The Horka Blog

Seen a commercial that affects you – positively or negatively – and you would love to  state what you think about it?

Well, now you can – fill out the survey at www.advertisinghell.com

Lately I have been struck by outlandish headlines on web news sites such as CNN. The statements are so outlandish that I check to see who made the statement. Almost inevitably it is a nobody. By that I mean, not a common noted authority on the subject in question. That should not exclude the writer automatically, but similarly just because an article is printed does not automatically mean it has any credibility whatsoever.

It is used to be that newspaper editors tried to ensure that when articles where published, the authors had at least some claim to credibility. I don’t see anyone checking the credibility of any pronouncement these days. Want proof? Remember that article about how people who used Internet Explorer had lower IQs than those using other browsers? Many news outlets reported that story, even though the facts in the story itself should have given any reasonable person pause to question its veracity. Of course the story was a hoax. But what was even more shocking was the blind distribution of the story with absolutely no attempt to check the facts.

Where did the story originate, who were the authors?  What methodology did they employ?  Who did they survey?  Where were the results for others to review? Why were the IQ values cited in the story just plain nuts?

I think people used to trust editors to do a lot of vetting of stories before they were printed. Sure, publishers always had certain political and social leanings. But when you read a newspaper for a while, you would understand what those were. Similarly today FOX news is a right wing outfit, everyone knows that, and the message is twisted accordingly. Other news outlets are more left leaning. But even checking basic facts and figures seems to have gone out the window.

So it’s up to the consumer to apply discretion when reading news articles. If the story is about politics, is the author a politician, does the politician have recognized expertise in the area being discussed?  Is the story by an academic, are there other articles this person has written? Do they reflect knowledge and sound analysis?  What do critics think of this person, how much credibility does he/she have? Generally, I don’t expect profound analysis of international relations from local politicians whose primary emphasis in municipal or provincial or state issues. I don’t look to actors to provide me with a good understanding of what is happening economically. I don’t look to Sarah Palin to have the remotest notion of  world politics. I question most articles written by academics, unless they have served equal time in the real world. There is definitely something lost when a person only understands the world through book learning – or others’ views on real world experiences. I question financial commentary from corporate spokespersons. I look for people who have a track record of trying to assemble and present information in a logical way. No one is “objective”, everyone has preferences. That’s fine. But I prefer to know what they are so that I can take that into account when I read news stores. I know where Glen Beck is coming from and sometimes I find him amusing in a twisted kind of way.  And when I hear that someone says America’s ailments could be better addressed if Obama just prayed more, then I get downright scared that the separation between church and state in the US is just a sham and now we have to worry about religious nut jobs there getting hold of nuclear weapons.

Which gets us back to outrageous headlines. Since most news outlets will not check the accuracy of any news story, their prime criteria for publication is simply to print whatever is outrageous enough that people will read it. So reader beware. Always check who wrote the story, get the scoop on that person and then ask the question – is this person likely to be good reliable source of information on whatever the topic is.

People in corporations have memory. Then why is it that employees with impeccable track records of sound performance and numerous cases of performance above and beyond the call of duty, get laid off? Did someone forget what the employees did? When employees put in that extra effort, yes, it is partly because they have pride in their work and believe that their performance reflects on themselves and gives them a sense of value. But for most of them, not all this work is strictly altruistic. They also hope that those that matter – managers, etc., will recognize the great and/or extra work and will take that into account  when considering promotions, raises and who gets the axe when times are tough.

However, in most corporations, those managers, the memory that matters, change quickly.  And when they do, all those hard earned accomplishments are very quickly forgotten. The memory is lost. How else do you explain employees whose work has exceeded all expectations, who receive awards in recognition of their excellence, but end up being laid off within a year of getting that acclaim? The people they tried to impress are gone. And feeling good about yourself only goes so far when one no longer has a job. And when the only objective is short term share value maximization, a life of service to a corporation is quickly sacrificed for share value.

I have seen excellent employees have to fight over and over to impress their ever-changing managers. In any corporate department there is a general sense of who the performers are. Yet there is no structural mechanism in place to note the achievements and on-going excellence and ensure that this information is front and center whenever management changes.

This is just part and parcel of the malaise of many modern corporations run by MBAs who don’t know the business and management which is only rewarded on the basis of increasing shareholder value. Corporations have no memory, and more and more they have no sense of obligation to employees who give up their lives, other than through the payment of the  most minimal wages they can get away with.