All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser. There is a space between my name and the minus sign and NO space before 'caldwell' to eliminate the name 'caldwell' in the Google listings

I am not on YouTube or social media

Cadwell NOT Caldwell

Technology slows me down

[ 4 minute read ] 

Opinion

One of things I sometimes like to do is read the news. 'Ha ha ha. Read the news!' You can't 'read' the news; we never could. The 'news' has to be experienced in person, and even then we only get a single facet of it. 

       'Let's look at the back-story to this.'

Let's not.

Once upon a time a news story broke and the country heard about it with updates throughout the day. S'okay, because still other news got reported; like a tree got hit by lightning, which set light to a mansion where the impressive library burnt to the ground and killed the pastry chef who was stuck in the pantry with the housekeeper, but the heat from the blaze brought the daffodils out early, so not all bad then. Not any longer; there is no news other than a single story. Journalism, I feel has taken a different approach with the technology of the day leading the way. Now, in-depth coverage including satellite imagery and records of the past is the order of the day. I really couldn't care less; just tell us the new bits.

Most days, I look at a couple of websites with stories on them. However, the trend is for reporting the news with videos, which speeds the production of the news presentation up. Plainly, it takes longer to write coherently than it does to edit a video for a website upload, I suppose. Contrawise, it takes longer to watch a video than it does to read the transcript. My time has somehow been transferred to the news channel to make their lives easier, or might I suggest, to be used to help them be more efficient?

If reporters have more time to report then why don't we get a wider scope of news? I suggest the reason might be shaped in a similar way to manufacturing production runs. Long production runs are way more efficient than short production runs. Quite simply this is because it takes a lot of time to change settings on machines, and the cleaning of contaminants from one production run is paramount before another one can begin. Stopping reporting on one subject means closing avenues of information and initiating the opening of others, not least is the production of introductions for news pieces. The general public, I suggest, simply cannot get up to speed on a subject as fast as the news channel can provide information.

       'There have been arrests over the fire in a Polish industrial area.'

       'What fire?'

So, rather than 'waste' time with a series of introductory pieces for a wide scope of interesting news, it is preferable to just re-iterate the same waffling, especially since it all comes from the same sources. Waffling for a long time is cheap and opinions are free.

I sometimes check I have internet connectivity by clicking on a BBC news icon. The time at which it takes the BBC.co.uk site to appear indicates to me whether I have a connection or not and perhaps the speed of it. I mentioned to someone outside ALDI that I use the BBC site as a marker in this way.

       'That's not a news channel!', the man on his mobility scooter scoffed. I know, and his pitted nose that resembled roiling froth frozen in time told me more about him than I could trust the BBC had told me about the world in the past 24 hours. Let's face it, if you don't want people to turn up for a planned protest somewhere in a field, just send a BBC reporter to any muddy field holding an umbrella to tell us that conditions are dire and will get worse. The suggestion of personal discomfort instead of a mass rollicking romp and general meeting up with friends sometimes de-energises willpower.

Sky News (sky.com) have moved in a quite decisive way towards uploading video instead of written news stories. I can read faster than I can understand speech. It is not the spoken word that I don't get, it is the spoken word spoken at the same rate of how we read that I find difficult to comprehend. Contrary to my former belief, competent readers don't read a single word at a time; we chunk words together, about three or four at a time. This means that spoken words are linear because they are delivered individually in series. The written word, however, is delivered in a series of what might be considered to be conjunctive words, that is 'together'. This is a far faster mode of communication. Why then has technology, which we are all led to believe will 'speed things up' been used to slow things down?

I suggest technology is not about function anymore. The washing machine was invented decades ago; there isn't now anything to invent that is both functional and innovative; the dish-washer is a washing machine without a spinning drum, isn't it?

No, technology at our end of how it works is all about getting lazier and recreation. While it is quicker to upload to a website a news video which has been made in the normal course of reporting for the television, the public readily accepts this medium as normal, even preferable. Take your brain out of gear and let someone else read the transcript for you. We all like a story read to us, don't we? Technology then, I may go on to suggest, is about never growing up and never learning to be responsible for our own decisions.

       'That's right, just relax, let it wash over you. Nice and warm? Yes, that's right, almost pre-orgasmic isn't it?'

Me too! It is uncomfortable to read that and I ummed and ahhed at it.

I don't watch the sky.com videos on their site because there is no speed button. If I am inclined to watch them I need to go to YouTube because there is a speed button. It means I can hear the reporter at 1.5 and 2 times normal speaking rates. I have NO interest in the pictures or video behind them and I am irritated by the time they take to pause at commas and full stops as we should do in polite speech. Mind you, I don't want them to speak like some people from the USA who never observe punctuation.

I think public speaking as taught to public speakers from best men and bridesmaids at weddings to court officials and parliamentary discussion and on to speakers at dinners has been egregiously considered to be appropriate for visual journalists. Its the news; speed it up and cut the blooming evocative words and emotional weighting on spoken words; just 'tell' us and stop 'showing' it by living it for us. No wonder there are still newspapers that have no whining journalists' voice overlaying the information, which are still bought across the nation. Another illusion, I suspect; considered reporting of news is a far more effecctve sword than 'off the cuff' though, still scripted no doubt, video reporting in the field.