed of allegations of a hoax. However, the allegations refused to die down, with some wondering why the family had been prepared enough to have a video camera on hand to film their reactions when the balloon floated away, but didn't even know for sure if the child was in the balloon.

Today, the boy's mother has admitted that it was all a publicity stunt thought up by her husband to get them their own reality show(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzSzo-GaUvsvKnE2HnSHpUepx3KQ). There is the possibility that both parents may be charged for a string of offences including making a false report and misleading a public servant. However, it is all bad for the Heene Family? Although no one can be sure that the charges will be filled, it's quite possible that television stations will soon be clamoring to get this wacky family onto their shows. The phrase 'balloon boy' has become synonymous with the word 'hoax' and is even used in some headlines. 'Trial Balloon? Or another Balloon Boy?' is not yet another story on the issue, but is about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This situation illustrates how the media can sensationalize a minor issue to the point of it entering everyday conversation, and become more talked about than more pressing issues than healthcare reform or the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Even though we know it, most of us will end up sucked into the trap set by those like the Heenes who use it to their advantage. When the news about the flyaway balloon first broke, news channels dumped a lived broadcast of President Obama in favor of a silver balloon floating over Colorado. Fox correspondents claim that President Obama is a white-hating facist, and labels Michelle his 'baby mama' (slang term referring to the unwed mother of your child).

The mass media should try to maintain a balanced view of every single piece of news, rather than attempting to boost ratings with gimmicks and outrageous opinion pieces. Journalists are entitled to their opinion, but they should clearly label it as such, for there are many who will swallow it as God-given truth just because it was broadcast by a supposedly reputable news channel.

The influence of the mass media

With the advent of the internet, many are worrying about the waning influence of traditional mass media like newspapers and television. However, according to the Washington Post, there are advertisements that quote newspapers to boost their credibility, 'never mind that the quotes are often taken from opinion pieces that were not intended to be objective in the first place.' See what I just did there, referring to a Washington Post article? Fact is, even though the internet is increasingly becoming the go-to source for news and information, consumers view sites that are the online arm of traditional media (such as newspapers and/or television news stations), as more influential than sites that have no association with traditional mass media.

The mass media has evolved greatly over the years, with industry experts coming up with various theories to explain the phenomena of the media. The 'magic bullet' theory developed in the 1920s believed that audiences are passive creatures that are completely influenced by the mass media. In this case, we can see that this theory is not totally true. If it was, this would mean that consumers will absorb everything the mass media feeds them, and there wouldn't be any issue of declining newspaper sales - newspapers could just post an article on their website about how reading physical newspapers are beneficial, and online readers would snap real newspapers up immediately.

At the other extreme, the Limited effects theory of the 1960s states that audiences actively resist media messages, and choose what messages to assimilate based on their needs. Although it is correct in stating that consumers don't unthinkingly accept whatever they see or read, it is unlikely that consumers can totally block out messages they aren't interested in, or immediately forget what they had just read. Even if we don't go out and buy every brand of orange juice or instant noodles we see advertised, we are aware of what is being advertised, and what brands are available out there. Consumers don't think about what information to reject or accept; they unconsciously rate how influential a message is for them - according to the article below, journalists are continuously reminded 'to remember that those words can have an effect in a campaign equal to those constructed more carefully for the print newspaper.'

Groupthink

Teamwork. Its touted as the magical formula to for corporate success. However, as is illustrated in the article above, teamwork doesn't work flawlessly all of the time. In the above-mentioned situation, the team tasked with

improving the process of getting mail to the intended recipient ended up complicating it. Worse still, no one dared to speak up against what they were doing, believing that to do so would be 'heresy'. Stupid as it may seem, this phenomenon is not as rare as we believe. Its in fact known as Groupthink, which is the result of members reaching consensus because they are trying to minimize conflict, and their strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

According to Professor Amy Edmonson, teams fail because individuals don't realise that they have interesting and relevant information to share. This means that individual team members don't think that their opinion matter, or that the rest of the team don't want to hear it. Although there may be overly dominant members in the team, most of the team just wants to do the allocated task to the best of their ability, and if that means that someone truly believes 'it's a stupid idea' and has a better suggestion, they will most likely be willing to go along as long as it doesn't stretch the budget or time required.

Although we often view conflict negatively, functional conflict is necessary, and is in fact vital to combating groupthink. Most people, like Carmen Johnson, will toe the line, and even change their point of view to obtain the approval of the leader. However, this is not useful, as this means that the team isn't really a team at all, but a dictatorship full of puppets run by one or two puppet masters.

The next time someone in a group you're in voices an opposing view, don't be so quick to gang up on him or her, or think him/her a nuisance. Think about what they're saying first, and then give your answer, accompanied by a clear, logical explanation about why you feel that way.

Article Source:

Cubicle Culture: When teamwork doesn't work

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109641717999730825.html

We normally use common sense, or 'old wisdom' to try to understand interpersonal relationships, especially romantic relationships. However, many times we get things wrongs, resulting in misunderstandings within the relationship.

'Love Doctor' Terri Orbuch recently discussed some of these misconceptions in her column, which may be seen at http://www.freep.com/article/20091004/COL39/910040331/1025/Features05/Relationship-IQ-test-separates-myth-from-reality

Let's just take a look at two of the most common misconceptions we often have, as touched on by Dr. Orbuch.

At the beginning of a relationship, we see our partner for who he or she really is.

When a relationship is just beginning, we will usually try to present our best side to the other party, attempting to hide our flaws. Only with time will we reveal more of our true selves; who we really are. According to the social exchange theory, most people form relationships with those we perceive will result in greater rewards than cost. Just take a look at the Johari window below. At the start of the relationship, the public self of each individual is roughly equivalent to their private self, hidden self, and unknown self.

As the relationship progresses, both individuals will find out more about each other, as well as themselves. This will result in the public self taking up the most area in the relationship. However, the Johari window doesn't apply to all relationships the individual has, but is different for every interpersonal relationship, specific to those two individuals in question.

The best relationships are ones that have no conflict.

Conflict within a relationship takes place due to differences in perception. Although conflict is most commonly associated with being a potential destroyer of relationships, conflict can be functional: helping to build the relationship. Conflict can help us to better understand each other, and our personal points of view. If there is a total absence of conflict, it is possible that there is insufficient communication taking place within the relationship, as the two parties don't even know what they don't agree on.

Have we lost our ability to communicate?

Management guru Peter Drucker once said that the most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said. Although the exact figures aren’t agreed upon, most researchers agree that what we say (verbal communication) alone makes up less than 10% of our message, with the receiver taking the rest from non-verbal cues. These cues include kinesics(body language),paralinguistics(vocal nonverbal cues), chronemics(time conveying meaning), objectics(physical objects), oculesics(eye contact), haptics(touch), and proxemics(space and distance).

Sue Shellenbarger recently posted an article on the Wall Street Journal website, titled “For Teens, Has Texting Replaced Talking?” detailing how her kids spend most of their time texting. From the invention of the telegraph, to the everyday use of email and text messaging, we have introduced increasingly elaborate means of communicating with one another. However, it seems that as a result of this, we are in reality cutting down on communication. With increasing use of technology, most of our communication takes the form of the written word alone. Even in the same office, two colleagues who are seated right next to each other will be more likely to send instant messages or emails, rather than talking face-to-face. With the elimination of the interaction between two people, they are unable to observe any non-verbal cues the other may display. This eliminates much of the possible discussion that would otherwise occur. For example, a subordinate may agree with the boss because he doesn’t want to appear uncooperative, but have concerns about a scheme. With face-to-face interaction, the boss can hear the hesitation in his voice (paralingsuistic), and view his less than exuberant enthusiasm about the project (kinesics), allowing him to solicit the employee's opinion.



Our ever more reliance on technology to communicate may result in an eventual inability to interpret such nonverbal cues. We have not yet entirely substituted text messages and emails for face-to-face communication, or even split them 50-50, but in time to come such forms of communication will likely take precedence. Although Ms Shellenbarger doesn’t believe that texting affects one’s ability to read non-verbal cues, she admits that it’s annoying when people try to text and talk to you at the same time. This is in fact an example of how such people don’t realize the non-verbal cues that they’re sending; in this case, ‘I don’t care enough to concentrate on just talking to you’.


References
Sue Shellenbarger, 'Have we lost our ability to communicate?', http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/03/for-teens-has-texting-replaced-talking/

Use of Language

Language is a system used to encode and decode information, and is used to communicate meaning. Language, or rather the use of language, has come under the spotlight recently due to the now infamous Razor TV interview with Miss Singapore World 2009 Ris Low, during which she responded to questions about her fashion sense. Miss Low's diction in particular came under fire. Most average Singaporeans bemoan the fact that someone who speaks such poor English will be representing Singapore on the world stage, while pageant organizers and the chairman of the Speak Good English movement spoke up for her, citing the fact that she is just speaking the way most Singaporeans speak. I am not going to add to the numerous comments out there, but you may judge for yourself.




The various ways we use language can result in communication barriers or miscommunication. This is especially relevant in our increasingly globalised world. One does not even have to step out of Singapore to encounter a whole host of nationalities, who may not understand local slang. Your order for a 'Kopi Siew Dai' (Coffee with less sugar) may result in a blank stare from the newly arrived Chinese national taking your order at the Coffee Shop. Things can get even more complicated in English, where the same word may not mean the same thing to different people. If I say 'fixed', I may mean that it is permanent in nature, but you may interpret it as being repaired or mended. In Singapore, 'slang' is the local slang word for 'accent'.

To limit miscommunication, we need to ensure that our audience understands what we're saying, rather than merely focusing on the words we're using. This means that how we say something is just as important as what we're saying. Miss Ris Low came under fire not so much because of what she said, but how she had paused awkwardly, her enunciation, and her indecision about where to direct her gaze.

Any language used should be specific, and we should not be too rigid in our use of language. Others may not agree, but to me that means its alright to use a mixture of local slang and English(Or Mandarin, etc.) to communicate, depending on who we're talking to, such as if we order a meal at a kopitiam. Naturally you're not going to do so in a situation where you're expected to speak fluently, such as while giving a presentation. In such a case, it would be necessary to speak in standard English to ensure maximum understanding by the other party.

Perception

Perception is the way one regards, understands, or interprets something. What one perceives is the result of interaction between one's past experiences, including one’s culture, and the interpretation of what is perceived. The processes of perception routinely alters our interpretation of an experience or incident. When people view something while having a preconceived concept about it, they tend to take those concepts and see them, regardless of whether or not they are there. This problem stems from the fact that humans are unable to understand new information, without the inherent bias of their previous knowledge.

On September 9, The Straits Times published a forum letter from a Mr. Peter Huber, who expressed his opinion on why Singapore has a low birth rate. Essentially, he believes that young people in Singapore stay with their parents until they get married because they cannot afford a place of their own, and as a result do not learn skills necessary to become parents. This is in contrast to the West, where young people are expected to move out and get a place of their own once they graduate. Secondly, since their parents will object to them bringing home their lovers, they do not have the opportunity to have more relationships to find the right partner quickly. His perspective is an interesting one, suggesting that Mr. Huber is not local.

However, Mr. Huber does not seem to realize that the alien (to him) phenomenon of children staying with their parents until they are married is not just due to expensive housing. In Singaporean society, if children were to move out without starting a family of their own, it is tantamount to abandoning their parents, and is seen as a sign of disrespect; an unfilial act. Mr. Huber's preconceived notion that young adults who stay with their parents are strange, immature, and lacking in independence is therefore applied to all such Singaporeans, even though they do not have a choice in the matter, due to financial as well as cultural constraints. Furthermore, premarital sex and pregnancy is still frowned upon in Singapore, with the Ministry of Education emphasizing abstinence in their sex education programme. The government also attempts to discourage illegitimate children, by not allocating unmarried mothers the same benefits as married women-they are not entitled to maternity or childcare leave, and their children do not get any of the benefits allocated to children born in a traditional nuclear family. The culture of the land also dictates that young people only bring their partners home to meet their family only when they are in a serious relationship.

Due to his different cultural background and values, Huber’s perception of the issue differs greatly from that of locals, and Mr. Huber should not have attempted to judge a local situation by his own yardstick. If he had discussed the issue with local friends or colleagues, even casually, he would have better understood how things stand. After all, if Singaporeans are as obedient as Mr. Huber believes them to be, the Singapore government probably would not have to dangle so many incentives in an attempt to get couples to have more children.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that Mr. Huber’s perspective should be totally disregarded just because he misjudged the situation. He may not have offered a viable suggestion to the low birth rate issue, but his beliefs may just be a clue as to how people out there actually view Singaporeans. If we do not wish to be tarred by this same brush, we should pay attention to our behaviour, least we inadvertently end up reinforcing such viewpoints.