A Non-Conclusion

My conclusion is that there is no conclusion (ha! how pretentious is that for an answer). Seriously, I can't agree or disagree with McLuhan completely and I still can't difinitivly define any of the many outlets that we have examined this semester either. The Internet is so undefinable and yet new media analysts devote so much time to doing just that. Being a part of a generation raised in the tempo of new media, it was really healthy for me to slow down and examine the medium that has determined a lot for me already. But I am not sure what it really changes, knowing all that I know now about the nature of Wikipedia and Google. Do I have any more choice in whether or not I participate? Probably not. If truth and education are suppose to liberate my mind and being in more ways than one, then I must say I feel a little more entrapped.

The Medium is the Message

Let's talk about this video as the medium.

McLuhan, chapter 25

McLuhan:

"The electric gives powerful voices to the weak and suffering, and sweeps aside the bureacratic specialism and job descriptions of the mind tied to a manual of instructions. The "human interest" dimension is simply that of immediacy of participation in the experience of others that occurs with instant information" (254).

It is as if McLuhan is talking about how the Internet has transformed the media rather than the telegraph. New Media by nature is about human interests. It is about the reaction rather than the action itself. McLuhan talks about the immediacy of the telegraph and it was perceived by literary sophisticates as distasteful. It reminded me a lot of Murdoch's attitude toward aggregators. It is the attitude of those who feel left behind by a medium they don't understand and would rather not try to understand. The difference between the effect of the Internet and the telegraph, I think, is that the telegraph was a compressional force. It forced different mediums to come together (i.e. The Associated Press example). The Internet, I think, is expansional. It forces companies like Google to expand beyond its original intention, beyond its original specialization. And the nature of the Internet itself (inter connecting networks world-wide) makes it the perfect medium for organizations to stretch beyond itself and link multiple outlets together, which creates sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc and aggregators like CT Report. That, of course, explains a lot about how my generation prefers to communicate. We constantly want to be connected, yet have no idea how to do it with our senses alone.

Aggregators Are Just Not That Good

I thought a lot about news aggregators when we were discussing possible models for the CT Mirror. It strikes me as odd that so many people use sites like Digg and Memeorandum in the first place. Honestly, Digg is just like the news version of Twitter, pushing only the most popular stories to the forefront and neglecting, consequently, anything more contextually relevant. Memeorandum does a great job of grabbing everything but a crappy job of sorting it based on relevancy or some kind of quality analysis. I still use nytimes.com and Cnn.com. Arguably one might say that I am limiting myself and not getting the whole picture of the news that is out there but whose to say that the Huffington Post is either. As for Mr. Dankosky question: No I wont pay for any of it. I wont pay for the Nytimes or the Huffington Post. There are just to many sources of news out there and none of them are so outstanding and exclusive to warrant me buying a real subscription.

Aggregators are great for traditional newspapers, expanding their readership and becoming their "free paper boys." But as a consumer, personally I would rather go straight to the source. On most days, I am not interested in being linked to the New York Post or the Courant. As for the argument by Murdoch that they don't invest in journalism, I think is just annoying. Don't get mad at The Huffington for doing your dirty work or for saving you money. Aggregating is not the same as plagiarism and while I think they certainly have a role to play, I hope that this is not the future of media. There is already enough of a top-down model to journalism. Aggregators just become another filter that consumers have to get through. Some find it convenient. I just think it's superfluous.

WNPR was talking about new stories as intellectual property. I fear this idea. On the one hand, we all need and want quality journalism, good reporting and well-written stories. But for the most part, the news itself is the gold. Just tell me what happened and dont claim it as some kind of entitlement because you discovered it first. It belongs to the public. Yes, a journalist should be given credit but I have a problem with Murdoch's attitude. He doesnt own the actual news part of a story.

Twitter...may be not like all the rest

At first I didnt think that Twitter was anything new. I mean the FB status updates do virtually the same things as Tweets. One of the biggest criticism of sites like Facebook and Myspace is that they are one of the most obvious indicators that today's youth are overly self-indulgent and Twitter is no different. I mean honestly who cares about "what's happening," with you at any random moment of the day or what the 411 is every time your mood status just happens to change. Lots of cultural analysts have written about the whole, "everybody wants to be a hyper local celebrity" phenomenon but Twitter is bigger than that I think. Sure, on the surface it indulges the current trend of of Facebook, Myspace and Youtube, which allows people to "broadcast themselves" in a way that doesn't make them seem completely insecure and shallow.

But I think the Osterman Blog has a point, Twitter is about the followers as well as the followed. It is not AS one sided and self-indulgent as Fb, which really doesn't have a way of telling its profilers how many views they receive daily or what their followers to followed ratio is, because that was never the point of FB. ITS ALL ABOUT YOU. I think it is fair to say that Twitter's low retention rate is in part due to the intimidation users' first feel looking at their f:f ratio. Nobody wants to have to work for popularity, acceptance or fame. I mean if you cant even be a celebrity of your on Twitter world than what the hell is the point.

Social Networking

So the importance of social networking sites seems to have already been beaten to death. Companies, whether online-based or not, have traditionally used sites like Facebook, Twitter, and iGoogle to: 1)promote upcoming events 2) create a dialogue surrounding their service 3) attract followers of similar services to their own or 4) just keep tabs on what their customers are looking for. For the Connecticut Mirror project, I looked at two challenges: a)Is there a way to use social networking sites even more specifically than the usual way businesses have been and b) how do we get older people or those less inclined to use Fb (i.e Dan) to follow the trend as well.

I think the point is to use those sites as a way to compensate for what the Connecticut Mirror site would probably inherently lack. For example, it would not be able to post infomation as quickly as Twitter. But the advantages of "microblogging" for a start-up news aggregator are just too good to overlook. With each post, you give the reader five more links to look at. For sites like the Ct Mirror, it is not about how much original content you provide but how easily you can provide people with the information they want (just like the Google model).

Further sites like FB are generally better at organizing reader's comments. If a company does a good job at continually posting on its FB page, it can provide all of the conveniences of microblogging, linking to more expansive articles, and providing a space for discussions. In the meantime, the main site will provide links to not only the main social sites but also to apps for smartphones (i.e. Blackberry and iphone).

Just Thoughts...

So I struggled to define exactly what this new online news service is . So far I got--it's a non-profit, local/hyperlocal, online news provider/aggregator. If that is not complicated enough, my group talked about using social networking sites, embedding video and podcasts, allowing for some citizen journalists and possibly crowd-sourcing by allowing comments on articles.

I am particulary interested more in the social networking stuff. Meaning how do we use sites like Fb, Twitter, Myspace, etc. to not only attract web news surfers but also retain a loyal user base. Should we follow the business model that other online start-ups are using or should a news site like this be more traditional with its approach and allow the content to attract people on its own.

This week I will be looking at how other local/hyperlocal news siteshave incorporated video, how they have appealed to their users through social networking sites and what the "promise," "tool" and "bargain " are of some of the other social news/community news sites.

Is There More Bias in Local News?

I must admit I am not very enthusiastic to report the election results of my hometown: New York City. Bloomberg, the incumbant, who has already been in office for two terms won by only five points promising yet another four years full of the most Republican-esque policies in the most consistently democratic state. It is an irony that I will never understand. Anyway, the polls prior to the Election showed that Bloomberg was ahead of his challenger, Bill Thompson, more than 18 points. But surpringly, Bloomberg won by only five on Election Day.

The Amsterdam News, one of the most local and historic papers in the City, reported that even though Bill Thompson was defeated, the amount of votes he got was actually a victory! It was one of the most bias and slightly ridiculous articles that I have ever read. Who wants to defend a loser! The Amsterdam News was the only paper to endorse Thompson and considering that Bloomberg is not especially popular in the black community, it is no surprise that the Harlem-based paper was not happy. But honestly, they could have just reported the facts. While it is true that Thompson did better than was expected, I would not start praising him as the noble underdog just yet. After all, especially in the case of elections--almost really doesn't count.

This got me thinking. Is there more allowance for bias in more local reporting? Do the readers of these papers or websites really care about objective reporting or is it okay because they are reading the articles in a more subjective context. The Amsterdam News has a very specific audience. I doubt that anyone was upset about the post-election article that so obviously supported Thompson and opposed Bloomberg. I mean if it's only "your people" that are reading, does objectivity really matter?

Response to Shirky... Duh?

Shirky is either a brilliant  "new media" analyst or a reporter of the blatantly obvious. Honestly, I am not sure which. He makes the point that it's the little inventions or advancements in new media (i.e. camera phone, e-mail, the Web) that make the greatest impact. In short, "new behaviors" matter more than "new technologies" (159-160).   Well I think everyone has already realized the amazing significance of email.  And I am not sure what the new behavior is. Is it that advertisers are now applying the science-based, viral infection pattern to marketing. Or is it that people are actually more susceptible to it because of the Web. Either way, Shirky seems to be downplaying the significance of the inventions and overstating the change in human behavior. I don't think the desires or needs of people really changes or at least it doesn't change as fast as the inventions produced to better meet those needs or desires. 

Television News Disappoints Again...

The Trent Lott story is just too juicy. I don't know where to start. Obviously someone (or in this case, all of the mainstream news ) made a huge boo-boo. As we all know, any story involving race, presidential candidates and Southern segregationists should have gotten as much coverage as swine flu or a political sex scandal. And yet...Nothing! It is time that mainstream news, especially television, admit that it has forgotten its purpose. It has replaced all sense of inquiry and responsibility for investigative reporting with trivial conventions. William O'Keefe's explanation simply isn't good enough. Since when did news have to have the public's reaction before a story became worth reporting. The story is what triggers the reaction, not the other way around. By the way, Rosen's whole explanation of the news cycle's logic was brilliant and so sadly explained the issue with television news. No wonder young people, ages 18 to 24, don't watch television news or read the paper, and rely on Jon Stewart for their current events updates. It turns out now we should add blogs to our list. How sad.

Wikipedia, It's So Open

I have always loved Wikipedia. Like Google, I am afraid that its usefulness just always seemed to outweigh its deficiencies. It is always the first result to appear in a Google search and once I learned that the Supreme Court was using it, I really just let go of most of my reservations. I mean if the highest court in the land is doing it, then who am I to question?

But when I went about registering as a member of Wikipedia and became fully aware of the mess I could potentially make, I realized that there were some slight differences. For one, Google is like this divine untouchable thing in the Internet world. Sure, we can all use it but for the most part its technology is off limits to us. Not so with Wikipedia. Wiki is like this lowly, more common-man thing that is fully capable of being touched, corrupted, molded, etc. It's interesting that such a trusted source is so open and as a company, Wikipedia is proud of it. What an entirely different approach to climbing the ladder to Internet greatness. While most companies relish in their own exclusive claim to a product or an idea, Wikipedia has no secret. Its intellectual property is us.

Trusting Google

Okay, so how does Google work? From what I can gather, most people think Google searches the whole Internet and then compiles all of the information based on relevancy But according to this, Google is more like a massive database that only compiles as much as it is legally allowed to and as much as it "googlebots" or its web crawlers can touch. Apparently, the genius and the danger of Google is its algorithm, its patented code, which allows it to sort its data more efficiently than any other search engine. The privacy issue that Google is always battling is central to understanding how the search giant operates. Each one of Google's media outlets (i.e. Youtube, Google Earth, Gmail) involve extracting valuable information from its users in order to provide its services. But as it compiles this information, Google is sitting on heinous information that the government would love to have access to such as details regarding child pornography, terrorism, international trade secrets...and the list goes on.

The problem for me is that I trust Google. It is naive I realize and to those paranoid, overzealous, corrupt-corporation-takes-over-the-world conspiracy theorists, I am probably offering myself up for the privacy slaughter. But for anyone who uses Google, they know that it is just too good to leave alone. Further, I think in many other ways, we all have already lost our privacy to the digital age. If someone wants your information bad enough, nowadays it does not require much to get it. The question is: how aware of it as a user are you? As Googlers we take great comfort in being relatively oblivious as to what Google actually is. I do not think it is a coincidence that Facebook is big and yet no one knows much about it; Google is even bigger and yet billions know even less about it. Someone has to write a sociological dissertation explaining why no one really cares. But juts for kicks, I hypothesize that it is because of trust. We trust that Google is the friendly and gentle emperor it seems to be that controls almost everything and shares its secrets with no one. But on the bright side, it is so good to us. So as long as it plays along with our expectations, we "trust" it not to be evil.

On a Lighter Note

Just because I thought it was hilarious....lol.

I don't mean to be a bummer...

This is not to bring anyone to tears but like my fellow blogger, zefrank, I had a similar and saddening experience only this past week . A friend of mine passed away suddenly on Monday at age 17 and within a few hours, the entire campus knew of her death. Within that same time frame, all 4oo of her Facebook friends knew about the sad news as well. As all of her friends (including me) began updating our facebook statuses to include warm reminisces ("missing you always" or "RIP *****"), it suddenly occurred to me that maybe we shouldn't be posting this on Facebook at all. I mean what if one of her relatives, who had not been told yet, was looking at the page. No one deserves to hear news like that on Facebook. What about her boyfriend? Had anyone told him yet? Messages began appearing on her wall by 11 am. We had only found out at 9am that same morning. While zefrank feels that Facebook allowed him to feel closer to his cousin and more involved in keeping her memory alive, this situation, for me, was not the same. I began asking myself whether it was thoughtful or insensitive to post such personal news online for the world to see, even among so called "friends." Granted, Facebook groups were also created posthumously in loving memory of my friend so that we all could express our sympathies and condolences. But what are the rules? What are the courtesies? Her facebook has since been taken down. But I wonder how long people would have continued to comment on her wall and what the societal implications of that are.

Capitalism Corrupts Journalism...a little bit

You know that the times have seriously changed when a college newspaper editor is shaming one of the oldest newspapers in the country for the age-old crime of plagiarism. I must say that I am not surprised though even the Times has its occasional hiccup, but stealing from your competitors is a new low. How can you claim to deliver a better product (in this case being the most accurate and complete coverage of local and national news) and then steal the work of your "inferiors." It is indeed ironic.

As for the CJR comments criticizing the way the Courant chose to correct this mishap, I agree that simply rewriting the stolen material does not correct the central issue. The Courant did not have the permission of the Inquirer nor did it give credit to the original source of the information.

That said, Starkman seems to be overly concerned with the fact that the Courant was "treating competitors as though they were some kind of free Associated Press." My issue with what the Courant did is not about money; it is about ethics and social responsibility. This is the problem with the capitalist model of journalism. The idea that newspapers are competing not over the quality of their reporting but over how many subscribers and advertisers they have is problematic. The focus of editors has become pleasing and enticing the public instead of informing them. The CJR is right--newspapers don't deserve to make it if they continue to resort to gimmicks and consequently, lose sight of the aim of good journalism. But perhaps another reason newspapers are declining is because in their haste to grab the consumer, they forget to do their job. Produce a good paper and never mind that your sales are decreasing ever so slowly. Call me idealistic, naive even. But I would rather have a quality newspaper with 246 years of "integrity and credibility," than see one slowly waste away to become nothing more than a tabloid over the next 20 or 50 years.

Viral Culture, Viral Obsession

Okay so I was reading this book about the "viral culture" of the media. The author, Bill Wasik, argues that the new outlets of media-- blogs, online videos, e-mail, websites-- have all taken on a viral way of spreading information.

Nowadays news stories are reported sort of like hit-and-run car accidents. A story is reported, almost instantly there is a mass flood of attention and then it's gone. Like the Annie Le story, it was like we cared for five minutes and now.... Annie who? Even the most tragic stories are only given fifteen minutes of fame and then it's over. There are always exceptions though (i.e. O'Jay Simpson and Jon Benet). But besides those special stories that seem to mutate into objects of social obsession, I agree that the country goes through stages of ADD. Last year, the obsession was Obama-mania, then swine-flu, or the AIG bonuses. It is interesting to see how an event with moderate significance is reported over and over again until the public gets the hint that they should obsess about this as well. The problem then becomes who gets to decide what we obsess about. I will admit that I am a sucker for conspiracy theories and that I imagine someone like Rupert Murdoch is behind some mass plot to incite all liberals to madness. But that is so irrational, or is it?