, in her spiritedly

assertive comment

to my

recent post on Kelly Christopherson

, said, "Hey! I want some feedback on my

recent blog post

!" So here goes...

Susan, I think this notion of the economy of


is getting more and more (dare I say it?) ... attention.

See, for example, this excellent

set of resources on the topic

as well as Davenport & Beck's book, The

Attention Economy

. I agree with your 'I want some commercial-free spaces

in my life'

  perspective but your post also caused my mind to wander in a

completely different direction.

In the attention economy, everyone is competing for ears, eyeballs, and

brainwaves. Because there is way too much information for us to pay attention

to, advertisers and marketers are doing everything they can to

get us to pay attention to their messages

. But as Malcolm Gladwell notes, "word

of mouth" from those we trust

still carries the most weight when it comes to

our decision-making.

So who do we listen to? To whom do we give permission to


products and ideas to ourselves? Well, technology both expands and

limits our attention. On the expansive side, our 'trust


' now may be comprised not only of family, friends, and close

colleagues (those with whom we have 'strong ties') but also bloggers; trusted

web sites and media channels; political, charitable, and/or ideological

organizations with whom we affiliate; etc. (those with whom we have 'weak


'). E-mail listservs, RSS feeds, and other subscription mechanisms allow

us to hear from and monitor more information channels than ever before.

Of course technology also allows us to be much more selective about who we

listen to. We no longer are dependent on a few print, radio, and/or television

broadcast channels for information. We now can choose from an

often-overwhelming choice

of print and online newspapers; AM, FM, and

satellite radio stations; network, cable, and satellite television stations;

text-based and streaming media web sites; blogs; podcasts; text and instant

messaging; interactive videogames; and other information streams. Of necessity

we use Internet bookmarks, iPods, Tivo, RSS aggregators, and the like to filter

out what we want to see, hear, and read. Cocooned with our personal media

players (and sound-isolating headphones), e-book readers, PDAs, cell phones,

computers, and home theaters, we rarely have to come in contact with any persons

or ideas we wish to avoid.

Some call this personalization; others call it isolation. The challenge of

all of this wonderful individualization is trying to still forge a sense of

common culture, to create common bonds that tie us together as a society, as a

local community, as national citizens. When we voluntarily narrowcast ourselves by

only hearing or watching media that we like, by only reading certain ideological

or political perspectives, by only visiting web sites or blogs that resonate

with us, where do we hear the common messages that bring us together as a


I think the answer is public schools. It's definitely not broadcast

television or radio: even the most-watched TV shows now garner only a fraction

of the viewers they used to. Workplaces and houses of worship are too disparate

and divergent. The Internet is too scattered and newspaper readership is way

down. What's left besides our public elementary and secondary institutions?

Yet we are now seeing the same surfeit of choice in public schools as we see

in other societal arenas. Complementing the traditional choice of private

schools, we now have magnet schools, charter schools, alternative schools,

privatized schools, schools-within-a-school, virtual schools, and homeschooling.

In Utah, lawmakers just passed a law providing tuition

vouchers for every student in the state

who wants to attend private


I'm not an advocate of hegemonic groupthink (particularly from the

government), nor do I tend to be an alarmist, but I do think there's an

important place for public schools regarding socialization of our youth,

instillation of community and national norms, and creation of a people with

common bonds. But I'm afraid we're losing this quickly, and we need to start

talking about what it means for us as a society.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

26 ultra-rich people own as much as the world's 3.8 billion poorest

The Oxfam report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency."

Getty Images and Wikimedia Commons
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new report by Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world.
  • In the last year, the world's billionaires saw their wealth increase by 12%, while the poorest 3.8 billion people on the planet lost 11% of their wealth.
  • The report prompted Anand Giridharadas to tweet: "Don't be Pinkered into everything's-getting-better complacency." We explain what Steven Pinker's got to do with it.
Keep reading Show less

People who constantly complain are harmful to your health

Moans, groans, and gripes release stress hormones in the brain.

Photo credit: Getty Images / Stringer

Could you give up complaining for a whole month? That's the crux of this interesting piece by Jessica Hullinger over at Fast Company. Hullinger explores the reasons why humans are so predisposed to griping and why, despite these predispositions, we should all try to complain less. As for no complaining for a month, that was the goal for people enrolled in the Complaint Restraint project.

Participants sought to go the entirety of February without so much as a moan, groan, or bellyache.

Keep reading Show less
  • Facebook and Google began as companies with supposedly noble purposes.
  • Creating a more connected world and indexing the world's information: what could be better than that?
  • But pressure to return value to shareholders came at the expense of their own users.
Keep reading Show less