

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Steve Leone, editor of the Concord Monitor--the second largest newspaper in New Hampshire--makes me long for the good old days of old-fashioned communications. He actually, personally, answers his own phone.
I know this because when I called him I actually got right through, despite the media's frenetic immersion in the week before the state's presidential primary.
Steve Leone, editor of the Concord Monitor--the second largest newspaper in New Hampshire--makes me long for the good old days of old-fashioned communications. He actually, personally, answers his own phone.
I know this because when I called him I actually got right through, despite the media's frenetic immersion in the week before the state's presidential primary.
"You answer your own phone?" I asked him incredulously, saying to myself, no voicemail, no screening secretary? "Yes," he said calmly, "I pick up my phone right away." The result: from our conversation, he suggested that I write an op-ed. In 24 hours it was in the newspaper and online.
My larger point is that with the most advanced, communications systems in history at our disposal, it keeps getting harder to get through to people for a contemporaneous two-way exchange. I know people in the media, in the civic/academic communities and even many among my own circle of friends, who do not answer their phones, irregularly check their voice mail, and barricade their emails with filters and spam-detection software. Some now advise text-messaging, which hardly can compare with the two-way telephone conversations of past decades.
Over fifteen years ago, the Wall Street Journal noted a survey that concluded it took an average of six calls for people at work to reach their party. I've experienced calling reporters and going through three tiers of press one, press two, press three. One wonders how they get fast scoops these days.
And don't talk about the airlines, the banks and almost any major business these days. Even Southwest Airlines has gone to voicemail, which for so long sustained the old 'three rings and a human answers' practice.
Sure, everybody is overloaded with messages, but is the volume slowing the process of getting things moving or done? Also, so cheap is high-velocity, massive communication these days (no fretting about long-distance calls), that people are wont to make far more calls for far less purpose--i.e., lots of low-level trivia and gossip.
After a while one has a mental list of people so hard to reach personally that attempts to contact them are not even made. We are all callers and callees; guess who's got the power these days, other than venomous bill collectors who can damage your credit score if you don't accede to their incessant demands?
I sometimes try sending a message by postal letter. "Letters," people tell me when I finally get through to them, "who looks at the mail anymore?"
There are people in public life who are so committed to running away from the tsunami of calls and messages that when you do finally get their very-personal cell number, and they manage to answer, retort--"how'd you get my number?!"
All this is to point out that as there emerge more communications technologies, more apps, more defenses by callees against callers, the irritation level, and the time and productivity losses will continue to mount. I've yet to see any estimates about how much time is lost in the business world by people, including consumers, trying and trying again to get through to other people they're trying to do business with, but it's got to be billions of hours a year.
We all know many people who experience and complain about the difficulty of getting through. But no one seems to know any way out from the present overloads. However, also being a callee every day, there is that consolation of knowing how many ways you can keep "them" from getting through to you.
At info@csrl.org, we'll look at any of your suggestions.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Steve Leone, editor of the Concord Monitor--the second largest newspaper in New Hampshire--makes me long for the good old days of old-fashioned communications. He actually, personally, answers his own phone.
I know this because when I called him I actually got right through, despite the media's frenetic immersion in the week before the state's presidential primary.
"You answer your own phone?" I asked him incredulously, saying to myself, no voicemail, no screening secretary? "Yes," he said calmly, "I pick up my phone right away." The result: from our conversation, he suggested that I write an op-ed. In 24 hours it was in the newspaper and online.
My larger point is that with the most advanced, communications systems in history at our disposal, it keeps getting harder to get through to people for a contemporaneous two-way exchange. I know people in the media, in the civic/academic communities and even many among my own circle of friends, who do not answer their phones, irregularly check their voice mail, and barricade their emails with filters and spam-detection software. Some now advise text-messaging, which hardly can compare with the two-way telephone conversations of past decades.
Over fifteen years ago, the Wall Street Journal noted a survey that concluded it took an average of six calls for people at work to reach their party. I've experienced calling reporters and going through three tiers of press one, press two, press three. One wonders how they get fast scoops these days.
And don't talk about the airlines, the banks and almost any major business these days. Even Southwest Airlines has gone to voicemail, which for so long sustained the old 'three rings and a human answers' practice.
Sure, everybody is overloaded with messages, but is the volume slowing the process of getting things moving or done? Also, so cheap is high-velocity, massive communication these days (no fretting about long-distance calls), that people are wont to make far more calls for far less purpose--i.e., lots of low-level trivia and gossip.
After a while one has a mental list of people so hard to reach personally that attempts to contact them are not even made. We are all callers and callees; guess who's got the power these days, other than venomous bill collectors who can damage your credit score if you don't accede to their incessant demands?
I sometimes try sending a message by postal letter. "Letters," people tell me when I finally get through to them, "who looks at the mail anymore?"
There are people in public life who are so committed to running away from the tsunami of calls and messages that when you do finally get their very-personal cell number, and they manage to answer, retort--"how'd you get my number?!"
All this is to point out that as there emerge more communications technologies, more apps, more defenses by callees against callers, the irritation level, and the time and productivity losses will continue to mount. I've yet to see any estimates about how much time is lost in the business world by people, including consumers, trying and trying again to get through to other people they're trying to do business with, but it's got to be billions of hours a year.
We all know many people who experience and complain about the difficulty of getting through. But no one seems to know any way out from the present overloads. However, also being a callee every day, there is that consolation of knowing how many ways you can keep "them" from getting through to you.
At info@csrl.org, we'll look at any of your suggestions.
Steve Leone, editor of the Concord Monitor--the second largest newspaper in New Hampshire--makes me long for the good old days of old-fashioned communications. He actually, personally, answers his own phone.
I know this because when I called him I actually got right through, despite the media's frenetic immersion in the week before the state's presidential primary.
"You answer your own phone?" I asked him incredulously, saying to myself, no voicemail, no screening secretary? "Yes," he said calmly, "I pick up my phone right away." The result: from our conversation, he suggested that I write an op-ed. In 24 hours it was in the newspaper and online.
My larger point is that with the most advanced, communications systems in history at our disposal, it keeps getting harder to get through to people for a contemporaneous two-way exchange. I know people in the media, in the civic/academic communities and even many among my own circle of friends, who do not answer their phones, irregularly check their voice mail, and barricade their emails with filters and spam-detection software. Some now advise text-messaging, which hardly can compare with the two-way telephone conversations of past decades.
Over fifteen years ago, the Wall Street Journal noted a survey that concluded it took an average of six calls for people at work to reach their party. I've experienced calling reporters and going through three tiers of press one, press two, press three. One wonders how they get fast scoops these days.
And don't talk about the airlines, the banks and almost any major business these days. Even Southwest Airlines has gone to voicemail, which for so long sustained the old 'three rings and a human answers' practice.
Sure, everybody is overloaded with messages, but is the volume slowing the process of getting things moving or done? Also, so cheap is high-velocity, massive communication these days (no fretting about long-distance calls), that people are wont to make far more calls for far less purpose--i.e., lots of low-level trivia and gossip.
After a while one has a mental list of people so hard to reach personally that attempts to contact them are not even made. We are all callers and callees; guess who's got the power these days, other than venomous bill collectors who can damage your credit score if you don't accede to their incessant demands?
I sometimes try sending a message by postal letter. "Letters," people tell me when I finally get through to them, "who looks at the mail anymore?"
There are people in public life who are so committed to running away from the tsunami of calls and messages that when you do finally get their very-personal cell number, and they manage to answer, retort--"how'd you get my number?!"
All this is to point out that as there emerge more communications technologies, more apps, more defenses by callees against callers, the irritation level, and the time and productivity losses will continue to mount. I've yet to see any estimates about how much time is lost in the business world by people, including consumers, trying and trying again to get through to other people they're trying to do business with, but it's got to be billions of hours a year.
We all know many people who experience and complain about the difficulty of getting through. But no one seems to know any way out from the present overloads. However, also being a callee every day, there is that consolation of knowing how many ways you can keep "them" from getting through to you.
At info@csrl.org, we'll look at any of your suggestions.