Diary of a Mad Editor

Patricia, over at the Communication Exchange posed some questions for her readers to answer and since I have nothing better to write about this morning, I thought I’d post a response:

1. Why are some bloggers (like me) obsessive about posting regularly and others seem to have a very lackadaisical attitude regarding the frequency of their writings?

I guess posting frequency depends on an individual’s goals, work ethic and how much time they have in which to write.  For myself, I try to post at least three times a week, but sometimes manages multiple postings in a single day. And there have been periods due to illness or other commitments when I’ve posted hardly at all. It depends. As a rule, I think bloggers should blog every day.  That’s how you keep people coming back.  That being said, I think it’s probably better to write a few solid posts infrequently than to post frequently just for the sake of posting.  There have been plenty of times when I’ve done the posting for the sake of posting thing and what I usually end up with is a lot of useless filler. So another rule of thumb should be, if you have nothing to post about, it’s probably not such a bad idea to take the day off.

2. Are Facebook (and other personal information-sharing sites) making us more or less effective interpersonal communicators?

Even though I have a Facebook account and a Twitter account, etc., I don’t really spend much time on any of them, so I’m probably not the best person to ask this question. However, I’ll vote in the “less effective” column.  As much as I love the Internet and all that jazz, I’m still a big believer in the lost art of letter writing. Email and texting is great in a pinch, but our over-reliance on these new modes of communication is making us lazy, I think. As to whether its actually making us stupid, only time will tell. I understand that there are studies that suggest the opposite — that the Internet and such is making us smarter, rewiring our brains. Those studies may actually be correct. There are also studies that suggest reading EBooks are encouraging people to read more, not less. On the other hand, I’ve listened to teenagers whose communication skills have been heavily influenced by Facebook, texting, etc. and I’m not yet convinced. So many of them are speaking a language that no longer even remotely resembles coherent English and they are quickly growing into adults who no longer speak recognizable English, so until I see some improvement in that area, I’m going to stick with the "dumber, less effective" category. (I realize, of course, that my inability to speak their language may mean that I’m simply a less effective communicator, not them)

3. What can be done (or even should be done) to temper the increasingly nasty political communication in our country? Or am I totally mis-reading the volatility of most political communication (that is, between government officials, politicians, members of the media, etc.)?

I don’t know if I should even try to answer this one given that anytime I even mention politics on this blog, I end up losing old friends and making new enemies, but whatever… I think if you look at our political discourse from a purely historical perspective, it’s probably not as nasty as it has been in certain bygone eras. That this notion of civility in politics is mostly a myth. On the other hand, we’re living in 2010, not 1810, and it’s clear that the Internet and cable broadcast media amplifies the negativity and interferes with effective governance.  What does it say about our politics that the current U.S. president went from a 75% approval rating to 44% in less than 2 years in office? How much of that is reflective of his leadership and how much of it is the direct result of a constant media barrage telling the country that Obama’s no good?   I don’t know, but I’m thinking that our media doesn’t practice real journalism anymore — just propaganda that serves the interests of big corporations.

4. Is The Bachelorette (or, for that matter, The Bachelor) doomed to never produce a viable couple because humans are incapable of falling in love in an organized, systematic way?

I hate reality shows, so I’m not really a big believer in the premise that you can meet your soulmate in this manner. However, I’d point out that that one Bachelorette did marry that fireman guy and they are still together and have children. I’d also point out the other reality stars (albeit not necessarily from the same shows/seasons have gotten together and married).  There’s no right way to make a love match. A reality show is no more or less effective than any other manner, I don’t suppose. I think the problem with these specific shows, is that the producers are far less interested in making a love match than they are on producing an entertaining show that draws big ratings, so the men and women they collect aren’t the type of people who mesh well as couples. Remember, conflict and incompatibility equals ratings.