Tag Archives: The Economist

The Peoples’ News

The news industry is one that is undergoing a constant evolution. From word of mouth to the printed press, and on to radio, televised, and digital media, the art of spreading the word has changed enormously throughout its lifetime.

Nowadays, another dimension of news has come to the fore: The social dimension.

Most Americans, and indeed most people with access to news coverage all around the world, are most familiar with a type of news reporting that is presented in a kind of lecture-oriented format. Stories, at least those sent to press by major news organizations, are usually very factual and objective, and tend to follow a common pattern. Now, these are good things to have in such a crucial and informative media source, don’t get me wrong. But if you look at the broader, grander scale of the news industry, this kind of media is something of an anomaly.

Back in the 19th century, and even well before, news was spread by gossip, word on the street, and pamphleteering. One could make a case, as Tom Standage, business editor at the Economist does, that early American revolutionaries like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were essentially low-tech bloggers, using pamphlets and propagandistic methods to spread the news. Before such technology as the radio or television emerged (making competitive news creation prohibitively expensive for most), news was communicated largely by coffee shop conversations and pamphlets handed out on the street. News then was much more partisan and was fully conscious of this fact.

Surprisingly enough, technological advancement seems to be bringing the news back to this kind of media, and away from what 19th century press developed into. In other words, moving forward in tech is bringing us back in time.

That’s not to say that this is a bad thing! As the internet becomes more and more pervasive, and more and more people begin using it to discuss and spread ideas (as I’m doing now), the news will gradually be taken out of the hands of the few and become produced by the many. Already, sites like Twitter and Facebook (both of which can be linked to this article at the bottom of the page) allow people of all kinds to share events and discussions with friends. In fact, the news of the death of Osama bin Laden was first publicized accidentally by a Pakistani man tweeting about the events unfolding near his home.

This is very reminiscent of those 19th century times when pamphlets and common people were the main vehicle by which news traveled. Things are also becoming more partisan, as they were then. As news becomes more dominated by and dependent on the power of the internet, people are more able to weigh in and voice their opinions about stories of all kinds. In fact, social networks like Facebook allow people to almost create news stories, forcing the larger media world to pick up the story. If enough people take up a cause online, the industry has no choice but to notice.

All of these things lead me to one simple conclusion: The until-recently monopolistic news industry is quickly and inexorably shifting to a social one, and it’s up to the industry to jump on this bandwagon or be run over by it. The potential for an amazing new era of news is enormous. Which side will they end up on?

For more on this subject, and to see some of the writing that inspired and informed this post, check out this Economist discussion.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under People & Society

Blending the Line Between Business and Charity

The original (and very basic) $300 house design, showing the necessities that must be included in a valid entry into the competition. (Source: theglobeandmail.com)

I was recently listening to the Economist’s All Audio podcast (which, by the way, I would highly recommend), a fantastic source for news and analysis. In a (fairly) recent report, published on April 28, I heard about a wonderfully simple yet novel idea: A $300 house for the poor.

Living quarters are often given secondary importance in the fight against poverty by many. Things like the provision of food and medicine usually take the front seat, leaving living space as a kind of secondary concern when stacked up against what may seem like more important goals. But when one stops to think about it, living space has a direct effect on nearly every other aspect of life.

What’s safer, a mansion or a broken-down shack? Which has more reliable clean water? Which offers more protection from bug-born and other diseases? The places we live in are integral to our health. But an alarmingly large part of the world’s population isn’t afforded these “luxuries” by the places in which they live. A decent house, apartment, or other living space can act as a stepping stone to a better life for individuals and families in devastating poverty. But, according to a 2010 report by the UN, there were about 827 million people living in slums around the world in this year.

Here’s where the $300 house comes into play. A professor of international business at Dartmouth named Vijay Govindarajan issued a challenge of sorts to the business minds of the world: Turn your talents to housing the poor. Who better to find an economical solution to a global problem? Govindarajan and a consultant started an online competition to create a house that is sturdy and secure, and also provides basic necessities for its inhabitants, such as electricity and clean water. The winning design will then be discussed and improved, and ideally, will be invested in by global companies. In this way, the world’s poor can be aided without draining other parts of the world economy; businesses can reach a new kind of customer, and those customers can receive the support and shelter they need for day-to-day life at a price they can afford. As Govindarajan’s consultant, Christian Sarkar, put it, “We’re trying to encourage companies to look at the bottom of the pyramid, at the poor, as customers. What you’ve got to do is make it a business and make it to scale.”

Normally, I tend to draw a line in the sand between business and philanthropy. It’s an easy dichotomy to make: We think of business as the pursuit of personal gain, and philanthropy as the pursuit of others’ wellbeing. I have to admit that I tend to separate the two as well; in fact, I always used to tell myself that I could never go into business, because it would be too self-serving. But this idea, among many others, has proven me utterly wrong about this.

It’s true that in many cases, businesses do tend to be self-serving. The purpose of a business is to make money, so it can be very easy for those in the business world to become so focused on money-making that they lose sight of the great potential the business world has for helping the poor in a cost-effective way, something many charities couldn’t say. The $300 house idea is a great one, not only for its provision of safe and secure housing for the poor, but for its fusion of care for the poor and economic thinking. Many great ideas to help the poor have been held back by monetary shortcomings and lack of funding. But if the business world can continue to get involved in this kind of low-cost business to and for the poor, for everything from water filters to houses, then perhaps cost-effective charity could be much easier than we think.

I used two major information sources for this post: The Economist audio story I mentioned above, and a great article I found here, on The Globe and Mail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Human Rights