New Media and Internet Drama

People don’t like change. We live in a time of mass media and constant flux, getting data in real-time. Every change that happens in the world is known instantly. Journalists do not have time to make sure that the information they present is accurate; getting a semi-coherent story out there before everyone else is vital to remaining an active player in the world of media. Both readings- Carr’s  article and the study of the effect that media has on policy making– touch on the fact that the internet has drastically changed both the way we research, process and provide information.

I really enjoyed the study on Media and Policymaking. I have often noticed that topics vary by paper, probably based on the expectation of the readership. For example, the WSJ and NYT vary greatly, and they are two papers from the same region! Those two (daily newspapers) differ greatly in content and quality from weekly magazines such as the New Yorker, which offers more in-depth analysis of current events and does not exist to inform, but rather to interpret that information. The NYT, though once a bastion of journalistic integrity, has suffered in its adaptation to the faster pace of 24/7 reporting. NYT articles, though still respected, no longer carry the same weight and universal respect they once held.

The media wields enormous power on what people talk about, and to some extent pander to that. Though the study focused on how the “media”– in a sinister, shadowy way– controls the mind of the masses, it does not adequately address how the masses, in turn, control what the media has to offer. There was a recent NYT letter (attached below) written in by a former CNN correspondent lamenting the fact that the masses do not buy papers with in-depth, objective journalism, instead choosing the papers that most resemble pop culture and fit their needs. To address the trend of journalism moving from articles to blurbs, abstracts, tidbits– getting broken down into simpler pieces of information (Carr’s article addresses this somewhat), he suggests that the government provide economic incentive for good journalism.

Taking these two articles together: they paint a picture of a changing world; not only in our media and policies and newspapers, but in the way we think! The world is constantly evolving and it is neither better nor worse. It is just a new reality to which us Luddites are forced to adapt.

Computers: A boost, not a detriment

Nicholas Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid? Poses an interesting question; Are we seeking quicker, faster turnover from reading on the internet? The question is interesting at the very least. To hear the story of Nietzche’s transition in writing style and perhaps even cognition by simply changing from writing with eyes open to writing with eyes closed. It is true both in practice and in research that the human mind is beyond malleable. We have proven ourselves to be incredibly adaptive to change in nearly everything that we do. The Internet facilitates this change. Having access to the newest information, the newest studies, and so on promote the ability to reflexively form our opinions and ideas continuously as new information continuously becomes available. Thus, to this end, I do agree with the author of the article. However, one of the tones I took issue to throughout the article was the idea that computers are inherently ‘bad’. The author continuously implies that we would be as a whole better off without computers and the Internet, given the amount of time we devote to each. He implies that we are becoming reliant on the Internet, and becoming less competent to function without it. However, I disagree with this position. I think computers have brought about a new era of possibilities. Computers allow us to do things faster, but do not necessarily imply reliance. When I worked briefly in the hospital in the triage office, I was amazed how quickly hospital staff could categorize patients, identifying every relevant piece of information to their illness, alert all necessary responding staff, and direct the patient to where they needed to go. Where once paramedics had to write out entire forms with all of this information, now the hospital is updated as the paramedics record symptoms and findings en route to the hospital, where staff can already be setting up a hospital bed. As for smartphones, laptops, and the like: Although it is clearly easy to become glued to your phone but on the whole, phones and laptops increase communication in unprecedented ways. On my way to class or a meeting I can quickly check and respond to any emails I’ve received, or confirm the directions to a new place that I’m going to. We have to take the responsibility into our own hands in order to make sure that phones and laptops don’t become a detriment to our productivity. Used correctly, they can greatly boost productivity. However, that usage is up to us, and us alone. It’s become a hot topic to say that smartphones are ‘making us’ shut off from society, become anti-social, become reliant on the Internet, ect. But the truth is that we have a choice.

Quantifying Injustice: America’s Inherent Racism Revealed and Promoted by the Census

While reading the Navarro article, I wondered why it was so important for the government to know about a Latino person’s race if they’ve already indicated that they have Hispanic Heritage. Then the answer came. Navarro states,

“How Latinos identify themselves — and how the census counts them — affects the political clout of Latinos and other minority groups. Some studies have found that African-Latinos tend to be significantly more supportive of government-sponsored health care and much less supportive of the death penalty than Latinos who identify as white, a rift that is also found in the broader white and black populations.”

How can we assign political clout to a region or people group based on their race? Is that not racist? Yet, if we consider the sordid history of racial tensions the United States, it is clear how such a correlation between race and political stance has been reached. Even with the increase in Irish and Jewish populations in the early 20^th century, it was clear that a racial or ethnic identification other than white was a great way to ensure one’s own hardship as an American.

Now consider Navarro’s quote above. Why would African-Latinos sooner support government-sponsored healthcare than white Latinos? Well, American political issues are deeply entrenched in race and, simply put, people who do not identify as white have a harder time thriving in this country than those who do and would, therefore, be more likely to seek government assistance.

It is sad to say but further examination of the census and The American Community Survey reveals that they serve to further promote a system that is inherently racist and derisive. Unfortunately, the census’ place in quantifying injustice is so well established, that it is hard for us to separate from it. In the Rampell article, we see that even those like Daniel Webster who find The American Community Survey invasive, can’t break the mold and use the survey’s findings to project future needs for their populations. In a very antiquated way, the Census and the American Community survey’s use of a binary racial identification system completely ignores the fact that the issue of race should not be the most important determinant in the distribution of political power.

Quantifying Populations- A Necessary Evil

In the Navarro article, the issue of race and identity as it relates to Latinos and the Census is discussed. One big problem with the Census is that it asks for one’s race, however, things are not always as black and white as the government would like them to be. This, and the fact that Latinos identify more with their Hispanic culture as opposed to a given race, leaves many Latinos questioning which box corresponding to race to check.

This article placed an emphasis on this distinction between race and culture in the Census, but I believe the premise as to why this issue hasn’t been resolved was undermined. Navarro includes the closing line, “It comes down to what yields the largest numbers for which group.” Ultimately, having greater numbers accompanies having a greater political influence. Depending on the issue at hand and which side you talk to, one group might want a higher Latino count, whereas other wouldn’t. This is more than just an issue with the Census, but shows how our political system encourages quantity over quality. We often see politicians focusing their campaigns on areas where their victory is feasible, but not guaranteed. No matter how genuine a politician’s interests are, they still need votes to win. Having political power is needed to actually implement change, which is why being able to quantify populations and population densities based on culture and race is so important.

With that being said, this issue of identifying populations- this time based on economics- is brought up in the Rampell article. It discusses the pros and cons of the American Community Survey, a longer, randomly distributed survey that asks questions which may seem intrusive.

Like the first article, the Rampell article brings up a good point- how far can the government go to obtain information if it benefits the greater good? Having the economic data that the survey provides is important for the growth of businesses and balancing our financial system. I believe this overpowers the intrusiveness of the survey. Within a country, especially one that is split on how much power government should hold in an individual’s life, some compromises have to be made, and this is simply one of them.

The Dangers of Overconfidence in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy

Hurricane Sandy most assuredly ranks as one of the major events that have shaped life in New York within the last 5 years. Catching us off-guard, Sandy barreled through New York causing flooding, power outages, train suspensions and generally being a massive inconvenience. All in all it cost New York around 18 billion dollars in damage and lost productivity. New Yorkers were outraged at the slow response of the government to their plight. My home was left without power for two weeks while the Long Island Power Authority (or LIPA for short) did….not much of anything really. Truly the response time was appalling for the millions left without power and it was this poor showing that prompted the privatization of LIPA under the Public Service Electric and Gas company (PSEG) after all the dust had settled.

No one wants to feel as though something of this magnitude could hit the metropolitan area again. Everyone saw the destructive and unpredictable nature of weather in 2012 and as New Yorkers we want to believe that the government has taken the necessary steps to ensure that if this type of situation happens again we will be prepared and the same level of devastation and ineptitude will not be seen. However, the reality of New York’s preparedness is not as rosy as our perceptions. As the Jorgensen article states, De Blasio talks a big game regarding how New York is ready for the next big storm but according to this article the only upgrades we’ve seen in terms of flood protection are tons of sand being dumped on beaches and some bulkheads being constructed. De Blasio celebrates the “securing” of funds for more ambitious projects such as the construction of a levee system and a gigantic earthen wall stretching along the lower east side remain in the design stages. Its not hard to imagine how these projects might be beneficial but as long as they remain in the design stages all potential benefits are firmly rooted in the theoretical.

In addition to foot-dragging with regards to preventative construction, the government also has had its flaws highlighted in the agencies tasked with recovery. As the Lipton and Moss states, Hurricane Sandy pushed the New York City Housing Authority to the limit in the wake of the destruction. They were proactive in getting citizens to leave but were rendered ineffectual after the storm had actually occurred. The city did not enforce the evacuation order and as such thousands of residents (predominantly the elderly and infirm) were stranded in their flood-damaged apartments; often without heat and electricity. The city had drafted protocols in the wake of Hurricane Katrina but had unfortunately failed to heed its own advice as residents languished in post-storm conditions.

Needless to say among those who suffered the most were the small business owners who were forced to shutter their doors after the flooding had receded, as states the McGeehan article. My aunt lost her salon on the Island and was forced to watch as all of her equipment was strewn about the now-uninhabitable space. Unemployment benefits often do not even come close to the money required to keep up the ruined storefronts and as such many people are forced to close their doors permanently. Truthfully this is one problem for which there is no clear-cut solution because this deals with issues on the microeconomic level and I doubt that there is a comprehensive solution to deal with the million individual situations this storm caused.

Overall, these articles seem to come together to form a theme of the dangers of overconfidence. We think that it should only be natural for the government to be proactive and seek solutions to the problems highlighted by Hurricane Sandy but the reality is that we aren’t as prepared as we should be four years post-storm. Those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it and as it stands the government is not doing their studying.

Hurricane Sandy and NYC Disaster Relief

Hurricane Sandy had done a tremendous amount of damage to NYC four years ago and left many starkly aware of the devastation a natural disaster can leave in its wake. I remember walking down belt parkway towards Brighton beach noting the increasing destruction as I got closer to the shore. Trees were knocked over, windows were broken, even the pavement had marks from a colliding trashcan that got untethered during the storm. Nearby a car parked on the curb offered a clue as to where the trashcan ended up.

I’m reminded of the medical clinic where I used to work by the article by Patrick McGeehan. The article had described many examples of NYC business owners who were struggling to recover from the damage done to their storefronts and assets. The slow restoration of phone and internet communication in particular was a huge problem for that medical clinic which was situated just two blocks from the Brighton shoreline. Its entire basement was flooded and most of the medical records were destroyed; during the recovery act, communication played a large role in the loss of even more medical records as files were displaced and mishandled. It was a bad situation made worse by the damaged power lines, as the article describes.

Other parts of Brighton were affected similarly to the medical clinic as described in the Eric Lipton article. I know a friend who lived in a community building near the water front which had a large elderly population. The article’s description of the conditions found in the high-rise apartments on Surf Avenue are not too different from what was found in the gated community on Brighton Beach. Many elderly residents who refused to leave the building got trapped inside having to rely on aid from NGOs and family members to bring them necessities. In the days that followed the storm, some of the elderly who were more mobile had to live in public schools and government buildings who made temporary shelters for them and others displaced by the storm.

As for Jillian Jorgenson’s account of storm preparedness after Sandy, I would say that Sandy certainly accelerated the growth of storm countermeasure spending, but as she argues, not enough to prepare us for another storm like Sandy. As she notes, politicians claim to be making progress in storm preparedness, however looking at the Brighton coastline now, I’d be hard-pressed to find differences with how it was before Sandy.

Changing Neighborhoods

Both articles focus on a similar theme of changing neighborhoods. In the article about Chinatown, the main focus is on whether or not Chinatown can continue to exist in New York City with current residential trends. All throughout Manhattan neighborhoods are being gentrified and longtime residents are being pushed out. Chinatown, in fact, was itself established via gentrification. Before large numbers of Chinese immigrants had settled in what is now known as Chinatown, the area was actually dominated mainly by Irish immigrants. The question now, however, is how long do the current Chinese residents have before the same happens to them and how has it not happened already considering that Chinatown borders some of the most expensive, gentrified neighborhoods in the city. According to the author, Chinatown will not be going by anywhere anytime soon thanks largely in part to everything it has to offer to all kinds of people. Chinatown isn’t just a residential neighborhood for Chinese immigrants, it’s a cultural hub, and popular designation for tourists amongst other things. Obviously no area is completely safe from change as change is ultimately inevitable, but Chinatown seems to be doing a good job so far. Still, as the author mentions, Chinatown has continuously been changing on a smaller scale. Though Chinatown is likely to continue to thrive in the future, future Chinatown will likely be very different from the one we know today.

Unfortunately, many other neighborhoods aren’t as resilient to gentrification. Reading through the various stories in the other article, it almost makes you feel that practically all small businesses are doomed from the start. It’s only a matter of time before the neighborhood changes to the point where these stores become obsolete or just straight out unwanted. The only ones that manage to continuously succeed, as pointed out by the author, are the ones that are capable of changing with the neighborhood. Doing gentrification research in Washington Heights, we saw a bit of this evident through the people we interviewed. One particular person, a young convenience store clerk, explained to us just how susceptible these stores can be to change. Stores that had been there his whole life are shut down overnight, block by block, as rent goes up and business goes down due to a change in targeted shoppers. Though the people were changing, the businesses were not and that ultimately lead to their downfall. On a more encouraging note, it’s not impossible for a business to adapt and thrive. The most encouraging story front the article I felt was the one about Michael’s Prime Meats in Flatbush. Originally catered towards the Irish/Italian Jewish neighborhood, the shop had to adjust to the rapid influx of Caribbean residents. Foods that would never have even been considered earlier are now being sold regularly. Now the family owned shop has been in business for nearly one hundred years and if it maintains its ability to adapt, then it’ll likely be around for another hundred.

It really is a frightening thought to see that entire neighborhoods can be overhauled so drastically and quickly. But if these articles are showing us anything, it’s that change cannot be stopped. The stubborn will not survive. Only those who can adjust to and embrace the changing times will be able to maintain their current residential lives. The rest, unfortunately, seem destined to be pushed out.

Resiliency In Communities

Often when one thinks about gentrification, the thought of displaced people, escalating rents and a change in culture is the first thing that pops up in mind. Although still horrifyingly true, the idea of gentrification also brings the idea of resiliency and a communities’ desires to stay until the very end. It is easy to think about all the reasons why members of a community may leave once the community is gentrified, however, Dolnick introduces the idea of how nostalgia is a driving factor in keeping members of a community in their homes and in running their businesses despite the community completely altering from what it meant to them years ago in his piece, “Staying Put in a City of Change”.  He introduces the accounts of Mr. Savarse, who owns a butcher shop but is forced to increase the prices of meats in order to make sure his business is sustainable. Mr. Savarse claims that he is the last butcher shop remaining in the Flatbush community after it had been gentrified. Dolnick parallels, Mr. Savarse’s resilience to stay in the community with Julia Walsh’s  similar story of owning a bar and experiencing how the effects of change in neighborhood affects her revenue. She recounts how sales dropped when the Irish population in Bay Ridge dropped and how it had a direct relationship with sales. Fortunately, a Chinese Population grew around the area and since “Chinese people drink”, her sales, though lower from before, aren’t the worst. Walsh brings up the idea how incoming groups in a gentrified community effect established businesses because of new preferences. Arabian and Middle Eastern families may not spend recreational time and discretionary income on drinking at bars because of cultural views. It amazed me how although community members that have nostalgia for a community that they once lived in and have witnessed the change of are at the mercy of the new communities’ preferences in an attempt to survive. It brings out a new side of gentrification. Not only do people have to live with the emotional pain with knowing their childhood community has been altered but also have to hope that they can cater to the new communities for the purposes of survival.

In his piece , “How Has Chinatown Stayed Chinatown?”, Tabor notes a few reasons why Chinatown has remained Chinatown in terms of retaining its culture and still progressing as a city at the same time. He claims that,  “owning the place”, the fact that “no one leaves”, and instead “more come”, “how it feeds everyone” and is in an “argument with itself” are reasons for Chinatowns survival. Tabor claims that the Chinese community that lives in Chinatown “owns” in terms of its legislature so it is in control of businesses that grow and the community involvement so that Chinatown remains ethnic and authentic. He claims that Chinese-Americans in Chinatown do not leave and instead span generations there. This is responsible for the strong Chinese ethnic ties that Chinatown fosters. He also claims that more Chinese are coming from China. From my experiences with interviewing Asians in Flushing, I learned that Chinese immigrants who often move to New York often try to live in ethnic niches like Flushing, Queens or Chinatown in order to remain comfortable and integrate smoothly to a new culture while still retaining their own.  This influx of Chinese- Americans forces Chinatown to cater to them and as a result, stay authentic. Although it is fostering and catering to Chinese-Americans in the community, Chinatown is progressive and is open to all cultures. The diverse cuisine that it has allows all New Yorkers to experience a new palette in taste and enjoy Chinatown as a community. The community leaders in Chinatown also “argue” with each other. This is effective because it makes sure that multiple perspectives are heard while Chinatown grows and becomes more progressive, furthering protecting the Chinatown community. Based on my research with East Harlem gentrification, the lack of an organized community is one of the reasons why Spanish Harlem has opened up to gentrification. Many of the second and third generations lose cultural values and ties with the community which make it susceptible to change. Chinatown differs where it holds on to the culture that it always had and as a result, remains sustainable, not changing yet growing as a community.

Bicycling in a Commuter Society

Reading the Article by Sarah Goodyear made it seem that making cities more  accommodating for bicyclists would be without difficulty.  Although she lists the pros of adding bike lanes to cities, she fails to address or provide solutions for cities that are already fully developed.  In fact she only mentions that there are issues associated with city’s accommodating for potential bicyclists when she mentions Gabe Klein’s depression (in a jokingly manner too).  The problem is that with cities that are already developed, such as NYC, the only way to fully accommodate this class of commuters would mean stealing space from already narrow streets, clogged with heavy traffic at almost all times of the day.  Less car lanes for biking, simply to try to incentivize people that may or may not even be interested in biking to work/to the store/to a park, etc.. . would only further cripple transportation in the city for those that do not use public transit.

Also for many people, biking is simply unfeasible. Those that commute to Manhattan from outer boroughs, or possibly even from Manhattan to outer boroughs, would not want to bike for half an hour or more, to show up to work hot and sweaty.

There are of course solutions to this.  Bringing the bicyclists, airborne above the streets, or perhaps even underground.  Another solution is to determine ways to curb car traffic within Manhattan by perhaps using a congestion charge system as is in use in London.  Reducing traffic on streets can justify taking street space from motorists and giving it to bicyclists.  Both of these solutions come at a heavy cost, the former would take away aesthetically from the city while costing upwards of millions of dollars, while the latter would only anger motorists that rely on driving to get into the city.

Recognizing that Manhattan is a commuter society, it is essential to know that multiple facets of transport need to be available, however, the pros and cons of reevaluating existing structures and transit must be heavily analyzed.  While I am not against the idea of biking to be a reliable means of transport in the city, at the present time it simply does not seem feasible.  Instead it should be looked at more for the expansion and development of newer cities.

On a slight deviation, the article Eric Jaffe points out the flaws in our already established transportation system that can be fixed relatively easily. Our city and all cities should look towards these solutions that can have a large impact with a relatively low cost, and politics should not get in the way of this. Although Cuomo’s multibillion revamp of the New Penn Station, will possibly improve the transient moments people spend in the center as they shuffle towards their train, it has less of a chance of improving their commute. To me, and to many, a moving city is an efficient city. Increasing capacity and decreasing the time from A to B should be the most important objective for a city planner working on public transit projects.