Facebook is not immune

Lest we forget

Myspace used to be the end all and be all social networking site. It was the alpha and the omega when it came to staying connected. It was the chicken and....you get the point: it was important. Walk up to me 6 years ago and tell me myspace will become irrelevant within the decade and I'd surely scoff. But something is only immune untill the next best thing approaches. We all have our gripes with Facebook, how long is it before these gripes turn into alternatives?

Tweeting the Revolution Speaker

I received this email from my Communication Studies Director this morning and felt it was really relevant to class. I just wanted to share it with Media Jamss in case anyone was interested in attending.

Apparently boring=Interesting....who knew?

So it seems as though the entire news industry is not dead yet. According to this article, no matter how bad the newspaper world is, people will always want to read about corruption and the goings on around congress. I find this to be a bit surprising, considering that watching C-Span coverage of a bill's vote is similar to the amount of excitement generated by watching someone do the dishes. Now I hope I'm reading this wrong, but it seems as though not only are businesses willing to invest more money into the muckracking of the hill, but people are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to get in depth coverage into congress. The huffpost article reports.

Bloomberg, already a big player on the Hill, has added 150 staffers for the launch of Bloomberg Government, a trove of news, policy data and wonk intel that costs subscribers $5,700 a year.

I'm sorry...what?! 5,700 dollars a year for a subscription to bloomberg government. Someone please explain that sentence to me, because it so far beyond my levels of comprehension.

I am all for a transparent government, but at some point I think that 24 hour coverage of congressional hearings is superfluous and unnecessary. There is real news out there that deserves the amount of attention that capitol hill is mysteriously receiving. Explanations anyone?

Acronyms Now Added to Oxford English Dictionary

I knew that teens had started incorporating abbreviations and emoticons in their school writing as a result of various mediums such as texting and instant messaging, but now it would seem that the Oxford English Dictionary is embracing this. The online dictionary is adding "OMG," "LOL," and "FYI" to their database, which comes after the site added "bloggable" and "sexting." This is an effort on their part to keep up with the vastly expanding electronic communications age, claiming that these three terms "are quicker to type than the full forms and are useful in the digital arena when there's a character limit." While I think it makes sense that Oxford would add these terms since they're so prominent in our society, I don't necessary think they are terms that should be in an online dictionary. This may further perpetuate young people's use of these terms in their school writing, rather than proper English. Since this slang style of writing is appearing a lot in writing, it's necessary that students be taught the difference between the two. Perhaps if teachers and even parents made this distinction acronyms and emoticons wouldn't appear as much in writing.

A Harmless Video or an Insulting Video?

Not sure if any of you are familiar with the "Pursuit of Jappiness" video made by three students at The University of Michigan, but I thought it was worthy of discussion. We've discussed in class how the media, mostly Youtube and Facebook, are outlets that people resort to--especially young adults and teenagers to achieve overnight fame or success. I think the boys who worked exceptionally hard on this video, who tried to depict what 'jewish' life or 'Greek Life' is like at the University of Michigan, may have taken their joke a bit too far.

Coming from someone who is Jewish and a member of Greek Life, I do find the video entertaining, but also quite offensive. I am surprised because it seems that these guys worked so hard on this video, but for what? What if some of the over 300,000 views this video has garnered isn't from a Jewish member of Greek Life at the University of Michigan or someone from a similar University? Do viewers actually understand the humor and seemingly innocuous jokes that these guys are trying to tell? I really don't know, but what I do hope is that this video does not haunt them in the future. Although it may be funny now, when applying for jobs and such, is a video like this really going to hurt them in the long run?

The question I am trying to answer is, how far is too far on 'youtube.com?' This site enables us to show the world our creative sides. However, what if our creativity is undermined or deemed inappropriate? Even worse, what if your hard work isn't valued the way you feel it should?

See how they responded to some of these questions.

NCAA Bracket: An Example of New Media?

As I sit at home feeling a bit under the weather (listening to all of my roommates get ready for their big night out), I can't seem to bring my eyes away from my NCAA bracket. And then it dawned on me-- why have brackets not been discussed on Media Jamss yet? I think that a college basketball bracket is the perfect example of new media: it's updated in realtime, it allows users to interact with one another, it combines digital text with audio and visual, it creates participation, and it's incredibly active. In fact, there have been multiple occasions when I don't feel like fighting a roommate for the television and I choose to watch the game live on my computer through the website that hosts my bracket (CBS). I will say that this is the first year I've had a bracket and it won't be the last. Given, this is easy for me to say because I'm currently in first place-- I don't mean to boast. Regardless, I felt the need to share my feelings on the NCAA bracket-- an example of new media that I feel goes unnoticed.

And, if you're bored (or feeling a little ill), I highly recommend watching President Obama fill out his NCAA bracket on ESPN last year. It's incredibly entertaining.

Elizabeth Taylor Photo Essay

As people around the globe remain saddened by Elizabeth Taylor's decease, Time Magazine has put together a wonderful photo essay that I wanted to share, especially because we are in the process of creating our own photo essays.

The essay is titled, "Elizabeth Taylor Through the Lens of Hollywood Photo Legend Bob Willoughby." Willoughby, a famed photographer, took dozens of candid shots of Elizabeth Taylor over the years. The photos range from Willoughby taking a photo of Taylor being photographed by another photographer (a very interesting shot) at the tender age of 19 to candid shots on the set of Raintree County.

Enjoy!

Taylor, Willoughby and Eva Marie Saint on the set of Raintree County.

Photo Credit

Have You Stumbled Upon, StumbleUpon.com?

I've browsed through the website Stumble Upon, but never really got myself hooked. I wouldn't have called this site a social networking site until now. Apparently, statistics show that more than 14 million people use this information service to flip through various pages of the web 'almost as if they're channel surfing on a television that anticipates their preferences.' What you tend to 'stumble upon' most often, and continue to browse through, will determine which direction the site takes you in.

There are approximately 500,000 new members signing up for this site every month. And according to the Zeta Interactive, it is the ninth most popular social media site on the Internet. Similar to how other major social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter were acquired by sponsors, eBay acquired StumbleUpon for about 75 million dollars, but then many of their original investors who backed them initially, pulled out and then the site became worth only 29 million dollars.

Basically, this is just a fun, interactive website that allows its users to connect to other websites and find new information. If you are looking to find something new and addicting, you should stumble onto this site!

Why Women Rule The Internet

Tech Crunch had an interesting article out today that discussed women's use of the Internet. Turns out that when it comes to social networking websites and shopping websites, women tend to use them far more frequently than men.

Comscore, Nielsen, MediaMetrix and Quantcast studies all show women are the driving force of the most important net trend of the decade, the social web. Comscore says women are the majority of users of social networking sites and spend 30% more time on these sites than men; mobile social network usage is 55% female according to Nielsen.

And the following quote probably won't surprise you because it's exactly what we have discussed in class:

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, has talked about how women are not only the majority of its users, but drive 62% of activity in terms of messages, updates and comments, and 71% of the daily fan activity.  Women have 8% more Facebook friends on average than men, and spend more time on the site.  According to an early Facebook team member, women played a key role in the early days by adopting three core activities—posting to walls, adding photos and joining groups—at a much higher rate than males. 

From what we learned and discussed in class, why do you think that women "rule" social networking websites? 

New York Times Online Making Users Pay For Their News

Some of the main reasons that many have switched from print to online versions of newspapers are convenience, accessibility, and of course, that it's (mostly) free. Almost all news organizations have online sites that you can peruse, clicking carelessly on any articles that interest you without having to pay. But now, the New York Times, which previously allowed online users to do just that, is imposing restrictions. This excerpt from an article in the Times gives a general overview:

Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic. Once readers click on their 21st article, they will have the option of buying one of three digital news packages.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "loyal reader" of the New York Times, the online newspaper is the homepage on my laptop. I use the site to catch up on the latest news and usually click on at least one article that interests me each day. In theory, this would amount to around 30 articles a month. But now that the New York Times would make me pay a subscription fee ranging from $195 to $455 per year to casually glance over a selection of articles, I would much rather find my news elsewhere. After I reach that 20 article a month limit, I'm definitely going to look at the Washington Post or some news blogs. I would never even think to pay for news that I could easily find on some other online news site. But the fact that the New York Times, one of the most reputable news organizations in the country, is transitioning towards online subscriptions makes me worry. Will other news organizations impose the same restrictions on users, making them pay fees to get their daily news? What do you think of all of this?

this is scary

So our mission statement is to show the benefits and drawbacks of new media. I don't think there is a better example of a drawback than this video interview with unintentional internet phenom Rebecca Black. I will not try to avoid the fact that I made fun of her, I did. But this video is startling. How viciously people can tear people apart on the internet, just because its easy and there is ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

She seems like a nice enough girl who can sing decently well...and people want her to cut herself and die?! I just don't understand.

Is Your Text Making A Difference?

We've already discussed this on our blog, but I recently received this email via change.org and felt the need to share. I actually donated $10 to Red Cross via text messaging last night... and now I'm not certain that the money will get to Japan in time.

Here's a copy/paste of the email:

Dear Alexandra,
As devastating events hit Japan -- earthquake, tsunami, and now a possible nuclear catastrophe -- millions of us have sought to help, often by donating money to urgent relief efforts.

But if you donate via text message, your donations may take up to 90 days to get to the aid organizations that urgently need the money.

That's because mobile service providers like AT&T and Verizon have chosen not to release the donation money right away. Instead, the donations will only be transferred after the end of your next billing cycle, a process that can take up to three months. Tell the phone companies to stop delaying donations.
After the earthquake in Haiti, Change.org activists joined with activists around the world to ask phone companies to provide donations to the Red Cross immediately –– and the phone companies came through. So why are they delaying donations now?

Masaya Uchino, a Japanese-American law student in San Francisco, has started a petition on Change.org to ask AT&T, Verizon, and other major phone service providers not to delay much needed donations from reaching the organizations doing relief work in Japan.

Please join Masaya and other Change.org members in asking the phone companies to stop delaying donations to Japan:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-delay-on-donations-to-japan-2?alert_id=YXcTCsunOA_HkQCJTiSFK&me=aa

Thanks for taking action,
- Weldon and the Change.org team

As more people text money to help the relief in Japan, we need to ask ourselves whether or not the money is actually getting to where it needs to be in a timely fashion. Although I think it's amazing that we can now donate money with just a click of our phone, is it really making a difference?

amazing

stop what you're doing and watch this, even if you already have.

Interesting Video About Texting While Driving

I saw this a while ago on Dr. Phil and wanted to share.

A Fatal Text

What we have feared has become reality. Technology has officially allowed us to put our lives at risk.  A single text, a brief glance, a turn of the wheel, and we have endangered the lives of everyone on the road, including ourselves. Two days ago, Detroit News came out with the article Crash death tests Michigan texting law. It details the first Michigan fatal driving-while-texting case, in which Jerry Joseph is now being convicted of texting while driving and causing the death of Irene Paquin, and the injury of her husband Paul Paquin. However, the charges for the manslaughter will only amount to a misdemeanor and $1000 fine. According to the law, Joseph wasn't engaging in reckless driving, and so no real charges could be brought against him. But it still doesn't make it okay. It seems unfair that a death was cause by one text message, and albeit an unintentional accident, the damage that has been done is devastating. 

This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I feel as though texting while driving is equivalent to drinking while driving. We enter a trance, completed distracted by our surroundings and only attentive to what is on that screen. The cell phone is our dark passenger, and we oftentimes give into its powers. Try as we might, there is simply no way to give one's full attention to the road while texting. I know this from experience. 

Although I am not proud of it, I think it's important to relay this information as a precaution to all those who have/are texting while driving. Last year, I made the mistake of texting while driving, while on an icy highway. A friend asked what time I was getting into town, and rather than calling or simply waiting to pull off at the next exit, I decided I could text her back quickly without losing focus on the road. I can't remember much of what happened next, but I do remember looking up the next moment, realizing I had lost control of the wheel, swerving into the concrete median, and spinning around in multiple 360's until I finally skidded to a halt facing oncoming traffic. The airbags popped and I felt the burn of the plastic on my chin. Disoriented and panicked, I remember flicking on my flashers and desperately hoping that I had not caused any damage to anyone. It all happened so fast: I couldn't remember if I had come into contact with another car. Luckily, a truck pulled in front of the stopped cars, blocking the flow of traffic so as to prevent anyone from hitting me. It was all a blur, but after realizing what had just happened, I was immediately overcome with shame. Fortunately, no one was hurt and although my car was completely damaged, I still feel as though that moment in my life was one I will regret the most. If anything had happened, I could have completely changed the lives of innocent people, for the worse. This article iterates a similar scenario. 

The most frightening aspect of these stories is that they can literally happen to anyone. You don't even need to be texting while driving to be severely injured or possibly killed by such an accident. All it takes is a cell phone and a lapse in judgment on the drivers part. And it happens frequently. Anyone with a cell phone is potentially an unsafe driver. Although texting while driving is banned in Michigan, it still does not prevent drivers from using their cell phones. We have advanced digital communication, but with it, we must also face the repercussions. So please, stay safe, don't text and drive, and don't let other do so as well. 

Insights on Texting: Response to McKenna's Post

McKenna, What a powerful post. It seems that you got to the core of many issues discussed in Alone Together, and in connecting them to real-life situations, further solidified the resounding messages that come from the reading. I agree with your point about phone calls-- you stated "I saw our phone calls as the most sincere way to contact her and stay connected." This brings up an interesting point. Can it be determined that vocal communication is indicative of the strength of a human relationship? 

There are some people on my contact list that I would never think to call. Think of those times when you've "butt dialed" some one you haven't seen in a long time. A return call consists of bewilderment and embarrassment, i.e. confusion as to why you called (who calls these days anyway?) and humiliation on your part for accidentally contacting someone you only maintain a text-based relationship with. It is an awkward situation, to be sure, but should it need to be? A phone call is something I only reserve for close friends and family members. Why is it so taboo these days to call someone whom you haven't spoken to in a year, just to see how they are doing? Quite simply, it's just weird. Oftentimes, we take the easier route and resort to texting instead. Its informal, fast, and emotion can be controlled. We don't need to worry about how our voice sounds over the phone, or how nervous we are in trying to carry on a conversation. I find that the people I most feel comfortable around are the ones that I make phone calls to.  

Its almost comical how the age of the cell phone has developed. For some strange reason, I have a habit of memorizing numbers directly upon seeing them. It only takes a few glances to remember phone numbers. Give me the name of any close friend/family member of mine, and I will recite their number in a heartbeat. Oddly, I associate people with their digits as an automatic, inherent means of remembering phone numbers. Sure, it's a great party trick (and also slightly disturbing), but I am now just beginning to realize that perhaps this skill is indicative of something larger at hand. If I can recite your number with the mere mention of your name, you are one person I will, and have made a phone call to (and text as well). Yet, if I am unable to remember to your digits, then you are someone I will probably only text. It is amazing how digital communication shapes the way we interact with others. The question is, is it for the better or the worse?

I'll leave you with this image...

How Cell Phones and Social Media Outlets are Negatively Affecting Our Youth

After reading chapters nine and ten of Sherry Turkle's new book "Alone Together," published in January 2011, I can't say I'm surprised by her findings, but more so worried of the impact internet, specifically social media, and cell phones are having on young people growing up in today's society. Turkle profiles one girl who is a senior in high school as she describes her feelings about Facebook friends and either confirming or ignoring them.

I always feel a bit of panic...Who should I friend?...I really want to only have my cool friends listed, but I'm nice to a lot of other kids at school. So I include the more unpopular ones, but then I'm unhappy.

Right off the bat, I scoffed at this girl's comment. How could someone only a few years younger than myself take the idea of a Facebook friend so seriously? I wanted to shake this girl and yell at her, NO ONE CARES. I could see a thirteen year old girl, naive and completely obsessed with looking popular, sharing this view but not an eighteen year old, presumably about to enter college. The fact that she actually views a Facebook friend as a reflection of friends in real life, whom she interacts with face-to-face, is quite honestly pathetic. Her comment shows how superficial young people can be when they interact via social networking sites like Facebook. For this girl, she only wanted to be "friends" with the cool people, and here, friends is in quotes because she may not talk to these people face-to-face and only interact in a mediated environment. But for others, and Turkle discusses this in her book, it's all about the information they put on their profiles like favorite bands or activities that reveals the sheer superficiality of Facebook for many young people.

Turkle then goes on to discuss the role of telephone calls, or lack thereof, in the lives of young people. It's no surprise that in her interviews, many of the teens she profiled consistently commented that they wholly dislike making or receiving phone calls and would much rather interact via instant messaging or text messaging. While I do admit that phone calls can be rather time consuming, I would much rather talk to a friend or family member on the phone if the conversation needs to involve more than a quick question or two. In high school, I would talk to one of my friends on the phone nearly every night even after seeing each other at the school that day. I enjoyed talking to her and felt that by telling each other stories on the phone, we could interact on a level that texting or IM couldn't offer. We laughed together, fed off of each others comments, could determine each others moods by our voices. Basically, I saw our phone calls as the most sincere way to contact her and stay connected. And while we don't talk on the phone nearly as much as we used to since coming to college, it is still our preferred way to keep in touch with one another. And the same is true for my parents, sister, and a few other close friends who go to school in other states - we communicate via the telephone.

This same chapter is also largely devoted to Turkle's interview and analysis of Audrey, a sixteen year old junior in high school. Audrey is unhappy that her mother is constantly talking on her phone around her and fantasizes about her mother disconnected from her phone and paying attention to Audrey. Turkle states:

But Audrey is resigned that this is not to be and feels she must temper her criticism of her mother because of her own habit of texting when she is with her friends.

Audrey has come to terms with her mother's distracted behavior, justifying it because she herself knows that she is guilty of the same exact behavior. She admits to texting other people while she is with friends, which creates a paradoxical situation. Even though she is physically present with others, she is ultimately disconnecting herself from these friends to connect with other friends through a mediated communication device. This aspect of Turkle's argument resonated with me the most because I find the act of texting while with other people to be one of the most irritating experiences. Let me paint the picture. I have one friend who is constantly on her phone when she's with others. Say for example, we're out to dinner with some other friends as well. She has to have her phone sitting next to her on the table. She absolutely can't have it in her purse for fear of missing a text. So we're having a conversation and she looks down to see she has just received at text. Despite being deep in conversation, she picks up her phone and proceeds to respond, even though a question or comment has just been directed at her. In comes the long pause. We all wait for her to respond but instead she is busy typing away on her phone. When she puts her phone down and looks up, she almost always responds, "Wait what?" completely unaware of what was just said.

Despite being irritated by her behavior, I just roll my eyes, having ultimately come to terms with it because I know that even if I tell her it annoys me, she won't change. That's just how she is. And I'm not blaming her for it; I know that's how many people are these days, constantly connected on their phones and anxious about calls or texts when they are without it. I guess for me I just don't feel the need to always be on my phone, awaiting a text or call. This is partially due to the fact that my dad had a strict rule that we couldn't be on our phones when we were having family time, specifically dinners, and it's just stuck with me since. I think it's rude when others are on their phones when I'm having a conversation with them so I don't do it. It's as simple as that.

Ira Glass on Storytelling

**Author's note: I have been a fan of Ira Glass for the past two years or so. At the height of my fandom, I would download the podcast of This American Life just as soon as it hit the airwaves. It is my not-so-secret desire to have a career similar to the one that he has been lucky enough to enjoy. To me, Glass represents the ultimate storyteller. He balances an honest conversational tone with intriguing topics ranging from the jovial to the depressing. He devotes an unbelievable amount of interest into everything he reports on and the entire show is better for it.

It is funny to see someone speak about something as simple as storytelling. Stories have been told since, well, since there were stories to tell. You'd think that something so primordial would be deeply entrenched in our psyche, you'd think that noone would have to tell us how to tell a story. Alas, Glass shows the listener/viewer that there is a lot to it, in a short series of brief videos.

What struck me as being the most potent of all was how he spoke of the inescapable nature of failure. "Failure is a big part of success," Glass says, adding on that it sounds like the tagline of a Michael Jordan commercial. Failure is what makes our achievements that much better. As Glass points out, there is a tendency among journalists to become incredibly attached to a piece and maybe even refuse to see the faults in it. Something that is sub-par has the passion of a journalist behind it for any number of reasons. But the ability to recognize failure is a necessity. I like what Glass says: "You need to enjoy in the killing of it." It's a bit of a Sophie's choice: kill one story so that another can thrive. As a journalist sifts through the masses of stories that are presented to them, they learn to be more dilligent about what they choose to produce. It may take awhile to come across a story that is truly great, but if there is a willingness to accept failure than the greatness of the successful story will be exponentially better. The combination of high standards, high volume, and a high failure rate will inevitably lead to a better reporter. The most important thing to hold on to, Glass seems to emphasize, is the reliance on keeping good taste. So long as you have good content and you develop your voice, your ability to get good stories across will be unavoidable.

I dont think that enough can be said about the importance in having a solid foundation in storytelling, for any profession. Glass can, and should, be perceived as one of the pre-eminent journalists in the field because of his ability to grip his listeners. In the age of a-story-a-second type of news reporting, it is always refreshing to tune into Glass's slow and careful voice on TAL every Sunday. The anecdote, as Glass talks about, is what separates a potentially boring story from becoming just that. By including details that raise questions, you are gripping the audience. We have read about the importance of getting to the point, of being straightforward, of bare-boned writing styles; but I withhold that there should always be a place for a bit of creativity in the world of non-fiction. It is a foundation in creative details that seperates dull anchors from the superb ones; a bit of attention to aesthetic entrenches certain speeches in the confines of history

Perhaps I am assigning too much value to Glass's lectures, but I really dont think so. Consider how news shows can get muddled, there is a reason why many people dont watch the news: its boring. Glass is not impervious either, he shows the listener his own immature imperfections as a young reporter in a display of teaching modesty. Every great reporter comes from small beginnings that seems to be void of a possible future. But if you stick to the fundamentals and continue to hone your craft and voice, then the success and the engagement of an audience will follow soon after.

Google Uses Social Networks to Find Missing Persons in Japan

I found this topic to be so interesting. After Friday's disastrous 8.9 magnitude earthquake and massive tsunami, thousands of people are missing and desperate to be reunited with their loved ones. In order to make the search process easier, Google has launched the 'Person Finder Tool,' which is a free informational service where people who are looking for someone can post that they are looking for them or post that they have found someone. The tool is available in multiple different languages and uses data from other social networking sites to search for records of missing people.

"They are currently tracking about 122,000 records as of March 13, 2011." 

Because other communications methods like phone lines and cell towers were shut down and there was a mass disruption of traditional channel of communication, Google decided to deploy this Person Finder tool. The 'Person Finder Tool' was also used to successfully relocate victims of the Christchurch, New Zealand Quake (last month) and the disaster in Haiti.

Although it deals with horrific natural disasters, Person Finder is an exceptionally brilliant tool. I find it extraordinary to see how vast our capabilities are with programs like Google and other social networking sites and how they can contribute to something so vital.

Social Media and Television

I came across this article the other day after reading about the social media usage of young adults from the Pew Research Center. It's from the online database New Media Age, a site dedicated to media studies in the UK, and is titled "Most young people use social networks while watching TV."The main finding from the study is as follows:

Of the 1,300 UK people surveyed, 80% said they use their mobiles while watching TV, while 72% comment specifically on programmes via social networks on their mobiles.

It's not surprising that many young people are simultaneously on their phones, usually texting, while watching TV. I'm sure many of my peers would agree that this is normal behavior for people our age and I myself am completely aware that I do this all the time. However, what I find especially interesting about this study is that young people are not just texting while watching TV, but also communicating with others via social networking devices such as Twitter and Facebook. They're updating friends and followers on a larger scale rather than texting or calling a few close friends. This study also shows the importance of social media as it becomes a central aspect of more kinds of traditional media, in this case television. Young people constantly feel the need to be connected and often choose to do so through mediated communication rather than face-to-face interactions.

Facebook Advertises Privacy Settings

Photo Credit

When I was on Facebook tonight viewing my own profile a box popped up that read:

Things have moved around on your new profile, so please take a second to understand who can see your stuff. Currently some of your photos and videos are visible to Friends, and Only You can see photos you're tagged in. Remember, you can always change your settings. 

There was either an option to "Confirm" or I could click on "your settings" and be taken to the "Customize Privacy Settings" page. I thought this was interesting given our recent discussions in class about privacy settings on Facebook and how many find it hard to manage these settings because there often difficult to find the privacy page in the first place. I wonder if this pop-up box is a reaction to complaints from Facebook users who are unaware of their privacy on the site and what they're inadvertently sharing with others on the web. Any thoughts?

Facebook Fan Page Predicts Chicago Mayor

I stumbled across this article on AOL News and felt inclined to share with Media Jamss. The article titled "Facebook Fan Page Expert Accurately Predicts Chicago Mayoral Results 1 Day Before Election" was, for lack of a better word, startling. In summary, a Facebook fan page expert (yes, that occupation actually exists), reviewed the number of people who "liked" a candidate's Facebook Fan page and was able to conclude that the number of "likes" actually predicted which candidate would win the race.

The conclusion?

Facebook and especially Facebook Fan pages are proving to be a powerful way for business owners, corporations, and politicians to get their message, product or service out to their marketplace, community or constituents.

Who needs voting booths when you have Facebook Fan pages?

You didn't hear it from me ladies...

The Huffington Post put something out today that cited an study that said that women use Facebook to boost their self-esteem. I found this to be an interesting, but not totally surprising piece. More often than not it is women that are changing their profile pictures, and when I go to a party it is women that are taking the photos for everyone. I am inclined to believe that this is because they are getting ready to post the pictures on Facebook. I'm hedging my bets with what I say here because i realize that 80% of this blog's authors are...welll...women. Thoughts?

The Internet and the Oscars

Photo Credit


"Marketers Ready to Interact on Oscar Night" posted by the Wall Street Journal 


Just in case you didn't catch the Oscars, marketing companies such as Sprint Nextel and JC Penney sponsored/posted on websites such as People.com and Facebook (gasp!) to market their products during the live show. As if commercials weren't enough, these, and more companies have begun affiliating with websites to gain access to large audiences, and thus, more buyers, during live-broadcasted events (i.e. the Superbowl and the Oscars). Ironically, the Wall Street Journal itself got in on the Oscar action and posted interactive polls and updates for the Academy Awards

Teens and Technology

The article Writing, Technology, and Teens  was a bit of an awakening. The frequency with which teenagers communicate electronically on a daily basis was expected, but the gender statistics were definitely shocking. The article quotes, 

Girls are significantly more likely than boys to socialize or engage with friends daily via a home or landline telephone, cell phone, text messaging, instant messaging, email, and through private messages within a social networking site (Lenhart). 

 How did girls come to take over the internet? Cyber-gossiping, chatting, commenting, and photo-sharing may be a few reasons. Remember those MySpace days? It seems that just about every girl in middle school had her own profile. Just as the article states, boys eventually picked up on social networking and electronic communication. Yet, it is important to note that this article was written in 2008. In just three years, many things have changed. We have evolved from MySpace to Facebook, where everyone from teenage boys to parents and teachers have their own profiles. 


We are a progressive generation. Oftentimes, we don't realize things are outdated until we are reminded of their existence. When is the last time you wrote a letter to a friend? At one time, we each set down our postmarked envelopes and opted to send an email instead. It was faster, cheaper, and less time-consuming. Yet, even email activity decreased. In 2008, statistics showed that only 16% of teens used email on a daily basis. With the onset of text messaging, social networks, and personal cell phones, perhaps email has steadily become obsolete. Is this true for you?


Personally, I am still a fan of making telephone calls and emailing. Although I hate to have a full inbox, I find that if I cannot talk to someone face-to-face, the least I can do is leave a voicemail or email the message. It just seems more personal. In an age where privacy is a commodity, I find that secure, one-to-one communication via phone calls/emails is ideal. 


Apart from email, decreasing numbers of teens are using blogging platforms as well. The article Social Media and Young Adults states,

In 2006, 28% of teens ages 12-17 and young adults ages 18-29 were bloggers, but by 2009 the numbers had dropped to 14% of teens and 15% of young adults (Lenhart).

Take a wild guess as to why..... That's right. Because of Facebook. The fact that a single social networking site has the ability to take over an entire nation (as well as other countries) and its use of the internet is truly astonishing. Perhaps Facebook will become the main reason why we cease emails altogether, or even make phone calls. Since the onset of Facebook, I have not gone more than two weeks without checking my profile. Since the beginning of this course, we have rarely gone through a day without mentioning Facebook. We may not want others to know how frequently we log in to Facebook, but in our day and age, it is likely that others are on just as much as we are. It may be only a matter of time until the world can see exactly when we are on the site, and how often we visit Facebook daily. A scary thought, but with our deteriorating rights to internet privacy, it is a possibility nonetheless. 

The Facebook Effect: Our One Identity and Who Has AccessTo It

It is clear that all people want to have control over their own digital identity, and after reading "The Facebook Effect," we learn that users of Facebook, although they may think they have control over the information and data they are sharing, do not. In fact, they actually don't have the slightest idea where that information is going. Before reading more about Facebook and its privacy settings, I actually never realized how intrusive or excessive it could be to ones personal life, and the reality is, "nothing on Facebook is really confidential."This notion that "nothing we are putting on Facebook is confidential" is both intimidating and frightening and has begun to make Facebook users, including me, second guess the information we want to put up on our pages.

photo credit

All of the information and data we decide to display on our page, whether we like it or not, helps shape our one, 'Facebook identity.' Zuckerberg says, "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity,"so for those of us who thought we could successfully create separate identities for our friends, co-workers, and schoolmates, are just fooling ourselves and those who know us. To even think that we had the great fortune of "hiding" or "selecting privacy groups" to ensure that certain people wouldn't see certain information, was quite naive. Knowing we don't have the opportunity to separate ourselves or the information we post may change the way we use these social networking sites.  Zuckerberg says,

"Even if you want to segregate your personal from your professional information you won't be able to, as information about you proliferates on the Internet and elsewhere."

In response to this quote from Zuckerberg, I'd say I have to agree with him. Once something hits Facebook or the Internet, it should be a known fact that, that information immediately has the potential to go viral. For example, those kids who think that blocking their parents from their Facebooks will inhibit them from seeing the pictures they're 'tagged' in are ever so wrong. A friend could let his or her parent gain access to their Facebook, who could then show your parents your Facebook. Or, a friend of a friend of yours on Facebook could potentially show your parent. All of these are examples of ways in which information you think you are hiding sufficiently, you are NOT.  Mainly, what you need to take out of this is that you truly have no idea who has access to your information, how it is getting dispersed, or how many ways a person can access your information. It is acceptable to display certain information on your Facebook page, but what you should know is that you only have ONE identity on Facebook, you should be careful with the information you let others see on your Facebook, and you should be responsible with your Facebook.

The Facebook Effect: Privacy Settings

"The Facebook Effect" was not only intriguing as a reader, but also informative as a Facebook user. I thought that the first section of the reading was the most interesting-- the part that discussed privacy. Ever since I first signed up for Facebook, I've been very cautious about my privacy settings. I often "limit profile" people that I don't want viewing my photos or reading my wall. I've created a variety of lists that allow certain people to see certain things on my page. It might sound crazy (and a bit obsessive), but I find it important, especially as a graduating senior.

Nevertheless, over the years, I have noticed that the privacy settings on Facebook have changed drastically. I often struggle finding the privacy settings. What used to be so easy to navigate, now requires Google searches and Facebook Help. In the article "The Facebook Effect"it says, "At every turn, it seems Facebook makes it more difficult than necessary to protect user privacy." That's exactly how I've been feeling lately. Naturally, this leads to the question of digital identity and whether or not we have control over our own identity on Facebook. Sure, we can control what other people see on our Facebook in regards to photos and posts and information about ourselves, but can we really control what information Facebook gives to other parties about us? Like other businesses, Facebook is driven by revenue. The article asks: "Even if Facebook makes promises about how it will treat our data, how can we be certain it will be used the way it should, not only now but in the future?"

I am constantly getting bombarded with forward messages talking about Facebook privacy and how to manage it so that your account remains secure. Just today I read an article on NBC titled "Manage Facebook's Privacy, Security Settings." It talks about how to block someone, how to limit who can see your friend's list, how to customize privacy settings on Facebook photo albums and videos, and much more. The questions I want to leave you with involve the privacy aspects of Facebook. I'm curious how other bloggers on Media Jamss use the privacy settings on Facebook to their own advantage? Do you feel that the privacy settings are real or do you think that Facebook still has control over your Facebook? Have you, too, noticed a change in privacy settings? And, lastly, do you, as a user, feel that you are familiar with the privacy settings or is it something that you need to look into?

Photo Credit

Comical Current Events on Saturday Night Live

    On Thursday March 3, 2011, I had the opportunity of going to visit studio 8H at Rockefeller Plaza where I saw the cast's rehearsal for the next taping of SNL. I met Miley Cyrus, yes, the Miley Cyrus, for the first time and she whispered to me and said, "Sydney, wait till you see our cold opening-it's actually hilarious."So I walked with Miley who was playing 'Lindsay Lohan' to the next set and watched her rehearse. I was introduced to Fred Armisen who was playing 'Muammar Gaddafi,' Bill Hader, who was playing 'Charlie Sheen,' and Taran Killam, who was playing 'John Galliano'.

     This skit, called "Duh! Winning!"was intended to highlight some of the controversial characters that have been buzzing throughout the media during the past couple of weeks. The host of this skit, Bill Hader, who played Charlie Sheen, was mimicking his attention-hogging and outlandish behaviors that he's been revealing to the media. Sheen almost seems like he is taking over the media by talking to reporters, journalists, TV stations, and other media outlets to get all the attention he can to try and show America that he is "clean" and he deserves to have his children back. What I don't think Sheen realizes is that not all media attention is good media attention and the way they depicted Sheen on SNL was definitely not flattering. The media has the ability to sway people's opinions, like we learned in class, and I think we know how the world sees him after these past few interviews--(he's mentally ill and he needs to go to rehab to get some good old fashioned help).
      The next person they mocked on the show was John Galliano, who was most recently suspended from Dior for supposedly making anti-semetic remarks. There has been a lot of buzz in the news lately as to whether or not Galliano is going to be put on trial in France (because anti-semetic remarks are illegal) and whether or not his future as a designer is finished. The spoof they did on him was quite funny, yet still addressed the main reasons why he is being discussed in the media-his hateful remarks.
       The next person they trashed was Muammar Gaddafi. A situation that should not be mocked, but was done in good spirits. For those of you who don't know what is going on with Muammar Gaddafi, essentially, the Libyan leader committed very terrible hate crimes against humanity and his people. Gaddafi was another person of media interest this week for his despicable and outlandish actions.
        The final person they mocked was Lindsay Lohan, which was ironically played by Miley Cyrus. They intended on having Miley play Lindsay to show that both of the pop stars have made mistakes.  Miley-although she allegedly smoked salvia from a bong, is meant to show the world that although she has made mistakes throughout her life, she still has a good head on her shoulders. Meaning, she hasn't received any DUI's, she has never been arrested, nor has she ever missed a court date (let alone been scheduled one).
       It was funny to see this skit as SNL's opening skit because they chose figures who were current and"controversial" in today's world. SNL incorporated real life news into their skit and made it funny. If someone didn't know what "tiger blood" or "winning" was, thanks to Bill Hader as Charlie Sheen, they do now. And if someone didn't know why John Galliano got suspended from Dior, they do now. And if someone didn't know what all the 'buzz' on Libya was, they do now. As you can see, although not one-hundred percent educational, it was still informative. Overall, I'd say it was a job well done!