Ronald E. Yates's Blog, page 106

Here Are 11 Skills Your Great-Grandparents Had That You Don’t

Those of us who write historical fiction are always striving to make sure our characters are part of the time period in which our novels are set. A farmer in 19th Century Kansas, for example, had to know how to hunt and fish, how to forage and how to butcher livestock, clean chickens, and shoe a horse, etc.

There were no supermarkets, no computers or online shopping, no clothing stores or malls. Yes, there were Sears and Montgomery Ward catalogs where women could order ready-made dresses and men could order pants and shirts, but ordering from them was considered an infrequent luxury.
I recently received an e-mail from Ancestry.com, the online genealogy service that asked: 
"How old school are you? Do you think you've got what it takes to live in your great-grandparents' era?"
I was intrigued by this question, having just completed the first book in a trilogy of novels, the first of which is set in the late 19th Century American West. As someone who spent time on a farm, who hunted and fished and cleaned hundreds of chickens, rabbits and squirrels, I figured I would be OK if I were suddenly transported to my great-grandparents' time.
But there was more to living back then than hunting and fishing. Life was much, much harder and so were the people.
Take a look at what Ancestry.com had to say:
Our parents and grandparents may shake their heads every time we grab our smart phones to get turn-by-turn directions or calculate the tip. But when it comes to life skills, our great-grandparents have us all beat. Here are some skills our great-grandparents had 90 years ago that most of us don’t.
1. CourtingWhile your parents and grandparents didn’t have the option to ask someone out on a date via text message, it’s highly likely that your great-grandparents didn’t have the option of dating at all. Until well into the 1920s, modern dating didn’t really exist. A gentleman would court a young lady by asking her or her parents for permission to call on the family. The potential couple would have a formal visit — with at least one parent chaperone present — and the man would leave a calling card. If the parents and young lady were impressed, he’d be invited back again and that would be the start of their romance.

2. Hunting, Fishing, and ForagingEven city dwellers in your great-grandparents’ generation had experience hunting, fishing, and foraging for food. If your great-grandparents never lived in a rural area or lived off the land, their parents probably did. Being able to kill, catch, or find your own food was considered an essential life skill no matter where one lived, especially during the Great Depression.
3. ButcheringIn this age of the boneless, skinless chicken breast, it’s unusual to have to chop up a whole chicken at home, let alone a whole cow. Despite the availability of professionally butchered and packaged meats, knowing how to cut up a side of beef or butcher a rabbit from her husband’s hunting trip was an ordinary part of a housewife’s skill set in the early 20th century. This didn’t leave the men off the hook, though. After all, they were most likely the ones who would field dress any animals they killed.
4. BarteringBefore the era of shopping malls and convenience stores, it was more common to trade goods and services with neighbors and shop owners. Home-canned foods, hand-made furniture, and other DIY goods were currency your great-grandparents could use in lieu of cash.
Before Clothes Dryers There was the Sun
5. HagglingThough it’d be futile for you to argue with the barista at Starbucks about the price of a cup of coffee, your great-grandparents were expert hagglers. Back when corporate chains weren’t as ubiquitous, it was a lot easier to bargain with local shop owners and tradesmen. Chances are your great-grandparents bought very few things from a store anyway.  6. Darning and mendingNowadays if a sock gets a hole in it, you buy a new pair. But your great-grandparents didn’t let anything go to waste, not even a beat-up, old sock. This went for every other article of clothing as well. Darning socks and mending clothes was just par for the course.
7. Corresponding by mailObviously, your great-grandparents didn’t text or email. However, even though the telephone existed, it wasn’t the preferred method of staying in touch either, especially long-distance. Hand-written letters were the way they communicated with loved ones and took care of business.
8. Making LaceTatting, the art of making lace, was a widely popular activity for young women in your great-grandparents’ generation. Elaborate lace collars, doilies, and other decorative touches were signs of sophistication. However, fashion changed and technology made lace an easy and inexpensive to buy, so their children probably didn’t pick up the skill.
Tatting, the Art of Making Lace

9. Lighting a Fire Without MatchesSure, matches have been around since the 1600s. But they were dangerous and toxic — sparking wildly out of control and emitting hazardous fumes. A more controllable, non-poisonous match wasn’t invented until 1910. So Great-grandma and Great-grandpa had to know a thing or two about lighting a fire without matches.
10. Diapering With ClothDisposable diapers weren’t commonly available until the 1930s. Until then, cloth diapers held with safety pins were where babies did their business. Great-grandma had a lot of unpleasant laundry on her hands.
11. Writing With a Fountain PenWhile it’s true that your grandparents were skilled in the lost art of writing in cursive, your grandparents probably were, too. However, the invention of the ballpoint pen in the late 1930s and other advances in pen technology mean that your great-grandparents were the last generation who had to refill their pens with ink.
Thanks to Ancestry.com for sharing this. I hope it helps you realize how easy you have it today compared to 100 years ago.
Here is a link to Ancestry.com's website:  http://home.ancestry.com

"JESSICA: PART 2" Blog Tour!

Periodically, my blog participates in virtual book tours which allow authors to showcase their books to a broader audience. Today I am hosting fellow author Jeffrey Von Glahn whose non-fction book "Jessica: The Autobiography of an Infant," is available on Amazon. The blog tour is sponsored by 4WillsPublishing.wordpress.com. (see relevant links below)
Jeffrey Von GlahnJeffrey Von Glahn has been a psychotherapist for 45 years, and counting. He says that experience has been, and continues to be, more exciting and fulfilling than he had ever imagined. 
BOOK BLURB:
      Jessica had always been haunted by the fear that the unthinkable had happened when she had been “made-up.” For as far back as she could remember, she had no sense of a Self. Her mother thought of her as the “perfect infant” because “she never wanted anything and she never needed anything.” As a child, just thinking of saying “I need” or “I want” left her feeling like an empty shell and that her mind was about to spin out of control. Terrified of who––or what––she was, she lived in constant dread over being found guilty of impersonating a human being. 
      Jeffrey Von Glahn, Ph.D., an experienced therapist with an unshakable belief in the healing powers of the human spirit, and Jessica, blaze a trail into this unexplored territory. As if she has, in fact, become an infant again, Jessica remembers in extraordinary detail events from the earliest days of her life––events that threatened to twist her embryonic humanness from its natural course of development. Her recollections are like listening to an infant who could talk describe every psychologically dramatic moment of its life as it was happening. 
      When Dr. Von Glahn met Jessica, she was 23. Everyone regarded her as a responsible, caring person – except that she never drove and she stayed at her mother’s when her husband worked nights. 
      For many months, Jessica’s therapy was stuck in an impasse. Dr. Von Glahn had absolutely no idea that she was so terrified over simply talking about herself. In hopes of breakthrough, she boldly asked for four hours of therapy a day, for three days a week, for six weeks. The mystery that was Jessica cracked open in dramatic fashion, and in a way that Dr. Von Glahn could never have imagined. Then she asked for four days a week – and for however long it took. In the following months, her electrifying journey into her mystifying past brought her ever closer to a final confrontation with the events that had threatened to forever strip her of her basic humanness.
BLOG POST:
     This excerpt is from the Prologue. It describes how my view of infants was changed forever by Jessica’s revelations about her own infancy.
     Listening to Jessica during therapy sessions was the same as listening to an infant who could talk describe in vivid detail every psychologically dramatic moment of its life as it was happening. As a result, my perception of infants was radically altered. I will never again think of them as simple little beings primarily interested in eating and sleeping. They are far more complex than I had ever imagined. When I am now in an infant’s presence, I am acutely conscious that an active force in the world is before me. What I say and how I act will be watched with great interest by a mind that, though not as developed as mine, is probably more curious about the world and definitely more sensitive to it.
     Infants, especially newborns, pull me toward them with what seems like an irresistible power.        Whenever I see one of these brand-new human beings, I must fight my urge to drop whatever I’m doing and immediately rush to its side. In my fantasy, I see myself slow down as I approach my goal and unhurriedly cover the last bit of distance. I close in with the most incredibly joyous smile anyone has ever seen. My eyes bulge in unabashed delight, while my smile and eyes speak for me. They speak the language of infancy, a life rich in feelings, hopes, dreams, potential, and an insatiable curiosity about the world. It is a life as exciting and intriguing as anything adults can even imagine.
     My eyes and smile express the words I would like to say:
     Yes, I know how powerful your mind is. I know what new information about yourself and the world you are trying to figure out. I know what fundamental psychological processes are happening inside of you. If you could talk, I know what wonderfully exciting details you would tell us about your life.             My journey with Jessica seems—even now, after it’s over—more a flight of fancy, an excursion into science fiction, than a real-life story. Had I not been a fellow traveler who saw and heard everything with my own eyes and ears, I would certainly exclaim, “How interesting! I wish I could think of a clever story like that!”
PURCHASE LINKS:
Jeffrey Von Glahn - JESSICA: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF AN INFANT -www.amazon.com/dp/B00IUCKOD8/

Goodreads Event Page - https://www.goodreads.com/event/show/950887-jessica-an-autobiography-of-an-infant-tour
Rafflecopter Page - http://www.rafflecopter.com/rafl/display/4af5be7f7/?
CONTACT INFO:
Twitter:   @JeffreyVonGlahn Website: http://JeffreyVonGlahn.com
***This tour was sponsored by 4WillsPublishing.wordpress.com  To book your own tour, please contact us.***

'Unbroken' is an Unwelcome Film for Some Japanese

'Unbroken,' Angelina Jolie's film about the inhuman treatment of Allied captives in Japanese prisoner of war camps during World War II, is angering some Japanese who are calling for a boycott of the film in Japan.
The film, which opens Christmas day in the U.S., focuses mainly on the story of Louis Zamperini, who survived more than two years of horrendous treatment at the hands of his Japanese captors.
It is based on Laura Hillenbrand's bestselling book, "Unbroken," which detailed Zamperini's life as an Olympic athlete, his wartime role as a bombardier on a B-24 and his eventual capture by the Japanese after his plane was shot down.
Jolie and ZamperiniZamperini, who died this past July at the age of 97, forgave his captors for their merciless treatment of him and other POWS, but many Japanese are still unwilling to admit the atrocities their troops committed throughout Asia during World War II.
This is not the first time a film about Japanese atrocities has sparked outrage in Japan.
In 1990, when I was the Chicago Tribune's Chief Asia Correspondent, I wrote about a graphic Australian film entitled 'Blood Oath.' 
That film enraged Japanese Nationalists who still deny that the Imperial Japanese Army committed any wartime crimes--including the slaughter of some 200,000-300,000 Chinese civilians and unarmed POWs in the former Chinese capital of Nanjing in 1937.
'Blood Oath,' which was released in the U.S. under the title 'Prisoners of the Sun,' depicts the plight of Allied POWs from 1942 to 1945 on the Indonesian island of Ambon. Ambon was the site of one of Japan's most infamous prisoner of war camps. Of the 1,150 Australian, Dutch and American POWs interned on the island, fewer than 300 were still alive when British and Australian troops retook Ambon in 1945.
When they did, they made the grisly discovery of 314 decapitated POWs in one mass grave--beheaded by Japanese soldiers wielding razor-sharp samurai swords.
At the Australian War Crimes Tribunal held on Ambon in 1946 about half of the 91 Japanese officers and enlisted men accused as war criminals were convicted and given death sentences or long prison terms. Beheading of a Chinese POW"Most young Japanese today don't even know that Japan fought a war against the United States, let alone about what happened in Ambon," says Toshi Shioya, the Japanese actor who portrayed a soldier convicted and executed for war crimes committed on the Indonesian island of Ambon.
Shioya not only acted in the film, but worked tirelessly to get it released in Japan.
"This was the first film ever shown in Japan that actually portrays ordinary Japanese soldiers as accomplices in war crimes," Shioya said. "We were lucky to find a distributor willing to show the film because for many Japanese, this was a shocking motion picture."
Unlike 'Prisoners of the Sun,' Jolie's 'Unbroken' is yet to be released in Japan. And while some Japanese may decry the film's portrayal of Japanese cruel treatment of Allied POW's, it is impossible to argue with the facts.
U.S. Department of Defense figures show that almost 40 per cent of all Americans taken prisoner by the Japanese died in captivity while just 1 per cent of American POWs died in Germany prisoner of war camps.
But unlike Germany, Japan's wartime iniquities have gone largely unpunished. There have been no Simon Wiesenthals to hunt down Japanese war criminals, and only a relative handful of Japanese military leaders were put on trial for atrocities.
As a result, generations of Japanese have grown up with only the sketchiest knowledge that Japan may have done something wrong in the 1930s and 1940s and that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were considered by many to be justifiable retribution.
Anti-Japanese feeling still exists in places like China and Korea where the heavy boot of Imperial Japan was most in evidence. In 1990, during a visit to Japan, then South Korean President Roh Tae Woo received an apology for Japan's 35-year occupation of the Korean peninsula from Emperor Akihito, the prime minister and parliament. But for many Koreans, none of the apologies went far enough.
"Human beings tend to be sensitive to and vividly remember their own sufferings," said Takashi Koshida, author of a two-volume work about the Japanese army's activities in 16 Asian nations during the war.
Zamperini when liberated from Japanese POW camp"In the case of the Japanese, the sufferings were the atomic bombings, the air raids and the military conscription. I would say it has taken almost 60 years for the Japanese to realize that they were aggressors . . . and that they caused other people to suffer."
One group of Japanese for whom 'Prisoners of the Sun'has particular significance is the Ambon Remembrance Society, an organization of 100 Navy veterans who served as guards in the POW camp.
"After I watched this film the first time I felt as though I had swallowed lead. . . . I felt very heavy and dark inside," said Yoshiro Ninomiya, a former Navy sub-lieutenant assigned to the camp.Ninomiya, who is the society's secretary-general, has seen "Blood Oath" five times, and he said, "It has made me think about a lot of things (that happened on Ambon)."
Shioya has spent long hours talking with former Japanese soldiers who served at the camp.
"One man still has nightmares about what he did on the island," Shioya said. "This man, who served a 15-year prison sentence after the war, told me of how one day in 1943 he was ordered to decapitate three captured American pilots with his sword.
"As his sword passed through the neck of one pilot, photographs of the man's mother, his wife and a baby fell out of his shirt pocket and lay on the ground staring up at him.  "He is still haunted by that scene today."
Check out these links for a trailer on Prisoners of the Sun and a synopsis by imdb.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100414/

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3165585689/

A Little Advice for New Authors

Fellow author Amy Neftzger recently wrote a column for a writer's group that I belong to called BookDaily in which she provided some good advice for novice writers.
Amy is an author of fiction for both adults and children and you can find out more about her and her work at her website: http://www.amyneftzger.com.
I thought I would share her prescient thoughts with you so I am turning my blog over to her for today. Amy Neftzger
Starting Out As a Writer: 5 Things You Should Know By Amy Neftzger
Becoming an author is a long road to walk, and most people have no idea how long it takes to become successful or what they need to do when traveling this road. There are a lot of different ways to get to the end of it, but here are a few suggestions I have to help you along on this journey.
1. Success is not immediate
Many people think that publishing a book is like winning the lottery: you just put the book up for sale and then watch the royalties roll in. The truth is that simply putting your work out there will not make it sell. Readers have too many choices, and when they want a new book they tend to stick with what they know: authors they’ve already read. It takes quite a bit of time to build a following, so patience is the name of the game here. This is true whether you’re self or traditionally published.
2. In order to do it well, you will need help.
Don’t assume that you can write, edit, design layout, format, create cover artwork, and market your book all on your own. If you’re with a traditional publisher they will help with most of these things. If you’re self-published, you’ll need to find a way to get all these things done. You may be multi-talented but you’re still only one person and you may even have another job that currently pays your bills. So there’s the time factor to consider: If you do everything yourself then you’re spending a lot of time doing things other than writing. Aside from the time, when you do everything yourself your work tends to lack the balance that other people can add. Your finances may be limited, so figure out what you’re better at and where you’re weaker and seek affordable help for your weaker areas.
3. The market is currently flooded.
There are a lot of books out there and the number is growing, so readers have a lot of choices. What this means is that your book needs to be the best it can possibly be, because a less polished work simply won’t get any traction in a flooded market. This means that you may want to consider using beta readers to get feedback, and if you’re self-published you should definitely hire an editor and maybe even a proofreader.
4. Reader experience is everything.
People read books for the experience it provides. Your book should be designed to provide it and avoid anything that detracts from it.Things that pull away from the experience are glitches in plot development, spelling or layout errors, and errors in logic. maintaining a logical and believable flow to the plot will enhance reader experience, so use a good outline and be sure that the characters and situations are believable (even in fantasy).
5. It’s worth the effort
If you love to write and it’s in your blood, then you’ll find that all the work you put into producing your book is worth your time. The key is to keep working and improving your craft and to grow as a writer.
About the Author:
Amy Neftzger is the author of fiction books for both adults and children. She has also been published in business and academic journals, as well as literary publications. A few of her favorite things include traveling, books, movies, art, the Oxford comma, and gargoyles.

What is Happening to the News Media?

I hear that question all the time. I hear it mainly because my friends and relatives  know I spent almost 30 years of my life in the news business--first as a general assignment reporter, then as a foreign correspondent, then as an editor.
Later I became a professor of journalism and dean of a journalism program at a major university where I spent a lot of time researching the media.
So I know the news business inside and out. I have worked in it, I have studied it and now, like a lot of other people, I wonder about its usefulness and value.
Several factors have combined to alter the media landscape from the one I entered right out of college in 1970 or so.
Some argue that new technologies have had a deleterious impact on the media. There is no doubt that the old business models that once worked for newspapers, television and radio have changed. Advertising revenues have plummeted and news organizations find themselves scrambling to stay financially afloat.

Add to that the fact that the Internet, the blogosphere, and social media have all united to create a new world of pseudo-journalists who are not held to the same standards of excellence that we "professionals" once were and the picture looks bleak.
Sadly, today's "professionals" often are not being held to that higher standard either. Witness the recent fallout over the Rolling Stone story on the bogus gang rape at the University of Virginia that is being walked back because not a single detail could be corroborated.
Or the kind of "personal" and "participatory" journalism that would have gotten me run out of the Chicago Tribune's newsroom back in the early 1970s. I can almost hear my old city editor yelling:
"You can't write this kind of opinionated crap here!"
Yet, "opinionated crap" is often what we read in newspapers today or see on TV news programs. I can recall discussions we used to have in news meetings about how to involve our readers more in the news gathering process--a noble idea, up to a point.
Today, those discussions have become reality because of The Internet, bloggers, social media, etc. The media are more interactive than ever.  That's not always a bad thing, but it becomes toxic when news organizations confuse "crowdsourcing" with old fashioned news gathering.
Now we are bombarded with stupid, unscientific "polls" and inane commentary from readers and viewers. No wonder glib MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber says the American electorate is "stupid." It is difficult not to come to that conclusion when you read or listen to some of these comments.
News organizations need to be more than simple aggregators of information. They need to provide knowledgeable, unbiased context for an informed citizenry. Unfortunately, there is little impartial context and even fewer citizens who are adequately informed.

News is often nothing more than "infotainment." It is a prejudicial mix of imprecise information and imprudent stories geared to titillate, rather than inform.
I used to tell my students we needed more of what I call "spinach journalism?" What is spinach journalism? you ask.
It is journalism intended to inform and educate. In essence we are telling news consumers: "Here, read this, watch this, listen to this, it's GOOD FOR YOU!"
Newspapers especially were once the mirrors for the communities they served. They reflected the people and events, the good and the bad of their communities. Granted, the mirrors were not always free of distortion, but at least there were tough professional editors and producers who cracked the whip and kept reporters focused on facts rather than the fiction and opinion we too often see today.
Sadly, I fear there are far too few of those tough and demanding newsroom mentors around today and too many reporters who think the news is theirs to manipulate and mold to fit their worldview or political ideologies.
Along those lines, I am amazed at how far many journalists seem willing to go to protect a Washington administration that has been the most opaque, intrusive and hostile to press freedom than any in recent history.  
It makes me wonder what happened to the traditional role of the press? That role is to act as the de-facto "fourth estate" of government. Journalists, I was always told, were to be the watchdogs of government, not its lapdogs.
As someone once said, journalists should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
That is happening less and less today. It is much easier to write stories that reflect one's own values than to get out of one's comfort zone and enter unfamiliar and even disagreeable territory in the search for truth.
Veracity is seldom found within the confines of our own narrow opinions. All we will find there is further reinforcement for what we already hold to be true.
So when people ask me what is happening to America's news media--once the strongest and freest in the world--I have only one answer: 
"Where's the spinach?"

Do America's Enemies Deserve Our Respect and Empathy?

In a recent speech at Georgetown University Hillary Clinton urged Americans to empathize with and respect our enemies--namely Islamic fanatics who want to kill us and obliterate our way of life.
After those words were uttered by a woman who apparently wants to be America's next president, I think I heard Gen. George S. Patton bellowing epithets from the grave. Patton was notorious for his epithets.
Patton, the no nonsense American general known as "blood and guts" who helped push the Germans out of North Africa and Sicily during WW II and who drove the U.S. Third Army deep into the heart of Germany, said this about America's enemies:
“May God have mercy on my enemies because I won't.” 
That's poles apart from what Hillary Clinton had to say last week about America's enemies and how we should deal with them: "Show Respect for America's Enemies"
"This is what we call smart power...showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view."
I can just imagine what Patton would say about "smart power" and the preposterous notion that we should have respect for and empathize with our enemy's point of view.
He no doubt would have used one of his favorite words: Bullshit!
I wonder how Hillary's statement might have resonated if she had made it during WW II after the world learned what the Nazi's did in death camps like Auschwitz and what the Japanese did in places like Nanking, China?
Oh, but the war against radical Islam is different, some might argue. Really? You mean beheading journalists, slaughtering innocent aide workers and educators, murdering Christians and Jews, and even butchering Muslims who don't adhere to radical Islam is not the same? Really?
Murder is murder no matter who commits it, how it's committed, or in what decade it is committed. Empathy and respect be damned.
And what if President Roosevelt had gone to Congress seeking a declaration of war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and said:
"We must have empathy for the Japanese who did this to us," instead of what he actually said, which was: "Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
Enemies are enemies. Empathizing and respecting their perspective is a ludicrous thing to say. It is especially preposterous for someone who wants to occupy the White House and become our military's Commander-in-Chief.  
Patton understood that the way to win a war was to fight it, not chatter about it while giving a $200,000 speech. The last thing he would have counseled is for American leaders to engage in fearful hand wringing and hope those who want to destroy us will somehow come to love us if only we are benign, compassionate and work harder to understand their perspective.
General "Blood & Guts" Patton
In a 1944 speech to the Third Army Patton told his men this:   "We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home."
Is there any doubt who started the war on terror? On September 11, 2001 when those hijacked planes flew into the twin towers, into the Pentagon, and into that Pennsylvania farm field, we were at war--even if the current feckless occupant of the White House refuses to call it that.
When you are attacked, no matter what your political affiliation may be or on which side of the political aisle you may sit, you basically have two options: you either capitulate because you are afraid to fight, or you respond with "extreme prejudice," as we used to say in the Army.
Regrettably, the current administration seems to have resurrected a third option--one that was proven woefully ineffective back in 1938. It was called appeasement. And Adolph Hitler laughed all the way to the Eagle's Nest.
After Hillary Clinton's ill-advised and placatory remarks you can almost hear the terrorists hooting and whooping in their desert bunkers and strongholds.
I wonder how Patton might have dealt with the brutal Islamic State currently slaughtering its way through Syria and Iraq.
I can't imagine him telling the men of the Third Army to respect and empathize with that vicious rabble; to try to understand why they hate America or why these cowards are beheading American and other Western captives.
After Patton read the Koran and observed North African Muslims during WW II, we have an idea what he thought of Islam. In his book, War as I Knew it, published posthumously in 1947, he wrote:
"What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing."
Not a sentiment that would make the apologists for Islamic radicals and terrorists happy.
Nor would Islamic suicide bombers have embraced one of Patton's most famous statements:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other dumb bastard die for his country."
Amen, General.

10 surprising social media facts

Authors today need to be savvy about using social media to get the word out about their books. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, LinkedIn, book blogs, WAYN--these are all critical social media for marketing books.
And as any author knows (especially those who don't get books reviewed in the New York Times Book Review section) getting the word out is critical for a book to attract readers. 
Today, I am turning my blog over to Monica Wells, content marketing specialist, at BizDb in the United Kingdom. She has gathered some interesting facts about using social media that you might find helpful. 
For example, did you know five Facebook profiles are created every second, or that what's popular on Pinterest on Monday is different from what's popular on Wednesday? Read on for more.
By Monica Wells 
If you consider yourself a social media guru, you're in for a surprise.
Due to social media analytics tools' rapid evolution, industry experts have uncovered a lot of new, increasingly detailed information to help marketers create more effective social media strategies. There are dozens of social media research studies out there.
Here are 10 interesting social media facts you probably don't know:
1. Facebook is growing.
Even though Facebook is becoming obsolete in some markets, the global scale shows something completely different: Five Facebook profiles are created every second. That's more than the number of global births.
2. Twitter has six conversation networks.
A recent study from the Pew Research Center and Social Media Research Foundation analyzed thousands of Twitter conversations and spotted a pattern: There are as many as six types of conversations that take place on Twitter. And we thought tweeting was simple.
3. People love videos.
Even though marketers agree original videos aren't an important part of their social media strategies, the facts speak for themselves. Every day Facebook users watch more than 500 years' worth of videos, and visitors spend, on average, at least 15 minutes on YouTube. 
[RELATED: Fill your content with Visual Communications and Infographics. that support your strategy]
4. Twitter users want fast responses.
A study by Lithium Technologies shows Twitter's real-time nature raises users' expectations for brand responses. Fifty-three percent of users who tweet to a brand expect an answer within an hour. For those who are angry and tweeting to complain, that number rises to 72 percent.Use tools to track response time, and answer tweets as fast as possible—especially the angry ones.
5. Most Facebook engagement occurs on Friday.
In its recent Social Intelligence Report, Adobe analyzed more than 225 billion Facebook posts. It found that posts receive more comments, shares and "likes" on Fridays. (Perhaps because Fridays are conducive to slacking off.) Consider this when you review your posting schedule.
6. Late evening is the best time to tweet.
After analyzing more than 1.7 million tweets, TrackMaven determined the best time to tweet is from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET, particularly on Sundays. Share volume is lower late at night, and content has a greater chance of being shared. Tweet during this hour for more engagement.
7. Popular topics on Pinterest change by the day.
Pinterest is one of the social media platforms that drive the most Web traffic, and thankfully it shared some of its immense amount of data. On its blog, Pinterest revealed the categories that get the most engagement each day. Whereas fitness posts score high on Monday, inspirational quotes are most popular on Wednesday. (Workers must want some comfort halfway through the workweek.)
8. Visuals have power on Facebook.
We know the value of images in social media marketing, but this figure is mind-blowing: Social Bakers revealed 87 percent of a Facebook page's interactions happen on photo posts. By comparison, posts with links receive just 4 percent of interactions. Choosing photos that fit your brand narrative or tell a story should be your priority.
9. Written content is essential.
Content marketing's expected rise means more marketers will seek high-quality content to raise brand awareness on social media. Writers can feel secure: Marketers appreciate written content most. An annual survey from Social Media Examiner revealed 58 percent of marketers consider blog posts and articles the most important kind of social media content. That's impressive, especially considering that 19 percent of marketers voted for visual content.
10. The 55-64 age bracket is growing on Twitter.
It is the fastest-growing demographic on Twitter. This will bring joy to those who market to mature consumers.
Given the practical insights from all these studies, one thing is clear: To stay on top of your game, you need a firm grasp on social media analytics and statistics.
Monica Wells is a content marketing specialist at  http://www.bizdb.co.uk/ . A version of this article originally appeared on Social Media Today.

How to Become an American Ambassador: $$$$$

When I was roaming the world as a foreign correspondent, I spent hours and hours talking to American ambassadors in places like Tokyo, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cambodia, Peru, Mexico, etc. The list goes on and on.
Most of them had extensive knowledge of the countries in which they represented the United States. Mike Mansfield, for example, was the longest serving U.S. Ambassador to Japan in history (1977-1988). He had a significant knowledge of Japan and Asia and was fond of saying that the United States-Japan relationship is the 'most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none.'
His successor, Michael H. Armacost (1989-1993), was the former ambassador to The Philippines; a member of the National Security Council to handle East Asian and Chinese affairs, and was acting Secretary of State.
When you had a conversation with either of these men about Japanese-U.S. relations, it was substantive.
That same cannot be said for the two most recent ambassadors confirmed by the Senate:
·       New Ambassador to Hungary Colleen Bradley Bell, 47, a soap opera producer (The Bold and the Beautiful), Obama donor ($800,000) and bundler ($2.1 million) for his campaigns.
·       New Ambassador to Argentina Noah Bryson Mamet, 44, a political consultant and bundler who raised $500,000 for Obama's presidential campaign.
Neither of America's newest ambassadors have any significant knowledge of the countries they will be working in and neither distinguished themselves during Senate confirmation hearings. Colleen Bradley Bell

Take this exchange between Bell and Sen. McCain at this week's hearing:
 MCCAIN: So what would you be doing differently from your predecessor, who obviously had very rocky relations with the present government?
BELL: If confirmed, I look forward to working with the broad range of society —
MCCAIN: My question was, what would you do differently?
BELL: Senator, in terms of what I would do differently from my predecessor, Kounalakis
MCCAIN: That’s the question.
BELL: Well, what I would like to do when — if confirmed — I would like to work towards engaging civil society in a deeper — in a deeper —
MCCAIN: Obviously, you don’t want to answer my question.
Then there was this exchange between Mamet and Sen. Marco Rubio:
 RUBIO:  "Mr. Mamet, have you been to Argentina?"
MAMET: "Senator, I haven't had the opportunity yet to be there. I've traveled pretty extensively around the world. But I haven't yet had a chance."
Mamet also conceded that he speaks no Spanish and has little or no knowledge of Argentine history or politics.
Noah Mamet
And so it goes. The truth is that both Bell’s and Mamet's appointments are just another example of the Washington game which rewards campaign donors and friends of the president   with ambassadorial positions.
By recent historic standards, Obama is already pushing the ceiling when it comes to putting friends and campaign supporters in U.S. diplomatic posts.
According to research by the American Foreign Service Association, 35 percent of Obama’s assignments have been political appointments. But in his second term, the number has grown to 41 percent according. The AFSA union represents career diplomats and wants more strict enforcement of a 1980 law that says campaign donations may not be considered a qualification for any foreign posting.
Good luck with that.
 Among other things that law says:  "An individual appointed or assigned to be a chief of mission should possess clearly demonstrated competence to perform the duties of a chief of mission, including, to the maximum extent practicable, a useful knowledge of the principal language or dialect of the country in which the individual is to serve, and knowledge and understanding of the history, the culture, the economic and political institutions, and the interests of that country and its people."
Whoops! Somebody in the White House must have forgotten that. Ditto the Senate. But wait, the confirmation votes for Bell and Mamet were along strict party lines. So forgetfulness was not a factor.
Money was.
I was thinking that I were still roaming the world as a foreign correspondent, what could I talk to Ms. Bell about if I were writing about Hungary?
It's oppressive form of government? Nah. It's sick economy? Nah Corruption in the government of PM Viktor Orban? Nah.
But we could spend a good hour discussing the Bold and the Beautiful and its most recent episode: 
"Liam badgers Quinn to admit she went to the shower and took the cake as a momento. Quinn hollers at him to let it go. He accuses her of stalking Hope. Quinn says being treated like a pariah instead of a loving grandmother-to-be is ripping her apart. She insists the baby changes everything. Hope and Wyatt's marriage is secure and she'll never be a threat again. Liam promises as long as she's a threat to Hope's happiness..." 
And I could walk away with a reporter's notebook bulging with news. 

ARE AMERICAN VOTERS STUPID?

When MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the chief architects of Obamacare referred, in a year-old video last week, to the "stupidity of the American voter" and a "lack of transparency" as critical to the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, it ignited a fire storm of outrage.
But was Gruber wrong when he made those off-the-cuff remarks about the American electorate at an academic conference in 2013?
Sadly, it appears that he may have been right in his assessment. According to at least two recent surveys, Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to their country and its governance.
Ask them to name just one Supreme Court Justice and 65 percent can’t, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
It gets better. Ask Americans to name the three branches of their government and 36 percent of Americans can’t. Ask them to name just a single branch of government and 35 percent can’t even do that.
But in a nation consumed like no other with celebrity, ask Americans to reel off the names of the top rock stars, gansta rappers, Oscar favorites, superstars in the NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball, and any number of mindless reality TV shows and their minions and guess what? You will have no problem getting an answer.
So while Gruber is being pilloried for his remarks, the sad truth is that he is right. American voters are stupid--or perhaps apathetic or indifferent are better descriptions.
Lying to them, as the Obama administration did when it was ramming Obamacare through Congress and down our throats, was viewed as an acceptable tactic. After all, they reasoned, Americans are too stupid to know what's good for them.
While such a conclusion may smack of just somebody's opinion, it was backed up last month in a groundbreaking survey by the U.K. research firm Ipsos MORI. That survey highlighted the political “ignorance” of 11,527 people across 14 countries
It found that Americans are second only to Italians in how little we understand our nations and the issues facing it. (See Graphic)

Here are a few of the questions asked and the results:
·       What percentage of the U.S. population identifies as Muslim?
Americans guessed: 15%.  Reality: 1%
·       What percentage of the population do you think are immigrants to America?
Americans guessed: 32%. Reality: 13%
·       Do you think this statement is true or false: The murder rate is rising in America
70 percent of Americans guessed: True . Reality: False
·       What percentage of American girls aged between 15 and 19 years give birth each year? Americans guessed: 23.9%. Reality: 3.1%
 Back in 2008, Rick Shenkman, the editor-in-chief of the History News Network, published a book entitled: Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter.
Shenkman found that most Americans were, among other things:
·       Ignorant about major international events
·       Knew little about how their own government runs and who runs it
·       Were nonetheless willing to accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought suggested they were bad for the country
·       Were easily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic solutions, irrational fears and public relations babble.
Shenkman found that Americans, when they do pay attention, do so when they perceive that an issue may impact them, their families or friends personally. That is not earth shattering, but it does say something about the fact that Americans, like it or not, are part of the global family.
I spent some two decades as a foreign correspondent, covering stories throughout Asia and Latin America. During that time I discovered that relatively few Americans had any understanding at all of the impact events and policies in places like China or Japan can have on their lives.
For example, when products are manufactured more inexpensively in China or India or Vietnam that often means higher paid Americans lose their jobs.
When rapacious government policies allow a Chinese steel company to export its products at a price that is lower in the American market than the price charged in the domestic Chinese market, and thereby unfairly undercut American steel makers, that is called "dumping."
What most Americans may not know is that dumping is legal under World Trade Organization rules unless the aggrieved foreign country can demonstrate the negative impact of the exporting company on domestic producers. In order to counter dumping, most nations use tariffs and quotas to protect their domestic industry from the negative effects of predatory pricing.
But let's get back to that Ipsos MORI survey and Gruber's unflattering characterization of the American voter.
We often decry the quality of elected officials today. But what about the quality of voters?
How can we make informed decisions about places like Iraq and Iran, organizations like ISIS, government spending, and societal issues if we have no understanding of the essential specifics involved?
American educator and philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins may have said it best:
"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Students Support First Amendment Freedoms More Than Adults

There is a reason the very first amendment to the U. S. Constitution in 1791 dealt with issues such as freedom of speech, the press, religion, the right of peaceful assembly and the right to redress grievances via government petition.
The founding fathers viewed those freedoms and rights as critical to a functioning democracy. Without them a government could exercise almost total control over its people.
Americans often talk about the First Amendment without really knowing what it says. Here is a refresher for those who may have forgotten the wording:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It was heartening to me a few weeks ago when a national study of 10,463 high school students and 588 teachers funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation found that students are more supportive of the First Amendment than adults and that increased digital news consumption and classroom teaching are driving the change.
It makes me wonder if adults have become blasé about the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment--or worse.
When I hear people suggest that government should "reign in the media" or curb speech they don't like or agree with, it's like suggesting that government chip away at the foundation of the Capitol Building. Eventually, with enough chipping the building will collapse and with enough "reigning in" of the First Amendment we will find ourselves unable to speak or publish freely.
So it was encouraging that these students apparently understand the value of freedom of the press and speech when it comes to opinions they don't agree with.
"Student use of social, mobile and digital media to consume news is at all-time highs, and so is student support of the First Amendment," said Eric Newton, senior adviser to the president of Knight Foundation. "The most supportive students of all are heavy digital media users who also have had a class explaining the First Amendment."
The study, the fifth in a series of national surveys of high school students and teachers commissioned by the Knight Foundation during the past 10 years, holds important implications for the future of the First Amendment. Courts interpret the meaning of the first amendment within the context of public opinion.
Here are a few key findings of the Knight Study:
●      High school students are showing more appreciation for the First Amendment than adults. Only 24 percent of students said that the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing the rights of religion, speech, press assembly and petition. In comparison, a Newseum Institute survey that tracks adult opinions on the first amendment showed that 38 percent of adults feel this way. This marks a shift: 10 years ago students (35 percent) were more likely than adults (30 percent) to say that the First Amendment goes too far.
●      More students than ever before are showing support for the First Amendment: Nine in 10 students surveyed said that “people should be able to express unpopular opinions,” and 60 percent oppose government surveillance of online information and phone calls even to identify terrorists.
●      Both digital news consumption and First Amendment appreciation are growing among high school students. Seventy-one percent of students said they read news online daily; in 2006 only 31 percent said they got news and information from the Internet several times per week. And while only eight percent of students reported consuming news and information daily through mobile devices in 2007, the latest report shows 62 percent of students now use mobile for this purpose—the highest level measured by the survey.
●      Digital media works hand-in-hand with the classroom. First Amendment support is highest among students who had a class that dealt with the First Amendment and used digital media on a regular basis. For example, 65 percent of the students who use digital news daily agreed strongly that people should be able to express unpopular opinions, but if they had a First Amendment-related class, the strong support for free speech rose to 69 percent.
●      Most teachers do not support free expression for students creating content about their schools. In a generational divide, the majority of teachers disagree that First Amendment rights should apply to school activities. For example, 57 percent of teachers feel that students should not be allowed to report on controversial issues in student newspapers and 67 percent say that students should not be allowed to express their opinions about teachers and school administrators on Facebook without penalty.
Obviously, there is a parting of the ways when it comes to press and speech freedom for students.
When I was the Dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois I also happened to be a member of the board of the non-profit Illini Media Company--the student run newspaper that serves the university community.
Thankfully, the Illini Media Company was not a constituent of the University--though its student editors and reporters were.
Did the Daily Illini occasionally make some errors in judgment? Did it sometimes print a story that was not entirely accurate? Did it criticize the University of Illinois administration on occasion?
Yes, yes and yes. It did all of those things. But it corrected its errors and it responsibly recognized, clarified and apologized for its inaccuracies.
But one thing it never did, was kowtow to the University administration when that august body was angry about a Daily Illini story that it didn't approve of.
And that is exactly what "reigning in the media" would mean for press freedom in this country. As Finley Peter Dunne once said about the media: they should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
But beyond that, they should use the power of the First Amendment to be an unbiased and responsible watchdog of government and in so doing, speak and act on behalf of the people.
Because if the media do not, who will?
Here is a link to the survey:
http://www.mediabistro.com/10000words...