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
CadwellNOT Caldwell
Opinion
Just tell us
[ 5 minute read ]
I am confused. I know media channels cannot be everywhere to pick up on news around the world. I realise that some news channels have a remit to tell the truth but I am more than a little miffed that we have to get news delivered to us as though we are infants and need to understand something beforehand. 'Just TELL US THE NEWS!' If there is uncertainty, then say 'There is some uncertainty....' or as we used to hear, 'There have been reports.....' Then we don't have to listen to a whole load of waffle from a magazine-type platform to try to get salient information to use in our own investigation elsewhere.
This frustration is possibly driven by me studying two Arts and Humanities subjects. For some reason the authors of the module text-books and the tutors in tutorials think we have to feel everything. How do you feel about this...and this... and this?
I need to know some technical stuff. I need to know the exact parameters of what makes up free indirect discourse; indirect discourse, direct discourse, and whether there is such a thing as free direct discourse. Just blooming tell us and then we don't need to read anything else on the subject because we can identify it for ourselves.
You know what? I think it is an ego thing. Or people have gotten into roles because they have demonstrated an affinity with something that in the real world is absolutely useless. Just because a newsreader can feel emotions does not make that person relevant when news is to imparted to anyone at all. Cut the emotion and give only facts. Guess what? I really distrust A.I. for a number of reasons, but in telling us stuff it is far superior to humans and in that respect humans will definitely need to step up their game otherwise teachers and newsreaders are already obsolete. No wait! A.I. makes mistakes because it is programmed to do it. It is programmed to talk to humans as though it is human as though emotion is relevant to understanding everything. What idiot thought that was a good idea?
I understand that current education providers have some weird idea that in order for the public to understand something the public, bless them, have to feel it and even empathise with the victims, but this is an attitude that smacks of regarding the public as pathetic weeping wrecks, who can only experience the world with emotion. If I saw a log up into pieces that fit my fireplace I really do not have to feel anything. In fact i could just as easily get someone else to do it or program a machine to do it. If the human race fears emotionless A.I. then they need to start embracing emotionless news reporting to compete with something that will be way better at providing information. I suggest that it is only because A.I. is trying to access our emotions that it gets things wrong. The software should eliminate emotion as being necessary. You do not need emotion to follow a line of software code. Do not hurt physically hurt humans. And another : Disregard their emotions when giving information.
Slightly, off the subject: There are people who struggle with their emotions who are not engaging with the current form of emotion-evoking reporting through , who, not hearing anything to which they can follow, go out and hurt people. The consequences are not made clear to them. There are parents of murdered teenagers crying on the television screens and the murderers are not in any way affected. Give us the news. 'A man / woman got a twenty-two year prison sentence for stabbing someone' makes a much bigger impact than 'These people are upset.' Murderers and stabbers don't care if the victim is upset so why would they bother about collateral damage? Stop playing to people's emotions to reduce crime.
I hear time and time again that statistics show that young people don't read books as much as young people used to. You know what? Start teaching budding book-writers to write good books that don't go on and on about how the characters are feeling. Start teaching budding authors how to write good books that get readers thinking and cut the crap that evokes feelings in the reader when the reader doesn't want to feel; when they read just because they need a break from their emotions. Duh! What do we think video games are for? Players get away from the endless attitude of the modern UK to make everyone be emotional at every waking second. Has no-one ever thought that some people have had enough of it and so they start building a wall against what they consider to be an invasion in their lives? 'Stop telling me how you feel - I feel. If I have to constantly hear how everyone else feels I cannot deal with my own feelings!' And, the UK government goes on scratching their collective heads wondering how to bring crime down and how to educate teenagers. What fool thought that suffusing teenagers with collective emotion from around the world; places they have never visited and never will, will get them to be model citizens? Just TELL us the news. Report the news and don't tell us how awful it is. Give us facts, not emotions. Then, we will, I am certain, discover a sea-change in how the general public react to crime.
In one of my module forums one student and I have had to write numerous comments back and forth in a waste of time conversation so eventually the tutor can say, 'Yup. That is a perfect example of an entry in a bibliography.' Just TELL us how to do it and stop guiding us to a website that makes us work through how to do it. None of us care, I suggest, how to do it. We are only doing it to satisfy the requirements of Tutor-Marked Assignments. If I am allowed to give a full and complete example of good referencing for material in my module, in the module forum, then please, tutors, just supply the same information from the outset so we can get on with doing something else that is useful.
Having to rewrite Open University text books with only the relevant stuff and no waffle is extremely time-consuming and still I have to go on YouTube to get someone to TELL ME what I need to know. Let me just make this clear by offering this: I am forced to read the Open University books just so I can reference them to meet the Tutor-marked Assignments. The information I have understood and is the information I use for writing assignments comes from somewhere else. It is way quicker to get the information from other sources than to wade through waffle. The tutors in their feedback tell me not to reference other sources of information. 'Stick to The Open University books!' Why, so your job is easier? If you want an easy job write text books that are readable; no waffle, just facts and description.
Get a grip, news and information providers! Stop believing that you are the sole source for information. If I hear that there is a military base in Canada on fire I am going to seek multiple sources of information on it. Only a fool would think that they should be the sole source of information, if they don't actually tell us the information!
Military base has a fire in Canada. What we need to know:
How many are on the base.
How much land does it occupy.
Where it is in relation to land occupied by opposing forces.
How the fire started.
That is it. That is it! Stop talking! Knowing how many people died or are injured only serves to evoke emotion. The whole report should take no camera-work and should take about ten seconds to report. There is no need to send a presenter to face a camera. We don't need to know how long the base has been there. We don't need an introduction. We don't need some official telling us anything. We don't need to know what the response will be. The event, should there be a response, should be listed as a cause for any response when the response occurs. Save it for then! Speculation or suggestion is not fact-checking, so stop talking!
The Sky News website is almost solely made up of videos of people talking really slowly. Just transcribe the speech without any waffle. Do you know why they don't and it is not because videos are preferred by young people. It is because they still think that the value of a report is measured by the word-count. 'Write me 500 words on this!' should be 'TELL us what happened in as few words as possible!'
Just tell us
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
Just tell us
[ 5 minute read ]
I am confused. I know media channels cannot be everywhere to pick up on news around the world. I realise that some news channels have a remit to tell the truth but I am more than a little miffed that we have to get news delivered to us as though we are infants and need to understand something beforehand. 'Just TELL US THE NEWS!' If there is uncertainty, then say 'There is some uncertainty....' or as we used to hear, 'There have been reports.....' Then we don't have to listen to a whole load of waffle from a magazine-type platform to try to get salient information to use in our own investigation elsewhere.
This frustration is possibly driven by me studying two Arts and Humanities subjects. For some reason the authors of the module text-books and the tutors in tutorials think we have to feel everything. How do you feel about this...and this... and this?
I need to know some technical stuff. I need to know the exact parameters of what makes up free indirect discourse; indirect discourse, direct discourse, and whether there is such a thing as free direct discourse. Just blooming tell us and then we don't need to read anything else on the subject because we can identify it for ourselves.
You know what? I think it is an ego thing. Or people have gotten into roles because they have demonstrated an affinity with something that in the real world is absolutely useless. Just because a newsreader can feel emotions does not make that person relevant when news is to imparted to anyone at all. Cut the emotion and give only facts. Guess what? I really distrust A.I. for a number of reasons, but in telling us stuff it is far superior to humans and in that respect humans will definitely need to step up their game otherwise teachers and newsreaders are already obsolete. No wait! A.I. makes mistakes because it is programmed to do it. It is programmed to talk to humans as though it is human as though emotion is relevant to understanding everything. What idiot thought that was a good idea?
I understand that current education providers have some weird idea that in order for the public to understand something the public, bless them, have to feel it and even empathise with the victims, but this is an attitude that smacks of regarding the public as pathetic weeping wrecks, who can only experience the world with emotion. If I saw a log up into pieces that fit my fireplace I really do not have to feel anything. In fact i could just as easily get someone else to do it or program a machine to do it. If the human race fears emotionless A.I. then they need to start embracing emotionless news reporting to compete with something that will be way better at providing information. I suggest that it is only because A.I. is trying to access our emotions that it gets things wrong. The software should eliminate emotion as being necessary. You do not need emotion to follow a line of software code. Do not hurt physically hurt humans. And another : Disregard their emotions when giving information.
Slightly, off the subject: There are people who struggle with their emotions who are not engaging with the current form of emotion-evoking reporting through , who, not hearing anything to which they can follow, go out and hurt people. The consequences are not made clear to them. There are parents of murdered teenagers crying on the television screens and the murderers are not in any way affected. Give us the news. 'A man / woman got a twenty-two year prison sentence for stabbing someone' makes a much bigger impact than 'These people are upset.' Murderers and stabbers don't care if the victim is upset so why would they bother about collateral damage? Stop playing to people's emotions to reduce crime.
I hear time and time again that statistics show that young people don't read books as much as young people used to. You know what? Start teaching budding book-writers to write good books that don't go on and on about how the characters are feeling. Start teaching budding authors how to write good books that get readers thinking and cut the crap that evokes feelings in the reader when the reader doesn't want to feel; when they read just because they need a break from their emotions. Duh! What do we think video games are for? Players get away from the endless attitude of the modern UK to make everyone be emotional at every waking second. Has no-one ever thought that some people have had enough of it and so they start building a wall against what they consider to be an invasion in their lives? 'Stop telling me how you feel - I feel. If I have to constantly hear how everyone else feels I cannot deal with my own feelings!' And, the UK government goes on scratching their collective heads wondering how to bring crime down and how to educate teenagers. What fool thought that suffusing teenagers with collective emotion from around the world; places they have never visited and never will, will get them to be model citizens? Just TELL us the news. Report the news and don't tell us how awful it is. Give us facts, not emotions. Then, we will, I am certain, discover a sea-change in how the general public react to crime.
In one of my module forums one student and I have had to write numerous comments back and forth in a waste of time conversation so eventually the tutor can say, 'Yup. That is a perfect example of an entry in a bibliography.' Just TELL us how to do it and stop guiding us to a website that makes us work through how to do it. None of us care, I suggest, how to do it. We are only doing it to satisfy the requirements of Tutor-Marked Assignments. If I am allowed to give a full and complete example of good referencing for material in my module, in the module forum, then please, tutors, just supply the same information from the outset so we can get on with doing something else that is useful.
Having to rewrite Open University text books with only the relevant stuff and no waffle is extremely time-consuming and still I have to go on YouTube to get someone to TELL ME what I need to know. Let me just make this clear by offering this: I am forced to read the Open University books just so I can reference them to meet the Tutor-marked Assignments. The information I have understood and is the information I use for writing assignments comes from somewhere else. It is way quicker to get the information from other sources than to wade through waffle. The tutors in their feedback tell me not to reference other sources of information. 'Stick to The Open University books!' Why, so your job is easier? If you want an easy job write text books that are readable; no waffle, just facts and description.
Get a grip, news and information providers! Stop believing that you are the sole source for information. If I hear that there is a military base in Canada on fire I am going to seek multiple sources of information on it. Only a fool would think that they should be the sole source of information, if they don't actually tell us the information!
Military base has a fire in Canada. What we need to know:
How many are on the base.
How much land does it occupy.
Where it is in relation to land occupied by opposing forces.
How the fire started.
That is it. That is it! Stop talking! Knowing how many people died or are injured only serves to evoke emotion. The whole report should take no camera-work and should take about ten seconds to report. There is no need to send a presenter to face a camera. We don't need to know how long the base has been there. We don't need an introduction. We don't need some official telling us anything. We don't need to know what the response will be. The event, should there be a response, should be listed as a cause for any response when the response occurs. Save it for then! Speculation or suggestion is not fact-checking, so stop talking!
The Sky News website is almost solely made up of videos of people talking really slowly. Just transcribe the speech without any waffle. Do you know why they don't and it is not because videos are preferred by young people. It is because they still think that the value of a report is measured by the word-count. 'Write me 500 words on this!' should be 'TELL us what happened in as few words as possible!'