“3 Little Pigs” Reported by Today’s Media

***

Cannes Lion Award-Winning "Three Little Pigs advert"

From the youtube blurb:

This advert for the Guardian's open journalism, screened for the first time on 29 February 2012, imagines how we might cover the story of the three little pigs in print and online. Follow the story from the paper's front page headline, through a social media discussion and finally to an unexpected conclusion.

Described by Adweek as a "masterpiece of craft and storytelling".

Winner of “Ad of the Year 2012” by BBH London.

Winner of “Best Crafted Commercial” at the British Arrow Craft Awards.

http://youtu.be/vDGrfhJH1P4

***

Condescending, Dismissive Behavior by the Rich & Powerful – They Just Care Less

***

Rich People Just Care Less

by DANIEL GOLEMAN 

Oct. 5, 2013 

Turning a blind eye. Giving someone the cold shoulder. Looking down on people. Seeing right through them.

These metaphors for condescending or dismissive behavior are more than just descriptive. They suggest, to a surprisingly accurate extent, the social distance between those with greater power and those with less — a distance that goes beyond the realm of interpersonal interactions and may exacerbate the soaring inequality in the United States.

A growing body of recent research shows that people with the most social power pay scant attention to those with little such power. This tuning out has been observed, for instance, with strangers in a mere five-minute get-acquainted session, where the more powerful person shows fewer signals of paying attention, like nodding or laughing. Higher-status people are also more likely to express disregard, through facial expressions, and are more likely to take over the conversation and interrupt or look past the other speaker.

Bringing the micropolitics of interpersonal attention to the understanding of social power, researchers are suggesting, has implications for public policy.

Of course, in any society, social power is relative; any of us may be higher or lower in a given interaction, and the research shows the effect still prevails. Though the more powerful pay less attention to us than we do to them, in other situations we are relatively higher on the totem pole of status — and we, too, tend to pay less attention to those a rung or two down.

A prerequisite to empathy is simply paying attention to the person in pain. In 2008, social psychologists from the University of Amsterdam and the University of California, Berkeley, studied pairs of strangers telling one another about difficulties they had been through, like a divorce or death of a loved one. The researchers found that the differential expressed itself in the playing down of suffering. The more powerful were less compassionate toward the hardships described by the less powerful. [emphasis added]

Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at Berkeley, and Michael W. Kraus, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, have done much of the research on social power and the attention deficit.

Mr. Keltner suggests that, in general, we focus the most on those we value most. While the wealthy can hire help, those with few material assets are more likely to value their social assets: like the neighbor who will keep an eye on your child from the time she gets home from school until the time you get home from work. The financial difference ends up creating a behavioral difference. Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations — with those of the same strata, and the more powerful — than the rich are, because they have to be.

While Mr. Keltner’s research finds that the poor, compared with the wealthy, have keenly attuned interpersonal attention in all directions, in general, those with the most power in society seem to pay particularly little attention to those with the least power. To be sure, high-status people do attend to those of equal rank — but not as well as those low of status do.

This has profound implications for societal behavior and government policy. Tuning in to the needs and feelings of another person is a prerequisite to empathy, which in turn can lead to understanding, concern and, if the circumstances are right, compassionate action.

In politics, readily dismissing inconvenient people can easily extend to dismissing inconvenient truths about them. The insistence by some House Republicans in Congress on cutting financing for food stamps and impeding the implementation of Obamacare, which would allow patients, including those with pre-existing health conditions, to obtain and pay for insurance coverage, may stem in part from the empathy gap. As political scientists have noted, redistricting and gerrymandering have led to the creation of more and more safe districts, in which elected officials don’t even have to encounter many voters from the rival party, much less empathize with them. [emphasis added]

Social distance makes it all the easier to focus on small differences between groups and to put a negative spin on the ways of others and a positive spin on our own.

Freud called this “the narcissism of minor differences,” a theme repeated by Vamik D. Volkan, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, who was born in Cyprus to Turkish parents. Dr. Volkan remembers hearing as a small boy awful things about the hated Greek Cypriots — who, he points out, actually share many similarities with Turkish Cypriots. Yet for decades their modest-size island has been politically divided, which exacerbates the problem by letting prejudicial myths flourish.

In contrast, extensive interpersonal contact counteracts biases by letting people from hostile groups get to know one another as individuals and even friends. Thomas F. Pettigrew, a research professor of social psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, analyzed more than 500 studies on intergroup contact. Mr. Pettigrew, who was born in Virginia in 1931 and lived there until going to Harvard for graduate school, told me in an e-mail that it was the “the rampant racism in the Virginia of my childhood” that led him to study prejudice.

In his research, he found that even in areas where ethnic groups were in conflict and viewed one another through lenses of negative stereotypes, individuals who had close friends within the other group exhibited little or no such prejudice. They seemed to realize the many ways those demonized “others” were “just like me.” Whether such friendly social contact would overcome the divide between those with more and less social and economic power was not studied, but I suspect it would help. [emphasis added]

Since the 1970s, the gap between the rich and everyone else has skyrocketed. Income inequality is at its highest level in a century. This widening gulf between the haves and have-less troubles me, but not for the obvious reasons. Apart from the financial inequities, I fear the expansion of an entirely different gap, caused by the inability to see oneself in a less advantaged person’s shoes. Reducing the economic gap may be impossible without also addressing the gap in empathy.

Daniel Goleman, a psychologist, is the author of “Emotional Intelligence” and, most recently, “Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence.”

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/rich-people-just-care-less/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131007

***

Rhode Island Republican Party Raffling Off AR-15 Assault Rifle

***

Raffling Off Assault Rifles

by THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Oct. 4, 2013 

The Republican Party of Rhode Island is attracting well-deserved scorn for its plan to raise money Sunday by raffling an AR-15-style assault rifle — the same sort of modified military weapon used last December in the Newtown school massacre in neighboring Connecticut.

The rifle is the main prize at the state Republican Party’s “2nd Amendment celebration” at a rod and gun club in West Greenwich — “a family day at the range full of targets, food, prizes and fun,” but truly devoid of even rudimentary sensitivity to the carnage inflicted on Americans from weapons devised not for sport but for the battlefield.

The state party is in lock step with the National Rifle Association, which will run its own online “banned guns” raffle later this month, offering a dozen assault rifles that the association triumphantly notes Congress failed to ban after the Newtown schoolhouse massacre.

Some state Republicans with an eye on future elections are having nothing to do with their raffle, which Dawson Hodgson, the deputy Republican minority leader in the State Senate, described as “tone deaf and insensitive, at best.” But the state party chairman, Mark Smiley, is standing by the raffle and its $5 chance to empower some citizen with a gleaming Smith & Wesson semiautomatic rifle. “I suppose putting it in the press will bump up ticket sales and help raise more money for the R.I.G.O.P.,” said Brian Newberry, the House Republican minority leader, of the negative publicity surrounding the event.

Party leaders are trying to take cover by righteously noting the raffle winner must submit to a background check. Background checks, of course, remain one of the more porous parts of gun safety law. Grotesque gun raffles are more proof of the gap between the anguish of the citizenry at repeated shooting sprees and the complacency of the politicians who do so little to address them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/raffling-off-assault-rifles.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131005

***

Republican-Run Southern States to the Poor: No Healthcare for You

***

A Population Betrayed

by THE EDITORIAL BOARD 

Oct. 3, 2013 

It is outrageous that millions of the poorest people in the country will be denied health insurance because of decisions made mostly by Republican governors and legislators. These people will neither qualify for their state’s Medicaid program for the poor nor for subsidized coverage on new insurance exchanges that are being established in every state by the health care reform law.

Their plight is a result of the Supreme Court’s decision last year that struck down the reform law’s mandatory expansion of Medicaid and made expansion optional. Every state in the Deep South except Arkansas has rejected expansion, as have Republican-led states elsewhere. These 26 states would rather turn down incredibly generous federal funds that would finance 100 percent of the expansion costs for three years and at least 90 percent thereafter than offer a helping hand to their most vulnerable residents.

As Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff reported in The Times on Thursday, two-thirds of the country’s poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers and more than half of the uninsured low-wage workers live in those states. The reform law originally sought to help poor and middle-income people through two parallel mechanisms. One was a mandatory expansion of Medicaid (which in most states cover primarily children and their parents with incomes well below the poverty level) to cover childless adults and to help people with income levels above the poverty line. Those with slightly higher incomes would be eligible for federal subsidies to buy private policies on the new insurance exchanges.

That approach fell apart when 26 states decided not to expand Medicaid, at least for now. There is no provision in the law to provide health insurance subsidies for anyone below the poverty line because those people are supposed to be covered by Medicaid.

The Times report, based on an analysis of census data, found that eight million Americans who are impoverished and uninsured will be ineligible for help of either kind. To add to the insanity, people whose incomes initially qualify them for subsidies on the exchanges could — if their income fell because they lost a job — end up with no coverage at all.

There are no easy solutions to the difficulties wrought by the Supreme Court decision and the callousness of state officials who seized on that opening to victimize the poor.

States like New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee that are still flirting with the idea of expansion should do the right thing and expand. States that have adamantly refused to expand should relent and take the generous federal funds. And if Congressional Republicans ever give up on their obsession to destroy the health reform law, Congress could surely find ways to make certain that the people most in need of help get it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/a-population-betrayed.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131004

***

Communicating Clearly in English

***

The Most Important Skill

by Leo

Sept. 24, 2013 

I’m often asked what it takes to become a computer programmer.

I’m also often asked questions about computers in general – everything from broken hardware to lost Hotmail passwords.

The answer to the first, and the chances of getting an answer to the rest, have something exceptionally important in common.

Something that most people don’t even consider. And I’m willing to bet it’s not at all what you think.

I’ll give you one hint: today’s topic is off-topic, since it actually has nothing to do with computers or technology.

And yet, it kinda has everything to do with it.

It’s all about your ability to communicate

The number one reason an Ask Leo! question goes unanswered is that it doesn’t include enough information.

The number two reason?

I can’t understand the question.

Now, you might be tempted to say that this would be because I have a high percentage of non-English speaking readers – and yes, that does play a part, but not as large a part as you might think.

No, when it comes to writing unintelligible questions, it’s the so-called ”native English speakers” that actually cause me the most difficulty … and the most frustration.

After all, the folks from non-English speaking countries have a bit of an excuse.

So-called native English speakers do not.

And yes, with over 10 years of experience reading question after question after question, I can usually tell the difference between a native English speaker, and someone for whom English is a second language.

Poor-literacy spans all demographics

I’m not speaking of illiteracy – the inability to read or write your native tongue, I’m talking about poor literacy skills. What I see too often is the inability to write (or occasionally speak) in a clear and understandable manner.

I’m also not speaking specifically about so-called “text speak”, or similar shorthands that have evolved for various reasons and at various times. While they do contribute seriously to the overall problem, they’re certainly not – in my opinion at least – the worst offenders.

The worst are those questions that come in that are written in English, but the English is so poorly written that it ranges anywhere from simply unclear to completely incomprehensible.

It happens much more often than you’d expect, and it comes from all demographics: young and old, male and female, and from just about any English-speaking locale.

Why it matters: Getting your computer fixed

It seems pretty obvious: if I can’t understand a question, I can’t help. If it’s really hopeless, I’ll simply skip the question and move on.

But I often do try, and that’s where it can actually get more frustrating.

I often do try to answer poorly written questions. I’ll perhaps guess or try to infer what the problem is from unclear or incomprehensible English.

And sometimes, I get it wrong. I answer a question, but it’s not the question being asked. Or I ask for clarification, and the clarification is just as bad as the original question.

I’ve just wasted my time and the time of whoever was trying to get their problem solved.

All for lack of being able to communicate clearly in English.

It’s not just me.

Computers and technology in general are notorious for requiring clear and accurate descriptions of problems in order to get to the correct resolution. Whether it’s some random person like me on the internet answering questions, a home-town technician, or a company’s support representative – if they can’t understand you, they can’t help you.

All for lack of being able to communicate clearly in English.

Why it matters: That high-paying job

It’d be easy to write off my little rant as that of a frustrated computer geek who’s gone over the edge after reading one too many questions.

If you did, you’d be missing my point.

The ability to write clear and proper English is about much, much more than just the ability to express a tech problem in language that can be clearly understood.

As an old commercial for a vocabulary improvement product used to claim, “people judge you by the words you use.”

It may or may not be fair, but it is absolutely true.

The same is true about your ability to write – anything – well.

Be it questions, letters to the editor, job applications, or anything else, something written that sounds like it came from a barely-literate teenager is likely to be treated as if that’s exactly who wrote it.

It doesn’t matter how smart you really are; it’s your written and spoken language skills that convey perhaps the most important impression of just who you are.

And even if the impression is wrong, it sticks and can be nearly impossible to overcome.

You’re not going to get that corner office if you speak and write like someone who never finished high school.

Why it matters: The computer programmer

I’m often asked what’s the most important language to learn when becoming a computer programmer.

My response is now: English.

That’s not what most people expect.

The fact is that even a job dealing primarily with computers still deals extensively with the people who use them. Be it the designers, the users, the repair people, the other programmers or managers on the team, it’s all communication, and it’s all an opportunity for you to present yourself as a literate professional.

Or as something else.

And that’s true for any job.

People judge you by the words you use. And how you use them.

It may not be fair, but it is real. You can object, you can insist that it shouldn’t matter, but it does.

If I had to do it all over again, I’d have taken more English classes.

English?

The arguments above really apply to whatever the language of your native land might be.

Naturally, I believe people living in English-speaking countries should be well versed in English and hopefully that makes sense.

However, there’s another characteristic of our planet that is easy to overlook, might also be considered unfair, and yet remains very important.

The vast majority of the internet is in English.

Even if you live in a non-English speaking country, the ability to read (and yes, write) English will open doors to immense amounts of information and assistance that would otherwise remain inaccessible.

Fair or not, it is what it is, and most of it is in English.

ESL: English as a second language

I have a soft spot for non-native speakers who truly make the attempt to learn English and learn it well.

You see, English is my second language. Even though, we were living in Canada at the time, I spoke only Dutch until I was about four.

Now, I also understand that my experience doesn’t really compare to the difficulty of learning a second language as an adult. Especially when that second language is English.

In helping overseas relatives and other friends and acquaintances with their English, it’s become very clear to me that English is an incredibly difficult language to learn. Just about the time you learn a “rule,” you find that there are exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions.

The worst question that an ESL instructor faces, I’m sure, must be “why?”

The only answer I can often come up with is “Because it’s English, and that’s just the way it is.”

Once again, it’s not fair and it’s not easy.

But if you’re living in an English speaking country, if you’re expecting the respect of others in an even semi-professional job in an English speaking country, or if you ever want to access the vast amounts of information available only in English, there is simply no substitute for speaking and writing English.

And I do mean speaking and writing it well. “Enough to get by” isn’t really enough. How people judge you by your use of English, unfair as that might be, requires a lot more skill than just “getting by.”

Yes, it’s that important.

http://askleo.com/the_most_important_skill/?awt_l=8FLnJ&awt_m=JFX.UDjD_JdfbL

***