What's Truth?

What is truth? The definition states truth is an actual state of matter, conformity with fact or reality; a verified or undisputed fact, proposition, principle; and an ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience ("Truth," 2010). Can people identify the truth? Or do they make up their versions of the truth? Farhad Manjoo proves the latter in his book True Enough.

Manjoo discusses how media fragmentation, which is broadening the media landscape from corporate conglomerates to include niche market players, has allowed information to be spun by millions often times bastardizing truth into snippets of opinions and biased commentary. It is easy for people to gravitate to political pundits like Bill O’Reilly or my personal favorite Rachel Maddow, when seeking strong consonant information that agrees with our points of view that are easily proven, in our minds.

Watch this seven-minute clip from Rachel Maddow's show on Bill O'Reilly to get a feel of the cognitive dissonance.



One of the problems is that each side, in this case Republican verses Democrat commentators, has its own set of facts and distributes information from a slanted perspective espousing truths of things that are merely opinions. Language choices like accusing all “Muslims” of being terrorists, with reference to 9/11, got O’Reilly into some trouble this week on the TV show The View. Barbara Walters was able to get him to rephrase “all Muslims” for “extremist Muslims”. The problem is the people in O’Reilly’s camp probably have already inherited his prejudices and will go around espousing the untruths for truths. Manjoo (2008) states, “People have generalized their preferences for politically consonant news…they’ve gotten into the habit of saying, ‘whatever the news is talking about, I’m just going to turn to Fox’” (p. 19). By subscribing to one politically-driven machine’s news, a person can get really off track. This was seen recently with the Shirley Sherrod case eventually leading to some apologies on the network for espousing inaccurate claims.

Another problem is that people have accepted beliefs over facts. The Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth group was able to take down John Kerry in the 2004 election over unsupported claims that he was an unpatriotic Veteran and did horrible things in war. The group used the niche markets, and word-of-mouth and viral marketing to get the word out and take Kerry down. It worked! Why did people believe the information even though evidence supported the contrary?

It is interesting how reality can shift from one news source to the next, one blog to the next, or in the press on a daily basis. What is truth? Manjoo explored the cognitive basis of truthiness. I agree with him that now-a-days people construct their own realities regardless of actual states of matter or fundamental principles, as in science. If I say, “The sky is blue,” someone else is likely to say, “No it isn’t.”

References:

Manjoo, F. (2008). True enough . Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Truth. (2010). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

YouTube. (2010). Rachel Maddow to Bill O'Reilly: sticks and stones can break my bones but facts will never hurt me . Retrieved from http://el Maddow To Bill O'Reilly: Sticks And Stones Can Break My Bones But Facts Will Never Hurt Me

Journalism and truth telling

Journalists: Let's play chess

I was a journalist for the Daily Herald in Chicago and also the Medill News Service. I experienced the daily beat reporting on companies, how their stocks were performing, and how their quarterly-earning reports looked. I made calls each morning to gain access to corporate heads or financial analysts to get some nuggets of great information to put in my articles that would make my pieces the most intriguing for the editors to select and print, hopefully front page of the business section. It was interesting who allowed me to gain access. Some companies’ CEOs said yes to my calls and answered my questions. I suppose they wanted the free press. Other companies had multi-layers of protection from reporters like me and wanted nothing to do with the press. Those companies selected one-way teleconferences to convey their messages to the networks, which provided them a controlled environment and a change to spin the negative information any way they wanted. The point that Herman, Chomsky and Lippmann made of control or propaganda shaping by companies is real and I experienced it often.

Are journalists just corporately censored, or do they self-censor as well? Yes and no. Yes they know that they need to produce stories that will get published. That means the information in their stories should link in a favorable way to the advertisers of the station. That limits what they write.



Other times, journalists don’t even know they are being indoctrinated by their news channel or corporate heads. They are taught to respond in certain ways, write in a certain way, and deliver information that will gain viewership but not rock the boat in a negative way, in terms of revenue.

Additionally the fast-paced news cycle makes it hard for journalists to do much investigative reporting and deliver deep material on the daily beat. Most journalists are expected to output multiple articles a day. Due to this, journalists rely on experts and political set-ups such as press conferences to get information and deliver it quickly, in hopes that those speaking are credible and reliable.
Moreover only a few news conglomerates like the Associated Press or Bloomberg have the man power and budgets to have journalists on the ground around the globe. So the news stories dispensed from those sources trickle down to local newspapers and nightly news junkets. The majority of what we read and hear comes from the AP. So let’s hope the AP has good journalists. Let’s be real that the journalists are working in controlling environments involving: corporate interests, advertising interests, governmental interests such as national security- which keeps a lot of information from hitting the air waves- and circulation interests, which require journalists to write on stuff that is sensationalized, trendy, and eye catching.

Although rebutters of Manufactured Consent will say the theories of Herman and Chomsky are based on: conspiracies, failure to touch base with reporters, failure to take account of media professionalism and objectivity, failure to explain opposition and resistance, and that the press is free to report on whatever it wants. My guess is that those rebutters are likely right-leaning elites that are part of the hierarchical system of information management.

It would be very interesting to do a survey of journalists, off the record in hopes of protecting them from their companies’ backlashes, and citizens to see if they can truly think about: what information they know and don’t know, what is released, if their thoughts are corrupted from a young age from corporate speak and delivery methods, if they can identify the indoctrination by this flow of communication, and if they even care.

I am reminded of 9/11 in America. For the following year, it was seen as unpatriotic for the press to critique President Bush. No news network did so, very little reporting was allotted to topics like: Bush-Saudi relations, how Bush handled the crisis, or how we were thrown into a war with misinformation about weapons of mass destruction. It took years for information to come out about the USA Patriot Act, which in my opinion is the greatest attack on American constitutional freedoms ever pushed into law. In other words, the press, due to special interests and control, were silenced. That in itself demonstrates exactly what Herman and Chomsky explained in their book.

Reference:
Chomsky, N. and Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing consent: a propaganda model. Third World Traveler. Retrieved from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

YouTube. (2007). The corporation (17/23) unsettling accounts. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

Media and Cognition: Is it possible?

Cognition, defined by Wikipedia, is having faculty for processing information, applying knowledge, changing preferences, analyzing different perspectives within different contexts, ability to process abstract concepts such as mind, reasoning, intelligence and learning, and able to think in a natural, artificial, conscious or unconscious way (Wikipedia, 2010).

If we apply this definition to Walter Lippmann’s content in Public Opinion on media and people’s inability to truly understand, capture, and digest global issues in a way that is authentic instead of aligned with stereotypes, biases, and narrow thinking, cognition is not likely happening broadly.

The pictures inside our heads often mislead us in the real world, as Lippmann describes (Lippmann, 1997). The limited access to facts, artificial censorship, limitation of social contacts, and meager time to engage in public affairs, make us want to distort events to fit into sound bites that use small vocabulary to express complicated issues. We fear that facing facts would threaten our routines, understandings, and lives. Due to this predicament, most people want morsels of truth that do not shake their grounding. For example, in the past slavery was considered natural, normal, and routine. Lippmann describes it as if the slave was meant to be a slave and therefore the owner was doing something very normal and rightful by owning slaves. That mindset had been set for generations and the norms were seen as normal, thus slavery continued for thousands of years.

If cognition is limited by most people, especially laymen who do not espouse to higher education and critical thought processes, it is likely the media or any material out there, especially today on the Net, can mislead, persuade, manipulate, and lie to the general public with very little backlash.

Dr. Tuma questioned how cognition and media relate. According to Lippmann, most media rely on the fact that the majority of people do not utilize higher levels of cognition (Lippmann, 1997). If people challenged, questioned, fought for truth, and required transparency, credibility, informed, and accurate information, it would change the news cycle to a much slower one and it would require a much higher cost to produce it. Additionally most consumers prefer news in sound bites, as attention spans wane and interests to commit to lengthy discussions narrows. Media involves a business model that predicts what consumers want, how they will respond, and what they will buy. The end goals are higher circulation and advertising revenue. This business model is not always ethical, for the betterment of the public, or in the interest of sharing truth, and democracy. Instead this business model involves making lots of money. The media and press, even with their specific motivations, are not to be blamed entirely for the lack of ideas, discourse, and proponents of free speech. The public has its part to carry as well. In the past, people’s participation was void.

“If the press is not so universally wicked, nor so deeply conspiring, as Mr. Sinclair would have us believe, it is very much more frail than the democratic theory has as yet admitted. It is too frail to carry the whole burden of popular sovereignty, to supply spontaneously the truth which democrats hoped was inborn. And when we expect it to supply such a body of truth we employ a misleading standard of judgment. We misunderstand the limited nature of news, the illimitable complexity of society; we overestimate our own endurance, public spirit, and all-round competence. We suppose an appetite for uninteresting truths which is not discovered by any honest analysis of our own tastes” (Lippmann, 1997).

In the name of progress, today we see people participating in media and dialogue in blogs. “As of January 2009, there have been a total of about 133 million blogs indexed by the blog search engine Technorati dating back to 2002” (NumberOf.Net, 2009). Blogs enable people to have space on the Net to share, create, espouse, and debate information. Blogs involve citizen journalism. Although blogs are not typically fact checked, nor accurate, they are a great breeding ground for thought and participatory dialogue. They are places where ideas can be fleshed out, creative, and individual interests can be published. This is a very different news sharing operation than what we have seen in the past.

I suppose media and cognition can work if the players are engaged, interested, educated, and participatory, as seen in some blogging. The Internet has allowed a new way of sharing information that didn’t exist in Lippmann’s time of early 20th century. Through cognitive efforts, people can think things through, gain global information, research a lot, and deliver information in a way that is more thoughtful and thought provoking. However, Lippmann’s points on how people can only unveil information through their own filters and perceptions will remain true, and if exposure to good information is limited, stereotypes will remain intact and people’s pictures in their heads will remain unchanged. Taking people from cognitive conservatism, egocentricity, and the need to keep a positive self- image will take time and much effort but we are hopefully headed in the right direction.



References:
Lippmann, W. (1997). Public opinion (original 1922). Available from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/CDFinal/Lippman/header.html.

NumberOf.Net. (2009). Number of blogs. Retrieved from http://www.numberof.net/number-of-blogs-2/

Wikipedia. (2010). Cognition . Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition

Critical Thinking Revisited

Abstract:

Over the past six weeks in Psych700, I realized that critical thinking is an important practice that should be done regularly, but is rarely practiced in reality. Critical thinking requires that people take in information, as defined by Wikipedia, and interpret it, analyze, debate, and evaluate the pieces of that information to find a context for judgments, assumptions, actions and outcomes. Critical thinking requires a person to divest from egoism, motivations or prejudices to analyze information impartially and fully ("Critical thinking," 2010). Do people critically think? Are we engaged in education and excited about original thought, or are most of us apathetic towards the process of thinking?



Learning to think in new ways is essential to our success as students and professionals.

Treatment:

Of course some people naturally assume the position of truth advocates: debating facts, justifications, and information in a scholarly way, but most people can only respond to information through their own purviews, limited as they may be. It usually comes down to the issue of exposure. Education can give exposure to information that is essential for people to expand their thoughts and abilities to think broader with more contextual and worldly viewpoints. What about people who have limited exposure and are fed only what is selected for them through their societies, schooling, and media? Can those people critically think if the thoughts they think about are limited?

This question in itself requires critical thinking. Most of us have a jerk reaction stating, “I am very smart; I think broadly, worldly, and correctly.” Is that really the case? Can we truly think without impartiality, ideologies, and filtering information and responses through our personal experiences and beliefs?

I think we can, but it takes effort to find accurate and transparent information, which is far and few between, and a persistent hunt for truth that require a keen mindset. Running information through strict litmus tests of criteria to identify primary sources, discussed in this class, is required. Those tests would involve using Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit (2010) and Elizabeth Kirk’s test for: authorship, publishing bodies, accuracy and transparency, and understanding how search-engine placement works (Kirk, 1996).

Shermer and Kirk’s tests are helpful in addition to identifying: timeliness, peer-reviewed sources, and credibility of source and author. We must implement these litmus tests when looking at information from mass-media and other sources. Media have carefully wrapped packages of information as attractive propaganda, often times, with limited fact checking due to the high-pressure time environment in which news hits the market within minutes of happening. Also, media have vested business interests in what airs. Media outlets tend to construct versions of reality; therefore, we as consumers must become more vigilant and erudite over what we believe. I will do so in this Ph.D. program and in my profession. The way I use media has changed as I am more skeptical and cautious about the information I absorb.

Furthermore, the Internet has provided a vehicle of sharing and gaining vast amounts of information quickly, especially through web 2.0, which enhances people’s exposure to information. However, what people think and do with that information is questionable and whether the majority of that information should be believed in another question. We must learn to interpret good information from inaccurate, biased, and sensationalistic material that is packaged as truths on the web.

“Although there's little debate that computer technology complements—and often enhances—the human mind in the quest to store information and process an ever-growing tangle of bits and bytes, there's increasing concern that the same technology is changing the way we approach complex problems and conundrums, and making it more difficult to really think” (Greengard, 2010).

To branch off of what Greengard mentioned above, critical thinking is a key in education that I will continue to work into my curriculum as an educator. I must create more opportunities for my students to implement higher levels of thinking instead of regurgitation, which utilizes the lowest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, which is simply memorizing (Overbaugh, n.d.). As a student at Fielding, I will increase my ability to think well and write research papers with theory, methodology and argumentation that houses unbiased truths. I plan to derive new truths through research that advances our field of media psychology further. This class has given me more tools to do so.

As for how I use media, I learned that I should start using multi-media to deliver my messages and research in a digital, artistic, creative, and innovative way. The lectures by Dr. Jean-Pierre Isbouts and Dr. Jason Ohler dove into visual and aural paradigms and the importance of engaging emotions as a connection to memory (Isbouts & Ohler, 2010). I saw the difference of just writing a paper in Microsoft Word verses posting that information in a multi-media ePortfolio blog that has images, video, music, and color. Suddenly the information came alive. What a brilliant technique that my professors gave me. I will use that from here on out.

Additionally, after reading the articles we covered, notably Will Richardson’s discussion on utilizing web 2.0 as part of the pedagogy and teaching in our classrooms (Richardson, 2008), I recognized that I need to operate my classes in a way that encourages multi-media creation and web usage, instead of more static deliverables such as lectures and tests. By doing so, my students will gain the necessary education in telling stories and operating in a multi-media atmosphere, which is a bankable skill. This course has given me more ideas on how to enhance my professional practices in the classroom.



Conclusion:
In summary, critical thinking requires effort to divulge the truth and unpeel the layers to gain knowledge. My guess is that most people do not question what is real nor do they dig to find the truth, especially if their exposure to accurate information is limited or their questioning skills are stunted.

Big media often relies on the fact that people don’t think for themselves. This is seen in ad campaigns that spin state elections, such as Reid v. Angle in Nevada, and in advertising, such as training the public to think a Nike tee-shirt is worth $100. Media and the Internet have great influence over people, and can feed the general public what they want.

To critically think is imperative to our success as thinkers. Although many don’t aspire to that pinnacle of mental aptitude, I will work hard to utilize critical thinking in my profession and academics by employing the techniques and research skills derived from this course.

References:
Critical thinking. (2010). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Greengard, S. (2010). Are we losing our ability to think critically? ACM. Retrieved from http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/7/32082-are-we-losing-our-ability-to-think-critically/fulltext

Isbouts, J.P. and Ohler, J. (2010, September 13). Visual and aural paradigms [Speeches]. NSO SB lectures media psychology

Kirk, E. E. (1996). Evaluating information found on the Internet. Johns Hopkins University, The Sheridan Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/

Overbaugh, R.C., Schultz, L. (n.d.) Bloom's Taxonomy. Old Dominion University. Retrieved from http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm

PicApp. (2006). Statue of Thinker, Rodin. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=thinker&pageNum=0&cats=creative

PicApp. (2008). Computer animation. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=web&pageNum=2&cats=creative

PicApp. (2010). Combination photo of Senate candidate Sharron Angle v. Senator Harry Reid. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=harry%20reid&pageNum=0&cats=

Richardson, W. (2008). Read/Write Web with Will Richardson. YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFbDEBNS7AE

Shermer, M. (2010). The baloney detection kit. The committed sardine. Retrieved from http://www.committedsardine.com/blogpost.cfm?blogID=181

YouTube. (2007). A vision of today's students . Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

The Field of Media Psychology

The Process

Abstract:
“So what is media psychology?” I was asked this about a dozen times in the last week sitting over meals in the dining room at Hotel Mar Monte. I said, “We live in a high-tech media world with cell phones, Internet, social-networking sites, print sources, movies, and devices, with new ones coming out every week. How does that stuff affect people?” That was my discussion on day one. After a week at NSO in Santa Barbara, my explanation of what media psychology is has grown leaps and bounds.



Treatment:
In the loud world of constant noise, images, and advertising, what captures consumers’ attention? Or better yet, what captures consumers’ emotions? Dr. Karen Dill spoke of her mentor Dr. Anderson who questioned if people are persuaded easily and fall into a sleeper effect often times, in which a point is planted and stays dormant in the brain till enacted. This launched the question of consciousness verses unconscious digestion of media (Dill, 2010). That interests me! I know we are exposed to a plethora of images and ideas daily, but which ones stick and why?

The lectures by Dr. Jean-Pierre Isbouts and Dr. Jason Ohler dove into visual and aural paradigms and the importance of engaging emotions as a connection to memory. “Media is a form of persuasion in such a way that we want to reach emotions and suspend critical thinking. This activates faculties we don’t use when we just use text” (Isbouts, 2010). In other words, if we add visual context that is meaningful, such as iconography, nature or motifs, to our imagery plus add music, the combination is a winning one. For example, a scene of a woman sitting on the beach starring at the ocean in quiet solitude is maximized if a contemplative classical tune sits in the audio track while the camera zeros in for a close look at the tear on her cheek. We question, “Is she okay” and our hearts tug. We experienced the emotion of the scene and therefore that combination worked.

We tried this ourselves as we spent an afternoon session on Monday to make one-minute movies that employed the method of DAOW: digital, art, oral, written, as Dr. Ohler explained (Isbouts & Ohler, 2010).

I made a movie about the fast pace of my life. I pulled literal and artistic images from the Internet and I dropped a lyrical track by Adele into my movie. It was exciting and a great exercise on how to create emotional media that tells a story.

Another thing I learned this week was about narrative and how intrinsic they are to people, particularly creative writers, who watch the world, see it, feel it, and try to capture it. Jonny White covered that in his defense for his dissertation, and the point was well-made. Narrations are the stories of our lives. If we in media can capture the narrations, use imagery, music, and emotional delivery systems such as movies to reach our audiences, a potential for great influence is there.

The powerful part of NSO for me was that I was inspired. This field of media psychology is incredible. It includes: movie makers educating the world one documentary at a time; creative writers capturing the essence of love and living; those who create real-time data devices that help farmers in Africa sell their goods for the right price; or those setting loose thousands of virtual butterflies in Japan for game players to find. I am so excited about this industry and my future in this field.

I realize my thinking was too small when I arrived in Santa Barbara on Saturday, September 11. I thought I would pursue imagery in advertising for my dissertation, simply looking at the images on the page that I can see with my bare eyes. Now I think I might pursue augmented reality and advertising, and how images will transport viewers from static pages to a virtual world of participation and engagement. How cool will it be to figure that out?



Conclusion:
Fielding is an amazing educational institution. I found Fielding on an Internet search one day back in April but the randomness of that search was not so random, as I do not believe in coincidences. I know my education here will launch me into this new field. The journey has begun with great faculty, colleagues, and staff, and I am thrilled to be on this path to better define media psychology for the world.

References:
Dill, K. (2010, September 12). Fantasy verses reality [Speech]. NSO SB lecture media psychology

Isbouts, J.P. and Ohler, J. (2010, September 13). Visual and aural paradigms [Speeches]. NSO SB lectures media psychology

PicApp. (2005). Young woman lying on air bed on beach. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=woman%20on%20beach%20sad&pageNum=0&cats=creative

PicApp. (2008). Computer animation . Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=high%20tech&pageNum=0&cats=creative

YouTube. (2008). Did you know. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

YouTube. (2009). Layar, world's first mobile Augmented Reality browser. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b64_16K2e08

Web Bias

Search for the Truth

Abstract:

Searching for good information on the web is no easy task. The majority of sites are not suitable for academic research. In order to pinpoint valuable, credible, and accurate information, strict litmus tests must be used. “The Internet epitomizes the concept of ‘caveat lector’: let the reader beware” (Kirk, 1996). We must be aware and question everything in order to not be duped by nonsense.

Treatment:

I was a curious child inquisitive of the world, asking the key question, “why?” It is no surprise that I became a journalist who was trained and expected to ask: who, what, when, where, why, and how on every news story. I learned to dig deep even at a young age and those questions have served me well. Truth does not sit on the surface; we must peel the onion layer by layer in order to divulge good information and distinguish truth from bias and run-a-muck on the web.

Michael Shermer noted in his Baloney Detection Kit, that we must become acutely aware of personal beliefs that lead to biases in reporting (2010). If a theory is not fully tested in a cogent and impartial way, the results will be tampered. Additionally he discussed that sources should be reliable and credible who challenge theories using scientific methodology (Shermer, 2010). If aliens exist, a researcher needs to present the evidence they do, not just dispute evidence that they do not. “Science is the best tool ever devised to truly understand the world” (Shermer, 2010). Although this statement is a good one, standing alone it shows bias in Shermer’s viewpoint, as other pedagogy can be very useful in understanding the world too.

Watch out for bias


Whether using scientific or other standards, the goal in researching is to find the truth. In order to find good primary sources, students must look for the following: transparency in research, timeliness, credibility of source and author, verifiability, peer-reviewed sources, accuracy, and experts. I teach this in my writing courses at the University. Supportively, Elizabeth Kirk wrote about similar criteria in her article. She took it a few steps further to identify the need to: understand search-engine placement and paid-for positioning, referral to literature that shows a command of the discipline by the author, and knowing publishing companies and their reputations in the industry (Kirk, 1996). By adding these criteria together and implementing them on all searches, good information can be found on the web.

Additionally, while researching we need to ask who is dispensing the information. Alan November said, “You are in trouble if you don’t know who controls the information you access” (November, 2007). We can use the site EasyWho Is.com to find out who owns and publishes web sites. It is important to know that a white-supremacy group runs the racist semantics on martinlutherking.org, instead of a more noble organization who espouses truth. We must know who is dispensing information in order to give it credence.

Conclusion:

With millions of web sites, more than 70 million blogs, Wikipedia that can be edited by anyone, and web 2.0, any person can participate in information giving and gathering today. So how do we distinguish bias, credibility, and authenticity in information on the web? We must always question and use strict criteria to find good sources.

T: Can we trust the source and author?
R: Is the information real? Does evidence support it?
U: We must understand the big picture, always critically think
T: Is the information timely, relevant and pertinent?
H: We must hone research skills to divulge good, accurate, and unbiased information


References:
Kirk, E. E. (1996). Evaluating information found on the Internet. Johns Hopkins University, The Sheridan Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/

Shermer, M. (2010). The baloney detection kit. The committed sardine. Retrieved from http://www.committedsardine.com/blogpost.cfm?blogID=181

November, A. (2007). November learning. YouTube.com. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLS_rlwnwI

Picapp. (2010). Internet. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=internet&pageNum=2&cats=creative

YouTube. (2009). Cognitive bias video song. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RsbmjNLQkc

Social Media Pros and Cons

Abstract:
The web has come alive with new social-media networks and vast resources to connect us. Active readers are engaging in multi-media experiences, communicating with large networks of people, and connecting to the global world daily on the web. Web 2.0 is remarkable but not without its flaws.

Treatment:
“If it doesn’t include you, it may not be worth sitting still for” (Shirky, 2008). These words were said by Clay Shirky in his keynote speech on web 2.0. He posed the question, will people spend their time and cognitive surplus on television, radio, and static entertainment or will they interact in the lively, viral, and massive web full of millions of sites.

The goal of web 2.0 is to create interconnectivities, interactions, and communications that bring people together (Shirky, 2008). Social-networking sites are the new coffee shop, where people meet, greet, and connect with new and old friends. Sites like Facebook and MySpace are leaders in the industry creating virtual chat rooms for millions. However, these social networking sites might take the place of creating real world, face-to-face relationships. Will these cyber relationships fulfill people? I asked my college students if they felt more connected to people due to Facebook, or if in fact they felt more isolated. Most felt more connected but some felt isolated sitting behind their computers instead of enjoying time with their best friends in person.



Skype, blogs, wikis, listservs and emails allow people to communicate in new ways. This quick flow of information and communication has many benefits and downfalls. On the positive, the new consumption notion involving production and sharing that Shirky noted allows people to be players in the media world instead of just consumers (Shirky, 2008). By being active communicators, no longer is the flow of information from news sources to consumers a one-way street. Now news is created by consumers: edited, published, and shared. Additionally people are taking a much larger role in public discourse, interactive media, and citizen journalism. On the flip side, communicating by email is a stunted communication model, where the flow goes only one way at a time. Also privacy is an issue as any message or wiki list can be shared publically.

In addition to those social sites, informational sites are frequented. There’s a need to organize the vast resources in an efficient manner. Google Reader can help with that. Google Reader constantly checks your favorite news sites and blogs for new content daily or monthly to show you all of your favorite sites in one convenient place. “It's like a personalized inbox for the entire web” (Google, 2010).

Various businesses will utilize most aspects of web 2.0 to their advantages. In the field of marketing and advertising, this new social-media world will have a large affect on how products are pushed and sold. Sophisticated ads will use algorithms to track mathematically how people buy. Ads will stalk their consumers who showed interest in products by putting cookies on hard drives; thereby, popping up ads for that product on each site the consumers visit. Advertising will become so advanced, clever, and viral, all with the goal of capturing consumer attention on the net. Since the web has become much noisier, advertisers will have to become that much better.



Additionally social media and the Internet will affect education. I must prepare my students to think critically about information and how to find what they are looking for within seconds on the web. I agree with Will Richardson that new curriculum must make room for web 2.0 (YouTube, 2008). The connectivity, engagement, and collectivism that can come about from use of the web will make students better, if used properly. Fundamentals still need to be taught but they can be taught in a more high-tech way.

Conclusion:
Web 2.0 is full of amazing things and ways for us to connect to others, learn, do business, and communicate. This powerful medium has so many benefits, but it also has many downfalls. Social scientists will likely study the affects the Internet, social media sites, and viral communications has on people, for years to come. The positives are well-known, but the negatives need some attention.

References:
Google. (2010). Google reader. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/intl/en/googlereader/tour.html

Picapp. (2010). Internet Advertising. Retrieved from http://www.picapp.com/search.aspx?term=internet%20advertising&pageNum=0&cats=creative

Shirky, C. (Speaker). (2008). Web 2.0 Expo Keynote. Google videos. NewsBlaze.com. Retrieved http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2708219489770693816#

YouTube . (2009). Social media revolution . Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFYPQjYhv8

YouTube. (2008). Read/Write Web with Will Richardson. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFbDEBNS7AE