Two years ago, a student I work with told me something terrifying. A recruiter at a job fair had told her she’d never get a job without a MySpace page. She wanted to know how I got a job without a MySpace page. I told her the truth: connections. I knew the person that hired me. I’d worked with him before.
“So, you networked,” she said.
“Um… yeah, I guess.”
She explained that this is what MySpace was for: networking. I guess I didn’t get it. And I still don’t. I don’t get the networking value of social networking sites. Social networking sites have given me something valuable: a replacement for my outdated address book, where the entries update themselves and I can always find who I’m looking for. They haven’t replaced much else though, so why are they such a big deal?
Danah Boyd, an ethnographic researcher, just published her essay on class issues in social networking Web sites. First, though, she gives the history. In 2003-2004, MySpace went from being a 20-30-something site to a teen site that helped bands promote themselves. In 2004, Facebook started at Harvard University. Before them, Friendster and other social networking sites could show you who you knew, and who they know (that’s what networking is, right?). MySpace and Facebook took off because they had plenty of space for the users to talk about themselves. The theory is that you can list your favorite hobbies, or movies, or books on your profile and make friends with people with the same interests. It doesn’t work that way in practice though. Most people just write about themselves. These sites are called “Social Networking Sites,” but very little social networking really goes around. I can list my friends and you can list yours, and if we have friends in common, it will tell us. But how is that really changing anything? Are we meeting new people? Are we finding people with similar interests? Aren’t these things we could do before the Internet? And was it better then or is it better now? It’s pretty much the same, only now, we’re not always sure who we’re meeting.
I don’t know if this is true for everyone, but I’m not exactly the same person on the Internet that I am in real life. It’s not like I’m really a middle-aged man from Indiana in real life, but I’m less polished in person than I am on the Web. The Internet affords one luxury of communication you don’t have in person: time. I have time to cleverly concoct and assemble my lists of likes and dislikes for my social networking profile. It’s like writing your resume. You get to work on it for months, and your interview might last 10 minutes. Even though I’m not any smarter, I sound smarter on the Internet. But if people were trying to network with me based on my interests, they might be out of luck. Sure, my Facebook profile may list my favorite movie, but you know what? I lied. My favorite movie is “Caddyshack”; the profile says it’s “The Royal Tenenbaums.” “Tenenbaums” is one of my favorite movies, so it’s not an entire untruth, but it changes my entire online persona. Stoned frat boys like “Caddyshack,” but cool people like “Tenenbaums.” Did I do this consciously? Kind of. I thought of the movie that would give me something in common with the people I know. But was it the Internet that influenced the decision to fib? Kind of. If I was at a dinner party with my hip, educated friends, I probably wouldn’t admit to be the type of philistine that enjoyed the story of golfers and an overzealous gopher. At a sports bar with my college-football-watching friends, I wouldn’t admit to being the hip poseur that likes “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Everybody fibs. It’s like that saying; On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. On the Internet, nobody knows you’re not cool.
And that’s the draw. That’s the attraction. You can talk endlessly about yourself, and make yourself so cool. And that’s also exactly why these sites aren’t promoting networking. People are all too busy making themselves look cool, and showing their intelligent and fascinating interests and hobbies, great photos of themselves where they look thin and pretty, and listing how many friends they have. The features that made MySpace and Facebook popular (photo sharing, detailed personal profile pages, etc.) are the exact things that are preventing people from meeting anybody new. The social networking site is the new Narcissus’ pond. Let’s try not to drown ourselves.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
media journal
For a course I took last year, my book was Media Journal by Joseph Harris, Jay Rosen and Gary Calpas. I try to keep my books after courses are over, in case I need them again. Some I never kept because I knew I'd never keep them. I kept this one though, and I'm glad I did. Over the (very) long weekend, I found a few essays that went along well with the th, butemes in this course, and I'm going to post about each of them.
First, M. Kadi's essay "The Internet is Four Inches Tall," (reprinted from h2so4 issue 3), explores the concept of the Internet being somewhat like the Emperor wearing no clothes. It's this big, shiny new toy with plenty of possibilities, but the biggest one, at least now, is commercial possibility. First it's about the commercial situation of charging for the access. Then it explores what you're paying for. Back when this was written, in 1994, most of it was bulletin boards and chat rooms. Her final decision is that the Internet, while it has bells and whistles and speed, is still just another way of transporting information, which so far, isn't anything new.
I like this in relation to the Mythinformaiton essay. We aren't really connecting. We just have another tool to communicate, but it's not like we have new things to do. This really will play into my upcoming commentary essay on the pros and cons of social networking Web sites. Basically, through my research and experience, I'm compelled to say yes, we are somewhat cheating ourselves out of "human" experiences. And maybe someday, the amount of Facebook friends you have will change the way you live. I have 151 Facebook friends. I'm not on MySpace. But I'm not really friends with most of these people. For instance, only 2 or 3 could I call and ask to go to the movies with me. Or to help me move or anything else vaguely friend-like. I'm "networked" to them. I mean, it's a pretty good way to comprehensively list my acquaintances (or those that are on Facebook), but there's not much qualitative information there. Someone I've known and been close with almost 8 years is on the same level with someone I met once 3 years ago.
Ok, next essay. This one, by Andrew L. Shapiro, titled "Street Corners in Cyberspace" expands on the notion that the Internet provides a uniqueness that the user wants. "Don't like antiabortion activists, homeless people,news reports about murders? No problem–you need never encounter them," he writes. This is spot on. The Web is so customizable, and it's so easy to only get what you want. For instance, I personally subscribe to several RSS feeds. I have The New York Times arts section and BoingBoing. I also have The Onion, and the NYT front page. But it would be just as easy to ditch one and keep the other.
He uses two phrases I like: Cyberbia and Cyberkeley. These are the terms to juxtapose the Internet that's full of home shopping and advertisements vs. the Internet that's full of really intelligent information. But people in the middle, the street corners, are where there's a possibility for real growth and interesting developments on the Web.
There's a lot of interesting things out there, but I'm finding a lot of the same theories echoing over and over. I'm wondering if I'll ever find something different. Maybe it's trendy now, like it was a few years ago, to brag about hating television, or it being worthless. Maybe just right now, the trend is to discount the Internet as worthless. There are certain television shows right now, though, that prove there are dynamic, innovative and amazing minds out there creating them. Maybe it'll just take time for the Internet to come that way.
First, M. Kadi's essay "The Internet is Four Inches Tall," (reprinted from h2so4 issue 3), explores the concept of the Internet being somewhat like the Emperor wearing no clothes. It's this big, shiny new toy with plenty of possibilities, but the biggest one, at least now, is commercial possibility. First it's about the commercial situation of charging for the access. Then it explores what you're paying for. Back when this was written, in 1994, most of it was bulletin boards and chat rooms. Her final decision is that the Internet, while it has bells and whistles and speed, is still just another way of transporting information, which so far, isn't anything new.
I like this in relation to the Mythinformaiton essay. We aren't really connecting. We just have another tool to communicate, but it's not like we have new things to do. This really will play into my upcoming commentary essay on the pros and cons of social networking Web sites. Basically, through my research and experience, I'm compelled to say yes, we are somewhat cheating ourselves out of "human" experiences. And maybe someday, the amount of Facebook friends you have will change the way you live. I have 151 Facebook friends. I'm not on MySpace. But I'm not really friends with most of these people. For instance, only 2 or 3 could I call and ask to go to the movies with me. Or to help me move or anything else vaguely friend-like. I'm "networked" to them. I mean, it's a pretty good way to comprehensively list my acquaintances (or those that are on Facebook), but there's not much qualitative information there. Someone I've known and been close with almost 8 years is on the same level with someone I met once 3 years ago.
Ok, next essay. This one, by Andrew L. Shapiro, titled "Street Corners in Cyberspace" expands on the notion that the Internet provides a uniqueness that the user wants. "Don't like antiabortion activists, homeless people,news reports about murders? No problem–you need never encounter them," he writes. This is spot on. The Web is so customizable, and it's so easy to only get what you want. For instance, I personally subscribe to several RSS feeds. I have The New York Times arts section and BoingBoing. I also have The Onion, and the NYT front page. But it would be just as easy to ditch one and keep the other.
He uses two phrases I like: Cyberbia and Cyberkeley. These are the terms to juxtapose the Internet that's full of home shopping and advertisements vs. the Internet that's full of really intelligent information. But people in the middle, the street corners, are where there's a possibility for real growth and interesting developments on the Web.
There's a lot of interesting things out there, but I'm finding a lot of the same theories echoing over and over. I'm wondering if I'll ever find something different. Maybe it's trendy now, like it was a few years ago, to brag about hating television, or it being worthless. Maybe just right now, the trend is to discount the Internet as worthless. There are certain television shows right now, though, that prove there are dynamic, innovative and amazing minds out there creating them. Maybe it'll just take time for the Internet to come that way.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
sorry
Sorry for the lack of posts. I was out of town with my family for a bit. They're still dealing with stuff about my granddad's estate. It's kind of a nightmare. But, as I am trying to keep out of personal stuff in this school blog, I will refrain from giving you the boring, inane details.
Regular posts will return tomorrow!
Regular posts will return tomorrow!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
part of the problem
Today’s reading:
The Tales They Tell in Cyber-Space by John Katz
First, let me say I hate the prefix “cyber” and I hate how it got attached to everything in the 90s (cyberspace, cybernews, cybersex) like a lower-case “i” got attached to everything in the 2000s (iWork, iLife, iPod). Since, though, this was written in 1994, for The New York Times, I’ll allow it. In 1994, prefixing stuff with “cyber” was undeniably hip. Isn’t it strange how even the trendy nomenclature changes? Cyber and virtual became Web 2.0, the current trendy way to say “interactive Internet features.” I digress.
Katz’s essay is about how creativity and communication have been affected by the Web. Instead of the power-communicators (TV networks, movie companies, etc.) choosing what gets communicated, the masses can discuss things directly with the masses. And though what they’re discussing lacks the polish of an editor’s hand or a newscaster’s inflection, it has something going for it: honesty. Katz excerpts posts from bulletin boards about emergency roadside births, homophobia and AIDS. These are sad stories, and funny stories, none of which are of the magnitude required to be a Movie of the Week or a novel, but they’re still true stories of real life, without the gatekeepers.
In journalism school, back in 1999-2002, we barely used e-mail or the Internet. It’s strange, really, to think about. I’m sure other departments on campus were using e-mail (computer science, definitely, and other sciences I bet, probably the business school too). I don’t know if journalists as a whole didn’t realize the possibility that we’d be obsolete someday. So much effort is put in now for “convergence” newsgathering. It’s not enough to get an interview and write a story, you have to have photos, video, interactive graphics on the Web and a thousand other bells and whistles to make your story reach as many people as possible.
That’s harder too. Since people get their news from the Web, it’s easier to pick and choose. You can read the New York Times art pages without reading the front page. You can watch a clip on CNN.com and not have to watch the actual cable channel. You can watch clips on NBC.com and never see an entire Nightly News with Brian Williams newscast. Now, this doesn't seem so bad when you think about excising stories about celebrities or pop culture from your news diet, but what if you’re excising something “important?” What if you stopped reading any news about the war? Or any news about global warming? And is that really any worse than cutting out stories about Paris Hilton?
A well-balanced news-diet is a thing of the past. Gone are the days where people read a morning paper, an evening paper and watch the local and national news every night. The only people I know that do this anymore are over 65-years-old or journalism students. I don’t even do that anymore. I might watch an hour of CNN, read the New York Times RSS feed for the front-page headlines and read a magazine every day though. But these are choices I make, not necessarily to shield myself from certain stories, but to read what I like to read.
This is bad. I’m part of the people making myself obsolete. How terrifying.
The Tales They Tell in Cyber-Space by John Katz
First, let me say I hate the prefix “cyber” and I hate how it got attached to everything in the 90s (cyberspace, cybernews, cybersex) like a lower-case “i” got attached to everything in the 2000s (iWork, iLife, iPod). Since, though, this was written in 1994, for The New York Times, I’ll allow it. In 1994, prefixing stuff with “cyber” was undeniably hip. Isn’t it strange how even the trendy nomenclature changes? Cyber and virtual became Web 2.0, the current trendy way to say “interactive Internet features.” I digress.
Katz’s essay is about how creativity and communication have been affected by the Web. Instead of the power-communicators (TV networks, movie companies, etc.) choosing what gets communicated, the masses can discuss things directly with the masses. And though what they’re discussing lacks the polish of an editor’s hand or a newscaster’s inflection, it has something going for it: honesty. Katz excerpts posts from bulletin boards about emergency roadside births, homophobia and AIDS. These are sad stories, and funny stories, none of which are of the magnitude required to be a Movie of the Week or a novel, but they’re still true stories of real life, without the gatekeepers.
In journalism school, back in 1999-2002, we barely used e-mail or the Internet. It’s strange, really, to think about. I’m sure other departments on campus were using e-mail (computer science, definitely, and other sciences I bet, probably the business school too). I don’t know if journalists as a whole didn’t realize the possibility that we’d be obsolete someday. So much effort is put in now for “convergence” newsgathering. It’s not enough to get an interview and write a story, you have to have photos, video, interactive graphics on the Web and a thousand other bells and whistles to make your story reach as many people as possible.
That’s harder too. Since people get their news from the Web, it’s easier to pick and choose. You can read the New York Times art pages without reading the front page. You can watch a clip on CNN.com and not have to watch the actual cable channel. You can watch clips on NBC.com and never see an entire Nightly News with Brian Williams newscast. Now, this doesn't seem so bad when you think about excising stories about celebrities or pop culture from your news diet, but what if you’re excising something “important?” What if you stopped reading any news about the war? Or any news about global warming? And is that really any worse than cutting out stories about Paris Hilton?
A well-balanced news-diet is a thing of the past. Gone are the days where people read a morning paper, an evening paper and watch the local and national news every night. The only people I know that do this anymore are over 65-years-old or journalism students. I don’t even do that anymore. I might watch an hour of CNN, read the New York Times RSS feed for the front-page headlines and read a magazine every day though. But these are choices I make, not necessarily to shield myself from certain stories, but to read what I like to read.
This is bad. I’m part of the people making myself obsolete. How terrifying.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Social Networking and class issues
So, I'm starting to research my commentary essay on social networking, and apparently, a new study released recently shows class distinctions between different types of social networking sites.
According to this article Facebook is for rich kids that are going to college and MySpace is for kids that aren't, all according to this paper.
This is huge.
She basically says there's a class war going on with these sites, and that the aesthetics (another writer compared Facebook to the look and feel of an Ikea store and MySpace to the look and feel of Las Vegas) are going to become part of it. Sure, your typical MySpace page does often look like a giant war of pixels and sound, and your typical Facebook page is cleaner, but these are reflecting class distinctions? Like Ikea and Wal-Mart?
I just started reading the actual paper, but so far, it's very interesting. This woman knows her stuff. I can tell already this article will directly influence my commentary essay!
She also cites this: The Lost Children of Rockdale County, a PBS Frontline special about a 1996 syphillis outbreak in Rockdale County, Ga. I remember seeing this on PBS about a hundred times when I was in high school (in the next county over). It shows how bored, middle-and-upper-middle-class white teenagers can really get into trouble. (Consequently, when this was on PBS for pretty much five years straight, my friends and I would joke that when you turned on PBS, you either got kids with syphillis or Wishbone, a children's television program about a dog that wore hats and was commonly mistaken for historical figures. Our joke was "Is that a kid with syphillis? Nope, just a dog in a hat.")
According to this article Facebook is for rich kids that are going to college and MySpace is for kids that aren't, all according to this paper.
This is huge.
She basically says there's a class war going on with these sites, and that the aesthetics (another writer compared Facebook to the look and feel of an Ikea store and MySpace to the look and feel of Las Vegas) are going to become part of it. Sure, your typical MySpace page does often look like a giant war of pixels and sound, and your typical Facebook page is cleaner, but these are reflecting class distinctions? Like Ikea and Wal-Mart?
I just started reading the actual paper, but so far, it's very interesting. This woman knows her stuff. I can tell already this article will directly influence my commentary essay!
She also cites this: The Lost Children of Rockdale County, a PBS Frontline special about a 1996 syphillis outbreak in Rockdale County, Ga. I remember seeing this on PBS about a hundred times when I was in high school (in the next county over). It shows how bored, middle-and-upper-middle-class white teenagers can really get into trouble. (Consequently, when this was on PBS for pretty much five years straight, my friends and I would joke that when you turned on PBS, you either got kids with syphillis or Wishbone, a children's television program about a dog that wore hats and was commonly mistaken for historical figures. Our joke was "Is that a kid with syphillis? Nope, just a dog in a hat.")
Course project proposals
Aside from this lovely reading response blog, I'm also writing four projects for this course. I've outlined them all here. I've also submitted them to my guiding professor, and if she has feedback on how I can change them to make them better, or different, I'll post revised proposals. You'll get to see the whole process!
Exciting!
Project 1
Commentary essay on the new media social networking phenomenon
Draft due: July 5
Notes back by: July 12
Final due: July 19
Description: 750-word personal commentary essay on the effects of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook on real social networking and personal relationships in college
Suitable for publication in: trade magazines like Wired or Rolling Stone
Target audience: 20s-30s professionals with Internet/social networking familiarity
Project 2
Interactive television article
Draft due: July 12
Notes back by: July 19
Final due: July 26
Description:
Suitable for publication in: Entertainment Weekly
Target audience: 25-45-year-olds with interest in how interactive television providers work and features of them
Project 3
Conference paper on innovation in college student media reflecting professional media practices
Draft due: August 2
Notes back by: August 9
Final due: August 16
Description: 1,250-1,500-word article on different ways student media organizations have adopted new media into their daily operations, with accompanying PowerPoint presentation
Suitable for publication in: College Media Review
Target audience: College media advisers
Project 4
WordPress Web-based self-publishing software get started guide
Draft due: August 9
Notes back by: August 16
Final due: August 23
Description: 10-step guide to get started with a WordPress content manager
Suitable for publication in: the WordPress Web site or somewhere like Wired
Target audience: Novice bloggers that want to use something a little more sophisticated than Blogger’s setup on their own domain
Exciting!
Project 1
Commentary essay on the new media social networking phenomenon
Draft due: July 5
Notes back by: July 12
Final due: July 19
Description: 750-word personal commentary essay on the effects of social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook on real social networking and personal relationships in college
Suitable for publication in: trade magazines like Wired or Rolling Stone
Target audience: 20s-30s professionals with Internet/social networking familiarity
Project 2
Interactive television article
Draft due: July 12
Notes back by: July 19
Final due: July 26
Description:
Suitable for publication in: Entertainment Weekly
Target audience: 25-45-year-olds with interest in how interactive television providers work and features of them
Project 3
Conference paper on innovation in college student media reflecting professional media practices
Draft due: August 2
Notes back by: August 9
Final due: August 16
Description: 1,250-1,500-word article on different ways student media organizations have adopted new media into their daily operations, with accompanying PowerPoint presentation
Suitable for publication in: College Media Review
Target audience: College media advisers
Project 4
WordPress Web-based self-publishing software get started guide
Draft due: August 9
Notes back by: August 16
Final due: August 23
Description: 10-step guide to get started with a WordPress content manager
Suitable for publication in: the WordPress Web site or somewhere like Wired
Target audience: Novice bloggers that want to use something a little more sophisticated than Blogger’s setup on their own domain
Monday, June 25, 2007
Heavy things on ideas and humanity
This essay (Mythinformation by Langdon Winner, in The New Media Reader) hooked me in the second paragraph. Winner calls the cover stories of Time and Newsweek that declare the computer age a “revolution” garish. Garish. In the next paragraph, he explains that marketing has forced many “revolutions” on society. Revolutions in laundry detergent or floor wax. It’s a metaphor, Winner says. He extrapolates the metaphor to examine it. Will there be a real revolution socially or politically brought on by computers? Winner says not really, and after reading his essay, I agree.
Winner explains the “utopian fantasy” initiated by computer companies and perpetuated by journalists. Computers will be the great equalizer, the fantasy declares. But Winner explains, sure, as more computers do the jobs of unskilled workers, unskilled workers will be free to pursue careers as janitors and fast-food waiters. He explains that the social power and controls and class systems won’t change as fast as the technology does. He makes a clear distinction here about what is superficially plausible and what will really happen.
Some people will find this hard to stomach. After being inundated for years about how “knowledge is power” and “computers will truly democratize society,” it’s tough to believe that yes, computers will change how we do things, but they wont change really what we do or who we are. We may monitor our banking on the computer, but we still bank. We may shop on the computer, but we still shop. Only the tools are changing. Winner postulates that since humans have known existence within spatial and temporal limits, transitioning in one generation to a virtual system of space and time is not possible. Maybe it isn’t even possible over many generations.
I find this so interesting. A few months ago, I was researching an article about eating organic food. A nutritionist I interviewed explained to me that by eating a variety of foods and even shopping for them at different places, I was nurturing my hunter-gatherer instincts. I had forgotten I even had them, but once I realized that it was really much deeper, hard-wired, human-animal behavior to shop around, I was satiated. If I have that much-unknown desire to hunt for variety in something as simple as my diet, and that that is essentially hard-wired into my basic animalistic instincts, then instincts to exist in defined space and time must be even deeper. And the consequences for ignoring them are probably even direr than just bad nutrition.
Everyone knows smart kids that can’t hold their own in a conversation. Everyone knows people with IQs off the charts that couldn’t ride a city bus. Computers and the Internet may be providing alternate social forums for these people, but they’re enabling these people to deprive themselves of something vital to the human experience: face-to-face real-time real interaction with other real human beings. I fall victim to it every day. I email or call or IM when I could just walk across campus and talk to someone in his or her office. I buy things on Amazon.com instead of driving to the mall, discussing the pros and cons of products with salespeople and physically handing them money. When I use these technological so-called “advancements,” am I really just cheating myself out of my own right to human existence?
Winner seems to think so, at least a little. He closes his essay by saying that so far, the computer “revolution,” is being guided by something all too familiar: “the absent mind.”
This is getting heavy. I think in researching theory and the deep meaning of humanity, one should take a break after doing deep thinking such as this. So, I’m going to go do that. And maybe also get a sandwich. Thinking this hard makes me hungry.
Winner explains the “utopian fantasy” initiated by computer companies and perpetuated by journalists. Computers will be the great equalizer, the fantasy declares. But Winner explains, sure, as more computers do the jobs of unskilled workers, unskilled workers will be free to pursue careers as janitors and fast-food waiters. He explains that the social power and controls and class systems won’t change as fast as the technology does. He makes a clear distinction here about what is superficially plausible and what will really happen.
Some people will find this hard to stomach. After being inundated for years about how “knowledge is power” and “computers will truly democratize society,” it’s tough to believe that yes, computers will change how we do things, but they wont change really what we do or who we are. We may monitor our banking on the computer, but we still bank. We may shop on the computer, but we still shop. Only the tools are changing. Winner postulates that since humans have known existence within spatial and temporal limits, transitioning in one generation to a virtual system of space and time is not possible. Maybe it isn’t even possible over many generations.
I find this so interesting. A few months ago, I was researching an article about eating organic food. A nutritionist I interviewed explained to me that by eating a variety of foods and even shopping for them at different places, I was nurturing my hunter-gatherer instincts. I had forgotten I even had them, but once I realized that it was really much deeper, hard-wired, human-animal behavior to shop around, I was satiated. If I have that much-unknown desire to hunt for variety in something as simple as my diet, and that that is essentially hard-wired into my basic animalistic instincts, then instincts to exist in defined space and time must be even deeper. And the consequences for ignoring them are probably even direr than just bad nutrition.
Everyone knows smart kids that can’t hold their own in a conversation. Everyone knows people with IQs off the charts that couldn’t ride a city bus. Computers and the Internet may be providing alternate social forums for these people, but they’re enabling these people to deprive themselves of something vital to the human experience: face-to-face real-time real interaction with other real human beings. I fall victim to it every day. I email or call or IM when I could just walk across campus and talk to someone in his or her office. I buy things on Amazon.com instead of driving to the mall, discussing the pros and cons of products with salespeople and physically handing them money. When I use these technological so-called “advancements,” am I really just cheating myself out of my own right to human existence?
Winner seems to think so, at least a little. He closes his essay by saying that so far, the computer “revolution,” is being guided by something all too familiar: “the absent mind.”
This is getting heavy. I think in researching theory and the deep meaning of humanity, one should take a break after doing deep thinking such as this. So, I’m going to go do that. And maybe also get a sandwich. Thinking this hard makes me hungry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
