Tweet! Tweet! What has the Media all a'Twitter?

At the beginning of 2009 Time Magazine’s James Poniewozik predicted that the social networking site (or micro-blogging site as it is also called) Twitter would not harm old media but help to enhance it. He asserted that it was inevitable that traditional media take a cue from new media and realize that the means for obtaining information has dramatically changed in our culture. He said, “the audience is no longer passive—it wants and expects to participate, even as it wants to make sense of the info deluge” (Time, p. 21, Jan. 12, 2009).

From what I’ve witnessed watching CNN in the last 12 months this certainly seems to be true. Twitter has had a major impact on how stories are delivered on the Cable News Network these days. The best example of this phenomenon was earlier this year during the protests in Iran following their major election, which was widely thought to be fraudulent. Because of the oppressive, largely government-controlled media in that country most of what we heard about the protests, and the violent backlash that followed, came from Twitter “tweets” typed frantically on Iranian’s cell phones while hiding from the police. Most of the images of the protests were also from cell phones of participants, and not necessarily from traditional journalists. Who could forget the emotionally gripping video of the young female music student who was shot in one of the riots? The images of her tragic death were also brought to the world via amateur cell phone video. It would seem then that Twitter is a hopeful new conduit of information for journalists and the media. As Poniewozik suggested, Twitter has, no doubt, led the media to some stories, and offered the public’s insights on major issues and events in our culture. The possibilities seem endless.
But not everything on Twitter is so profound. In fact, its content can tend toward the banal, for example, “I just went to the fridge to get some milk to go with my peanut butter sandwich,” and the like. Twitter is a social networking site and with all of its possibility come its flaws, but I think as a potential source for global news, particularly in countries where traditional media is stymied by government control, Twitter is not only a conduit of information, but perhaps a conduit of human rights. Tweet! Tweet!

For more information on James Poniewozik go to: www.time.com/tunedin

Bathtub Reading: A Plea for Old Paperbacks

I love to read in the bathtub because it’s quiet and peaceful. I like to get away from the phone, from the television, from my boyfriend and immerse myself in some warm bubbles and a good book. Sometimes I even fall asleep with the book resting on my forehead. To me it’s pure bliss.
Somehow, I don’t think that my bathtub reading could be accommodated if I were using one of the new electronic readers, nor would it seem well advised. The Kindle and Kindle 2 (from Amazon), the Nook (a la Barnes and Noble), and Sony’s E-Reader are all options for avid readers on your list this gift-giving season (though I hear B&N’s Nook is already on backorder), but all have been met with very mixed reviews. As a lover of all things literary, I decided to do some research to see just what all the fuss was about anyway.
When I first heard of the Kindle in a review in The New Yorker, I was not all too jazzed about the idea of an electronic reader. As I mentioned before, I love bathtub reading but I also love the smell and the feel of real books. Even when I’m reading something from the Internet I am notorious for printing it out because I hate reading text from a computer screen! Frankly, it gives me a headache. Not to mention the fact that as a person with a Master’s degree in English, I find it almost impossible to read a book without writing in the margins. After years of reading as a serious academic task it becomes pathological. How, I thought to myself, would I be able to make notes in an e-book?
As it turns out, the screen on the Kindle and Kindle 2 actually mimics the look of a real book (though the jury is still out on whether they’ve done this successfully), and you actually can make notes in the margins. Each Kindle comes with a small keyboard below the text for notes and other typing. That solves a couple of practical problems with e-readers, but it still doesn’t make up for the loss of the many sensual pleasures I associate with a lovely, ragged paperback with withered, yellowy pages from overuse, and tons of notes in the margins, or a beautiful leather-bound hardcover with silky thin pages that you must handle with extreme care and respect. There is something psychologically and emotionally satisfying about reading a real book. But, I’m a bit of a romantic this way--a kind of anachronism in this high-tech age, perhaps.
However, this is not to say that I would never buy an electronic reader. I think that where I would find it to be a very practical tool is in the attainment of textbooks and other school related texts for which I have a much less romantic attachment. I wish they would have had electronic readers when I was an undergrad, for I know that it would have saved me a great deal of money in the long term (e-readers go for about $300-$400). Most of the newer models also have free Internet access and a lot of other nifty features, which would make them invaluable to students.
The problem is that most of the books available on electronic readers are not textbooks. This might be because the current college textbook business is a booming one. Students have no choice but to buy textbooks (though now we have more choices when it comes to where we can purchase them with on-line booksellers) and often the books at college bookstores are grossly overpriced and can be sold back for a tiny fraction of what was paid for them. I recall a freshman coming out of the campus bookstore when I was in grad school muttering to himself, “I’ve been robbed…I’ve been robbed!” I think electronic readers would be a tremendous boon to poor college students everywhere.
This being said, I hope with all my heart that real books never go away completely. I’m not a Luddite but I’d truly miss my old, withered, written-in paperback favorites. They hold so many memories. New isn’t always better, sometimes it’s just new.

To learn more about the Amazon Kindle go to:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo

Have a Safe Flight!

In the November 9Th issue of The New Yorker, Nick Paumgarten writes of the recent Northwest Airlines flight that overshot it's destination (Minneapolis) by one-hundred and fifty miles because the pilots were busy accessing their laptop computers to look at the airline's new crew flight-scheduling procedure. Paumgarten very wittily mentions communications scholar Marshall McLuhan's (photo at right) prediction that technology would sharpen our senses. I suspect McLuhan never considered the possibility of bus drivers texting or talking on their cell phone while trying to steer a bus (I have seen this!)
While I am in no way an opponent of technology I think we need to understand that in many cases it has become a severe distraction instead of a useful tool. McLuhan was correct in his assertion that technology changes society, but the change is not always an improvement. In many cases it isn't even an issue of safety but one of effective interpersonal communication. For example, how many people have been having a perfectly delightful conversation with someone who just has to stop to take an important call? How many of us have forgone calling or visiting an old friend because it is just easier to send them an email? I realize my outlook seems cynical but it's not all bad. I can't imagine what it might have been like to complete my Master's thesis without a computer and access to hundreds of scholarly articles via the Internet and my university's library databases. I would have gone nuts!
Technology can be a wonderful thing if we use it--and don't let it use us!
On a humorous final note, Paumgarten goes on to tell a funny story about a burglar who decided he wanted to log on to his facebook profile while he was still in the home of one of his victims--he forgot to log off before he left, which was actually pretty fortuitous for the homeowner. It did make it quite a bit easier for the police to find him. Everyone can be distracted by new technology, I guess!

Put Down that Phone!

Back when I was a kid in the early 1980s people who could be contacted 24 hours a day were called doctors. Even they did not carry cellular phones because there was no such thing as a cellular phone (or if there were such a thing they weighed about 5 pounds and nobody had one!)
Instead, they carried pagers, and when they were paged it seemed like something very important was calling them away from whatever it was that they were doing--a medical emergency, perhaps. People today hardly use this life or death criteria to merit 24/7 access to them via cell phone, email or text message. It would seem that our needs and perhaps our priorities have changed quite drastically. Today, if someone can't call or text you for an hour they get frustrated and annoyed. I find this with many of my friends because I only use my cell phone when I'm traveling, just in case I need it for an emergency, which is what I feel it is supposed to be used for--a real emergency.
I heard a really poignant commentary on NPR this morning on this very topic. It came from a college professor who refused to carry a cell phone. She made the point that people who feel that they are "in demand" 24/7 create a false sense of self-importance. Within the context of a culture where cell phone use has become so ubiquitous that we hardly notice if someone interrupts a dinner conversation with a call, I would assert that someone being "on call" or "in demand" 24 hours a day now holds very little meaning. The NPR commentator agrees with this assertion. She said that she has stopped making herself available because she wants people to understand that her time is precious--to get in touch with her is a priveldge. I really like this notion and I think the next time a friend complains because they can't get a hold of me on my cell I will be sure to bring it up to them. If nothing else, they can always drop me an email--I check that daily!

The End of Print?

“What’s black and white and completely over?”
John Stewart of “The Daily Show,” on print Newspapers.

So it may seem that the end of print newspapers as we know them is nigh. After all, who wants to pay for something in print when we can go to the web and very conveniently find the same content for free?
Well, some people in the newspaper business don’t want to give their content away for free anymore. News Corp. (Rupert Murdoch, photo above), which owns newspapers like the New York Post, among many others, is considering pulling their content from Google and cutting a deal with the Microsoft owned search engine Bing, who would then have exclusive paid rights to News Corp. content in the future. Some say this may set a precedent for other print newspapers to start charging for their web content.
I know that this might seem like a bad thing for consumers at first, but I feel like it is a very good thing for journalists and journalism. I recently saw an interview with the legendary British journalist, Sir Harold Evans, who said that he was very optimistic about the internet’s impact on modern journalism. He said that if good investigative journalists could begin to have their work and research properly funded, the internet, and it’s seemingly limitless research capabilities, would be the catalyst for a new “golden age” of journalism, instead of being the terminus of journalism and newspapers as some scholars have predicted. Of course, that’s a pretty big if, Sir Harold.
The problem is that so much of the news content on the web is free and many newspapers have lost so much money they can no longer afford to exist. News Corp. is perhaps not the best example of this phenomenon because they are a massive media conglomerate, which owns more than one piece of the mass media pie (and maybe more than one pie!) but I think you get the point. I believe that online newspapers should begin charging for content if it would mean that more newspapers could stay in business and more journalists could stay employed. I’m not certain that paying for content would help to save newspapers that are losing money due to increasing online readership, or if people who had to pay for online news would simply stop reading the news altogether, but again, it seems like a step in the right direction.
I can’t help drawing a parallel between the current financial situation of print newspapers and the situation the music industry found itself in a few years ago with the advent of free music downloads. We learned to pay for online music; surely we can learn to pay for the news too. If someone doesn’t like it they can always do what I do to get the news for free—listen to NPR!

(see Rupert Murdoch talk about the New Media @ www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQSKRWXyFw8&feature=user)