Idiots Running the World

I just finished reading "Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News" and I have to say, I have never been more depressed. David Mindich, the author, mixes some scientific and non-scientific research to come up with the following conclusions, which I'll paraphrase here:

The vast majority of those Generation X and younger are complete and utter morons. We can recite Brittany Spears entire discography, but couldn't name a Supreme Court justice if you paid us. We whine that the news isn't relevant to us when we are really just too stupid to see its worth.

Mindich sites several reasons for this disinterest in the news including not being encouraged to follow the news as children and a general feeling of isolation and disenfranchisement from the community. Mostly, the people he interviewed just think it isn't important.

While Mindich has some excellent ideas to encourage news interest in children, such as FCC regulations calling for short news programs for children or a component of current events knowledge in college admissions, I have to wonder about today's young adults. We are tomorrow's leaders, but how will we discuss and debate the course of our country if we're mostly uninformed?

The Devil Made Me Do It

I could be wrong... I was thinking about John Travolta (see previous post) and I remembered something, which has made me question all of my self-important postings on the necessity of trust for persuasion on the Internet.

In 2002 the evil Jim Talent was running against the courageous and intelligent Jean Carnahan for Missouri's US Senate seat. Please note: I typically refer to Jim Talent by his nickname, "The Devil," but to retain my bipartisan appeal I will refrain in this post.

In an attempt to know my enemy I was perusing the evil Jim Talent's website and I came across an online chat he had held a few days prior. It was the typical "What will you do about X?" questions and his ultra conservative answers for the first few paragraphs. Then came an exchange, which I have reenacted below:

QUESTION: If you are elected Senator, will you raise your son's allowance?
TALENT: Scotty, is that you?
TALENT: I'm sorry; my son seems to be participating in this chat from the computer in the living room. He should be in bed now.
QUESTION: You didn't answer the question.
TALENT: Go to bed, Scotty! Or there is no allowance at all.
QUESTION: Good night.

Now, everyone with an IQ higher than a rock knows that was a total fabrication and yet it was oddly effective. In those few lines of text he went from being the evil, conservative, civil-rights hating, puppy-kicking Jim Talent to a cool, loving father. It was amazing emotional appeal that worked even though I knew it was just a ploy.

Since the most persuasive appeals are those based on emotion instead of facts, perhaps the Internet can be as effective as other forms of communication. I'll keep you posted if I decide to change my mind again.

John Travolta Explains the Internet

In response to yesterday's post regarding the trustworthiness of content on the Internet, Professor Ireland commented:

If I can show you books that we both agree are trash, is it reasonable to conclude that libraries of books are mostly worthless?

Okay, this is a valid point, yet conversely serves to prove my argument. There are, indeed, a lot of trashy books out there, but people TRUST books. The general perception is that books are trustworthy, therefore people trust what they see written in them. Reality doesn't really matter; if it did we'd certainly have a different president...

To illustrate my point I've invited a special guest star: John Travolta. John's historic cool factor explains my point.

In 1974, John Travolta was unknown, much like the Internet since Al Gore had not invented it yet. Starting in 1975, with his role in Welcome Back Kotter, John became cool. In 1977 he became the Disco dancing, white-suited personification of uber-coolness in Saturday Night Fever. Then, somehow, by the mid-eighties John sported a mullet and became the least cool human on the face of the Earth. He was the mocked by school children and late night comics as "John Revolta." Along comes 1994 and Pulp Fiction and like a flash, John is cool again.

Now, John Travolta didn't change in this time (well, okay, the hair). There is nothing about his DNA that is inherently cool or uncool. He continued to make movies and try to be a star, but our perception of him changed and that made all the difference. When we perceived him as cool, we bought tickets to his movies and tuned in when Barbara Walters made him cry. When we perceived him as uncool we bought tickets to someone else's movie.

Likewise, the Internet will not be a persuasive medium until people perceive it as a credible and reliable source of information, regardless of its inherent worth. In no way do I advocate any form of censorship, but we must find a way build trust in campaign and issue advocacy sites before people will be persuaded by the information they find on them.

Thanks for stopping by The Femocrat, John.

Proof of My Theory That the Internet is Mostly Crap

In my last posting I lamented the fact that people could say anything on the Internet, with no regard for truth or logic. The Gods of the Internet have sent me proof. Click here for Ben's Stein's explanation of how Mark Felt (formerly known as Deep Throat) and the Washington Post caused the Cambodian Genocide. Personally, I think they killed Santa Claus, too.

Actually, I was Deep Throat

I was in a chat room once; many years ago, and we were doing what everyone in chat rooms does - discussing politics. I happened to make a reference to something about the Watergate scandal and another person in the chat said my statement wasn't true. Now, I know my Watergate history pretty well, so I challenged the other person's facts. He said that his argument was correct and he should know because he, in fact, was Deep Throat.

Of course, the preceding story is a complete fabrication, but I am willing to bet that it has happened to at least half of the people who actually do chat about Watergate online. Which brings me to the point of this posting - I don't think people inherently trust Internet content. I personally believe that except for the major news outlets, most everything else is wrong (or its porn, which is another discussion altogether). Maybe I am cynical, but I don't think I am alone.

I'm not certain the Internet will become a persuasive means of communication for political candidates until we find a way to make it appear to be a trustworthy medium. How can we make people believe our statements when two clicks away is another website earnestly claiming aliens are living among us and two more clicks away is a site with conclusive evidence that the moon landing was fake? While I celebrate the free speech rights of the wackos and liars of the world, it certainly makes it more difficult for the Internet to be a credible and persuasive medium with them around.

And I should know...I was Deep Throat.

Irony: The 11th Mistake in Web Design

Did anyone else notice the fact that Jakob Nielsen's 9th mistake in website design was "Opening New Browser Windows" and that every link on Web Pages That Suck opens a new browser window?

I have to agree that usability is clearly an important part of web design, but I find it interesting that there is no consensus as to what that truly means - even among our trusted experts.