Final Thoughts

I signed up for this class because I am fascinated by media. I guess one could call me a bit of an odd duck when it comes to how I use it. Despite my youth, I've always been a bit reluctant to adapt to the new technologies that are changing the way we make and receive news. I still try to read the newspaper in print form, subscribe to print magazines, buy books, etc. I prefer hand written notes, cards sent through the postal system, editing with a pen and paper instead of through Microsoft Word. At the same time, I have a list of blogs I love (including online only newspapers), I have been on Facebook for years, I mostly use e-mail to communicate, I text message instead of call, I have a smart phone, and I find out most of my 'breaking news' via the Internet. Often what I prefer isn't what I do, for sake of time and convenience. (That says something: the most meaningful mediums are often not the easiest.) But I guess you could consider me a hybrid of sorts: holding onto the vestiges of the past while at the same time embracing the trends of the future.

I would say that this class has both enlightened and confused the hell out of me. I've learned that its a big world out there filled with a ton of information. (According to this report, Americans consume 100,000 words a day. Wow!) My cautious, static side - the one that likes to stay in my bedroom in my town of 15,000 where nothing seems to change - is scared of this and prefers sticking to limited, hot mediums, the ones that have borders, ends, lights at the end of the tunnel. Everyone else but me can do the dirty work. My adventurous, consuming side - the one that likes to take spontaneous trips to New York City at 2:30 am - sees things differently. This side likes being an active participant in the global conversation, finding things that branch off of other things, having a part in the action.

So I guess the lesson is I still don't know where I stand on what, or even if I need a stand. I know what I like and why. I'd say I'm more knowledgeable on the content in the class and where things are headed, etc. I just don't know yet the effect this transition will have on society. That question still looms over me, and I feel partly guilty for not having an answer.

Revising the New Haven train station board

Colin's right. The board at the New Haven train station is relevant to the class because the medium is the message.

So my question is what is the message of that board? I guess when it was originally created it was probably cutting edge in intent. Instead of having an employee stand up and manually replace each letter, it could be done automatically. It was meant to show that train travel is fast, efficient, requiring little passenger input. The times, stations, routes were magically changed,

Yet now the message is the exact opposite. Its old, its regressive, its outdated. It evokes the mindset of the past when we looked at it as the future. Now we see it as something to hold onto to because we are under the impression that its better than what will replace it. I'm of the mindset that at least for this case that is true. The message is now that the board is used there because train travel has been around for so long and its hopefully not going anywhere. With all the talk of improved transportation, the train is something your parents, grandparents, and you as a child took.

By replacing it with an LCD board, they are replacing the message, instead making it so that train travel is the fastest and most efficient mode of travel - not the most classic or traditional.

Nostalgia?

I just checked the new posts on the main site, so I'll get to those links after I make this post.

Maybe I'm feeling a bit too sentimental or nostalgic this week, but this story, which I found online and not in print (another telling sign?) made me a bit sad. The New Haven train station is replacing the old school 'Solari' schedule board - the noisy one that manually changes each character until it creates a new message - with an LCD monitor.

I really liked that sound and display whenever I would be waiting for a train there. Each change would create new words out of old ones until settling on the right one. Springfield would turn into SpriHaven before ending with New Haven. It enhanced the character of the station and the mystique of train travel to me. I always found the idiosyncratic mistakes charming too - a misspelling that would take a few extra seconds to correct, a 30 minutes late notice that would switch back to 15 minutes late. (I'm using the past tense because although its still there, it won't be soon, and as I don't plan on doing any train travel in New Haven for the foreseeable future, it might as well be the past to me.)

I know this isn't really related to this class, but I think the greater transition is still relevant. With all this activity going on to replace dying types of communication, what are the implications on the way we live? Have we lost something that can't easily be attained again? I guess this is my end of the semester, end of an era question.

Reflecting

My course wide reflection on the decline of the newspaper:

Say what you will about The New York Times and its doomed fate and increasing obscurity, but I think its still a force. I was very moved by this realist and poignant article today about aging, rural America.

I know that the Internet has the potential (and may already be) to produce this type of work and better, but its is so large and dispersed that it can almost be a treasure hunt to find excellency. Unless you become an active searcher, its easy to miss great things. I understand that aggregates work to fix this, but when I pick up the newspaper every morning in Mather Hall, everything is there. The headlines call out to me. I don't need to click any links, create any webs to get from place to place, its just there.

That being said, I like how the Internet can enhance the experience of reading the newspaper. In the little box in the paper today was a suggestion to find out more about the story on the website of the Times. There I found a slideshow of pictures that went along with the article.

I hope stories like this and the accessibility of finding them never goes away.

Hot vs. Cold

Now that I have a better understanding what constitutes hot and cold mediums, my question, which I don't yet have an answer for is:

What are the social implications of both hot and cold mediums?

Clueless on McCluhan?

So I'm rereading Part I in preparation for class tonight and so I can actually blog on it, and I'm confused by his characterization of TV as cool. If a hot medium "extends one single sense in 'high definition'", wouldn't tv fall into this category? A few pages later McLuhan goes onto include an ad in the hot medium category with his example of the insurance commercial showing "Dad in an iron lung" More recently there is this TV ad. "This ad did more to strike terror into the reader than all the warning wisdom in the world", he writes. Doesn't this apply to this graphic PSA? Can mediums shift from being hot to cool, depending on what is being broadcast? I'm confused about this.

A guess

Is McLuhan saying that society has a duty to maintain an equilibrium of hot and cold mediums?

Just a thought

I believe that a true sign of a successful liberal arts education is that when you graduate you get way more references in Woody Allen movies than when you matriculated.

On McLuhan

So I've just read Chapter 1 of McLuhan, twice. I'm going to gather my thoughts, but they may be convoluted, as its my first attempt at externalizing everything I've just read. Consider what I'm writing more like notes/summarization I would take for a class.

1. McLuhan says that any medium is an extension of ourselves. Is this because we created each medium, and the medium's origins is rooted in a rationalized idea that could only come from a human brain? Does it have to do with utility?

2. An actual medium is just a medium. The content inside that medium is its own medium.

3. The message is not what is being said (i.e. "BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM" being flashed on the television screen), that would be the content. Rather, the message is the effects of what the medium does for humanity (i.e. telephone speeding up the time it takes to converse with someone.) Quote: "It is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action."

Mutualization

With 2014 approaching, the old media is still looking for the new model so that this admittedly improbable prediction does not come true. This is where 'mutualization' comes in. "Our readers have become a part of what we do", writes Rusbridger. This makes me think that old media is exploiting user's selfishness. By reeling them in and allowing them to participate now more than ever, they are keeping readers hooked by letting them see their work reflected in the news organization.

Behind

Hey Colin,

Just a quick update to let you know I'm behind in my blogging, and I probably won't be able to do a good post in time for class tonight. I'll get to everything very soon though.

Final Thoughts on Twitter

So I've been using Twitter for about a week now. Its fun, its easy, its uncomplicated. I understand how many call Twitter pointless, as its just a simple 140 character sounding board. Its an invitation for inane, dead-end thoughts.

If I had gone the whole week completely unchanged or unimpressed by Twitter, then I would be echoing the Twitter haters. But I think it has concretely improved my connectedness with the world. News organizations Tweet interesting articles I would have missed, bands post concert dates, etc. And I would have missed comedian Mo Rocca's HILARIOUS set of Tweets impersonating Oprah Twittering in real time as she moves from Chicago to Los Angeles. I have to post it here just for laughs. Its comedic genius in "140 characters or less":

1. Gayle, it's Oprah, please pick up. Whitney came over to help me move. Bitch drove off w/ the UHaul. I need you, Gayle!5:37 PM Nov 20th from UberTwitter
   • Reply
   • Retweet
2. Hi, Gayle. Just wanted u to know that Maya Angelou just threw her back out lifting my armoire. Hope ur havin a GREAT dayToo bad you're not there, Gayle. Sasha & Malia wanted to say hi. They just finished unhooking my entertainment center.11:42 AM Nov 20th from web
3. 11:31 AM Nov 20th from web
4. "Gayle, I will hunt you down, have Rachael Ray boil you in a stock pot and Dr. Phil eat you! Now pick up the damn PHONE!"11:20 AM Nov 20th from web
5. Gayle, pick up the damn phone. Tom & Katie are helping. Even Suri's lifting boxes. Gayle, get your black ass over here!11:15 AM Nov 20th from web
6. Gayle? It's Oprah. Pick up the phone, Gayle. Ashton Demi Dr. Oz & James Frey are all helping me move. Don't disappoint me, Gayle.11:11 AM Nov 20th from web
7. Oprah moving Chi-LA is logistical nightmare. 1000s of boxes. This is when it sucks to be Oprah's best friend Gayle

Anyway, if used comprehensively, Twitter is quite the helpful aggregate.

Twitter Revelation

So I think I'm having my revelation as to why I've enjoyed using Twitter so much these past few days.

Whenever I use Facebook to update my status, its always a back and forth as to whether to do it or not. I never want to be that guy - the one who is notorious for way too many pointless, boring status updates. So I filter them and only occasionally give an update.

But with Twitter, theres nothing else to do BUT let people know what you are doing/thinking. You're encouraged to share those thoughts. Now whether or not this is the stupidest or smartest scheme ever thought up can be saved for another day. As for right now, I'm just embracing the basics of it without questioning its greater place in society.

On Twitter

So a little over halfway into my Twitter experiment, I have to admit I really like it. I now constantly have the need to share every random thought that comes into my head. Its a bit addicting. I find myself having to screen my thoughts by saying "Is this Twitter worthy?" And even though I have many more Facebook friends, its much easier to Tweet than it is to update my status on Facebook on my cell phone.

Its an easy two-step process. For example, yesterday I Tweeted atop Talcott Mountain and at an early "late night" concert at The Mill, an arts house on campus. All I did was whip out my phone, find the Tweed application, Tweet my thought, and submit.

A few things I've discovered I can do with Twitter:

1. Establish a sense of place. There is a feature where I can press a 'locate me' button and my phone finds my latitude and longitude. When I submit my tweet, it displays a link that goes to my location on Google Maps. I feel like establishing a sense of place is a very authentic experience.

2. Keep up with things I would have missed. I follow 'Bantam Sports', and I just found out that Trinity hockey won against Hamilton.

3. Get a quick, accurate look into peoples thoughts. Trending topics are really interesting to me. Tracking what thousands of people are thinking helps me feel more connected to society, as cheesy as that sounds.

I'll keep updating this list as I use Twitter more.

On Twitter, I

So I started a Twitter this summer and found I don't have easy access to many people's Twitters. What I mean by this is that the people I am closest to don't have Twitters. There are others who I know who do have them, but I don't feel comfortable enough to preemptively follow them.

So I've used Twitter to follow mainly news organizations (Projo, NPR, NY Times) and certain interesting people I don't know (mainly the brains behind a few blogs I read or politicians). As of right now, I follow 19 accounts, and 5 accounts follow me. I use Tweed on my cellphone to check up throughout the day. For example, I'm pretty sure I found out about Jodi Rell's decision to not run for re-election via Twitter.

The whole idea behind the "following" of someone puts me off a bit. (The word following seems almost non-consensual to me. If a random stray dog follows me, thats not necessarily something I approve of. I may just want it to go away.) Plus, I still haven't figured out the etiquette of Twitter. When is it ok to follow someone? When is it creepy? Is it really even that big of a deal? Having been on Facebook since high school, I feel like I've worked the ropes enough to know how use it in a socially acceptable manner. Twitter is all new to me, and that has been my excuse for not using it more.

Nonetheless, I'll start using it this week, even if my Tweets go off into a deep abyss, where they are only read and appreciated by me. I don't know how much - or how little - to share. I may Tweet that I'm about to go to bed. I may Tweet a favorite quote that I hear. I may Tweet a political opinion. I may Tweet my location. I may re-Tweet a news story. Who knows? Will I Tweet too much? Maybe.

I guess its pretty clear I am very insecure in my relationship with Twitter. Oh well. My Twitter is gregorymoniz.

Difficulties of a Transition

This week's project is quickly becoming harder to figure out than I initially thought. When I was listening to the guest speaker on Monday night, I thought the picture was pretty black and white. He was fired from the Courant and he and other disgruntled (in a good way?) ex-newsroom traditional reporters would band together and create an antidote - if you will - to the quickly growing dearth of in-depth, legitimate political news in Connecticut.

The transitions seemed like it would be smooth. Smart brains equal good output. In a few months this project would be off the ground and would slowly but steadily gain attention and become a viable enterprise.

After meeting with my group and reading/responding to our emails over the course of the week, all I can think is "boy was I wrong." This is complex stuff. Perhaps one of the reasons that the newspapers with founding dates that go back to the 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries are around is because you can't create something like them overnight.

Our group is trying though, and everyone seems to have good ideas, even if all are not in concord. Matt is spearheading the compilation of our ideas, but it seems like we are trying to combine numerous technological elements (facebook, twitter, mobile apps, etc.) while still holding onto some vestiges of the newsroom past.

Hyperlocals again

Quick thought on hyperlocal websites:

I would imagine that local, small business advertisers would jump at the opportunity to advertise on a hyperlocal. But considering the size of most small businesses and their advertising budgets, it seems really difficult for hyperlocal sites to depend solely on advertising for revenue or profit.

On the development of specified news websites (a la CTnewsjunkie):

As relevant as these sites are becoming, they are still leaning on the shoulders of the better established traditional outlets. CT News Junkie still links to stories the Courant breaks, even while publishing their own breaking stories.

On the Texas Tribune:

For a non-print newspaper to be successful, I feel it has to have good aesthetics. It seems like the Texas Tribune has hit the ball out of the park. Its stately while lacking stuffiness that could bog it down and turn off younger readers. Plus it even has a newspaper sounding name, giving it some MSM legitimacy. Coincidentally, theres an article about it in todays NYT.

Hyperlocals

So I just found out that 10 trees will be removed and 12 will be pruned on West Road in New Canaan, Connecticut soon. You can't get any more local than that. ANYWAY...

My thoughts on the NY Times article on 'hyperlocal websites' :

1. EveryBlock seems to be the best. Its the most aesthetically appealing. It has a detailed wide ranged list of events and articles that are most relevant to a neighborhood. Its only downfall is that its limited in available cities. Anyone not living in those cities is out of luck.

2. Patch. I find it interesting that Patch only seems to be extending to the wealthiest communities in the states its in. For example, the only communites in CT on Patch are Ridgefield, Weston, Westport, Darien, and New Canaan. Unless you throw Greenwich in the mix, you can't get any more FairfieldCounty/GoldCoast/$100,000medianincome that these towns.

That brings me to think that much to the chagrin of those advocating that the internet democratizes information, Patch does not contribute to that egalitarianism. Its telling that the only communities participating in Patch are those already the most organized, educated, and 'in the know'.

3. Almost all the website, to minutely varying degrees, are still relying on traditional media in the information they are providing. Crime reports/political stories all seem to be coming from the newspapers and television station websites. If the newspapers go out of business, these websites will need some major increase in funding and reach to make up for the loss of a community paper.

2 Stolen Cell Phones, 2 Alternative Endings

A few weeks ago a good friend of mine called me up from a friend's cell phone sounding completely distraught. Someone had stolen her iPhone after she accidentally left it at a makeup counter in Nordstrom. When she remembered she had put it down, she quickly returned, but the phone was already gone.

The security cameras inside the department store confirmed the theft, as it showed a woman go up to the counter and snatch the phone almost immediately after it was left alone. My friend quickly contacted the Providence Police Department but, as the story goes, the phone was long gone and each minute passing after its theft made it less likely to be found. This is supposed to mark the end. An unfortunate series of events results in a stolen phone with little recourse on the part of the original owner. In the context of crime, its a small matter, a closed case that isn't worth the time and effort to investigate. There was no investigation into the identity of the thief and no one besides the victim and her friends, family, and the clerk at the police station who accepted the theft report knew about this crime.

So Shirky looks at the completely alternative end to the story of a stolen cell phone. His case study is fascinating. Instead of closing the book on the stolen phone in the taxicab, the owner and her friend start their own networking campaign to find the phone. The snowball effect that occurs results in an almost nationwide hunt for one cell phone. Out of all the stolen cellphone stories, this one certainly reaches the most people. The person who sets up the website starts getting 10 emails a minute. Thats astonishing. To use current lingo, it goes 'viral'. People begin emailing offering to help, ask questions, and extend sympathy. The manpower this attracts is certainly disproportionate to the actual problem.

Of course, this particular story is ripe with sensationalist characteristics. Its not your typical story, so its going to get eaten up by everyone who gets their hands on it. It involves two determined yuppies, a young, defiant Spanish girl from Queens, hints of violence, retribution, personal explorations, etc. To add to it, New York City is the backdrop.

But the fact that it reached such a wide range of people echoes Shirky's idea. There was no one formal organization here that brought people together - no 'Society of Stolen Cell Phone Hunters'. No one had to pay dues to get a newsletter announcing this theft. And it certainly wasn't as serious as a nationwide manhunt for a killer or lost child. But it made it to the highest echelons of the media, even though it started with just two people. And most importantly, it utterly captivated an audience.

Obviously, the game has changed. With channeling, en masse, energy into outlets like blogs, youtube videos, and other informal, unorganized mediums, the competition is now survival of the most outrageous - a rat race of zany. That story which is viewed as craziest, oddest, or least likely to happen again is the one thats going to get the attention. The outcome is not known, as everything plays out in real time. Unfortunately for my friend, her stolen cell phone was just that and she had to dish out $500 for a new one. Fortunately for Ivanka and Evan, they were able to make it more than just a stolen cell phone. They made it an ongoing narrative of the often illusive search for justice in a cold, unforgiving metropolis. They won.

Quick Reflections

So here are my reflections on editing Wikipedia.

1. Its easy to change mostly anything, but Wikipedia has become such an important source with a following that is dedicated enough to pick up any discrepancies, changes, falsehoods on heavily trafficked subjects.

2. Those that are most heavily trafficked are most relevant to the lives of the greatest number of people.

3. Its easy to write something false or overly subjective on less relevant subjects, but if they are less relevant, who really cares? In the whole scheme of things, does it matter if there are some inaccuracies on the Trinity College wikipedia site? Its my presumption that its not a particularly highly trafficked page. I doubt its used by anyone as the first go-to to find out information on the college. Thats what www.trincoll.edu is for!

4. The ease and access of true information that is obtained outweighs the few bad apples that can be found. To reference the basic Econ 101 formula, marginal utility > marginal cost!!!

My edits

Before:

Jarvis Hall – This section of the Long Walk contains single, double and quad dorms, primarily for freshmen and sophomores. It is rumored that the doubles were originally designed for students while the singles across the hallway were intended for their servants. In actuality, the single rooms were single bedrooms, which opened into living areas, which are currently the doubles and the hallway, and six rooms retain this layout. As of the 2008 school year, the massive Long Walk Reconstruction project has been completed, and the dorms are built in a classic style.

After:

Jarvis Hall – This section of the Long Walk contains six or eight person suites, with a mix of single and double occupancy rooms, complete with private bathroom and common area overlooking the Quad and Chapel. It is rumored that the suite doubles were originally designed for students while the singles were intended for their servants. Fall 2008 saw the end of the massive Long Walk Reconstruction Project, as both Jarvis and Seabury reopened. The Jarvis dormitories now have most modern amenities, including air conditioning, yet the classic Collegiate Gothic architecture is still maintained.

Added:

Today, Trinity College attracts students from all around the country and the world and remains one of the most academically competitive liberal arts colleges in the United States.

Before:

In 2009, The Princeton Review gave Trinity a 95 (out of 100) for selectivity.

After:

In 2009, The Princeton Review gave Trinity a 95 (out of 100) for selectivity. The admissions rate tends to hover in between 30% and 40%, making it a generally competitive and selective school. [2]

Cheating Time With Wikipedia

So I feel the main use of Wikipedia has to do with something I have little of as of late- TIME.

I'm getting ready for the Wikipedia haters tomorrow night. I'm sure I'll hear how its the end all of civilization, how it will results in the dumbing down of a generation, how it will give everyone who uses it - and only it - possibly misleading information which will make us all stupid.

But right now I'm going to come to its defense. Wikipedia helps me immensely. I never cite anything from it, nor use it for research. But its the best primer I've ever had for quick, accessible information. It has saved me hours of book work - hours that I wouldn't have anyway. And when you have five classes, varied extracurriculars and a job in a week that only has seven days, Wikipedia is a miracle. Its a web that keeps linking me to new pages of information.

I also don't buy the argument that looking things up on Wikipedia or Google makes people fake smart. I know that when I know one more piece of information on a subject, which I may have obtained from Wikipedia, I'm one step further in understanding the world and how it works.

Unrelated

Probably one of the most interesting news stories I've read in a long time. Really changes one's perspective on this occupation...

Wikipedia

I'm beginning my dabble into Wikipedia a bit late. I just created my account, and I'm going to edit the entry on something completely connected to my life and the class: Trinity!

I'm not quite sure how to work around Wikipedia. It is all very overwhelming to me.

The first things I notice about the page for Trinity is its lack of well roundedness. It delves into details on some aspects of the college but sorely lacks in others. The list of famous/powerful/noteworthy alums is extensive, but there is barely nothing about the academic aspects of the school.

There are also two cautionary notices at the top that Wikipedia has alerted its readers to:

1. This article needs additional citations for verification.

2. This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. (I guess this is my task!)

I'll blog again once I change the page.

Edit: I'm now listening to the four minute roundup on Wikipedia. Very informative, helpful.

I like:

Transition from 'anything goes' to 'more structured.' Very true. As wiki grows and becomes more legitimate (aka closer to an encyclopedia), it needs this type of change.

Aha!

So this line from the Computer World article partly confirms my theory of Google being a government:

"The practice is unlikely to change unless users respond by abandoning services that use the techniques. "

This is what I wrote:

"All of a sudden, everyone gets wind of this process and instant outrage occurs. Everyone suddenly becomes a libertarian advocating for privacy and separation from the government of Google. The grand bargain becomes a nightmare. Subsequently a populist based coup d 'etat happens. Google loses its luster, as millions either defect from it or force it to  tailor or stop its information collecting practices. Google's pinpoint accuracy disappears, as it is not able to access information it previously used to provide its exemplary, comprehensive service. Revenues and profits fall and Google is in deep trouble. "

On Google, IV

So my objective is to give a quick, untechnical summary of what happens when I Google something. From the assigned reading I've done and past impressions, this is what I can come up with. (I'm writing this before I read "What Google knows about you.")

1. I go to Google and type in something and search.

2. Google records my IP, retrieves my location, and gives me recommendations and ads based on my search and location.

3. Google sends that info to its vast database and then keeps it until the next time I search. This is done through cookies (I think)

4. I search again. Google remembers my info and tries to tailor that search more to my liking.

Is this correct, incorrect? Am I missing something? This process seems fairly innocent, which leads me to believe there could be other processes I'm overlooking. 

On Google, III

I feel like the beauty of Google can be summed up in this one line from a 2003 Salon article on, ironically enough, backlash at Google:

 "When they step up to a Google query box, Web users are expecting one thing from the search engine -- to be quickly directed to the one page that can solve some momentary, pressing mystery. Google provides such pages with remarkable consistency, and that accounts for its success"

But as millions embrace this simple and satisfying structure, they are participating in the grand bargain I talked about earlier. Eric Schmidt admits that in order to be as accurate as its users expect it to be, there needs to be some personal information gathering:

From a 2007 Financial Times article:

"Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said gathering more personal data was a key way for Google to expand and the company believes that is the logical extension of its stated mission to organise the world’s information."

The 2006 NPR piece is interesting because it presents a brief but nuanced view of Google. Google collects the longest lasting and probably most comprehensive information on its users, but it was the only company to not give in to the Justice Department's subpoena.  Is this Google being good or evil? Hard to say. 

----

The term 'personalized search' looms large. Is it helpful or intrusive when we search for something and Google, judging by the information its collected on you, provides a more specific answer. Collectively, would we rather type in 'dentist' and automatically get a list of dentists in Hartford County or would we rather take the extra step of typing in 'Hartford County Dentists' so long as Google doesn't know where we are? In this age of quick convenience, I believe many people will choose more disclosure for quicker results. But like I've said before, that is the risk Google takes in participating in its 'grand bargain'. 

On Google, Part II

What does "Don't be evil" mean? After reading Google's Code of Conduct, I think that the company is aware of four things:

1. Power corrupts. (Duh)

2. Google is immensely powerful.

3. For its own sake, and the sake of the 'greater good'- which the New Yorker article convinced me Google believes in- employees need to use common sense to keep their power in check and not exploit it, while still following basic guidelines that allow Google to operate and grow. 

4. People make stupid decisions. Because there is so much riding on Google's reputation, anyone who falls under the jurisdiction of the code of conduct should be aware of what it is, in order to avoid blemishing said reputation. 

It seems that the Search Engine Land blogger is trying to keep Google to its word. He is constantly finding loopholes and exploitations made by the company. Perhaps these errors can be interpreted as 'evil'. But even after reading the many links he references, I still feel I don't know enough about Google's operations to decide where they fall on the moral spectrum.

On Our 'Mental Image'

So Professor McEnroe's post argues that the mental image of information in our society has changed from this to this. I would argue that its changed to this:

As we'll explore later, Wikipedia has become a quick go-to for basic, sometimes reliable information. Its a diving board before research for so many people in my generation. Those that rely it exclusively are fools, but those who use it to get a quick primer on a subject (myself included) are pragmatists. 

On Google

After reading the New Yorker article on Google, only one question comes to my mind: what's the big problem?

It seems that Google, despite hitting tiny bumps in the road, is on a path to continued success. The economic downturn does not change the fact that the model they have created for transforming the way people search and find information is revolutionary. And it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Though the company is only making most of its money from the basic Google search, its still bringing in $4.2 billion (!!!) in profits. And 70% of Internet searches are done through Google. 

To address the two potential, thorough extremely unlikely, problems that I see Google facing in the future, I like to think of Google as a government or as a balloon.

If Google were a government, it would be a utopian democracy, ruling over the world but allowing immense freedom and equal access to information. I can't credit myself with this characterization, as it was addressed in Auletta's article. 'Page and Brin 'are utopians who believe deeply that 'if people have better information they will live better lives. They are technological optimists in the sense of saying, 'Let's produce this technology and things will work out'", he writes. 

So the government of Google believes in this grand bargain with the people. Its a genuine belief that their government will actually improve the world. Google provides stellar, pinpoint accurate information to its users in exchange for increasingly detailed data on their activities and lives. So far millions are satisfied with this sacrifice of anonymity. But think for a second that "we" (the masses) are ignorant of our constant full disclosure of information. We just search and search and search, not thinking of the implications of what we share. This is where Google may face a problem. Let's assume that most of us really don't know Google keeps all this information on us. All of a sudden, everyone gets wind of this process and instant outrage occurs. Everyone suddenly becomes a libertarian advocating for privacy and separation from the government of Google. The grand bargain becomes a nightmare. Subsequently a populist based coup d 'etat happens. Google loses its luster, as millions either defect from it or force it to  tailor or stop its information collecting practices. Google's pinpoint accuracy disappears, as it is not able to access information it previously used to provide its exemplary, comprehensive service. Revenues and profits fall and Google is in deep trouble. 

Far-fetched, I know.

The second, less concrete, and more psychological possibility looks at Google as a balloon. Its rapid expansion makes it bigger and bigger as it fills with air (i.e. ego/power/scope) and it finally pops. It contents disperse everywhere, leaving only a mess in its wake. Again, very unlikely to happen, as Google seems to counter its rapid expansion with sustained temperance. 

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I Googled three times in order to get definitions and clarifications before I published this post. Ha!

On Newspaper Woes

I realize we have moved on from our discussion and dissection of the traditional newspaper, but I found a cartoon funny enough to share here. 

Last week a friend of mine pointed me to an unconventional Facebook ‘Event Invite’ he received. The invitation, for once not created as a result of an unfortunate 2:30 AM phone/toilet accident or to promote a party, was requesting a vote for a specific caption in The New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest. The event creator, a Trinity undergrad, was a finalist in the magazine’s weekly competition, and he was using Facebook as his campaign medium.

I couldn’t help but be surprised and impressed at this shrewd calculation. The event had been sent to over 1,000 people. Now I have no idea how many people worldwide vote per week for the contest winner, but I can’t help but think that the use of Facebook to get this particular finalist some extra votes is certainly beneficial and could potentially make the difference between winning and losing. Were it not for the event invite, I would not have voted. But I found myself entering in my contact information on The New Yorker website and selecting his caption solely for the sake of helping to advance one of my fellow Bantam’s place in the world. (I also thought it was the best/funniest out of the three choices.)

So how does it become that a bastion in the traditional world of magazine publishing, and one of the only institutions to be saved from Conde Nast’s recent brutal budget cuts, finds itself as part of the Facebook universe? If the overall goal of the New Yorker, or any media outlet, is to reach as many people as possible, then Facebook has become the go-to, and I think that’s a great thing, as long as these heralded institutions do not die out because of Facebook. Old media has adopted using the new media because they have no other choice, and as a result, they are now reaching a greater audience, even though they are losing money because of it.

The power of Facebook to change the way we communicate has become such a relevant part of so many of our lives that while thinking about this week’s class subject I couldn’t help but question, “What would my life be like without Facebook?” I believe it would be one disconnected from the realm of daily goings-on that makes life so spontaneous and significant. I’ve used Facebook to share, to learn, to read, to catch up, and even to gain a better sense of self. Anyone knows that the creation of one’s public profile is a period of self-reflection – a studied crystallization of who we are. We have to think what we want to be shared with the world- the image of ourselves that we don’t mind any objective reader seeing. Our interests, activities, favorite things, photos, and interactions with friends make us unique beings. And to see that documented every day is quite enchanting.

Facebook also makes us more active participants in our social culture. It has become for me one of the most convenient mediums for sharing articles, pictures, videos, and thoughts with all of my friends. And I feel that I’ve digested a lot via Facebook, hopefully bringing me closer on my path to adulthood and enlightenment. The power of instantaneous give and take is amazing.

Of course, there is a lot of trash out there. I detest the ‘Farmville’ or ‘Zombie Attacks’ applications that seem to be infiltrating the website. But I love that I can become a fan of NPR and get posts/updates that I would have missed. Just the other day I listened to an hour-long concert by Jamie Cullum all because it came up on my Facebook feed. I had no idea the concert had even taken place before I saw the post, and listening to it while writing a paper on E.M. Forster’s A Passage To India was a treat.

Just as we try everyday to get the most out of life, we must try to get the most out of Facebook. This requires a filtering of the bad and an embrace of the good.  Just like I make sure to filter actual things that are negative or unpleasant in real life, so can I ignore every Zombie Attack someone throws at me. This maximum utilization of the positive in both Facebook and life result in the most satisfying human experiences.

Some of my past entries have also concerned Facebook, so I encourage you to read those as well. 

On Facebook Magnetism

I apologize for my limited blog posts so far this week, but a comprehensive one is coming tomorrow.

In the meantime, I'm working on an English essay and two History assignments. Needless to say, I'm fairly swamped with work. I make this statement not for sympathy or as an excuse, but because of one strange peculiarity. Amidst all my work, the first thing I continually do when I open up my laptop is click on Facebook. I barely spend any time on it, and usually nothing new or exciting has happened. But I still do it. And I don't know why. Perhaps its a slight addiction, but the hold that it has  fascinates and perplexes me. Ahhhh!!!

On The Courant

I'm sitting in the library with today's Sunday Courant and the first thing I read is Professor McEnroe's column. After finishing it, I glance at the bottom and see 'You can hear Colin McEnroe's talk show weekdays from 3 to 6 pm on WTIC-AM 1080 in the Hartford area.' Thinking I possibly have an old paper - though I know its not because the column is on a fresh political issue- I look at the date and confirm it is the Sept. 27th edition. So within a few minutes, I've already spotted a misprint. As Professor McEnroe can confirm, his show is no longer on WTIC and is now on WNPR. So add another foolish mistake to a seemingly long list that the Courant has been making recently. 

Before I get into the meat of the assigned readings, my initial impressions on the actual Courant and its website are mixed. The website reminds me too much of a local tv news website, too light on real journalistic content and instead relying too heavily on the 'flash factor', with the 'top pictures' a tempting distraction from the meatier and more important articles. In contrast to the NY Times website, its a bit amateurish, but nowhere near as confusing as the website of my home state paper, the Providence Journal. 

Nevertheless, the website is organized in a way in which article specialization is an asset; its easy to find what you want to read where. The combination of the unspecialized 'latest news section' and the specialized 'politics, sports, etc.' bars at the top make for a comprehensive look at what the Courant is offering for the day. I would give the website a B+, with kudos for relatively smart organization. 

As far as the print version goes, I'm glad they have returned to the classic 'Hartford Courant' title at the top instead of the tabloid-esque sidebar that they had a few months ago. It gives the paper its sense of self back. The Courant is America's oldest continuously published newspaper, and to preserve its aura it needs to appear as stately as it thinks it is. 

I don't like the 'Quick Take' at the bottom of the front page. I understand that our collective attention span is dropping, but this only perpetuates its decline. The Quick Take should be on A2. The three top stories should stay where they are, and instead of the Quick Take, two Courant 'specialities' that make the paper different from other media outlets - its columnists- should carry the front page. I don't understand why they are promoting an article written by 'Tribune papers'. That kills the Courant brand. The article, or one like it, can be found in any Sunday paper or on any website. You can't find the words and insights of Jon Lender and Colin McEnroe anywhere but the Courant. Its comforting and familiar for readers to see two faces they know when they take a quick glance at the paper. An expected thought process among a wavering buyer/subscriber: "Oh, there's Colin McEnroe! I wonder what he's thinking about today. I'll start to read his article... etc." To remain viable, the Courant needs to continue its emphasis on the local and the unique- the scoop that really gauges the Connecticut of the day. I think its doing that, but not as much as it should. 

Its disheartening to see all the controversy that the paper is going through, and in no means do I condone their missteps. But it seems to me the blame finger should only be pointed at one source - our collective self. The reason the Courant has become a 'shadow of its former self' and is going through such hard times is because of a drop in circulation and revenue. Its impossible to stay the same with less resources. In last week's class, one of my classmates noted how her parents had recently cancelled their subscription to the paper because they were so fed up with the paper. With all due respect, I can't think of a more foolish move. 

For a large number of Connecticut households, a Courant subscription is a small expense. The marginal benefits should outweigh the marginal costs. If we want the metropolitan newspaper to continue to be the leading investigator, informer, cultural trendsetter, and comprehensive force it should be, its only wise to support it as best as we can within our means. Only then can it continue to compete.

Last semester, I interned at the State Capitol for a CT State Representative. I was dismayed by how many of the workers throughout the Legislative Office Building read the Courant for free online exclusively. If anyone should have a vested interest in the paper's success, it should be those at the heart of the state government. The Courant has historically been Connecticut's democratic watchdog. After hearing so many legislative workers dismiss having a subscription as an unnecessary expense, I can't help but feel a bit concerned for the future of the paper. How is Joe Q. Public going to be convinced to stay a subscriber if those that work for the 'movers and shakers' of Connecticut aren't subscribers themselves? 

But for now, the Courant still has a grip -whether weak or strong- on the state. 155,000 people still subscribe to it daily, and 222,000 receive it on Sunday.  Add all the Internet hits its website gets, and you probably still have a robust, if troubled, media outlet. Its the near future that should frighten. 

On Newspapers

I just picked up this week's New Yorker at the Trincoll bookstore and as soon as I opened it up the first ad jumped out at me. Its a full page menswear spread for Banana Republic. Featured are a red 1960s Fiat 500 (my roommate clarified that it is not a VW Beetle), a HUGE white w/black spots dog popping out of the sunroof of said Fiat, and a man in a beautiful traditional grey suit, leaning up against the car, with one hand in his pocket and the other holding a folded newspaper. The caption? Simply "The Suit" in a font reminiscent of that which comes from an old typewriter.

The aim of the ad is simple. Its a throwback to the 1960s, a time that is once again fashionable with the success of Mad Men - the suit would fit perfectly on Roger Sterling- and the reemergence of the 1960s 'Ivy League' look for men (see here). (On a less germane but certainly 'Trintastic' note, if anyone stepped onto the Trinity Long Walk midday they would have little idea that much has changed in the world of men's fashion since those '60s undergrad days at Yale or Brown.)

The inclusion of the newspaper in this ad is no coincidence. Its essential to the look that the people at Banana Republic are going for - a suit and lifestyle that is as relevant and desirable today as it was when JFK took office.

As much as we cry and worry over the extinction of the hold-in-your-hands/fold-up-on-the-train hard copy newspaper, I have an odd feeling it is about to make its grand comeback. You see, just as its once again cool to wear the aforementioned suit, so it shall be cool to be seen with the day's paper. I feel we may soon reach the point in American society where newspapers will make their comeback as culturally essential, included in the 'vintage chic' persona that is today's trend.

Edit: I took a picture of the ad to give a better idea.

Thoughts on the Pew Report

I'm going to write this blog post as I read the report, by just typing out the random thoughts that pop into my head in real time

Re: Increase in viewers of cable news. I can't help but consider this a dangerous trend. Consider there are three main cable news networks, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. 

• CNN, I suppose, can be considered the most legitimate and credible, though it still has both the birther-conspiracy supporter Lou Dobbs and the lovable but undeniably light Larry King taking two prime hours of viewership. Just think that millions of Americans each night watch Lou question the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate and Larry analyze every aspect of Michael Jackson's autopsy. (Sidenote: There was an interesting piece in Vanity Fair on Larry King's new role as America's celebrity death mourner.) 
• Now let's turn to MSNBC. I have great respect for Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and I love watching their shows. But no one should watch MSNBC exclusively. Its too much of a liberal niche, and instead of giving comprehensive, detailed reporting, it tends to focus on host centered commentary. While I consider the commentary valid and intelligent, I like to think of MSNBC an 'after the fact' network. After I've read about something in The Economist, NY Times, or WSJ I can turn to MSNBC to see what my fellow liberals are thinking.
• Finally there is Fox. Simply put, the product that Fox News Channel puts out is abysmal. I'm in awe that so many Americans watch it and only it. Its frightening the hold that Glenn Back has on so many. I'm not simply arguing against Fox because I don't agree with its political slant. I can disagree but still respect conservative news. According to the study, the main goal of the National Review is to provide "intelligent, disciplined opposition" to the Obama administration. As long as they hold true to that mission, I can respect that publication. I just feel Fox operates on a level that is so elementary and simplistic that it actually harms the nation whose 'freedom' and 'liberty' it is always trying to protect. Check out this amazing video of the rally inspired by Glenn Beck to see exactly what Fox teachers its viewers. It would be sad if it wasn't so scary. 
• There also is CNN Headline News, but any channel that is willing to employ Nancy Grace does not deserve my time. 

Re: Decrease in all news magazines except the "elite" The Economist (8% increase in circulation)

• Doesn't everyone read The Economist just so they can say "I read The Economist" over dinner or drinks? Kidding. I also find it interesting that Economist readers are the youngest and at the same time wealthiest. 

Re: Decrease in newspaper circulation

• Not surprising. I believe that the economic decline isn't the biggest factor in this decrease. I think we are failing to realize that unlike previous generations- including aging ones- we just don't find the daily newspaper a direct essential, even if we still indirectly rely on it. 
• I realize that its impossible to not make cuts when there are such heavy declines, but the newspaper industry is only amplifying its problems. In order to remain viable, newspapers have to offer something unique while still maintaining their traditionalism. By cutting sections- including niche/special interest ones- they are watering down and reducing what makes them so great.

Article on Palin's Facebook

So Politico, which is quickly becoming the go-to source for political news and analysis (phasing in of new media?) just posted an article similar to my first blog post. Its on the power of Sarah Palin's Facebook page. It addresses the impact her Facebook note on 'death panels' had/continues to have on the national health care conversation.

"For several days in August, the national health care debate turned to focus on so-called 'death panels,' in large part because of two widely-publicized Palin Facebook posts accusing Democratic authors of the House proposal of creating bureaucratic entities to decide end of life care", writes the author Adam Barr here. 

On Books

So I was just in the midst of my mid-afternoon check of the day's news when I came across this piece on a bright spot in an otherwise pessimistic publishing industry. With the release of the autobiography by the late Ted Kennedy and the newest guilty pleasure thriller by Dan Brown, the publishing industry - battered by a deep recession - is finally seeing some glimmers of hope. (In my completely unscientific survey, I noticed that by Thursday afternoon, the main display for Dan Brown's book at the Trinity bookstore was already empty. And I'm pretty sure the bookstore wasn't even offering a 40% discount.) Perhaps people will be reinvigorated and once again interested in the simple, classic book. 

It seems that although people are still reading, the "book" is mildly threatened. The Kindle is being marketed as the new 'it' thing to have and a viable replacement. A prep school in Massachusetts decided to abolish its library by going all digital. And people are now viewing books as one of the easiest items to cut out of discretionary spending. 

Though I don't consider the book to be part of the collective media (newspapers, internet, magazines, radio, television), I do believe it is still a tool of mass communication. So I find it interesting to track the health of it. 

I remember reading an article a few months back in Vanity Fair on The Kindle. For those not familiar, The Kindle is Amazon's portable reading device that is almost like an iPod Touch for books. The article's author, who I believe was writing partially tongue-in-cheek (though you never know with Vanity Fair) was lamenting the intrusion of the Kindle onto his casual spying of people's readings on the New York City subway. How else can you anonymously judge a person and, in turn, gauge the modern zeitgeist if the reading material is hidden from view? "Pity the cultural snob, as Kindles, iPods, and flash drives swallow up the visible markers of superior taste and intelligence. With the digitization of books, music, and movies, how will the high brow distinguish him- or herself from the masses?", he writes. I just love the article for its blatant embrace and defense of snobbery and the valid questions it raises on the potential demise of the traditional, beloved book.