Like so many others, I first heard about the attack on Rep. Giffords through social media. A friend’s Facebook status read something to the effect of “my thoughts are with those suffering in Arizona.” I must regrettably state that due to the unstable political atmosphere leading up to the midterm elections, especially in Arizona, I glossed over this status update and did not look further into its meaning. This post came early on Jan 8th and as the day continued and the news unfolded it became apparent that a major crisis had occurred.
As I spent the next couple days trying to make sense of the world I was, and am, living in I couldn’t help but think about how social media had an impact on this event. Even though I only follow two political pundits my Twitter feed was ablaze. Two main stories last weekend concerned the alleged YouTube videos created by Jared Loughner and the scrubbing of the now infamous map on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.
The debate that followed this event focused on the use of violent rhetoric among politicians and pundits. As the debate continued it seemed that a majority of it was taking place through social network sites such as Twitter. My RSS reader received about twice as much content as it usually does showing that many people were throwing their positions into the debate. An analysis of the debate from the perspective of the political right can be found by following this link.
Carol Tenopir states in her article, “When anyone can add unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information to a growing array of social networking sites—sites some people rely on for their news or research—we have a dangerous dumbing-down of culture and a world where truth is hard to differentiate from falsehood.” Since I began studying information retrieval last semester I have become increasingly interested in the role social media sites play in information retrieval, as well as how people get their news. Personally, in my own quest for information I have found that I am beginning to become much more passive in how I find information. In stead of actively seeking out news stories or commentary concerning issues I am interested in I wait for them to show up on my Facebook wall, my Twitter feed or in my RSS aggravator.
To combat this passive role of information seeking I have found it beneficial to reevaluate the role and overall effectiveness of Web 2.0 tools. While Tenopir makes a valid observation concerning the overall authenticity of information being moved around the web, Web 2.0 tools have the ability to transform a passive information forum into a more active process. Beer and Burrows stated, “Perhaps the key-defining feature of Web 2.0 is that users are involved in processes of production and consumption as they generate and browse online content, as they tag and blog, post and share.”
If it could be said that cable news invented the 24-hour news cycle then Web 2.0 created the 24-hour opinion cycle. When relating it specifically to the Arizona shooting, the best and worst aspect of Web 2.0 is that every single person has the ability to state an opinion and contribute to the progression of information. Many online newspapers (Seattle Times, Huffington Post, Christian Science Monitor … ) allow their readers to leave comments concerning individual news articles. These forums are spaces where users who would never have contact with each other in real life are given space to debate the major issues mentioned in the articles. Concerning this, and relating it to the Arizona shooting as well, Stephen Randall states, “The Internet is a Petri dish of opinion inflation, breeding commentary like bacteria.”
Beer and Burrows stated concerning Web 2.0, “This…Has led to a new collaborative, participatory or open culture, where anyone can get involved, and everyone has the potential to be seen or heard. According to this vision there are opportunities for our thoughts to get heard.” I wonder if these opportunities encourage open and honest debate or if they are just allowing people to be heard. The question that I must ask is if in all this open space are there opportunities to be heard. I believe that Web 2.0 tools have the potential to create a more informed user but I also question if that potential is being utilized.
An ongoing conversation that is now being examined more then ever after the Arizona shooting concerns the polarization of the United State’s current political landscape. It seems to me that right now, more then ever in my lifetime, people are more Republican or more Democrat. I am curious as to if our online social communities are helping to create this polarization of if they help bridge the gap between these two ideologies. Boyd and Ellison stated, “Most SNSs primarily support pre-existing social relationships … Facebook is used to maintain existing offline relationships or solidify offline connections, as opposed to meeting new people. These relationships may be weak ties, but typically there is some common offline element among individuals who friend one another.” I have found that I typically keep my friend list on Facebook small and that most of them are people I would potentially have face-to-face contact with. Because of this most of my friends on Facebook are people who hold similar positions concerning the defining elements of my worldview. We tend to accumulate friendships with people who hold similar ideologies. With this being said, I do have friends on Facebook who I know hold differing views then me yet there is very little interaction between us. This is not done on purpose due to the differing viewpoints but simply because they are acquaintances. It is the differences in people that have the potential to provide the most growth or to challenge our points of view. I guess to state this differently, I long for stimulating conversation on Facebook however the activity I find feels more like rallying then it does dialoguing.
An interesting observation pointed out by Herring et al is that, “it appears that entries do not continue to collect comments over time, but rather are only commented on while they are new.” Does Facebook promote an ongoing conversation or does it keep us looking for the next feed? I have found that on Facebook there are many interesting status updates I would like to stay involved with but find that over time (one or two days max) these updates tend to deteriorate and the conversation dies. Are there ways to keep a Facebook dialogue current and visible to other users? With all of this being said I do believe that Web 2.0 tools have the potential to aid in our endless quest for information, I just wonder if this space has been usurped by those who endlessly desire to state an opinion, and if so does this new atmosphere of opinion help or take away from the over all effectiveness of Web 2.0 tools.
Websites Linked In This Post:
- http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/10/5808928-palin-staffer-explains-why-site-disappeared
- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47252.html#ixzz1BAPiEth6
- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-randall-opinions-arizona-shooti20110116,0,7894078.story
I found that SNS help me a lot on keep in touch with people that have already friends with me in the real world but now being separate by a distance. As my home country is Indonesia, more than 75% of my friends on Facebook are Indonesian. I use Facebook chat, comment forum, and email to communicate with them. What really help me is the email tool on Facebook, since most of my friends are not likely to use separate email accounts. My experience showed me that if I want my message delivered quickly, I have to post it on their wall on Facebook rather then send them email to their gmail or yahoo mail. They check their Facebook more intents than check their email inbox.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I also gain benefit to maintain international relationship from SNS. I used Mendeley as my bibliography organization. Mendeley allow their member to get connect one another. By having this chance, I can share and get help from other Mendeley members when I need a recommendation for resources that I want to use on writing my paper.
Outstanding link with boyd (she prefers lower case) and Ellison; debate implies a potential change of opinion after being exposed to both sides of an issue, but using social media to maintain existing relationships and express/reinforce existing attitudes seems much more the rule.
ReplyDeleteOn another blog I commented that it seems accuracy is generally less important than novelty, hence the ever-shorter shelf life of information you mention. The vibrancy of having semi-immediate interaction with thousands of people around events that may have occurred only hours earlier is an attraction and even a rush, but indeed, who checks old posts and feeds?
"I have found that I am beginning to become much more passive in how I find information."
ReplyDelete"If it could be said that cable news invented the 24-hour news cycle then Web 2.0 created the 24-hour opinion cycle. "
"We tend to accumulate friendships with people who hold similar ideologies. With this being said, I do have friends on Facebook who I know hold differing views then me yet there is very little interaction between us."
"I would like to stay involved with but find that over time (one or two days max) these updates tend to deteriorate and the conversation dies"
Thank you for your insightful post on my blog.
I totally get the early email thing -- I was queen_mern@yahoo.com. Funny how things change. And no need to apologize about getting off track, most days I don't even know where the track is.
I agree with you about people being more willing to use their real names, even when arguing and degrading each other on sites like Facebook. It is more than just willingness, it sometimes seem like people want others to know who they are, like they are empowered by publicly putting people down. This goes back to the rampant lack of civility these days.
I like this quote in your blog: "Concerning this, and relating it to the Arizona shooting as well,Stephen Randall states, 'The Internet is a Petri dish of opinion inflation, breeding commentary like bacteria.'"
If I may, I would like to take the metaphor of bacteria even further. This bacteria that infects our culture presents itself as the disease of incivility. Just as in actual physical illness, there are super strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, I fear the incivility online has very few antibiotics to keep it in check. Maybe people like Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert, with their mission to restore sanity, are the penicillin of our times.
You also mention the polarizing effect of our two party political system. I think that is just another contributor to incivility. There is less and less middle ground to stand on. And heaven forbid, if one does choose to be a moderate, they are accused of being wishy-washy. It's is either the Tea Party or bleeding heart (quasi-socialist) liberal. What happened to the Clinton democrats, or Reagan republicans?
See - I am way off track too....
Opps - I didn't edit the stuff on top, sorry. I cut and paste things I wanted to comment on from your blog, then my response got long, so I decided not to touch on those quotes. It should start from "Thank you..."
ReplyDeletesorry
Aside from finding your post insightful, I also enjoyed reading mernie's comments. Yes, great question. Where is the track anyway?
ReplyDeleteGoing to Phillip's post, as you went through your Twitter and RSS feed for news update, I was just following Facebook updates and personalized Google News site. My Twitter is not as well developed and handled as my Facebook.
Following the major headline from Google News site was quite misleading at first because I remember the headline was about a congresswomen shot to death. Yikes, I knew a tragedy was unfolding. After not checking my computer over night (I think, dont really remember), I checked my google news again only to read that actually Rep. Gifford was badly injured, not dead. Good to know. Even better to know that she has progress quite miraculously these past few days and on the path to recovery.
Anyway, here is a major example of immediacy trumping fact checking and to borrow Stephen Colbert's term,'truthiness' in the era of 24/7 news cycle on the Internet and cable news channel, also everything else in between that might not be as legitimate as the first two [the cult of amateurs].
Thank you for sharing your experience of using social media and talking about the role of web 2.0 tools. Because I have never used Twitter or Facebook before, I did this assignment from a theoretical approach and your post helped me get a sense of how social media users react, respond, and express opinions freely in real life.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also interesting to read the political debates about this incident. I think one of the reasons that online social communities increase the polarization of the United State’s different political sides is that with the anonymity of the web, people have a tendency to take little or no responsibility when expressing their opinions online, compared to an offline or face-to-face setting.
Song, I complete agree concerning political debate. Online rhetoric tends to be stronger then face-to-face conversations. Also, in an online setting there is an ability to say something then hide and also more time to think about what you are wanting to say before you say anything. Interesting thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI like your point about online rhetoric being stronger than face-to-face conversations. Maybe without the visual/aural cues that are a part of real life interactions, some individuals don't know how to appropriately gauge how strongly they should react to a conversation. I do notice a lot of 'hiding', but I don't think people that use heated rhetoric in their online conversations take much time to think about they want to say; which may be part of the problem. Anyway, great first post!
ReplyDelete