When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute.
Walter Lippmann

ANGRY MOB

We read the papers everyday


Search this site


Your Ad Here

Stats since 7/04/09

http://www.wikio.co.uk

Notice
  • Guest user account is not properly configured. Please set 'Username of Guest' option to the Username of registered user. guest_username="guest"

    --
    yvComment solution, version="1.24.0"
Twitter 'Causes brain overload' according to study PDF Print E-mail
Written by Uponnothing   
Tuesday, 02 June 2009 20:52

Well, it makes you immoral, probably causes cancer and now - according to a Daily Mail headline - Twitter 'causes brain overload'. Interestingly enough the headline takes many forms on the Daily Mail website. The most extreme 'Twitter causes brain overload, says study' is the smallest, probably because it is the most untruthful:

Small but deadly

The actual headline of the article naturally (this is the Daily Mail) says something entirely different: 'How the Twitter age of rolling information has "robbed fans of compassion"'. The article is rather amusing when you consider it is hosted on the Daily Mail website:

 

A constant stream of electronic 'junk' is damaging people's ability to think compassionately, scientists say.

The deluge of information from 24-hour news, mobile phones, emails and social networking sites such as Twitter moves too fast for the brain's 'moral compass' to process, two studies suggest.

'Electronic junk' seems a rather tame way of describing the vacuous drivel that passes for content on the Daily Mail website. For example, current highlights include: Sarah Harding shows off her legs in tiny hotpants as she enjoys a day in the park; Amanda Holden squeezes into an LPD (little purple dress) as she bids for fame Stateside; Leona Lewis' tight-fitting top shows the strain as she prepares to jet out of LA and on and on it goes.

Hours and hours and hours of tedious, pointless shite dressed up as something more important. As for the ability to 'think compassionately', where to start with the Daily Mail? This is the paper that revels in depressing its readers, hating everything and everyone. This is the paper that dubs Susan Boyle 'the hairy angel' then tries to blame ITV for exacerbating her mental illness.

As for a moral compass, the Daily Mail swings in whatever direction makes them a few more pounds. Paul Dacre's minions argue that the Police state and Google Earth are a terrible invasion of privacy, but shoving a photographer's lens up a girls skirt of revealing details of a private orgy is somehow a public service.

The article goes on:

 

It also suggests that heavy Twitter and Facebook users could become 'indifferent to human suffering' because they never get time to reflect and fully experience emotions about other people's feelings.

 

Replace the phrase 'Twitter and Facebook' with any of the following: Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Sun or any other toilet-paper tabloid and you will be significantly closer to the truth.

 
Comments (3)
3 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 08:20
Apologies for the typos! Ironically, despite the surface hatred, the Mail is rather dependent on Google, and they also have submit buttons on each story for Facebook, Twitter, Digg & a few others. I'm betting the next Mail 'cluster' coverage will be Megan Fox. Transformers 2 is out, so while most papers will run the usual publicity bumph, the Mail is likely to have a pointless story in every day or two for the next six weeks; Megan goes the shop, Megan wears shoes, Megan eats biscuits. You're unlikely to get any articles on the work of Michael Bay or the process of creating dozens of CG robots as the search keywords for those are a bit more obscure. It's instructive to know that the content of newspapers is partly dictated by the search keywords of horny teenage boys around the globe...
2 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 07:30
Another thing I wonder about it wether the Mail's online advertising revenues are built on a stick of cards (as well as other papers). A cursory glance through any story reveals seemingly dozens of foaming right-wing rants often from Americans or 'ex-pats'. The Mail is good at getting alarmist stories ("Muslims to take over universe") linked-to in the likes of the Drudge Report, thus attracting a guarenteed torrent of the most imbalanced American readers. Now, I bet the Mail go to their advertisers and say "We've had x amounts of hits, therefor you owe us y amount of cash" but don't actually say how many of these hits are from people who may legitemately purchase things from the paper or its affiliates. We can assume gun-toting Americans are probably not who advertisers are aiming at. Ditto for the Telegraph and others - from reading the comments on their articles you'd assume the only people in America were ultra-conservative fundamantalist nutcases. Maybe this is even another way to game their google ratings - am sure the rants about 'socialised medicine' and 'Muslim obama' are quite popular keywords in the paranoid realms of the USA.
1 Tuesday, 09 June 2009 07:20
I suspect the majority of the Mail's pointless celeb stories are actually an attempt to game their Google ratings. You will notice that they seem to have 'clusters' of stories all about the same non-issue (i.e. Tom Cruise's kid, Holly Willoughby's clevage). Whats probably happened is their SEO (search engine optimisation) people have told them the easiest way to get high ratings is to go through whatever keywords are popular on Google and write irrelevant copy about them. Then when Google's web-bots are scanning the Mail they pick up the fact that their content is constantly changing but within certain popular parameters, thus giving them a higher position on news/web searches. For example, what is the most popular web-site of today? Its either Facebook or Twitter. How many Mail stories mention Facebook or Twitter in the headline, rather than, say Slashdot or MIT OpenCourseware (also popular sites)? Thats SEO in action, folks... This may also explain why the Mail (and other tabs) have a fondness for banal or insulting neologisms (NuLieBoor, Hairy Angel, Jock McStalin) and why said words & phrases appear hundreds of times in comments allegedly posted by people all around the country.

Add your comment

Your name:
Your website:
Subject:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):
 
Joomla 1.5 Templates by Joomlashack