Monday, February 27, 2012

Ding! Ding! Ding! Round 1 of Essay #2

Sorry the picture really has nothing to do with this essay whatsoever.
...It goes with the title though ;)


Changing the Dynamics: The Press Sphere 

            The recent legislation against Internet piracy, brought to Congress in the forms of SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), and the subsequent protests against the Acts exploded onto the news scene in traditional media as well as not-so-traditional sources. By and by, it took about a millisecond for the entire nation to know about the impeding legislation and about two milliseconds for the rest of the world to find out. The impact of this story on the legislation was as swift as it was devastating. The fact that this story went “viral” so quickly and had such a huge impact says a lot about our current media system today, how it is changing and what influences the stories we, the people, get to hear about. 

The story about SOPA and PIPA did not actually become a story until a large-scale protest was organized by some of the biggest names in the digital media world, such as; Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, and Twitter.  The initial reporting of the story in traditional media focused largely on the protests rather than the Acts themselves with headlines like, “Internet community cheers power of protest; Hundreds of websites showed their support”, an article written by Roger Yu and Jon Swartz in USA TODAY (Internet Community), or “Tech companies boldly protest anti-piracy bills”, an article written by Beth Krietsch in PR Week Magazine (Tech). The first stories to surface about the protests were posted the Tuesday before “Black Wednesday” (the name given to the protest) went into effect, but even then only a small number of stories were published before the actual protests began. According to Ben Dimiero’s report, “News Networks Ignore Controversial SOPA Legislation”, (which was posted on January 5th, 2012. Black Wednesday occurred on January 19th, 2012) next-to-nothing was reported by traditional media about SOPA and PIPA themselves. Dimiero writes, “As the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) makes its way through Congress, most major television news outlets -- MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have ignored the bill during their evening broadcasts. One network, CNN, devoted a single evening segment to it” (Dimiero). Apparently, SOPA and PIPA had been extensively debated through sources on the Internet, from blogs to forums to memes, for several months leading up to the Black Wednesday Protests and had yet to be even remotely discussed in the traditional media. Dimiero does give some credit where credit is due and writes in his report that, “the online arms of most of these news outlets have posted regular articles about the fight over the legislation, but their primetime TV broadcasts remain mostly silent” (Dimiero).

Dimiero’s report unveils an interesting perspective of today’s media system and press sphere as a whole. It also highlights some of the major differences between the traditional media and the digital media. What the reporting of SOPA and PIPA show us is that today’s media system is centered on events. The bigger the event and the more important the event, the more reporting is done. Now there are huge discussions to be had about what is deemed “big and important” by the press and why but that is a debate for another day. For now, lets leave it at this: SOPA and PIPA were not deemed important news until after the Black Wednesday Protests. As Nick Tan, a blogger for the website Game Revolution, so eloquently writes, 

So either mainstream media is extremely slow to pick up on things (definitely possible), they're being paid not to cover it or to cover it once and then slip it under the radar (also possible), or they've been waiting for something big to happen like today's SOPA Blackout on the internet to give a hoot about it (probably).” 

The parenthesis are Tan’s work, not my own. The most pronounced differences that Dimiero’s report shows between traditional media and digital media is the scope of available content. Before the Internet, the press and those individuals desiring to share and discuss current events on a large scale were limited to crowded newspapers or time-crunched TV and radio programs. With the Internet there is a virtually unlimited amount of space and opportunity to discuss and share events. This newfound breathing space has dynamically changed how the press-sphere operates and how the public interacts with that sphere. The Black Wednesday Protests dramatically revealed the powerful influence the Internet now holds over the press.

            After the initial Black Wednesday Protests the story quickly shifted focus from the main event to the response to the event. This sort of shift is a natural progression for a typical news story, especially a story as big as the protests against SOPA and PIPA. People want to know what happens next, they want to know more. Thus, we began to see stories that expanded their focus and delved into greater detail. We saw stories that explained the SOPA and PIPA legislation in more detail, stories that focused on the pros and cons to the legislation and stories that discussed the viewpoints of the legislation’s opponents and defenders. However, what is unnatural about this particular story’s development is how self-reflective it has forced media to become. News writers and bloggers across the board all noticed that the SOPA and PIPA protests were a shining example of Internet’s vast potential to influence the press sphere and, in turn, the political landscape as a whole. The Huffington Post’s article, “SOPA And PIPA Bills: Online Companies Win Piracy Fight” points out that, 

Just weeks ago, the bills seemed headed toward quiet approval with bipartisan backing…The turnabout was so unexpected that some think the online world's triumph signals a pivotal moment marking its arrival as Washington's newest power broker. ‘This does serve as a watershed moment,’ said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a communications professor at the State University of New York at Albany who studies how political groups use high technology. "Certain channels for communication that people routinely use have the power to get their users to become political activists on their behalf" (AP).

The huge response garnered by the Black Wednesday Protests has shown the world just how far-reaching and widely used digital media has become. With that reach comes an immense amount of political power for the Digital Media Giants, a power that most (even the giants themselves, I think) did not know they had. The Huffington Post is but one of the many news providers, worldwide, that has realized the power the Internet now holds. In an editorial published in The Observer, a newspaper in the United Kingdom, the author writes, “Little people? Facebook, Apple and Google are embryo media masters of the planet. Perhaps we still tremble about BSkyB's cash clout or Fox News’s baleful influence, but that's not the way News International sees the future. It feels weak, vulnerable and scared” (The Internet). The Observer notes the power shift from traditional media to the less traditional media of the Internet. The Internet took a story that the traditional media had previously ignored and turned it into an international media sensation. According to The Observer, the idea that digital media now has a greater influence over international news has News International more than a little nervous. 

            Of course all this talk of power poses a larger question, where did this power come from? The International Herald Tribune answers that question in its article, “Internet generation flexes its lobbying muscle; An impromptu coalition halted copyright bills, but can it hold together?” The author writes, 

Can the Internet industry, along with legions of newly politicized Web users, be a new force in Washington? And if so, what else can they all agree upon? If labor unions once amplified the legislative agenda of certain American industries, the anti-piracy fight showed the power of a different force: young Americans who live and breathe the Internet (Internet Generation).

The Huffington Post and The International Herald Tribune both note the underlying reason the Internet has gained so much power; young Americans use the Internet as their source for news more than almost every other media tool that exists today. There lies the strange self-reflective quality of this news story. Through the press sphere this story has morphed into a story about the future of the press sphere. 

            Through the press sphere the Black Wednesday Protests became more than just a story about protests against anti-piracy bills, the protests became a symbol of a new age. The interaction of the press, the simple reporting, the claims and counter-claims, the expanding and forwarding of ideas, serves to dig out from a story its essential meaning and purpose. For the SOPA/PIPA story its implications became very clear: a new era of News Media has arrived and with it comes a shift in the power balance between traditional media, digital media and, subsequently, the entire political landscape of how we, the people, receive and influence our news.






Works Cited

AP. "SOPA And PIPA Bills: Online Companies Win Piracy Fight." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Jan. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/21/sopa-and-pipa-bills-anti-piracy-legislation_n_1220817.html>.

Dimiero, Ben. "REPORT: News Networks Ignore Controversial SOPA Legislation." Media Matters for America. 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050008>.

"Internet community cheers power of protest; Hundreds of websites showed their support." USA TODAY. (January 19, 2012 Thursday ): 958 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/28.

"Internet generation flexes its lobbying muscle; An impromptu coalition halted copyright bills, but can it hold together?." The International Herald Tribune. (January 28, 2012 Saturday): 1109 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/28.

Tan, Nick. "Mainstream Media Ignoring SOPA." Game Revolution. 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/mainstream-media-ignoring-sopa-10587>.

"Tech companies boldly protest anti-piracy bills." PR Week (US). (January 19, 2012): 450 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/28.

"THE INTERNET: Beware new dynasties in fight for web freedom." The Observer (England). (January 22, 2012): 1176 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/02/28.


Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Taking An Approach is like learning Music Theory

Reading Harris' "Taking an Approach" was actually quite interesting to me. It kind of connects some dots that had been forming in my mind from the other chapters we've read from him. I don't know how many of you know much about music or music theory but I will attempt to explain it as best as I can.

We've all heard about those artist who just picked up an instrument and learned to play it on their own. The famous Jazz (I apologize to Joey's blogger) musicians who didn't even know how to read a sheet of music much less tell you about music theory. They just have this natural talent that comes to them, they feel rather than know what notes are best to play here or what sounds best. 

Then there are people who learn how to play in a more academic style. They start off with learning to read the notes on the paper and which notes are what on the instrument. They learn about scales, chords, the circle of fifths, majors, minors, half steps, whole steps, fingering, pitch, sharps and flats and all this other stuff about music theory while they are still just barely learning how to play Mary Had A Little Lamb. (This may be the voice of experience...I play the piano and sing btw) 

But then when you take the natural musician and teach him(or her...we really just need to come up with a neutral pronoun...seriously) the theory behind his music and show him that that neat little trick he does to make that awesome sound actually has a name, it opens up his world of music and makes it a little brighter. While it doesn't really affect his skill or make it any better it makes him more thoughtful about his music and makes it easier for him to share his talent a teach others. It also makes it easier for him to learn from other great musicians.

This is what I feel like Harris is doing with his book. (Not that I'm saying that I'm some amazing writer or anything but just that he's showing me things that I already do in my writing and giving them a name) "Taking an Approach" is a chapter that really begs us as writers to take a deeper look at our writing and recognize what we're doing. He's asks us to take a second look at the stuff that comes instinctively and ask ourselves why we wrote it that way, what has influenced our particular style, why did we choose that word or this sentence. What made us decide to organize our paper this way rather than that way. We are looking and the theories and influences that are at the foundation of our writing. When we learn to look at our own writing in this way we also learn to look at others writing in the same way and by doing so we can learn to incorporate their styles and approaches in our own writing...with our own little twist on it, of course. 

I think writer do this all the time, even without know the "theory" behind it. I've noticed in the blogs I follow on the Huffington Post that even thought they are not writing "news" per say a lot of their writings follow that particular style...I'm sure if I knew the bloggers personally I would be able to reference specific thing they read and how that style is reflected in their writing. But I do believe, especially the writers on the Huffington Post, read a LOT of news because, like it or not, that style is fairly prevalent in their posts. 

Countering in Action...Touche!

So I've decided I'm going to be that girl and use this post to do a little revision on my paper. I thought it was appropriate because I could do a little countering, I was told that having a little bit of the other sides argument within my paper would enhance my point so here we go. 

Those who fear the Internet believe that the social networking-obsessed, blog-crazed, entertainment-based, and gossip-centric ways of the Internet have given us short attention spans and has made us shallow and narcissistic. They are certain that we are more concerned with posting a picture of the latte we just drank than we are with learning about what is happening in the world around us. Chris Hedge who wrote, "America the Illiterate", is concerned that as a result of the Internet's focus on entertainment depth of meaning and analysis will be tossed aside. He writes, "In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek or want honesty. We ask to be indulged and entertained by clichés, stereotypes and mythic narratives."  Nicolas Carr, an author for the Atlantic Monthly, expresses his concerns about the effect of the internet in his article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid". Carr writes, "[Media] supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation." Carr believe that the Internet is fundamentally changing the way we think, and beyond that, making us incapable of deep thought. He goes on to say, "Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged."
Those that fear the Internet would say that those who use the Internet are desperately crying for attention, that their actions are evidence of the narcissism we have succumbed to by opening the “Pandora’s box” that is the Internet. They see the generation of the Internet as thoughtless and easily entertained and distracted. They believe the Internet is a place where people desperately vie for the approval of their peers, to fit in, to feel somehow important in an age where entertainment value is the only value. To them, the Internet is a place to fulfill shameful vices or act out behind the convenient mask of anonymity and, in many ways, they are correct. People are using the Internet for these purposes, but, once again, those who fear the Internet have failed to look beyond these failings to see the redemptive value that lies underneath the mess.

 I'm not really sure if this is more of an example of forwarding or countering...since in essence the quotes I include are going against the general point of my paper (countering) but the way that I use them more or less promotes my point (forwarding). Interesting dilemma....

Monday, February 20, 2012

Countering

This.                     
Not This.                  




The comparison as depicted above seems to be point Harris is making in his chapter about Countering. In professional writing it is not enough to simply argue against someone else. You must offer a solution and bring the reader to a reasonable alternative conclusion than what was previously offered. You must compare both arguments side-by-side and show why one is better than the other. Which makes sense. What kind of paper would it be if all you did was say that so-and-so who wrote such-and-such was wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. The next question a reader would ask is "why?" and once you've explained why the reader would then ask "what can we do about that?"


So I found a good example of countering(its not difficult to find a blogger who thinks somebody else is wrong). 


Robert Kuttner is arguing in this post against Tom Friedman of the New York Times who is proposing that what America really need is a radically centrist third party. Now while I happen to completely disagree with what Kuttner has to say I do acknowledge the effectiveness of his argument. As Kuttner goes through he systematically points out things in Freidman's argument that seem wrong to him, he explains what Freidman means, why it's wrong, and what would be a better solution. He even includes a link to Freidman's original article. The only thing I think Kuttner is missing in Haris' respect for other writers. Harris gives the impression that there is something good to be found in everyone's writings while Kuttner makes it very clear that he thinks just about everything Freidman has to say is "malarkey". 

I think for the reader sake the best approach to reading a countering argument is to read the first argument first. If the reader has read the first piece of writing and then proceeds to the countering argument(s) I think there is much to be gained. The reader will understand both sides clearly (assuming they are both clearing written) and gain a new perspective. If they do not read the first argument first I think with most pieces of writing, as is the case with Kuttner, the original argument (i.e. Friedman) is usually demonized in the eyes of the reader. It becomes a "my side versus your side" sort of argument rather than focusing on the issue at hand.  

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Forwarding and Blogging

Ok...so the 'blog' sights that I have been following are more or less news sights. It seems like everything I've been clicking on in the Huffinton Post has been a link to an article posted in some news paper...but I have an idea that these articles may still work for these purposes. 

Forwarding is Harris' term for the idea of using other peoples work in your own. To put it simply. He basically points out that in academic writing writers often respond to others' writing and integrate those works into new works, and in doing so gaining new perspectives, adding new directions and topics of conversation, and putting forward new ideas. He makes it clear that he does not mean people write about the work of another like a book review or a summary, but rather, they are using the works of another to further their own point and agenda. Now that sounds rather mercenary and Harris does point out the dangers of forwarding. He says that a text can easily become "fatherless" and be distorted from its original purpose. 

Back to my search for a blog post that related to this idea of forwarding (and I thought that was going to be easy...) after reading a dozen or so articles (these exercises definitely make sure I'm keeping up on my news...) I found a random little blog post that hardly seems relevant to really anything but does add an interesting element to Harris' idea of forwarding. 


There is the link...if you are going to understand the rest of my post you will probably want to read this little post (it really is little and kinda cute) 

Basically Caroline Geigerich talks about how one day she came out to her car to find a little note someone left on her car. This particular someone had noticed her car and wanted to know if she was willing to sell it. As it so happens she did want to sell it she just hadn't garnered the motivation to do anything about it. Well now she has an idea she decided to take a picture of this cute little note and post a "note" on FB about the note and how she in fact did want to sell it and hey if anybody wants to buy it they should let her know...

The FB "note" is a success and she gets some more offers for the car.

At first I breezed by this little post without thinking about it but then I realized that this woman had, in fact, participated in Harris' idea of forwarding. She took the original note and recreated it into a sort of advertisement for her car. She wasn't just talking about the note but using it to promote a purpose. It's not the same as Harris' more academic examples but I do believe it applies...

Monday, February 13, 2012

Blogging about a blog Part 3 ( the Huffington Post to be specific)

The Huffington Post is a very large blog site with many different articles and topics and authors. So it's a little difficult to pinpoint a specific purpose or audience in their site. However I would say that a large part of their purpose is to provide a larger variety to their readers with several different authors and sections of news and links to other outside news sources. The audience is "supposedly" liberal although I haven't noted too horrible of a political slant (that may be because I don't read the political articles...its hard to have a political slant on technology articles).

to be continued...

Sunday, February 12, 2012

From My Room to the Driscoll Bridge...and then there's Jarvis

So I kinda ran around outside...except I was walking and I went back inside and sat down in front of my computer again. Sigh. Oh well. Anyway back to Jarvis. I think what he said made a lot of sense. Traditional journalists have this idea of how the media system should work and how people should fit into that idea but his graph of the "Me-Sphere" is a much more accurate description of how I get my news.



Here I literally copy and pasted his little illustration for you so you don't even have to go through the trouble of following a link...



mediachartme.png 
 
 
From what I can see the biggest 'bubbles' in the "Me-Sphere" are 'peers' and 'Search' which is exactly how I get my news these days...if you read my post from a couple days ago Leaking My Sources you will see what I mean. I guess Jarvis and I are on the same brain wave because that's basically exactly what I describe. Only, he explains it in a much simpler, more concise and intelligent manner. 

I noticed that one of the comments on Jarvis' article criticized him for saying that, "Now a story never begins and it never ends. But at some point in the life of a story, a journalist (working wherever) may see the idea and then can get all kinds of new input. But the story itself — in whatever medium — is merely a blip on the line, a stage in a process, for that process continues after publication." 
 
 
 
 
He included this illustration of his point: 
 

mediachartprocess.png 



The commenter wrote: "A couple observations, I don’t agree with the story architecture you are propsing(sic) or with the notion of a never ending story. The idea that we can continue to maintain a story alive indefinitely when in fact the story has died or it is no longer relevant is unwarranted. Even if was relevant we would be looking from 20/20 hind sight which by definition it would put the story in historical context and not within the journalistic purview..."

The commentor actually wrote a great deal more but this is the basic gist of his argument. This reminded me of the discussion we had in class about "well if it's new information to me, doesn't it still count as news?" In class we decided that there is a difference between history and news. That even if a person never knew about an event that has long past it does not count as news when they find out about it. Said person has only learned a historical fact. The commenter is making a point similar to ours in that he believes that after a certain amount of time any further analysis of the story become historical analysis rather than a journalistic analysis.

Before I read the New York Times yesterday I would have agreed with the commenter, but here are a couple articles I read that have made me second guess my original stance.

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/arts/design/portrait-of-mary-todd-lincoln-is-deemed-a-hoax.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=lincoln&st=cse
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/egypts-never-ending-revolution.html?scp=4&sq=egypt&st=cse

Story number 1 is about the famous portrait of Mary Todd Lincoln and how, after all these years, it has been determined a hoax. Some guy way back decided to take advantage of the Lincoln family (after Abe and Mary had been dead for a while) and concocted this crazy story about how Mary had the portrait made for Abe but he was assassinated before she could give it to him. In reality it's a picture of some random woman who only kinda looks like Mary that the guy painted over. Now is this story News or history?

Story number 2 is about how the revolution in Egypt today is a whole lot like the revolution in 1954 different people, different regime, and add Facebook into the mix (ah good old FB) and there you go. Almost the same situation. News or history?

Even now I keep going back and forth in my head, News or History? News or History? I think I've decided that Jarvis' point is that the news has an infinite capacity to expand. Not that it necessarily will or won't. As you can see with the two articles I presented history may become news and news may become history. What was not relevant can suddenly become relevant once more. I think stories like story number 2 are important because if you strictly adhere to reporting only what can be defined as new:

New(s)

[nooz, nyooz] noun ( usually used with a singular verb )

a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: (news)
 
having but lately or but now come into knowledge: (new)
 
 
 Than you miss out on correlations and connections that would have brought a broader perspective and greater knowledge of the subject. If journalists don't take these connections into consideration aren't they neglecting their duty to inform the public?

in·form

[in-fawrm] verb (used without object)
 
to give information;  supply knowledge or enlightenment
 
 
 
Oh, and if you would like to go through the trouble of following a link...here is Jarvis' original blog post.  

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Lost in a News/Blogging Haze

Ok so I'm doing these posts a little out of order but with all the effort I've put into this post today I feel that its a fair trade ;) so this haze that I'm referring to started this morning when I started looking at the NyTimes and got trapped by my habit of opening a link in a new tab. Before I knew it I had like 20 tabs...then I started reading the tabs...and then just got lost in this spiral of news articles until NYTimes.com "saved" me and told me I had reached my limit of free news article. That is a problem I will have to address at some later date (most likely with a depletion to my bank account) because I don't think deleting my history works anymore...(dang). For the moment though it has saved me from myself. 

Unfortunately Technorati does not have the same stringent limit that says "hey you! yea you, the one whose been sitting in front of the computer for the past hour (or two)...get off the internet and do something with your life!" No Technorati left me to fend for myself against the armies of information it hosts. See, we had to pick a blog to follow and I, being the picky person I am, was not going to follow just any blog. No, it had to be interesting and fun. So, to pick a blog, I looked at Technorati's (that's a really annoying word to type btw...from now on it shall be TR for short) list of top 100 Blogs (that is a LOT of blogs) so I would pick one blog...look at it's site and the articles it listed just skimming through the headlines to see if it would be interesting. Unfortunately for my day (which has been sufficiently wasted on Blog research) some of the articles were interesting, so I had this annoying habit of clicking on them...and reading them. Some of them had links to other things like videos or photos of the Best and Worst Grammy Dresses of All Time or the like loitering nearby. So then I'd get lost again. Then I'd eventually decide that this particular blog wasn't good enough and find my way back to TR to find another blog to get lost on. I repeated this process until I finally got bored (and hungry...I hope you know this little exercise has made me miss my lunch...I hope you're happy...totally just kidding) and decided to follow the Huffington Post because it offers the greatest variety of things to look into and read. I will most likely stay in the Tech section of the Huffington Post but will occasionally wander to other parts of the site as well. 

The problem with tech blogs is they tend to have a lot about new gadgets and things being put out...which is all good and interesting but I tend to like articles about Anonymous hacking the CIA or Cybercrimes or the Facebooker's IT-guy dad shooting his daughter's laptop after something she posted. (don't bother watching the video he posted...except for the last 20 seconds its pretty boring, and even then not worth the wait for it to download). So I guess I like articles about the politics of tech rather than the tech itself. 

Anyway what have I noticed since Ive spent a great deal of time reading both the blogs and the newspaper? 

The good bloggers read the news. 

This seems obvious but it is kind of a revelation to me. I had kind of imagined that blogs and the Internet in general was sort of a revolutionary uprising against traditional media. That "hardcore" bloggers and Internet advocates were all for the Internet completely replacing traditional media. Alas, 'tis not the case.  Blogs are just another bubble in Jeff Jarvis's flow chart of the "Me-Sphere". Some of the articles I looked at in the Huffington Post linked directly to an article in the New York Times (One I had already read earlier today...it made me laugh to see it again...Here's a link to it if you'd like to see it). Its like the Circle of Life but not. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going a little stir-crazy. I think I need to go run around outside or something....

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Reading NYTimes.com

So as you can tell all my reading of the New York Times has been online...I'm not sure I've even touched an actually newspaper in a while...but that's beside the point.

I've noticed that while reading I've been drawn to technology stories, which surprise's me honestly. It might be partly because we've been talking about the internet and Facebook and all that a lot recently. I find stories about medical findings pretty interesting as well but I usually have to search for those a bit since they don't turn up on the first page very often. I've also found that I like the international stories better than the stories about the U.S. Oftentimes (oops sorry...often) I briefly skim over the first page and then skip to the world news page. I think this is because most of the news in the US centers around the Presidential race, which I do keep up on, but I get tired of the repetitious new cycles. When I don't find anything that looks interesting I go to the link that shows the most popular articles of the day. I feel like I'm cheating when I do that but I almost always find something fun to read. On a side note, some of the most popular articles are really disappointing because a lot of them are about the most superficial topics you can find. I lose a little bit of faith in humanity every time I look at that page. 

Lately, I feel divided when I read. I feel like I've been obligated to do something that I don't want to do. Like reading news about politics for example, all my classes have stressed to me over and over that I MUST keep up on the political events and actors and such but I have a very hard time doing so because there is no part of me that enjoys reading about politics. The Daily Show helps but, even then, I get bored or simply find the subject...distasteful. I also feel like I have some catching up to do. I'm starting to realize that there are a lot of things that have happened in recent history that, because I haven't been paying much attention to the news, I don't know much about. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I always have a sense of missing out on smaller news that the media system doesn't deem important.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Leaking OUR Sources (not just mine anymore)

As was expected, most of my classmates get their news from the internet but I was interested to find that that is not always the case. Several of my classmates actually do read the paper (in paper form even) though they talk about the fact that they get funny looks for it...an indicator for the rest of my generation I should say. For the most part I think we associate traditional news sources with people of the generations before us (i.e. parents). 

We, on the other hand, tend to use very non-traditional sources for our news, such as Facebook, (ah, good ole FB what aren't you good for? ha, well according to Hedge you're not good for the fate of the world I guess), the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. We like sites like StumbleUpon and Reddit. We bounce between news sites like NY Times, CNN, USA Today rather than devoting to one site or the other. 'Variety' seems to be the word of the day. Although Carr would just say that's a nice way of saying 'short attention span' and Hedge, well he'd start ranting about the end of the world or how much better he is than we are or something...

I also noticed similarities in the ways we read. We tend to fall victim to the "agenda-setting" ways of our media system(sorry that's my Politics and Media class poking through...a lot like this class actually, in some ways anyway). To explain, our media system has its ways of 'setting the agenda'; that is to say that the media often influences what we view as important or relevant in today's news. For example, it seems obvious that the giant colorful story that appears on the front page of the paper is much more important than the one without pictures that is buried in a tiny corner in the back...usually somewhere near the random (slightly awkward and weird) advertisements. But you have to think, who decides whats important or not? It didn't just appear on the front page, a person, a real flesh-and-blood person with human fallacies decided that that was the best story to go there. That was what needs the attention of the public. 

The same applies for the Internet. We usually don't go farther than the first page or so of the website. We read the big "flashy" stories and leave it at that. Again Carr would thoughtfully mutter something about how he can't finish a book anymore and well we know what Hedge would say. Don't get me wrong I think Carr and Hedge have valid points(well maybe not Hedg- ok, ok, I'll stop, I promise). We have to think about these things, think about what we are reading and perhaps what we're not reading in the news. I will agree with Hedge on one point...most of the problems with the Internet stems from us simply taking things at face value.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Leaking My Sources

My sources of news and current events are fairly limited based on my lifestyle. I know, I know I said that I had reformed my unmindful ways and was becoming a more "civic-minded citizen" but old habits die hard...or in this case it would be more accurate to say that the old habits viciously attack and kill the new habits that are trying to take their place. See, it's time for midterms and with all the homework I've had lately I'm lucky if I get to use my computer for anything other than school...and I may never want to look at another computer again. BUT that's beside the point. As implied from my earlier statements about my computer most of my information comes from the Internet. Most of the time though I don't simply go online to look at the news for the sake of the news. Usually I hear about things through other people (is it bad to say that my parents are (well were...I'll explain later...wow parenthesis inside parenthesis, because that's not confusing) a huge part of my daily news update?) whether through word of mouth or via Facebook(yes FB) people are usually where I hear news from first. Once I hear about something that intrigues me then I look it up. Generally speaking I don't just get on the Internet and think to myself, "hmm, I wonder what's going on in the world today?" That's not really how I work, unless I'm bored...which is something I definitely haven't been lately.

Before I came to college my sources were a bit more varied. For example, my dad (see I told you I would explain) likes to watch a lot of TV he also makes ample use of the AP News app on his phone. My mom also keeps track of the news, from a LOT of different sources (she's kind of a news junky). My grandparents are more of traditionalist and like to read the paper as well as watch the news on TV. So, between my parents and my grandparents I would usually hear all about the day's news. They would have discussions about what was interesting and debate about what was going on (that's my nice way of saying that they complained/ranted about what's going wrong in our country). I think that's why I'm probably not as good about keeping up on current events as I should be, because I could always count I hearing it from them. Between the lot of them, it was almost as if I'd read it all myself.

Now that I've moved out of the house I have noticed the difference. I feel much more out of the loop than I used to be, like my world has kind of shrunk a little bit and my focus has gone from a broad perspective to a much smaller one. Not that I've stopped caring but that I've just become more absorbed in my day-to-day activities. Granted being back in school is a huge part of that, and concentrating on my schoolwork is prioritized over almost everything else (God, Family, Friends, School is how my list is structured but the borders between God, Family and Friends are a little blurred most of the time...they kind of all intermix a little).

Simply put, I was dependent on my family and friends for most of my news. Now that I'm spending time away from them I've noticed that I hardly ever watch TV(partially because I'm not sure how to get cable going, partially because I just don't really watch TV. I'm much more of a movie kind of girl) and I rarely check the news. Other, more traditional sources, like the radio or the newspaper are not convenient. I don't get the paper, nor do I have the time to read it, and I only ever listen to the radio when I drive (which I don't do much anymore since I live on campus). As I adapt to my life in college (after all, it is only my first year...I have to keep reminding myself of that) I think I will slowly get back into the habit of being "in the loop" but for now I think I'm still just getting used to the fact that I'm here. 

At the Bottom of Pandora's Box (Revised)

Using technology and new media resources as a means of reading and writing has been largely demonized as, at best, a poor use of our time and detrimental to our skill as writers and thinkers and, at worse, an indication of the ultimate degradation of our society. I am writing this essay in response to those who would criticize the use of new media resources. I would argue that rather than defining the “internet age” as either the saving grace of literacy or its downfall, that the use of these technologies is indicative of an entirely new form of literacy all together: one that promotes writing with a combination of many different stylistic approaches. I am assuming that the critics to which I write this essay are mostly teachers or intellectuals of some sort and I will appeal to their “academia” with a well written and organized essay as well as a plea, that as champions of learning, they should allow me to grow and expand in my writing abilities through the exploration of new mediums. 

As human beings, we have this fear of losing ourselves. A fear that someday our best intentions are going to backfire, that our greatest inventions will be more than we can handle, or that our wildest dreams will become our most terrible nightmares.  In the eyes of some, the Internet has become the pariah of literacy, a Pandora’s box, if you will. They fear this stunning new technology will dazzle us with the riches of social interaction and globalized communication or tempt us with its wealth of knowledge and opportunity only to betray us when we dare to reach for the gifts it offers. They fear that in using the Internet we have released upon ourselves the terrible evils of illiteracy.  These fears, though grounded in logic, forget that there was some good to come out of Pandora’s box. There remains a hope that those of us who are growing up in the internet age will find some way to put our new toys to work for the betterment of ourselves and our society.
Those who fear the Internet believe that the social networking-obsessed, blog-crazed, entertainment-based, and gossip-centric ways of the Internet have made us shallow and narcissistic. They are certain that we are more concerned with posting a picture of the latte we just drank than we are with learning about what is happening in the world around us. Those that fear the Internet would say that all these things are simply a desperate cry for attention, that it is evidence of the narcissism we have succumbed to by opening the “Pandora’s box” that is the Internet. They see these efforts as the efforts of people searching for their five minutes of fame, people searching for the validation of what they believe and their outlook on the world, (however true or false those ideas may be). They believe the Internet is a place where people desperately vie for the approval of their peers, to fit in, to feel somehow important. To them, the Internet is a place to fulfill shameful vices or act out behind the convenient mask of anonymity and, in many ways, they are correct. People are using the Internet for these purposes, but, once again, those who fear the Internet have failed to look beyond these failings to see the redemptive value that lies underneath the mess. The hope that I see rising out of these Internet habits is one where people of all ages can drive their own success. Instead of simply using the Internet as an outlet for our vain thoughts and opinions, some people are using it as a way to express their talents and extend their connections in order to further the success of their personal endeavors and dreams. While I agree that Facebook is definitely an enabler of our self-centered tendencies, I would also argue that these sites create a sort of connection to one another that we have never had before. Users of the Internet have become accustomed to the idea that what we do and say and read and write on the Internet is globalized and we are not intimidated by that fact. As a result, when we use the Internet we are consistently thinking of our audience and the impact of what we will say. We are moved and inspired by this audience and it shows through the way we think of writing and its purpose. As Andrea Lundsford writes in her article, Our Semi-literate Youth? Not So Fast, “[Students] were increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience. [They also] wanted their writing to count for something; as they said to us over and over, good writing to them was performative, the kind of writing that ‘made something happen in the world.’ Finally, they increasingly saw writing as collaborative, social, and participatory rather than solitary”(1). People are recognizing and taking advantage of this audience. Instead of working through official channels people are doing things on their own. Kids are becoming world famous musicians through You-Tube (i.e. Justin Beiber, regardless of what people may or may not think of his musical talent, people cannot argue that he got his start on the Internet) People are making movies and videos (i.e. Jenna Marbles and Red v. Blue), writing articles and blogs( i.e. Tavi Williams, fashion blogger), that are gaining them attention that they would not have been given by traditionalists. The Internet is getting people connected and getting people talking. Instead of viewing literate activities as largely optional, they are motivated to take part in literacy because, with such an audience, it can finally count for something bigger. Yes, the Internet has its drawbacks, but what doesn’t? Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Our professors should celebrate this new interest and approach to writing and beyond that, professors should note the disparity between the attitudes students have for their own writing as compared to their classwork. As Lundsford mentions in her article, Performing Writing, Performing Literacy, “Self-conscious and self-confident, students see themselves as savvy, risk-taking writers when they reflect on their self-sponsored writing activities As Alissa puts it: ‘I am more courageous in my out-of-class writing’”(231). This sense of audience and purpose has drawn something out of students that traditional classrooms have rarely done: it has given them the courage to take risks when they write, to try new things and reach beyond their comfort zones. Isn’t this supposed to be the environment that professors are creating in the classroom? Instead “a lot of that learning (perhaps most of it) is taking place outside of class, in the literate activities (musical compositions, videos, photo collages, digital stories, comics, documentaries) young people are pursuing on their own.”(Our Semi-literate Youth? Not So Fast). The traditional academic approach to writing is out of touch with today’s youth. As Clive Thompson notes in his article, The New LiteracyThe Stanford students were almost always less enthusiastic about their in-class writing because it had no audience but the professor: It didn't serve any purpose other than to get them a grade”(1). If the only purpose to their writing is to get the grade and they’ve already acquired the skills to do so, what need do students have to grow beyond what they already know? Shouldn’t professors endeavor to prevent this kind of stagnation in their students’ literacy? I myself have been frustrated by the stagnation I see in my own writing. I find myself looking at a paper (that I got an A on) in disappointment because I know I could do so much better. More often than not I find my classwork stifling and unfulfilling. When I look at what’s popular on the Internet(and even the novels in print) I know that what I’m writing now won’t make the cut and if that’s the case, why on earth is it making the cut in class? I’d rather get a D on a paper and actually learn something than get an A for not trying. I would enjoy writing in class much more and take more care to write well if I knew my words would reach beyond the desk of my professor. If writers, like myself, who are not finding an outlet for their writing abilities in the classroom, are finding it on the Internet, why should they be criticized?
Academic writing will always be important but it is not the only type of writing that exists. Styles like journalism, poetry, feature writing, play writing, script writing and creative writing have all been accepted as legitimate writing styles that are beneficial to society. I would argue that the writing we see on the Internet is no different. It is a new form of literacy that focuses on forging connections between people in ways that have never been seen before: connections that span time and place, cultures and ethnicities, age and class. As Andrew Sullivan writes in his article, Why I Blog, “For centuries, writers have experimented with forms that evoke the imperfection of thought, the inconstancy of human affairs, and the chastening passage of time. But as blogging evolves as a literary form, it is generating a new and quintessentially postmodern idiom that’s enabling writers to express themselves in ways that have never been seen or understood before. Its truths are provisional, and its ethos collective and messy. Yet the interaction it enables between writer and reader is unprecedented, visceral, and sometimes brutal.” Though Sullivan is writing specifically about blogs, I believe his point applies to the Internet as a whole. When one’s audience has the potential of becoming so vast, the importance of one’s purpose grows in proportion. Instead of looking only at the problems the Internet brings I ask my peers and my professors to be open-minded and realize the potential the Internet has for learning and teaching. I charge professors to help students take full advantage of the Internet’s benefits and to teach them how to use it appropriately.
Once Pandora opened her box, she realized the terrors that lay there, but what was done could not be undone and all that remained was the hope that people could help one another overcome the evils that had been released into the world and take full advantage of the good that remained. Before we start reveling in a desire for the old days without digital media, lets face it, unlike the world in which the evils of Pandora’s box were unleashed on, the literary world that existed before the Internet was far from perfect. As Thompson points out, “Before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn't a school assignment. Unless they got a job that required producing text (like in law, advertising, or media), they'd leave school and virtually never construct a paragraph again”(1). Without getting too carried away about the woes of the Internet we should realize that, while the Internet has brought with it many bad habits in literacy, it has also introduced some good. By and far what we see the most of is just change: as pure and as simple as that. We should realize that despite the changes that we see around us we are still people, people with desires and hopes and dreams who will use the tools available to us in order to reach them. We are people who, no matter what happens, will adapt to the changing times and take hold of the hope that we can make something good out of the box that we have opened. Those who cannot, or will not, adapt will simply be left behind.