A luxurious, colossal hotel on a scenic wintry, snowy mountain from a Thomas Kinkade painting. A large industrial kitchen customized for gourmet chefs out of Bon Appetit magazine. A lush garden maze from Better Homes and Gardens. And the space and solidarity to enjoy, savor and revel in this all for yourself, without those obnoxious tourists congesting every inch of your personal space.
This all sounds very picturesque, but it may also sound like a movie many of you have seen or a book you might have read by a familiar author, Steven King, called “The Shining.”
Jack Torrance takes a position as a winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, a very elaborate yet haunted hotel. Initially, the setup sounds ideal: Jack will spend the winter at the hotel when it’s closed for business to maintain its facilities, while he works alone in peace and silence on his next novel. However, the isolation from humanity ultimately culminates in cabin fever, and he tries to kill his family.
I don’t know exactly why this story came to my mind after reading “Cognitive Surplus.” But I do think there is some importance in connecting it to “The Shining.”
Obviously there are many other factors contributing to Jack Torrance’s downfall -- creepy ghosts, his alleged alcoholism and the hotel’s haunted condition -- but there is something about working and living completely alone with barely any human interaction that I find very important to explore in an era when you can reach, connect and talk to people without ever having to speak to them or see them in person.
Clay Shirky's sequel book, “Cognitive Surplus,” starts where his debut, “Here Comes Everybody,” ends. Shirky demonstrates how the Internet’s disposition for open participation has opened doors for group activity, allowing us to be much more creative than in the past.
Shirky provides us with an explanation about group projects -- ICanHazCheezburger and Wikipedia -- and their success: people like sharing and working with each other. And there is a construction and foundation on the Internet that promotes and facilitates this kind of communal sharing and exchange among people. By exploring the Internet and these new outlets, we can all create social change and improvements that employ hundreds, thousands and even millions of people either to help with a cause or to just simply entertain each other. Social media offers equivalent opportunities for all people to consume, produce and share.
Even though the ICanHazCheezburger campaign isn’t a very important or valuable example of Internet sharing, it still leads to some participation and interaction among people. And some participation might lead to other projects that are more noteworthy and relevant to more people. The important part to remember is that the Internet allows more people to come together and collaborate who ordinarily would not or could not have participated in the past. And by amassing more people, more can be done.
By being able to freely and openly consume, produce and share with others, we become much more innovative and confident in what we are producing and sharing. Rather than writing the same creepy, unoriginal line over and over again on our typewriters (“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”), we can talk, correspond and bounce ideas off of other people and employ other people to help us live up to our potential.
Groups and working together are important. Isolation doesn’t get you very far, especially in this era of social media innovation when millions of people are connected. You cannot lock yourself in a room by yourself and expect to complete an extensive project in solitude, much like Jack in “The Shining.” Yes, you do need time alone to think, muse or ponder over your own ideas, but you need to talk to others about it to maximize your potential.
Severe isolation like that in “The Shining” only squashes creativity, productivity, inspiration and imagination.
Maybe if Jack Torrance had a wireless laptop, “The Shining” would have had a very different, more productive and more amiable ending.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Frank and the Olive Tree
My father, Frank, was born and raised in a small Sicilian town on his family’s farm from the 1950s to the 1970s. He often reminisces fondly about milking his goats, sleeping under the stars, and using the farm’s produce to cook and sustain life. His memories are pleasant, often inducing a smile or laughs from everyone listening in on his stories. Everyone knew everyone, and everyone trusted each other. It was more than just a community; it was a family that embraced customs and traditions that were passed down for centuries -- a family that named all of its children only after close ancestors.
But, even though his tales of a community so loving and tightly linked evoke warm family sentiments, my dad still chose life here in a progressive, industrial country over his simple, tradition-based upbringing in Italy.
My dad, to me, represents the struggle presented in Friedman’s “The Lexus and the Olive Tree.” Half of the world, according to Friedman, was determined to modernize and advance in the global market, while the other half was still cemented to the past. The Lexus epitomizes growth, advancement and progress, and the Olive Tree symbolizes “everything that roots us, anchors us, identifies us and locates us in this world,” (167).
When my father retrospects and recalls his past, his internal conflict is so noticeable. It’s obvious that he loves the life he has created here, living in a fully air-conditioned house, driving a convertible, smoking expensive cigars, and spending summers on the beach. Sure, he revels in his hard work and rewards himself once in awhile. But, each and every Christmas, he still tells us about his own childhood traditions (which included a witch on a broomstick giving kids candy … kind of strange, I know).
He’s clearly still holding onto his customs and roots, reminding us about where we come from and who our ancestors are. His stories are so deeply embedded in tradition. Every ceremony, celebration or even daily family dinners were implanted in traditional songs, prayers and foods. And these cultural practices bonded everyone in the town. Everyone understood and cared about each other. And my father never wants us to forget that.
Yes, Friedman talks about globalization and its benefits and disadvantages, and I agree with his main points. Globalization has increased the standard of living and given everyone the opportunity to participate. Globalization, this new system in practice today, replacing the old Cold War system after the 1980s, has taken over. It is, simply put, the combination of finances, technology, and information spread across the globe, creating a single, unified worldwide market and community.
And in order to take part and personally engage and benefit from it, you need to understand it.
What I think is most important about globalization is the understanding, appreciation and perceptions we can gain and access about the world. Globalization allows us to become more connected to the world, but what good is this connection when we have no fundamental understanding for those we’re talking, reporting or reading about? How can we communicate with or about another country if we’re unappreciative toward its people and customs?
Friedman asserts that "if you can't see the world, and you can't see the interactions that are shaping the world, you surely cannot strategize about the world,” (232).
It’s apparent that Friedman is encouraging and promoting a balance between the Lexus (advancement, progress) and the Olive Tree (tradition, rituals) in order to maximize this new global system.
While I initially thought that my father was conflicted and even torn between his past and present, I now realize that he may just be the perfect balance.
My dad and his stories instilled in us an understanding of another world, so different than our own here. Behind every story, my dad just wanted us to remember our culture and history, but he also still wanted, and wants, us to seek every opportunity we can and progress and accomplish what he couldn’t. My dad wanted us to grow up with an admiration for people, family and community.
And because of that, I am thankful that my father has been both the Lexus and the Olive Tree because he has opened my eyes to the world.
But, even though his tales of a community so loving and tightly linked evoke warm family sentiments, my dad still chose life here in a progressive, industrial country over his simple, tradition-based upbringing in Italy.
My dad, to me, represents the struggle presented in Friedman’s “The Lexus and the Olive Tree.” Half of the world, according to Friedman, was determined to modernize and advance in the global market, while the other half was still cemented to the past. The Lexus epitomizes growth, advancement and progress, and the Olive Tree symbolizes “everything that roots us, anchors us, identifies us and locates us in this world,” (167).
When my father retrospects and recalls his past, his internal conflict is so noticeable. It’s obvious that he loves the life he has created here, living in a fully air-conditioned house, driving a convertible, smoking expensive cigars, and spending summers on the beach. Sure, he revels in his hard work and rewards himself once in awhile. But, each and every Christmas, he still tells us about his own childhood traditions (which included a witch on a broomstick giving kids candy … kind of strange, I know).
He’s clearly still holding onto his customs and roots, reminding us about where we come from and who our ancestors are. His stories are so deeply embedded in tradition. Every ceremony, celebration or even daily family dinners were implanted in traditional songs, prayers and foods. And these cultural practices bonded everyone in the town. Everyone understood and cared about each other. And my father never wants us to forget that.
Yes, Friedman talks about globalization and its benefits and disadvantages, and I agree with his main points. Globalization has increased the standard of living and given everyone the opportunity to participate. Globalization, this new system in practice today, replacing the old Cold War system after the 1980s, has taken over. It is, simply put, the combination of finances, technology, and information spread across the globe, creating a single, unified worldwide market and community.
And in order to take part and personally engage and benefit from it, you need to understand it.
What I think is most important about globalization is the understanding, appreciation and perceptions we can gain and access about the world. Globalization allows us to become more connected to the world, but what good is this connection when we have no fundamental understanding for those we’re talking, reporting or reading about? How can we communicate with or about another country if we’re unappreciative toward its people and customs?
Friedman asserts that "if you can't see the world, and you can't see the interactions that are shaping the world, you surely cannot strategize about the world,” (232).
It’s apparent that Friedman is encouraging and promoting a balance between the Lexus (advancement, progress) and the Olive Tree (tradition, rituals) in order to maximize this new global system.
While I initially thought that my father was conflicted and even torn between his past and present, I now realize that he may just be the perfect balance.
My dad and his stories instilled in us an understanding of another world, so different than our own here. Behind every story, my dad just wanted us to remember our culture and history, but he also still wanted, and wants, us to seek every opportunity we can and progress and accomplish what he couldn’t. My dad wanted us to grow up with an admiration for people, family and community.
And because of that, I am thankful that my father has been both the Lexus and the Olive Tree because he has opened my eyes to the world.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The limitless Internet
In my Propaganda, Media and American Politics class this semester, we have been dissecting and analyzing media sources from U.S. publications to international reporting. A good portion of the class is learning about the media portrayal of the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, both domestically and internationally. From what we’ve discussed in my Propaganda class, there seems to be a consensus that most U.S. mainstream media sources tend to exclude opposition or confronting opinions about the systemic problems within our government. Yes, people criticize George Bush and Barack Obama openly and frequently. But it’s hard to find mainstream reports that really delve into the core issues, questioning why a particular president decided to wage war against a country with “weapons of mass destruction” when there really was no evidence of them existing, ever.
Well, there are a number of reasons for media bias and the exclusion of systemic dissent. Noam Chomsky discusses some of these contributing factors in his book “Manufacturing Consent”:
* The mainstream media sources are typically owned by few, large major corporations, which leads to similar coverage.
* Advertising, which is a big source of income for the media, forces media sources to appease their advertisers by not producing extreme or radical news.
* The sources mainstream journalists employ are typically the same corporate or government experts who give the same, “manufactured” responses.
So how can the average, ordinary person express his/her resistance to the government and its decision to wage war when he/she is confronted with high-profile government officials, huge corporations or advertisers? The 1960s proved that many ordinary people could come together and assert their opposition to the Vietnam War in the form of street protests and demonstrations. We recently watched a documentary about student protests against the Vietnam War called “Berkeley in the Sixties.”
The documentary followed the stories of student activists at the University of California, Berkeley standing outside army recruitment offices; sitting on train tracks (in front of moving trains, risking their lives); and protesting on the streets, flipping over cars and destroying fences. A student protester wore a construction hat during protests, he said, to prevent a “bashed head” from police officers who were trying to end the protests.
But, what really stuck with me, after viewing the documentary, was how ineffective all of these protests were. When students gathered outside recruitment centers, imploring potential soldiers to reconsider their decision to go to war, not one soldier budged. The protesters didn’t deter a single soldier.
I could not believe how unsuccessful these protesters were. They were willing to be struck by a fast-moving train, endure police beatings and face nasty remarks from the community. Yet, with all their hard work and determination, they still seemed unheard.
One big hindrance holding these protesters back was that the media tended to focus on the aggression, numbers and appearance of the protesters, not their message, so that they could sell more papers or lure more viewers on TV. The media, as we learned in my Propaganda class, really didn’t care about the protesters’ messages; it was all about documenting their appearance and militancy. That’s what increased readership and ratings.
So what can we do to overcome these boundaries and get our messages across and become more active participants in politics? Well, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provides some insight into how an everyday, normal person can engage in the political scene in his book “Taking on the System.”
Zuniga argues that in order to achieve change or progress in this technologically developing generation, activists and protesters will have to circumvent these obstacles presented by mass media by employing new emerging sources of communication: online blogs and video-hosting sites like YouTube.
“We live in a world where there is no reason anyone should whine or complain that they are being shut out of the system. The tools are available to mount credible challenges to even the most entrenched of powers. Such efforts will always lack resources, and will mostly face well-funded, deeply entrenched foes, but innovative tactics and smart use of money can carry the day,” (240).
An example of ordinary people successfully using the tools available to them and participating in politics via the Internet is the Obama campaign’s online fundraising. According to the New York Times, Obama raised $36 million in January 2008, $4 million more than had originally been predicted. The story also said the campaign “brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less.”
Through this online campaign, the average person was able to partake in the presidential election against “well-funded, deeply entrenched foes.” He/she didn’t need millions, thousands or even hundreds of dollars to participate either. They were able to support Obama by making small donations, thanks to the Internet and the tools it provides to everyone everywhere.
The Internet opens more doors for people to engage and participate in causes they might otherwise have been hesitant to join, like the violent street protests featured in “Berkeley.” By welcoming more people to participate, the Internet allows people to voice their dissent more directly to the public (through blogs, websites and YouTube videos) without having the mainstream media pick and choose what will sell more papers. In a blog, no one can distort, filter or disregard your own message.
And, the streets can only hold so many people. The Internet is limitless.
Well, there are a number of reasons for media bias and the exclusion of systemic dissent. Noam Chomsky discusses some of these contributing factors in his book “Manufacturing Consent”:
* The mainstream media sources are typically owned by few, large major corporations, which leads to similar coverage.
* Advertising, which is a big source of income for the media, forces media sources to appease their advertisers by not producing extreme or radical news.
* The sources mainstream journalists employ are typically the same corporate or government experts who give the same, “manufactured” responses.
So how can the average, ordinary person express his/her resistance to the government and its decision to wage war when he/she is confronted with high-profile government officials, huge corporations or advertisers? The 1960s proved that many ordinary people could come together and assert their opposition to the Vietnam War in the form of street protests and demonstrations. We recently watched a documentary about student protests against the Vietnam War called “Berkeley in the Sixties.”
The documentary followed the stories of student activists at the University of California, Berkeley standing outside army recruitment offices; sitting on train tracks (in front of moving trains, risking their lives); and protesting on the streets, flipping over cars and destroying fences. A student protester wore a construction hat during protests, he said, to prevent a “bashed head” from police officers who were trying to end the protests.
But, what really stuck with me, after viewing the documentary, was how ineffective all of these protests were. When students gathered outside recruitment centers, imploring potential soldiers to reconsider their decision to go to war, not one soldier budged. The protesters didn’t deter a single soldier.
I could not believe how unsuccessful these protesters were. They were willing to be struck by a fast-moving train, endure police beatings and face nasty remarks from the community. Yet, with all their hard work and determination, they still seemed unheard.
One big hindrance holding these protesters back was that the media tended to focus on the aggression, numbers and appearance of the protesters, not their message, so that they could sell more papers or lure more viewers on TV. The media, as we learned in my Propaganda class, really didn’t care about the protesters’ messages; it was all about documenting their appearance and militancy. That’s what increased readership and ratings.
So what can we do to overcome these boundaries and get our messages across and become more active participants in politics? Well, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provides some insight into how an everyday, normal person can engage in the political scene in his book “Taking on the System.”
Zuniga argues that in order to achieve change or progress in this technologically developing generation, activists and protesters will have to circumvent these obstacles presented by mass media by employing new emerging sources of communication: online blogs and video-hosting sites like YouTube.
“We live in a world where there is no reason anyone should whine or complain that they are being shut out of the system. The tools are available to mount credible challenges to even the most entrenched of powers. Such efforts will always lack resources, and will mostly face well-funded, deeply entrenched foes, but innovative tactics and smart use of money can carry the day,” (240).
An example of ordinary people successfully using the tools available to them and participating in politics via the Internet is the Obama campaign’s online fundraising. According to the New York Times, Obama raised $36 million in January 2008, $4 million more than had originally been predicted. The story also said the campaign “brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less.”
Through this online campaign, the average person was able to partake in the presidential election against “well-funded, deeply entrenched foes.” He/she didn’t need millions, thousands or even hundreds of dollars to participate either. They were able to support Obama by making small donations, thanks to the Internet and the tools it provides to everyone everywhere.
The Internet opens more doors for people to engage and participate in causes they might otherwise have been hesitant to join, like the violent street protests featured in “Berkeley.” By welcoming more people to participate, the Internet allows people to voice their dissent more directly to the public (through blogs, websites and YouTube videos) without having the mainstream media pick and choose what will sell more papers. In a blog, no one can distort, filter or disregard your own message.
And, the streets can only hold so many people. The Internet is limitless.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sticking to the TV
I’m sure most of us have heard about the babysitter who gets bombarded with creepy phone calls from a serial killer who’s hiding in the house. And of course this story has been validated and confirmed from a friend of a friend of our cousin who knows our dog whose mom has sworn this is true. But we all know this is an imaginary urban legend that has been circulating for decades.
But, why do these stories – Bloody Mary haunting dark bathroom mirrors, or Bigfoot lurking in the woods or the Lochness Monster free styling in the lakes of the Scottish highlands – last for generations when we are all conscious of their blatant inaccuracies?
In “Made to Stick,” brothers Chip and Dan Heath investigate why some ideas and stories prosper and others languish. The Heaths examine and analyze how to make an idea memorable or “sticky” for centuries like these urban legends.
After reading the story about the organ thief – you know, your friend’s brother’s sister’s husband’s best friend walks into a bar and wakes up the next day missing an organ – I somehow immediately began thinking of reality TV. With over-the-top characters (Snooki, the Situation of “Jersey Shore”) and risky, unbelievable scenarios (eating bugs and living on a deserted island in “Survivor”), reality TV has become an unimaginable, shock-inducing entity, almost like urban legends. When you think about it, who would ever imagine a TV show following a 4-foot-9-inch, bronzed-like-a-carrot guidette with sky-scraper high “poufed” hair? Sounds like a myth to me ...
In the past decade, our generation has seen an explosion of reality TV shows on nearly every major network. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t even name five fictional television shows anymore. But, I can list, categorize, alphabetize and index probably more than 50 reality TV shows. How did this happen? It can’t just be that people are innately voyeuristic or nosy about random people whom they’ve never met or seen before. There has to be something more appealing and luring about reality shows. What is it about the idea of reality TV that has consumed our television screens?
Following the Heaths’ model, we can attempt to trace how the concept of reality TV has become so overwhelmingly popular, like the urban legends and myths they discuss. The Heaths use the acronym "SUCCES" to define a successful “sticky” idea:
Simple: Follow a bunch of people around for a few days. You don’t need hair and make-up staffs or entourages to cater to your reality stars. You don’t need scripts. Essentially, all that is required is a cast, a camera and some editing.
Unexpected: Who would think we would have reality shows about people making balloon animals (“The Unpoppabbles”)? Every day there are new, unusual and unexpected shows featuring an odd talent or perspective.
Concrete: Reality shows are defined pretty clearly: a show about people living together down the Jersey Shore (“Jersey Shore”), a bakery making lavish cakes (“Cake Boss”), or celebrities dancing samba or cha cha cha (“Dancing with the Stars”). Not much confusion or ambiguity here.
Credible: Most shows are hosted by MTV, ABC, TLC and HBO, to name a few. These are major reliable networks. And these shows like “True Life” (on MTV) are presented and marketed as real people facing real issues. They’re not actors hired to portray characters on a fictional TV series.
Emotional: Shows like “16 & Pregnant” or “Bridezilla” (well, pretty much any wedding show) are emotional experiences for the audience. Family turmoil, relationship crises and financial concerns are just a few of the emotional struggles we see the cast experience on the show.
Story: In many of these shows, we witness a real person battle and triumph or fail. But, we all hope to see them succeed and overcome their obstacles. There is a beginning, middle and some resolution. Even if it’s not the happy ending we all hope for, there is some kind of denouement.
Our meddlesome tendencies, of course, have contributed to the outburst of reality shows, but the Heaths six points more clearly define and outline how this has happened.
But looking outside of reality TV, “Made to Stick” defines more than exposing embarrassing, heart-wrenching, poignant and triumphant stories on TLC. “Made to Stick” is about communication. Sure, reality shows are entertaining, but at their core, reality shows are communicating messages to us: Being a mother to an infant child is difficult, especially when you are only 16 years old (“Teen Mom”); planning a wedding is a stressful and emotional time in a woman’s life (any bridal show); and losing weight is more than a physical struggle (“Biggest Loser”). These are all simple messages that reality shows are emitting each day. And I believe that is the fundamental essence of “Made to Stick”: the way we communicate affects how memorable or lasting our message will be. Reality TV just happens to be a simple, straightforward and “SUCCESsful” technique some may employ to get their messages across. This isn’t a book about the media, publicists or advertising executives; it’s a book about everyone because we all have important ideas to share with the world. While the concept of reality TV is criticized on a daily basis, its growth and sturdiness over the past years say something -- maybe we’re all looking for an outlet to communicate with the world, and reality shows just happen be a tool that can be used to do so. We all want to be heard.
But, why do these stories – Bloody Mary haunting dark bathroom mirrors, or Bigfoot lurking in the woods or the Lochness Monster free styling in the lakes of the Scottish highlands – last for generations when we are all conscious of their blatant inaccuracies?
In “Made to Stick,” brothers Chip and Dan Heath investigate why some ideas and stories prosper and others languish. The Heaths examine and analyze how to make an idea memorable or “sticky” for centuries like these urban legends.
After reading the story about the organ thief – you know, your friend’s brother’s sister’s husband’s best friend walks into a bar and wakes up the next day missing an organ – I somehow immediately began thinking of reality TV. With over-the-top characters (Snooki, the Situation of “Jersey Shore”) and risky, unbelievable scenarios (eating bugs and living on a deserted island in “Survivor”), reality TV has become an unimaginable, shock-inducing entity, almost like urban legends. When you think about it, who would ever imagine a TV show following a 4-foot-9-inch, bronzed-like-a-carrot guidette with sky-scraper high “poufed” hair? Sounds like a myth to me ...
In the past decade, our generation has seen an explosion of reality TV shows on nearly every major network. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t even name five fictional television shows anymore. But, I can list, categorize, alphabetize and index probably more than 50 reality TV shows. How did this happen? It can’t just be that people are innately voyeuristic or nosy about random people whom they’ve never met or seen before. There has to be something more appealing and luring about reality shows. What is it about the idea of reality TV that has consumed our television screens?
Following the Heaths’ model, we can attempt to trace how the concept of reality TV has become so overwhelmingly popular, like the urban legends and myths they discuss. The Heaths use the acronym "SUCCES" to define a successful “sticky” idea:
Simple: Follow a bunch of people around for a few days. You don’t need hair and make-up staffs or entourages to cater to your reality stars. You don’t need scripts. Essentially, all that is required is a cast, a camera and some editing.
Unexpected: Who would think we would have reality shows about people making balloon animals (“The Unpoppabbles”)? Every day there are new, unusual and unexpected shows featuring an odd talent or perspective.
Concrete: Reality shows are defined pretty clearly: a show about people living together down the Jersey Shore (“Jersey Shore”), a bakery making lavish cakes (“Cake Boss”), or celebrities dancing samba or cha cha cha (“Dancing with the Stars”). Not much confusion or ambiguity here.
Credible: Most shows are hosted by MTV, ABC, TLC and HBO, to name a few. These are major reliable networks. And these shows like “True Life” (on MTV) are presented and marketed as real people facing real issues. They’re not actors hired to portray characters on a fictional TV series.
Emotional: Shows like “16 & Pregnant” or “Bridezilla” (well, pretty much any wedding show) are emotional experiences for the audience. Family turmoil, relationship crises and financial concerns are just a few of the emotional struggles we see the cast experience on the show.
Story: In many of these shows, we witness a real person battle and triumph or fail. But, we all hope to see them succeed and overcome their obstacles. There is a beginning, middle and some resolution. Even if it’s not the happy ending we all hope for, there is some kind of denouement.
Our meddlesome tendencies, of course, have contributed to the outburst of reality shows, but the Heaths six points more clearly define and outline how this has happened.
But looking outside of reality TV, “Made to Stick” defines more than exposing embarrassing, heart-wrenching, poignant and triumphant stories on TLC. “Made to Stick” is about communication. Sure, reality shows are entertaining, but at their core, reality shows are communicating messages to us: Being a mother to an infant child is difficult, especially when you are only 16 years old (“Teen Mom”); planning a wedding is a stressful and emotional time in a woman’s life (any bridal show); and losing weight is more than a physical struggle (“Biggest Loser”). These are all simple messages that reality shows are emitting each day. And I believe that is the fundamental essence of “Made to Stick”: the way we communicate affects how memorable or lasting our message will be. Reality TV just happens to be a simple, straightforward and “SUCCESsful” technique some may employ to get their messages across. This isn’t a book about the media, publicists or advertising executives; it’s a book about everyone because we all have important ideas to share with the world. While the concept of reality TV is criticized on a daily basis, its growth and sturdiness over the past years say something -- maybe we’re all looking for an outlet to communicate with the world, and reality shows just happen be a tool that can be used to do so. We all want to be heard.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Following trends
At some point, everyone has fallen victim to some obnoxious, sophomoric, fleeting trend that makes you question your sanity. I hear my parents reminisce and joke about my mother’s teased, frizzy, bullet-proof (thanks to gallons of hairspray) hair style or my father’s blindingly white Miami Vice suit.
But, I have to admit, the fad I fell for is even a little more embarrassing than these: Pokémon cards. I’m sure that I’m not alone; I’m sure many of you collected these pliable pieces of paper with nothing more than a few words of print and a small image of imaginary creatures.
Pokémon cards were first introduced to the American public in 1998, when I was in third grade. A few boys in my class of approximately 30 kids were flaunting their “collectable” cards, while the girls just stared, dumbfounded as to how and why these simple bits of cardboard could be so mesmerizing and engaging.
Well, it took about a day before my naive little friends and I turned from bewildered skeptics into admiring addicts. After reading “The Tipping Point,” I have pieced together some clues that may have contributed to my metamorphosis, even though I found most of Malcolm Gladwell’s examples evident.
Gladwell describes the tipping point as an instant when a trend crosses a threshold and explodes virally. Ideas, messages and social behaviors disperse just like viruses do. Viruses initially spread through a population somewhat slowly until a tipping point is reached, and they erupt into an epidemic. Gladwell uses this model and applies it to social trends, fads and phenomena and finds commonalities among them. Just as someone with the chicken pox can infect an entire fourth-grade classroom, so can a trend soar overnight.
And that’s just what happened in my Pokémon example. A couple of people were playing with their cards, and the next day, everyone had a stack.
How exactly did this happen? By applying some of Gladwell’s principles, we can trace the evolution of Pokémon’s popularity in my classroom. Gladwell employs some axioms including the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor and the Power of Context to explain how trends take off.
The Law of the Few discusses three types of people who are responsible for helping to launch a fad. These include Connectors: sociable people with ties to many other people, Mavens: knowledgeable people with expertise, and Salesmen: enthusiastic and charismatic people who can persuade your buying decision. In my scenario, the boys in my class acted as connectors and mavens helping to usher me into their trend. If they weren’t very cordial or friendly to me when they explained their cards, then I wouldn’t have bothered. And the same applies to if they were uninformed or ignorant about the games or cards they were playing with. If they didn’t fulfill either of these roles, then I know I really would not have bothered. But the fact that they extended themselves warmly and were eager to share their extensive knowledge about the cards made all the difference. This concept seems pretty apparent to me. Obviously a sociable, expert or persuasive person is helpful and responsible to promoting ideas or products.
Next, Gladwell addresses the Stickiness Factor, which refers to the tinkering of the presentation of a product, idea or behavior, which allows the trend to adhere to the public and become memorable. There is something about the way a trend is packaged and presented that makes it “irresistible.” This assumption seems somewhat obvious. Of course you’re going to fine tune your product to make it unusual or different if you want people to buy it. In this case, I suppose he’s right. I never collected cards before, and the holographic images of the cute and pink Jigglypuff were unlike anything I really had, at the time. It was packaged and presented to appeal to girls as well. Cards in the past, at least in my opinion, were more targeted and geared to sports fans. The cards must have been experimented with and structured to attract a wider audience.
Gladwell then acknowledges the Power of Context, which essentially states that we are influenced by our environment and peer pressure. There’s a lot of psychology in this section, but its basic argument is applicable to my study of trends. Gladwell argues that a few small changes in the environment of New York City decreased the crime rate. Simple changes such as painting over graffiti and repairing broken windows made a huge impact. The environment changed and so did the crime trends. In my scenario, when my environment changed and everyone started buying and trading Pokémon cards, I, influenced by my peers, began to participate. The people didn’t change, but the topic of their conversation did, so I had to adjust and make small changes (buying the cards) in order to fit in with my surrounding environment. Again, this is pretty obvious. When the people and circumstances change around you, you are more compelled to adjust to fit those changes.
Gladwell also discusses the size of social groups and the Dunbar number. He claims that groups containing less than 150 people are usually more successful and efficient. I do agree with this statement, as my class was far less than 150 people. However, how this number was calculated is very confusing: the ratio of the size of our neocortex to the size of our brain. All of these psychology terms and jargon further separate me from Gladwell’s argument, and it’s just hard to apply to my everyday life. Yes, his main claim, but the steps that get him there are baffling. And what about larger online groups? Should we discount them and their effect just because they are larger than 150 people? There is valuable information and connections that are established online daily. I just do not agree that there is a set limit of people who can successfully interact among each other especially since this number, to me, was determined in such confusing terms.
Overall, this book opened some insight into how I momentarily became a fan of Pokémon cards, and Gladwell’s analysis and principles are interesting and thought-provoking. However, many of his points are either obvious or just confusing and unfounded. His claims did open my mind about how trends spread and evolve through a population. But, the most important conclusion I came to after reading “The Tipping Point” and what I just wrote above is that some trends explode because sometimes we just want to belong to a group, and we can identify with something in that trend. In this case, I think I just wanted to feel part of the new conversation that was sparking over these cards, and I needed them to participate in that conversation. Sometimes a trend tunes into our inner need to belong. And once we finally do belong, that trend doesn’t seem so relevant anymore. That’s why I no longer go out of my way to buy Pokémon cards anymore. Pokémon cards opened dialogue among my classmates, and we all became closer as we bonded over these cutouts of cardboard. Trends are just the starting off point to connecting with people. If we see someone with the same shoes or jacket, we are more inclined to reach out and connect. Kids in my class with Pokémon cards were unified and were able to communicate and bond.
But, I have to admit, the fad I fell for is even a little more embarrassing than these: Pokémon cards. I’m sure that I’m not alone; I’m sure many of you collected these pliable pieces of paper with nothing more than a few words of print and a small image of imaginary creatures.
Pokémon cards were first introduced to the American public in 1998, when I was in third grade. A few boys in my class of approximately 30 kids were flaunting their “collectable” cards, while the girls just stared, dumbfounded as to how and why these simple bits of cardboard could be so mesmerizing and engaging.
Well, it took about a day before my naive little friends and I turned from bewildered skeptics into admiring addicts. After reading “The Tipping Point,” I have pieced together some clues that may have contributed to my metamorphosis, even though I found most of Malcolm Gladwell’s examples evident.
Gladwell describes the tipping point as an instant when a trend crosses a threshold and explodes virally. Ideas, messages and social behaviors disperse just like viruses do. Viruses initially spread through a population somewhat slowly until a tipping point is reached, and they erupt into an epidemic. Gladwell uses this model and applies it to social trends, fads and phenomena and finds commonalities among them. Just as someone with the chicken pox can infect an entire fourth-grade classroom, so can a trend soar overnight.
And that’s just what happened in my Pokémon example. A couple of people were playing with their cards, and the next day, everyone had a stack.
How exactly did this happen? By applying some of Gladwell’s principles, we can trace the evolution of Pokémon’s popularity in my classroom. Gladwell employs some axioms including the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor and the Power of Context to explain how trends take off.
The Law of the Few discusses three types of people who are responsible for helping to launch a fad. These include Connectors: sociable people with ties to many other people, Mavens: knowledgeable people with expertise, and Salesmen: enthusiastic and charismatic people who can persuade your buying decision. In my scenario, the boys in my class acted as connectors and mavens helping to usher me into their trend. If they weren’t very cordial or friendly to me when they explained their cards, then I wouldn’t have bothered. And the same applies to if they were uninformed or ignorant about the games or cards they were playing with. If they didn’t fulfill either of these roles, then I know I really would not have bothered. But the fact that they extended themselves warmly and were eager to share their extensive knowledge about the cards made all the difference. This concept seems pretty apparent to me. Obviously a sociable, expert or persuasive person is helpful and responsible to promoting ideas or products.
Next, Gladwell addresses the Stickiness Factor, which refers to the tinkering of the presentation of a product, idea or behavior, which allows the trend to adhere to the public and become memorable. There is something about the way a trend is packaged and presented that makes it “irresistible.” This assumption seems somewhat obvious. Of course you’re going to fine tune your product to make it unusual or different if you want people to buy it. In this case, I suppose he’s right. I never collected cards before, and the holographic images of the cute and pink Jigglypuff were unlike anything I really had, at the time. It was packaged and presented to appeal to girls as well. Cards in the past, at least in my opinion, were more targeted and geared to sports fans. The cards must have been experimented with and structured to attract a wider audience.
Gladwell then acknowledges the Power of Context, which essentially states that we are influenced by our environment and peer pressure. There’s a lot of psychology in this section, but its basic argument is applicable to my study of trends. Gladwell argues that a few small changes in the environment of New York City decreased the crime rate. Simple changes such as painting over graffiti and repairing broken windows made a huge impact. The environment changed and so did the crime trends. In my scenario, when my environment changed and everyone started buying and trading Pokémon cards, I, influenced by my peers, began to participate. The people didn’t change, but the topic of their conversation did, so I had to adjust and make small changes (buying the cards) in order to fit in with my surrounding environment. Again, this is pretty obvious. When the people and circumstances change around you, you are more compelled to adjust to fit those changes.
Gladwell also discusses the size of social groups and the Dunbar number. He claims that groups containing less than 150 people are usually more successful and efficient. I do agree with this statement, as my class was far less than 150 people. However, how this number was calculated is very confusing: the ratio of the size of our neocortex to the size of our brain. All of these psychology terms and jargon further separate me from Gladwell’s argument, and it’s just hard to apply to my everyday life. Yes, his main claim, but the steps that get him there are baffling. And what about larger online groups? Should we discount them and their effect just because they are larger than 150 people? There is valuable information and connections that are established online daily. I just do not agree that there is a set limit of people who can successfully interact among each other especially since this number, to me, was determined in such confusing terms.
Overall, this book opened some insight into how I momentarily became a fan of Pokémon cards, and Gladwell’s analysis and principles are interesting and thought-provoking. However, many of his points are either obvious or just confusing and unfounded. His claims did open my mind about how trends spread and evolve through a population. But, the most important conclusion I came to after reading “The Tipping Point” and what I just wrote above is that some trends explode because sometimes we just want to belong to a group, and we can identify with something in that trend. In this case, I think I just wanted to feel part of the new conversation that was sparking over these cards, and I needed them to participate in that conversation. Sometimes a trend tunes into our inner need to belong. And once we finally do belong, that trend doesn’t seem so relevant anymore. That’s why I no longer go out of my way to buy Pokémon cards anymore. Pokémon cards opened dialogue among my classmates, and we all became closer as we bonded over these cutouts of cardboard. Trends are just the starting off point to connecting with people. If we see someone with the same shoes or jacket, we are more inclined to reach out and connect. Kids in my class with Pokémon cards were unified and were able to communicate and bond.
Monday, February 7, 2011
How we form our "groups"
I’ve never really cooked -- well, anything edible that wouldn’t give my diners food poisoning. The first time I ever tried cooking pasta, I dumped a pound of pasta with some water (without boiling the water first) and left it on the stove for almost an hour. Besides almost causing a mushroom cloud in the kitchen, the pasta didn’t taste too good.
People often find this very ironic, considering I’m Italian, and my father has owned a restaurant for more years than I’ve been alive. Everyone in my family can cook: my parents, grandparents, brother, and even my younger cousins who are still in middle school.
I guess I always somewhat felt left out, like I couldn’t relate to them on some superficial level by exchanging recipes or sharing their culinary secrets. Obviously, this is my family, so it really never mattered if I could cook, or not, to fit in. But, for some odd reason, I constantly felt like an outsider, especially in a room full of Italians who pride themselves in their homemade fare, which stems from generations and centuries of tradition.
Well, sick of wilted, frozen vegetables; watery, mushy, microwaved pasta; and this outsider feeling, I decided I’d get the courage to combat upscale cuisine in the kitchen.
Now, what does this have to do with “Here Comes Everybody”?
According to Clay Shirky, new social tools and the Internet encourage and open group conversation. With cheaper and more easily accessible online and technological tools, groups can assemble from all around the country and world without the limits of time and cost. The Internet and other technology have allowed niches of people to organize themselves and make things happen that could have never happened before. Shirky maintains that there has been a developing transition from hierarchical, highly-organized associations to informal partnerships supported by social networking resources.
“Ridiculously easy group-forming matters because the desire to be part of a group that shares, cooperates, or acts in concert is a basic human instinct that has always been constrained by transaction costs. Now that group-forming has gone from hard to ridiculously easy, we are seeing an explosion of experiments with new groups and new kinds of groups,” (54).
Yes, being a part of a group is a “basic human instinct.” And, the Internet has facilitated and helped fulfill that innate, human desire to be a part of something bigger. I know that I am a part of my family for many reasons, but by cooking, I hoped to establish another connection and network bringing more people closer together, including my neighbors and friends. Besides engaging my family in my journey, I also hoped to involve others as well.
Thanks to a simple recipe from foodnetwork.com (macaroni and cheese), a fully functioning kitchen and appliances, and relatively inexpensive ingredients, preparing a palatable plate didn’t seem so entirely daunting.
In total, my ingredients cost less than $20. Already, I was feeling confident in my choice because if I messed this one up, like my first attempt with pasta, then at least I didn’t go bankrupt in the process. The cheap, easy-to-find ingredients motivated me in my quest to share more commonalities and partake in my family’s “group” of expert, experienced chefs. Like my readily available ingredients from Wegman’s, easily accessible online tools allow people to find and establish their groups on the web. More people from different backgrounds and walks of life can now participate in online groups, leading to not only new groups, but a lot of new groups and more kinds of groups.
And finally the actual cooking began. I boiled the water, put in the pasta, melted some butter, and combined the cheese and milk. After incorporating my ingredients and baking for a few minutes, I was extremely shocked not only to see my finished product didn’t burn down the kitchen and send the firefighters breaking down our front door, but that it actually looked delicious. I couldn’t believe how easy it was for me to transform from a just a consumer to a producer as well. Advanced technology is breaking down barriers for me to learn to cook and for people to correspond and connect with each other via the Internet.
Just like building an organization is much easier and efficient when its members can instantly access a website or communicate with each other through e-mail, so too is cooking when presented with the right tools and ingredients. And the result, establishing and fulfilling this basic human instinct, is more easily accomplished with the appropriate devices, whether it be a whisk or e-mail. Each situation requires different means to carry out its purpose. Cooking did for me what the Internet has done for groups all around the world and all around the clock. It instantly brought them together and filled their natural desire to create human connections with others.
After sharing my experience with parents, they instantly began sharing when and how they learned to cook. I no longer felt like a dependent because we were breaking down our once hierarchical system in which my parents filled their roles as executive chefs, my brother as the sous chef and me as the diner. But now, thanks to technology and the Internet, this new chain of command is slowly blurring and interacting with other levels. There is no one solitary elite, we now all share and collaborate.
And now, my friends, neighbors and friends of friends have been inspired by my simple dish that they too are starting to cook. I’ve reached out to others and shared with them my experience, encouraging them to try something different and out of their complacency.
“Here Comes Everybody” is more than using the Internet to connect with people, it’s about people wanting to connect with people and using the means available to them in order to do so. Yes, the Internet did help me learn to cook (my easy-to-follow recipe), but I went on the Internet on my own accord in order to establish another connection with my family, friends and strangers. Most people want to belong to something, and the Internet is just a relatively inexpensive and quick way for people to find their human associations. After all, it’s the people with whom we establish those bonds, not our monitors or cables.
People often find this very ironic, considering I’m Italian, and my father has owned a restaurant for more years than I’ve been alive. Everyone in my family can cook: my parents, grandparents, brother, and even my younger cousins who are still in middle school.
I guess I always somewhat felt left out, like I couldn’t relate to them on some superficial level by exchanging recipes or sharing their culinary secrets. Obviously, this is my family, so it really never mattered if I could cook, or not, to fit in. But, for some odd reason, I constantly felt like an outsider, especially in a room full of Italians who pride themselves in their homemade fare, which stems from generations and centuries of tradition.
Well, sick of wilted, frozen vegetables; watery, mushy, microwaved pasta; and this outsider feeling, I decided I’d get the courage to combat upscale cuisine in the kitchen.
Now, what does this have to do with “Here Comes Everybody”?
According to Clay Shirky, new social tools and the Internet encourage and open group conversation. With cheaper and more easily accessible online and technological tools, groups can assemble from all around the country and world without the limits of time and cost. The Internet and other technology have allowed niches of people to organize themselves and make things happen that could have never happened before. Shirky maintains that there has been a developing transition from hierarchical, highly-organized associations to informal partnerships supported by social networking resources.
“Ridiculously easy group-forming matters because the desire to be part of a group that shares, cooperates, or acts in concert is a basic human instinct that has always been constrained by transaction costs. Now that group-forming has gone from hard to ridiculously easy, we are seeing an explosion of experiments with new groups and new kinds of groups,” (54).
Yes, being a part of a group is a “basic human instinct.” And, the Internet has facilitated and helped fulfill that innate, human desire to be a part of something bigger. I know that I am a part of my family for many reasons, but by cooking, I hoped to establish another connection and network bringing more people closer together, including my neighbors and friends. Besides engaging my family in my journey, I also hoped to involve others as well.
Thanks to a simple recipe from foodnetwork.com (macaroni and cheese), a fully functioning kitchen and appliances, and relatively inexpensive ingredients, preparing a palatable plate didn’t seem so entirely daunting.
In total, my ingredients cost less than $20. Already, I was feeling confident in my choice because if I messed this one up, like my first attempt with pasta, then at least I didn’t go bankrupt in the process. The cheap, easy-to-find ingredients motivated me in my quest to share more commonalities and partake in my family’s “group” of expert, experienced chefs. Like my readily available ingredients from Wegman’s, easily accessible online tools allow people to find and establish their groups on the web. More people from different backgrounds and walks of life can now participate in online groups, leading to not only new groups, but a lot of new groups and more kinds of groups.
And finally the actual cooking began. I boiled the water, put in the pasta, melted some butter, and combined the cheese and milk. After incorporating my ingredients and baking for a few minutes, I was extremely shocked not only to see my finished product didn’t burn down the kitchen and send the firefighters breaking down our front door, but that it actually looked delicious. I couldn’t believe how easy it was for me to transform from a just a consumer to a producer as well. Advanced technology is breaking down barriers for me to learn to cook and for people to correspond and connect with each other via the Internet.
Just like building an organization is much easier and efficient when its members can instantly access a website or communicate with each other through e-mail, so too is cooking when presented with the right tools and ingredients. And the result, establishing and fulfilling this basic human instinct, is more easily accomplished with the appropriate devices, whether it be a whisk or e-mail. Each situation requires different means to carry out its purpose. Cooking did for me what the Internet has done for groups all around the world and all around the clock. It instantly brought them together and filled their natural desire to create human connections with others.
After sharing my experience with parents, they instantly began sharing when and how they learned to cook. I no longer felt like a dependent because we were breaking down our once hierarchical system in which my parents filled their roles as executive chefs, my brother as the sous chef and me as the diner. But now, thanks to technology and the Internet, this new chain of command is slowly blurring and interacting with other levels. There is no one solitary elite, we now all share and collaborate.
And now, my friends, neighbors and friends of friends have been inspired by my simple dish that they too are starting to cook. I’ve reached out to others and shared with them my experience, encouraging them to try something different and out of their complacency.
“Here Comes Everybody” is more than using the Internet to connect with people, it’s about people wanting to connect with people and using the means available to them in order to do so. Yes, the Internet did help me learn to cook (my easy-to-follow recipe), but I went on the Internet on my own accord in order to establish another connection with my family, friends and strangers. Most people want to belong to something, and the Internet is just a relatively inexpensive and quick way for people to find their human associations. After all, it’s the people with whom we establish those bonds, not our monitors or cables.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Citizen journalists: benefit or hindrance?
He was a young, new graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Post-graduation, the mid-20’s urban professional became the hip, up-and-coming, hot shot reporter of The New Republic...Anything of this sound familiar, yet?
As journalism students, -- well, as students in general -- most of us have been indoctrinated to never plagiarize, never copy and paste someone else’s work and claim it as your own. Well, along with these lessons came the story of Stephen Glass. Stephen Glass has now become synonymous with literary distortion.
I’m sure most people have some knowledge of the film “Broken Glass” depicting the lengths Glass underwent to cover up the concocted sources and claims in his false stories and the downfall of his promising career. Most notable of his fraudulent stories, which most of us journalism students have read, is “Hack Heaven.” The story details the sophomoric, yet genius, escapades of teenaged software hacker Ian Restil, who penetrated the security system of a company called Jukt Micronics.
But, as we all know, this story proved to have been completely fabricated when sources were checked and when Jukt Micronics was googled. The “big-time software firm” did not appear on major search engines, further verifying Glass’ plagiarism.
And, this wasn’t even the only story he invented and contrived.
OK, so I know most of you are probably wondering how this relates to “We the Media.” The main question I had, and still have, while reading this book was/is, if professional journalists with experience employed with reputable publications can fabricate stories, sources and events, then can we really trust citizen journalists?
Dan Gillmor discusses topics and a theme that seem somewhat obvious to us: the Internet changes the relationship between the media and consumers. Now there has been a transfer of power from the big news corporations to the regular, everyday reader, changing the way news is handled. Technology and the Internet have provided the means for anyone to become a journalist efficiently and economically, transforming the role of journalism as more grassroots and democratic.
Cell phones equipped with cameras and smart-phone technology -- that allows you to upload videos anywhere instantly -- buffers the lines between professional and novice journalists. While there are pros to this concept, I still doubt the authenticity or credibility of amateurs. Not only are they unfamiliar with AP style, but they are also untrained in the SPJ code of ethics and lack a basic background in journalism. If we cannot trust professionals to do their jobs scrupulously, then can we really have faith in others?
I do appreciate the idea of people expressing their opinions openly and freely and serving as a check on monopolized big corporations controlling news content. But, what will happen to journalists? I’m already fearful of the job market that’s going to welcome -- or reject -- us. And now that just anyone, any age, in any country can be a journalist, what will happen to my role in the field of journalism? But, more importantly, what happens to people and humanity?
In a world where we’re already jaded and unwilling to reach out to others, I almost feel that people will become even more cynical and skeptical of each other, especially when they don’t know who is reporting the news and when that news could be false or a hoax. We don’t know who these people are, where they are getting their information from or how they obtained it. If we cannot even trust the information disseminated by The New Republic (Stephen Glass) or The New York Times (Jayson Blair), then who can we really trust?
Is the Internet just a reflection of our uneasy world? What are the long-term effects of citizen journalism for the world? For the optimist, it can unite us and make us open and trusting of our communities. Citizen journalism can bring people together when we need encouragement and support. When there is an injustice afflicting people, they can voice their opinions, facts and arguments on the Internet, garnering support from fellow activists and proponents of their plight. In some respects, I admire bloggers and ordinary citizens who are fighting for their rights and causes. And I applaud the Internet’s role in bulldozing the big corporations that dominated news-gathering. I don’t doubt the Internet’s effect on making the news more accessible and democratic; I just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control, allowing anyone to report on the news.
How many times have we heard about Elvis’ resurrection from the grave or women bearing alien babies? Yes, those are very extreme cases, and I know we’re not psychotically gullible to believe this absurdity, but these people exist, and the Internet is facilitating and opening more channels for these unstable people to get their deranged messages across.
Gillmor touches on this and questions the accuracy and credibility of citizen journalists, suggesting that skilled and experienced editors will be in high demand to monitor and police online news and information. However, he is still more optimistic than I am. Gillmor believes that the more people accessing and surveying the web, the more supervision there will be over what is dispersed. He also recommends that we teach and indoctrinate these beginner journalists with the ethics and skills involved in being a professional because, he says, their participation in online journalism it’s inevitable anyway. So, we might as well furnish them with the knowledge and tools. But, no matter how many people we teach or instruct, I will still be guarded and suspicious about this effect on the future of journalism and humanity.
As journalism students, -- well, as students in general -- most of us have been indoctrinated to never plagiarize, never copy and paste someone else’s work and claim it as your own. Well, along with these lessons came the story of Stephen Glass. Stephen Glass has now become synonymous with literary distortion.
I’m sure most people have some knowledge of the film “Broken Glass” depicting the lengths Glass underwent to cover up the concocted sources and claims in his false stories and the downfall of his promising career. Most notable of his fraudulent stories, which most of us journalism students have read, is “Hack Heaven.” The story details the sophomoric, yet genius, escapades of teenaged software hacker Ian Restil, who penetrated the security system of a company called Jukt Micronics.
But, as we all know, this story proved to have been completely fabricated when sources were checked and when Jukt Micronics was googled. The “big-time software firm” did not appear on major search engines, further verifying Glass’ plagiarism.
And, this wasn’t even the only story he invented and contrived.
OK, so I know most of you are probably wondering how this relates to “We the Media.” The main question I had, and still have, while reading this book was/is, if professional journalists with experience employed with reputable publications can fabricate stories, sources and events, then can we really trust citizen journalists?
Dan Gillmor discusses topics and a theme that seem somewhat obvious to us: the Internet changes the relationship between the media and consumers. Now there has been a transfer of power from the big news corporations to the regular, everyday reader, changing the way news is handled. Technology and the Internet have provided the means for anyone to become a journalist efficiently and economically, transforming the role of journalism as more grassroots and democratic.
Cell phones equipped with cameras and smart-phone technology -- that allows you to upload videos anywhere instantly -- buffers the lines between professional and novice journalists. While there are pros to this concept, I still doubt the authenticity or credibility of amateurs. Not only are they unfamiliar with AP style, but they are also untrained in the SPJ code of ethics and lack a basic background in journalism. If we cannot trust professionals to do their jobs scrupulously, then can we really have faith in others?
I do appreciate the idea of people expressing their opinions openly and freely and serving as a check on monopolized big corporations controlling news content. But, what will happen to journalists? I’m already fearful of the job market that’s going to welcome -- or reject -- us. And now that just anyone, any age, in any country can be a journalist, what will happen to my role in the field of journalism? But, more importantly, what happens to people and humanity?
In a world where we’re already jaded and unwilling to reach out to others, I almost feel that people will become even more cynical and skeptical of each other, especially when they don’t know who is reporting the news and when that news could be false or a hoax. We don’t know who these people are, where they are getting their information from or how they obtained it. If we cannot even trust the information disseminated by The New Republic (Stephen Glass) or The New York Times (Jayson Blair), then who can we really trust?
Is the Internet just a reflection of our uneasy world? What are the long-term effects of citizen journalism for the world? For the optimist, it can unite us and make us open and trusting of our communities. Citizen journalism can bring people together when we need encouragement and support. When there is an injustice afflicting people, they can voice their opinions, facts and arguments on the Internet, garnering support from fellow activists and proponents of their plight. In some respects, I admire bloggers and ordinary citizens who are fighting for their rights and causes. And I applaud the Internet’s role in bulldozing the big corporations that dominated news-gathering. I don’t doubt the Internet’s effect on making the news more accessible and democratic; I just hope it doesn’t spiral out of control, allowing anyone to report on the news.
How many times have we heard about Elvis’ resurrection from the grave or women bearing alien babies? Yes, those are very extreme cases, and I know we’re not psychotically gullible to believe this absurdity, but these people exist, and the Internet is facilitating and opening more channels for these unstable people to get their deranged messages across.
Gillmor touches on this and questions the accuracy and credibility of citizen journalists, suggesting that skilled and experienced editors will be in high demand to monitor and police online news and information. However, he is still more optimistic than I am. Gillmor believes that the more people accessing and surveying the web, the more supervision there will be over what is dispersed. He also recommends that we teach and indoctrinate these beginner journalists with the ethics and skills involved in being a professional because, he says, their participation in online journalism it’s inevitable anyway. So, we might as well furnish them with the knowledge and tools. But, no matter how many people we teach or instruct, I will still be guarded and suspicious about this effect on the future of journalism and humanity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)