Double Dutch

It was one of the most cynical cartoons I’d ever seen. A colleague had just put it up on the wall of the newsroom at Radio Netherlands International. The frenzy of fanatic reporters filing their stories disappeared into the background as I read the headline: “WHAT IS NEWS?”

The question couldn’t be simpler. The answer couldn’t be more complicated. And yet, everything around me was buzzing with deadline-driven activity, as if all of us actually knew what we were doing.

“NEWS” is one of those words that you and I hear many times a day. In fact, we hear it and use it so frequently, that we rarely question what it means. There are many words like that; words such as crisis, support, or health care. These words are so common, it’s pretty obvious what they stand for, isn’t it? Do we really need to define them?

SEMANTICS
Scientist and philosopher Afred Korzybski, the father of general semantics, would strongly disagree. He coined the phrase: “The map is not the territory”. By that he meant that an abstraction derived from something, is not the thing itself. In plain language: you can’t get wet from the word water. The word water (the map) is only a representation of something that’s much more fluid (the territory). But when we use the word water, it is generally assumed that we know what it means. That very human assumption is the basis of many conflicts, big and small. People confuse maps with territories all the time. It’s like eating the menu in a restaurant.

BUMPER TO BUMPER
“Support our troops” it said on the bumper sticker. Most Americans couldn’t agree more. Especially these days, it is important to support our troops, don’t you think? But on a deeper level, what does ‘support’ really mean? Remember: the word ‘support’ is just a map. But of what? How exactly, should we support our troops? By increasing the defense budget? By sending more troops to Afghanistan? Or should we support them by pulling them out of trouble spots and bringing them back home?

As long as we’re talking on the level of abstractions, it’s easy to agree. Who isn’t in favor of world peace? How it should be achieved is a different matter, and that’s usually where the fighting begins.

There’s a vital element through which we consciously (but most of the time unconsciously) determine meaning. Imagine seeing the “Support our troops” bumper sticker on a pickup truck with a veteran license plate. There’s also a “Semper Fi” sign on the F-150, and a third sticker saying: “Anti-War = Pro-Terrorism”. With that information in hand, how do you think the owner feels we can best support our troops?

Here’s a different scenario. You’re on the highway and you spot that same “Support our troops” sticker. But this time it’s stuck to the back of a beat up Volvo station wagon. Next to it is a “Bring them Home” sticker, and another one that reads: “Against the War. Not the Warrior”. Knowing what you know now, what assumptions would you make this time, about the owners views on how to best support our troops?

Even though we’re talking about the same sticker, the meaning of the words is context-dependent. And without knowing the context, we’re all in danger of mistaking the map for our territory. As a result, we carry on entire conversations based on mind reads and interpretations that have very little to do with the reality of the person we’re talking to. That person can be a friend, a foe, a politician or our life partner. Our lips might whisper the words: “I know exactly what you mean,” but truthfully, our perception is greatly based on distorted personal projections. And yes, it works both ways.

THE REAL WOR(L)D
We’re not just talking semantics here. Every soldier knows that the reality on the ground could be very different from the map that was used during the briefing. Confusing the map for the territory could lead to deadly mistakes. It has killed many relationships and numerous attempts to build bridges between people, cultures, faiths and political systems. And because it is so ingrained in human nature, it won’t hit the headlines any day soon. The familiar might be deadly, but it’s also boring.

So, WHAT IS NEWS? The cartoon at Radio Netherlands showed a very simple formula for determining the newsworthiness of an event:

“the number of people killed, divided by how many miles away from home it happened”

I did tell you it was one of the most cynical cartoons I had ever seen, didn’t I? It criticized the “If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead” type of journalism that is so pervasive these days. A plane crash in some far away land won’t make the six o’clock news, unless Americans are involved (if you live in the States, that is). Had it happened closer to home, it would have made the headlines. It’s the proximity effect. People tend to care more about what happens in their own backyard, especially if it’s grotesque, gruesome and controversial.

HOLE IN ONE
So, let me ask you this: how many cars strike a fire hydrant or a tree every day (even in your own neck of the Woods)? Is that news? Only if the driver happens to be a certain famous golfer. It’s an example of the prominence effect. Whenever a celebrity is involved, the media will jump on it. The proximity effect and the prominence effect are just two of the filters journalists use to determine what news is. To a certain extent, these two filters are based on objective criteria. But is it possible to be utterly impartial, and leave personal values, opinions and history at the door when evaluating the newsworthiness of a story?

In 1996, the U.S. Society of Professional Journalists dropped the word “objectivity” from its code of ethics. Deborah Potter writes in The Handbook of Independent Journalism (a U.S. Department of State publication): “Journalists are human beings, after all. They care about their work and they do have opinions.  Claiming that they are completely objective suggests that they have no values.”

NEW SOURCES
Twitter has now become the world’s fastest growing news source. How objective do you think most of those microblogs are? By definition, blogs usually reflect opinion instead of fact, and most Twitter-users don’t subscribe to a code of fair and balanced news-gathering, based on checking and double-checking sources in an attempt to provide a complete picture. Again: by definition Twitter-chatter is highly subjective. That’s one of the reasons for its popularity.

But let’s bring it a bit closer to home. You’re a reasonable person, aren’t you? When push comes to shove, you can set your own prejudices aside and open your mind to whatever information comes your way, right?

THE MIRROR
Well, let’s see how objective you really are… Remember the pick-up truck with the “Anti-War = Pro-Terrorism” sticker, the veteran license plate and the “Semper Fi” sign? That redneck driver is surely a right-wing republican Fox-news watching marine in favor of killing our way out of any conflict. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is… a duck.

As you get off the highway to pump some gas, you end up parking your car right next to the F-150. A young guy in a “Life is Good” shirt, steps out of the truck and starts filling it up. A woman at the next pump is clearly upset about the provocative stickers on the bumper, and she says to the young man: “Anti-War is Pro-Terrorism… that’s a terrible message you have on your car. I’m against the war but that doesn’t make me a terrorist, does it? Do you call yourself an American? Shame on you!”

The young man looks at her in shock. His face turns completely red. Then he takes a deep breath and says: “I’m on my way to the hardware store to pick up some stuff. I’m working on a house for Habitat for Humanity. This truck belongs to a friend of a friend. I didn’t even see the stickers, but I couldn’t agree more with you.”

Paul Strikwerda © 2009

www.nethervoice.com

PS My next article is a complete change of focus, but it’s about something that’s just as urgent as the news. This time, it’s personal.  It will take you right to center square of my home town, and I assure you: it’s quite a switch! Click here to read on.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, Alfred Korzybski, bumper stickers, ethics, headlines, journalism, Nethervoice, News, objectivity, Paul Strikwerda, perception, perception is projection, Radio Netherlands International, semantics, Support our troops, Tiger Woods, twitter, War

Some people believe that auditioning is nothing but a numbers game.

Two groups of kids were playing outside. Someone had written a big number six on the street and a fight had broken out because of it.

One group claimed that the number was actually a 9. The other group insisted it was a 6. Before the debate got totally out of hand, a little girl shouted:

“You’re all wrong. Can’t you see it’s just a circle with a line?”

The kids decided that she was right and they went on to do some cloud spotting. But as they were lying in the grass, another fight broke out.

“That cloud looks just like a giant elf” said one of them.

“No way”, said another kid. “It’s a fairy. Anyone can see that!”

SOME PERSPECTIVE
How on earth is it possible to come to very different conclusions, based on the same input? Well, the simple answer is that most of us tend to select information based on what resonates with our model of the world. The rest is conveniently filtered out. In other words: we see what we want to see and we hear what we want to hear.

A young psychologist decided to test this principle. During a road trip to promote his first book, he had breakfast in a different diner every morning. And every morning he ordered “scramberred eggs”. Not once did a waitress ask: “Excuse me sir, what did you just say?” He always got a plate of scrambled eggs.

As a trained journalist I happen to be a professional skeptic. I was taught to always check my sources, and in the absence of empirical evidence, do my own fact-finding. So, when I read the “scramberred eggs” anecdote, I decided to put it to the test.

NAPKIN COLE
One of my favorite sound engineers was a huge fan of a crooner known for songs like “Stardust”, “Mona Lisa” and “When I fall in love”. During a break I innocently asked:

“Hey Mike, did you know that they just discovered an unknown recording by Napkin Cole?”

He said: “Really? Where did you hear that?”

For the next half hour all we talked about was Napkin Cole. I must have pronounced the name at least 40 times that way, and not once did Mike raise an eyebrow. It was unforgettable… Next week I must ask him about his favorite female jazz singer: Elephant Gerald.

Having strong preconceptions is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, taking things for granted means that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. It’s the principle of generalization upon which all learning is based. On the other hand, it closes us off to valuable new information. Worst of all, it seems to happen beyond our control.

For us voice-over pros this can be frightening. Whenever we record a demo, we’re basing our approach on our take on the text. We put that info through our filters and come up with a unique interpretation of the script. That part we can control. But once this demo reaches the ears of the voice-seeker, everything depends on what unconscious filters are operating in his or her brain. Sometimes, the effect can be devastating.

MY BIG BREAK
A few years ago, I auditioned for an amazing job. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I just knew that it was going to be my big break. Needless to say, I pulled out all the stops to make sure my demo was spot-on. I even asked people in the business to give me some honest feedback. Only after I was completely satisfied that I had absolutely nailed it, I sent my demo on its way.

An hour later I received a generic rejection. It was a slap in the face and I felt like a complete failure. I listened to my demo over and over again, and I couldn’t figure out what had gone so horribly wrong. A year later I got the answer.

By chance I ran into a colleague of the voice-seeker who had so cruelly crushed my dreams. He recognized my voice and we started talking about that fateful project I had auditioned for.

I said to him: “I have to ask…. I know I would have been perfect for this project. Why didn’t I get the job?”

He paused for a moment and replied:

“I know exactly why. You sounded too much like the producer’s ex-boyfriend.”

When I heard those words, two very conflicting emotions boiled up to the surface. I was both livid and relieved. My angry ego shouted: How could this woman have been so unprofessional?

At the same time I was glad to know that there was nothing I could have done to change her mind.

Ancient wisdom tells us that the world we see is a mirror of who we are.

Everything is perception.

Perception is everything.

It is written in the clouds.

Paul Strikwerda © 2009

www.nethervoice.com

Technorati Tags: Dutch voiceover, Ella Fitzgerald, European voice, Nat King Cole, Nethervoice, Paul Strikwerda, perception is projection, rejection, successful demos, the world we see is a mirror of who we are, voice-over demo, voiceover audition, voiceover rejection