In the continuing conversation about what it means for a president/presidential contender to use/not use a computer or technology broadly, a very good piece by the New York Times that distills the entire discussion into a simple point: there is no longer any distinction between understanding (at some level) technology and understanding the society we live in - they are the same thing. Money quote:
Computers have become something of a cultural marker — in politics and in the real world. Proficiency with them suggests a basic familiarity with the day-to-day experience of most Americans — just as ignorance to them can suggest someone is “out of touch,” or “old.”
“We’re not asking for a president to answer his own e-mail,” said Paul Saffo, a Silicon Valley futurist who teaches at Stanford. “We’re asking for a president who understands the context of what e-mail means.”
The “user experience,” Mr. Saffo said, brings with it an implicit understanding of how the country lives, and where it might be heading.
This is foundational in many ways. From a communications standpoint, we tend to obsess about the communications vehicle ("look! another blog post about twitter") so much that we can easily lose sight of the communication itself; so focused on using the latest tech to talk that we forget about the message we're bearing.
Yes, to some extent, the medium is the message, or more precisely, the medium affect the message. But the message remains core, the right message has the strength to either amplify the medium or the power to overcome the shortcomings of the medium. Today, in my industry, I see so much focus on the how -- let's set up a facebook group, let's use twitter to push the message out, let's go viral with a video, let's blog, that often the *what* is missed -- what are we trying to say? Who are we trying to say it to? Do we have the right message?
Simple.