11/18 Readings

I read the Melican article on a proposed relationship between online news credibility and racism for this week’s post.  Let me start of by saying I would never even have thought about there potentially being such a correlation.  The authors seemed to have done significant research in formulating the hypothesis, and their research built or some fairly basic assumptions about news.

They wanted to show that traditional news sources and their online counter-parts were trusted more than sources like Matt Drudge.  They also sought to emphasize that “internet news” is a very broad category including traditional source counterparts and nontraditional sites.  There really is a huge difference in the ‘credibility’ of CNN.com and sites like Perez (though the class was right last week in saying the he quite credible when it comes to the entertainment news in which specializes)  They also sought to show that people trusted cable news more than local news.  I know I’m guilty of trusting national news more than local news, but that mostly depends on the type of news being covered (for me anyway).  I trust our local news for local news, and our national news for national news.

The study proposed that those trusting traditional sites would have a lower MRS score than those that were more accepting of nontraditional internet sites.  The authors’ hypothesis focused on a theory which states that people will frequent sites (in this context) that align with their existing views.  People would then grow to view these sites as more credible as they continued to use them.  Over time the authors propose that this could lead to increased social divisions.  Who’s surprised? I would hope that none of the students in our new media class were.

Does this have an implication for politics? I would assume it is so, because the authors said they were basing their studies on sources from which people obtain political information.  This implies that parties visit sites which suit their affiliations, and the same is true for the Republican party.  The Pew studies I posted on last week touched upon this fact as well.  The only conclusion I keep coming to each week seems to be that existing social institutions and practices are reflected in how we use new media.  *yawn*

–Mary Klinestiver

11/18 Readings

The first article I read this week was Stephanie Clifford’s article, “Online Raly May Sidestep Newspapers.” In the article she discusses how big time ad revenue isn’t necessarily tied to the larger newspaper websites. Mr. Kasper, director of digital media for Havas Digital’s Media Contacts , suggests that no matter what newspaper publishers did, they were in trouble as ad networks and exchanges continued to sell cut-rate space. To combat this, publishers are creating sophisticated and splashy ads to post on their high traffic areas. However, smaller sites and companies have easily been able to copy the ads and lower prices. This is just one example of how the media landscape is changing  more and more. Newspaper websites aren’t necessarily the most high traffic areas on the internet and their declining ad revenue is the proof.

Recently, it was reported that the newspaper industry sold 44 million copies a day. That number sounds pretty massive, right? I was surprised to learn that that is actually fewer newspapers sold in a day since the 1940’s. In Richard Perez-Pena’s article on he discusses how the newspaper industry has declined dramatically in recent years. In the six months ended Sept. 30, sales fell by 10.6 percent on weekdays and 7.5 percent on Sundays, from the period a year earlier.  With rising internet readership, price increases, a recession, and declining ad revenue, the newspaper industry is in deep trouble. Publishers are attempting to raise profits by cutting down on delivery routes, increasing prices, and making online content subscription based. The problem is all about content. Readers can simply find more information and content instantly using other free forms of news online. Newspapers have to offer something more if they expect to keep their heads above the water in the changing media world.

The third article I read was recent coverage of a Web 2.0 conference whose guests included media all stars such as Robert Thomson, Marissa Mayer, and Eric Hippeau. The question presented at the conference was what the future of journalism will be in a constantly changing media environment.  While naturally there were mixed feelings from everyone in the room, I found myself agreeing more with Marissa Mayer and Eric Hippeau as I read the article. They suggest that this is not the end of journalism  as we know it. In fact, they seem to believe it is a golden age for journalism where new opportunities are forcing innovation into the industry. New media is here to stay and those who wish to be successful must learn to work with the changes – not against them.

11/18 Readings

I loved the 10 Ways Journalism Schools are Teaching Social Media that was featured on Mashable.  I know that at WVU’s J-School, social media is becoming more relevant as far as course content goes.  The school will start offering a class on social media next semester, and many classes & professors already have Twitters, Facebooks and blogs.  I know I can agree with several items on the list: I’ve personally used social networking sites for news gathering and research while writing stories for the DA (#3); a classmate of mine who works at Racer X magazine said her boss is using Facebook and Twitter (follow him here) to promote the magazine, and it’s helping (#1); and myself and others have used social networking sites to promote our work and make a personal brand out of ourselves (#8).

Next, let’s look at the Fanselow piece on community blogging.  This is a topic I have a harder time with: bloggers and “citizen journalists.”  I’m all for people starting blogs and reporting on things they are passionate about, but as someone paying a lot of money to get a degree in journalism, it’s hard to accept novice bloggers as colleagues!  Even so, that’s the direction journalism is moving in.  I can name a number of experienced reporters who now blog in order to keep up with the evolving media, but large groups of citizen bloggers probably have the most impact.  I think some community blogs (just like Locally Grown) can almost be seen as another form of political involvement – rather than taking a petition around town or rallying outside of city hall to get things changed, members of a community can provide well thought-out answers to a blog that can reach anybody with Internet, therefore making a much larger impact.

-Paige Lavender

11/11 Readings

This week I read the article on the evolution of virtual worlds. It  was surprising to learn that some of the games that I’ve played and still play have roots going back as far as 1979. Today, most people are familiar with games such as Second Life or World of Warcraft. These virtual worlds have grown into spaces where millions of people not only play but have the ability to create, interact, and communicate. From text based multiuser games to virtual societies that are completely open ended, the online gaming world has been changing for decades into a very complex system.

From my early teen years on I’ve been playing online games. I never really got into World of Warcraft or Everquest but I can remember a time where I spent entirely too much time on games such as Phantasy Star Online and Counter Strike. While these aren’t the most well known online games, they are still online interactions that have directly stemmed from the early MUDs and MOOs. While reading the article I couldn’t help but think of all the services that have benefited from these early forms of virtual worlds. It could be argued that games such as Ultima Online and Everquest that brought subscription services and in-game transactions were the forerunners of Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Nintendo’s Virtual Console.

I wanted to post this video for two reasons: 1) Kind of explains the kind of games I’m talking about. 2) It’s totally rad and makes me feel old.

Interestingly, today virtual worlds aren’t limited to medieval adventures or futuristic questing. Second Life and games like it offer blank slates for users to create any type of experience they wish. Even some of the worlds most famous corporations and politicians have used the space to expand their marketing reach. These worlds are always expanding, and with the growing number of people who aren’t afraid to jump online and experience new things, show no sign of slowing down.

11/11 Readings

This week we are discussing online games, SNS games, and SNS in general.  Urista and others conducted a focus group discussion about why college students used Facebook and Myspace.  These groups suggested that we use the two sites for five reasons: 1) efficient communication, 2)convenient communication, 3) curiosity about others, 4)popularity, and 5)relationship formation and reinforcement.  The authors propose that these motivations fit into a “uses and gratifications” theory meaning that the users liked how they were able to use the technology as well as how that use makes them feel.

I really enjoyed a lot of the direct quotes from these students.
“…Sometimes I’m busy and don’t have the time to talk with [my friends] or find out what’s going on in their lives”… Yet others said that you can’t be a true friend unless you reply to sad or otherwise “important” statuses they post.

"Facebook Status Updates Are Out Of Control"

Still another person said they thought it was easier to announce an engagement on Facebook, while I know several friends that are offended if you don’t tell them about relationship changes before it appears impersonally on Facebook. Annnnd crazily “Facebook engaged” is actually a term on Urban Dictionary:  “Replacing your profile pic with one of you and your spouse at the same time as them just before linking relationship statuses. Thus two circles of friends are informed and sent a pair (2) of pictures of the happy couple!”
Here’s the best contradiction though, just about every Facebook and Myspace user checks up on other people without their knowledge, but may still set their sites to private to prevent others from doing the same.  I don’t know how many times I’ve heard–and said *cough cough*–the term “facebook creeper” nonchalantly. In fact, I would probably consider purchasing the shirt below for my best friend lol   Stalking your friends on Facbook is practically a sport in some circles.  It really is amusing that many people hate the idea of being stalked, when one of their friends is most likely doing it this very moment.

…It seems to me that there’s a major disconnect between how people use the site, and what they say or feel is appropriate use.  I know there are a lot of legit reasons for privacy settings, etc., but the general theme seems to be “do as I say, not as I do.”

-Mary Klinestiver

Readings 11/11

I remember where I was on June 25.  I was laying poolside at Seawatch Resort in Myrtle Beach, soaking up rays and reading the fourth Harry Potter while on vacation with my family and best friend.  Needing a break from the happenings of Hogwarts, I pulled out my iPod touch and decided to check out Facebook to see if my friends at home were doing anything fun.

That’s when I found out.

As my Facebook news feed loaded, the first status I saw said, “Michel Jackson is dead. Wow.”  The person who’d posted that is a fellow student journalist, and I highly doubted he’d make that claim without it being true.  But I knew where to turn to get the real scoop: Perez Hilton.  (What? I know he doesn’t have much integrity but he DOES know his shiz about celebrity gossip.)  As soon as I got on Twitter, Perez had posted about the incident.  I looked at my Mom as she left to go up to the room and shouted, “Michael Jackson died!”  She rolled her eyes and kept walking, but a nearby family became interested and, thanks to my iPod, I quickly got all the available details and announced them to everyone by the pool.  About five minutes later, my mom called and told me the news was all over CNN.  (I followed that statement with a hefty “I told you so.”)

While Perez Hilton might have doubted the initial claims that MJ had died, he still reported each bit of information that came to light June 25.

The point of my story, other than the fact that it accompanies the Simple Thoughts article, is that the “I-was-here” moment of the summer is going to be very different for my mother and myself.  I knew the second I saw the news on my Facebook iPod application that something major had happened.  I used new media and new technology to get all the information I could about that event.  As for my mom, her “I-was-here” moment happened 10 minutes later, in the hotel room when she could trust the television, AKA old media, to tell her the “truth”.

-Paige Lavender

Week 11/4 Readings

For this week’s reading I decided to go with McEleny’s study on new media and the British Parliament. Taking a hint from the widely successful Obama campaign, many parties across the pond are revamping their public involvement and information by utilizing new media. However, as is the case in the United States, politicians (especially local level officials) just aren’t up to speed with the changing political environment.

The study reveals that the Conservative party is actually ahead of most in online activity. Unfortunately, that isn’t saying much. MP’s that were surveyed revealed that 77% do not use social networking and an astonishing 8% avoid using e-mail. Many say that they don’t want to use a service that some of their constituents do not have access to – so they prefer using the post. Another reason cited was that e-mail can be risky and unsecure. The study then goes on to grade the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and other parties on how well they have incorporated new media. All of the parties had some sort of online presence but had a ton of room for improvement. The internet is no longer only a tool used for obtaining information, but instead is a tool for engaging, contributing, and socializing around that information.  McEleny’s study has one simple message – no matter what your standing is, what your party is, or what government you are involved with – new media and governmental activity go hand in hand. Politicians need to recognize the potential that is available and capitalize on it!

Week 11/4 Readings

The Benefits of Networking

In the words of James Carville “This year, it was the network, stupid!”  Most of you know of the quote “It’s the economy, stupid,” made by Carville during Bill Clinton’s initial campaign.  Many people attribute Clinton’s election success to be a result of his emphasizing the importance of fixing the economy.  When you think about our recession, Obama could probably have taken a strategy right out of the Clinton’s playbook.  However, Obama’s biggest asset this election cycle was taking a cue from Howard Dean and Joe Trippi’s playbook instead.

This week’s article from David Talbot was actually written the month before the 2008 election.  The author already had a really good idea of why the new media had helped Obama beat Hilary and was likely to help him have an edge over John McCain.  The key was, in fact, the network. Even though McCain’s supporters use the internet more actively than many of Obama’s, the Obama campaign had a central networking system that urged those that were active to get out and motivate those less active.

Many conservatives that support McCain are in this, for lack of a better term, ‘upper class’ of internet users.  We have discussed many times that social divisions extend to the online world not just because of income and access, but also based on productive (information gathering, etc.) v. more-entertainment focused use of the system. My.barackobama.com was the “central nervous system” for Obama’s online campaign that extended past the borders of those with access to the internet.

The centralized aspect of MyBo not only appealed to online supporters, but also to cell phone users.   Blue State Digital, the creators of the system, even connected Obama supporters through SMS.  When campaign information can just be forwarded via text message, the Obama movement became ever more ubiquitous because its ease of use encourages spreadability.  Henry Jenkins, a professor at MIT, writes about important spreadability can be for political information.

I think what I’m taking from this is that systems like MyBo are the closest we’ve come to shrinking the digital divide when it comes to political information.  Because MyBo extended past the online world to that of cell phones (which such a large number of voting-age individuals own), to that of traditional outlets such as land-line phone chains, to our basic door-to-door cold calls, MyBo let the Obama campaign include an unprecedented number of people in the movement.  It wasn’t a complete bridge of the divide, because its users will reach out most to those within their own demographic.  I have been wondering lately, what tool will ever cross the divide…  The only way I see us reversing this trend is by a complete reworking of the underlying social structure causing it.  I hate to end on such a negative note, but we’ve created so many social institutions that are reinforcing the underlying divisions that I won’t see the change in my lifetime :-/

–Mary Klinestiver

11/4 Readings

It doesn’t surprise me that the Pew study about the Internet’s role in the 2008 campaign revealed that three-quarters of the adult population were online political users in 2008.  I know that during the campaign, I got the majority of my information about the candidates from the Internet.  Probably the most “ancient” form of media I used to get information was televised debates (funny, wasn’t it just under 50 years ago that televised debates were considered fresh and new, and a major factor in JFK winning his campaign?) but I could’ve viewed those on the Internet had I wanted to.  None of the other stats were too surprising, either… people lean toward political news sites with similar views (I think that definitely also applies to people who watch conservative Fox vs. liberal CNN), and young people engage in a lot of political discussions online.  No surprise there – that’s the whole point of this blog!

Just a side thought… Of all the claims, this one caught my attention most: “All told, the overall size of the political news audience has more than doubled since the 2000 elections.”  I’m actually in a State & Local Government class right now, and we just had a test on voting.  My professor told us about a theory called the West Coast effect, where eligible voters on the West Coast may not vote in an election if there’s a clear winner early in the evening.  (Remember the  West Coast is several hours behind, so results from the East typically come in first.) Another factor that will keep voters away is a lack of competition between the two parties.  With the 2000 election, there was a great amount of competition, and as I’m sure you all recall it was almost impossible to tell who was going to win.  This boosted voting extremely and, as far as Professor Berch thinks, it has helped up the number of voters for elections ever since.  I can’t help but wonder if maybe that election is also part of the reason why so many more people are paying attention to political news, especially with forms of new media. What do you think?

The other Pew study gave some other insight about how voters receive their political information.  It reinforced the idea that young adults get their informaiton online and participate in politics by joining online networks.  I don’t think it’s surprising that those who have blogs and use new forms of media are more politically active than those who do not.  I did, however, find it hard to believe that email and snail mail both work equally as well when contacting politicians.  I think if I wrote President Obama a heartfelt letter it may touch a chord with him, but sending him an email would probably just generate an automatic reply with no other feedback.  Maybe it’s because it takes a little more effort to write and send snail mail… I don’t know. You tell me!

- Paige Lavender