hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 11, 2022 16:41:53 GMT -8
which party they support? How many voting age people in America have a TV or smart phone? The paltry viewership highlights not only our political divide but the degree of apathy among Americans for even protecting democracy.
The dems will probably continue to believe that their blockbuster production will have a huge impact with the public. It obviously won't. All that matters is what they hand to the DOJ and how much pressure the congress and admin can put on them to act.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 12, 2022 6:17:14 GMT -8
Someone pointed out that the 20 mil didn't include cell phones, and they're right. But I doubt many cell phone users spent 2 hours staring at a tiny screen. And if they did they didn't see the details of the film footage on that small a screen.
I also heard that 20 mil was a great number for TV and that younger people are busy with work, kids etc. Fine, but if they are too busy to get involved to save their country we are lost. With over 250 mil people of voting age I still think 20 mil is a terrible number even if it compares favorably to Chrisley Knows Best.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 12, 2022 9:42:09 GMT -8
It is astounding to me that in this age of super duper turbo charged mega analytics and big data where every interaction online or otherwise is sliced and diced and combined and recombined with every other piece of data available with halfway magic halfway "correlation is king" machine learning algorithms, we still use 20th century techniques to determine the popularity of anything: checking tv ratings, calling people at home to do polling and on and on. No wonder our understanding of the world and the actual trends going on is generally so far adrift from the reality on the ground.
Is it because companies that have been using the old metrics have no desire to adopt the new ones, which would force them to adopt new technologies that cost money and they have somehow already managed to set up their monopoly so they have had no reason to change? Is it because our decision making class is still the same generation that grew up when computers used reel to reel magnetic tapes and filled up a whole room? Or used punchcards? I don't know. All I know is the way we talk about a lot of things and base our policies on are hopelessly outdated.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 12, 2022 10:42:05 GMT -8
Blind, of course you're right about all of that, but to me a much larger problem seems to be how do we get people today, and particularly those younger than us, to sit still and focus long enough to learn anything? Tweets and news feeds and social media blurbs can't convey the complexity of the mountains we face in things like politics or economics.
When I was young my parents both worked, and they had 2 small kids. They were busy and stressed. BUT they still found time to watch the evening news every night and read the newspaper. Today people want all that info delivered in two minutes or less on a phone. Won't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 12, 2022 11:27:47 GMT -8
It's not just the people who watch the hearings. There are reports on the news, on social media, and on the late-night talk shows.
Apparently the hearings where the hottest topic on social media the next day.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 12, 2022 11:33:37 GMT -8
It's not just the people who watch the hearings. There are reports on the news, on social media, and on the late-night talk shows. Apparently the hearings where the hottest topic on social media the next day. I'll say again if people today depend on comedy shows and social media tweets to learn what they need to know we are in very big trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 12, 2022 12:26:53 GMT -8
Blind, of course you're right about all of that, but to me a much larger problem seems to be how do we get people today, and particularly those younger than us, to sit still and focus long enough to learn anything? Tweets and news feeds and social media blurbs can't convey the complexity of the mountains we face in things like politics or economics. That's the criticism laid into every generation since God knows when and i don't think it's fair. They are not 10 years old any more. They are adults. They can sit through long expositions and think through complex problems. Thetji g you're focusing on is they won't read loong and dry expositions on paper with long wind ups and bearing around the bush language that the older generation grew up thinking is a sign of deep thoughts. They want to get to the point and they don't want to see convoluted set ups. They love watching AOC in hearings. They will sit through her presentations because she immediately gets to the point. What this generation appreciates is a different delivery method. They will not sit through a slog if you don't tell them how it's going ti connect to the main story. Anyway. That's just my personal take. |
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 12, 2022 12:43:20 GMT -8
Blind, ok I can buy some of that but did you think the hearing was a "slog?" I don't think anything they showed was unimportant. So how many streamers saw the whole thing? My opinion, very few.
Of course they CAN sit through long expositions but do they? I didn't say anything about reading on paper. God knows they won't do that. And that includes books? How smart can anyone be who never reads a book even for educational purposes?
Seems to me I hear you saying they want all their info streamed and in short, concise clips. That's not the way people are educated or informed about complex issues. You can't reduce everything to sound bites and tweets.
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 12, 2022 14:28:07 GMT -8
I didn't watch the full broadcast. I caught the last 40 minutes of it and it was not not a slog at all. It was done specifically with the rules of modern presentation in mind (at least the last 40 or so minutes): it had witnesses telling a story, video clips that put it all in context. It was well done.
My point is the problem is not that the ideas are complex or the thing that is being discussed requires some focus. They can do all that as long as some point is being made following a certain beat, if you will. Think twitter threads. They read twitter threads just fine and people express some fairly complex things in twitter threads, they can practically write a short essay with those .... but there is a formal requirement: each tweet with its 280 character limitation needs to establish some point so that it is a complete unit. It doesn't have to be the main point, but it has to be self-contained point that you can build on in the next tweet. They will keep all that in mind and they will put them together and connect the dots all fine. What they won't do is to store multiple unresolved threads in their mind without known how and where all those threads will fit.
So the issue we have here that makes folks think that young people can't focus is a matter of preferred style of presentation IMO. Earlier generations values long strands of ideas that floated aimlessly just getting more and more embellished the longer they hovered in the air. What I am saying is that if you try to use that method to reach younger folks, they will tune you out. If you can tell your story with some beat around it.
The other thing about the hearings is this: did anyone really had to sit through all 2 hours of it? I agree that a 2 hour presentation provides the base, but would you assume that the whole point made in those 2 hours could not have been made in 15 to 20 minutes? I am not saying the sessions should be shorter, but I am completely convinced that one does not have to have watched all 2 hours of it to understand the point being made.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by hasben on Jun 12, 2022 16:39:48 GMT -8
Just two points to what you said.
Tweet discussions are not reliable sources of information for anything. Often users don't even know the credibility of the source of the comments. Academic, scientific, and government sources do not depend on tweets to distribute information.
The real purpose of the hearings is not to make a quick 10 or 15 minute point. It is to establish a legal base for prosecution and to convince those who don't believe the truth with overwhelming evidence of guilt. They could state their point in one sentence but anyone who heard it could say, ok that's what they think but is it true or not? They need to see most if not all of the evidence to make a sound decision. Should a jury only be subjected to 30 minute presentations in a trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 12, 2022 17:55:59 GMT -8
Just two points to what you said. Tweet discussions are not reliable sources of information for anything. Often users don't even know the credibility of the source of the comments. Academic, scientific, and government sources do not depend on tweets to distribute information. The real purpose of the hearings is not to make a quick 10 or 15 minute point. It is to establish a legal base for prosecution and to convince those who don't believe the truth with overwhelming evidence of guilt. They could state their point in one sentence but anyone who heard it could say, ok that's what they think but is it true or not? They need to see most if not all of the evidence to make a sound decision. Should a jury only be subjected to 30 minute presentations in a trial? I was referring Twitter threads as small essays, not Twitter discussions. Are we supposed to be watching these hearings as jurors or as citizens whose vote will matter? Those are two different modes. |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Jun 13, 2022 19:07:44 GMT -8
Just two points to what you said. Tweet discussions are not reliable sources of information for anything. Often users don't even know the credibility of the source of the comments. Academic, scientific, and government sources do not depend on tweets to distribute information. The real purpose of the hearings is not to make a quick 10 or 15 minute point. It is to establish a legal base for prosecution and to convince those who don't believe the truth with overwhelming evidence of guilt. They could state their point in one sentence but anyone who heard it could say, ok that's what they think but is it true or not? They need to see most if not all of the evidence to make a sound decision. Should a jury only be subjected to 30 minute presentations in a trial? I was referring Twitter threads as small essays, not Twitter discussions. Are we supposed to be watching these hearings as jurors or as citizens whose vote will matter? Those are two different modes. I think the idea is to take the pieces and assemble them into a coherent puzzle. There are so many of them that have cropped up over time that it's important to show how they are linked to one another. And to answer the question of why I should be concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 13, 2022 20:18:03 GMT -8
I consider myself an informed citizen, more informed than most. I have learned things from the hearings.
|
|
