Social media: Weird and wonderful?

Two startling events happened in the past week. Both had to do with social media.

Last week, I was on my way to a meeting in the courthouse when I ran into two Pokemon Go players.

I had seen people chase Pokemon monsters before. A week earlier, a middle-aged woman was walking down the middle of Walnut Street near First Baptist Church, studying her phone in what I have to assume was a Pokemon Go encounter.

The two Pokemon Go players I saw at the courthouse were both dressed in black. One was walking, the other was riding in a motorized wheelchair. Both were studying their phones and the guy walking told me he was not only finding Pokemons but was killing them.

It reminded me of one of my friends on Facebook who advertised his yard sale by promising there would be lots of Pokemon monsters in his yard and encouraged all players to come and see. Obviously, it was the old "get them in the tent to make your sales pitch" approach. Quite clever.

Perhaps ministers should do that.

"Come to church this Sunday! See how many monsters you can slay in the sanctuary!"

Ministers won't say that because Pokemon Go players have tunnel vision -- they can only see what's on their phone and even if they see the pulpit on their screen, it's doubtful they will hear anything the pastor is saying.

Last week, I received a social media request from a person in Dallas, Texas, asking me to connect on Linked In.

I accepted. I have hundreds of similar contacts on social media but nearly all of them are in Indiana and those outside the state I am related to or have worked with (I think.) This contact was different. This person in Dallas and I have no mutual contacts. They had to find me through my profile on that social media platform.

That is curious, encouraging, and weird all at the same time.

It is encouraging because when I am not at "my day job"as a reporter for The Brazil Times, I am a free lance writer. Writing brought in some much needed dollars when our children were small and while, at the moment, my extra-curricular writing doesn't bring in any money, it might, some day.

This person in Texas might be a contact that will lead to extra employment. Who knows? In this day and age, it doesn't matter where you are located, your virtual presence can be anywhere in the world thanks to the Information Superhighway!

I may not have to explain to my older readers why this Linked In contact is "curious" or even "weird." But for younger folks, here goes.

We are not used to having any kind of relationship with someone we have never seen.

We have talked business on the phone, we have written business letters, but social media is more than that. It suggests a real, three-dimensional person is getting to know you through your presence on the Internet. In my case, they read my blogs and social media posts. This is something new to many of us.

By the way, this person in Texas is not in the business of selling me anything so a sales pitch can be ruled out. It feels different from any long distance interaction I've had in the past.

As these long distance relationships over social media continue to develop, the World Wide Web becomes just that -- a web connecting people of all races and religions anywhere in the world.

I can very well imagine in the next few years a world leader announcing plans to bomb an enemy nation or enemy stronghold and then facing an uprising of his or her own residents.

"You can't bomb that part of the world! I have social media friends who live there!"

So, people are getting outdoors playing Pokemon Go (and running up their data charges and, in some cases leaving small children to fend for themselves) and people are making connections in other parts of the world through the Internet and all the social media apps like Facebook and Twitter.

Curious ... weird ... and, maybe, wonderful?

Places we gather for real visits

Hospitals, like funeral homes, have become social centers for human contact. 

I don't want this to be a downer but in this age of virtual contacts through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social media, we often see family and friends only at hospitals and funeral homes.  

Church attendance is declining but, by golly, we need our hospitals and funeral homes for obvious reasons.  

Now that hospitals are becoming more specialized, often places that patch you up and ship you out, we tend to visit our family and friends in the big city and that means people who live many miles from us come to see our loved ones, too, and we get real hugs and real handshakes instead of the virtual ones through your computer or phone.  

We don't like to think of our loved ones being in those places but if there is an up side, it is the human contact we get.  

Usually, visiting people in those places is mentally exhausting. Sometimes, it is physically tiring, especially if there aren't enough places to sit and people play musical chairs as they rotate between the seats.  

I was at home on a Saturday night many years ago. A friend of our family called and said, "They've taken Sally to the hospital and she's not expected to make it through the night. It would be nice if you went there."  

So, I went to see Sally (not her real name) and the family at a hospital about 20 miles from where we lived in the country.  

When I arrived, not only were Sally's husband and children there but so were about 20 other friends of the family.  

Poor Sally was semiconscious and everyone was crowded around her bed.  

I didn't know what to do! I could have walked out and explained the situation to her husband later but I thought he wanted me to be there.  

Soon, people started visiting and talking and even laughing. Not long after that, her husband came around and started shooing us out of the room so Sally could get her rest.  

Were people being inconsiderate? I don't think so. Like myself, they wanted to be of help but often a person just doesn't know how to best handle the situation.  

I think people who plan a wake after the death of a loved one have the right idea. Or, the more common funeral dinner. (I'm not sure which is more unhealthy, the booze or the gravy and pie.)  

A hospital room or a funeral home visitation should be somewhat dignified and we should certainly respect the wishes of the person who is hospitalized and their immediate family, whatever the situation. If we want to relax and enjoy ourselves, some place outside the hospital or funeral home is more appropriate.  

The last time I was in the hospital overnight was for a heart catheterization, also many years ago.  

Our friends came to see me but I especially appreciated a lady who did not come in my room, but who sat with my wife during the procedure. That kind of support is always appreciated, but it should be respectful and not boisterous.  

I don't think the situation will change any time soon. We are just too busy to just sit down and visit with those we care about except at Thanksgiving, Christmas and, perhaps Easter.  

I know our family enjoys the Christmas together.  

That goes back to when I was growing up.  

Dad worked on the railroad and when trains were being scheduled to run, the dispatcher would call the next men on the list to make up the next crew out. Those phone calls paid the bills so dad had a phone installed on both floors of our house. We never knew when he would be called out and since my bed was just a few feet from the upstairs phone, I was jolted awake many nights by its ringing which also jangled my nerves.  

If Dad left the house, it was always right after he came in from a road trip to Chicago. The only exception was Christmas.  

"I will work Thanksgiving or Easter or New Year's, but not Christmas," he said.  

I don't remember him missing any Christmases when I was growing up.  

I certainly don't look forward to visiting in the hospital or funeral home but I know it will happen. I also know that if there is a positive side, it will be seeing family and friends we just don't see very often otherwise.  

The nature of the beast

The headline called it a "fiery crash" and a few people expressed their outrage that a newspaper would put photos of a burning car and firefighters working to rescue a person from his wrecked truck (the person in the truck could not be seen in the photo.)

Meanwhile, nearly 3,000 people looked at the the photos, following the link from the newspaper's Facebook page to the newspaper's website. 

That raises the question (to paraphrase a line from a "Star Trek" move), "Do the desires of the few outweigh the desires of the many?"

I was the photographer who shot the pictures in question and I assure you I would have much rather been taking photos of some cute bunnies at the fair or darling little girls in a dance recital than to take photos at "a fiery crash," for that is indeed what it was. 

The people stopped in traffic for more than a half an hour wanted to know why traffic was backed up as much as a mile. At least two of those people asked me about it as I walked back to my car. 

I believe we did the right thing by posting those photos online, even before we had the names of the victims (there was one injury -- a boy was burned by the airbag in the car.) The thing is, we weren't the first to take photos of the wreck. My boss texted me from Parke County with a short video of the plume of smoke rising from the crash. 

The criticism and the interest shown (there were nearly two dozen times our Facebook entry was shared) raises ethical questions about media, including newspapers, TV, radio and the World Wide Web. 

The critics said they wondered if their family and friends who drive a car similar to the burned out shell of the vehicle we photographed were the victims. They said we shouldn't have posted the photos before we could identify the people involved in the crash. 

That's an interesting idea. In response I would ask, "Would you not contact those people and ask if they were the ones involved?" and "Would not everyone with family and friends who might be traveling that stretch of road be concerned?" Remember, the crash was already on Facebook before we snapped our first photo. 

The fact is a newspaper, a news story regardless of the medium, isn't able to tell the whole story. It is a snapshot in time. 

The reality is, that is the best it can be. 

One of the biggest news stories of the 20th century was Watergate. It was reported over a period of months with many stories about developments published in The Washington Post and other newspapers, on radio and on TV. 

Even after President Nixon left office and books were written, critics said the whole story hadn't been told. 

One of the best pieces of advice I received on journalism came from an editor of a Missouri newspaper who said, "A newspaper ought to be a snapshot of what happened on a particular day." 

That is not only a worthy goal but it is the best any of us in the business can hope to accomplish. That's just the nature of the beast. 

Being Frank on the "social" in social media

I wrote about social media (a.k.a. Facebook, and Twitter) recently and how great it is. This week I have been thinking about the underlying foundation of social media -- the social part.
I am re-reading Stephen King's novel about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
King has said in interviews he carefully researched the history of the assassination and then he wove a fictional story about time travel into the true story for his novel, "11/22/63."
The premise is, "What would you do if you could travel back in time and stop the assassination?"
I don't want to give too much away, but his main character actually stops Lee Harvey Oswald and saves Kennedy's life. How is that possible? You will have to read the book.
This weekend, I was reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis in King's novel. I was 9 or 10 at the time and didn't remember too much about it; only that I walked home a different route after school on the day after Kennedy spoke to the nation on national TV about the crisis. I wanted to be with my friends, especially if there would be one last time we could be together.
My friends and I were convinced the best case scenario was that our world would be turned upside down and we would be at war. The worst case scenario would be something our minds could not comprehend -- nuclear war.
At Westside School in my home town we had been taught to duck and cover. Those drills were conducted as often as tornado drills (sit in the hallway on a hot spring day with your face on your knees while teachers walked past with clipboard in hand, making notes.)
I often wondered what those notes said.
"Mrs. Phillips, your son was caught whispering twice during tornado drill. He will have to repeat fourth grade!"
The nuclear drills were worse. We were in our classroom, on the floor beside our desks.
Our school building was of a modern design. Every classroom's outside wall was filled with aluminum cased windows that overlooked the playground or the front yard and the flagpole. Yeah, in case of a nuclear attack on Chicago, those windows would offer a lot of protection. Brilliant!
I did not know what went through adult minds during the crisis. Looking back today, I'm pretty sure King nailed it.
His time-traveling character, "George" was in a bar in Dallas, Texas, when Kennedy spoke on TV, calling Soviet leaders liars and giving the Russians an ultimatum.
George was killing time until he could prevent the assassination that was less than two years away.
In King's novel, the people in the bar were, to say the least, emotional when Kennedy spoke. Most opposed the President anyway. Many feared for their lives as Walter Cronkite showed pictures of missiles near Havana.
George got into his car and drove to see his girlfriend, a school librarian. She was wasted, in part because one of her other boyfriends convinced her that the world would soon end in a nuclear holocaust. He had sent her photos of human bodies partially destroyed by The Bomb at the end of World War II.
She nearly died from an overdose of pills and booze and George pulled her out of it.
The point King makes is that from our viewpoint, the Cuban Missile Crisis was over in a few days and scarcely a blip in American history. Nothing to worry about. But from the standpoint of people living through that time, it did seem like it would result in the end of the world and people sought solace in the best place they could -- the company of friends and family. Social comfort before social media.
It's still that way. Each one of us faces potential crises that could result in death or financial calamity. If we could look back on our situation from 50 years in the future, no matter how our crises turn out, they wouldn't seem as bad, is the point King makes.
"It's not knowing that is scary," we often hear. That's true.
Technology has always linked people together and people will always find a way to be with people. Even those folks in nursing homes, who seem to be only semiconscious are wheeled into a community gathering where a TV is playing every day and human voices can be heard as nurses and aides go from resident to resident.
When I was 6 years old, I had an emergency appendectomy. My nurse told my mom, "Talk to him, even if you think he can't hear you. I've seen children slip away because no one was there to talk to them when they were coming out of the anesthesia."
We may use telephones (landlines or cellular), Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Snapchat or Pinterest, but we will find a way to communicate with others about what we're feeling and what we fear.

Frank Phillips is a reporter for The Brazil Times.

Boycotting Superbowl is best way to let air out of alleged cheaters

If you have a spare 30 seconds, search Twitter for “boycott superbowl” or “boycottnfl.” 

Last week I tweeted a message pointing out that “deflategate” was sending a message to our children and grandchildren that cheating is OK. I was surprised that a few people retweeted it and several liked the message. 

Today I thought I would do a search and see if anyone else suggested boycotting Sunday’s game as a protest against what certainly looked like cheating in the game between the Patriots and the Colts. 

Amazingly, there are many people who have expressed a view similar to mine - boycott the Superbowl. Don’t watch it on TV, don’t listen to it (is it going to be on the radio?)

Why boycott? 

Normally, I am the last person to suggest a boycott. Most of the time I think they do not work. 

I have watched as people suggested boycotts against various companies for various reasons. Maybe they worked but I doubt it. 

So why protest “deflategate” by boycotting the Superbowl? 

It’s the strongest and best way to stand up to cheating in the National Football League. 

We could push for fines against the Patriots IF they are found guilty. But fines less than $1 million probably would be little more than a slap on the wrist. 

We could insist the Patriots be barred from the playoffs next year but that would only make them the underdog and lessen the value of next year’s Superbowl. 

No, we need to put a dent in the TV audience numbers for the Superbowl. 

Remember when the baseball players went on strike many years ago? No games, no TV coverage and it took professional baseball decades to regain its pre-strike stature — and I’m not sure the game ever regained its popularity. 

So, I don’t know what will be on TV Sunday night besides the Big Game but I am sure I will find out. I may even spend some of that time paying attention to my wife instead of the TV!

Frank Phillips is a reporter for The Brazil Times.