The Social Media Revolution

Transparency & Privacy

In chapter 9, the book highlights stresses why transparency is so vital in the online social media world. Ethical and Legal issues in social media continue to blur the lines between privacy and transparency. It’s all about us, as users of social media, being aware of how our highly personal information is used. The book gives us a couple examples about Facebook and its blunders with privacy. For instance, Facebook’s Beacon tracked user’s activities after they had left the social networking site, and broadcast to the user’s network of friends. This leads into the transparency aspect, because privacy policy is a tender subject. In 2009, Facebook changed their policy on privacy, claiming the rights to user generated content. This resulted in  huge criticism and recoil from the site, and ultimately a threat from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Facebook rethought its policy, and created a group of users that discuss privacy-policy changes, but it was still a shock to users getting us to really think about who owns user-generated content on social media sites. But the equilibrium of privacy and transparency is far from stable. Individuals forget how vulnerable they become when posting and sharing ideas on networking sites. Innovations in the web means we have to rethink how we define “intellectual property” and who owns it.

The concept of transparency is important in both the offline and online worlds, but I believe it is becoming more of an issue in the online world. As Pavlik & McIntosh said, “Issues of trademark infringement or other intellectual property issues have generally been dealt with using existing case laws, but other issues… need new legal thinking to be dealt with properly.”(274) We have standards and precedents for the offline world. We need to have laws about the innovative world wide web, that can provide us with set rules on how we handle “intellectual property”, making sure that privacy is not breached.

Huffington vs. Washington Post

In this paper we will examine both mainstream and alternative news sources. It is often thought that the two news sources differ drastically in terms of their content, modes of production, and even aesthetics. Upon analyzing coverage of the British Petroleum (BP) oil spill of 2010 in both The Washington Post, a mainstream news source, and The Huffington Post, an alternative news source, we not only found differences between the two, but some commonalities as well.

Blog #13: Media Research

While doing the final paper assignment with my partner, our research has been both quantitative and qualitative.  We used quantitative research by looking at the demographics for both our mainstream and alternative media source. (The Washington Post and The Huffington Post). We saw different percentages of female readers to male readers as well as how age and education factors into those percentages. Qualitative data was used when we were examining things like media ownership. We looked at many other online sources for background information on the news outlets. When looking at the actual articles themselves, I feel like we used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data because each had figures on BP and its oil spill formula, while using words to describe the “phenomena” (Pavlik & McIntosh). Our research will expand on the media ecology aspect, because we are analyzing the two different sources looking at their effect on readers.

 

Advertising & PR

I watched the local news on channel 7 two evenings in a row, on Sunday and Monday at 10pm. Advertising during the two nights were pretty similar, most likely because the same demographic watches at the same time every day. There were ads for other shows on ABC, and a mixture of local and national ads. On both nights there were ads for Natural Grocers, Medved, and Brian More “the bulldog”. These local ads mean that many of the 10pm audience members are Denver locals, that will probably be staying in town long enough to need an attorney or buy a car. The audience is also probably mostly middle aged. There were many advertisements for Valentine’s Day, like jewelry, which is probably due to some seasonal aspect. Jewelry can be very expensive, so I would expect the ads to be targeting people who could afford jewelry, people in steady jobs making a steady income. Young people could be targeted as well, because there were ads for new clothes and food which seems more appealing to a younger generation. As for branding, I feel like the station did a good job, advertising about future stories, features of their website, and what makes them different/ better from the other local channels. Their news personalities also did a good job of branding themselves, with local products, or in future stories that they were working on talking about how they are all special. It seemed that channel 7 works hard in the evenings to show that they have solid values and stream truthful news.

Framing: Egypt’s Revolution

Currently, there has been much coverage over the call for reform in Egypt. From an American standpoint, this issue is being framed very carefully. Egypt has been one of our closest allies in the past, and our administrations have helped President Mubarak keep power.

When researching the happenings in Egypt, I actually found a lot of coverage on the White House’s views on America’s involvement. It was nice, because the coverage had straight dialogue from news conferences from Secretary Clinton and President Obama. The President said, “The United States will continue to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people and work with their government in pursuit of a future that is more just, more free and more hopeful,” but had no demands of the government. Obama was trying not to choose between protestors that clearly embody the need for democracy and a close ally. I think that this was more of a balanced look at the Egyptian reforms.

            Republicans, on the other hand, reported the situation in a different manner completely. I had to specifically look for Fox’s views on Egypt right now. Most shows have turned the issue into a warped sort of frame. The commentary was basically that it was either Mubarak or the Islamic fundamentalists, there was no in between the two. Logically, Fox was lacking. Coverage was all about the fear for us, as Americans. “They are jihadists,” was a pretty common phrase. Many shows were talking about Egypt as if it was the next step in the imminent apocalypse. Glenn Beck said something like “Europe is done.”  The fundamentalists are going to revolt in France or Germany? One lady said that this revolution could go from Tunisia all the way to Iran. It was said that Egypt hasn’t done terrorism yet, but could in the future. Beck talked about this being “September 10^th”. It was all about scare tactics for Republican coverage.

            Democrats looked at the situation in Egypt more as a balanced event. Not to say that the Democrats were without bias. The coverage on MSNBC was more about how Egypt was going through a revolution, not unlike our own. Egyptians are protesting their government, after a particular incident that cracked down on the internet. MSNBC reminds the audience that at least half the population is 30 or younger in Egypt. I say democratic news was more balanced because we get to see more of both sides of the controversy. That at times the protest turned violent on both sides: tear gas and water cannons from the government, stones and Molotov cocktails from the people. We also see the middle ground more I think. There is the underground brotherhood of fundamentalists, but also the people who are just sick of the corruption. President Mubarak defended the crackdown on the internet, but offered some promise of reform saying he would fire his cabinet and replace them. MSNBC gave the view point that he has reshuffled his cabinet before, and for some this time it’s not enough.

            For more complete and balanced coverage on all sides, I would suggest less commentary and more facts. Our country already has to walk on eggshells because of our past involvement with Egypt, fear and doubt in democracy will do us no good. From a journalistic point of view, I think the White House was most effective in framing the situation, but could do with more backing. I think they should have included in more certain words what America is expecting from President Mubarak as well as how their reform/ revolt is an echo of our own.

DirecTV

Based on numbers gathered in September 2010 by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, DirecTV is the second leading multiple system operator, or MSO, with around 18,934,000 subscribers. This MSO started in the summer of 1994 and is owned by the DirecTV Group, which is controlled by Liberty Media. To date, it has generated over $17 billion dollars. DirecTV’s main competitor is Comcast, but is also threatened by Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Dish Network Corporation. DirecTV, however, also offers high speed Internet, and DVR.

            Bloggers/Users of DirecTV either love it or hate it. Honestly, there are more “hate it”s of the MSO than people who cannot live without it. Many people blogged about the billing problems with DirecTV. I can relate, because when my family had DirecTV, we got billed almost three times what we should have. My dad then spent hours on the phone trying to get reimbursed. After a struggle with the customer service, we ended up getting three months of TV free. Ultimately we changed to Dish Network though. There were also some problems voiced about the number of channels being received and complaints about the delayed DVRs. Users usually end up switching to a different service, and this can be aggravated by the slow moving customer service workers.  

            But there were pro DirecTV bloggers. One woman commented on the reliability of the satellite dish, saying it worked for her even in bad weather conditions. Installation for many people was simple and quick. Other people commented on the ease of DirecTV’s guides and the great quality of their HD channels. There are also the many sports packages for the NFL and NASCAR that create a lot of happy DirecTV fans.

            In the end, I think that the best MSO depends on the individual. If s/he likes more channels, or better service, they have to choose a system operator that accommodates that need. Much of the complaints have to do with how much money someone is willing to spend; some say DirecTV is cheap, some say it’s expensive. I say, you get what you pay for.

Wiki Blog

I think that the Facebook group did a good job representing themselves as an organization. There were sevral things I enjoyed about the Facebook wiki. Mostly, I liked the spacial arrangement. It was easy and clear to read. It was nice that they had a video, but I’m not sure that video really pertained to the objective of good PR. Everything else was flawless.

As someone used myspace and switched over to facebook, I might be a little biased. I do think that facebook dominates the social networking game for a reason though. As the group said on wiki: it is always evolving. I thought that their ideas on a video chat were really refreshing. I had never thought about Facebook having face to face chat, but now I wonder why they havent done it already.

I also liked how this group talked about the competitors of Facebook, Myspace and Twitter. The suggestion to better the Facebook expierence with some sort of verification is also interesting. I like how they got the idea from twitter, but suggested a system of verification like twitter’s instead of copying it exactly. I think it would have been better to have argued a little more the benifits of Facebook over myspace though.

Overall, I think that this group will do well: It was put together nicely, there are solid facts and numbers, and there were some really inciteful ideas of what Facebook should do in the future.

Regulation of the Media: A Happy Medium?

Since September 11^th, 2001, national security has increased significantly. At the time, we as a nation thought that our safety as a nation was imperative to our survival. That still holds true for me. The regulation of the media in our country must be closely watched by the people. Essentially, I believe that the government should have more power to block threatening aspects of our and world media. This power, however, must be precisely worded. The first amendment is central to what America is, and to change it would be changing what we all unified under. That said, the constitution was written in the late 1700s, I doubt our forefathers saw this digital age. We cannot literally interpret the constitution 100%. We must consider the ideals and basic human rights given to us in the Amendments. I am not suggesting that we change any of these pieces of legislature. Just that we add on to them. Did James Madison of Virginia think that women or African Americans would vote in 1787? Probably not. One of the things that makes America so great is that we adapt. There must be some way to compromise between two extremes: not suppressing any information and suppressing all information. I think the only possible outcome will be through legislature. Let’s face it; the government already blocks a lot of information, it would be naïve to think otherwise. Why not regulate that? People act in their own self interests in higher government because there are no, or not enough, checks and balances. We need more organizations to ensure that the nation’s interests are being upheld. We do have a multitude of safeguards- but we could use more.

When it comes down to it, it is a question of whether the nation is more important than the individual. Should the individual be educated about what is happening in their country, or just leave it up to the “upper management”? Could the people even handle the truth media would show? Without the individuals, there would be no nation. Yet, without a nation we wouldn’t have a government. So is anarchy the answer?  We are less powerful divided. As much as I hate to say it, therefore, the individual can be less important than the whole. Between personal freedom and national security, national security wins. Unless we make this system one of an “every man for himself” mentality, it will always win. Government restriction for security should only be used when necessary however. Those instances where government intervention exists need to be analyzed clearly, that’s where we run into the problem.

How do we decide what should be regulated and who gets to make that decision? Should we paint a good picture of the government? Or of the television companies? Whoever pays the most money? Should we regulate based on past experiences, like 9/11? Does the president get to decide, or perhaps congress? I guess it will all depend on the situations that we cannot foresee. The possible corruption is expected; we need to create airtight legislature and consequences for deviating from that legislature.

Media Diary

Friday: 01/07/11

            10am-12pm: Listened to iTunes, surfed the Web

            12pm-1pm: Writ Essay work on laptop, texted friend

            3pm-4pm: Facebook, iTunes, call from grandma

            4pm-5pm: Internet on phone, texting

            6pm: Googled at dinner w/ friend

            7pm-9pm: Movies with friend

            9pm: Received call from home

Saturday: 01/08/11

            10am: Phone alarm, Email

            11am-1pm: Internet, call friend in Colorado springs, call friend in Denver

            1pm-2pm: Call RTD for schedule

            3pm: GPS on phone

            4pm: Texting

            9pm-11pm: YouTube, various entertainment sites

Sunday: 01/09/11

            12pm: News on internet/ surfing for news & weather, iTunes, Facebook

            3pm: Texting friend, call from home

            4pm: Texting, internet

            5pm-6pm: Texting, Facebook, surfing the web, call from grandma

            8pm-9pm: Internet, Email

Monday: 01/10/11

            12am: Ipod

8am: Phone alarm, texted friend for breakfast

            10am-1pm: Work study (news mentions on computer & compiling media list in word)

            2pm: Googled in class about subject

            4pm: Texted friend to meet up

            5pm: Checked voicemail, received call from friends, call from friend & plans to go out

            6pm: Tech Art exhibit @ art building

            8pm: Write & Print Essay

            9pm-10pm: iTunes, Facebook, texting

Overall:

            I think I devote about an equal amount of my time to personal interactions like texting and facebook, as well as entertainment like the movies or figuring out the RTD schedule. I think that this weekend I talked on the phone a lot more than usual, I usually don’t call people or answer calls. I have been using my phone a lot more lately, since I got a smart phone over winter break. Before I couldn’t use the internet or GPS whenever I needed it on my phone. Now I feel like I look at the news a lot more, as well as just random things that pop up when I surf the net on my phone. I use programs to listen to music often, and stream video frequently. But I also spend significant amounts of time with actual people. Still, at times with people I text, call, or search on my phone. It’s like a little computer in my pocket. I guess I never really realized how often I am using my technology. Life would definitely be different without it.