Are the people bored with Putin?

“If we took a professor from a thousand years ago, and put him in a modern classroom, would his status of wisdom change? Professor Howard Rheingold, who asked this question, is a social scientist at Stanford University well known for his studies on social media and “participatory communication.” The professor's answer to this question was “No.”

According to Rheingold it is not the owners of the knowledge that change, but the students. “The professor did not have the opportunity 1,000 years ago to search on Google or Wikipedia [to see] if what the students said was correct or not.”

The opportunities to access information and the rapid change of the means used to spread them make us feel as if the content also changes rapidly. Itmakes us forget that nothing would be possible without knowing old truths and realities. By keeping the focus off the contents of the message and not giving it the due value, we turn the advantage provided by the speed of change into a disadvantage. We believe that people do not require this, that information no longer has a true consumer other than those pretending to consume it or we are unable to do a quality control on those who produce and spread information. Most particularly the abstract concepts affecting the concrete ones are unable to make it to the daily agenda.

The media, which adjusts the order of the agenda, love clichés.

Their memorized line in terms of their preferences is“the people are bored with this issue.”

The case of Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin is a good example. Talking about something, repeating it again, does not mean that the issue has been actually discussed or understood.

To determine people's interest in a topic, ratings alone are not enough.

As the media sets the daily agenda, it has rapidly been making news of everything and with the “audience perception” legend, it turns the information into the simplestform.

After that, with the repetitions even the most important events and situations are used and turned into ordinary and invaluable ones. Almost every week, the bodies of babies and people are washing up on Aegean shores. None of them become news like “Baby Aylan.” We become bored of talking about Putin, our martyrs and education and so on. We forget how much progress we have made discussing the same matters over and over again for a century; saying'let's talk about other things' does not create a realistic picture.

We have been postponing important things by entering into the accelerated world presented to us and looking at things as part of the job as 10- or12-year-olds would.

When the content becomes deeper, a mood surrounds us as if “professional broadcasting is impossible.”

This (actually subjective) mood of the media that determines society's agenda, briefly public opinion, has been the biggest obstacle preventing proper discussion of social matters.

As hoursare spent in front of TV screens, perception of useful things disappears…

It is really serious.

The basic of communication theory is summarized as “the comprehensibility of a message depends on its simplicity.” The simpler and more concrete the “message,” the easier it is to comprehend.

At the same time, it is quite difficult to understand theoretical messages.

For this through concreteness that concept should be familiarized.

The signs and symbols should make right connotations in the mind.

The science of communication tells us that in order to be comprehensible, it is notnecessary to present something in the simplest way.

It also shows that the way to make comprehension easier is to strengthen abstract ionwith concrete connotations.

Continuous repetition neither reduces the value of knowledge nor the news. On the contrary, we can make a step on which we can put a stronger one.

Here before developing judgments about people, I believe it will be more correct to check ourselves first.

The balance between society and media should not be shaped with the perception that society wants simple messages.

Of course, superficial and shallow speeches on an issuediminish the level of the issue.

Continuity, dedication and fine tuning cannot be provided in knowledge anyhow.

If sentences we heard somewhere cannot be strengthened with ideas, data and correct information,they cannot have an effect other than as superficial opinions.

We need to talk more about the Russia issue. We should not escape from doing what needs to be done by saying people do not understand, they want a simple message or “they are tired of these issues.”

The Butterfly Effect

The TV program we will create with Alev Alatlı on the Habertürk channel called “Kelebek Etkisi” (The Butterfly Effect) has actually shaped all thesefactors with a controversial format. How? Primarily without overture and valor. Without falling into the trap of overture and valor that includes cowardice, organic, targeting the benefit with high empathy, looking at Turkish society from a more integrated perspective, able to speak without distinguishing, against the mentality of “we will accept is as long as it is in agreement with our ideas,” based on facts, data and information…

We will discuss headlines we need to discuss, repeatedly, without getting bored.

We expect our readers' opinions and contributions while discussing the state's morality, the difference between idealist and idealism, the sanctification of the state, the exaltation of freedoms, Turkey, the values of the Republic, what Conservatives have been able to conserve and what they failed to conserve, adolescent behavior instruggles against conjuncture as well as the current agenda and the world.