Commfree day

Update – July 11

I created a page dedicated to CommFree discussion, so it would always stay at the front page of the blog. You can find the link in the right upper corner, under the link to “about” page.

Feel free to engage in conversation over there.

————-

OK, this is an idea I’ve been playing with for a while…

But first a confession… I am a communication junkie. I love technology, i love media, I love gadgets and everything associated with this world. I find it hard to imagine what i would do without all these technological wonders. What would i do without internet? How would i communicate with all my friends spread all over the globe? How is it living without some TV here and there? Or more so without music… online radio silence day was a killer! One of the first things i do in the morning is turning on the computer on my way to the bathroom. I think i am addicted.

Having said that, i admit that many times i feel overwhelmed…. for example by the amounts of email, social networking sites’ updates, phone calls, etc. or in general by the amount of time i spend online. I get frustrated from the quality of news or entertainment i see on TV or read in the newspapers (see a very nice article by Oz Almog on the subject, sorry, but it’s in Hebrew). And then i am angry at myself for spending time on getting frustrated instead of doing something useful. And so on and so forth.

Bearing in mind this conflict, it seems to me that with all the good things extensive communication and information accessibility give us, many times, also thanks to them, we find ourselves drawn into infinite chase, forgetting to enjoy the life. On the one hand we forget enjoying the simple things like reading a book just because, going for a hike or simply doing nothing for a while. On the other hand, in the technological context, we forget enjoying all the benefits that media and information technologies (MITs) are bringing in our lives such as instant communication with others, access to information, ease of getting things done, and more. I personally find myself many times chasing something without an option to stop, think things over, and reflect on what is that i am chasing, or how i do that.

So, in order to restore the balance and maintain a perspective on both the non-technical aspects of our lives and the role of MITs in our lives, i suggest a Commfree Day. The idea is having one day a month free of communication technologies. One day a month when you turn off your TV, your computer, your mobile, and other gadgets, and do all the other things you usually don’t have the time for. It can be going for a walk, finishing that book that lays for months by your bed, meet up with friends whom you haven’t seen for ages, etc. The options are practically unlimited. The basic drive is making the commfree day a comfy day – something that you would enjoy.

I believe that having this practice once a month will help maintain a perspective on both our non-mediated lives and the role of MITs in them. I am not suggesting doing that out of hatred towards technology (or just because as the shutdown day people seem to be doing). Quite the opposite. I suggest that because I think we need this break to reflect on where we are heading and reflect on the role media and information technologies play in our lives. I think it is a healthy practice, and the key for it success is it becoming a practice – once a year is just not enough.

On a more practical level, i think this day should be the first Saturday of each month. Why? Well, it has to be a non-working day for you can’t force people not to work and Saturday seems to be the most universal holiday globally. Also, first Saturday of the month is easy to remember. So the next Commfree Day is August 4, 2007. I plan on following it and would be glad to hear if anybody else joins me.

Of course, i do not suggest it being too rigid. Although i do believe for doing the complete thing, but I undersatnd that there are cases where you can’t give up the MITs completely or it is just too much to ask at once. To start with, i think the idea is to minimize the use of MITs as much as possible aiming towards eventually freeing that one day a month.

And one last thing, i would really like to hear what you think about this idea, about how it could be better formulated (and probably named) and spread around. Needless to say that you should feel free passing it on. Thanks!

 

What: Commfree Day

Why: Because you love your life and you love the technology

When: Saturday, August 4, 2007

Surprise

Apparently my previous post made it to “Washington Post”.  They have a feed that probably tracks mentions of their articles in blogosphere and it got it.  Frankly, it is even a bit embarrassing that from all the posts that one is getting linked.

Lonely CNN

Gladly i am in a good company with the amusement by the fact that Paris Hilton’s return to jail took so much air time and media attention.

(i couldn’t figure out why WordPress wouldn’t let me embed the video…hmm)

“It’s not fair!”

A few moments ago i searched google.news just to discover almost 3,500 items about Paris Hilton going back to jail and she was seen hysterical, crying, and calling for her mom. Earlier today, when the cable in the new place was hooked up, every news channel had the same main item – Paris Hilton is going back to jail and she was seen hysterical, crying, and calling for her mom. Fox presented that under “breaking news”. A few times they had “it’s not fair” and “mom” displayed on screen for at least half a minute. Other channels had experts(!) to comment on her psychological situation, political and legal repercussions of the step and more.

And my questions are – Why is this important? Why is this interesting? Why is this taking up air time? What is there that i am missing?

The margins

Just a couple of weeks ago i participated in PaXIM – a working conference dedicated to communication for peace at Washington State University. Together with Dor Reich I presented a study we are doing on discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the blogosphere. Since it is still a work in progress, i am uploading here only an extended abstract (the full paper should be finished during the summer). The point relevant for this post is that using heuristic developed for analysis of “peace journalism” we show that “the online environment hosts a surprisingly hostile discourse”.

However, a few days ago i read an article in Haaretz (HE) titled something like: “Syrian bloggers are trying to open a communication channel with Israelis”. Although the subtitle said “most of the blogs are run from outside Syria…” I was really curious and checked it out.

First, indeed all the blogs mentioned in the article are run from outside Syria. But not only that, 2 out of the 4 blogs mentioned in the article (with links provided only to 3 of them) are run by non-Syrians. This is something that keeps amazing me. Spending a few months or a few years in a country apparently makes you not just an expert on that society, but actually a part of it. I always found that confusing. Is being born in Russia and spending there my childhood makes me an expert on Russia? Many times i encounter attitudes that leave no room for doubt – the answer is yeas. But at the same time i doubt if spending half of my life outside entitles me of the Russian expert title. I assume that i could pick up on cultural clues and understand Russian society better than a person who has zero experience with this country. However, if we go back to the idea of a dialogue, is talking to me the same as talking to a person who is actually part of Russian society at this point of time, who lives it and fully identifies with it? Similarly, can an American professor studying Syria, be considered a representative of Syrian people for purpose of a discussion? Not to question the authority of the professor to understand, analyze, and comment on the Syrian society, but including him in “Syrian bloggers”?

Second, looking into the blogs themselves, and especially into the comments, it was difficult to find that attempt to build a communication channel with Israelis mentioned in the title. Joshua Landis’s blog is an interesting , but very “academic” commentary on Syria. At the same time the comments of his readers are examples of what can be described as war discourse. Similarly the blog of Ammar Abdulhamid is a blog of an opposition man. Together with the comments it is true to the idea of opposing the regime. Not really analyzing the blogs, but skimming them, i tend to think that the discourse created there falls into a similar pattern Dor and I found in blogs focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dialogue wasn’t something i found from briefly browsing the content.

However, there was one interesting example – an initiative called “Creative Forum: Creative Syria’s open forum for Syria bloggers and experts” (ironically run by two Americans). On that particular page the readers were asked to compose letters to a simple Israeli citizen explaining them why Israeli should give the Golan Heights back to Syria. The results i think are quite interesting. The posts (letters) and the comments created a discursive environment where Israelis, Syrians, and other people expressed their views on the subject and responded to each other in a relatively civil way. I find this a different and an interesting case to look into.

So, at the end, what is this post about? I think one point i wanted to make is about the utopian-deterministic stand the mainstream media is taking about the “new” media. Lisa and I had a long conversation recently about the problem with the deterministic view of ICT leading to peace. This is kind of a message one could see in an article such as this one, while in fact it is a distortion of a more complex phenomenon. At the same time, looking at initiatives like that of “Creative Forum” makes me thinking that the technology can be used in creative ways starting something that is close to an unmediated, grassroots discussion. It seems that this kind of initiatives is still at the margins and one thing is certain – it is not the technology by itself.

There is a new “reality” in town!

Yes! And the name of that reality is “US Presidential Campaign 2008″. I’ve been more listening than watching the Democrat debate last night and a weirdly organized discussion about faith and politics today. I have to say i am both amused and shocked.

For those who do not follow, the US presidential election is on the way in about a year and a half from now. Prior to that both parties will hold primaries, sometimes in the beginning of 2008. So, right now the focus is on the battles within each one of the parties. And what could be a better way than making a show out of it?

Indeed, election bears many of the characteristics of a reality show. There is a fight between many and only one will actually win. In the process, participants are put to all kinds of tests with an ultimate goal to be liked by as many people as possible. Finally, the entire process is broadcasted, live of course, on every possible channel.

In the two cases i witnessed so far CNN took the lead. Last night they hosted Democratic candidates debate in New Hampshire. They all were there – eight of them. And there was a host, Wolf Blitze, whose ultimate goal was creating the headlines for tomorrow.

It was a bit bizarre. The questions were obvious. The answers were obvious. The host and the journalists who asked the questions tried to create clashes, but that was actually hard (see the two “obvious” points above). The whole situation reminded me “The Bachelor”. The candidates are there and every one of them knows what is expected from them. So each one is trying to make a best act of an answer that sounds preplanned and never actually contains an answer. One drawback of this presidential reality show compared to all the others is that you still cannot vote with SMS.

Erik nicely labeled it as “political dance” where the candidates are trying to provide a broad and general enough answer to satisfy the median voter. I would simply call it hypocrisy and watching it was a bit frustrating. What does it say about the way politics go these days? How can people, who are obviously playing a game, be treated as leaders? If the entire thing is a game, how can we be surprised that the young people loose their believe in democracy and actually stop voting? What is the difference in the way the election is run compared to a reality show? At the end of the day, choices that those people on political reality show are making, will influence our (and not only) lives, so how can it be just a show?

Or maybe this are the media? All the candidates blamed the media at one stage or another in various bad things that happen to our world and society. Maybe media are to blame for formating the election into a familiar format of a reality show? Is politics too complicated to deal with it substantively? Is life too complicated to deal with it and this is why everything is reduced to a format that seems to satisfy the economic model of a particular TV station? I do view myself as a media scholar, but watching this i feel helpless.

Today we had a spin-off yesterday’s debate when CNN hosted another discussion with the candidates. This time it was about religion. Watching this one you could hear candidates dealing with such important questions as “Is the God on our side in the war in Iraq?”, “What are you asking for when you pray?”, “How will you use prayer when making decisions as a president?”, and more (i’ve probably rephrased the questions, but they are not far from what was actually asked). Now, leaving aside the fact that this debate boldly primed Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, and didn’t have question coming from any other religion representative but Christians, what substantial knowledge can a voter gain from this? Can there be an American president who does not go to Church every Sunday? Can there be a president who does not use God as their primary adviser? Can there be a really open minded president, or president who does not believe in God? What does that have to do with their leadership and management skills? Does it affect their diplomatic abilities? Is that how Americans are making their choices? Shouldn’t more credit be given to people’s intelligence? Frustrating!

But not everything was so sad. At least i now got my own favorite – former Alaska Senator, Mike Grave. He was the only man in the show who at least looked genuine. And that actually made sense. He is probably the only one who owes the least to his political surroundings. The man is towards the end of his career and does not have to dance the political dance as much as the others. This is probably the highest shot he is going to make and he has nothing to loose in terms of future prospects. He is saying what everybody else think. The only problem is that he wasn’t not given much opportunity to talk on that show. If there are any democrats reading this blog – i urge you – go vote Grave! All the candidates are saying the same, but he seems like the only one who can actually do something.

I keep on thinking and digesting what I’ve heard in the last couple of days. Thinking about politics, about society, and of course about the media. I still find it hard to express what is exactly out there that annoys me so much. What i can tell is that i am disturbed.

What do you think?

« Previous Page