On Facebook

I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion on the relevance, prominence, advantages, and disadvantages of Facebook during Monday night's class. It seemed that everyone in the class took sides on Facebook, with most being either devoted, borderline addicted users or proud snubbers. One of my classmates went as far as to suggest that in order to avoid creating a Facebook she would mysteriously not be able to attend the particular class session that requires a profile. 

But before we all begin to take these absolutist sides, I think we need to take a deep breath, step back, and examine Facebook with a dispassionate lens. Once we do, I'm inclined to think that Facebook will reveal itself as a tool that, if used in moderation, can be a positive contribution to global social culture. But moderation is key. Those who use Facebook as a social tool exclusively risk losing touch with traditional ways of interaction and slipping into the cycle of frivolity that the site can invite. In contrast, those who completely shun Facebook risk missing out on participating in something that is increasingly one of the main sources of daily life in America. Who wouldn't want to be a part of a virtual time capsule that can be used in 50, 100, or 150 years from now to gain insight into the real culture of the day- the activities, interests, interactions, and self-representation of a people. 

While we continue to figure out the Facebook puzzle, even its biggest detractors can't deny the importance it has in changing the distribution and control of information within the media. For evidence, I would point to the recent entrance of the phrase 'death panels' into the national vocabulary of the current health care reform debate. By mid-August, the term 'death panels' seemed to be on the tongues of everyone following American politics. Its important to note the origins of the phrase. It was not taken as explicit or implicit language from any of the bills floating around Congress. It was not uttered by a politician at a press conference broadcast on CNN. It was not read by millions in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. Rather, the suggestion of government run 'death panels' included in health care reform bills came from the Notes Section of Sarah Palin's Facebook page. Almost overnight, the misleading, though catchy, phrase was sweeping the more traditional news outlets- the newspapers, magazines, radio shows, and television news programs that, combined with new media, reach the largest American audience. This two word phrase published on a supposedly obscure and recently resigned Governor's Facebook page completely altered the discourse on health care reform. It became such an issue that President Obama had to debunk the 'death panels' rumor in his recent nationally broadcast address to Congress. 

So it is foolish - and possibly harmful - to dismiss Facebook, no matter our personal opinion on it. Instead, we need to take a deep thorough examination of it, because whether we like it or not, for the near future Facebook is here to stay and make lasting changes to the transmission of information in our media.