Four Square, where you at?

Its funny four square used to be a game you played on the blacktop, but apparently it is much more. I have learned that now in our Social World class.
Recently I downloaded the foursquare "app" on my iphone and i was interested. This whole foursquare thing is pretty popular, i mean i wasn't expecting it.

To me it seemed worthless, like "who cares where i am at 24/7?" but really its more of a friend thing. When you check into an area, it shows if any friends of yours are there.

For instance today I checked in the gym on campus, and i saw a friend of mine checked in too, so i said hello to her. I then saw the point of four square and its uses and why it isn't creepy really, but i saw why people use it.

This video has a professional explanation of it

Real Life vs. Second Life?

Real life is hard enough. Does it seem ridiculous  that this virtual way of living called secondlife which is an entire 3D website that you can literally create an entire life out of. In the webiniar in class we watched people even spend real money on their second life avatars.

    Heres how it works, you have to join second life then you can create your own avatar picking the hair color, style, clothes, skin, eyes ect. Then you go through a basic tutorial  learning how to work your avatar. After that you can pretty much do anything on second life. I am not kidding when i say anything, i mean ANYTHING.

Its strange because people have taken this 'anything' thing too far. From virtual rape, to virtual fame (like clothing designers?), and even virtual marriage.

I find it strange and unsettling about who these people are on second life that you can interact with, "Unless you know the real-life person running the avatar, you have no way of knowing the gender and age of that real-life person" Says Levinstion in New New Media, (151). This is very creepy and scary to me.

Even though 'cyber sex' is technically harmless, do you think it could do real damage to someone in real life? Do people get so caught up in this virtual life that they loose a sense of reality in their own?

Teach me how to Twitter, teach me teach me how to Twitter.

  I first learned of Twitter probably no more than 3-4 years ago. I did not understand the concept at first. it was confusing to me why people would care to post details of their life at any second of any day.


     My dad first told me about twitter. He did not really have a clue to what it was either but explained that they were using it at work. he works for the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team and they were having their team mascot , Fredbird, "tweet" fans about giveaways and event related to the Cardinals.  This is an example of the Cardinals organization using "mass communication" to their fans.


    According to Paul Levinstion, Mass Communication is a message to many people, another deffiniton is, describe the academic study of the various means by which individuals and entities relay information through mass media to large segments of the population at the same time. 


  The Cardinals organization was able to reach out to many fans for many cardinals events, it is free promotion for any business. This is an example how how Levinstion explains how twitter can can reach out to "Groups of all sizes and purposes send out tweets" (Levinstion 136).


   The business side of twitter has many pros. However after getting a twitter account for my Social World class, i  see how people use it not only to promote business and their products, but its a personal promotion. 


   Twitter is just another way for  people to connect. It is more brief than a blog or even a Facebook post but it seres as a daily update to someone.


 So what are your thoughts on twitter? do you use it for more promotional use or personal updates

Facebook takes over

                             


     Ever since i was in middle school (12 or 13 years old) i have had some sort of "social networking" site. First Xanga was popular then myspace and now the extremely popular, facebook. t has been apart of growing up for our generation using the internet to connect with people.  


      Social Networks have been a bridge for all youth to connect around the world. After being in college Facebook has been my number one tool for keeping in touch with family/ friends back home. It is so much easier to stay in touch with people and a lot faster. That is why older generations have been joining as well because it is a fun and safe way to see how friends from all over are doing.


   It has been so much more then just something to do on the internet for me. For example my older brother was studying abroad this se,ester in Australia, my best way to contact him? Facebook. Simply because it is free and he was able to use it to stay in touch with all family members and a lot of friends. 


  However Facebook has not only been a tool for people to stay in touch and connect, it now has become a useful asset for business, celebrities, politicians, ect. With "fan pages" and "groups" business are able to attract people with the same interests and promote themselves and reach out to customers in their "news feed".  Like Levinston mentions in New New Media about Facebook, " its groups serve as vehicles of social action in countries all over the world" (Levinstion 125). 


 Celebrities and politicians are able to use Facebook too to reach out to fans. In the 2008 election Barack Obama used Facebook as a major tool to keep in touch with his voters, "The Facebook group "Barack Obama (one million strong for Barack) Continued to grow even after the election on November 3, 2008, and as of May 2009 had more than a million members". Music artists are able to use Facebook to promote concerts, albums, and celebrities can promote books, movies, anything to their fans on Facebook. 


   "Facebook has more than doubled in size to 350 million registered users in the last year." according to Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO. With this rapid growth in the last ten years who know what Facebook will be able to do next!




here is a video of Sheryl Sandberg in an interview about facebook. 

Digg?

When first reading about digg in Paul Levinsions “New new media”  I had no idea what it was.  The only other time I had heard it mentioned was in class.  

            Digg is basically a social network having to do with news. You can create your own account and personalize specific news updates to you.  The “social” side of the website is that you can make “friends” with someone who has a common interest in the same story as you. So unlike facebook or myspace, friends are not made based on profiles but on ones interest.

            Digg is also very popular to bloggers because they are able to directly link their links to their blogs and any other profiles. Digg users have the choice to make the information available for everyone to see or just their “friends”  on Digg (Levinston 103). 

            Ironically I found out that “a poll reported in September 2006 shows 5 percent of Digg users are between the ages of 13 and 16, 22 percent ages 17-20, 28 percent ages 21-24 , 20 percent ages 25-28”  (Levinstion 106), according to the ironic pentameter in 2006. I found this a bit shocking because the percentage of youth using Digg was higher then I thought.  Amongst all my peers I can honestly say I don’t know anyone who uses dig so that is why I was kind of shocked at that.

            Levinstion also shines light on the election in 2008 and how Digg publicity played a part, especially for candidate Ron Paul. It also did a great deal in helping Barack Obama. However Ron Paul’s fame was not strong enough on digg to win him the election but I could see how it would be a reliable source for things like election coverage.

            Digg is a good way for publicity for candidates like Ron Paul, because it cheap! I am interested in seeing how dig could help out in future elections if it continues to grow in its popularity.

            After reading more about dig and browsing through the website I am interested in what it has to offer. Have you ever used Digg? Have you found it useful?

Wikipedia and its Credibility

In High School i was always told by my teachers to never use Wikipedia. I was always taught that it was not a realible source. but after reading teh "wikipedia" chapter in "New New Media" i was intrigued.

I Still don't believe wikipedia is a reliable source for getting information for formal presentations, projects, and papers. However for day to day use is seems helpful. But the fact that "2,750,000 articles written in english- none of those articles was written by an appointed expert" (Levinson 85).  After reading that it shocks me at how popular the website is, i mean why do people use this?

Then i got to thinking about that, why does everyone use this website? Its because everyone can , "one need not have an account to edit on wikipedia" (Levinson  93). Anyone with internet connection has access to the website and is able to toy with it.

So with that thought people might not use it as a #1 reliable source but that fact that anyone can use it must be appealing to people  and thats why its so popular.

However Wikipedia still seems to me sketchy for information, after the whole pickle vs. Pericles" story levinson told , it is just proof that not everyone uses wikipedia to get the right information out there, it could just be one big prank for some people.

Even though "the experts found an average of four inaccuracies  per wikipedia article and three per Britannica article" (Levinson 93).  I still find that the fact ANYONE and use wikipedia and edit it is much less creditable than an actual encyclopedia.

What are your thoughts? Have you ever edited on wikipedia? have you ever used it as a reliable source?

Steve Carell expresses his feelings about wikipedia in an episode of The Office in a sarcastic way, here is the short clip.

Advertising and Bloging

Paul Levinsons, "New New Media" the book we are reading in class.

 After reading the second chapter in Paul Levinson' "New New Media", Levinson discuses advertising in blogging.  After reading i had to disagree with the thoughts of advertising in blogging. To me, it seems like blogging should be a an ad-freee environment, it is supposed to be your thoughts.

       It seems bis to me to be blogging and have to cater to advertisers, it seems like it could sway your blog. Jeff Jarvis, creator of entertainment weekly, says "The advertisers are trying to buy a bloggers voice and once they've bought it they own it".

     This statement struck me and i would have to agree with it. Blogging needs to be an individuals on voice and an advertisements are distracting and messy.

 Blogging is meant to me simple and for entertainment, when it becomes a business and profit hungry thing, it can become fore difficult.

    Levinstion also stated Jervis saying " money puts literal words in bloggers mouths- or via their fingers in their blogs" (levinson 33).

 As a new blogger I know i do not have that much experience, however it just is more appealing for me to read a more personable blog then one splattered in advertisements.

 What are your thoughts? Does good blogging have ads? does it even matter? Do you find it distracting when a blog is covered with ads?

Here is a list of some popular blogs, most of them do have advertising. However i find it less personable and disorganized. The ads are a distraction from your blogs thoughts.

Just a funny cartoon on blogs.

Why "New New" Media?

in our new book we are reading in class called "New New Media" by Paul Levinson. We are introduced on "new new media" and the difference between "new media" and "new new media". Levinson discuses many different types of media, mainly he focuses on  Facebook, blogging, YouTube, Wikipedia, Myspace, Digg, Secondlife, Twitter, and podcasts.

      Levinson shows us how many new types of media have sprung up  in the past 10 years, and how 4 years ago there were not even some of the things that we use today in media.
     "One of the defining characteristics of new media- clear since they arose over a decade ago in the mid-1990s-is that people can use, enjoy and benefit from them on the users rather then the medium's timetable, once the content has been posted online" (Levinson 3).

    We see that in todays society the user is able to use media his/her own way. We no longer have to wait for the morning newspaper or for a specific time to watch a t.v. show or listen to a radio show, we can record our television shows on our DVRs and TiVos. We can look up podcasts and newspaper articles online We are able to control what media we use on our own time. Media has become more convient for users. In this video levinson discusses more new media ideas.

     Basically new media today is changing everyday and being updated to for the consumers needs. We are able to access what we want where we want, all because of new new media.

Growing up online

I wouldn’t consider myself an active online user. I have a Facebook page, email, and that’s basically all I use for my personal enjoyment. After watching frontlines “growing up online” It made me somewhat angry. Yes it is more common for teens to have some sort of social networking site, its just normal. However when adults try to prevent and protect us from it sometimes it can be overkill.

 Like the story of the one mother and her son, if that was my mother I would lock her in a closet. Seriously that woman needs to learn that the more she tries to pull in her kids the more they will want to pull away. 

Not all kids are online doing bad things if they are good kids with good morals they won’t be getting into trouble. I personally feel like I have come from a good family background and I have good morals I know what is right from wrong when putting things online. My friends and I have even mocked people who try and post ‘provocative’ pictures of them selves, it is not seen as ‘cool’ it is seen as trashy.

Most of the kids that get in trouble online are ones that don’t have a solid home life. The reason these kids use the Internet to escape is that there is something in their lives they are escaping form. It isn’t the Internets fault.

            The Internet is definitely a huge part of our generation but since we grew up with it, us kids are aware of the dangers and know the rights from wrong.

When i first walked into this class, i have a define line in my head between a journalist and a blogers. A journalist to me was a certified reporter who carried around notebooks and tape recorders and was always on the lookout for hard hitting news. A blogers in my mind was some one in their dark basement who was constantly on the computer just writing about stories they see on the internet instead of going out and finding a story. interesting

      So I sound like a total hyproicit because here i am bloging. However my eyes have been opened up and that strict line i had between journalist and bloggers is starting fade more and more to me. Recently we talked about "Networked Journalism" 

Heres the concept of how we learned it in class-

Collaborative nature of journalism
     - Professionals, amateurs working together
     - Focus on process, not product
Public gets involved in story before it gets reported
     -  Contributes facts, questions, suggestions
       -Helps report the story
Journalists link to other work on same story
       -Source material, blog posts
Public continues contributions after publication
   [Definition by Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine]

   This is when i really was having a hard time trying to draw that define line between the two. I started researching blogs and seeing whats out there and comparing a blogers version of news and a real anchorman version of news . Here is  an example of a CNN blog and this is another random news blog i found on google. The difference between them? not a huge amount.

 Obvisouly as citizens we trust major new networks as a good source for news. However in todays day and age is it true? can anyone just be a journalist?  If i posted a story and a story here on campus and the school newspaper had the same story and same facts, what is the difference?  If you are reading the same thing with same facts, does it really make a difference between a paid journalists behind  desk, and a blogers out in a world? I used to think so but now i am not to sure. 

 There are still many things i have to take into consideration however it is a good thing to think about. What are your thoughts?

This is also a 10 min video for fun asking the same thing. This guy makes some good points and has an interesting view.

It's Our News, not yours!

   Yesterday in class we watched "Frontline News War: Part II".  It was really eye opening for me because i never really thought that news was feeling so threatened by todays technology. However there were many things in the video i have to disagree with, i believe they took some things too far. When they started discussing how news today is "different" and we are told what we "want" to hear not what we "need" to hear. When they discussed this it really struck a nerve in me. We have these old fashioned news reporters who keep dwelling on how news used to be so crisp and honest and it was "real journalism" ect. I think its silly that they think that. I hate to break it to them, but we don't live in the 50s anymore! we don't all gather around our one black and white T.V. set and watch NBC news with the family. They think that we aren't growing up the way they did we are brain washed and not getting the right news. THIS IS NOT TRUE. these old fashioned ways of news reporting are going out of date because we living in a booming generation. Just because we like scandals and celebrities on the news doesn't mean we getting worthless news, this is what matters to us, and it doesn't make us "unaware" we keep up with things that are important to us. 

     Why do we all have to have the same news?  We all have different interests, activities, and schedules, we don't all have to listen to the same news broadcast like in the old days. Today there are thousands of ways to keep yourself updated on things that matter to you. i believe that even newsptheapers feel a threat to the booming internet and cell phones taking over, they still have an audience that likes to sit and read the paper on a sunday afternoon. They should focus less on trying to break into a new demographic and focus on their target audience. Yes they may not make profit, but back in the old days journalism wasn't about "profit" it was about informing people about whats going on in the world. This makes me extremely frustrated that we have to have a bunch of old guys telling us what is news just because they haven't adapted to todays technology. They should worry about their precious news and not about poking into our business and let us keep ourselves updated in our ways. Wether its twitter, or "the daily show", its not up to old broadcasters to tell us what is news and what is not. 

      In the end We do not all have to follow one mans idea of news  If that means a war or a juicy breakup, to each his own, "news" has no concrete definition. In this new age of technology there is a wave of possibilities and oppurtitnes for people and their news. we control our own news and we can keep track of whats important to us.

-Kelley Farrell