Technology,+Education,+and+Expertise

**Experts on Talk Shows **
In Chapter 7 of //The Money Shot//, Grindstaff talks about the different kinds of experts that appear on talk shows. She never mentions however that experts can be created by appearing on talk shows as ordinary guests.

In January 2008, Alec Greven appeared on //The// //Ellen// //Show//, where he talked about his experiences at recess learning how to talk to girls by watching his fellow classmates. He later decided to write a book ([]). He brought this book on the show with him. After being interviewed by Ellen and explaining his book and experiences, Ellen surprised him with a hardcover version of his book. His book was later picked up by Harper Collins Publishing and he has now appeared on many different show and has authored many other books, such as //How to talk to dads// and //How to talk to Santa//. Did I mention that Alec is 9 years old?

This is Alec's First Appearance on //Ellen// media type="youtube" key="vbB76ejvAro" height="381" width="479"

This was a later appearance on The Today Show

[]

Within one year, Alec had become a talk show "expert" on talking to girls. Grindstaff would call him an organic expert. Someone that gains their expertise from experience.

My questions to you all are: has society gone to far in giving the title "expert" to a 9 year old? and can you really be an expert in something based on personal experience if you haven't even been alive for 10 years? How much experience qualifies you as an expert?

=__**Technological Revolution**__=

High Income vs. Low Income
In Paul Atwells’ article “The First and Second Digital Divides” he touches upon the gap forming between low income families and those who come from more fortunate situations. As computers, laptops, internet, and wifi all become increasingly popular, many people consider this information highway as an integral part of their lives. Given peoples economic situation not everyone can have the fortune of having access to this booming technology. So what are the ramifications for those who aren’t able to access technology that seems to be shaping what the rest of the world plays, learns, and works?

The Digital Divide
There is a significant difference between the affluent and low income families, in particular the ability to purchase computers. “The technology gap is not simply a reflection of the choices made by an individual household; it reflects deeper problems --like access to infrastructure.” While the main public concern is whether or not people can get a service, something that needs more attention is that people who are not familiar with the internet are missing out on adequate telecommunications facilities; a considerable factor when making business investments. The disparity between high income and low income families widens the gap between computer literate and illiterate.


 * Families who acquire an income of approximately $75,000 are twenty times more likely to have internet access then those households earning the lowest level of income.
 * Black and Hispanic households are less likely to have Internet access within there homes as are White Households. This gap between Black and Hispanic is only growing large than have been in 1994.
 * No matter what the income level is, Americans in rural areas are falling behind with their ability to access internet. Even at low income levels, those living in urban areas are twice as likely have access to internet.
 * Not only do income, race and location play significant roles in the digital divide but so does the level of education one receives. Between 97 and 98 the bridge between internet access of those with the highest level and those with the lowest level of education was 25%.

(http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/digitaldivide/digital3.html)

Bridging the Digital Divide
There are many different ways and proposals put into effect to help bridge the digital division, one important factor is the market force driving down prices of technology making computers and laptops more affordable. The government has also enforced policy and incentives that encourage corporations to donate computers to low income schools. Programs have also been made by companies to help solve this epidemic such as Apple Computer's Classroom of Tomorrow which has created computing intensive environments in five schools.



Connor Ring The increasing ideological polarization of America is a recent political phenomenon that scholars have sought to explain. Although the news media is not the sole cause of this potentially dangerous trend, it is certainly a major factor. Ideological polarization, simply explained, is the idea that the populous is moving closer to the poles of the ideologically spectrum – conservative and liberal. In the middle of the spectrum rests moderates, those who recognize more commonalities with each other. Those who share ideological commonalities are more likely to work together for common goals. This is a very simple behavioral trend that transcends politics. Some scholars see ideological polarization as a necessary outcome when important decisions about the future of our nation are being made. For example, only a single Republican – Vietnamese-American Joseph Cao R-Louisiana, voted for the national healthcare bill. But others see the trend as more dangerous. Ideological polarization has created, is creating, a deep rift in a diverse country where cooperation is necessary for action and progress. Of course this progress is a dangerous word. Many people have different ideas of what exactly entails progress. But this is not the point. The point is that as a country we must constantly evolve and strengthen ourselves to deal with the myriad of problems that we face. Climate change, economic stagnation, improving education and healthcare – these are all problems that will require cooperation amongst people of differing ideological beliefs. To touch on a previous point, some see these deep ideological riffs as evidence of a thriving democracy. However, when we analyze the basis of people’s beliefs entangled in these ideological battles, we are confronted with a much more shallow picture of American democracy. media type="youtube" key="HxN5kHWIgms" height="385" width="480"
 * Television Media and the Devolution of Political Discourse**

The reasons behind the beliefs of these protestors have nothing to do with political discourse. They are irrelevant issues, hijacked by television and radio news media and twisted into something relevant. The issues addressed – without prompt – are as follows: The legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship, his religion, his “hating” America, and his association with Professor of Education at the University of Illinois William Ayers, an education reformer and former founder of a communist revolutionary group that bombed public buildings in protest during the 1960s and 1970s.

“He’s not my president.” “He’s a closet Muslim.” “I think he proved he was a Muslim when he bowed to that Saudi king.” “He hates America…at least he hates white America.” He is a lying, low-down…I don’t know….I would like to stick a knife in his eye.” “He hates the American way, he doesn’t understand what made this country.” “How did Obama become a multimillionaire? Four years ago he couldn’t rent a car. Ask his good buddy Bill Ayers'

Temecula Tea party 4/15/09

In the interest of full disclosure, I must recognize that by including this video clip I am engaging in the same types of actions of “invisible censorship” that television reporters use to tell a story. The people in this video do not represent an accurate picture of an “average American”. This video shows a highly radicalized America. However, these people are not simply a silent minority either. They are highly vocalized and receive much attention in the news media. The point of the video was to demonstrate the basis of the America’s radicalization. While these people may have a “gut feeling” of being anti-Obama, their beliefs are not grounded in solid logic. This is the most troubling thing. When political discourse devolves into mindless yelling back and forth with no discussion, very little cooperation and improvement is possible. The national healthcare bill was an aberration. No major changes have been made in this country without cooperation between individuals of differing political beliefs.

One of the causes of the devolution of political discourse is the public’s increasing reliance on television to get their news. This trend, coupled with the collapse of the newspaper industry, is creating a situation in which the political discourse is lead not be the nation’s intellectuals but by those “fast-thinkers” that Pierre Bourdieu refers to in his talk, “On Television”. It is a common mistake to vilify individuals rather than recognize the systemic issue. This is the case with many who today recognize the problems with the American news media. Fox News is not the enemy. Neither is Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Lou Dobbs, or Keith Olbermann. This is where Bourdieu shines. By outlining the inherent flaws in the delivery of important information through a television show, we can begin to reconstruct how to effectively deliver information to people so that they have the tools to function as citizens in a democracy.

I will leave you with this interesting critique of Keith Olbermann by Jon Stewart played on the Olbermann’s show. Stewart does exactly what Bourdieu says is necessary in political discourse – taking apart ideas one by one like a logical proof. Communication is instantaneous but thought is subversive Olbermann presents a skewed view of Senator Scott Brown with little to no backing. Regardless of his personal ideology, Jon Stewart systematically breaks down his argument in all its glorious bullshit. You don’t have to watch the entire thing to get view of what is going on.

media type="youtube" key="0ZylQXm-vis" height="385" width="480"