And Another Thing!

I just realized, I never really provided any kind of definitive closure on what my final opinions were on the websites that we visited. I'll start with the easy ones first, and then progress to the argument I've been having in my head with the whole social networking problem. First, Wikipedia. I don't trust it, and I feel bad for the educators who have to put up with their entire class possibly gaining incorrect information through their own laziness. From what I understood hearing from David and Jess, kids these days (wow did I really just say that) don't put in the effort, and go to Sparknotes or Wikipedia to gain enough of an understanding to just wing it in class. We've seen what can happen when people blindly follow this page, so we must take this info with a grain of salt. Personally, I like the idea of the site-- in a perfect world with perfect, or not utterly stupid, contributors, all of the information would be 100% accurate. But between thick-headed users who don't do all their research, or developing online feuds as to whose edit is correct, there is tons of room for error. In short, I'll use it if I'm looking for a bit of information, but if I share said information with either a "I'm not 100% sure" or the trusty "I heard that... is that true?" If my listener learned everything he or she knows about the subject from Wikipedia too though, who knows if our conversation will have all the correct facts in it?

Shifting gears over to Google, I'm ready to sell my soul to the devil. I still don't have a gmail account, but I am using more and more of their tools. Hell, as we speak I am trying out Google Chrome on my netbook as we speak. Not sure how I feel so far, not a whole lot different from IE, but geek.com says otherwise. But between Google Maps, the anticipation for Google Wave, and of course, the one that started it all, Search-- the company is leading the way with the several different applications and the programs that it develops. Yes, my information is being leaked out, but after working at an H&R Block for 6 years, and seeing the wonderful employees that have come and gone, the public shouldn't really be in an uproar-- your info is probably already out there thanks to idiots at the bank, accountant's office, mortgage company-- trusts me, it's somewhere out there, and you are probably safe if nothing has happened yet. I feel like I won't switch over to gmail out of sheer laziness, but once Wave comes out, it will be a moot point anyway, since I'll be all over that bandwagon.

Moving on to Social Networking, I think I'm sticking with Facebook. I am going to keep my Twitter account, but I think it will be for a completely different purpose than what I have ingrained in my mind for Facebook. I am not going to attempt to reconnect with friends on Twitter, nor would I go to that site first to try and inform them of something, chat them up, or post a picture they would like to see. Hell, when MySpace was still relevant and FB was still making its way across college campuses and only college students could register, college students still went to FB first, but more for safety and privacy than anything else. Twitter is neat for what it brings-- I can follow Chad Johnson to witness him talk trash, post pictures of his latest celebrations (the sombrero from two weeks ago was an instant classic), or try to play against him in call of duty when he tweets that he is on. I like following celebrities for that glimpse into their lives, I like the whole tweeting traffic concept and apparently the state of CT does too (see my last post), and enjoy being able to collect all my news sites in one list with updates as to when articles I might fancy come out. But FB is still my idea of social networking-- all my friends collected so that I can find them, update them with either something important or something stupid. It's an easy way to send messages, become fans of businesses that are important to me (online specials for the win!), waste some free time with apps, and spy on people to make sure they are not more well off than me. I've been a fan since it first came out, and will continue to be an active member.

And lastly, we come to Blogger. Honestly, this has been a struggle for me. Doesn't make sense that an English major would bristle at the opportunity to write, but it really is different. Maybe it's insecurity in sharing my opinions, or maybe it's the aggravation for trying to find pertinent links to try and stress a point, something here just irritates me. I don't have the free time to find the best link out there that will blow your mind, I have a life, most of which consists of wasting it on Facebook, but between working, taking classes, playing soccer, personal problems, family events, where the hell does the time come from for those unpaid bloggers who post novels online and what aspect of their lives suffers as a result? This course was fun, and took me out of my comfort zone at times, but it was fun seeing not only where we've been, but how McLuhan oddly predicted all that has come to pass.

The Final Countdown (Do do do dooo, do do do do dooo)

For my final blog, I think it's time to put things in perspective a bit. Rather than linking to this or that, I think it's time to just take time to speak my mind. I think we might have been a bit too kind to McLuhan. Yes, he had the imagination to foresee where the media world was headed, but the idea of hot vs. cold has become antiquated. I don't think the whole idea of media you spend more time with vs. media you don't spend as much time with really applies anymore. To me, there is the Internet vs. everything else at this point. The Internet has so many different sources at the user's disposal-- it's not as cut and dry as the written in paper articles of your newspaper or the broadcasts on your tv or radio, but instead you have both of those incorporated to the net, and literally thousands of news sites to choose from. If I use hot and cold in the sense that I imagine them, the information that is simply fed to you (tv, newspaper) is cold in that it solely relays the message, and there really are a limited number of options-- local stations/papers or the major global ones. The hot media form is obviously the Internet, because not only are you in control of which site you choose to be informed by, but the user can actually participate in the news media just as much. Whether through blogging, tweeting traffic updates (which can be used to update this ct.gov traffic site apparently), or in the real life example we saw of someone updating a Facebook status to mourn the loss of Patrick Swayze, there is nothing so live, so immediate, and so easy that remotely compares to the Internet. I am not blaming McLuhan for anything, or saying that his incredible foresight should be mocked, but to me, everything we've seen in the class through examples of social networking and even wikipedia, this interactivity and almost overload of accessibility and information brings us beyond examples of hot and cold media.

Trying to be Nice

I agree with much of the praise that is showered upon McLuhan-- he wrote way before his time, predicted much of what actually came to pass in the advances in media and technology, and (for the most part) has a cohesive and understandable book here. However, I find myself harping on little things here and there. I'm with Courtney on the whole lightbulb thing, because I honestly feel like you can apply this overstretched theory to pretty much anything. I took a look over at TIME's 50 best inventions of 2009 to try and prove a point, and I don't know that it worked. Many of the inventions like the content-less Spiderweb Silk and Electric Eye correspond with his theory, both providing a new environment (incredibly durable silk that will have a plethora of uses and vision for people who previously would have no hopes of ever seeing anything ever), and their uses will probably be symmetric across all societies. But what if they aren't? In the case of Teleportation (and how the hell is that not #1??), everyone has their own ideas of how the item should be used. Military uses, personal uses for convenience in moving around, super fast/safe computers-- the possibilities are endless. And honestly, I think it makes a huge difference in what society you are in, as the world stresses different aspects of life depending on the region. While the light bulb has no content, its purpose is plain and simple. Something like moving atoms from point a to point b is very muddled, but clearly creates its own space. I think what that space is depends entirely on the use.

I tend to link the use of a content-less invention to the content of a form of media in that I think the content can definitely have varying impacts on different societies. Plato and his homeboys wanted nothing to do with the written word, fearing that it would cause the breakdown of society. However, Plato did say that the medium had value solely for singing songs of praise. If Aristotle and the other nonbelievers shrugged and went along with what Plato said, and the written medium never amounted to more than just songs praising heroes, politicians, rhetoricians, etc., do you honestly think that the effect would be the same? We have propaganda, information, fictional stories, biographies, songs lamenting people instead. I think content obviously matters. Sorry for taking so long to post this.

Don't call it a comeback?

I'm still reading the book, didn't get it til late this week. But there is a definite need for some "head-wrapping-around" time for this metaphor-laden piece of work. When reading through though, while I am impressed with some of the explanations McLuhan puts forth, I am a bit puzzled as to why he is popping back up. I googled "McLuhan blog" and for the most part, found some pretty recent posts asking about his message/massage, criticizing the book, and this pretty neat website which hasn't been updated in a year or so. I don't think I found a single reference to McLuhan in the links, but I feel like he would like the general setup and intent. But apparently this isn't all too new-- McLuhan was brought back into the public's view with a book about his life published in 1992. I found an interview with his son and the other authors of that book as they discussed in detail both some of the predictions that came true and for some reason Canada's ignoring of McLuhan. I like hearing about "how advanced" things were in '92-- it's crazy to think how far technologically we've come, and how small we've made the world with these advances. But anyways, McLuhan has been a hot topic of discussion for 17 years despite his passing; this "resurgence of awareness" that I've found on some sites really doesn't exist. Instead, I think it's just the fact that more people have access to his ideas now that we are so connected through the Internet, social networking, etc.

The Future is Now (and Other Lame Catchphrases)

After considering Colin's hypothetical questions and watching the scary 2014 video, I don't really see what's going to be so different in the future. I already stopped my subscription to the Hartford Courant earlier in the year, thus ending the long established relationship I held all my life with the newspaper. Honestly, I don't look to the time, the Boston Globe, or any particular newspaper website as an authority figure. My news sites consist of A, B, C and sadly the inner nerd in me keeps me coming back to D. I go to Google News if I'm looking for more information, turn to Yahoo! for both its easy accessibility to message boards, blogs, etc. in order to discuss events/find out the difference between truth and rumor. Facebook will always be one of the best breaking news sources on the web, and as more and more paper newsjournalists turn to blogging out of necessity, their content will primarily be pushed out on social networking sites like this one. I don't have to go to the times' site when blogs take over, but these hardworking journalists will still serve as an authority. As I pointed out in the last blog, the Yahoo! Sports basketball blogger was the go-to guy to release the big story of the day. I think as more journalists master blogging, they will remain atop the hierarchy, providing us with a news authority. But we still will be able to participate in all these stories in the shape of message boards, comments, and most importantly to me, posting on our own social networking sites.

I am by no means an investigative journalist, but on my Facebook page, I've bitched about all things DEP for the past 5 months. Our department has seen its share of horror (Charla Nash), screwjobbery (the state "sweeping" all of the DEP's money set aside for special green projects), and anger (you try telling the hunter sporting the one overall strap over his shoulder that his license doubled), and have posted about this on FB quite a bit. Aside from the usual "that sucks" from friends, I've gotten updates from other state workers about the state of affairs in their departments as well. Rell and the legislature are not winning many friends with some of their recent decisions, but save for 2 of my friends on FB, none of them would know much anything at all about the situation at the department unless they went actively looking for it. I'm not breaking the story of the year by any means, or even saving someone's life, but my status provided people with a glimpse of what was going on, and those who wanted to ask about certain "stories" either did in person, or commented back and forth with me.

So honestly, the newspaper currently has no place in my life at the moment. Will I miss it? Sentimentally speaking, of course. But I have so much information at my disposal now, that I'm sure I can fill my head with other things to keep my mind off of it.

EDIT: As for the whole eDemocracy thing, this isn't anything new. Any major online video game community like WoW , or forum community like SomethingAwful.com lives and dies by their community forums. The video game developers (the government in this case) looks to its playerbase for suggestions, for bug testing, for developing their own little macros and addon programs to keep the game fun and easy. The two exchange on the forums, expressing concerns and opinions, which largely molds the product into what it is today. As for SomethingAwful, they will be forever grateful to the community which has kept them alive today. The content on the site as a whole depends entirely on what the readers/contributors want on there-- they downrate things if they don't like it, and then the ideas get scrapped. It only makes sense that these highly successful and productive online communities would trigger a light bulb over someone's head who said "oh yeah, we can do that in our real society too!"

The Easy Answer - Sports

Before tackling the more complex questions posed on our class blog, I decided to go along a loophole and follow how sports coverage in general has been handled lately. I haven't gone to newspapers to look up my scores, stats, or standings for professional sports in years now. Yahoo! Sports continues its ways in being the go-to source for breaking news, now being the first one to break the story that Lawrence Frank was let go by the New Jersey Nets. To me, this already demonstrates some of what the whole EPIC 2014 video was clamoring about, as the news source was not some trusted sports reporter for some newspaper or on even on ESPN, but rather, it was Yahoo!'s NBA column writer/blogger Adrian Wojnarowski. Let me repeat that for effect-- Frank, a well known and respected coach despite his team's horrible turnout this year, went to a website for his exclusive following his release from the organization. I think the revolution has already begun, at least in the world of sports, as the site is only going to gain more and more notoriety as it continues releasing the bigger sports stories.

I will look a bit further, with regards to the "top news stories" and local news stories in my next blog, as the answers Colin posed seem to come too easily when considering the future of sports news (or at least for 2014). Yes, Twitter and other sites will disseminate the stories, but Yahoo! Sports seems to be the authority that pays its employees, breaks the stories, and allows for its content to then be accessed. This model doesn't look like it's going anywhere anytime soon-- bloggers are the reporters, and the readers/users will continue consuming this media, and sharing it as well. Yahoo Sports! does a great job of making sure that their name is stuck on everything involving their stories, including ESPN's piece, so credit will always be given to the company, at least through all major sources pushing the story.

Identity 2.0

Given everything we've learned about Wikipedia, I'm not sure why I'm linking to this, but this is where I first learned about the whole Identity 2.0 theory that is supposed to supply online users with one simply login/password. If we really are headed in that direction, I only see further problems for protecting one's identity on the web. If that one open ID gets hacked or whatever, you're pretty much screwed because every login for every site on the web is then known. Credit cards, bank account, social security numbers-- everything is at the fingertips of the would-be hacker. It's one thing if my precious Facebook account got hacked, but if my user id for FB is connected to my bank's login, or my credit card's login, suddenly I'm screwed on a whole different level with this Identity 2.0. I will admit, those pushing Identity 2.0 make their arguments, but I'm still a little too wary at this point to trust everything behind one ID after seeing so many friends get their FB accounts hacked, their emails compromised, and even a couple relatives getting their identity stolen online.