Spoon feeding Science to America

Last Tuesday, I made a comment in class about how it wasn’t important for Americans to understand science in the news as long as they understood the effects of the science. Now to some this sounds a bit fascist.  However I truly believe that the science world has become too complex for the common citizen to have a substantial say in the matter.  The professor said in class 70% of Americans reported wanting to hear more about science in the news.  I am not sure this means 70% of American want to go pick up Scientific America and read about the debate between Quantum Physics and String Theory. It just means they would like to know more about how science and technology are changing our world. The question is how?
              As we talked about the growing disconnect between the scientific community, the journalism world, and the public, some people in class suggested we bridge the gap by having scientist take more humanities courses and teach them how to better communicate their ideas.  Frankly, I think this is insulting to the hard work scientist do. I feel like its undermining the breakthroughs they are making by asking them to dummy it down for the sake of producing a news story.  I know that not all scientists go to work in a white lab coat and have chemistry set.  Many are very passionate about their fields of study and are more then willing to talk about their work.  The problem is once they start to explain it, really explain the nuts and bolts, too many people tune out.  They find it boring or too difficult. This doesn’t mean we should look at scientist as the root of the problem and the gap.  Others in class suggested the problem was journalism.  Journalism in the news isn’t a high school science class.   It is not suppose to teach you how photosynthesis works (although hopefully we all already know).  Its not their job to explain the sets and stages and chemistry that takes place in order for CO2 to become O2.  Journalism’s job is to say that air goes in the tree, oxygen comes out, and we should start planting tree along roads because some scientist has spent his life’s working conducting research on the matter and now he is receiving a noble prize.  And I understand this a weak example of how journalism should approach such a story, but the point is I think if journalism uses any chemistry in the article it has already given the public to much credit and has made a mistake. However journalism can’t seem to get it together because many science journalist are losing their jobs. So that would leave the public with the responsibility to bring the gap.  The public, many of whom failed high school science, and even more who failed college science, has to single handedly bring the gap between science and understanding. That doesn’t sound right. These scientist have spent years of their lives and thousands of dollars in education dedicated to working in their area of expertise. How would it be fair to ask to common man to get up to speed in one article.  So if these three aren’t to blame for the disconnect then who is? I say the government. It is an absolute necessity for the government to start channeling more money into public education science departments at lower levels and for them to start setting the bar higher.  No more of this No Child Left Behind bs. The Gov has the responsibility to make the public ‘science literate.’  Also Journalism needs to do better marketing research and stop firing potentially profitable science journalist.   

Hello?

Save your hands from Arthritis. Pick up the phone.

“Call you? That’s so 1990.”
In this day and age so many of us have come to rely on text as the dominant form of communication in many of our relationships.  E-mails, Facebook chats, and SMSs vastly out number phone calls made or videos sent.  Text is a great way to communicate information such as instructions, meeting times, and news stories, and Facebook and E-mail have given people the ability to stay connected and maintain friendships even after many years and over many miles. However, a word of caution, I believe text can be just as harmful as helpful in some cases.  While information is rarely misunderstood, tone, feeling and most of all sarcasm rarely make it past the screen.  We have all heard the expression  “It’s not what you said. Its how you said it.” And while there are some variations in how one uses the word  O.K.  (“okay, kay, k, kk”) we have to ask, is that really enough information to go off during this 3 or 4 hour text conversation.  And while some times it is more convenient to use text, for example when your working or in class, other times people will go out of their way to use text messaging and avoid phone calls, for example when driving. Long emails and hour texting conversations could be communicate much more quickly over the phone and give much more information about how the person.  Tone of voice and direct dialogue are two key factors of communication left out by text conversations.  From personal experience I think we can all remember a time where a text message was taken the wrong way by a friend and had a negative outcome. I also believe people are much more likely to say things without thinking about them, even though they are writing and typing them, than they would be if they we talking to the person directly.  Phones and the invitation of video conference sites like Skype and ooVoo should not even have to compete with SMS as the medium for information exchange.  Again there are many advantages to using text to communicate. Text messages can be quick, simple, and answered at the receivers convenience, whether it be 1 hour 1 day or 1 week.  Many people will say they feel like they have to drop everything to use a phone, or how they just don’t have that much to say if they call. I am not hating on SMS or facebook chat. I am just as guilty as everyone else when it comes to going over the limit each month. 
However, with Skype and iChat growing at exponential rates, and the advantages of face to face conversations and vocal communication I would not be surprised if texting becomes “so 2005”

Merger of AT&T Blog post 1

In the beginning, there was one. 

In the mid 1980s the mobile phone service industry was a monopoly headed by the company Ma Bell. As part of a program to regulate monopolies, the US Senate used anti-trust legislation to break apart Bell creating nine smaller mobile service providers. However, throughout the 90s and early 2000s these nine smaller companies began to naturally merger again. Now in 2010 there are four major providers: Verizon, AT&T, T-mobile, and Spirit.   Currently AT&T is attempting negotiate a merger with T-mobile narrowing the number to three.  This merger has come under scrutiny by the US Senate who is concerned the cell phone service providing industry will become a duopoly.  If the Senate approves the merger, AT&T/T-mobile and Verizon will control more than 80% of the wireless service industry with Spirit coming in third with 16% control.  The Senate then believes Verizon’s acquisition of Spirit would be inevitable, resulting in two companies, AT&T/t-mobile and Verizon/Spirit, controlling 97% of the market.  After already once dismantling the industry the Senate is weary about allowing the companies to continue on this path, fearing high prices for consumers and lower quality service.  In fact the hearings regarding the merger have been cleverly named “The AT&T/t-mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again”. 

The purpose of the Senate hearings are to address the constitutionality of government intervening in the private sector, the effects the merger will have on the economy, and how to protect American consumers from duopoly rule. However from a communications standpoint there are other questions to address.  For example, how will having only two uniform service providers help in the trade of information and expanding of technologies?

The AT&T that led Ma Bell and Bell Labs is the company credited with the invention of the transistor in 1947 and more recently fiber optic cables 1977.  Excellent management of their labs and great technological breakthroughs have allowed not just AT&T but its competitors to prosper as well. Each year T-mobile and Spirit have to play millions to use AT&T and Verizon cellular towers in areas they cannot afford to build their own. 

Some argue that the merger provides the industry with more resources for research and will hopefully continue to yield new communications technology.  However others are concerned the companies will not reinvest the extra revenue and continue to import most of their products and technology from China just to brand it with their label when it enters the market.  On average, AT&T makes 17% more revenue pre-customer than T-mobile.  They also claim that it was the intense competition between providers that led to the rapid innovation during the years after 1984 when Ma Bell was disbanded.  I believe that having a more or less uniform wireless network under the duopoly system will lead to better interfacing and trading of data and information, increase the industries opportunities to compete abroad by providing them with more revenue and a larger domestic base, and increase research in the field of ITCs. However, the duopoly system will require stricter government over sight to make sure the two companies do not misallocate their excess revenue to management.