Category Archives: News

The Deepest Principle in Human Nature is the Craving to be Appreciated

At the tail end of my trip last week, I stopped in Charleston, SC. While there, I was happy to enjoy some of the local cuisine, along with the sights and sounds, but I was also pretty excited to watch the Golden Globes. I always like to watch the award shows when I’ve seen most of the movies. Having seen a number of the movies that were nominated this year (Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, Django Unchained, Argo, etc.), I was really excited. It feels like I’m more connected to the awards, somehow.

After watching the show, I couldn’t help but reflect on society at large. In particular, I thought about the lack of appreciation we show each other. That is, how many more award shows are there? A few big ones come to mind: the Oscars, the Grammys, the AMAs, the CMAs, the VMAs, the Golden Globes, the Emmys, the Tonys… and from there I struggle to think of many award shows that are on as large a scale. Of course, we could include the sports awards ceremonies, too — so the ESPYs and the NHL awards. And some folks might argue for the All-Star games.

This might be strange coming from a Canadian. In Canada, after you win an award, the culture dictates that you go and put it in your bag, so you don’t make anyone feel bad for not winning. In the US, however, that’s not the case. Nonetheless, it still feels like the US (and the world?) could do with some more appreciating of each other.

~

Did you ever conduct a science experiment when you were in grade school about some sort of vegetable growing better to classical music? That stuff really works. Did you know that most vegetables/fruits are made up of water? And did you know… that most of the human body is made up of water? Can you see where I’m going with this. The words we use to communicate with each other matter. If something as simple as classical music can help vegetables grow, don’t you think that words of appreciation will be greatly beneficial to the people around you?

~

So, while I won’t be organizing an awards show anytime soon, there are still ways that I can be appreciative of the people around me and in my environment. For instance, whenever I ride the bus, I almost always thank the driver upon de-bussing. Do you? How about if someone holds the door open for you — do you say thank you? Do you hold the door open for other people? If you take the time to look, I’m sure you’ll find that there are infinite opportunities for you to show your appreciation.

Note: The title of this post comes courtesy a quote from William James.

Where Has All The Deference Gone: Mr. Obama vs. Obama

Seeing as though it’s Inauguration Day, I thought I’d write something about President Obama. A few days ago, I came across a note about NPR’s decision to change their style guide. Where they used to refer to President Obama as “Mister” Obama after the first mention (where he’d be referred to as President Obama), they’re now just going to drop the “Mister.” Why? So it doesn’t seem as though they’re showing favoritism. While I can understand the reasoning in this decision, I don’t think it’s a choice that I would have made. As Noah Rothman at Mediaite writes:

The vast majority of MSNBC viewers and NPR listeners, I believe, saw no evidence of conspiracy in how they referred to the president on the second reference.

This decision to change they style guide seems like it’s a bit over-the-top. Because none of the other major news organizations refer to the President simply by last name on the second reference, NPR wants to “fall in line,” so that it doesn’t seem that it’s showing favoritism. Hmm. Something doesn’t feel right about this. If NPR thought that it was right in showing deference on the second reference, then by golly, it should continue to do so. Of course, I understand if this is one of those “pick your battles,” kind of deals.

Nonetheless, it seems that the West US could do with a little more deference. In fact, I wonder if there were more deference in the American culture, would people be as disrespectful to each other? I understand that deference is part of something that America first rebelled against (British culture, titles, and all that), so it might be kind of hard for deference to succeed in American culture.

One does have to wonder: if there were more deference, would there be as much polemical writing? There probably still would be polemical writing, but my guess is there may be less of it.

When you get right down to it, though, what is deference? Respect. If we switch the word and talk about showing respect (and not offering deference), my guess is that it’s much harder to ignore. That is, if it’s a choice between respecting someone and disrespecting someone, I’d hope that we’d all choose respect.

Be Yourself: Erring on the Side of Authenticity

I’ve had very spotty internet connectivity over the past week or so and that’s why you haven’t seen any new posts from me for a while. I’ll continue to have spotty internet connectivity probably until next week, but there’s something I wanted to say before I got back into writing regularly here.

Just before the new year clicked over, someone passed along the trailer for Seth Godin’s new book. I’ve included it below:

After watching that trailer — it made sense. While I’m not necessarily an artist, I think the message that Godin is promoting is important: there is a bias for the middle road. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with that, but that bias to the middle road does come at a price. I’d say that this is something that I certainly have been mindful of with the things I’ve written about online. Some may point to my series on psi phenomena (telepathy, precognition, etc.) as evidence that I’ve long since blown past the middle road, but when I wrote those posts, I was careful to make sure that I cited a litany of scientific studies supporting the existence of such phenomena. Others may point to posts like the one I’ve written about hugs instead of handshakes, but that doesn’t seem like it’s too far from the middle road.

Regardless of who points to what, I wanted to say — today — I’m declaring that I’m going to err on the side of authenticity. What does that mean? Well, in the past, I may have shied away from sharing his opinion or that opinion — especially because it’s online! — ‘and things online are forever.’ I’ve come to realize that this is silly. Yes, I’ve read all the things out there about how the pictures you post online or the things you write about online could prevent you from getting job-x or job-y. I understand that, but I still think it’s important to strive to learn. How can I expect myself to grow/learn, if I don’t share some of my sensitive ideas and open them up for discussion and debate? How can I expect to have these ideas challenged and improved? I certainly can’t.

When I started writing on the internet, I had this idea in mind. That is, I was mindful that my ideas in this moment, on January 8th, 2013, might not be the ideas that I have on January 8th, 2014. As a result, I wrote a bit about it in my disclaimer:

I am the creator of this blog and my perspective of five years or five minutes ago do not necessarily reflect my views right now. My thoughts, opinions and viewpoints will change as I learn, grow, and develop my understanding of the world. Therefore, I reserve the right to allow my viewpoints to evolve and to change my thoughts, viewpoints and opinions over time without assigning any reason for such changes.

I truly believe this and hope that those who may look to things I’ve written in the past and try to hold it against me will realize that I fully expect that my ideas will grow, shift, and change. This seems important to make note of because who knows, I may yet one day run for public office and I could totally imagine a clever reporter digging up things I’ve written in the past with glee showing that I was, in fact, on the “other” side of an issue that I may be staunchly for (in that present day). Who knows what the future holds.

I know one thing’s for sure, the kind of change that I want to be part of on a global scale certainly won’t be made by me (or others) erring on the side of the middle road. So long as I’m true to myself — authentic — and keep to my ethics/morals, I feel confident in standing up for whatever I’ve said.

So — this is not to say that I’m going to start advocating some extreme positions in tomorrow’s post (or even the next day’s), but I will, as the title suggests, err on the side of authenticity. I hope you’ll join me in this learning experience — maybe we’ll be able to teach each other something.

House Republicans are Trying to Change Their Homework… After It Should Have Already Been Handed In

While not a perfect metaphor, I can’t help but think of due dates and assignments as the fiscal cliff drama continues to unfold today. The latest has it that the House Republicans are not happy with the deal that the Senate passed earlier this morning and that they want to make amendments. Under normal circumstances, this is perfectly normal. The two chambers often make amendments to the bills the other has passed and then approve/disapprove, accordingly.

However, this time, it feels more like House Republicans have waited until the extreme last minute to complete their assignment… but now aren’t happy with the way that it looks. Everyone has known that the sequester has been in place for over a year (!) back when there was an agreement on the debt ceiling fight. There’s been plenty of time to craft a bill that everyone can agree to and avoid this New Year‘s Day farce. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happened.

In the last few days, the Speaker of the House said — essentially — that it was up to the Senate to pass a bill, so that the House could then vote on said bill. So, that’s exactly what the Senate did last night (or earlier this morning, depending on how you refer to the hours after midnight). As an aside, a huge thank you to all the Senate staffers who had to work through New Year’s eve. I can’t imagine that it was what they thought they’d be doing to ring in 2013. The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support — 89 (out of 100) Senators voted for it.

So, now it’s up to the House to bring the bill to the floor and have a majority of it members vote to pass the bill. Unfortunately, the House Republicans want to amend the bill. They don’t like what’s in it. They don’t think it should pass as is. As I said earlier, under normal circumstances, this would be perfectly normal. However, the circumstances aren’t normal. The “due date” for this “assignment” was last night at midnight (and they didn’t hand it in on time). There’s a “hand it in late deadline” of Thursday and it looks like, if things continue the way they are continuing, that they’re going to blow right through that deadline, too. I certainly hope not.

When you’ve waited ’til the last minute to complete an assignment, you only have a certain number of hours to work with to get it done (I’m sure you’ve all had the experience of working on an assignment the night before [or the morning of] it’s due). It might not be your best work, but depending on the policies in the syllabus, you don’t necessarily have the option of delaying and handing it in well after the deadline. This is what’s happening today in Congress. The House needs to bring the bill to the floor  and pass it — posthaste.

Taxes are the Same for Everyone: Marginal Rates vs. Millionaires and Billionaires

I was watching some of the coverage of the ongoing fiscal cliff mess and I heard one of the people being interviewed talking about how the “Bush tax cuts” are going to be extended for 98% of Americans. This. Is. So. Wrong. I’d like to assume that the people on TV informing the nation know that they’re wrong or that they’re misleading, but I don’t know — maybe they don’t know. Regardless, they’re unintentionally perpetuating myths that have long since been debunked.

To flesh this out: it’s not that once you make a certain amount of income, your rate is completely different for all the money you make, NO! The USA has marginal tax rates, so the first $250,000 you make will get taxed at one rate and any money you make above that gets taxed at a different rate. So, when pundits or talking heads or anyone talking about this fiscal cliff mess tells you that the Bush tax cuts are being extended for 98% of Americans (or any number less than 100%) — they’re wrong.

Higher Education is More Like Telecommuting and Less Like Newspapers, Part 1

I came across an interesting article in The American Interest magazine a couple of days ago. It was by way of tweet (as it most often is). This tweet came from one of the professors at George Mason University, Prof. Auerswald. He’s done some really cool stuff, so be sure to check ’em out! The tweet which led me to the article:

Intriguing, yes? Well, it was to me, so I proceeded to read the article from the magazine. As for the argument that universities are going the way of the newspaper because of the internet — I don’t necessarily agree with it.

In fact, I think that higher education will go the way of telecommuting more than it will the way of newspapers. What do I mean? Well, telecommuting first became popular last century. It only existed as a possibility from about the 1970s on. By now, you’d expect that lots of people would telecommute, right? Depending on your definition of lots…

Total Number of US teleworkers

This graphic shows that there are only about 3 million total employees who telecommuted in 2011. If I were asked to guess in 1990s how many folks would be telecommuting in the 2010s, I would have guessed waay more than 3 million — as I’m sure most people would.

Higher education — learning — has, for the most part, been an in-person thing. People enroll in university and spend the next 4-5 years living on- (or off-) campus taking classes. In that time, they may also join student organizations, hold internships, and meet a whole bunch of new people. Some of those people become their friends for the rest of their lives.

MOOCs do not have the same qualities of in-person education. Learning online (or on your own) won’t necessarily reap the same benefits of attending university.

I understand the argument and the correlation between newspapers and higher education makes sense, but I just don’t buy it. I don’t believe that higher education will go the same way as Newsweek or other publications. Higher education is more than just the degree. That’s not to say that some consumers won’t choose to go the way of online learning, but I don’t think that it will pull enough folks away from wanting the in-person learning. This is why I think MOOCs and online education is more likely to go the way of telecommuting.

That being said, I do think that MOOCs present a major threat to the higher education market because consumers will perceive it as a shortcut to a degree.

And more than that, I think that advances in telecommuting could shift the way we telecommute — and by extension — higher education. In fact, I remember during the 2008 election, CNN had a “virtual presence” technology wherein one of their guests was somewhere else entirely, but there was a holographic representation of them in the studio (with which Wolf Blitzer was interacting). That was 4 years ago!

I don’t know what happened to that technology (if it’s being developed for commercial use, etc.), but I think that could seriously change the way we interact. I think if that technology were introduced on a larger scale, that would certainly increase the number of telecommuters. Similarly, I think that would have a chance at seriously changing the face of higher education. This technology, assuming it’s “just as good as being there,” would allow folks to be in the comfort of their basements (or virtual presence studio?), while still being at work or in a classroom.

Just as a closing: anything written about the future is inherently flawed. There’s no way to know (for sure) what will happen or won’t happen in the future. So, while these are some predictions or guesses I’m making about the future, they may turn out to be wildly wrong (or surprisingly right).

Note: After writing this, I realized that there were a few more things I wanted to touch on. Look for Part 2 tomorrow!

Quick Update: Many More Categories!

Just a quick update… When I first started writing for Genuine Thriving, I had read that it was important to not have too many categories (especially when you’re starting out). As a result, I stuck to about 10 or 11 different categories. Now that I’ve written over 200 posts, I thought I’d look at some of the more popular tags, to see if any ‘categories’ might have emerged from them. It turns out, there is! I found a number of tags that I thought worthy of their own category, so you’ll see a number of new categories in the list.

I felt that some of these categories were subcategories of other categories. So, you’ll see the “Wisdom” categories has “Perspective” and “Fresh Perspective” under it. That’s because I think that these categories belong to the bigger category of wisdom. Quotes certainly makes sense as a subcategory of history as does ethics a subcategory of philosophy (and Twitter of technology). I put psychology under science (and I’m sure some folks who strongly disagree!), but after having studied psychology for 6+ years, I certainly think it’s a science.

Lastly — education. I thought about putting it under science (or) philosophy, but it didn’t quite seem to fit. So for now, it’ll be it’s own category. If you’re looking for where the “categories” appear on this page, scroll down a bit and look at the sidebar on the right-hand side. You should see them. Hope you enjoy!

A Quick Note on the Argument FOR Guns in Schools…

Since the events of last Friday, there have been a number of arguments put forth to curb the incidence of mass shootings. Some folks seem to think that lowering the number of guns in circulation will lower the number of gun deaths. A logical inference. Other folks think that raising the number of guns in circulation will lower the number of gun deaths.

In fact, some folks argue — specifically — that if the teachers were armed, they would have been able to prevent what happened in Newtown. There’s already been a great deal written in contrary to this belief, so I won’t address it. There is one thing I do want to address: more guns in schools.

I couldn’t find the exact statistics, but there are *x* number of gun deaths in America as a result of gun accidents. That is, the guns weren’t properly stored and then kids find them, play with them, and tragedy ensues. My point: if we can’t eliminate accidental gun deaths in the home, do we really think that there wouldn’t be accidental gun deaths in schools? And, couldn’t these gun deaths in schools be worse (by way of having more people die)?

Something to think about this morning.

 

If I were the CEO of CNN… (Part 2)

In yesterday’s post (Part 1), I went down a bit of a tangent and really focused on CNN’s potential to become the “go-to” network for fact-checking. Today, I wanted to revisit the idea of being the CEO of CNN and take a closer look at CNN from a strategic standpoint.

Yesterday, I mentioned that one of CNN’s resources was its plethora of international journalists. This is certainly something that needs to be considered when developing a new strategy for CNN. Although, also as I said yesterday, Americans are known for not caring about what’s going on in the world.

Another one of CNN’s resources (intangible, mind you) is their brand. I couldn’t find any hard data, but my guess is that CNN has a better reputation for reporting impartial and accurate news than MSNBC or Fox News. (Aside from some slip-ups, of course.)

As some critics have said, CNN grew in popularity when it was showcasing, “hard-hitting investigative reporting.” One could postulate that this strength grew out of the two resources above. By having lots of international journalists, they’re able to report on the day-to-day news, while still researching/developing investigative reports. Similarly, their brand equity gives them an “in” because people around the world recognize CNN as a news organization that is watched by many people. As a result, someone may be more likely to tell CNN their story.

When examined from this perspective, it certainly seems that this kind of reporting is one of CNN’s core competencies. Why is it a core competency? It’s certainly a unique strength and it is embedded deep within CNN. It also allows CNN to differentiate itself from its rivals. Unfortunately, it seems that CNN has strayed from this core competency.

So, in addition to yesterday’s conclusion about CNN expanding its “fact-checking” programming, it seems that CNN would be well-served to, as some critics have said, “get back to its roots,” and bring back the hard-hitting investigative reporting that brought it brand awareness.

[Note: I’ve barely scratched the surface on the tools that one can use to analyze/develop strategy. Notably missing are things like a SWOT analysis, Porter’s 5 Forces, the BCG Matrix, McKinsey‘s 7S framework, and the list goes on. This two part-series on CNN’s strategy was meant to provide a taste into some of the things that upper-level management would need to consider when developing strategy.]

~

If you liked this paper/series, you might want to check out some of the other papers/series I’ve posted.

If I were the CEO of CNN… (Part 1)

A few weeks ago, I was stuck in traffic so I flipped on NPR. As it was the 6 o’clock hour, Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal was on. To my delight, they were talking about the impending shift at CNN. That is, earlier this summer, the current CEO of CNN announced that he’d be stepping down at the end of the year. Recently, CNN announced that Jeff Zucker would be replacing Walton as the President of the company.

Anyway, on the Marketplace broadcast, Ryssdal was speaking with someone who argued that CNN was going to redefine itself:

But that may be tougher than it sounds. With Fox News cornering the political right, and MSNBC owning the political left, the question is, says Sherman, “How do you define yourself, if not by politics?”

Indeed. Fox News is most certainly known as the network that favors the opinion of political conservatives and MSNBC certainly seems to favor the opinion of political liberals. In today’s cable TV marketplace, that certainly leaves little room for CNN. It would be silly of CNN to try to compete with MSNBC in its market (liberals) and it would be foolish of CNN to try to compete with Fox News in its market (conservatives).

Since I just finished up a course on strategy, I thought I’d use some of the tools I learned about to analyze CNN’s current situation. Keeping in mind that this is meant to be a cursory or 30,000-foot view, as I didn’t do a great deal of research, (which is what would need to be done to have a thorough analysis).

The first thing that comes to mind is one of CNN’s resources: international journalists. I remember hearing at one point that this was one of CNN’s distinct advantages (over MSNBC and Fox News): they have a number of journalists worldwide, whereas the other two networks don’t. This allows them to compete in other markets than the US and probably helps lead to CNN’s extensive name recognition worldwide (over MSNBC and Fox News). This is certainly a resource that CNN should try to incorporate into their strategy moving forward.

Though, I have also read that while this is a key resource for CNN, it doesn’t necessarily help them with the US market. Why? While Americans know that it’s good for them to know what’s going on in the world, a great deal of the population doesn’t care. Since the US is the most coveted market, CNN’s going to have to do something to try to pull away viewers from Fox News and MSNBC — or attract new viewers.

After reading about some of the things that Zucker has said, it certainly seems like he doesn’t want to continue to compete just with MSNBC and CNN. It seems like Zucker might also consider other cable networks like Bravo and TLC competitors of CNN.

I tend to agree with some of the critics who think that CNN should return to the kind of programming that made it successful: “hard-hitting investigate reporting.”

But more than that, I think there’s a real opportunity for CNN to create a new market or at least add-value to a different market: fact-checking. As can be seen from Google trends, searches for fact-checking really seem to peak around the time of a presidential election. My thought: CNN could try to capitalize on this by creating programming (not just around election season, but all the time) where they fact-check other news organizations. That is, they could almost do what Jon Stewart and The Daily Show do, but without the satirical/comedic element. That is, CNN could inform viewers how the other two networks are distorting the facts. I remember seeing some programming like this on CNN recently, but my idea would be for more of this programming. Maybe the majority of its programming would be fact-checking.

It’s possible that the networks have already market-tested this idea and found that it won’t work, so that might be why we haven’t yet seen a plethora of this kind of programming, yet, but it’s also possible that no one had considered it or that it was considered and top management didn’t like it.

Maybe my naïvety and wish for this kind of a public service is clouding my strategic thinking, but something tells me that this could work.

[Author’s Note: When I read through this post just now after having written it a couple of days ago, I realized that I didn’t really talk too much about some of the fundamentals of strategy. Look for Part 2 on Sunday.]