by John Shirley
Years ago, as an executive assistant in a New York City public relations
firm, I was startled when press releases I'd typed up for the local
papers were reprinted almost verbatim. They were only slightly
rewritten and were quickly published as if they were original, "researched"
articles, under the newspaper reporter's unashamed byline.
The articles, in many instances, were giddy reports
on the wonders of glamorous new drugs, diets and health "systems",
with no mention of possible side effects or contraindications.
It seemed to me then that the companies who'd hired us to
flog their goods were, very nearly, arranging the publication of articles
that appeared to consumers to be objective reporting when in fact they
were advertising.
As casually as possible, I questioned the ethics of this apparently
routine practice and, also as casually as possible, I was let go. Of course,
my being let go might have had something to do with my having been
caught writing novels at work, and generally not fitting in, but they
definitely didn't want to hear about "PR ethics" either. They probably
thought of me as a whining dilettante. But you know what? It's many
years later, and I still think I was right.
You see, some time ago the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle
published a piece attributed to John Markoff, and
reprinted -- no doubt with the best of intentions -- from the New York
Times. Entitled "Fly the Friendly Computer", the article speaks
giddily of the glamorous new "talking machines" technology being test-flown
by United Airlines, a responsive voice mail system
which "interacts with a caller just as an agent might, even
checking to confirm that it has heard correctly...United's system
is one example of a wave of new computer technologies that
understand spoken language and are poised to sweep through the
American economy." With intuitive, unconscious insight,
his description evokes an invading army. Evidently, it will
"sweep through" our lives whether we like it or not...
Mr Markoff describes the system as using "artificial intelligence"
(AI). This term is supposed to mean a really independently thinking
cybernetic entity, which is purely theoretical; which doesn't exist at
all. There are parallel programming systems and expert systems,
and the like, which approximate artificial intelligence. This
particular talking machine gimmick is likely to be an "expert system".
But it's not AI. Spin doctors for the high tech world are using the
term even more loosely than they used Virtual Reality: a phantom
technology that only approximately exists, at best.
Whenever Mr. Markoff brings up a possible objection to the new
technology, he immediately answers the objection with a
soothing reassurance. "There could be problems at first."
He suggests problems but, in the same little sentence, the "at first"
implies they'll be resolved. Then he goes on to list some of
the problems -- but finishes the para with another glib
reassurance. "Some people will have to speak more slowly or
clearly than they normally do. And the computers still get tripped
up by jargon...But the new systems promise customers new ease in
performing every type of transaction." The reassurance, in every case, I
find unconvincing, superficial and, well, very much like
public relations copy. And there's the rub.
Markoff does go into the effects on the work force. But PR
flacks know that you have to deal with that hot-button issue when a new
technology comes along, and in some detail. They also know that
people have come to passively accept the "price to be paid"
for a new technology -- like the cost in jobs.
We accepted answering machines and voice mail in lieu of
human beings; we submissively accepted the torturous mazes of
automated keypad menus in lieu of human beings; we acquiesced to
the annoying machine voice of automated directory
assistance asking for city and name, with only a flicker
of the human operator who doesn't give you a chance
to explain specific needs before shunting you to another electronic
voice. We're accepting the new cash-payment machines
at gas stations: even if we want to pay a human being face to
face (albeit, pathetically, a human being on the other side of a sheet of
bulletproof glass in a claustrophobic metal box), we soon won't
"have to".
United's new system is sure to generate frustrations before we're
trained to use it. "At first Molinaro said his sessions would
take slightly longer than with a human being...But he has since become
an expert user." An expert user? Read: He has adapted to the
robot's needs.
Markoff never really comes to grips with the real issue. Suppose
that you simply want to talk to a human being? Not because it's more or less
efficient, but because you prefer human beings? They don't have
to be warm and fuzzy human beings. They just have to
be capable of answering a spontaneous question, and maybe, just maybe,
meaning it at least a little bit when they say have a nice day.
It's a quality of life issue, and it matters.
Markoff's PR work here is no doubt unconscious,
but his piece seems to be at least partly generated by contact with
United Airlines spin-control experts and PR copywriters.
We fret about the influence of multinational corporations
on our government, yet naively suppose ourselves hip to marketing;
after decades of television commercials we imagine
we've got a handle on their influence, their manipulation of
our minds. But look around: Here's another corporate intrusion
to chew over, to monitor, and even to regulate.
And at a time when advertising for pharmaceuticals
has become ubiquitous, newspapers, similarly, run
articles on the latest drugs that read as if generated by
PR firms. Viagra is just the most noticeable --but as a case in
point, if you go back and look at the initial articles
about Viagra, how many, if any, went into the possibility of the drug's
possible interaction with, say, heart drugs, or stimulants? The question,
an obvious one, was delved into by the newspapers only after
people began to die.
When we resort to prescription drugs unnecessarily,
faddishly, we become a little less human; when we passively
accept every new automated communications technology that
comes along, we also accept fewer points of contact with
human beings -- and we are again dehumanized.
And when we mindlessly accept public relations copy
as newspaper articles, we are like robots programmed to be
obedient consumers.
