Politics 2.0

For Roosevelt it was radio, Kennedy had television, and Obama had social media. Needless to say, social media/networking has revolutionized the way people around the world communicate and has allowed for constant access to each other. The Internet created a new outlet for nearly every aspect of daily life. These new forms of communication via social networking are not just for connecting with old friends or posting pictures, the use of these sites provide a new world of potential connections of which politicians have recently grown akin to.

The most exemplary of this exact phenomenon is the campaigns of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election. These two opposing candidates differed in many ways of course, but specifically regarding media, they showed a large contrast in the effectiveness of online media and advertising in drawing attention of potential voters. Firstly, the actual tools both candidates used are very telling. Obama, in 2012, used tools such as Google+, Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, Twitter (two accounts) and Spotify. By the looks of these tools alone you can see his target demorgraphic and the entire vibe of his presidential campaign.

Using a total of nine social media tools was unheard of before Obama, and because of that he connected the historical process of presidential election with the world of Web 2.0 that exists today. Obama’s campaign was more active and generated many more responses from users of these sites. It would be foolish to say that his social media use didn’t help him win the election that year. He posted 29 messages per day on average, had twice the amount of Facebook supporters on said posts, used almost double the tools as Romney, and on all fronts, definitely trumped Romney in the social media campaign sector.

Romney’s approach to social media tools for his campaign was slightly different to say the least. He used Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Google+, and twitter. Five compared to the nine Obama used. Perhaps because he focused on a more conservative, older audience or because his campaign team for some unknown reason decided deemed a big social media presence unimportant.

It is said that there was about a 10-to-1 spending gap on social media between the two candidates. To put it in perspective, the Obama campaign spent $47 million on digital spending. And the Romney campaign spent $4.7 million.

CNN reported that the “Obama campaign believed from the start that digital was an important new area, and really had an almost an evangelical feeling about signing people up to register to give money through Facebook and Twitter.” Like many others, I now wonder, will 2016 be another social media campaign or will we be on to something new?

Social Networks

Social Networks, or social media in general is so inherent in our day-to-day lives we often don’t even notice it. We’ve become so social media reliant most of our daily interactions occur on computers or our phones. For instance, even people we’re close to now only send us Facebook messages on our birthday.

And we’ve become such a disconnected society. We’ve become lazy in many senses, we’ve become dependent on technology. We no longer pick up the phone because we feel someone is probably not going to answer and it might be more efficient to use a social network because people are quicker to respond. We no longer leave personal voicemails. In fact, nearly all things using a voice is obsolete, hearing someone’s voice tone and excitement in someone’s voice is very rare nowadays when the only social interaction we get is through social networks. We’ve become a society that’s so reliant on technology we’ve forgotten how to communicate with each other.

The other day, I was in line at my favorite restaurant. There were five people in the line and no exaggeration, every single one was on their iPhone, including myself. Not one person was talking to or connecting with anyone there in front of them. Everybody was tweeting, reading Facebook posts or texting somebody, probably talking about how they’re at dinner or what they’re going to eat. Whenever I feel uncomfortable in a social situation, or I’m by myself waiting for a friend, or even walking down a street my head is looking down at my phone. How can you meet people if you don’t ever raise your eyes off your phone? Trust me, I’m guilty of it myself but when you start to notice it you’ll see how far it has gone. 

Initially I wanted to say we’ve disconnected so much with everything, that we’ve lost real relationships with these addictions to social networks. But, when I really thought about it subjectively, I think it brings me closer to people. It helps me stay connected especially while I’m thousands of miles away from many of my friends and family. It helps me touch base with people I normally wouldn’t have time to call or even text. By “liking” something on Facebook, for example, I’m able to, in a way, touch base with one of my friends that I otherwise would have not spoken to that day. That being said, once I started to pay attention, I discovered I’m on my phone for about 90% of each day if not on the computer.

Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have all done an amazing job. The creators, in my opinion, are geniuses, they really are. They’ve trained us to completely rely on them, hold all our information, and made us essentially devote our lives to them every single day.

Technology has made the world simpler. We now no longer really need to talk to people in-person. Social media profits off people’s inherent or created social phobias who don’t want to talk to people anyway, and don’t desire deeper connections or relationships. It’s essentially a cop-out. 

When I don’t have my phone and my social networks on hand I feel like I’m missing a limb. I get an uncontrollable sense of anxiety and even loneliness. And I know others feel this same way,but how sad is that? How many of you go out and check your e-mails, your Facebook, or anything else at the strangest hours? You’re about to fall asleep and you think to yourself, “let me check my e-mail one more time.” I know I’ve missed countless hours of sleep at night because I can’t stop mindlessly checking all my various social networks and their constant new content.

We need to be not ruled by social networks. We need to go out there and actually connect to the world around us. Technology has made our life easier, but it’s stopped us from connecting face-to-face. I appreciate what it has done for us, and continues to do for us but I do think we still need human contact on any level. Want to find out how addicted you really are? Click here to get the answer

Citizen Journalism

In January 2011, a news release from Jamaica’s Constabulary Communication Network (CCN) stated that a man who attacked the police had been shot and killed. It was not long after, however, that a citizen of the country began circulating video footage which told an entirely different story. The footage showed the man who was said to have attacked the police, seemingly writhing in pain, being beaten with a police baton and finally shot and killed while still down and unarmed.

The identity of that citizen who videotaped those images resulting in the arrest of the two policemen was never revealed, despite appeals from law enforcement officials. The action by that Jamaican citizen brought into focus the fact that information and communication tools, such as cell phones and the Internet, are bringing about a level of access to information that is unprecedented in daily life. Blogs, forums, uploading of pictures or videos to the Internet, are now being labelled ‘citizen journalism’ as distinct from raditional, mainstream or professional journalism.

The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional or formal training in journalism have an opportunity to use the tools of modern technology and the seemingly limitless reach of the Internet in order to create certain content that would otherwise not be revealed, because this kind of journalism is able to go far beyond the reach of professional journalism.

By definition, “citizen journalism, or “participatory journalism” as it is also called, is the act of a citizen or group of citizens involved in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing and distributing news and other forms of information.” The objective of this type of journalism is to provide independent, wide-ranging and relevant information that is crucial to informing societies.”

Journalist Peter Dooley suggests that “traditional journalism is the outside looking in. Citizen journalism is the inside looking out. In order to get the complete story, it helps to have both points of view.” Dooley’s argument suggests that there is a place for this emerging phenomenon called citizen journalism, as well as for the profession that has been practised for decades called mainstream or traditional journalism.

Citizen journalism, as we know it now, was popularised in the late 1990s as more and more people, in both the developed and developing worlds, became connected to the Internet. The term is viewed as an umbrella term that covers blogging as well as other institutional practices such as the opportunity mentioned before, provided by one of Jamaica’s three free-to-air television stations, CVM Television. CVM’s “I-Watch Report” segment allows viewers to send in reports of events or activities in their location. Other definitions include any form of user-generated content or contribution to the debate that is taking place in the public. These would include postings on personal websites and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and MySpace.  Nationwide news stations and networks , have made these sites a regular part of their commentary as they solicit views, in forms of videos, or tweets from listeners and incorporate these in their current affairs programs.

The Google Generation

In class we learned that we, our generation, is commonly known in the tech world as the “Google Generation”. I found this interesting as I had never heard this term before but as an avid “Googler” myself I absolutely believed the title. I did some research as to what the Google Generation actually is because identifying it from a subjective view is difficult. For as much of my life as I can remember Google has been such a prominent, staple of daily life, but I never thought of it as a way to label an entire generation.

A journalist named Nate Anderson had some particularly interesting things to say about our Google Generation and the attributes that are included in it. He interestingly noted, “It’s true that young people prefer interactive systems to passive ones and that they are generally competent with technology, but it’s not true that students today are “expert searchers.” In fact, the report calls this “a dangerous myth.” Knowing how to use Facebook doesn’t make one an Internet search god, and the report concludes that a literature review shows no movement (either good or bad) in young people’s information skills over the last several decades. Choosing good search terms is a special problem for younger users.” I agree entirely with this. When Pipo was teaching us ways to search on Google I felt a somewhat disgrace to my generation that I’d been searching incorrectly for all these years. I felt unworthy of being deemed a part of the Google Generation but knew my friends, too, definitely did not know how to search in such an efficient manner.

So what exactly is true about the Google generation?

The British Library had a few characteristics noted such as…

• They like to cut-and-paste. “There is a lot of anecdotal evidence and plagiarism is a serious issue.”
• They prefer visual information over text. “But text is still important… For library interfaces, there is evidence that multimedia can quickly lose its appeal, providing short-term novelty.”
• They multitask all the time. “It is likely that being exposed to online media early in life may help to develop good parallel processing skills.”

I, personally, believe all those to be true. Whether or not they are necessarily good or bad things I can’t really say. Being brought up in this internet age society has made me somewhat biased or unclear as to it’s positives and negatives because it is so inherent in our growing up.

Google+

When I first logged into Google+ I was a bit underwhelmed, but the more I used and explored the site, the more I liked it. While it has already been deemed Google’s Facebook competitor, it is, to me, very different. I want to share my opinion on the pros and cons of the site to help shine a little light on what exactly Google+ is, and what it does (and doesn’t) do well.

Positives:

Better Privacy- Google+ uses a “diaspora -like” way of sharing content with users by utilizing “circles”. I think this format is very appealing to many users who are working to balance their professional and personal life.  It can be tricky because the proper circles must be added for each message. Facebook is often critiqued for their unreliable privacy changes, and Google seems to be catering to those unhappy users with easy to use privacy options in one location. Deleting an account is straightforward, as is deleting social features. This may appeal to some disgruntled “Facebookers”, drawing them to use Google+.

Huddles- Google+ ‘Huddle’ is a non-SMS group chat application for mobile phones. This competes directly with other downloadable apps like Beluga,TextPlus, Kik, and GroupMe. A Google product like Huddles should help boost it to the forefront as pictured below:

Hangouts- Having worked remotely (at least part-time) for the past 3 years, a ‘Hangout’ has a lot of value to me. This allows for a video based group chat, you can invite users, or others see within a circle and join along. I have used many types of video software to perform group chats such as Skype, and there did not seem to be a stand out among them. Google+ could be the solution. Media-The integration of media on Google+ is very appealing, more so than Facebook. Photos are large and captivating when they come through your stream. Location check-in visuals also add to updates and are not an afterthought.Even the close-up view of an image is appealing. To enhance an image comments are shown off to the side and the rest of the site is grayed out.

Integration- One of the main features of Google+ is the ability to tie multiple Google products to one location. Below is an example of a seamless check-in on Google+: Gmail Notifications-Notifications can be some of the most annoying and confusing elements of social sites, but if you are using Google+ and Gmail, it won’t be. Profile pictures are seamlessly tied in and you almost feel you are on a website instead of in your inbox.

Negatives:

Complexity- As soon as you log-in, you can tell that some brilliant people created this site.  But, at the same time, there are too many options and different features for someone who is trying to simply post up information. This is something that Facebook and Twitter excel at – making hard things simple.

As seen with “circles” above, there are just a lot of options for people and it will take a good deal of getting used to for the non “tech-savvy” user. After playing with it in-depth for a day, I now like the communication elements, but those who come in for the first time may find it too difficult.

People & Circles- In Google+ you can assign users to multiple circles. This is a nice feature, but again can be very confusing. Google+ recommends you add users to circles even if they have been assigned a circle. If a user has multiple email addresses, it can get quite confusing.

Sparks-Sparks, the news element of the Google+ service, leaves a lot to be desired in the current state. Instead of some type of news customization, you pick from a channel, or search to make a channel of your own. I expect this to drastically change in the near future to be much more similar to a LinkedIn Today, but there is no benefit to use this today.

Chat- While the ‘huddles’ are a novel of mobile communication, web users are stuck with Google Talk for chat. You cannot chat with your fellow Google+ users, rather you can only communicate with those already connected to your email address. It is an eyesore for a well-designed site and seems like a “band-aid” communication feature.

 

My Conclusion

Google+ is a great platform for those looking to break away from their current social networks. The real question is – how many people are looking to break away from their social networks? I can see avid tech users adopting Google+, but I don’t think this is a replacement to Facebook by any means. There is not much real value switching to Google+ for an average Facebook user, unless you are concerned about privacy or have a need for video group chats. The complexity will also turn away many users.  However, I believe that Google+ has a few different spaces that it could thrive: A LinkedIn/Facebook Hybrid for professionals. I can see Google+ acting as a vehicle for like-minded professionals to communicate freely, utilize hangouts and share information. Overall, I liked the product and the implementation, but I am not really sure what people will use it for. What may really make-or-break the success of Google+ is how fast they can roll out to the public and if they can make the service appear less daunting to the average user. All in all, this is the best social product put out by Google to date, but probably not enough to convert existing social users away from their current service.

Blogging meets Street Art

Needless to say, we are a generation essentially centralized around a phenomena known as “social media”. Everyone is connected, constantly, through websites and apps such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, etc. More so even than in person; these aforementioned mediums around which our entire generational society orbits, are perhaps the most prominent forms of day-to-day social interaction; Through most of these social media tools one makes a profile, chooses a username, selects a picture, all to identify them as an individual. It’s who they want to be, or how they wish to be presented to society, to their “friends”. But how true is this representation?

Along with this trend of social media people often discuss how behind a computer, behind this façade, people are fearless. People are more inclined to say things they never would out loud, parade themselves in a way you would never see in person, all because they are masqueraded behind this computer screen. I agree, that perhaps when I make a profile or writing a tweet, I feel somewhat protected in the semi-veiled podium. But, at the same time, I see social media as the least anonymous form of communication possible. I absolutely see it as the most warped, meaning you can be whomever you’d like, put your “best self” forward, post the most “artsy photos”, portray an imagine of your life that may or may not be true.

Sure, I believe that there is a freedom to, in a way, trick those around you in to believing in an identity that may not be what they’d see in person. But, to me, social media is the most vulnerable trend in the world. When you take the provided mask of a computer, those non face-to-face interactions, you tend to allow yourself to write or post your most false statements. But, you at the same time, more often, may post your most inner truth. You may take the anonymity of social media to tweet your most inner thoughts, Snapchat exactly what you’re doing at one particular moment, and who you’re doing it with. The “veil” of social media is much more transparent than opaque. Blogging particularly.

When I first learned we’d be creating a blog, I’d be lying if I said a certain surge of panic didn’t rush through me. I thought choosing one subject to write about every week, one subject to identify me as a person, very daunting. I’d never really thought about what an “internet identity” meant and I felt intimidating by the thought of having to create one. But that’s what lead me to think. Why would I feel so exposed blogging? Why did I prefer to be hidden from the judging eyes of other computer users?

I realized that, to me, blogging meant exposing myself as a person and as a writer, something I’d avoided in the past. That is precisely why I chose to write about street art. Because when I pass graffiti on walls, initials carved into street signs, ambiguous stickers posted everywhere, nameless art of all kinds framing the walls of cities around the world with no known owner: that is the new frontier. I love the idea of pairing what I view as the most exposed form of social media (Blogging), with the most mysterious wonderment of street art. Blogging forces you to state an opinion, share a story, publicize your interests, your likes and dislikes, and create an identity. While street art, for the most part, happens in the dark of night, is essentially nameless, yet has the largest audience of public who see this art and judge it or view it as they please.