Yet again the President was in our neck of the woods. And yet again, as I watched the live feed, one would think that this area is composed of just white, middle aged, male politicians. What about the number of working women? What about the rather large Asian population that works at the GE plant in Schenectady? What about the rather large Guyanese population that moved into vacant building a decade ago in Schenectady? But most importantly, what about the youth who are our future for tomorrow (and elected the Democrats and Obama in 2008)? Is there any doubt why all these groups feel disenfranchised?
It seems to me, in teaching communication, that those images that surround the President help to communicate who his target market is. Perhaps it is easier to get a security clearance for Politicians than the general population. However, there were other groups that were at the speech (they were interviewed AFTER his live speech). It was just they were not surrounding the President.
I hope that should he ever visit this area again that he is surrounded by a younger generation. I would love to see school children and high school students get the opportunity to attend these events. It would definitely get them involved in the political system.
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
American Politics: a study in frustration and poor communication
We have one more week until the general elections and I'm totally disgusted. So much so that for the first time in almost 30 years, I don't want to cast my ballot. Why? Because I don't see much difference between the extreme voices that I must vote for. If I could, I would attend the Rally to restore Sanity in Washington, DC this week.
I see this current situation as a breakdown in communication in the US society. One thing that Americans always prided themselves on was the right to debate and discuss various issues. However, the "you're either with us or against us" attitude of many politicians (on both side of the aisles) and the vilifying of anyone whose position might hurt those in power or the media (which is big business in the US) has made it possible for the discussion to be squelched in the US.
I had had great hopes at the beginning of the Obama administration. Here was an administration that was elected by communicating using new media. However, over the last two years more and more voices are being quieted as people become afraid to express their opinions.
The White House, who had online live conferences in which the average person was able to participate, changed its media strategy and these conferences are almost non-existent now. In fact, last year when the President came to our area, those on the "invitation" list were politicians and those who held local power, rather than the common man who supposedly would benefit from the programs the president was speaking about. On the White House website, there was a video that explained how the president's 10 letters from the public (which he reads daily) was chosen. The letters are filtered through his staff, who choose the letters "most representative" of the letters coming in. This filtering, however, ensures that the present will only see the views that the staff feel are relevant. Why do the staff have to filter the letters? Don't they report on the issues they read about in the letters? Think of the variety of issues (come of which may not be covered by organizations sending in mass mailings or covered in the press) if 10 letters were chosen randomly. The farmer in Kansas struggling to make it, would have the same possibility of being heard as the unemployed single mother being thrown out of her house in Florida, or the prosperous rancher in Montana, or the factory worker in Michigan.
Most importantly, however, is that the issues would not be predetermined. Those issues that many of my friends and I feel are important are not being discussed. No one talks about the widening gap in income in the US between the very rich and the middle class. No one speaks about the tripling of prices of pharmaceuticals in the last 10 years, or the monopoly that 6 oil producers have in the US which allows for the price of oil to increase even though the supply in the US is the highest it's been for a number of years. No one speaks of the two United States: one in which a person's housing, education, health care, access to services, child care, and retirement are guaranteed and the other where any of these basic rights can be taken away at any moment.
So my hope for the US is to create an environment where civil dialog was acceptable, neighbors could live next door to each other even though they had differing views on how society should function, and a person was not afraid to express their ideas on various topics. Finally, communication is two way. This means there needs to be an honest dialog between those speaking and those listening. Listening does not mean agreeing with the speaker and speaking does not mean making your ideas known without determining if your message was received the way you wanted it to. Then I would feel as if my vote was one of many in a civil democracy.
Update: Of course, today there was a live online conference and there are more planned for the next week. Let's hope they continue to do so AFTER the elections.
I see this current situation as a breakdown in communication in the US society. One thing that Americans always prided themselves on was the right to debate and discuss various issues. However, the "you're either with us or against us" attitude of many politicians (on both side of the aisles) and the vilifying of anyone whose position might hurt those in power or the media (which is big business in the US) has made it possible for the discussion to be squelched in the US.
I had had great hopes at the beginning of the Obama administration. Here was an administration that was elected by communicating using new media. However, over the last two years more and more voices are being quieted as people become afraid to express their opinions.
The White House, who had online live conferences in which the average person was able to participate, changed its media strategy and these conferences are almost non-existent now. In fact, last year when the President came to our area, those on the "invitation" list were politicians and those who held local power, rather than the common man who supposedly would benefit from the programs the president was speaking about. On the White House website, there was a video that explained how the president's 10 letters from the public (which he reads daily) was chosen. The letters are filtered through his staff, who choose the letters "most representative" of the letters coming in. This filtering, however, ensures that the present will only see the views that the staff feel are relevant. Why do the staff have to filter the letters? Don't they report on the issues they read about in the letters? Think of the variety of issues (come of which may not be covered by organizations sending in mass mailings or covered in the press) if 10 letters were chosen randomly. The farmer in Kansas struggling to make it, would have the same possibility of being heard as the unemployed single mother being thrown out of her house in Florida, or the prosperous rancher in Montana, or the factory worker in Michigan.
Most importantly, however, is that the issues would not be predetermined. Those issues that many of my friends and I feel are important are not being discussed. No one talks about the widening gap in income in the US between the very rich and the middle class. No one speaks about the tripling of prices of pharmaceuticals in the last 10 years, or the monopoly that 6 oil producers have in the US which allows for the price of oil to increase even though the supply in the US is the highest it's been for a number of years. No one speaks of the two United States: one in which a person's housing, education, health care, access to services, child care, and retirement are guaranteed and the other where any of these basic rights can be taken away at any moment.
So my hope for the US is to create an environment where civil dialog was acceptable, neighbors could live next door to each other even though they had differing views on how society should function, and a person was not afraid to express their ideas on various topics. Finally, communication is two way. This means there needs to be an honest dialog between those speaking and those listening. Listening does not mean agreeing with the speaker and speaking does not mean making your ideas known without determining if your message was received the way you wanted it to. Then I would feel as if my vote was one of many in a civil democracy.
Update: Of course, today there was a live online conference and there are more planned for the next week. Let's hope they continue to do so AFTER the elections.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The dangers of good communication in the networked society
This week was very busy in our region as the president came to one of the community colleges in the region. It was very exciting as both my children were able to listen to his speech, the president's motorcade went by the son's school, and one of my daughter's teachers attended the speech live (they had a police escort for their school bus from the farm where they were doing scientific field work so she could attend in shoes borrowed from one of the students as she was wearing heavy boots coated with mud!).
I took the time out from my day to listen to the speech as it was telecast live on our campus. But for the second time now, I have been disappointed in one of the president's speech. Upon reflecting about my disappointment with the president's speech, I realized what the problem was. I feel as if there is a role for me to participate in the healthcare, economic, and educational discussions going on at the federal level. The White House has done a good job of setting up incoming messages. However, I feel they need to close the loop. I feel as if my messages posted on their site is just one out of a million (just like buying a lottery ticket) and it just goes into the cyber black hole. How are my posts any different than discussing my opinions with my husband as we watch the president speak. I KNOW my husband's not listening to my remarks and could care less about MY opinions. Rather, my husband would like to get HIS point across and have me agree with him. Although it took a number of years of marrige to figure it out, now I just agree with him and keep my opinions (if they are contrary) to myself.
I feel the same way with the communication system the way it currently is set up at the White House. I don't see an online community developing where there are public discussions of what others have posted, nor is there anyone facilitating these discussions online. The closest has been links to blogs where there are some discussions. Likewise, when you send an email comment, you are put on the listserv, but you don't get a message saying, "Thank-you for offering your opinion on ....(the issue, which can be electronically generated). The messages ...(explain what happens to the messages: chosen randomly to be read, all read by volunteers and passed on to policy makers, deleted the next day and not read?)." This at least allows the writer to feel like they are being heard.
Implications for others developing communication policy
As the communication technologies allow us to connect with larger networks and communities outside of our geographic location we can learn from our current administration.
Lesson 1: People want to be heard. This includes having their opinions VALIDATED even if the listener doesn't agree. "I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree," or "that's a good point, but..." Even a message that states, "We have so many comments that we may not be able to respond personally. However, be assured that we are reading your comments."
Lesson 2: Let those you are communicating with know what your processes are. How will communications be used? Who reads and responds to the communication? What are the time frames?
Lesson 3: Understand the networks. Usually, networks are based on common values and ideas. An perceived insult or snub can be very damaging, but a note of encouragment can have positive ripples through a network. Only imagine the impact had the president sent an email (even if it were a form one) to my daughter's school or teacher. This could then be forwarded through each of the students' own social networks.
Lesson 4: Don't ask for feedback unless you are going to use it. This is something marketers and researchers learn early. Related to this is make sure you are asking the right questions. I always begin with very broad questions, then narrow in on the discussion. The broad questions will help you to determine where the conversation/dialog should be steered.
Lesson 5: Understand that those who use new technologies have high expectations. It is difficult to control those within a network and someone that uses web 2.0 must prepare for those who are receiving your messages to disagree and want to give their opinions. As a result, it is important that some policy is developed on how to handle "audience" reaction.
I took the time out from my day to listen to the speech as it was telecast live on our campus. But for the second time now, I have been disappointed in one of the president's speech. Upon reflecting about my disappointment with the president's speech, I realized what the problem was. I feel as if there is a role for me to participate in the healthcare, economic, and educational discussions going on at the federal level. The White House has done a good job of setting up incoming messages. However, I feel they need to close the loop. I feel as if my messages posted on their site is just one out of a million (just like buying a lottery ticket) and it just goes into the cyber black hole. How are my posts any different than discussing my opinions with my husband as we watch the president speak. I KNOW my husband's not listening to my remarks and could care less about MY opinions. Rather, my husband would like to get HIS point across and have me agree with him. Although it took a number of years of marrige to figure it out, now I just agree with him and keep my opinions (if they are contrary) to myself.
I feel the same way with the communication system the way it currently is set up at the White House. I don't see an online community developing where there are public discussions of what others have posted, nor is there anyone facilitating these discussions online. The closest has been links to blogs where there are some discussions. Likewise, when you send an email comment, you are put on the listserv, but you don't get a message saying, "Thank-you for offering your opinion on ....(the issue, which can be electronically generated). The messages ...(explain what happens to the messages: chosen randomly to be read, all read by volunteers and passed on to policy makers, deleted the next day and not read?)." This at least allows the writer to feel like they are being heard.
Implications for others developing communication policy
As the communication technologies allow us to connect with larger networks and communities outside of our geographic location we can learn from our current administration.
Lesson 1: People want to be heard. This includes having their opinions VALIDATED even if the listener doesn't agree. "I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree," or "that's a good point, but..." Even a message that states, "We have so many comments that we may not be able to respond personally. However, be assured that we are reading your comments."
Lesson 2: Let those you are communicating with know what your processes are. How will communications be used? Who reads and responds to the communication? What are the time frames?
Lesson 3: Understand the networks. Usually, networks are based on common values and ideas. An perceived insult or snub can be very damaging, but a note of encouragment can have positive ripples through a network. Only imagine the impact had the president sent an email (even if it were a form one) to my daughter's school or teacher. This could then be forwarded through each of the students' own social networks.
Lesson 4: Don't ask for feedback unless you are going to use it. This is something marketers and researchers learn early. Related to this is make sure you are asking the right questions. I always begin with very broad questions, then narrow in on the discussion. The broad questions will help you to determine where the conversation/dialog should be steered.
Lesson 5: Understand that those who use new technologies have high expectations. It is difficult to control those within a network and someone that uses web 2.0 must prepare for those who are receiving your messages to disagree and want to give their opinions. As a result, it is important that some policy is developed on how to handle "audience" reaction.
Monday, June 1, 2009
School of the Future
As my daughter enters high school, she will be transitioning into a new way of learning. Especially important is the way that Math and Science will be taught.
Among the differences between her current school and new school:
Among the differences between her current school and new school:
- Projects as a source of learning
- Interdisciplinary curriculum and integrated learning (i.e. math and science are taught together and writing is taught in context across the curriculum)
- Integration of technology within the curriculum
- Technology is used as a tool for learning, not learned as a tool
- Group work
- Parental and community involvement
- Focus on learning, not on "tests"
- Student accountibility for their own learning (assessment is much more involved)
- School to work, high school to university transition
For the first time in a long time, my daughter is excited about science and math class. In addition, she will be learning Chinese. The only misgiving she has (which is the same for all those entering high school) is the social climate. As the year goes on, I will be blogging about her experience, especially in the context of my work at the two colleges/universities where I will be teaching business and communication courses (the transition into the workplace).
I just wish that all disciplines would begin to use these same principles in their teaching. I am hoping the Chinese instruction will make the real life connection like science and math. It would be nice if a push were made to improve teaching in all disciplines and new forms of assessment were created as this administration begins to take up the topic of educational reform. I have seen to progress science and math has made with the investment made during the last administration. Now lets improve creativity and innovation with the same investment in the arts and humanity.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A new era
Last week, in between my work, I went on line to check out the virtual home town meeting run by the White House. It worked this way: people submitted questions for the president to answer. These questions were posted and the most popular questions (through voting) where chosen for the president to answer at a "home town" meeting video streamed through the internet. The audience included people that had submitted the questions.
What was interesting was the difference in popular questions from those asked by the press. This was even indicated on the home town meeting site. In fact, I believe that the president did not answer the questions as well as those the press presents him, maybe because he was not as prepared to answer those questions.
For education and the economy, the most frequent question was one I hear on campus more and more as graduation draws near. How will students who have racked up thousands of dollars in debt, going to pay back these loans when there are no job prospects for them? What programs are in place so these student loans don't default?
For education, from all sides, repeal or modification of the No Child Left Behind act seems to be the biggest question. In fact, the president did address this. However, he made on comment that I have to disagree with as a teacher and parent. He said the the teacher is the most important person in each child's education. In fact, I feel that with out a teacher/parent partnership, a child is at a disadvantage as a life long learner. Parents need to support children's learning at home, reinforcing concepts. But this can't be accomplished if they are left out of the loop. Parent's know their children better than any teacher could (except perhaps in Sweden where the student stays with the same teacher throughout primary school). On the other hand, the teacher needs the support of the parent because without it there teaching is no more than throwing felt pieces on to a piece of velcro with hope that something will stick. Teachers need to be respected by students and this can't happen in Parents don't show that respect. Teachers know what is expected of students, spend more time in many cases, than parents with the students, and for the most part really want their students to succeed. NCLB pitted teachers against parents and our educational system as suffered as a result.
I would recommend looking at the White House web site and starting to participate in democracy using the new tools available to us. It is very exciting to be a part of this effort!
What was interesting was the difference in popular questions from those asked by the press. This was even indicated on the home town meeting site. In fact, I believe that the president did not answer the questions as well as those the press presents him, maybe because he was not as prepared to answer those questions.
For education and the economy, the most frequent question was one I hear on campus more and more as graduation draws near. How will students who have racked up thousands of dollars in debt, going to pay back these loans when there are no job prospects for them? What programs are in place so these student loans don't default?
For education, from all sides, repeal or modification of the No Child Left Behind act seems to be the biggest question. In fact, the president did address this. However, he made on comment that I have to disagree with as a teacher and parent. He said the the teacher is the most important person in each child's education. In fact, I feel that with out a teacher/parent partnership, a child is at a disadvantage as a life long learner. Parents need to support children's learning at home, reinforcing concepts. But this can't be accomplished if they are left out of the loop. Parent's know their children better than any teacher could (except perhaps in Sweden where the student stays with the same teacher throughout primary school). On the other hand, the teacher needs the support of the parent because without it there teaching is no more than throwing felt pieces on to a piece of velcro with hope that something will stick. Teachers need to be respected by students and this can't happen in Parents don't show that respect. Teachers know what is expected of students, spend more time in many cases, than parents with the students, and for the most part really want their students to succeed. NCLB pitted teachers against parents and our educational system as suffered as a result.
I would recommend looking at the White House web site and starting to participate in democracy using the new tools available to us. It is very exciting to be a part of this effort!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)