Repost This As Your Status If…

Earlier in the week, we had a speaker to discuss social activism using social media. As she stated, it is no longer possible to engage in social activism without social media, but the format of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. has changed the rules. Through both anonymity and fame, awareness and action, social media empowers individuals and inspires them to make some real changes and contributions to our world.

Empowerment of the group to make real social impacts relies on many aspects of social media that have never been seen before. One benefit that social media gives to activism is that the Internet and texting redefine location. Now, acquaintances from all over the globe can be present at a single event with the click of a button, making organization easier than ever. Easy feedback and suggestions in the form of instant comments and responses also make planning easier, because leaders and organizers can get help from their followers at a moment’s notice.

The anonymity of the Internet also empowers the individual to make bold choices in a nameless, faceless way that avoids judgment or disapproval. On the opposite side of the spectrum, celebrities can help causes by promoting them online to their Twitter followers and Facebook fans. Celebrities have also started coming straight from the Internet itself, often stemming from YouTube and MySpace videos.

Unfortunately, networking media doesn’t have the same format as past social activist organizations. Social activist movements, like in the Civil Rights Movement, involves centralized, organized groups of closely bonded people. Social networking involves democratic, loosely connected people from around the world. How do these groups combine?

The loose but vast bonds of networks can spread awareness faster than a small but close-knit group of people. Reposting Facebook statuses, or starting a trend of making inspirational videos goes along many different paths every day, all with the touch of a mouse. Personal connections to causes make followers all the more sympathetic, and it will become an increasingly smaller world, thanks to social media.

Real activism involves risk, danger, and full commitment to a cause. Liking a Facebook status spreads awareness, but doesn’t directly affect the situation. In order to have a positive impact in activism, that awareness needs to turn into action that directly affects the circumstances. Online awareness is a starting point, but not an end product.

Privacy Settings

Previously this week we had a speaker to discuss privacy and social networking online, especially through a site like Facebook. We discussed the nuances of friending teachers and authority figures, keeping personal and public lives separate, and maintaining privacy with an online presence.

Peer pressure takes a new form online, with pressure to post new statuses with every new thought or activity. “Eating a snack” or “loved ‘Inception!'” are common posts, and as everyone is omnipresent, comments and likes are instantaneous. The amount of feedback for even the smallest statements creates the idea that everyone’s voice is equally important and that every minute piece of information is valuable, when in fact, some posts are unnecessarily obscure or mundane.

With the shadow of college admissions looming overhead and teachers as friends, privacy becomes an even bigger issue. Each post about incomplete homework assignment and photo of underage drinking creates a public image that isn’t very school-friendly. College admission officers may look at profiles of prospective students, provided they are public, and develop a distasteful opinion of his or her personal habits. Teachers may have too much information about their students’ lives outside of school.

Privacy also becomes an issue when private parties, gatherings, or events gets splashed publicly in terms of photos and videos via Facebook and YouTube, leaving many unhappy uninvited friends and one host to deal with the backlash. Now that there are cameras everywhere with ubiquitous cell phones, is it socially unacceptable to be exclusive?

As digital immigrants to a culture pervaded by social media, we can only learn to adapt quickly and learn things as they come. But what about future generations? They will be born into a world of Twitter and Tumblr, taking these social media for granted. They will learn to use these tools from an early age, and it will be interesting to see what ensues.

Photo Philosophy

Previously this week, we had a speaker about ethics, in context with journalism and photography. Our speaker defined ethics as “obedience to the unnoticeable,” i.e. “doing the right thing when no one is watching.” Ethics is not a study of right vs. wrong, but instead, right vs. right, where there are conflicts of interests and priorities. Sometimes the ends justify the means (ends-based reasoning); sometimes overall principles govern behavior (rule-based reasoning); and sometimes the Golden rule and sensitivity guide solutions (care-based reasoning).

We talked about specific photos in newspapers that became regional, national, and international controversies and the pros and cons for or against printing these photos. Many photos come from wartime or crises, and often involve both specific people and their families as well as greater problems in the immediate community and the society as a whole. Many of these photos have become iconic American images and represent more than their subjects.

Arguments for printing these photos are based on attitudes toward the readers, stockholders, and the society as a whole. Newspapers have an obligation to report the truth, and graphic images will draw readers toward an important story that affects the community, whether it be tragic or joyful or informative. Many of these inspiring photos of war heroes, active citizens, and change-makers represent the image of our country as a whole, which may outweigh any individual pain or distress the pictures may cause. To sell papers in order to maintain stockholders, some papers need to print eye-catching photos. In terms of progress, newspapers that publish photos that expose corruptions in society will inspire readers to take actions for positive change.

Arguments against printing these photos are also based on attitudes toward the readers, stockholder and society, but the same attitudes can leave to different solutions. For example, photos that cause serious harm or mental distress to specific subjects, such as the family of people in the photo. Incredibly disturbing or insulting photos can also be seen by children who arguably should not be exposed to violence or destruction or war.

When deciding whether or not we as a class would have published various iconic photos, we were often divided. Each possible outcome, such as disturbing a family, led to both reasoning for and against publication. We discovered that, though newspapers are printed in black and white, the decisions always involve more gray areas in terms of ethics.

Pins and Needles

Previously this week we had a guest speaker talk to us about community. Among the topics of discussions were Adam Smith’s and Karl Marx’s texts, estrangement, alienation, society, and the balance between social activity and labor.

We prefaced the class by reading texts by Adam Smith and Karl Marx, disguised as other authors so as to not bring in preconceptions. (For a brief glimpse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx) These texts dealt with the division of labor and labor’s role in society. The division of labor is more prominent in a small business or group, because every task is vital to the whole production. For example, in a pin factory, every worker is crucial to the making of a pin, but in a large corporate office, one out of one thousand secretaries is not crucial to the operation.

We also discussed the alienation between labor and the laborer. After a certain point, the worker’s work is not related to the worker himself. That is to say, the effort that he puts into his job and he himself are not connected. His work is also not related to the end product, or as one of my classmates put it “the ends are separated from the means.” The pins are not in the same set as the process of making pins, and the pin maker is not in the same set as the process which he utilizes.

We then viewed clips from the Disney Pixar film Wall-E (for a brief glimpse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall-e). Warning: spoilers alert. In the film, humans have left the planet Earth, as it has become toxic and overflows with trash. Robots and hover-chairs make exercise and physical exertion unnecessary for human beings, and menial tasks and labor have become obsolete, thanks to technology. Food is served in a cup, and is far from its original concept. This estrangement from the basic human activity, like walking, as well as social behavior, like physical contact and dancing, has sprouted from a world that is a scarily possible future for our society as it is.

New technology, such as email, IMs and text messages eliminate a lot of face-to-face interaction that is vital for human beings. As we increase the time spent “talking” to each other over keyboards and screens, we decrease the time spent actually partaking in social behavior, such as hoedowns. Other pieces of our lives, especially as students, also estrange us from the discovery and innovation that sets humans apart from animals. For example, homework that categorizes as “busy work” removes itself from the actual learning of concepts and materials, and instead spoon feeds tried-and-true answers.

Ironically, this blog is estranging you readers from the actual source, as we are not in personal contact, and I am not spreading messages to you through word-of-mouth, but instead word-of-hand over a keyboard across cyberspace.

txtmelol:)

Today we had a speaker come discuss cell phones and texting with us. We prefaced the class by sending a text survey to all of our contacts within our age range: “Do you prefer text messages or phone calls? Why?” This text survey sparked a number of interesting answers, including many confused or defensive replies, as well as thoughtful and unpredictable answers.

Topics of discussion included: efficiency, anonymity, dependency, and nuances of phone conversations vs. text conversations.

Cell phones have dramatically increased the efficiency of our society. Everyone everywhere is reachable and no minute is wasted losing contact with anyone. Information is passed within seconds, and errors are corrected shortly after. There are no delays in responses that are not deliberate. The responses themselves also take on a new form, especially in text conversations.

Not only does technology make communication easier, it breaks it easier as well. Offering the cold shoulder now includes leaving text messages unanswered, and delaying email responses. Venting to a keyboard is easier on the vocal cords than venting in person, and the response can be perfectly crafted. Going to the extreme is deleting a friend on Facebook or blocking them on Skype. Text conversations, like IMs and emails, are faceless, and many people who have issues with confrontations prefer to deal with social predicaments via technology, as it is less intimidating.

This new mode of dealing with fights is just one example of the new social etiquette associated with texting. Texting in class is acceptable in some classes and unacceptable in others, but the line is very fine. In response to the text survey, many said that they like text messages for the convenience of texting in class, whereas phone calls are harder to hide. Texting is a boredom is a great motivator in texting, and because everyone has their phones on them constantly, quick responses are expected, even when in class. This also creates a sort of obligation to check and respond to every text message, and many people feel anxiety when they leave a ring unanswered or delay a response.

With phone calls, there are also different rules. The newest change in technology is caller identification, and it poses a new way of answering a phone. Is it odd to greet someone, before they acknowledge who they are, because caller ID can tell? And is it impolite to let a phone call go, especially if the caller ID acknowledges the caller, in the interest of time constraints? In response to the text survey, many people either shared that they like make phone calls for long personal conversations, or that they use phone calls for immediate, specific answers.

Smartphones like the iPhone or Blackberry also have the power to connect to email, Facebook, Twitter, and other networking applications. This links people even more to their phone and to their dependency on technology to function normally, because they can update a status, tag a friend, and share  a link all from their pocket.

With so much reliance on cell phones and media, there is reason to be concerned. Are we replacing healthy face-to-face contact with pseudo-frienships based on screens and keyboards? There needs to be a balance between the convenience of reaching out to others via technology and solid physical contact in person to keep our society in check.

Media Manipulators

“Aside from the constraints of being newsworthy, sometimes other forces inside and outside of government impinge on journalists and affect the reality of the news they create” (Harris 200).

Disclaimer: This entry is not meant to be a criticism of censorship, but rather, a discussion about media that is no longer hard fact, and a press that is still not yet free.

Hard facts have long been censored, by government officials, by advertisers, even by angry parents. The truth hurts, offends, and disillusions our world, but lies are all of that, and potentially harmful. Not to accuse many credible news sources, but there are a number of publications that tweak their facts by reporting partially, or spin a story so that it airs at a time when very few viewers will pay attention. Outside influences may pressure reporters to only share some of the facts, or to enhance the truth with some seemingly harmless fabrication. By parodying facts or playing them off as insignificant, public figures can send a subliminal message to their audiences suggesting that such facts are irrelevant to daily life, or not even facts at all.

Censorship of fact or conjecture alike comes from government and from the public. Social pressures of the time period, as well as pressure from advertisers can convince reporters to twist or angle their stories in a way that doesn’t offend a certain group of people. Companies that support one side of an argument may pull the plug on funding for stories that present the other viewpoint. Governments can cut off access and block reporters from discovering unfavorable information, such as corruption or threats. Whether protection of information is worth the censorship is another topic for further discussion.

News or Nonsense?

“The news is not a reflection of the day; it is a ‘set of stories constructed by jounalists about the events of the day'” (Harris 187).

When the average American citizen turns on the news station or opens up a newspaper or flips through news channels, they expect to see realistic reports of factual events. However, when a relatively large network of people tries to connect over a limited amount of print space and air time, some things have to go.

When newscasters and anchormen and women choose what to show as “news” they can only pick a certain number of stories. In addition to pressure from advertisers and sponsors, they have to carefully consider what will be most entertaining and appealing for the public to absorb.

Like tabloids and blogs, mainstream news now focuses on pieces that spark human interest, with drama and action, not to mention sensationalist or bizarre elements. These stories have morals and themes and subliminal messages within them, and they are all carefully designed to hook an audience and keep them coming back, all while flashing sparkly ads in their face. With news that is spun like fiction, how can we tell what is really real and what is just hype?

On the flip side, with campaigns and ads that are highly one-sided, opinions can seem like fact. When official looking newscasters are presenting one side of an argument, without a rebuttal or counterargument, the public begins to believe in that viewpoint without even considering the other possibilities. This type of manipulative media can be potentially dangerous.