Autistic media
A book by Peter Hobson - called 'The Cradle of Thought: Exploring the Origins of Thinking' looks at the development of thought. At its core is the hypothesis that thought (and language) arises largely from our instinctive emotional connection with others.
The relationship of emotion to information has been largely overlooked - indeed, news reports seem to strive towards being dispassionate (in distinction from being objective) - but it seems that it is central to the way that we (humans) store, retrieve and process information.

As you might expect of a creature honed by evolution, our memories are designed to retain information with strong emotional tags - 'bad thing', 'good thing' etc. But as social creatures, we assume these tags from others i.e. when we observe another person their facial expressions, tone of voice etc. it automatically elicits an 'emotional echo' - which gives the emotional 'flavour' to the information they impart. It also seems the emotional 'tags' we attach to information may be intrinsic or extrinsic - our news presenter attaches the requisite jollity or gravity, but when we are looking for a solution to a medical problem on the web we know the answer is important.

So what? So I suppose this is why we have news presenters. I suppose this identifies some of the missing ingredients in much online learning - the teacher we all remember, who was passionate about their subject and who inspired us. I suppose this provides a simple model for much advertising, where the trick is to attach a strong emotional tag to the target information. Some adverts (such as the ones against drink-driving) I find quite unforgettable. It is also an interesting element of the debate regarding whether or not reporters should 'personalise' their reports; it seems they should.

I heard a dismissive analysis of youtube's popularity on R4 the other day, to paraphrase 'I suppose Americans are just interested in weird stuff' - but it's a very personal, emotional media - not the kind of stereotyped 'autistic' media or 'super-emotional' media (e.g. EastEnders) that we are used to. What people are saying on youtube is important at an emotional level. At this level a teenager's bedroom post can easily be more imporant than a news story about Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I would imagine that in an era of 'information overload' we will become increasingly dependent on our emotional responses to guide us.

work/life vs work/play
I hear about ‘wok/life balance’ quite regularly now. But to me it seems an outdated notion – something for the older generation, used to a regular nine-to-five existence, troubled by the fact that their correspondence now seems to follow them wherever they go.
I don’t really believe in the work/life balance dichotomy either: work is a big part of your life – if it isn’t then you should consider getting a meaningful job. Frankly I feel vaguely insulted by the opposition.

I think a more interesting distinction is work/play: the impact of technology and changes in lifestyle (24/7, globalisation, mobility etc.) has been that play and work are with us wherever we go. The same device we use for work we may also use for play. For those people of a generation that increasingly do not draw artificial boundaries between work and life, or between work and play, the interesting questions are around this blend. In this context youtube is a workplay (put it in your dictionary) resource - watching tv is not something we do in big chunks after work, it is something we do in little bits all day long.

A picture: from the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep you are confronted by a variety of activities classifiable somewhere along the work-play continuum: some of these fall within the boundaries of your ‘job’ – but precisely which is unlikely to be clear. The things you do range from tedious work to relaxing fun – your objective is to manage the balance of activity during the day, so that you complete your work whilst involved in as much play as possible. The most satisfied individuals will say ‘it’s great to get paid for doing something I enjoy doing anyway’, and in response to the question ‘are you working or playing?’ they will say ‘I don’t know’.

Office environments have probably always comprised a mix of work and play – but technology adds a new dimension: more control over work and play. Now, you can catch up on some much-needed play during a boring meeting, or return an email while you watch football. In the online world virtual characters may be doing exactly the same things, however one may be taking a break from work, whilst another may have been employed to develop th e virtual character – so they are at work.

In summary, then these seem to be more interesting questions to me: How can we make work play? How can we balance work and play? What is the optimum mix?