≡ Menu

BarCamp News Innovation 2015 Review

BCNI15a

Because I had to leave early, this is only half a review of half a day of Saturday, May 2nd’s BarCamp News Innovation (BCNI, BCNI15) put on for the 7th year in a row by Christopher Wink and friends, supported by many sponsors including Temple’s Center for Public Interest Journalism. The other half is rant, which I’m sure you could predict. It’s shortish, I promise.

A Dunbar’s number-like 150 people showed up to BCNI Philly, which was a smaller attendance number than at last year’s BCNI run in conjunction with Content Camp (an unconference dedicated to writing for online–mostly commercial–outlets. Disclosure: I was on the organizing committee of Content Camp, which was headed up by David Dylan Thomas).

Since I’ve been streamlining in order to work on creative projects, I debated whether or not to attend BCNI this year. I’m trying to protect not only my time but my concentration by attending only those events that further the purpose of my professional and personal wellbeing. Since lately I don’t see myself with much of a chance in essay, op-ed, or science reporting, I’m walking away from full participation in the newspaper world for now. But I’m glad I went, even if only for a little bit. Here are some highlights:

*Seeing friends

*Making new friends

*The keynote

*A GF lunch! (Thanks, Chris! What a nice surprise!)

*Philly.com session
BCNI15c
I have friends whom I only see once yearly at the BCNI conference, so I’d probably go to just have a cup of coffee with them. This year I had a charity event at 3pm in King of Prussia, so I had to bail out at 2 and miss happy hour (the best part of BCNI), but I still managed to check in with all of my favorite BCNI regulars.

Like in many journalism meet-ups, innovators were all over the place. VOX.com’s Lauren Rabaino showed some of the genius reactionary design objects the site put together, e.g. a meme generator, along with some usage statistics. Super adorable: Ms. Rabino showing VOX’s very human thinking process in developing a ticket system for editorial help. As a person who was on a team to create, setup, populate and implement an internal tiered tech help desk system for a major worldwide manufacturer, I thought Vox’s editorial-helpdesk effort was super cute. Helpdesk is an instinct, and they carried it out naturally and plainly, like toddlers learning to walk. No instructions needed. Of course, if they had time for a good consultant Vox.com would’ve already had a ticket system in place (Lesson: If you’re out there and you service requests of any nature – not just tech- then look into the concept of a ticketed helpdesk system!). I was tickled by the editors’ “innovation,” how they stumbled upon it, and how Ms. Rabaino presented it like it was new. I’m both encouraged and dismayed at this, as on one side it’s evidence of human adaptation, but on the other side, it’s evidence that journalism is way too insular.
BCNI15b
Which brings me to my next point, a rant you’ve all heard before from me: the powers-that-be in journalism are still lost in their own little world. This may be biased and wrong, but my impression of world of traditional journalism is that it suffers greatly from myth. As I am not a J-school grad I’m officially an outsider, so take this as you may: the delusion surrounding journalism seems so utterly complete that any new products or services that bounce off mainstream media, e.g., web-only news sites, news aggregator apps, etc., are labeled as marketing, content creation, or perhaps even Computer Science instead of “journalism” and are seen by old school newspaperers as wholly separate from journalism and its purpose.

BCNI15 felt very newsroomy. Unlike last year, the marketing folks weren’t around. Contrary to popular belief, I’m not a marketer; I’m a behavioral analyst and writer. The marketers, though, do seem to inject a certain kind of “What’s next?” energy into a conference. In this year’s sessions I attended up until 2pm, I heard and/or felt the old newsroom mantras of “Hail the almighty longform!” and “Print is still king!”

Increasingly I find myself filled with only harsh assessments of journalism to share. Despite what you may read in my tweets and this blog, I really don’t want to be a critic. I can’t help being annoyed, though, each time I hear a great idea followed by some newsroomer saying why it won’t work. I mean, I get it. They are basing their opinions on evidence collected through a lifetime of reporting. But when a print side of a newspaper tells the web side they can’t publish a lifestyle feature until after 6pm so as not to get scooped by broadcast news, I want to pull my hair out.

Usually, when a person gets this level of miffed at anything – as I am with the seemingly slow rate of change in journalism – it signifies a lack of understanding of the issue. I’ll fully admit I lack understanding. But from where I sit, there are many, many real innovators in the journalism world, yet I still can’t customize my Philly.com page or pay the New York Times for a la carte verticals. Even old school ogre CABLE is switching over to a la carte channels. Newspapers seem far, far away from phasing out print or realizing they are a customer service organization.

Yes, “customer” service, not public service. Newspapers definitely fill a public service, but they are not immune to customer satisfaction levels. There seems to be a basic lack of knowledge about the mechanisms of human behavior and how to design a product around those mechanisms. People don’t read the paper to be informed. They read news because it is a habit developed around their self-identity. Many times, the habit is formed in young years and beyond the conscious knowledge of the reader. Now that GenX and Millennials aren’t buying day-old news delivered in inky, non-ergonomic, bulky systems, the business of journalism is finally waking up to the fact they were wrong for centuries about why people read the newspaper. Surprise!

Look up how procrastination is tied to mood, how behavior and habits form a self, and how the underlying Internet cultural values of wit and humor influence users, and you’ll get an idea of why people have the HuffPo or Buzzfeed as their homepage instead of Philly.com. The inherent, die-hard belief that journalism’s main purpose is to further democracy is working against it’s own mission. If newspapers (now called news sites) continue to refuse to play a part in the identity and daily habits of the individual, then democracy will be dammed because no-one will read the free speech you’ve put up on a paid firewall site. If your main purpose is to serve the public, then find out who your public is and how they work. Your broadcast agenda only works if there is someone on the other side to absorb it.

Whew.

Sorry. I feel like I’ve said this all before. My own personal news cycle is on repeat.

BCNI is always a great conference and next year I hope we can get even more attendees. BCNI is the place to hear about the next and new in news, even if there are 1 or 2 of the traditional anchors to drag into the 21st century. Come next year. I’ll be the one tweeting in the front row.

Hashtag: #BCNI15

 

0 comments

FerrisMuseum1

Watch this 1 scene from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off & you’ll instantly “get” art

“I don’t get art.”

As Internet culture seeps into every aspect of our lives, it’s becoming more acceptable to admit our shortcomings in the quest to connect to similar souls. A search for “I don’t get art” turns up post after post of shrugged sentiment and unrepentant prejudice. A few decades ago, a person would only whisper it to a friend while trying to hide his confusion. Now the phrase will find you a whole community of confused compadres.

“I don’t get art” is a somewhat valid position. If art is what the art industry tells you art is, then yes, none of us really get art. The art industry (yes, it’s an industry, and quite a dirty one at that) has a vested interest in keeping art esoteric and elite. Very few museums curate for real humans. Curators curate for rich patrons and mostly — other curators. It’s like they’re secretly competing for the most obscure and unrelated piece groupings to see who can confound, shock and awe the best of the best.

Most people make the logical choice to keep away from the whole endeavor. I don’t visit museums often myself. Instead, I turn to more accessible media for those days when I’m on a hunt for deep meaning: the library; photography; movies. One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from the 1991 movie Grand Canyon:

“That’s your problem: you haven’t seen enough movies. All of life’s riddles are answered in the movies.”

So true. Ironically yet fittingly, this riddle about how to “get” art is answered in a minute-and-a-half scene in the great John Hughes film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. What, you may ask, does this iconic ‘80s senioritis skip session have to do with anything, let alone the lofty world of art? Lots. Let’s take a look.

In The Museum

When we come upon this scene, Ferris, his girlfriend Sloane, and his uber-worrywart, super-hypochondriac best friend Cameron Frye, are halfway finished with their romp through Chicago’s mean very clean streets. Lots has happened already, including Ferris’s reckless absconding of the prized vintage Ferrari of Mr. Frye, Cameron’s dad. The trio stop by the famous Art Institute of Chicago to check out some paintings and sculpture.

Take a watch first of the clip and then we’ll discuss:

Don’t get art yet? It’s OK. I have some things to tell you about this scene. Stay with me.

All the Feels

The Director and writer of the film John Hughes is amazing here. Hughes employs everything at his disposal, the shot angles, the art, the juxtaposition of the pieces and people, the soundtrack, the lighting, etc. to reflect what is happening inside the characters themselves, especially Cameron’s internal struggle to break free of his father and find his own path in life. (Some might say the entire film is really Cameron’s story, and Cameron is a reflection of John Hughes himself, but that’s a discussion for another time.)

The music is The Dream Academy’s instrumental version of The Smith’s “Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want.” Here are the very simple lyrics of the song:

“Good times for a change /see, the luck I’ve had /can make a good man /turn bad //So please please please /let me, let me, let me /let me get what I want /this time

Haven’t had a dream in a long time /see, the life I’ve had /can make a good man bad /So for once in my life /let me get what I want

Lord knows it would be the first time

Lord knows it would be the first time”

Any kid growing up in a horribly dysfunctional home like Cameron’s could relate to those words. But the lyrics and their relevance are there to find only for the keen investigator. Hughes’s decision to do an instrumental version of the song was definitely the right one for the scene’s tone, but we can also interpret it as the director telling us Cameron was so deep under the thumb of his terrorizing father that he had no ability to even think about it, let alone express it in words. Indeed later in the movie, Cameron lapses into a catatonic state of abject fear when he realizes a nasty confrontation with his dad is imminent.

Let’s take a quick look at the scenes, without getting all wrapped up in the deeper relevance of each art piece (you’re welcome to look up each piece’s name and history. Knowing John Hughes, there are more nuggets of wisdom awaiting anyone willing to dig deeper. Consider sharing in the comments if you do).

After we see the “big kids” entering the museum with a bunch of little kids, with a smattering of adults standing around, ignoring the children, we see Edward Hopper’s 1942 painting Nighthawks.

Nighthawks

Nighthawks by Edward Hopper

Notice in the painting there is also a trio, a man and a woman together, and another man sitting alone and perhaps stealing glances of the couple from across the bar. This same set-up is repeated throughout the movie, with Cameron being a third wheel to Ferris’s and Sloane’s intimacy:

Ferris2Ferris3Ferris4

Continuing through the museum:

The next few pieces further convey the concept of “contrast,” to reflect Cameron’s internal struggle: Smooth and soothing versus excited and sharp; warm and comforting vs. cold and concrete; round vs. angular; young vs. old; intimate vs. distant.

The camera moves to icons of The Mother, pieces symbolizing motherly devotion and feminine love. Cameron is a very defensive person: He has a dad who hates his mother; he has no girlfriend or even close to know how transformative the love of a partner can be; and he hasn’t cared to know about any of it. Cameron could be represented by the stubborn-man sculpture (which all three characters reflect in their crossed-arm poses).

In a confusing mess of spite and desperate attempts to garner any type of care from anyone — especially from his cruelly negligent parents — Cameron resorts to affecting constant physical ailments. Throughout the course of the film, Cameron starts to use Sloane as a kind of fill-in girlfriend, and Sloane does deliver some of that feminine caring that Cameron so painfully lacks. The feminine art pieces hint at how Sloane somewhat fills this role for Cameron, but they also lead up to the transformative effect the art has on Cameron’s life.

While Ferris and Sloane have a mock-kiss-your-bride scene, Cameron takes in a detail in the 1884 pointillism painting “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte” by George Seurat (note how he is wearing a pertinent double– gazillion-entendre “Howe” jersey on — “How will I live? What kind of person will I be?” UPDATE: A reader pointed out that this Howe jersey is a signal of Cameron’s rebellion against his father. Read more about it at the link at the bottom). Cameron, studying “A Sunday Afternoon…” looks closer and closer at the baby holding its mother’s hand. What at first glance appears to be a face turns into a mere smattering of tiny dots. No distinguishable identity exists for the baby. In this moment, Cameron realizes no real Cameron exists either. He is merely a collection of tiny colored dots, like the endless prescription pills he’s been given as a substitute for love.

Ferris5
A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte. 1884. Seurat.

The walls of Jerico come tumbling down

This realization breaks a pillar of Cameron’s defense system. When the next blow comes (the Ferrari’s odometer has doubled), Cameron’s defenses are gone. When the final blow comes (Cameron accidentally kills the Ferrari), the old Cameron dies. A new Cameron rises from the ashes, standing with the help of Ferris’s and Sloane’s love and compassion. He gives a monologue of epic proportions. “I gotta take a stand,” Cameron says, and the transformation is complete.

Here’s the scene (not the greatest quality, sorry):

So, back to the art.

Hughes used film, paintings, sculpture and sound to show us that all of life’s riddles are answered in art. Advanced art degrees aren’t necessary to appreciate artwork. We don’t need to know “the artist’s intent” for a piece to speak to us. Art is there to answer the specific questions that haunt us at the time when we are viewing it. People throw so much money at fortune tellers and Magic 8 balls when they could just offer up their question to an art museum. Ask yourself the biggie metaphorical Q “what do I want?” before you enter a collection and see what pieces catch your eye. The big A to your big Q is hiding in there somewhere.

Art is a medium through which you discover yourself. Museums aren’t about the artists or the collections or even the exclusive curators. They are about you. Think of it: A whole building, filled with stuff all about you. Some things may not make sense to you right now. In fact, most art in life will not grab you. So what if you don’t feel anything from that particular piece? Leave it for another time in your life. Leave it for another human. Or, maybe the fact that you are turned off by it is insight in itself? Take a second to ask why it turns you off or confuses you. But other pieces may just be the thing that takes that part of you buried deep inside and pulls it out, asking — and maybe answering — exactly what you needed to know.

The best, most beautiful aspect of art? THERE. ARE. NO. WRONG. ANSWERS. There is no “getting it” or “not getting it.” There’s nothing to get. There’s no one right way to interpret it. Art is all about you, and only you can know what it means for you.

Get it?

So go discover some parts of yourself you’ve lost. Go invent parts of yourself you’ve been missing. Go answer your life’s riddles with some art.

_______

Read more about the Howe jersey and marvel at the depth of this movie here.

1 comment

Concentrating.

writingbooks

Cutting away all that is unnecessary in life is hard. The hard part comes when one must decide what is necessary. Sometimes activities you love to do fall into the “unnecessary” category, and that makes life difficult.

Right now I’m culling activities, obligations and possessions so as to maintain a singular professional focus: to finish a novel. This means I have to give up my “online presence” for a while. Doing so makes me nervous, because I feel like it’s my only professional avenue. In other words, it’s keeping my foot in the door in case I ever do need to get an outside full-time job. (Probably I should question the premise that my only lifeline should tragedy strike is to have a solid online reputation. For some reason, though, I’m steeped in the Internet myth and can’t let go of that belief.)

So I have to put faith in … in … what? Put faith in the belief that “things will work out”? Put faith in myself? Sure I can finish a novel but all evidence shows that novel will go nowhere. It won’t make a career for me. Plus, the thought of being known as a fiction writer kind of skeeves me. Every artist I’ve known well has been inept at life. I don’t want to join their ranks. (Again, I should question the “artists are losers” premise, but that prejudice is so deeply-seated in me and our culture that I’ll just have to work with the delusion).

I wish more stories were told about how life sucks for The Great, like how olympic gold medalists are lonely most of the time or how many horrible hours Richard Branson spent questioning his failures and himself. I want to hear stories about how going for a major life goal actually SUCKS ASS most times, and that there are damn good reasons why people don’t pursue them. the sacrifice stories would do more to help me sacrifice than the success stories.

Anyway. The long and short of this is, I need to stop allowing Facebook, Twitter and other binge-snack sites to splinter my concentration. I want to be of singular purpose, at least for a little while. I don’t know how to live the life of an strategy consultant and a fiction writer at the same time. I’ve failed at one or the other at any given time. And if a Destiny Gun was held to my head right now, against all logic, all my best judgment and all things sacred, I’d still choose the noveling. Idiotic. Stupid. Useless. I know.

But a gal can dream…

 

0 comments

bucketlist

Beware the barrenness of a busy life.

-Socrates

A “bucket list” is an inventory of places to see/ things to do/people to meet before you die. Usually this list is written down and posted somewhere. People are supposed to check off experiences as they go. Search Flickr or Twitter for “bucket list” and you’ll get an idea of the overwhelming popularity of the trend.

Today an entrepreneur I follow tweeted out “help me with my bucket list” and a link to his blog post. In blue, he highlighted his accomplished tasks, in black were the tasks yet to be done. His list was typical of a socially-conscious innovator, e.g., donate a million dollars to charity (he said he was 1/3rd of the way there), launch successful kids, golf at the Masters, etc. I perused it, curious to see if I could help him with anything. It was a typical “see this, do that” list, so really, the tasks are up to him. So why did he ask other tweeters for help? Was it an exercise in the modern skill of humble bragging? Sure, he listed his charity goals but essentially, his entire agenda was about him and how admirable his goals are.

Why do we construct these things? If we’re honest, wouldn’t we classify a bucket list as another (albeit fancier) “TO DO” list? Or do we publish our dream vacations and lofty goals to put forth an image of ourselves as International Adventurers of Mystery? Surely, we Bucket Listers don’t collect “spread peace, love, and happiness” posters on our Pinterest boards.

It’s as if we need certain notches on our belt in order to feel complete. Bucket lists are exercises in that esteem-building task of “complete-ness,” but this task isn’t risk-free. There’s a secret danger to the bucket list: Inspiration boards and daydreams take their toll. In one of Life’s great ironies, every bit of inspiration you collect on your Bucket List is a bit you take away from your energetic movement toward that goal.

Brain research shows that “mirror” neurons can simulate an observed experience so well that we ourselves feel like we had the experience. These neurons can fool us into thinking we’re great golfers like Tiger Woods or we’ve been shot down in helicopters in a battle in the Middle East. Bucket lists fool us into thinking we’ve already traveled miles when in reality we have yet to take our first step. Some experts warn against too much “visualization” for this reason: The very act of picturing ourselves at the finish may mean we never start the race.

I realize this is the opposite of the Supreme Motivational Canon that the happiness movement has been feeding us since the ’60s. But think about it: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trade-offs hide under every surface, and this mirror neuron phenomenon, embedded in a feverish “Get it done” culture, is why we go to and from work in the same routine day after day, on the path of least resistance through the barrenness of a busy life.

The fact is, a hoarding of experiences is not much better than a hoarding of material goods. Feeling “complete” or worthy doesn’t come from base jumping the Eiffel Tower or roaring through Grand Canyon rapids. If only it were that easy! So much money spent on self-help books, therapy, illegal drugs even, could be saved up for one all-healing Himalayan climb.

Don’t believe the hype. Plastering your cubicle of photos of Fiji will only get you farther away from that paradise. Instead, do what Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps did every day of his life: picture the process. Phelps didn’t picture himself on the winner’s stand. In fact, he didn’t even picture the end of the race. Michael had a mental “videotape” of swimming his best race, down to the tiniest detail like how he held his fingers or flexed his toes, and he played that tape in his head like a movie, every day over and over. Before every race, his coach would tell him to “roll the tape” to get his whole body ready to go through the motions. These motions eventually broke world records and led to 8 gold medals.

Forget the Bucket List. If you want to get to Fiji, picture yourself at the bank, making deposits in your “Escape” fund. If you want successful children, imagine yourself being calm and collected during their next major mess-up. Focus on the journey, and its end will surprise and delight you.

____________________

Photo credit: Flickr user torbakhopper. Edited by me, Christine Cavalier

Also posted on LinkedIn.

 

1 comment

Lie to Yourself Like a Boss

pinocchio with a cigar

“Perhaps the strangest thing about [an] illusion of control is not that it happens but that it seems to confer many of the psychological benefits of genuine control. In fact, the one group of people who seem generally immune to this illusion are the clinically depressed, who tend to estimate accurately the degree to which they can control events in most situations.”
Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling on Happiness

In Lars Van Trier’s disturbing movie Melancholia, Justine is a bride with a history of mental illness. As the planet Melancholia threatens to crash into and destroy Earth, Justine is the steady force for her young nephew as pure panic takes over the others, including her usually happy and fortunate sister Claire.

Psychology researchers have noticed this phenomenon. A depressed person’s ability to absorb bad news is stronger than healthier people’s, e.g., Justine’s depression primed her to expect catastrophe which allowed her to function in spite of it, where the others broke down as they struggled and raged against the shock.

Which sister would you rather be? Justine or Claire? I used to think like Justine, the unflinching realist: Better to be prepared as much as possible for oncoming doom than suffer the devastating shock that comes with it. Now I think I’d side with Claire: Why worry? Sure, doom may be coming but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Let’s have tea.

This choice comes down to more than the typical optimist/pessimist argument many motivational mavens churn out. The formation of your world view is a much more complex and changeable process. But the most influential factor on that world view is your ability to “lie” to yourself.

Self-deception, illusion, delusion, etc., whatever you want to call it, how well you can reposition a situation to fit within comfortable parameters is the most unrecognized skill in highly effective leaders. Being able to take emphasis from internal and put it onto external factors is what separates the middle guys from the big guns. If Claire the CEO didn’t make her third quarter targets? “The bad weather really hampered sales. We still did better than last year’s 3rd quarter. And maybe the targets are too high!” Claire would then kick back and have a beer, energized for the 4th quarter sales. “Realistic” middle manager Justine would speak to – or perhaps scream at – the sales team, pore over the books to see what went wrong, and squeeze out more hours from already overused resources. She’d go home deflated and worried.

Here’s the thing: Justine may be able to eke out a tiny increase in profit for the next quarter, but Claire will be the one who continues to get promoted. Let’s look at two powerful techniques Claire has in her arsenal to keep a rosy outlook (barring another planet colliding with ours, of course).

  • Reframing: If the scene you have seems overwhelming, increase the setting.Don’t just look at the third quarter numbers, look at the last 5, 10, 15 years’ 3rd quarter and year-end totals. Look at how you did compared to competitors’ 3rd quarters. Keep looking for more data until this quarter’s abysmal performance doesn’t seem so bad.
  • Shifting Locus of Control: No man is an island, except when he is. External factors, not personal ones, are more responsible for downturns than you are. Personal talents are more responsible for upturns than luck. The bad weather may have impacted sales but it was the great motivational speech you gave to the sales managers that brought those numbers back up at year-end.

When applied appropriately and positively, these techniques can help anyone cope with stress at work. They can ease your worries and save your self-esteem. A Machiavellian application of denial (reframing) and blame (shifting locus of control) will have us fantasizing about a bulk order of nooses for the c-suite.

These coping styles, especially when peppered with humor, can help get you through your kid’s teen years or your neighbor’s noisy divorce. This isn’t a happy-joy, Up-with-People mind trick. We don’t have to pop pep pills and plaster cheerleader grins on our faces to deal with reality. Remember: reality has multiple aspects. Choose to concentrate on the ones that will lessen your load, and let the Earth shatter another day.

________________

Photo Credit: Know Your Meme, Like A Boss

Also on LinkedIn

0 comments