Go to The Impossibility Of Knowing
- Add a comment
- Go to Online conversations are so easily misunderstood
LOL - It would make a weird impression.
posted by
word.smith
on May 23, 2005 at 2:45 PM
| link to this | reply
CarolynMoe, good point, haha
posted by
Azur
on May 23, 2005 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Wiley, don't be too hard on yourself. We all get taken in at sometime. I think in her case her phone manner was over the top but I back away from full on people
posted by
Azur
on May 23, 2005 at 12:24 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
If I had been an interviewer this weekend, I can tell you that face to face interview I had, gave me a complete picture.
That was the kind of person that needed to get her anger out straight at me. Through her eyes, her body language and her words which I am certain she had to verbalize.
They would have been unprintable anyway.Good post kiddo
posted by
WileyJohn
on May 23, 2005 at 11:16 AM
| link to this | reply
True, but if someone has an annoying facial tick, that would be distracting.
posted by
cmoe
on May 23, 2005 at 8:02 AM
| link to this | reply
True..
A face to face.. expression of nething is much better and vividly understood and not misunderstood!
posted by
Elan27
on May 23, 2005 at 3:10 AM
| link to this | reply
NorthernYankee, as a reporter I ask questions, dig to find out more and have to do so even more when I can't speak to the person face to face.
The prejudices I observe on Blogit as much to do with political afffiliations, religious beliefs, ageism, sexism as much as skin color but I honestly don't think this environment holds prejudices in check. People express them very plainly even though they may not intend to.
I think the best blogging checks and balances are the same as anywhere -- look at how it's written, the language, the message stated and between the lines, the sources and apply the same judgement you do to evaluating any material.
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 8:56 PM
| link to this | reply
your comment
Racism is not eliminated, of course; people's prejidices are held in check simply by the fact that you can not see the colour of the skin of the person you are corrisponding with. Bloggers skin's colour is also hidden.
I now can better understand this misunderstanding thing you speak about; try using it to your advantage like most people do. Get people to expand their ideas more so that you can find out what you are looking for.
Interent checks and balances depend on people a lot more; the best check on the evils of the internet is to not use it, or disregard the information that you have no interest in.
As far as bloging checks and balances are concerned, I find that writers are quick to shoot down anyone with dubious intentions. The comments are pretty transparent. n For example, anyone can read this comment that I am writing now.
posted by
NorthernYankee
on May 22, 2005 at 8:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Usualsuspect, it is both a blessing and a bane. I have a friend who wants to IM and who only live a few miles away. I think why IM when we can speak so easily
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 6:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Yep word.smith, smiley faces don't give the right impression in a formal interview. Can you imagine -lol ?
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 6:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Scoop, something will always be missing from any account where we can't take into account the full personality. Not only that it is easier for people to lie if we can't see them or at least for us to know they are lying
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply
Nothing beats face to face interaction.
I know how easy it is to misinterpret what is said, so I tend to go overboard with the smileys.
posted by
word.smith
on May 22, 2005 at 4:02 PM
| link to this | reply
So True!
Some of the most tangled misunderstandings in my personal life, as of late, have been the result of IM conversations. Better to be able to interpret tonal inflections rather than read them flat on a monitor. Ah, the curse of modern technology.
posted by
UsualSuspect
on May 22, 2005 at 3:53 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB
this is very true. When we speak to someone in person one on one we "see" the conversation, the voice tones, the eyes, even the hand movement. For instance to me, I have seen Andy Rooney so much on TV when I read his books I hear his voice and can picture him as I read, crazy, maybe but if I read someone now who I have never spoken to it seems flat.
posted by
scoop
on May 22, 2005 at 2:48 PM
| link to this | reply
GinnieB, words on the screen often come across baldly don't they? In an interview you can't use little emoticoms etc that one might use here
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 2:21 PM
| link to this | reply
NorthernYankee, the internet made the world my community. For years I now have earned part of my living writing web content. The internet.
If you look back through my posts you will find that I have written that reading people on the internet shows me the human perspective of the news. I regard much of what I read on blogs as opinion, some people are more balanced and some are pushing an agenda--just like the news organizations.
I am not at all skeptical about the progressive affects of the internet but I do recognize the dangers that anyone can tell anyone anything and often does. There are fewer checks and balances.
I have to disagree when you say there is no racism on the internet. People's prejudices come through loud and clear whatever the medium. Just because you don't know where someone comes from does not eliminate racism
posted by
Azur
on May 22, 2005 at 2:19 PM
| link to this | reply
So true MayB!
I have an old friend who I care for a lot and when we are together in the flesh, we always have a wonderful time together. In her email correspondence however, she comes across as a differnet person..arrogant,selfish, uncaring. I get very upset at her 'tone' and yet I have to remind myself that she's not really like that in person. Most people I know are the same in person, on the phone, via email..but some just aren't the same at all! So I take your points about 'in the flesh'.
posted by
ginnieb
on May 22, 2005 at 9:17 AM
| link to this | reply
The internet.
I view the internet a little differently than you do. I see opportunities to learn from other people from different parts of the world.
I have learned a heck of a lot about what real Americans think and feel rather than hearing and judging from questionable news sources such as, TIME CNN or FOX.
As for your point about doing journalistic interviews in person and being able to "feel out" and understand people in person vs. online. That is true there are advantages to speaking with people in person. No doubt it has taken you a lot of your career to get your interview skills as fine-tuned as they are today. Communicating via the internet is still in its pioneering stages. However, I am sure, that one day people will be able to gauge the personalities of people electronically as we do in person today. It will take time to learn how to adapt.
My guess is, you are skeptical about the progressive affects of the internet. If there is any misunderstanding I am sorry.
There is no racism on the internet, people only now what we tell them. I could be a Mexican, New Yorker, Cuban or Chinese national and you would have no clue unless I told you.
Thanks for reading my post
posted by
NorthernYankee
on May 22, 2005 at 8:37 AM
| link to this | reply