Blackberry: The Tool of Choice for Big Brother

You may have seen this new Blackberry commercial in which Research In Motion Limited (RIM) asks, "What if delivery people ran the world?" All I have to say is that I hope they never do.

The commercial begins with a teacher taking roll. One student, Callahan, is absent. The teacher uses his new Blackberry phone/walkie-talkie to ask around the school for the student. First he asks the bus driver, who "delivers" children from the back of trucks rather than using buses, who states that the kid was dropped off already. The image of children coming out of the back of the trucks adds a kind of police state flavor to the commercial, as well. The teacher rings the gym and the hallway, looking for Callahan (the hallway monitor just finds a rather nerdy-looking freshman in a locker...) but is told that the student cannot be found. The teacher then uses his Blackberry to check for any emails from the kid's parents. When none are found, the teacher informs drivers on the street to find and detain Callahan to be brought back for detention.

What message is this commercial really sending? Technology can solve problems, and the side effects of such technologies are inconsequential to getting the job done.

Blackberry is ready to bring the Orwellian nightmare one step closer to reality. Imagine living in a world in which your every action was monitored and your freedom of choice removed. This is what RIM thinks would be a better way, all brought to you by a communications device.

Neil Postman would find this an example of the technopoly; we are so utterly in love with the belief that technology can solve problems, that we forget about the cultural values our technologies make obsolete.

For reference, here is the commercial:

The End of Journalism

This post over at QueerSighted.com makes some rather interesting observations:

It has become all too easy to shrug off the decline of legitimate news organizations and "old-fashioned" print media as the Internet and direct and digital cable TV expand by leaps and bounds. But the fact that we've reduced real news and truth to a consumer commodity subject to ratings and sales poses a threat to our freedom that is mostly ignored.

and here's how this threat has manifested itself:

[Rupert] Murdoch [owner of News Corp.] operates most of his major media properties at a loss, slashing ad rates and subscribers rates in order to drive the less well financed family-owned and journalist-owned properties into oblivion. That's his goal with The New York Times. Decades ago news outlets competed with each other through their ability to deliver the best information first, quality of writing and quality of investigative journalism. Today, the Murdoch's of the world have radically changed the paradigm forcing news outlets to compete as business entities mostly through advertising revenue. And with his deep pockets, Murdoch always has the advantage. Murdoch does not see his broadcast and print news ventures as a means to enhance the provision of free information to a free people, Murdoch rather uses his former news and information properties to propagandize his various political agenda--the anti-gay one for example--both through the dissemination of lies and the diversion of circus-like entertainment. And he's brilliant at this. Murdoch has done more damage to American democracy and freedom than a dozen George W. Bushes could ever hope to accomplish.

Why is this so important? Because without a free press there will be no one watching government. Those in a position of power will be able to abuse that power because no one is plastering their misdeeds all over the front pages for all Americans to read. Without an informed populace, voters cannot make sound decisions at the voting booth, and therefore, candidates will find it easier to lie to constituents about their intentions for office.

The blogosphere, while more democratic than traditional print newspapers, is missing something important -- credibility. People trust print news as a source for objective information because there are journalistic standards in place to ensure that that information is reliable. The methods that those like Murdoch engage in threaten to disrupt these journalistic standards, and thus, shift the focus of news gathering from keeping a watchful eye on power to more trivial pursuits, while also having the side effect of reducing the credibility of print journalism.