Review: The Sirens' Call

Hayes says attention has become a scarce commodity

On CBC Radio's The Current, I heard an interview with Chris Hayes, the author of The Sirens' Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource. He is an American commentator, news anchor, and hosts a weekly podcast on MSNBC.

He gives the perspective of someone who works in the media of how it's so crucial to have the attention of the audience all the time, and how reporters and editors try to sustain that attention through breaking news, a ticker tape running at the bottom of the screen, or the stories they choose to cover.

While a few decades ago TV viewers were pretty much rapt with attention, these days people -- like himself -- are watching television but also scrolling on their phone and watching a video on their laptops.

How did we get this way?

Hayes is a commentator and podcaster

This is what Hayes tries to explain in his book, and believes attention is fast becoming a scarce commodity thanks to technology. Because of smartphones, the internet and social media, our attention spans have become shorter and shorter; conversely there is so much information out there thanks to the internet, we are overwhelmed and can't learn or absorb as much, or there is so much choice, we don't know where to begin and flail. 

He points out the biggest companies in the world are tech firms: Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet (Google's parent company), Meta and Amazon. They are all making money from us -- from monopolising our attention. But it started further back with slot machines, and then video games and now the limitless scroll on our phones.

Meanwhile the media try to grab attention with horrific news like plane crashes, or wars, and if that's not happening then salacious content called clickbait. Yes the media is guilty of trying to get our undivided attention too.

Not only are companies vying for our attention, but we ourselves want attention too, called social attention. Hayes says humans need to interact with each other and explains that prisoners in solitary confinement can't stand being alone

However the other extreme is social media like Facebook is selling users' attention to advertisers. Instead of seeing posts of what their friends are doing, they see a lot of advertisements, and that is a waste of time and energy. But that's how social media monetises our attention and makes a lot of money from it.

The same goes with Google. It became really good at finding information we needed, but now when you search for something, the top four entries are advertisements that are somewhat related to what you were looking for. Hayes cites in 2004, 99 percent of Google's US$3.2 billion in revenue came from advertising.

Then there are people who crave or demand attention and here Hayes apologises in advance for discussing Donald Trump (the book was written before he was elected a second time), and Elon Musk.

Hayes says back in 1858 there was a political debate on slavery by Democratic senator Stephen A Douglas and Republican Abraham Lincoln. They debated seven times in seven towns. The format? The first speaker talked for an hour, then the second one rebutted for 90 minutes and finally the first speaker gave a 30-minute rebuttal.

How did people in the 19th century have the attention to listen to a three-hour debate? Today the presidential TV debate is less than an hour. Hayes adds Trump either avoids debates and when he does, he shows no debating skills and can't even string a proper sentence together. 

Finally towards the end of The Sirens' Call, Hayes explains three negative things that are happening today: trolling, where people behind screens can provoke online; whataboutism, where those being attacked deflect criticism and turn the tables; and conspiracism, which is total disinformation, but appeals to many because they neatly explain things (incorrectly). 

So what can we do to retain our attention? Hayes harks back to the time when we made trips to the video store to rent a movie, we made a commitment to focus on the task at hand. And he gives the example of how vinyl records have made a big comeback, as not only is the sound quality better, but also makes the choice of music for us. 

Other examples are print newspapers, where editors have carefully curated the news according to its importance in terms of length and pictures, and group chats which have zero advertising and people can keep up with others in real time.

Will people actually follow through with his suggestions? Not really. His book has a lot of examples and points, but are already preaching to the choir who are looking for more concrete ways to safeguard and focus our attention. Maybe that's his next book?

VIFF Review: Modernism, Inc.

Noyes was most influential with his design work at IBM

Eliot Noyes was an American architect and industrial designer who promoted the importance of branding for a company, and how form and function were critical. "We think good design is good business," he used to say, and he proved it with his work for such clients as IBM and Mobil.

The documentary Modernism, Inc. profiles Noyes, as for most people who are not in the design world probably have never heard of him.

Noyes was very prolific. At the age of 29 he was already the director of the Industrial Design department at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. One exhibition he showed the chair of the 19th century, stripping it to show off how much extraneous material these chairs had, from stuffing to fabric, and cushioning. He contrasted it with modern chairs that had simple lines and bright colours.

His design of the IBM Selectric typewriter

He was also very clever. During World War II Noyes set up a program to look into the potential uses of gliders, but the generals didn't seem interested in these planes that had no fire power. Then he noticed all the secretaries would read a military-themed comic strip in the newspaper everyday and sent a letter to the cartoonist about adding a storyline about gliders.

Soon after these comic strips were published, the generals took an interest in what Noyes was doing.

Noyes married another architect though she never practiced, and they moved their family to New Cannan, Connecticut. There he designed their home which had floor-to-ceiling windows with a courtyard in the middle; it meant that if they wanted to move from one room to another they would have to go outside, but the children in the film said this never bothered them.

The children were also brought up in a traditional sense, learning classical music and reading books, playing in nature.

Meanwhile a pilot Noyes knew in the air force was Thomas J Watson Jr, the son of the founder of International Business Machines, or IBM. As Watson Jr was poised to take over his father's business that started in 1911, Noyes advised him on creating a new standard look of the company, from the letterhead to the look of the products and even the architecture of the IBM buildings.

The Noyes' home in New Cannan

For this he got such designers as Paul Rand, Charles Eames, and architects like Mies van de Rohe, Eero Saarinen, and Marco Zanuso to work with IBM.

Noyes' most famous design for the company was the IBM Selectric typewriter, which used a typeball instead of a "basket" of individual keys, while the design of the typewriter itself was sleek and modern. He realised that with computers, the parts that people don't need to understand how they work don't need to be seen; only design how it needs to be used.

Modernism, Inc. takes a sharp turn that led to Noyes' fall from the pedestal, but for his children, it was an opportunity to get to know their father better as a person, which son Eli says in the film [he died in March 2024 at the age of 81]. 

He recalls flying in -- what else -- gliders with his dad and they had a great time, but soon after that his father had cancer and died.

Nevertheless, Noyes is perhaps the father of branding in the United States, giving us the language and template to follow that have been tried and tested. Apple, the film points out, has followed Noyes' philosophy of form and function. 

Modernism, Inc.

Directed by Jason Cohn

79 minutes

2023

The Opposite House is No More

Will miss the delicious Peking duck at Jin Yaa Tang

I just found out through a social media post that The Opposite House, a hotel run by Swire in Beijing has closed down. The hotel had a blow-out farewell party on June 29 and then closed its doors the next day.

The 16-year-old hotel was part of the complex known as Sanlitun, which featured a shopping mall anchored by Apple and Uniqlo, and when I was there, a Hong Kong-style restaurant that served Cantonese dishes.

The porcelain Mao jacket

Many years ago I got a tour of the hotel, and it was forward-thinking at the time with minimalist interiors, and the lobby was decorated with a larger-than-life cheongsam and a Mao jacket made from fragmented blue and white bowls and plates. 

On the lower ground floor was a fantastic restaurant called Jin Yaa Tang that served one of the city's best Peking ducks. There was an open kitchen where diners could watch ducks roasted over a jujube wood-fired oven.

According to The Beijinger, an English-language magazine, The Opposite House probably closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and high room rates. Apparently the hotel will be "converted into an innovated retail landmark."

In a sign posted outside the hotel, the Beijing Sanlitun Hotel Management Company Limited thanked people for their support.

"We deeply regret that we made such a difficult decision. We believe that the hotel closure is not a permanent separation, but a new beginning. We sincerely welcome your continued attention and support to Sanlitun Taikoo Li, and very much look forward to serving you in the near future," part of the notice read.

Why is it always spun as "separation", when the hotel is closing down for good? And it wasn't a divorce, it was a business decision that had to be made. 

Looking down on the swimming pool

The Opposite House was the sister hotel to the Upper House in Hong Kong, The Temple House in Chengdu, and The Middle House in Shanghai.

Musk's Solution to Taiwan Issue

Musk says Taiwan should be under "one country, two systems"

Elon Musk seems to be playing right into Chinese hands.

He thinks he has the solution to the Taiwan issue and explained it to the Financial Times the other day.

"My recommendation... would be to figure out a special administrative zone for Taiwan that is reasonably palatable, probably won't make everyone happy. And it's possible, and I think probably, in fact, that they could have an arrangement that's more lenient than Hong Kong."

He has a Tesla factory in Shanghai

Err... we all know how that went.

Musk believed conflict with Taiwan was inevitable, and warned of its potential impact on not only Tesla, as he has a factory in Shanghai, but also in iPhone maker Apple, as well as the global economy, which he estimated would take a 30 percent hit.

Former Global Times chief editor Hu Xijin took the opportunity to comment on Musk's remarks.

"Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party authorities will hate you. Many US lawmakers and political elites also dislike [the idea] which signs a different tune to the current US policy on the Taiwan Strait," Hu said on Weibo.

"It can't be ruled out that he may have some trouble in the future for having expressed these political views."

"It has also reflected the world's basic understanding that Taiwan is a part of China and reunification is the general trend," Hu added.

Ip was quick to praise Musk's proposed solution

That's not the basic understanding most people have outside of China.

It seems Musk has drunk the Kool-aid on this one.

It's the lao wai (foreigner) being the shill for the Chinese authoritarian regime so that he can make gobs more money. Beijing must be clapping its hands with delight at having such a compliant spokesperson.

Meanwhile pro-Beijing lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is on the Musk-praising bandwagon. 

On Twitter she wrote: "Elon Musk has spoken well on Taiwan suggesting it should become a special administrative region like Hong Kong! The world should pay attention to this voice of reason and pragmatism."

He is not quite the voice of reason and pragmatism when he suddenly announced he would buy Twitter for US$44 billion then backed down. The company held Musk's feet to the fire to make sure the deal would go through without anymore ifs, ands, or buts.