In conclusion...

This class has taught me to be afraid of the internet and all things electronic. I have realized that everything I do in this technologically advanced world makes an imprint that I cannot erase. Google knows not only my location, but my favorite shoe store. Facebook is like my keeper, it keeps track of all my friends in groups and keeps tabs on them so I know where they are at every moment. Twitter is like my private eye. My professional stalker that never lets me down. The Courant, and other equally finger staining ink papers, will probably disappear or dwindle down to a size where my six month old niece can hold it easily in her hands. But the saddest, will be the death of my blog, for it made me a published author. I should put this on my resume...

All joking aside, this class really opened my eyes to topics I never considered or dared to look into. I was able to form my own opinion and look deeper into sites such as Google and Wikipedia and find out what they are really about.

I think I'm Undertanding Media..

McLuhan's concept of media has me a bit thrown. Sometimes I think he is right on, other times I think he is talking out of his ass. It is during that time, that I have to remind myself when he wrote this, and I find myself silently, and mostly grudgingly, commending him on his progressive ideas. MM describes the differences between "hot" and "cool" media: "Any hot medium allows of less participation than a cool one, as a lecture makes for less participation than a seminar, and book for less than a dialogue." Meaning, that while both have an affect, the amount of affect varies. MM states that movies are "hot" because they enhance one single sense because it does not require much stimulus. It is simply for watching idly and enjoying, easily. Hot media is typically linear, such as radio and a lecture. "Cool" media, as MM puts it, would be television, as it provides more involvement and is more stimulating. Apparently, MM believes that watching TV requires more active participation than the movies. This makes no sense to me unless he is referring to the remote and channel surfing, which would account for his reasoning behind active participation. I suggest he observe my father watching TV, I bet he'd change his mind. My question remains, do we really have to "think" about what we're watching, whether it be movies or TV? With shows like Lost, 24 and Flashforward, there are more mystery that spans throughout the entire series, but I doubt people turn off their TV after an episode and really take time to study the events. TV and movies are designed for no participation. Maybe there are exceptions, as there is to everything.

MM concept of "media" being a medium or sorts is very interesting. The impact of each medium varies with each social network. Meaning, while the actual medium remains constant, the affect is different. For this I agree. However, once someone detaches themselves from the medium, they can control the outcome of the medium. So does this mean that everyone who attempts to change media or technology is living in a detached state? So by detaching themselves, they neutralize the affect the medium has. But is that possible? If the media and technology, and all the other words he uses to describe the exact same thing, is all around you, how can you detach yourself? It would be like going into a different dimension, not just mentally, but completely. Maybe it has something to do with this light bulb idea. Media isn't an actual thing, but is determined and described by the result of the affect it has on the environment. So does that mean the words in a newspaper isn't an actual thing, but the result of it on the social fabric?

2014 whhhatt??!

Before I watched the video, I thought, no way. But now, holy cow. Here's a quick rundown on the progression of the internet:

1989- World Wide Web created
1994- Amazon-a store that makes suggestions
1998- Creation of Google, the world's largest
1999- TiVo (my personal bff) unshakles tv from the constraints of time
Blogger
2002-Friendster: detailed map of a persons life, interests, social networks
Google News: edited entirely by computers
2003- Year of the blog
2004- The year everything began
2005- Microsoft buys Friendster
2006- Google combines all it's services-creating Google Grid: everyone can own and create, consume
2007- Microsoft, Newsbotster
2008- Alliance: Google and Amazon=Googlezon
2010- News war
2011- The New York Times v. Googlezon visits Supreme Court
2014 EPIC: Evolving Personalized Information Construct

It's like the MATRIX

This really made my eyes widen when I realized just how far the internet has come in such a short time. I wonder where it will end. It is really creepy. Especially 2010-2014: will that be our future? Is this a summary of our world? What else will cease to exist?

Narrow, shallow and sensational. Is this what we chose?

Are there any journalistic ethics anymore?

Reader's Digest

In an article from Reader's Digest:

8 Things being KILLED by the Internet

1. Polite Disagreement
2. Letter Writing
3. Memory
4. Waiting a day for sports
5. Footnotes
6. Leaving your desk for lunch
7. Concentration
8. Daydreaming

reddit

I really like Reddit and how it is setup. At first, I just scanned it and was confused as to what it really was, then I started reading the headlines and found myself chuckling at the topics and how it was worded. I especially like that the most commented stories are at the top instead of having someone who runs the site decide on which are newsworthy and which aren't. It could be something silly like a happy kitty, or more interesting like Tiger Wood's ultimate fighting champ of a wife.

On a more serious note, I don't really understand why text messages from 9/11 would be released. This article states that, "We hope that its entrance into the historical record will lead to a nuanced understanding of how this event led to death, opportunism and war." Can someone explain that to me? Is the interest in these texts the same as seeing an accident on the highway and being fascinated?

So far...

If I was a celebrity, I think I'd be into twitter because people care about all the mindless details of their life. But I'm not and I have found that I don't really have anything interesting to say. It is kind of funny to me how celebrities complain about paparazzi and having no privacy, yet they post constantly about every single thing they are doing. Isn't that completely personal? Maybe since it is their choice to share, it makes it okay.

The timestamp feature seems like a fine idea. Everything these days is timestamped. But GPS stamped? Whhat?!?! Creepy anyone? It's like twitter has lojacked you and you can't escape from it. Are people really that crazy that they are no longer satisfied with the 140 characters that they need to see exactly where you were when you typed it?

I will say, I have checked Taylor Swift's twitter about five times already today. I am ashamed to admit it.

Hola

a random girl just became my first follower. when i clicked on her site it was in a different language. now i'm confused...

TWEET

I just told my sister I created a twitter account and don't know how to use it.

She said "I have no idea how to even get there".

I said, "Twitter.com"

She said, "It's like facebook on drugs."

i tweet

I created a twitter account.
My username is bcihaveto.
That is as creative as I get.
Who wants to follow me?!

Aesthetics

Do people visit a site specifically for the content and overlook the design? No, it goes hand in hand. When looking at most political sites, I found them to be crowed and messy, therefore creating annoyance and confusion. Most of these site were also only generated towards an older population, probably male. So the question became, how does a site generate more viewers and target a larger number of people? Visual appeal could possibly be the answer.

Color consistency is great and makes the homepage look polished, check out The Texas Tribune and notice their use of recurring colors. Orange and black litter the page yet tie everything together. The homepage is clean and sparse, yet with enough links to send readers to the right places. It is not overwhelming like Politico where it seems that the scroll bar goes on forever. Instead of trying to squeeze as many headlines and short blurbs on a page, it would look better and ultimately become more useful if the site was broken into sections. For example, a section of stories that were most viewed, a section about local news, world news, breaking stories...something that brings more order to the chaos.

Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger and extreme harasser, has a great banner when you enter his page. It is definitely an attention grabber. This could be useful on our page because you know right away what site you are looking at. Especially if you type keywords into Google and click on the links it offers without noticing which exact site you are going to. It makes its presence known.

PICTURES! The Texas Tribune always has a stunning picture. It is usually raw and inspiring. Videos are also an interactive way to spread news and serves as an alternate way of getting the facts. I think only a few pictures, if not less than three, should be allowed on the homepage. There isn't a need to slam as much information and visuals in such a small space. Some carefully chosen pictures or video could be used as a teaser to get readers to continue exploring the site.

Consistency is a must. Catchy headlines make people click on stories regardless of what the actual content is. Humor draws in people of all ages, and those of the younger generation can relate and appreciate it.

NFL has a post game day discussion. I am drawn to this site every day for their quick quips about game day behavior and commentary.The headlines stay the same no matter what team is discussed. It was over when...Noteworthy...What we learned...There are two links on top of the page, Quick Take or Full Story. I like this feature a lot. It gives me an option but also a taste of what the full story will be like. I also read the quick take for a few minutes in the morning and then go back to the full story when I have time. This is a good feature. If the reader likes a few sentences of what they read, they will come back for more. This will get them back on the page when they have time and cause them to explore the site in more depth.

Now, how about something different? We talked about interactive polls or a daily comic. Both are good ideas. This will be something consistent that causes the reader to look for it daily and either participate or not. Just the act of having it there daily is a good idea. Our group also brainstormed ideas for having a personal story written by a reader. Looking, once more, at The Texas Tribune, you'll notice a section above the header of three different stories. We could place this idea here. Also, a daily fact, something titled, "Did you know?" It could be a random fact about a political figure, history of a state, America in general, something short and interesting that only takes a few seconds to read. Maybe even trivia.

Yahoo! has a picture roll that I find very catchy. It takes up a small space somewhere on the homepage with a picture and a short caption. If you roll your mouse over each picture it enlarges with a link to click on the full story. There can be 15 pictures in that small space with stories. This is a good idea to condense a lot of information in an easy to view manner.

These are all ideas to boost viewers. If a site is easy to navigate and understand then readers will come back.

for travelers? or locals?

This guy brings up some good points. When I think about my own town, all five of us, I think, who cares? In a town where there is no gas station, street lights, and only two main roads, I can't help but wonder what there is to talk about. Maybe a gossip blog would satisfy the local tongue wagers and news of a tag sale would build excitement with the elderly, but then I read this and now I get it. Hyper local blogging could become a business. He says, "If you’re a real estate agent, write about real estate and where you practice it. A blogging plumber? Write about plumbing and where you practice it. Bike store owner? Write about bikes and biking and where you bike locally."

Then I got to thinking, what if I was planning to move into a new town with my husband and children, and despite the overall appearance and facade of the town I wanted to know the ins and outs. I'd want to know what the school system was like from real parents who wrote about it freely and anonymously, weekend activities, school sports, etc. Maybe this type of blogging could become sort like a Consumer Reports magazine on the local front. It could even become a way of socially connecting...meeting new friends, being more involved and aware of the town you live in...

HOWEVER, would I read it for the meaningless, day to day, shut up about it already, kind of news? I'll pass. Maybe if my town was bigger and actually had some life to it.

happy election day

I woke up this morning to a phone call from my father. He called to remind me to vote. I said, "for what?" he laughed, said, "really, Allison?" apparently it is brand new information to my father that I haven't been following politics. It's not something that interests me or that I directly care about. I know that I should pay more attention, but for right now I don't. Maybe when I'm older...

intent: not to create new knowledge

After reading various articles concerning Wikipedia, I decided to browse through the website typing in various searches that interested me. I read through articles concerning the Giants, various American authors and some favorite TV shows. I realized, I know nothing of importance. In the about section on Wikipedia, it says "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute" okay, well I don't, and still can't. I don't even feel like I have anything worthwhile to say or even if I thought something was interesting or could slightly expand on something already written, should I?

So now I wonder, how does Wikipedia even work? If everyone can post and edit whenever they chose, (except Scientologists, that is) how doesn't it become so muddled with useless information? However, since it is such a highly trafficked sight, any wrong information is cleared up seemingly within moments.

But what I don't get is why people spend so much time updating and adding to entries. It's almost like writing a research paper, for fun, in your spare time. I'll pass.

As far as Wikipedia being a reliable source, I would say it is. Although I never cite Wikipedia as a primary source, I do do my preliminary research on the site. I find it to be written in layman's terms and it gets right to the point. I would rather read short article and feel mildly informed than do tons of research and get the same out of it. Maybe I'm just lazy,

dear diary

After reading this article, I began to wonder what the future will look like if the continued rise of the dotted line actually does represent EVERYONE. Will we all update our status hourly and claim ourselves to be publish authors? In the literal sense, I guess we are. We write and post, making our thoughts, whether large or small, public knowledge. Will we one day receive an e-mail, a comment on our blog post, or a tweet saying we won the Nobel Prize for literature? Or a Newbery Medal? Will Oprah be texting to ask us to be in her book club?

In a way, the ability we all have to share our thoughts and information with the world is amazing. However, is the accessibility and easiness of doing so, making us stupider? If we find posting our breakfast choice next to articles about world events just as important and common, what does that say about us as intellects? Where will it end?

text 466453

Do you need to know a phone number for a business? Wonder what their hours are? What their address is? Want to know the weather? Stock quotes? Movie times? Don't have the internet on your phone?

Don't fear. Text GOOGLE and ask it. It texts you back within seconds with all their information.

Google, your #1 newsource

Father of the year, Jon Gosselin, from TLC's Jon and Kate Plus Eight, first learned about his lawsuit from Google Alerts.

Google knew about his breach of contract and lawsuit before he even did.

state of play

I just finished watching State of Play.

The main theme was a political coverup that a local newspaper was trying to uncover. There were a lot of references to newspapers becoming a dying art and how hard it is to compete with real time blog blasts. Throughout the movie, the two main characters, Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams, fought about how best to report news. Crowe had been a journalist for twenty years while McAdams was a twenty-something blogger.

However, when the story finally broke, both characters put down their guns and decided that when the public reads an important article, something that carries weight and meaning, they better get some ink on their fingers.

It made me think if newspaper ever completely go away, will we one day, turn around, and wish them back?

"uhh, I don't know, I've never thought about it"

Before reading these articles I never once thought about what Google knew about me, or even if they knew anything at all. I guess I just figured it remembered certain words I type or things I am into. I like to imagine my computer as a brain that has magical powers. But now, after researching and thinking about all that Google does, I realized that it has too much power.

I used to think it was pretty cool how I would type something in the search box and it would auto complete it for me. I'd welcome the extra .5 seconds it allowed me by not having to finish typing the last three letters in a word. But now, Google, back off and give me my space.

I asked two people what they thought about Google. One said, "it solves all my problems," the other, "it rocks." When I asked them to please be a little more descriptive, they didn't have anything else to say. I realized that other people thought like me too. When I told them about privacy issues and made them really look at those handy features Google has, they stopped, looked, and said, "wow, creepy."

My roommate said it auto completes her home address when she searches for directions, and it seems to know what she's thinking before she thinks it.

A few hours after my conversation ended, I get an instant message:

"u know what else i think its weird about google?when u open the new tab and it shows the websites u go to the most. so like facebook is my second most visited site and sometimes it shows pictures ive looked at. soooo werid. it's like a snapshot of it. I don't like it."

Apparently, what I said carried weight and shone a light on an otherwise undiscussed topic. So now I wonder, does it really need to remember all these things? Are we really that lazy that we welcome the auto-complete feature, and instead of typing "Dentist, Litchfield CT," we feel the need to just type "Dentist" and expect it to know? It makes me wonder what the word privacy even means. What is really ours alone to keep secret?

Slow down Google, step back and reassess.

The only game in town

Today's New York Post ran an article titled, "Google profit soars 27% on $5.94B in sales," and quotes CEO Eric Schmidt signaling "better days ahead."

Google makes it money on advertisers, yet in a recession, normally one of the first areas to be cut back is advertising. So Google, how do you do it?

Just google it

Google is like my best friend. I rely on it for everything, when I don't know something I ask it questions, and when I want to online shop, it shows me all my favorite stores. I prefer its layout to yahoo, and even trust it more on its searches. Why? I have no clue. It's just there. I have a Google toolbar that just popped up one day, so now, I don't even have to waste my precious seconds by typing www.google.com, it's already there for me, like a really good friend. The creators of Google, Google Earth, Wave, Chrome, etc. should give themselves a good pat on the back. It has created such a monopoly over every other search engine and browser that they have become the reigning king of internet.

Google Earth made it possible for my sister to show me her new apartment in North Carolina and all the surrounding businesses from the bedroom of her Connecticut home. Chrome is my little genius as it keeps track of all my most frequented sites in neatly organized boxes, and the phrase, "just Google it" has become my answer for every question I don't know.

Just like that, Google has covered all the bases. It makes me wonder what people even did before it...

How do you know that? Facebook told me.

I really think Facebook depends on the person. For some, it is an endless social utility that allows people to connect with long lost friends, distant family members, or even a way to brag about their children. And for those reasons, I think Facebook is great.

For others, typically ages 16-21, FB is dramatically different. It's a popularity contest. Who has the most friends, the funnest weekend, and the best drunk pictures? It's a game played by girls everywhere. Personally, I find it highly annoying, and half the time, when I log on, my news feed alerts me to conversations, postings and pictures that I don't want to see and could care less about. So for me, FB is a useless utility that pounds on frustration and annoyance.

However, I can't help but find some crude irony when those same drunk, obsessive, picture posters are searched by possible employers and are caught red handed in their tactless game. All the security settings in the world aren't protecting you from losing shreds of dignity.


I think that FB applies to different age groups in drastically different ways. If it works for you and you enjoy it, great. But share the info, and explain it to me. And when it really comes down to it, isn't it sad how much we have to protect ourselves from people who are so ready to take advantage of trusting people?

i'm gorgeous, but only when i'm airbrushed

Who knew standing in line at the grocery store could make a person feel very ugly? So there I stand, so innocently, with my ice cream and bag of chips, while perfectly airbrushed celebrities stare at me from their glossed pages. It is at this exact moment that I tilt my head down and look at my own body and find myself wondering why my abs don't shimmer like that under florescent lighting, or why my hair doesn't feather out around my face when I standstill.

I was never one of those preadolescence who flipped through the pages of magazines and religiously compared themselves to the images enhanced by airbrushing. I'm thankful for that, yet I feel for those girls who do. What message is that sending? Body image is such a huge issue in the media right now and has been for such a long time that it makes me wonder why is our society's standard of beauty determined by how well an editor can airbrush? Or for that matter, what even is beautiful?

If attractive was considered fat and pimply, then that's what would be gracing the covers of magazines. But it's not. And who decided that?

I understand that magazines and ad companies aren't directly at fault for the public's perspective of beauty, but I can't help but wonder if because they feed into it so heavily if they, in turn, are?

i wish i had a famous father

I'm about five seconds away from calling my dad's office at GE and asking them if they need someone to blog about my father. I could offer up vital pieces of information about his favorite foods, morning habits, TV schedule and other newsworthy topics. I'll even throw in a picture or two pre-shower.

And when they offer me tons of money to do this, I will make it clear that at no time will I comment on anything to do with his actual job.

we did this completely on purpose, but this was not our intent

Shame on you Courant. Seriously? Not only do I find this whole situation completely ironic, but also a little insulting.

I'm not an avid Courant reader, nor will I now become one, as I find their 245 years of "integrity and credibility" sounding more like a banner line than the actual truth. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, and dare I say, judgmental, about this entire issue, but I can't help but find the humor in it all. Here is a newspaper that serves as a source of news and entertainment to countless people, a paper that we trust, and they thank us by ripping other newspapers off? What's the point of that?

The entire job as a journalist is to report credible information. To cite and protect your sources all while creating a piece worthy of reading. I feel like on day one of journalism school (if there was such a place) there would be a chart stating the rules to follow, much like a kindergarten classroom, and on top of that list, in big capital letters would be the words, DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. And wouldn't you think that even the journalist themselves would feel insulted by the mere thought of plagiarizing another writer's work?

Oh and by the way, thank you Richard Graziano for disciplining those six employees, I hope that their short trip to the corner really hurt their feelings. I wonder if universities will take notice and maybe change their academic ethics policies? I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that meeting when the dean tells the student, "What you did was wrong, I think you should go apologize to your professor. But have a fun weekend!" Case closed. Good role model Courant.

So I can't help but wonder, are there really no new ideas anymore? Are sporadic trips to the water cooler now filled with talk such as "Oh wow, that sounds good, okay, I'll just take that, and OH! good one, I'll take that one too" all while holding a copy of the Journal Inquirer? I guess all those involved in office relationship drama can rest easy now.

oh! It's 10pm, time for the news, er--i mean, opinions

BREAKING NEWS AT 10PM streaming live into your home television set.

Yeah? No. I already know it. I read it, online, all day long.

News really has become a 24/7 kind of thing. There used to be a time, or so I've heard, when the internet wasn't the end all be all of everything interesting and news worthy. Now, who even waits til 10? Information is so readily available and updateable, (that's not a word) that the mystery of a regularly scheduled news programming becomes, almost, not needed? Feel free to totally disagree, I find myself even while writing to disagree with myself. However, it's interesting once I start thinking about how everything is thrown right in your face. You cannot possibly ignore what is going on in our world. Whether it is what latest celebrity train wreck blew through the headlines that day, or a murder mystery in our backyard. As I double click on my Firefox icon, Yahoo! pops up and I am face to face with articles debuting NFL plays and Emmy surprises. The vast array of newsworthy topics almost seems to broaden as the capability and speed of "reporting" grows. Apparently everything has become news.

romance or tv dinner...

Apparently, there aren't so many lonely souls out there spilling their feelings over a gallon of ice cream being comforted by their happily coupled friends. According to pew, all those lonely singles out there need to stop complaining and actually take a shower, take off the sweats and join the fun. But how? Internet dating services? I can't speak for the world, but don't all those cases of crazy people hunting active lookers make you hesitate just a little before clicking the SIGN UP NOW button, or however they do it...? I know a few people who have trusted the internet, released personal information and are not currently being stalked or threatened by some creeper. But the question remains the same...does it work?

I would think it would take some of the fun out of it. Like that feeling when you're out somewhere and you see a cute guy, your eyes meet from across the room, you smile shyly, he coyly winks and starts walking your way, your pulse quickens and you become suddenly aware of every inch of yourself, the outfit you picked out, the way your hair is probably frizzing and smelling like cigarettes, and as he approaches, you fall in love. Oh crap, wait a second, I'm in make believe land. Let's rephrase...this doesn't happen. Instead, you're at that same bar, wearing the same outfit, standing on a floor that must be coated in some kind of super stick glue and some drunk girl pushes by you, spills her beer down the back of your dress, and leaves you feeling utterly annoyed. Not to mention the hottie on the other end can't see through his beer goggles.

So do I blame that vast majority of non lookers? The giver-up-ers of the world? Not so much. I live in a small town where the guys care more about their trucks than they do about anything worthwhile. The local hangout consists of a parking lot that creeps me out, and a bar that we refer to as "the dirt bar." Lucky me. While I admit, I may be taking a long walk down cynical lane, I can't help but wonder if there's anything out there worth waiting around for. Probably, but how? Only 1% of Americans meet on a blind date or through the internet, so what's the point of online dating services? To give people hope? Something to hold onto? Couldn't that be considered as false hope?

Maybe when I find myself having a midlife crisis, single and pissed off, I'll readdress this issue. Or create a profile...