Media or not, the keyword is ‘extreme.’ Watch a mac fanboy’s face turn red as his blood pressure rise when performance related questions are asked about his machine. And how do you make a point to someone who’s already considered you inept for using a PC? You can’t.

I agree with your friends who have prefaced your insights with a few ‘explanatory’ messages, or who have combined complex arguments with simple(r) – and not necessarily simplistic – messages. Often, using these messages (with a dose of humour/irony/satire) helps in getting people to a threshold of engaged listening (even if it’s not in agreement). Post that, you can raise the bar on complexity.

Frankly, I think you do that already in your writing on this blog; I hardly work in this area, but greatly enjoy reading your posts. So perhaps you should just figure out ways of getting this potent brew into your interviews!

And even publishers sometimes capitalise cummings: ouch.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadiwow/376437011/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesameellis/376208877/

Sigh… my contacts on Flickr are pretty upset about this, I fear this will lead to a second wave of exodus.

I understand the effect you are pointing out – some people will interpret an uncapitalized name as literary pretentiousness and cop an attitude.

All I was trying to say is that I don’t think this intro was malicious or represented deliberate framing on the part of the writer. Look at their problem in presentation. The first thing they need to mention is their subject’s name. And, as it happens, the presentation of that name immediately breaks traditional rules of style. If the writer doesn’t insert the caveat that this is the way danah chooses to present her name, it leaves them open to the audience assuming this is an error in presentation on their own part.

Perhaps there might have been a more graceful way to resolve that concern, but none occurs to me.

-Steve

From the viewpoint of the writer, I think they almost have to include something to that effect. Otherwise readers might think it was an error.

This will ease up when danah becomes as famous as e e cummings.

i love your work. i’ve been using your ideas when talking about folks i know with children. some ways that i frame your research when discussing it, that make it easier for folks to listen:

* of course we are all concerned with protecting children. danah has done x number of years in violence prevention work– she’s always thinking about safety as she does her research.

* most children are not at risk for violence when they go online; most children are only talking to people they already know online.

* a very small minority of children go online actively looking to meet new people, because they are so isolated in real-life. it is actually possible to identify these children based on their networks of connections– one of the things danah is looking at is how to do online social work to reach out to and help at-risk children who could not otherwise be reached.

you don’t necessarily need to go into all of those issues, but i think it would be useful to make a few statements in interviews:

* i am extremely concerned about children’s safety, and have done x years of violence prevention work.

* the internet is safer for children then many other activities that they do all the time– list some.

* comfort with computers is crucial for folks today to be able to get jobs, participate as citizens, etc. one of the ways folks get comfortable with computers is by going online. so you have to look at the risk vs the benefit when discussing children’s online access.

* the best thing parents can do to protect kids when they go online is to talk to them about how they respond when somebody they don’t know contacts them.

just some thoughts on potential ways to frame your ideas. good luck! yr already the most effective person doing this work; but i fully believe you can get even more effective!

xxxooo

nabil