Dealing With Digital Cruelty

8/23/2014   The New York Times

ANYONE who has ever been online has witnessed, or been virtually walloped by, a mean comment. “If you’re going to be a blogger, if you’re going to tweet stuff, you better develop a tough skin,” said John Suler, a professor of psychology at Rider University who specializes in what he refers to as cyberpsychology. Some 69 percent of adult social media users said they “have seen people being mean and cruel to others on social network sites,” according to a 2011 report from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project.

Posts run the gamut from barbs to sadistic antics by trolls who intentionally strive to distress or provoke. Last week, Zelda Williams, the daughter of Robin Williams, said she was going off Twitter, possibly for good, after brutal tweets by trolls about her father’s death. Yet comments do not even have to be that malevolent to be hurtful. The author Anne Rice signed a petition a few months ago asking Amazon.com to ban anonymous reviews after experiencing “personal insults and harassing posts,” as she put it on the site of the petition, Change.org. Whether you’re a celebrity author or a mom with a décor blog, you’re fair game. Anyone with a Twitter account and a mean streak can try to parachute into your psyche.

In the virtual world, anonymity and invisibility help us feel uninhibited. Some people are inspired to behave with greater kindness; others unleash their dark side. Trolls, who some researchers think could be mentally unbalanced, say the kinds of things that do not warrant deep introspection; their singular goal is to elicit pain. But then there are those people whose comments, while nasty, present an opportunity to learn something about ourselves.

Easier said than done. Social scientists say we tend to fixate on the negative. However, there are ways to game psychological realities. Doing so requires understanding that you are ultimately in charge. “Nobody makes you feel anything,” said Professor Suler, adding that you are responsible for how you interpret and react to negative comments. The key is managing what psychologists refer to as involuntary attention.

Just as our attention naturally gravitates to loud noises and motion, our minds glom on to negative feedback. Much discussed studies like “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” published in 2001 in the Review of General Psychology, have shown that we respond more strongly to bad experiences and criticism, and that we remember them more vividly. “These are things that stick in our brain,” said James O. Pawelski, the director of education and a senior scholar in the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania. “If we allow our attention to move involuntarily, that’s where it goes.” The mind, however, can be tamed.

One way to become proactive is to ask yourself if those barbs you can’t seem to shrug off have an element of truth. (Glaringly malicious posts can be dismissed.) If the answer is yes, Professor Suler has some advice:

Let your critics be your gurus.

“You can treat them as an opportunity,” he said. Ask yourself why you’re ruminating on a comment. “Why does it bother you?” Professor Suler said. “What insecurities are being activated in you?”

For instance, maybe you have an unconscious worry that you’re somehow not good enough. Professor Suler said it was not uncommon for some digital luminaries (bloggers, social media power-users) to harbor such worries because one motivation, be it conscious or unconscious, is that they want to be liked. “They want to be popular,” he said, adding that it’s a goal easily pursued on the Internet. “It’s all about likes and pluses and favorites.” Yet if someone says something cruel, he continued, “it activates that unconscious worry.”

But let’s say the negative comment fails to induce self-psychologizing. Perhaps it can help you learn something about your work.

“It’s easy to feel emotionally attacked from these things,” said Bob Pozen, a senior lecturer at the Harvard Business School and a senior research fellow at the Brookings Institution. But he said that doesn’t mean that your critics don’t have a point.

Consider the more than 50 reviews of Mr. Pozen’s book “Extreme Productivity” on Amazon.com. Most were four and five stars, but for the purposes of this article, he conducted an unscientific experiment and checked out the handful of one- and two-star reviews. “You know, some of them are pretty negative,” said Mr. Pozen, the former chairman of MFS Investment Management, “but the question is, ‘How do you read them?’ ” One unfavorable review was easily dismissed, Mr. Pozen said, because it was apparent that the writer had not thoroughly read the material. Another reviewer criticized the book for being too “U.S.-centric.” Mr. Pozen considered that idea — and decided that the reader, despite not having put it particularly nicely, might be right. “So I thought, ‘Well if I ever write another version of this book I ought to take that into account,’ ” he said.

It’s not always possible, of course, to learn something from a nasty comment. Some are baseless; some are crass. One way to help them roll off you is to consider the writer’s motivation.

Professor Suler wrote in 2004 in the journal CyberPsychology & Behavior about a concept known as “the online disinhibition effect” — the idea that “people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say and do in the face-to-face world.” In the virtual realm, factors including anonymity, invisibility and lack of authority allow disinhibition to flourish. The result can be benign (“unusual acts of kindness and generosity”), or it can be toxic: “rude language, harsh criticisms, anger, hatred, even threats,” as Professor Suler put it.

The latter is the realm of trolls. Some people think of their online life “as a kind of game with rules and norms that don’t apply to everyday living,” he wrote, a game for which they do not feel responsible. If bloggers and people who use social networks keep this concept in mind, he said, “they will see the psychology” of aggressors, and their comments may be easier to take — and possibly ignore. Sometimes it’s smart to do as Ms. Williams ultimately did: disconnect.

Harsh comments can also be made to feel less potent by directly disputing to yourself what was said. If, for example, someone writes, “You’re an idiot and no one likes you,” you can marshal evidence against it by reminding yourself, Stuart Smalley-style, of the obvious: You have an education, a job, more friends than you have time to see in a week.

Speaking of time, be mindful of when you choose to glance at your blog or social media feeds. Researchers have discovered that feeling blue or even being in a so-called neutral mood makes people more vulnerable to nasty comments. In other words: Stay off Twitter if you just bombed a presentation.

Another way to stop yourself from dwelling on negative feedback is to enter into what psychologists refer to as “flow,” a state in which the mind is completely engaged. Flow can be achieved when playing a piano concerto, practicing karate, writing code, being deep in conversation with a friend. “The toughest time is when the mind is not fully occupied,” said Professor Pawelski, who also prescribes humor as a way to deflect barbs. He joked that bars would make a killing if at the end of each semester they offered “professor happy hours” where teachers could bring their evaluations and pass the negative ones around. “Nobody should be alone when they’re reading these things,” he said.

Yet even when a person is alone, humor can be effective. Try reading nasty comments aloud in a goofy voice, Professor Pawelski advised, so that when your mind automatically plays back the comment it sounds absurd, or at the very least loses a bit of its bite.

Such prescriptions are in the spirit of Jimmy Kimmel’s “mean tweets” television segment, during which celebrities — Julia Roberts, Pharrell Williams, Robert De Niro — read aloud the rotten things people write about them on Twitter while R.E.M.’s “Everybody Hurts” plays softly in the background. After reading the often expletive-riddled tweets — an act that Mr. Kimmel has said is meant “to help put a face on this unsavory activity” — some celebrities talk back to their detractors; others laugh; a few peer into the camera in silence. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times that other shows have similar routines: The television hosts of “E! News” have taken to reading aloud the “sour” tweets they receive from viewers, though they read a few of the “sweet” tweets, too.

Turns out they may be on to something. In the quest to quell the cruel, we often fail to savor the good. And there is, despite the meanies, much good whirring around cyberspace. Some 70 percent of Internet users said they “had been treated kindly or generously by others online,” according to a Pew report early this year.

Rather than scrolling past a dozen positive comments and lingering on the sole exception, what if you did the opposite? And what if you shared a couple of the good ones with friends instead of sharing the one that hurt you? Research shows that it takes more time for positive experiences to become lodged in our long-term memory, so it’s not just pleasurable to dwell on a compliment — it’s shrewd.

“We’re really bad, typically, as a culture about accepting compliments,” Professor Pawelski said. “They’re meant to be taken in and really appreciated. They’re meant to be gifts.”

Piers Morgan Most Hated U.K. Personality on Twitter

8/27/2014   THR

Study finds former CNN host receives abuse in 8.7 percent of messages

Piers Morgan isn’t exactly one to hold back on social media, regularly doling out insults via Twitter to the likes of Madonna, Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson and various U.K. soccer players. But it seems the former CNN host is also high on the list of personalities on the receiving end of online verbal attacks.

According to a study for U.K. newspaper The Sunday Times, Morgan receives abuse in 8.7 percent of tweets sent to him, higher than any other U.K. celebrity. Ricky Gervais, another prolific Twitter user, receives abuse in 2.6 percent.

The study, conducted by the think tank Demos, examined two million tweets sent to prominent U.K. politicians, celebrities, journalists and musicians over a four-week period, with the aim of analyzing trolling. It found that men were twice as likely to receive abusive tweets than women, but were also responsible for about two-thirds of offensive material. Only female journalists received more than their male counterparts.

While Morgan may attract the most abuse, musicians such as Ellie Goulding, Jessie J, Rita Ora and Ed Sheeran attracted the lowest level, at 0.41 percent.

One Direction member Niall Horan was excluded from the study. With 12.6 million messages received over the period, it was felt his statistics would have distorted the results.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/piers-morgan-hated-uk-personality-728398

 

OWN’s YouTube Partnership Pays Off With Digital Series (Exclusive)

4:29 PM PST 08/27/2014 by Natalie Jarvey
Courtesy of OWN
‘Who Am I’

Celebrity guests will ask the question “Who am I?”

The Oprah Winfrey Network has been working out of YouTube Space LA for more than six months to experiment with digital formats and online talent. The result of that partnership is a growing slate of digital programming.

OWN plans to debut a new web series on Aug. 28 that will feature interviews with celebrity guests about the qualities that define them. After the first two episodes of Who Am I premiere this Thursday, subsequent two- to three-minute episodes will become available each week. Guests will include Nicole Richie, beauty vlogger Michelle PhanBrandy, former American Idol judge Randy Jackson andLa Toya Jackson.

Who Am I is the second digital series from OWN. #OWNSHOW, a daily series that features stories from the Oprah community, debuted in March with the relaunch of Oprah.com, a digital hub for the network,O, The Oprah Magazine and Harpo Studios.

OWN’s senior vp digital Glenn Kaino tells The Hollywood Reporter that Who Am I and #OWNSHOWare part of a larger digital effort at the cable network.

“This is just the beginning of a strategy that we’re embarking upon to extend our offering and expand the mission of what we’re trying to accomplish,” he says. “It began with the relaunch of the website and the launch of the #OWNSHOW. As these projects mature, we’ll have a lot more planned.”

OWN is one of a handful of traditional media players who have taken advantage of the residency program that YouTube offers at its production space in Playa Vista and will work out of that space through the end of the year. The residency offers use of the space’s studios and production facilities for long-term projects to creators with more than 100,000 subscribers.

Liam Collinshead of YouTube Space LA, says that he’s impressed by the ways that OWN has programmed its YouTube channel, which has more than 300,000 subscribers, with content from across Winfrey’s various media properties.

“They’ll be a great beacon to other media companies I hope that have just all kinds of content on the shelf that could be really relevant to this audience,” he says. “Having them here experimenting is great. The idea that they’re in the same environment as all of these emerging creators is what really makes it for me.”

Kaino adds that OWN was motivated to take up residency at YouTube not for the free studio space but for the opportunity to connect with the online video streamer and its content creators.

“It’s important for us to make an effort and connect with our viewers where they’re at,” he says. “As we were developing our original content strategies, connecting with YouTube was a big part of that.”

Watch the trailer for Who Am I here:

Don’t Want Me to Recline My Airline Seat? You Can Pay Me

I fly a lot. When I fly, I recline. I don’t feel guilty about it. And I’m going to keep doing it, unless you pay me to stop.

I bring this up because of a dispute you may have heard about: On Sunday, a United Airlines flight from Newark to Denver made an unscheduled stop in Chicago to discharge two passengers who had a dispute over seat reclining. According to The Associated Press, a man in a middle seat installed the Knee Defender, a $21.95 device that keeps a seat upright, on the seatback in front of him.

A flight attendant asked him to remove the device. He refused. The woman seated in front of him turned around and threw water at him. The pilot landed the plane and booted both passengers off the flight.

Obviously, it’s improper to throw water at another passenger on a flight, even if he deserves it. But I’ve seen a distressing amount of sympathy for Mr. Knee Defender, who wasn’t just instigating a fight but usurping his fellow passenger’s property rights. When you buy an airline ticket, one of the things you’re buying is the right to use your seat’s reclining function. If this passenger so badly wanted the passenger in front of him not to recline, he should have paid her to give up that right.

Photo

Tight quarters can lead to misery for airline passengers. CreditJoe Giron for The New York Times

I wrote an article to that effect in 2011, noting that airline seats are an excellent case study for the Coase Theorem. This is an economic theory holding that it doesn’t matter very much who is initially given a property right; so long as you clearly define it and transaction costs are low, people will trade the right so that it ends up in the hands of whoever values it most. That is, I own the right to recline, and if my reclining bothers you, you can pay me to stop. We could (but don’t) have an alternative system in which the passenger sitting behind me owns the reclining rights. In that circumstance, if I really care about being allowed to recline, I could pay him to let me.

Donald Marron, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office,agrees with this analysis, but with a caveat. Recline negotiations do involve some transaction costs — passengers don’t like bargaining over reclining positions with their neighbors, perhaps because that sometimes ends with water being thrown in someone’s face.

Mr. Marron says we ought to allocate the initial property right to the person likely to care most about reclining, in order to reduce the number of transactions that are necessary. He further argues that it’s probably the person sitting behind, as evidenced by the fact people routinely pay for extra-legroom seats.

Mr. Marron is wrong about this last point. I understand people don’t like negotiating with strangers, but in hundreds of flights I have taken, I have rarely had anyone complain to me about my seat recline, and nobody has ever offered me money, or anything else of value, in exchange for sitting upright.

A no-recline norm would also have troubling social justice implications —for short people. Complaints about knee room are not spread equally across our society. They are voiced mostly by the tall, a privileged group that already enjoys many advantages. I don’t just mean they can see well at concerts and reach high shelves. Tall people earn more money than short people, an average of $789 per inch per year, according to a 2004 paper in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

The economists Anne Case and Christina Paxson advanced the theory that tall people earn more because they have higher I.Q.s. Taller men on the dating website OkCupid receive more messages from women and have more sex partners than their short counterparts.

Instead of counting their blessings, or buying extra-legroom seats with some of their extra income, the tall have the gall to demand that the rules of flying be reconfigured to their advantage, just as everything else in life already has been. Sometimes — one Upshot editor who shall remain nameless included — they even use the Knee Defender to steal from their fellow passengers.

Now that’s just wrong.

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

As (Very) Fast Friends, Two Young Americans Balance at Sport’s Peak

Missy Franklin and Katie Ledecky Adjust to Life as Swimming Royalty

8/16/2014   The New York Times   By

Katie Ledecky set a world record in the 400 freestyle Aug. 9 at the long-course nationals in Irvine, Calif.

IRVINE, Calif. — They are USA Swimming’s dynamic duo, but there is one competition that neither Missy Franklin nor Katie Ledecky can win: the popularity contest to anoint a single chlorine queen. It is a losing proposition for both Franklin, a six-time gold medalist at last summer’s world championships, and Ledecky, who will go into this week’s Pan Pacific Swimming Championships poised to win as many as five gold medals.

Deciding between Franklin, 19, and Ledecky, 17, is like choosing between two gourmet chocolate truffles. Does one prefer the richest cocoa or the sweetest filling? The tendency is to fall for the newer confection.

Four years ago, Franklin bounded onto the scene and supplanted Natalie Coughlin as America’s swimming sweetheart. In the lead-up to the 2016 Rio Olympics, Ledecky, with world-record efforts in the 400-, 800- and 1500-meter freestyles, took the crown from Franklin, who tried to head off the public’s inclination to turn the women’s competition at nationals into a two-teenager duel.

Missy Franklin competing in the 200 backstroke preliminaries Aug. 7 at the national championships in Irvine, Calif. She won the final.

“She has her goals and accomplishments, and I have mine,” Franklin said, adding, “I don’t want her to feel like her accomplishments aren’t as good as mine or mine aren’t as good as hers.”

The 30-woman squad that will represent the United States in the Pan Pacifics on Australia’s Gold Coast has an average age of 20.6 and will be led by Franklin and Ledecky, whose youth is irrelevant.

“Leadership, I believe, is not tied to chronological age,” said Teri McKeever, the women’s coach.

McKeever, who coaches Franklin at California, Berkeley, said one of her axioms was, “I can’t hear what you’re saying because your actions speak so loudly.”

Referring to Franklin and Ledecky, she added, “The day-to-day way they take care of business is contagious.”

Franklin’s effervescent personality led one Cal teammate to joke recently, “What did she do, fall out of a box of Lucky Charms?”

McKeever said the reference to the sugary cereal endorsed by Lucky the Leprechaun was “a perfect way to explain” Franklin, a four-time Olympic gold medalist who owns the world record in the 200 backstroke and is the unofficial world-record holder in appearances in fans’ selfies.

Franklin is ever-accommodating to strangers, she said, because she can remember being thrilled with autographs from or interactions with her favorite swimmers when she was younger.

Ledecky, while more introverted than Franklin, is no less giving. After winning the 800 freestyle at the 2012 Olympics in the biggest upset of the competition, Ledecky, who will be a senior at Stone Ridge School of the Sacred Heart in Bethesda, Md., wanted to show her appreciation for the USA Swimming coach, Jon Urbanchek, who helped train her between the United States Olympic trials and the Summer Games.

She found out his favorite breakfast spot in Newport Beach, Calif., near where he lives, and arranged for him to receive a gift card to the restaurant.

Shannon Vreeland joined Ledecky and Franklin on the 4×200 freestyle relay at last summer’s world championships and will again be their teammate in the event at the Pan Pacific Championships.

“Missy’s perpetually happy, and Katie, she just has such a great attitude,” Vreeland, 22, said. “The fact they go fast every time they hit the water has a lot to do with their attitudes. It makes it so easy to be around them and swim races with them.”

Evans Redux

In the last 13 months, Ledecky, who plans to attend Stanford, lowered her personal best in the 400 freestyle by a second, setting the world record Aug. 9 at the Phillips 66 National Championships in Irvine, Calif., and becoming the first woman to finish in under 3 minutes 59 seconds (3:58.86). She also shaved almost three seconds off her 800 freestyle (8:11:00) and 2.3 seconds off her 1,500 free (15:34.23) in June at the Woodlands Swim Team Senior Invitational in Shenandoah, Tex., to take ownership of both world records. At the nationals, Ledecky entered the 100 freestyle on a lark and posted the 13th-fastest time in the morning, a 54.96 that was another personal best.

Vreeland described Ledecky as “super sweet” and said, “It’s fun to watch someone like her come into their own.”

Ledecky competed in the Olympics a year before winning her first national title, and even though she was considered a surprise Olympian in 2012, she was not flying under everyone’s radar. Janet Evans, the last woman before Ledecky to hold the 400, 800 and 1,500 world records concurrently, ended a decade-plus retirement to compete in the 2012 United States trials. She knew Ledecky had a bright future when she saw the disappointment on her face over narrowly missing a berth on the Olympic team in the 400 freestyle. Ledecky finished third in 4:05, which was then her best time.

“I remember thinking, Oh, gosh, she wants this; she’s pretty hungry,” Evans said.

Evans had just turned 17 in 1988 when she won the 400 and 800 freestyles and the 400 individual medley at the Seoul Games. Her winning time in the 400, 4:03.85, stood as the world record until 2006. Ledecky is the first American to hold the mark since Evans, who said, “I hope she has great mentors in not letting the pressure get to her.”

Evans’s first international competition was the 1987 Pan Pacific Championships, also held in Australia. Like Ledecky this year, Evans went into the meet having set the world record in the 800 and 1,500 freestyle earlier in the summer. In the 800, she was upset by an Australian, Julie McDonald, who beat her by 10.93 seconds and nearly broke Evans’s world record.

The loss came as a shock to Evans, who had not stopped to consider that her fast times might make her a target.

“That was something that I needed warning about,” Evans said. “Once you get there, there’s less ‘I’m going to shock the world’ and more ‘That girl in that corner of the world knows who I am, and she’s out to get me.’ ”

Ledecky, Evans said, will have to “find her own internal motivation and then be ready for the gunners when she goes overseas.”

Ledecky’s competitors in Australia will include Lauren Boyle of New Zealand, who recently shattered the short-course meters world record in the 1,500 freestyle (Ledecky holds the long-course meters version). The Australians Jessica Ashwood and Bronte Barratt are also lying in wait for Ledecky, who accepts that her days of sneaking up on competitors are over.

Franklin finished second to Ledecky on Aug. 7 in the 200 freestyle at the long-course nationals in Irvine.

“In London, I had no idea what to expect,” she said. “I would have been happy coming in first or coming in last. Now I feel like I have a little more expectations for myself.”

Franklin has siphoned off much of the attention that otherwise would be trained on Ledecky, but she senses that, too, may be about to change. At nationals, Ledecky was repeatedly asked if she was going to break world records, another first.

“I try not to pay attention to any hype or anything,” she said, adding: “I hear what people are saying, but I don’t let it overtake me. I’m enjoying racing and just relaxing and looking at it like I just want to do a best time.”

Putting the Team First

When Franklin looks at Ledecky, she sees her fearless, fierce self, circa 2010, when she qualified for the Pan Pacific team as a relative unknown. “Absolutely,” Franklin said, adding, “I’ve learned you can’t be surprised by Katie because she’s going to surprise you no matter what happens.”

Because of Franklin’s Olympic renown, she cannot catch anybody by surprise anymore with her successes. Her perceived failures also do not go unnoticed. As a freshman last year at Cal, Franklin experienced her first taste of independence — and her first heaping helping of defeat after stepping outside her backstroke comfort zone to compete in the 200 and 500 freestyles and the 200 and 400 individual medleys. She even embraced the 50-yard freestyle in a relay because that was where the Bears, who eventually placed third, were thin.

How many other Olympic champions has McKeever known who would have volunteered to forgo their best events for the good of the team? “Not many,” she said.

“I put her on the 200 free relay at N.C.A.A.s, and 10 minutes later she swam the 500 free,” McKeever said. “That’s pretty tough, and it probably cost her a personal victory in the 500, but she was like, O.K. She will do anything for the group.”

Franklin, who ignored the siren song of professionalism, and the millions of dollars in endorsements she would have been swimming in, to compete in college while pursuing a degree in communications, said the highlight of her freshman year was earning A’s in all her second-semester classes.

“You’ve put in all that work and all that effort, and you get an amazing reward for it,’ she said. “So that was really great.”

Franklin added, “Just starting to be a part of clubs and organizations on campus, sort of finding my place on the Cal campus, has been really, really fun.”

Like countless other women on the verge of adulthood, Franklin is neck-deep in treacherous waters as she seeks answers about who she is, what she stands for and where she is headed.

“I think that’s hard for anybody,” McKeever said, “let alone a world-class athlete, let alone doing it in a public arena.”

She painted a picture of Franklin leaving a class after a midterm or heading to practice and having her reverie broken by strangers who recognize her, of being singled out by fans when she rides public transportation with her swimming friends. “It takes a toll on her,” McKeever said. “It takes a toll on her teammates.”

McKeever said she had talked to Franklin about how not to let all the attention suffocate her.

“You have to figure out how to stay true to what you want to do and not be swayed by the expectations of what other people want you to do,” McKeever said.

At the long-course nationals, Franklin finished second to Ledecky in the 200 freestyle and won the 100 freestyle and the 100 and 200 backstrokes. Franklin derived satisfaction from racing — and winning — the backstrokes. Others did not see how she could be so happy, pointing out that she was nearly two seconds slower than her best time in the 200 freestyle, four seconds slower in the 200 backstroke and a second slower in the 100 backstroke.

The expectations appear to wash over Franklin like chlorinated water off her back.

“It’s different when most people know you as someone who wins a lot,” she said. “They only know you like to win things, and so when you don’t, it may seem disappointing to them or maybe it seems to them like you’re not doing what you’re supposed to. And that’s when it becomes so important to know your own goals and know what you want to do.”

She added: “If people think you can do amazing things, then why shouldn’t you believe it yourself? You can look at it as a positive way to get energy as opposed to letting it drain you.”

But a comment Franklin made in passing on the second day of nationals, after her double in the 200 freestyle and the 200 backstroke, betrayed her struggle. Her goal, she said, was “swimming instead of from a place of being afraid, from a place of just having fun and doing my best and letting whatever happens, happens.”

Franklin walked away from nationals as the women’s high-point winner. Ledecky earned the performance-of-the-meet award for her world record in the 400 freestyle. Like Rory McIlroy and Rickie Fowler in golf and Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray in tennis, Franklin and Ledecky possess the talent and the desire to carry each other, and their sport, far.

“It’s really awesome to have someone who’s really pushing my comfort zone,” Franklin said, “and pushing how I swim my races.”

Ledecky said, “I feel the same way about her.”

 

 

 

 

For the first time, more Americans subscribe to cable internet than cable TV

8/16/2014   QUARTZ

You can now officially think of American cable companies as internet service providers with a declining side business in television.

At the end of June, the number of people subscribing to broadband internet from the nine largest US cable companies (49,915,000) exceeded the number of television subscribers (49,910,000) for the first time. That’s according to a new tally by Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group.

The milestone is significant, if not surprising. Cable companies like Comcast have been losing TV subscribers for many years now, as people cut the cord or opt for service from telecoms like Verizon and satellite companies like DirecTV.

However, the cable industry has remained strong as those companies supplant their lost business with new internet subscribers, who are paying more than ever. The average price of Time Warner Cable’s internet service is up 20% over the past two years, to $47 a month.

And as more television watching moves to the internet, the distinction between the two will matter less. For cable companies, the data travels over the same pipes, and even cord cutters still tend to require internet service. Which is one reason internet bills are likely to keep rising.

 

http://qz.com/250254/for-the-first-time-more-americans-subscribe-to-cable-internet-than-cable-tv/

 

Crowdfunding and Venture Funding: More Alike Than You Think

8/15/2014   The New York Times

A recent academic study looked at theater projects on Kickstarter, including one titled “Thanks For Playing: The Game Show Show!,” found that projects picked only by crowds were as likely to deliver on budget — and achieve commercial success and positive critical acclaim — as projects favored by experts.Credit

Hug wants to raise $34,000 to build an app and sensor band that wraps round your water bottle to track daily hydration. Van Eko is targeting €150,000 (about $200,000) for an eco-friendly electric scooter made of hemp fibers. PetTunes is seeking $196,000 to build a personal music player that optimizes sound frequency for dog and cat ears.

A catchy, even irrelevant idea is seemingly all an aspiring entrepreneur needs these days to raise money on crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter — a point driven home this summer when a Columbus, Ohio, developer, Zack Brown, raised $55,492 to make a potato salad.

Now, researchers are tapping into the growing data on crowdfunding to take stock of the phenomenon. A central question: Do crowds — driven by a herd mentality, crowd euphoria or sheer silliness — gravitate toward funding seemingly irrelevant ideas? Or can crowds make rational funding decisions and, better yet, exceed venture capital investors and other traditional gatekeepers in identifying promising projects?

A recent academic study explored those questions by looking at theater projects on Kickstarter. In that study, researchers tracked 120 theater-related campaigns on Kickstarter between May 2009 and June 2012 that aimed to raise at least $10,000. Researchers also asked 30 professionals, all with experience in evaluating applications for grant-making organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts, to evaluate those same campaigns.

Their findings: Crowds and experts agreed substantially on what makes promising theater. Where crowds and experts disagreed, crowds were generally more willing to fund projects. Yet projects picked only by the crowd were as likely to deliver on budget — and achieve commercial success and positive critical acclaim — as projects favored by experts. The crowd, in effect, picked strong projects that experts might not have recognized.

“The crowd is often thought as being crazy. There was a sense that they would back musicals about Internet cats, and experts would back serious work,” said Ethan R. Mollick an assistant professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It turns out the crowd does consider the quality of projects and outcomes pretty well.”

One reason crowds might do as well, or even better, at picking promising projects is that they tend to be more diverse and might avoid, for example, some of the gender biases that have long directed the bulk of the venture capital funding to male entrepreneurs.

Two recent studies of Kickstarter projects have found that crowndfunding is indeed opening entrepreneurship and investing to more women. A recent study of 16,000 Kickstarter projects, by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, found that female investors were more likely to invest in female entrepreneurs, and that these female entrepreneurs enjoyed higher rates of success in reaching their funding goals.

Another study by Jason Greenberg at New York University’s Stern School of Business and Mr. Mollick also found higher proportions of female funders led to higher success rates in capital-raising for women.

Venture capital investors are scrambling to tap the wisdom of the crowd, financing projects that found their first legs in crowdfunding. In the last quarter of 2013 alone, 10 previously crowdfunded hardware start-ups raised a total of over $150 million, according to a report published on Monday by CB Insights.

In March, Oculus VR, the virtual reality company that raised $2.4 million on Kickstarter, was acquired by Facebook for $2 billion. And with 19 deals through July, investor deal activity to crowdfunded hardware companies is on pace to break 2013’s record this year, the report said.

Crowdfunding platforms have become “a valuable source for dealflow” for venture capital investors, the report said.

Still, what explains the success of potato salad guy? Or projects like the first-ever all-pug production of Hamlet, successfully funded this month?

The Wharton School’s Mr. Mollick shrugs off those examples. “Sometimes, there’s just weirdness on the Internet. The Internet likes strange things.”

 

Teenagers trespass at former Heat player Ray Allen’s Coral Gables home, frightening Allen’s wife and kids

8/15/2014   Miami Herald

VIDEO:

http://www.miamiherald.com/video/NDN-news/?ndn.trackingGroup=90045&ndn.siteSection=miamiherald_spt_nba_sty_vmpp&ndn.videoId=26517223&freewheel=90045&sitesection=miamiherald_spt_nba_sty_vmpp&vid=26517223

Early Thursday at a party in Coral Gables next door to Ray Allen’s house, seven 18- and 19-year-olds decided they wanted to see how a former Miami Heat player lived.

It looked like no one was home about 2 a.m., so they walked in through an unlocked back door.

Allen wasn’t home, but his wife, Shannon Walker Allen, and their kids were sleeping upstairs, according to Coral Gables police spokeswoman Kelly Denham. When the intruders began walking around and making noise, Shannon Allen woke up and screamed, “What are you doing in my home?”

The intruders bolted, and Shannon Allen called police. Officers determined that nothing had been removed from the home on Tahiti Beach Island Road.

The next-door neighbor who had hosted the party directed police to an address where the seven intruders were located. The young men told police they thought the Allens had moved. Allen, who recently became a free agent, has not yet announced where he will play next season.

Police questioned the men for several hours before releasing them about noon Thursday.

Denham explained that because there was no forced entry, no intent and nothing was taken, police did not charge them with burglary, and the crime does not qualify as trespassing — a misdemeanor —because the act was not witnessed by a police officer.

However, Shannon Allen can still file trespassing charges with the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office, and said she intends to do so, according to Denham.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/14/4290034/teenagers-trespass-at-heat-player.html#

What an Arranged Marriage Taught My Mom About Dating

8/15/2014   New York Magazine

My parents have a great marriage and a terrible love story. Their union was arranged in India back in 1975, when my then-18-year-old mom agreed to marry a 26-year-old man with a mutton-chop mustache the size of Madras whom she’d known all of three weeks. Since then, they’ve developed the type of stable partnership that can only come from spending nearly four decades with someone. But romance? That always fell somewhat by the wayside.  

I used to be jealous of my American friends, with their sitcom-worthy parents who publicly kissed on the mouth. In contrast, my parents, like many Indian parents, were more restrained. My childhood rebellion was to become a super-romantic, spending much of elementary school dramatically crushing on anyone with a pulse. The second-grader who once was an extra on an episode of Power Rangers? Two diaries full of preteen pining. The class clown who kept teasing me on the playground? He was just hiding his real feelings. The quiet, brooding fifth-grade art lover who told me my arms were hairy like a monkey? Well, fuck that guy now, but damned if I wasn’t into him then. And somewhere along the way, between elementary-school swooning and post-college relationships, something unexpected happened. My apparently non-romantic mother, a woman who’s never been on a date, became the best dating guru I’ve ever met.

Her advice started out fairly unremarkable (“Yes, third-grade boys are, quite literally, immature”), but as I grew older, her wisdom proved ever more astute — even if it took me a while to appreciate it. When my high-school boyfriend broke up with me and promptly got back together with his ex-girlfriend, for example, my mom bypassed the usual reassuring clichés. Instead of saying something along the lines of “He’s a jerk, you can do so much better,” she gently suggested that while heartbreak is awful, at least now I knew myself a little better and knew more about what I wanted from the next boyfriend. At the time, I wrote her off as naïve — didn’t she understand that I was just lucky enough to get one guy to like me? Even 11 years later, each subsequent breakup still induces panic about dying alone, but damned if my mom hasn’t been right so far — there is always someone new “just around the corner.” And each boyfriend I’ve dated has always been a slightly better fit than the last.

For example: When I brought my college boyfriend, Neel, home for the first time, I was sure he was perfect — a smart, shiny, student government-participating Indian boyfriend, the kind of future son-in-law Indian parents dream of. My mom’s summary after the visit? “He’s incredibly nice, but he’s too conservative for you.” When I once again dismissed her, she texted back a cryptic “You’ll see.” Four months later, we had broken up over his disapproval of my love of tequila shots and wearing backless Forever 21 sequined tops to parties with other guys around. As it turned out, my mom was right. Despite having done nothing egregious in her presence, Neel’s subtly domineering manner about trivial things (like when we needed to leave and who should drive) set off alarm bells in my mom’s head. If he was controlling over the small stuff, who was to say that when it came to bigger conversations down the road, his views wouldn’t be similarly myopic? Her primary dating rule: A relationship must start on equal footing if you expect it not to topple.

A few years later, my friend Neha and I were each dating great guys with too much big, scary baggage — and we were sure that if we solved all their problems they’d have no choice but to love us. Ever pragmatic, my mom was horrified. “Your long-term goal to making this relationship work can’t be fixing his problems — they’re just going to drag you down.” Her advice was to cut bait, and quickly, because “relationships are hard enough to maintain, and even harder to walk away from, without starting off at a disadvantage.” We were both, of course, instantly unthrilled. But once again time proved her wisdom. “Your mom was totally right,” Neha said recently, looking back. “If you spend all your time worrying about how to fix him and make him happy, when are you going to find out what makes you happy?”

What I had never bothered considering when I dismissed my mom’s advice was that if making a relationship work is hard enough with someone you’re already attracted to, it’s infinitely harder with a perfect stranger. My mom had to learn how to build a relationship using things besides romance: She and my dad had to figure out together, in their early 20s, what was important to each other if they wanted to last the long haul. That grounded approach to marriage, coupled with the anecdotal anthropology of growing up outside her cultural comfort zone (as one of very few Indians in Fort Wayne, Indiana), has made her more of an expert on dating and relationships than I was ever willing to give her credit for.

While her best advice runs toward serious stuff about how to make a long-term relationship last, it’s laid the foundation for the trust I feel going to her even with definitely unserious stuff. The last 14 years of crushes and dating have involved Gchats, text messages, and phone calls aplenty about drunken nights, make-outs, arguments at crowded bars with guys I’ll never marry but keep trying to date — and through it all, my mom has never once faltered. Much to my sister’s horror, my mom was the first person I called in college to ask “Is sex always supposed to hurt?” (Prompting an immediate trip to the gynecologist.) No topic has been too real or too forward for her to offer up judgment on.

Recently, my friend Vivek and I were discussing dating in America while growing up as products of arranged marriage. “I think kids of arranged marriages are better at sorting through what’s real and what’s not,” he surmised. “Even when they go crazy, they know what they’re supposed to want.” And that’s the gap my mother, my surprisingly liberal Indian-born, Indiana-bred mom, has bridged beautifully: the ability to relate to her daughters without ever having been in their shoes.

Neha texted me last night, talking about a guy she’d been friends with for years. She was convinced he was using her as a backup girlfriend — all the intimacy, none of the hooking up — until he found someone else. “What do you think your mom would say if I told her about this Rajiv situation?”

Giddy to be the one people now come to for advice, I tried to channel my best wise, motherly counsel. “Hard to say … I don’t want you to read too much into what could just be platonic,” I typed back.

“Never mind,” she said. “I’ll just call your mom myself.”

 

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/08/dating-advice-from-an-arranged-marriage.html?mid=facebook_nymag

 

For Its New Shows, Amazon Adds Art to Its Data

8/15/2014   The New York Times

LOS ANGELES — Joe Lewis, a television executive at Amazon, lies on his stomach on a rumpled bed. Jill Soloway, the Emmy-nominated writer and director, sits next to him, stroking the back of his head. The two stare at a pair of monitors, watching the filming of a scene in the next room from their new dark comedy about a family in which the father comes out as transgender.

“What Amazon has been able to do is create something almost like an indie studio from the 1970s,” Ms. Soloway said.

Jill Soloway, center, the Emmy-nominated director and writer of “Transparent,” a new video series coming from Amazon Prime, during the shooting of its final episode in Altadena, Calif.

That vibe is a far cry from Amazon’s initial foray into television production, a tech-oriented approach driven by data analysis. Ms. Soloway’s new show, “Transparent,” is one of four new series that Amazon will unveil in the coming months as the company tries to find the right balance between art and algorithms. After an underwhelming start, it has increased its gamble on creating its own shows to draw new customers to its Prime subscription service.

Amazon’s push comes during a glut of new programming and fierce competition for viewers. The traditional broadcast and cable networks continue to ramp up their investment in programing, while other insurgents like Netflix and Hulu are trying to distinguish their services by pouring more money into creating new shows.

The actors Jeffrey Tambor, second from right, and Alexandra Billings, right, filming a scene for “Transparent.”

Known for its retailing prowess, Amazon turned heads when it entered the cozy, relationship-driven world of Hollywood four years ago. Rather than hiring established talent, it started a studios group to develop feature films and television series based on online submissions. It later started a unique program, posting TV pilots to the web and analyzing viewer data and feedback to determine which shows to give the green light.

Last year, the first slate of those much-hyped original productions appeared on its Prime Instant Video streaming service, and failed to make much of a splash. The shows’ debuts garnered little attention or critical acclaim, especially compared with the notice and strong reviews for Netflix’s “House of Cards” and “Orange is the New Black.” So far, only one — the Washington-meets-frat-house comedy “Alpha House” — has been renewed for a second season.

Rather than retreat, Amazon is pressing its video bet and conscientiously adding more artistic nuance to its science of programming. The company recently named Judith McGrath, the former chief executive of MTV Networks, to its board and announced plans to invest $100 million into original content in the third quarter of 2014. (Hollywood executives said that Amazon previously seemed less willing to pay up for programming than other media groups, especially compared with its rival Netflix, which reportedly spent about $100 million for two seasons of “House of Cards.”)

Usually secretive about its business strategy, Amazon is parading studio executives and talent before the press to build buzz.

“It’s not like you can come in on Tuesday and the computer says: ‘Doot, doot, doot. Here are the shows you are going to do,’ ” Roy Price, head of Amazon Studios, recently told a room full of television critics. “It’s not ‘The Barefoot Executive,’ ” he added, referencing the 1971 film about a pet chimpanzee named Raffles who predicts the popularity of television programs. “You have to use some judgment as well.”

The company is still learning the ropes, though. Last month, it rankled some critics when it failed to provide release dates for its new shows and viewer numbers for past ones. Many critics and viewers complained about not knowing how to find the programs on Amazon’s site.

Like Netflix, Amazon does not release audience figures for its programs or subscriber counts for its Prime service. A recent report from the research firm Park Associates revealed that Amazon made steady gains in the United States streaming video market in the last two years. About 20 percent of all homes with broadband connections now have a subscription to Amazon’s Prime service, an average annual growth rate of about 55 percent since 2012. (In comparison, Netflix service subscriptions grew an average of 16 percent per year during the same period.)

Amazon has said that an increasing number of Prime members are streaming more free content, and that those customers ultimately buy more products across the site. In addition to free two-day shipping, the $99 Prime annual membership includes streaming access to a library of movies and television shows from networks including Time Warner’s HBO, as well as more than a million songs.

In an interview, Mr. Price said that Amazon was happy with its initial foray into original programming. The self-described Hollywood émigré turned tech executive — he holds seven United States patents — predicted that in 10 years people were likely to watch a stream of personalized videos rather than one-size-fits-all traditional broadcasts. “Often things change more than people expect them to change,” he said.

To that end, Mr. Price said Amazon did not need its original series to become blockbuster hits, but rather to inspire passion and prove meaningful to groups of people. He listed “Transparent” as an example of the type of programming that Amazon was pursuing, with a distinct tone, novelistic storytelling approach and cinematic quality. Ms. Soloway, the show’s creator, is known for her work on the HBO series “Six Feet Under,” the Showtime series “United States of Tara” and the film “Afternoon Delight.”

All told, the company has released two shows for adults and three for children, and has announced that it is producing full series from six other pilots. Projects to be released in the coming months include the science fiction drama “The After” from the “X-Files” creator Chris Carter; “Bosch,” based on Michael Connelly’s best-selling book series; and “Mozart in the Jungle,” about behind-the-scenes drama at a New York symphony.

While Amazon has taken the tactic of producing its own series, it has not ruled out the strategy of picking up exclusive rights to series produced by traditional studios, a model deployed by Netflix and others.

Most of the projects currently in the pipeline are the works of established Hollywood talent. Notably absent from the lineup of originals are online submissions from amateurs. (Amazon said that a coming children’s pilot was discovered through an online submission.)

Many of these established creators said that they had not considered Amazon as an outlet until an agent made the suggestion. “I am a Luddite,” said Eric Overmyer, the co-writer and executive producer for “Bosch,” who has worked on series including “The Wire” and “Law & Order.” “I don’t know how to get my computer on my TV.”

Ultimately, several writers and directors said they were lured by the opportunity to explore a new frontier of digital and video storytelling that broke free of television standards. It also helped that Amazon paid competitive rates, they said.

The creators also said that despite their employer’s algorithm-driven image, they were going with their creative gut. Producers said that they did not look at the comments posted next to the episodes by viewers or the audience data on with the pilots.

“Nobody has ever come to me with any kind of data gleaned from an algorithm as a direction for this show,” Mr. Carter said. “I am sure they are mining all kinds of data, but my job is to be a good storyteller.”

 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/business/media/for-its-new-shows-amazon-adds-art-to-its-data.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0