BIG MEDIA DISENGAGEMENT

Besides the fact that the Queen doesn't look nearly as interested as the Obamas, can you guess what is wrong with this picture? It may not be obvious at first, but there is something VERY wrong with it. Give up? The problem is that it has been the dominant news story every since the G-20 summit opened!

For the past two days all I have heard about is Michelle's fashion, meeting the Queen, an apparent non-violation of royal protocol when Michelle got her hands all up in the Queen's business, and similar stories. Oh yes, and there are some pictures and videos of college-aged hooligans marching in support of a total lack of government. Great idea.

But what about what is going on INSIDE the summit? Sure, there is some discussion about this, but if you flip on a TV or look at the front page of most major publications, it is the Queen (didn't we revolt to get rid of this?).

I am not saying don't cover it, but when it becomes the headline for more than a day, and the coverage of this meeting rivals, if not exceeds, the coverage of how the leaders of the world's top 20 economies are going to help get us out of this mess, it is a sad day.

I haven't really done an in depth study as to the level of coverage, so maybe I am off here, but it seems to me that this should be the side item puff piece about how nice it is that our President is suddenly liked by Euro-land and the rest of the world. I also have not looked too deep into the coverage on blogs, but on social media, it is the Queen and Michelle, holding hands or whatever.

I usually talk about new media, and discuss how it might be aiding in a general movement to disengagement, or how it might be helping us to connect more. But forget new media for a minute in deference to my disappointment with old media. Please CNN, NY Times, and the whole lot of you - MOVE ON!

THEY GROW UP SO FAST

I have come across two articles in the past few days on CNN and the NY Times that talk about the problems that both facebook and twitter are having with growing as quickly as they both have.

The NY Times article by Brad Stone discusses facebook's growth in terms of numbers, and in terms of growing pains. It covers the recent controversies with users over advertising and terms of service, and quite aptly speaks about how users are in a unique conundrum: do they stick with the technology that they have learned to love even though they don't like it as much, or do they leqave it, causing a void in their lives that never existed before? It seems that the former is winning out.

It is also interesting when they quote a facebook executive saying facebook is, "not a democracy." I thought that was the underlying philosophy behind all of this new, user-owned media. But apparenty it is "to build an Internet medium for communication," and about the creators and keepers of the site, "we think we have enough perspective to do that and be caretakers of that vision." It is also interesting when Stone covers how facebook is breaking down traditional, sometimes arbitrary boundries, like those between parent and child, and how this may cause said kids to leave when their parents find pictures of them drinking.

The CNN article discusses a more technical aspect of Twitters explosive growth, showing how it is often overloaded with traffic and shuts down. This is a bit more straight forward with the exception of the "early adopters" angle: basically that the early adopters of Twitter are getting annoyed with new users.

It is not lost on me that both articles are published by large, traditional media outlets. Is this an underhanded attempt to chip away at facebook and twitters' collective popularity? Probably not.

It is also interesting to me how both articles cover how these technologies are changing behavior, as that is the topic of the blog. What it does not do, however, is form a value judgement on whether it is for the better or for the worse. I guess that is my job, so here it is (and it is not a new point to be made):

I think both have tremendous potential to help us along in our quest to work better and connect more deeply with our friends and family...as one interviewee in the Twitter piece says, "we are humans, that is what we do." But I am not sure it is great if this is replacing good old face-to-face time (see my post from yesterday). What I found fascinating is at the close of the NY Times article, when one user talks about the new kind of pressure she got from friends when she quit facebook in frustration. Ms. Doherty states, "Everyone has a love-hate relationship with it. They wanted me to be wasting my time on it just like they were wasting their time on it."

Maybe that answers my question.

IS FACE-TO-FACE BEING REPLACED?

In this posting on the NY Time's "Bits," Jenna Wortham explains how facebook helped her make the decision not to attend her college reunion. Why would she? She has connected with all of the people that she wanted to know about, and she doesn't need to pay to go and meet them. Fair enough.

The article goes on to detail how some think facebook could strengthen these bonds and improve attendence because it can make us feel closer to our fellow alumni. I buy Jenna's explanation a bit more. This touches on a significant change that has and still is occurring - the disappearing face-to-face.

My parents used to tell me that video games were no replacement for playing outside, and I think this is the social equivalent of that notion. Facebook may be good to see baby pics and have occaisional chats with these folks, but it is no replacement for seeing how large and in charge the prom queen became, or how that cool athlete wore a purple velvet sport coat to the event (God Kelsey Engel - it made me so happy to see you look so awful) or talking with someone you thought was so smart, only to realize they are...um...not.

No, it is indeed a sad disengagement if facebook puts an end to college and high school reunions. One should really attend these, if only for the triumphant entrance to a party where, in one evening of cocktails, one manages to exorcise the demons of childhood. Of course I don't know Jenna - maybe she has "other" reasons for not going.

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM AND NEW MEDIA

I found a recent article on Real Clear Politics by Cathy Young (of Reason Magazine) on professional journalism vis-a-vis new media good fodder for (DIS)ENGAGED.

Ms. Young makes a wise statement that professional journalists and the profession are both still as important than ever, and that the new media, while a powerful tool of democracy and spreading information, is not a wise substitute. She rightly claims that both do best when acting as a check on, and complement to the other. There is some additional commentary on how Barack Obama was handled with velvet gloves and also that the media is liberal-leaning. She may be right, but that is not what I am interested in here.

The rest of the article (posted on a blog, mind you) goes on to discuss how traditional media might survive in the new media landscape, and business models that might allow these companies to make profits and survive in the face of blogs and the like. I do think this is important.

Ms. Young closes with a judgment that if Americans still respect quality journalism they will pay to keep it alive so long as the media earns that respect. I agree with this in broad terms, but I am not sure that it is entirely true.

I know more people in my hometown in Illinois that think the NY Times is liberal propaganda than those who take it as honest reporting. I see plenty of people here in the big apple who use The NY Post for one-stop news/info shopping. And I have spoken with plenty of folks who seem to put more faith in user-generated commentary disguised as news than they do in that from professional sources.

I was recently in Seattle when the Seattle P.I. folded, and it seems like each day another one bites the dust. It is sad, and scary. While our new media give us new and exciting democratic opportunities, I agree with Ms. Young. We do need to find a way to at least preserve professional journalism, if not the papers.

SAD "STATE" OF AFFAIRS

Given the public figures that too have claimed that they wanted the new President to fail, it was not so much that it surprised me when I read about this, which appears on the blog "Red State," in The Economist. It was that it struck me as a particularly difficult conundrum to confront here on (DIS)ENGAGED. I also felt really dirty just now posting a link to that site and the petition in question.

In one respect, it is definitely engaged, just not for the side that I am on. On the other hand, does engaging people in an effort to cause catastrophic failure count as "moving us forward?" No, I think not. So here in lies the issue. What qualifies as something that aids progress?

I guess to the folks that might sign on to this petition, aiding in the failure of the new administration is moving us forward by taking us back. Huh? To others like myself it just seems counter-productive and a terrible waste of time, effort and broadband. If I had to make a tally in either column, engaged or otherwise, I guess I would call it a wash. In all honesty, I should give them credit since they are promoting something they believe in, but it is my blog and much like Cartman, I do what I want.

So Red State...be happy with the goose egg.

IT A'INT EASY BEING GREEN, BUT IT IS GETTING EASIER

While I have found myself blogging a lot about politics and social networks recently, I wanted to talk about something else that I read which I thought was pretty cool. The fine blogger over at verdantic would probably find this interesting as well.

So while it is not hard to see how communications technology is changing politics and the way we interact with each other, it is not necessarily clear how this technology can help to save the planet. At least not until I read this piece on earth2tech.com.

Here they list their 7 favorite ways that web 2.0 can help save the planet. With everything from online training to reduce fuel-wasting habits of truck drivers, to using social networks for ride sharing, the fine people over at earth2tech help to make us realize that we have more tools to clean up our environment at our disposal than we might otherwise believe.

Engaged? You betcha!!!

IS FACEBOOK THE NEW PARTY BOSS?

At the risk of seeming too mainstream-media effected, I thought that this piece by Professor of History and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, Julian E. Zelizer, raised the very question that (DIS)ENGAGED is meant to explore: are facebook and its net roots cohorts really a new force to be reckoned with in our political discourse?

The good professor doesn't take any sides but does correctly state that, although Barack Obama may have been elected to the White House with a lot of help from the "roots" and facebook, it is not yet clear whether these two new players can really affect legislation or policy. As Zelizer aptly points out, the tools that raised the President so much money during his campaign and ultimately put him into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, was not used as a means to an end during the fight over the recent stimulus bill. As the article ponders, it will be interesting to see if it can be effectively deployed to help with the upcoming budget war, or beyond that into more specific policy areas.

There is a great video from the BBC cited in the article and it is a pretty stinging (if not entertaining), yet painfully accurate, commentary on how many people actually spend their time on facebook:

Though it is unclear how likely it is to happen, Zelizer contends that the new power of citizen-generated policy could supplant the muscular "political machines" of our not-so-distant past. If this Presidency can effectively use web 2.0 to navigate the legislative and political hurdles that loom large on the horizon, we could indeed be witnessing the beginnings of a new political order. It will just take someone savvy enough to pull the networked strings of our culture to get the job done in this potentially newly-engaged world.

LIMEWIRING THE CHOPPER

So I just ran across this little tidbit of a story today about how some clown at a defense contractor apparently set up a file sharing program on a computer where the blueprints and technical specs for Marine One were stored. Brilliant.

So putting the argument about music swapping aside for a moment; come on, you would think that if someone were qualified and savvy enough to work with the specs of a military helicopter, they would understand the implications of having a FILE SHARING program installed on the same computer where those files are stored. Right? Well I guess not.

The files were discovered at an IP address in Iran, which is fabulous, and that is not all. It is also said to be common practice for foreign agencies to monitor these programs because apparently a lot of our no-bid buddies at our military's finest suppliers still don't get that you can't download from a share site to the same computer on which you store national security secrets. Maybe Marine One's plans were not that secret, and maybe it is impossible to do this at the places where our most sensitive information is stored, but this is still disturbing.

Now of course I have to bring it back home to this blog. While I do have some problems with sharing sites, mostly because I think that creative production belongs to those who produce/own it, and it is at their discretion that distribution should be left, this goes above and beyond. It is clear that what would appear to be one of the more benign technologies out their, primarily used for swapping music, can actually pose a significant risk to us all. So in summation, I actually would put a mark in "engaged" column. But I am not happy about it.

TEAM PLAYERS PART DEUX

Last night was probably one of the best nights of homework I had recently: I watched the CNN-facebook State of the Nation event, on facebook, along with scores of other people. It was terrific to blend what I would have been doing otherwise with an obligation for class. And I did learn a few things. First, the positives.

It was pretty exciting and encouraging to see so many people becoming actively engaged in the political discourse of our time. The comments were mixed (see the end for my favorite lines from facebook comments) with those for and those against the President and his proposals. While seeing some more objectivity would have been nice, it was clear most people were tuning in with their opinions already made up. But the fact that so many viewers were able to watch, comment and have their input seen by others around the globe was thrilling. There were people from Korea, Pakistan, Europe, Buenos Aires, Canada and of course the US. I can not think of another way that so many people could share in something, in real time, that effects those very people. Certainly this made me feel that this technology was assisting us in moving forward, at least as far as getting people involved. And not just involved like they think about things sometimes. But involved because they could be part of the discussion, and more importantly, chose this forum to watch the speech precisely because they could engage in the conversation.

However, I would be remiss not to mention that it did seem a lot more like sitting around with either a group of lefty hipsters, or a group of die-hard Cheney fans (depending on the commentator) than it felt like watching "the best political team on television" as CNN claims.

While I agree - Nancy Pelosi looked a bit insane and her dress was truly tragic - I was amazed at how many comments had to do with these and other meaningless parts of the broadcast, and very little to do with the actual substance being covered in the President's address. Some were there to spew, some were there to coo and some were just there to check it out. But the vitriol with which some people engaged, and the blind following of others made me wonder whether this type of interaction was actually helping move the discussion forward. At times it seemed more like helping facebook try to become a mainstream source of information, and assist CNN attract new viewers.

In the end I would put this in the "engaged" column because so many people did sign in to take part in what is ultimately an important moment in the fate of our society. Perhaps to some, simply seeing so many others participating helped to add gravity to the importance of being involved in our nation's trajectory. However, it is clear that mob rule is a real potential dark side to this new media, and that many are not using these tools to move the conversation forward.

And now, for your viewing pleasure, some notable comments from the evening (spelling mistakes and all). If you read to the end you will be rewarded with a good chuckle, I promise:

Michael William Collins asks what each of us facebook users will do for our country.

Jordan Prok Obama's Goal: Making Americans understand the difference between neccessities and luxuries.

Chris Denslow can't wait for the Repug response about how we will tax cut our way out of the recession. I need a good laugh.

Daniel Rollings That was 80 billion for alternative energy in that stimulus bill. Finally money where it really counts.

Benjamin Souza has heard nothing but spending, spending and more spending which equals HUGE debt.

John Matthews There's more oil in the Dakotas than anywhere else on earth. Just let us drill.

Sadiya El-Nubein' facebook is sooo innovative to have this status while watching the Pres. Love it.

Chiara Di Bendetto Brown our entire corrupt government in one room, how sickening.

Shailesh Kumar How will our children repay China for all the money we are going to borrow from them.

Nicole Quick can't believe she just watched the State of the Union on Facebook.

And by far my two most favorite comments:

Chidi Afulezi just saw McCain mutter "If I have to stand again, Joe the Plumber's about to get nasty up in this piece.

Jasmaine Graves thinks Nancy P. wants Obama to take her to "Pleasure Town."

MORNING MORSEL

I have to start out by saying that I don't really drink orange juice. I am more of a grapefruit person. My parents retired to Florida and this new design looks like the local generic brand sold at Publix grocery stores (one on every corner!). Also, this piece seems like fodder for my friend and classmate Jennifer's blog, but I thought I would try to scoop her.

So as I am eating my high fiber bran cereal with banana this morning, my regular news show was covering this story about how Tropicana was switching their carton design back to the old picture of a straw coming right out the orange. I also caught the same story here.

On the outset it seems like nothing special; alright, they went back to their old package...so what? But it is how Pepsi was forced back that is the interesting part. Apparently blogs, chatrooms, fan pages on facebook, and the whole realm of online Tropicana fans went ballistic about the packaging, flooding the internet with complaints. Well, Pepsi was listening and decided to tuck their tail and run back to the straw. Looks like Pepsi understands the Groundswell.

But I want to get back to the topic of this blog. Jennifer can cover the deeper branding implications, but is this really a step forward? On my morning program Linda Kaplan Thaler was on (and I never realized she was so...animated), and her take on the people's revolt was that:

"People can't control the state of the economy, they can't control the housing crisis, but they can control their carton of orange juice. They can go in there, blog about it, write it, and change it. They feel empowered."

OK - maybe - but since when? I have never felt like I can control what companies do with their products. When something changes for the worse, I usually just switch brands or deal with it. But now, people CAN force companies to change. However, I am not convinced that this is moving forward. Is the carton really that important, or have we become so consumerized (is that a word?) that we are getting so caught up in superficial nonsense like our orange juice packaging? It seems to me that if people want to control the economy and the housing crisis, all of the tools they just used to passionately plea for a new picture (or, rather, reverting back to the old design) on the carton of their morning juice could be used to try and sway lawmakers and the powers that be about important things.

Maybe I just don't understand because I don't drink orange juice - it's possible. But I just can't believe that getting Pepsi to change Tropicana's packaging is really engaging people over anything that meaningful. But I do concede that it does demonstrate the power of the new tools consumers and ordinary folks have available.