Let me preface this by saying I didn’t sleep much last night, so my ideas are all half-baked. I am tempted to blame my insatiable curiosity about the Baltimore riots on the industry I work in, but it may be the other way around. Regardless, I could not look away from Twitter last night despite the horrible images, violent videos, and – worst of all – the oversimplified commentary coming from people around the country.
I knew immediately how I didn’t feel about the riots: I wasn’t excited or vindicated by the people I saw taking the streets with violence, nor did I completely condemn those involved. But until now, I haven’t been able to articulate how I do feel.
It came to me this morning. A friend and I spoke about the tragic events unfolding with all the perspective of one restless night.
“I don’t feel like I can have an opinion because I’m not there,” she told me.
For context, this friend lives in Charleston, South Carolina. You may remember, North Charleston recently made national news headlines when the New York Times released a video showing a white police officer shooting a fleeing, unarmed black man.
I, on the other hand, am in Rochester, New York. Yesterday I was in court covering the trial of a young black man who shot and killed a white police officer during a foot chase.
Maybe these incidents, taken at face value, are not directly related, but they and others are all connected. Those of us in other cities across the United States watched as Baltimore burned. We experienced emotion across the spectrum from heartbreak to frustration to anger, and some of us wonder if it could happen here.
We live in cities where income disparity and racial segregation draw lines criss-crossing through our neighborhoods but we look at places like Ferguson, North Charleston, Baltimore as if they are worlds away.
I don’t know the answer to the deep-rooted, systemic problems that plague cities across this country – how do you end something like poverty? – but I know that burying our heads in the sand and saying NIMBY is only making matters worse.
When the fires are put out and the rioters go home and the media frenzy that has swarmed up around these tragic events finally quiets, we cannot forget how this started, because what happened in Baltimore not only could happen anywhere, but it already is.
UPDATE: Here are some people that say stuff and write things better than I do:
I’ve been following some cool work coming out of University of Rochester. I did a story for WXXI here, about how researchers in the computer science department teamed up with researchers in the medical department to create software that could help track your mood and monitor mental health.
I spoke with Jiebo Luo, an engineer, and Vince Silenzio, a psychiatrist. To most people, the most notable aspect of their research is the selfie-for-your-health-y video feature. Users take a vid of their faces with a front-facing camera and a computer tells them what they’re emoting. The software reads cues like facial ticks, micro-expressions, and other nonverbal cues. It can gauge your heart rate by analyzing your forehead. It can register the dilation of your pupils. And, of course, it can read whether or not you’re smiling. (Victims of BRF beware.)
The less-sexy part of this software, which Luo says could potentially be turned into a smartphone app, has nothing to do with videos. The program also analyzes its users social media use. Everything from how fast your scrolling to the kitten picture you reposted is judged. It also analyzes your network, and puts a value on every link that connects that network, from friendships between users, to likes, to posts or comments.
Right now, the program only registers emotions as positive, negative, or neutral. As far as algorithms are concerned, every interaction you have with your social media has a value of +, -, or n.
So let’s break this down:
Let’s say you’re strolling around Facebook town and you see a picture of a kitten that you just have to share on your wall. The computer would analyze the picture. (Fluffy, baby animal? Pinkish hues? Bright light? Value: Positive.) You added some text with the picture: AWWWWW! (Value: Positive) You get a ton of likes and a few smiley emoticons in the comments section (Positive, positive). Odds are, your day is going pretty sweet.
For someone battling mental health issues like depression or bipolar disorder, this information could really help them get a handle on what’s going on inside their heads. It could also help bridge the gap between a patient and a clinician during a tele-health session, which is a story for another post.
A lot of work went into analyzing that kitten picture. Luo’s been working on sentiment analysis for some time. His algorythm, called Sentribute, does exactly as the name suggests. It uses attributes within an image to judge its sentiment. I won’t go into the minutia of the operations (mostly because I tried really hard but I really don’t understand any of them I’m so sorry) but you can read his paper on it here.
But Luo doesn’t stop there. Not only can you use sentiment analysis to determine the mood of an individual, you can use it to monitor the mood of the country!
I’m not being hyperbolic. Stay with me.
Luo took his fancy-pants algorithm to Flickr and went through images of 2008 presidential candidates. He wanted to see if social (multi)media could be used to predict elections. His theory was that people will post pictures of the candidates they like and will vote for, and therefore the candidate with the greatest online showing would be the victor.
In a sense, each time an image or video is uploaded or viewed, it constitutes an implicit vote for (or against) the subject of the image. This vote carries along with it a rich set of associated data including time and (often) location information. By aggregating such votes across millions of Internet users, we reveal the wisdom that is embedded in social multimedia sites for social science applications such as politics, economics, and marketing.
During this process, he had to correct for things like sacasm and attack ads, which is where the sentiment analysis comes in. Not all pictures of Obama are counted as “votes” per-se, but flattering pictures of him (smiling, head up, arms raised, otherwise stereotypically strong, powerful) would be.
The results? Flickr users correctly predicted the outcome of the primary and general elections of 2008. Sometimes, with super accuracy that I feel couldn’t be recreated if you tried.
An interesting finding: Obama won the presidential election on 11/4/2008 by capturing 52.9% of the popular vote [19]. The TUPD score for Obama and McCain on the same day is 642 (Obama) v.s. 571 (McCain) [F], with Obama got 642/(642 + 571) = 52.9% exactly the same as the real voting result.
You may be asking yourself, Would this experiment have been as accurate if it didn’t feature Barack Obama, “The Social Media President?” But Luo’s research also determined that Flickr photos accurately predicted the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire Primary, and the Michigan primary wins for Huckabee, McCain, and Romney, respectively.
On this kind of macro-level, Luo thinks this research can lead to a greater understanding of the wisdom of crowds. He also thinks it can be used to understand economics and marketing in a new way. (His paper includes analysis of Apple product sales through Flickr shares.)
But on a smaller scale, Luo’s research can give us all kinds of insights about the pictures we choose to post and share. Maybe your decision to use a particular Instagram filter is a warning sign that your on the edge of a depressive episode and could warn you to get help before it becomes an issue. It could help us understand how we deal with contagious emotions within our personal networks. As Luo told me, the applications are endless!
Sentiment analysis is kind of blowing my mind right now, in part because recognizing emotions is so embedded in my understanding of the human experience. I’ll categorize this under “turning computers into sentient beings.”
Also, I got through this entire post without stating the obvious “A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS” joke (until just now).
It happens when you least expect it. One minute, you’re asking an anti-terrorism expert about global Islamic extremism and Islamophobia in the media. The next, you’re discussing identity and empathy through storytelling, and the importance of individual and cultural narratives. I love my job.
Mark Concordia is a professor of criminal justice at Roberts Wesleyan College.
Forget regular old blogging today, I’m experimenting with different stuff because it’s summer and why the hell not?
Paying tribute to one of my favorite musical acts, I made a podcast about the Front Bottoms and how awesome they are. It’s got some music in it, and me geeking out about a local band with a lot of spunk. Check it out here.
We all have some kind of ADD now. We all need to stop being mean to each other about it. And we all need to find ways to turn it around because it’s a total bummer and I don’t want my generation to turn into a bunch of over-medicated zombie people.
The DSM V gives the behavioral disorder known as Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder the following criteria:
Often does not give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities (e.g., overlooks or misses details, work is inaccurate)
Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities (e.g., has difficulty remaining focused during lectures, conversations, or reading lengthy writings).
Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly (e.g., mind seems elsewhere, even in the absence of any obvious distraction)
Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (e.g., starts tasks but quickly loses focus and is easily sidetracked; fails to finish schoolwork, household chores, or tasks in the workplace)
Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities (e.g., difficulty managing sequential tasks; difficulty keeping materials and belongings in order; messy, disorganized, work; poor time management; tends to fail to meet deadlines)
Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (e.g., schoolwork or homework; for older adolescents and adults, preparing reports, completing forms, or reviewing lengthy papers).
Often loses things needed for tasks and activities (e.g., school materials, pencils, books, tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, or mobile telephones)
Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli (for older adolescents and adults, may include unrelated thoughts).
Is often forgetful in daily activities (e.g., chores, running errands; for older adolescents and adults, returning calls, paying bills, keeping appointments)
Of the nine criteria listed above, a patient need display 6 or more for 6 months to be diagnosed with ADD. The New York Times reports a few different statistics on the recent rise of ADD including: 11% of school age children are diagnosed, 1 in 5 high school age boys are diagnosed, etc.
There are a plethora of opinions about why this problem, perceived or real, is on the incline. Some think a reduced stigma in psychotherapy encourages more people to seek help, leading to an influx of diagnoses. Readers of Allen Francis’ Saving Normal might say that drug-pushing Pharmaceutical companies are to blame. It is also not uncommon for those on medication to be accused of faking. And there are a few hippie weirdos out there who point to Food Inc. All of these theories have their own level of credibility (some more than others), but I’m going to ditch them all and make a totally non-credible undergraduate-level hypothesis based on surface-level investigation, Google, personal experience, and one book I read one time. I took Psych 101 in Community College, so I’m going to make a sweeping diagnosis on everyone who will ever read this page. Stay tuned.
Personal Experience
I always thought the people I knew who were diagnosed with Adult ADD were gaming the system; thought they were trying to get one over on their doctors so they could have a leg-up during finals week or write a term paper in one weekend. Once my friends entered the work force, some continued taking ADD meds to set the world on fire, and my opinion shifted. I thought, Why should it be easier for them when it’s so hard for the rest of us? Because, in my own experience, it is hard for the rest of us. I could continue to blame people for exploiting a disorder to function more productively, or I could embrace that maybe we all have it, to varying degrees.
Science!
I’m not good with all the science-y stuff, but luckily I don’t have to be. Nicholas Carr wrote a little book called The Shallows that lays it all out and, besides being a little gratuitously repetitious, it’s a good read. Over-simplification time: The book makes the case that increased exposure to the Internet is fundamentally changing the way our brains work. He explains in detail the theories of plasticity of our neurons and brain patterns, and their susceptibility to change throughout our lives due to the habits we form. In the now out-dated print culture, experience with books and other print media created a population of people capable of more prolonged attention (generally speaking). Reading was good exercise for the brain, like little brainy push-ups, keeping it focused in a linear way on a specific task, and making prolonged attention to other tasks (work, homework, life stuff) easier.
Television came in and stirred the pot a little, but the Internet is what screwed it all up for everybody. In the same way reading trained the brain to pay attention, interacting with the Internet trains the brain to follow tangents. Hyperlinks, multiple tabs, and second screen interaction all contribute to this phenomenon in the same way. If I haven’t lost you yet, maybe you’re beginning to see the problem. Because our minds are reshaping to acclimate to the tools we use (computers, smart phones, etc.), we are suffering from attention problems and memory loss. You can’t hyperlink your way through real life if you want to have successful relationships and careers.
In his article for the Huffington Post, Dr. Mark Goulston says, “When your thinking is interrupted by your brain, you’ve got real ADD. When it’s interrupted by the world, you just have trouble saying ‘no.’” I say nay, Dr. Goulston. More specifically, I say since we’ve trained our brains out of the ability of saying “no,” your distinction is imperceptible. Using words like “pseudo-ADD” does not change the experience of people who live in a world that demands their attention while their mind simultaneously demands distraction.
Patronizing Each Other is Getting Us Nowhere
In researching this post I came across a multitude of articles, not unlike Mark Goulston’s, that take a decidedly condescending tone when talking about “ADD fakers” (although they fail to accurately define the difference between them and their non-faking-counterparts). I was interested, though unsurprised, to see the authors of such articles attributed attention problems to shortcomings on the behalf of the spacey person. Lori Day writes, rather facetiously, “I know, I know, it’s all to be blamed on our fast-paced, screen media-saturated, multi-tasking lifestyles. We can’t help it. There’s just too much going on.” Well, excuse me Miss Day. I didn’t mean to bore you.
My guess is, this harsh attitude is the result of two completely separate viewpoints. Theory Number One: People are frustrated with their own attention deficits, but do not use a label like “ADD” to excuse their behavior and look down on those who they think do so. Theory Number Two: Neuroplasticity may account for the ongoing change of our brains, but lots of habits (good and bad) are formed in childhood. These attention problems may be generational, with younger people facing more obstacles to their productivity because they did not develop more focused habits as kids (they were too busy with other stuff) while their older counterparts may be more disciplined and not-so-understanding.
Get over it.
Stop implying that people are faking having ADD or saying things like pseudo-ADD and listen (look?) up. We need to drop this whole label, non-label nonsense and get to the crux of the issue. Unless we all throw down our digital devices in a show of solidarity (hahahaha), this is the new normal. We need to find ways to combat the attention problems that affect our careers and personal lives, instead of being condescending to each other or worse, taking meds for it. This is my one and only disclaimer for this post: I can’t say that meds don’t help anybody, because maybe they do. But then again, I don’t think I know anybody with a form of ADD that wouldn’t benefit from some alternative treatment.
Concentration and extended focus are important for obvious reasons. The ability to pay attention leads to productivity at school and in the workplace (read: more $$$). But there are more important things at stake here. As a society we are moving rapidly toward a highly digitized world, and shorter attention spans are only the tip of the iceberg. Institutions founded on the values of print culture are suffering, becoming more obsolete and functioning poorly. It takes a certain kind of mind to contemplate complex problems like a broken political structure, a failing education system, and unsustainable energy consumption across the globe. We all need to strive for this certain kind of mind, before we lose ourselves to the distractions completely.
I have a point I promise. I read an awesome article on Lifehacker about rebuilding your attention span. After a few clicks I found a bunchmorearticles that deal with the same issue. We need to combat the impact the internet is having on our brains – making us inattentive, forgetful, anxious, unmotivated, and unproductive – in order to lead happier, healthier lives. We can do this. But forming healthier habits isn’t going to happen over night, and although I think it’s possible it would definitely require a lot of effort, and…
Wanna-be high-brow media critics across the world wide web are lining up to put their stamp of disapproval on Luhrmann’s Gatsby adaptation. It has officially become the “cool” thing to do. But they’re being too harsh.
Allow me to start with this: it is almost impossible for a film like The Great Gatsby to live up to its literary counterpart. Impossible. Not that there has never been a successful film adaptation of any book ever, just that it couldn’t be this one. If you’re like me, you read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novella at a pivotal point in your life (somewhere between 15 and 25, maybe?) and, in doing so, you run the risk of succumbing to nostalgia.
No fantastical cinematic achievement can live up to the emotion we may have felt at glimpsing into the tragic lives of these kindred spirits at a time when the hormones in ourselves were raging out of control. For me, at least, the idealism, the gluttony, the phoniness, and the heartache all found good company among the inner turmoil I was experiencing for myself as an oppressed, middle-class teenager. (Sigh. Such hard times, they were.)
Here is what some people are saying:
“[Luhrmann’s movies] revel in surface, spectacle and sensory overload. They’re audaciously, passionately artificial and at the same time unabashedly romantic — post-modern pop medleys aimed at the heart, not the brain.” – Tom Charity, CNN.com
“The movie feels bloated, with a few too many scenes of speeding cars careening through the streets and pointless musical segues meant to reflect the carefree attitude of the time.” Connie Ogle, The Miami Herald
“His colors are as bright as those in a detergent commercial; his musical choices as intrusive as the exit cues on an awards show. The camera ducks and swerves like O.J. Simpson on his way to a car rental, and the cast all share a slightly vibratory, methamphetamine sheen.” – Christopher Orr, The Atlantic
There, there, darling. They don’t mean it.
You get the idea.
It appears that the main problem these critics, and many, many others, have with the film is everything that makes it perfect for its medium. The book is bound to be more introspective and intellectual by the sheer nature of its form. A movie made in 2013 cannot be blamed for using those tools at its disposal to make it as visually stimulating as possible. Gatsby definitely becomes a spectacle, with swinging camera shots, dazzling colors, sensational parties, and fantastic wardrobes on beautiful people all shot in 3D with an electrically-charged soundtrack to enhance it. But instead of hating it for all that it is not, we should celebrate Gatsby it for all that it is.
This is not to say the The Great Gatsby is without flaws. But I forgive the movie these errors because of its loyalty to the original story and its beautiful delivery. You should too. Because, if at times the glitz and glamour all seem a little self-indulgent and ultimately empty, well, now you know how Gatsby must have felt.
Hello, strangers! I have come out of hiding to tell you about this awesome youtube video that you have to watch yesterday:
(I heard about this almost-web series from some staff at school, because Creator/Director Anthony DiMieri went to Fordham – Go Rams! – and we take care of our own.)
This little vid is done surprisingly well, with professional production quality and great comedic timing that you might not expect from a bunch of bros. My favorite part, though, has to be post-transformation (bro + hipster = broster) when they all get out at the Bedford stop on the L. LCD Soundsystem’s “North American Scum” plays through a slow-mo of close-ups on jorts, STOP KONY tees, suspenders and Buddy Holly glasses. I died.
Although it’s meant to be a “Girls” parody (the first scene should be familiar to Dunham’s loyal fanbase), it’s also a parody of a few social stereotypes. The “Bros” demonstrate blatant homophobia and misogyny, while their hip alter-egos talk about basement gin distilleries and warehouse parties. It’s the kind of funny you find when nobody is safe from sarcastic mockery and some playful generalizing. Kudos.
I am not Russian, not that it should matter (although I’m probably on some CIA watch list at this point). I took a Russian history class once back in my community college days, that’s about it. (Dr. Richard Trimble taught it, and it was awesome.)
When Mitt Romney remarked that Russia was our worst foe on CNN last year during his campaign, my friends and I had a good chuckle at his expense. Born in the post-Cold War era, we are unfamiliar with the anti-Russian sentiment of the former governor and some of our parents.
That is why, when I saw the series premier of the Americans on FX, I was blown away.
(If you have yet to see the show, check it out.)
Ok, FX, we get it. Homeland, the Showtime espionage thriller about a CIA agent and a US marine, is wildly successful. You wanted to cash in on some of that. And hey, it was only a couple years ago that some Russian sleepers were rounded up in Yonkers. Besides, you made it a period piece, set in 1981: smack-dab in the middle of the Cold War. So it’s all good, right?
Nope, not even close. The unforgivable rampant Russophobia ruined this show for me. It is most evident when comparing the two main characters. Philip and Elizabeth Jennings are Russian spies who have been living undercover in the US for over a decade. They have two children and an FBI agent for a neighbor (who saw that coming?). Despite the fact that they are both Russian spies, their likability is very much in congruence with how “American” they seem, not in terms of heritage but characteristics. I find that, in the pilot at least, the more relatable characters are more American and the less relatable are Russian.
The Jenningses
Philip
Philip is an American sympathizer, as evidenced by his desire to defect and turn Timochev over to his FBI neighbor (which he doesn’t do out of love for is wife – awww). Also seen when he first comes to America and notes that “everything is brighter.”
Possesses more impulsive but ultimately more endearing qualities than his partner/wife, including an openness with his affection, playfulness with his children, and fierce protection of his family.
In general, seems more emotional, open, and (ultimately) American.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth is very loyal to Russia, saying that she would “lose everything before [she] betrayed [her] country.”
Less endearing characteristics: in the first scene in which we meet her, she is prostituting herself for information. In moments with her children, she is distracted and distant. She also blatantly challenges her arranged marriage with Phillip.
In general, she’s a colder character, less emotionally accessible and less likable.
I do not find these differences coincidental. The majority of the rest of the characters in the show demonstrate the same split between Good (American) and Bad (Russian). Beeman, the American FBI agent, is still a slightly two-dimensional character at this point, but he seems like a nice-enough guy. Timochev is Russian, and he’s a rapist/woman-beater whose death leaves the audience satisfied.
The question I have yet to answer is, why now? Although the lines between “us” and “them” are not so neatly drawn as in, say, a Bond film, they are still there in the Americans. What does this show say about our cultural understanding of Russians in America?
I have been told that I am not giving the show enough credit, and that further episodes will reveal it as an allegory that shows the struggles and triumphs of both sides of the story. I hope that such is the case.
In the meantime, I’ll stick to Homeland.
Veronica Twenty-three year old NYC resident, undergraduate at Fordham University, journalist-in-training at WFUV, freelance writer, amateur philosopher, occasional photographer, music-enthusiast, Abe Lincoln fangirl.
I am a product of my generation – Generation Y. Among many other things, we are characterized by our relationship to technology (obviously) and have lived through several breakthroughs in interpersonal communication: the birth and growth of social media, e-mail as an essential mode of business correspondence, and text messaging.
Bringing us ever closer.
Oh, texting. How we watched you grow from a little T-9 SMS application to such a pervasive pastime that QWERTY keyboards became a standard feature on most cellphones. My friends, siblings, and I have a comprehensive understanding of text message communication because we’ve been doing it since middle school (Sorry Mrs. Cleary) which is why I am so sick of reading articles about texting causing miscommunication. My generation knows how to communicate more effectively through text messages than we are given credit for, and I aim to prove it.
The following may seem like common sense to many people my age, which I hope will emphasize my point.
Spelling
My first example dissects “hey,” a standard greeting with more than one layer of meaning depending on the number of y’s at the end. (I’m not even kidding. It may seem like I’m digging too far into minutia of all this, but trust me.)
“hey” is a simple way to establish contact.
“heyy” demonstrates more enthusiasm, and perhaps an affection for the recipient.
“heyyy” is sometimes used in booty-calls (booty-texts?) and definitely communicates attraction.
“heyyyy” translates directly to “I’m intoxicated.”
I do not know when it was decided that “:)” stood for a smile, or happiness, or amusement, but ever since than simple combinations of available characters have been used to demonstrate specific feelings or reactions.
Meow.
I have read that text messaging lacks emotion, which is untrue in my experience. The type of emoticon one uses to respond to a message or punctuate their own says a lot about the idea being exchanged. For example:
“I’m leaving now:”
I’m leaving now : D
I’m leaving now : (
I’m leaving now >: (
All of these have a different meaning, and the possibilities are endless. Emoticons go beyond mimicking the characteristics of a face, for example including ” ❤ ” which resembles a heart and stands for the emotion of love, variations of which include ” <333 ” and ” </3 ” depending on what the sender wishes to say. Recently, texting with emoticons has been made even easier by applications like Emoji for iPhone that include numerous tiny graphics to enhance your messages.
On a somewhat related note, it has been said that texting emoticons is far more acceptable among women than men. Writing from a women’s perspective, I cannot confirm or deny this except to say that I use emoticons often without thinking twice about it. However, I have a male friend who ends every text with a wink face, communicating to me that everything he says has a hidden layer of creepy.
Abreves
I will admit that I have received some random combinations of letters that force me to search Google for a translation but most are widely understood, especially among close groups of friends. (I touch on something like this in my Wordplay post.) Like emoticons, they enhance the message and communicate a more specific meaning. (Consider “lol,” “omg,” and “jk;” “fam,” “fab,” and “fave;” “totes,” “obvs,” and “probs;” etc, etc, etc.) Apart from the words and phrases the abbreviations themselves stand for, they can be used in certain context to demonstrate irony. For example, if I were to write something like, omg i’m like totes excited for the beibs lolz, the receiver would recognize that I am being sarcastic (maybs?).
Punctuation
Everybody knows what “k.” means. The unnecessary use of the period in this case has a message of it’s own: “Don’t even bother saying anything else because I’m mad and this [insert expletive] conversation is over for me.” Punctuation is loaded with connotation because it can be otherwise unnecessary, especially in the case of one-word or otherwise brief messages. Punctuation can also stand alone. “?” can mean, “I’m confused. Elaborate.” “!” communicates excitement or surprise, etc.
Do Not Underestimate the Texters
If miscommunication occurs during a text correspondence, it is no fault of our own. Damn You, Autocorrect! (in addition to being hilarious) is a perfect example of how text replacement software functions fail us on a regular basis, but my original point stands.
Through subtle nuances in spelling and format, people communicate a vast range of ideas and emotion in their text messages. No one person sat down and drew up a set of rules for texting efficiently, and yet these rules are generally understood by people who grew up using this medium of communication. Just because you do not necessarily understand a text exchange between two people (I’m talking to you, outdated communication experts) does not mean that they don’t.
whatevs lol. byee
<3/v
Twenty-three year old NYC resident, undergraduate at Fordham University, journalist-in-training at WFUV, freelance writer, amateur philosopher, occasional photographer, music-enthusiast, Abe Lincoln fangirl.
I live in New York City, and it is swarming with hipsters. I write this from Fordham College at Lincoln Center, which may not mean much to many of you, but it’s where this chick comes from:
She is not an anomaly around here, to say the least. I used to have such an unnecessary hatred of the subculture of people who are called (but never call themselves) “hipsters,” until I realized what a truly vital role they play in the preservation of music as an industry. Without hipsters, I honestly believe music as we know it would cease to exist and left in its absence would be a Top 40 nightmare of recycled commercial beats and lyrics void of feeling. Instead, there is a rich diversity to many genres kept alive and hipsters deserve much of the credit.
What is a hipster?
If you have to ask you must be living under a rock, but for the purposes of this post I’ll give a brief overview as objectively as possible: A hipster is a 20-30 something person characterized by a love of counter-culture, independent music and art, and an alternative lifestyle. Most are progressive political thinkers and tend to live in urban areas. They are easily recognized by the clothes they wear, music they listen to, and foods they eat.
Robert Lanham, author of The Hipster Handbook describes them as follows: “mop-top haircuts, swinging retro pocketbooks, talking on cell phones, smoking European cigarettes … strutting in platform shoes with a biography of Che Guevara sticking out of their bags … You graduated from a liberal arts school whose football team hasn’t won a game since the Reagan administration…[and] you have one Republican friend who you always describe as being your ‘one Republican friend.'”
Hipsterus maximi in their natural environment.
So, what is it about hipsters that makes them so important to the music industry?
They spend the money.
I don’t really know where hipsters get all of their inexplicable disposable income, but I’m not about to ask. The hipsters I know that have it, spend it, and on all kinds of music-related products: record players, band tees, even CD’s. (Who still listens to CD’s?!) They are always willing to shell out a few bucks for a live performance. In a world where file-sharing and illegal downloading runs rampant, this is huge. Merchandizing and live performances are how a lot of smaller, independent bands are able to sustain themselves (or at least keep making music) and hipsters contribute to the cause.
They are an advertiser’s wet dream.
Marketing your band to a hipster crowd is easy and cheap because viral marketing campaigns and word of mouth are most effective when selling to this demographic. If you slap a band sticker on the sidewalk, some hipster will see it. If you have the talent to make an impression at a coffee house, in the park, or even on a subway platform, some hipster will talk about it. The more obscure a name, the better — giving local bands and underrated talent a fighting chance in the music community.
They value culture and originality.
The music listened to by hipsters is generally labeled “indie,” which could refer to anything not currently signed to a major record label. Their tastes can range from electronic remixes and dubstep to folksy punk with fiddles and banjo pickers to bluesy garage rock with psychedelic elements and anything in between. The possibilities are endless, and provide a healthy balance to overly commercialized popular music. Hipsters seek out all things original, often embracing a juxtaposition between retro and progressive styles with the most fervor.
They are trend-spotters and trend-setters.
So many things that hipsters touch turn to gold. Not only do they revive classics like Buddy Holly glasses, bowler hats, bow ties, and mustaches; but they also discover amazing musicians:
Passion Pit
Vampire Weekend
GROUPLOVE
Arcade Fire
Death Cab for Cutie
fun.
Mumford and Sons
the Strokes
Foster the People
the Black Keys
the Shins
Adele
MGMT
These bands and so many more owe their success to hipsters, who found them hiding in the backs of smokey bars or behind page after page of Cheezeburger Cats on the internet. Hipsters adopted them, labeled them cool, and everyone else (audiences and record companies) followed suit.
The Downside
Unfortunately, hipsters often equate financial success with “selling out,” focusing on the negative impact of commercialism on artistic integrity. (Or they’re just being selfish. It’s way cheaper to go to a show at Arlene’s Grocery than Madison Square Garden, amiright?) As soon as bands pronounced “cool” by hipsters turn a profit, they are abandoned.
There are worse things. Once a band has enough of a following to make it to the radio or tour the country and develop a broader, more eclectic fan-base, the battle is already won! And thus music outside the Top 40 pop-genre is available to people like you and me, who will not judge the artists based on how much money they’re making or what movie trailer their latest hit was featured in.
If I offended any hipsters, I apologize. Thank you for your contribution to the music world, as fans and creators. I like you, un-ironically. (I was in love with a hipster once, for five minutes. You can read about it here.)
Veronica Twenty-three year old NYC resident, undergraduate at Fordham University, journalist-in-training at WFUV, freelance writer, amateur philosopher, occasional photographer, music-enthusiast, Abe Lincoln fangirl.
Special thanks to Dr. Tom McCourt and my Popular Music as Communication class for inspiring this post with our discussion today.
The less-sexy part of this software, which Luo says could potentially be turned into a smartphone app, has nothing to do with videos. The program also analyzes its users social media use. Everything from how fast your scrolling to the 
Of the nine criteria listed above, a patient need display 6 or more for 6 months to be diagnosed with ADD. 
My guess is, this harsh attitude is the result of two completely separate viewpoints. Theory Number One: People are frustrated with 
Communi-Crazy Cat Lady 