Category: Meghan Gargan

In the video “Digital Nation,” one area addressed was the idea of multi-tasking and how it may actually be a disservice to younger generations. Simply walking down the street it’s not uncommon to see students texting or talking on a cell phone while walking with a friend and looking something up on a mobile device. Our world is filled with technological distractions and the idea of being constantly connected is almost mandatory in today’s world.

However, the documentary confirms what many of us have known to be true: multi-tasking is more harmful than helpful, even though younger generations remain utterly convinced that these results do not apply to them. The documentary travelled to Sanford University to investigate an on-going study surrounding multi-tasking and productivity. While there the researchers were able to show that those who focused on a single task at a time did better at the assigned tests than those who were multi-tasking and attempting to accomplish several things at once.

The argument made is that multi-tasking is in fact a distraction, and that by immersing ourselves in a digital world we are missing out on important learning opportunities and participating in the real world surrounding us.

I won’t lie, I’m guilty of not only multi-tasking, but the convincing myself it’s actually a good behavior…even though I’ve seen first-hand when I’ve missed important information or don’t grasp a concept as quickly as I normally would because I’ve been trying to accomplish several tasks at one time. However, I don’t think the issue is convincing people that multi-tasking is counterproductive, I think the issue is finding a way to rein in these behaviors and creating a way to engage students and younger generations without completely distracting them.

Furthermore, I think the issue extends beyond the classroom. It’s not only younger generations who are hooked on technology and the idea of multi-tasking, many older generations are starting to tap into this idea of being constantly connected and it seems to be creating a rippling effect. Furthermore, the concern of reining in these behaviors is still the core issue that must be addressed – the technology and the temptation isn’t going to go away, so it is now about adjusting how we use the technology and learning how we can control certain behaviors to find the ultimate balance between the virtual realm and the real one.

1.  What are the pros and cons of the militarism inserting itself into the entertainment realm?  Could some games be considered a form of military propaganda as many gaming companies continue to compete for a “piece of the military brand” which offers limited modding control, built in branding and gamer-loyalty?

2. By creating video games that simulate a military environment in addition to  war-zones, does this glorify the idea of war and violence?

3. How accurate is the theory that gamers are drawn to war games out of fear and a sense of loss of power? Are we reading too much into  a military game that may be played simply for enjoyment?

This week’s discussion on wikis really got me thinking. As someone who wasn’t all thatfamiliar with this form of communication, watching the video in today’s class helped demonstrate the importance of this “informal reporting.”

I think what I was most impressed with when it came to WikiLeaks – it is not just simply churning out information once it’s received, but in fact most of the time it’s fact-checked and served up as a credible source to the masses. Even when the documents or leaks haven’t been verified, I appreciate that WikiLeaks makes the effort to be as transparent as possible and let readers know this. To me, even if the leaks turn out to be fake, at least audiences went into the situation with a real frame of reference. Additionally, by being truthful about sources and documents, WikiLeaks is able to build a reader following and develop the all important reader trust.

WikiLeaks are another interesting source when it comes to distributing news…based on today’s video I feel like they fall somewhere between traditional news outlets and citizen journalism. This is just another example of how the news industry is constantly evolving based on new technologies. The introduction of the Internet has made it possible for everyone and anyone to post “news” online. The difference between WikiLeaks and the average citizen journalist is that it would seem that WikiLeaks tends to be a more trusted “news” source and that they incorporate standard journalism practices into their news distribution. Additionally, WikiLeaks (much like traditional journalism outlets) protect their sources and by doing so are privileged to exclusive information that other outlets (who may not be able to protect sources) are not.

However, after finding out all of this information I was surprised to find out that there wasn’t enough funding for this project to continue (at first). I think that WikiLeaks offers a lot of valuable information and is genuinely interested in serving the public good, so it was a shame that the site didn’t have the funding or support to continue without taking a hiatus. It would seem that this site is a great virtual example of the fourth estate and watchdog journalism. After all of the complaining going on about the news industry (both traditional and new media), it’s interesting that when we do have a medium trying to look out for the public that they aren’t backed and supported by a larger population.

Overall, I think that WikiLeaks are a great addition to the news industry and in helping gather and distribute investigative journalism stories. I’d like to see more of this kind of reporting and verifying of information. I also appreciate that this forum exists to help break these kinds of stories and I hope that it continues to serve the public good and bring important issues to the forefront of society’s mind.

*The following questions are based off the article “Social Networks: Public, Private or What?

1. The article points out that many youths are focused more on connecting with their friends via SNS than on their education. Is there a way to incorporate both of these elements to help better engage youth on a student-level?

2. The article addresses a lot of ethical questions when it comes to parents and educators reading their kids/students SNS profiles. With recent controversy surrounding teachers and students inappropriate relationships on these sites, what is a suggested protocol that will address these concerns while still reaping the benefits of these sites?

3. At the end of the article the author suggests educators create SNS profiles and keep them open to the public to allow teachers access to the medium as well as stay present and available to students. However, at the same time the author suggests that educators do not seek out SNS friendships with students, but rather let the students seek out them. Is there anytime where being online friends with students (who are minors) is okay? Is it better to keep the two areas separate so not to create confusion to roles and responsibilities?

This week one of my questions addressed the idea of citizen journalists as concept creators and the idea of re-telling/re-crafting stories versus simply disclosing them. If we accept the fact that citizens can in fact be news creators and distributors, then do we hold them to the same standards as professionally trained and employed journalists?

After this week’s discussions, I feel like citizen journalism is a force to be reckoned with and that traditional media is going to have to start accepting this new format of news and distribution. With technological innovations influencing the news industry, we’re continuing to see a change in the gatekeeping processes. No longer does news stream through professionally recognized outlets, but it now flows through informal channels and websites and is reaching mainstream audiences.

With this current news flow, I think it’s only fair that we begin to hold citizen journalists to the same standards of credibility and accuracy as traditional news media. If citizens can shoot and edit footage, write an article or find other ways to distribute news to the general public, than there should be a place for them to look up how to accurately write a news story online as well. Simple research will show citizen journalists how to put a good story/package together for the public. If citizens are indeed going to call themselves journalists than they MUST adhere to the same standards and practices that professionally trained reporters do, otherwise they are just misleading the public and losing individual credibility.

1.  In Goode’s article he discusses the concept of citizen journalists as concept-creators. He argues that part of the art of journalism is the craft of re-telling stories rather than simply disclosing them. If we accept the fact that citizen journalists can in fact become content-creators and develop news stories for the public, do we hold them at the same level of accountability and credibility as we do traditional news outlets?

2. In Lilleker and Jackson’s article touching on interactive political communications, the authors analyze interactive tools in regards to political branding and campaigns. As they discussed the benefits of social media and online branding on President Obama’s election, it made me wonder how his team was able to manage/control so many media outlets? One of the perks of social media is the ability to control and generate content to an extent and to enable public discussions, however, one disadvantage to using this medium is the loss of control when it comes to users commenting, posting and responding in a a negative fashion. With numerous MySpace groups, Facebook pages and interactive branding features, is social media worth the risk of negative public backlash?

3.  In Lackaff and Grimsson’s article, they discuss the benefits of a website dedicated to helping citizens stay in touch with local government and current legislation. While I like the idea of having a website to help citizens stay informed, I wonder if this model would work in a country with a much larger population such as the U.S.? While the U.S. has specific political parties that could be represented as they were in the Iceland model, would a single site be broad enough to address all the political issues? Additionally, with all of the media outlets within a larger country like the U.S., would a single site like this be utilized as it was meant to be?

While studying journalism during my undergraduate career the topic of citizen journalism was really starting to take root as new technologies and innovations were making it easier for everyone and anyone to post news. The idea of transparency was a major concern as was the power of the blogosphere being a key source to informing the general public.

Several years later the industry is still struggling with these same issues. While the news industry has become more open (and perhaps even embraced) the idea of citizen journalists, we’re still a long ways away from finding a happy solution. There are still issues of misconception, biased and transparency at hand, and it seems like everyday more and more people are jumping in on the conversation.

One of my questions this week was should professional news outlets be responsible for policing citizen journalists and content? I guess the answer falls in the gray area…yes and no. News outlets don’t have the bandwidth to manage all citizen content (they are clearly out numbered by the masses) and if news outlets were the guiding hands some may see this as censorship (which clearly brings about entirely new issues). On the other hand, knowing that professionals trained in the field were reading, analyzing and publishing citizen-produced news instead of having some guy name Joe who lives in Kentucky clicking the “post” button, would bring some comfort when it comes to accuracy and general reporting skills.

Right now I would say CNN is the numero uno outlet for citizen journalism. The outlet’s iReporter section is well executed and the stories give a national news producer some local (and at times amusing) content. What’s effective about CNN’s citizen journalism strategy is that pieces are selected based on content and quality. CNN also publishes citizen pieces that are informative and accurate. Furthermore, the website makes sure that users know that these stories are produced by citizens and not CNN – thus addressing some transparency issues.

What’s proved challenging about this topic is that before the news industry can find a way to successful integrate traditional and new media mediums, the game changes – new technology, new ways of distribution and new ways of defining news. However, in the last couple of years it’s been refreshing to see the industry’s opinion of citizen journalists has changed (mostly) for the good. It lets people like me, who may dabble with content-production, still have a part in informing public opinion.

1. As new and old media continue to struggle to find their combined place in the news world, journalists are now not only competing with other news outlets, but also citizen journalists. What are some of the concerns surrounding the integration of citizen journalists to the newsroom and should traditional outlets and professionally trained journalists some how be responsible for policing or monitoring this content?

2. With so much information and news available online, studies have shown that users are seeking out specific stories based on areas of interest rather than visiting a site for its entire content. Based on this knowledge, how can online news sites better direct users to different areas of the site instead of only momentarily holding their attention?

3. One of the biggest concerns facing the news industry today in regards to online journalism is how to continue to fund the industry. With 42% of users saying they “never click on online advertisements,” generating a news revenue is proving increasingly difficult. While a small percentage of users were willing to pay for content, only 35% of those surveyed said they had a regular news site they visited. With a majority of online news readers demanding free content, how can the news industry generate a profit in order to continue disseminating news? How can the news and advertising industries make online advertisements more appealing and thus more “clickable?”

1. My first question dealt with the idea that giving a product some kind of monetary value increases its consumer-worth. I used the example of The Boston Globe creating a new website and charging for content in hopes of generating profit and adding worth to their news. Perhaps this is a bit biased (as a loyal reader for several years who doesn’t want to pay to keep tabs on her home-city), but I don’t think this website will be a successful business model. While I understand the idea that giving a product monetary value increases the idea of its worth, when it comes to information on the Internet the simple fact is that people will seek our alternative sources to find what they are looking for. While I think the free sister-website (created for breaking news, crime and sports) will have regular visitors, I think that by charging for content The Boston Globe is going to lose readers and be unable to maintain a subscription service.

2. My second question investigated the idea of over saturation using the “max strategy.” In the book the author uses the example of the TV show The Sopranos and creating social media outlets, advertising placements and a website to drive marketing strategy and increase viewership – is this overkill? When thinking about this issue I kept coming back to the movie franchise Twilight. When the latest movie in the series came out I couldn’t turn on the TV or step out my front door without being bombarded with advertisements and news items about the release. By the time the movie was in theaters I was completely sick of hearing anything that related to the Cullen family or RPat and KStew’s budding off screen romance. I vowed to completely boycott the movie and anything related Twilight. A week after the movie came out, I caved and piled into the theater with all the other Twi-hards. Despite being completely and utterly annoyed with the movie’s overwhelming marketing strategies (it still gets under my skin), I still bought into the idea they were selling. I also imagine that for true fans, this kind of max strategy only helped hype-up the movie and increase anticipation for its release. So while brands and advertisers must carefully balance marketing strategies, using all the channels at our disposal is an effective way to reach a broad audience to communicate a message.

3.  My final question dealt with the idea of Gen-Y as a generation that doesn’t value anything, including online information. Many criticisms claim that since Millennials grew up in age of free, we then expect reality to mimic the online sphere and thus EVERYTHING should be free or at a reduced cost. However, Anderson comes to the defense of the digital native generation saying that we understand that free virtual access doesn’t lead to the expectation of free in reality. He writes. “Give the kids credit: They can differentiate between the physical and the virtual, and they tailor their behavior differently in each domain.” (pg 230) While I may not want to pay for access to content on The Boston Globe, I would still expect to shell out some cash for a print copy. Despite growing up digital, Gen-Y is still able to separate real versus online in regards to services, products and way of life.

1. In “Free,” the author discusses the idea of “no cost, no commitment.” He discusses how when products have a small monetary value attached, even as low as a dollar, people consume differently because they view the product as more valuable. To put this idea into real-life context, The Boston Globe recently decided to start charging online readers a subscription fee in order to gain access to all of the newspaper’s content. However, a sister-website will remain at no-cost with breaking news and sports. Anderson argues that by offering a free product, companies are trying to maximize the reach of the product/service, while charging a price could have counter effects. Based on these ideas, is The Boston Globe making a smart decision to charge readers to gain full-access? Is the sister-website really enough to entice users to continue to the visit the site? How will the idea of no cost, no commitment affect the third-party system in regards to advertisers?

2. The author talks about the “max strategy,” or saturating several outlets and channels with content in order to reach the largest audience possible. In many cases, society has seen this backfire with songs being over played and TV shows/movies being over-hyped. Is it really beneficial (in regards to promotion) to saturate every channel to reach the largest audience possible and risk over exposure?

3.  Towards the end of the book, Anderson discusses the top ten objections to the idea of “Free.” Number 1o states: Free is breeding a generation that doesn’t value anything. Growing up a digital natives, do we really tend to devalue the information online, or is this another stereotype that is part of criticism of Gen-Y?