I am turning into a passive information receiver as well. If I can use it immediately I will or discard it quickly. The only topics I research on the net pertain to health related ailments and stress. However, I did read a short article this week outside that realm on the evils of blogging. After working in public education I am very disappointed with the direction it is going. I knew something was wrong when the librarian said I was one of the few teachers who still asked to reserve the library. She said that students were no longer required to write research papers in many of the core subjects(not including math).
As for as Google is concerned I do have to hop off the fence here and take a stand for once. I have to come to the conclusion that it is making a portion of our population think less or never get to the point of thinking deeply. I tell my students off the bat that they will not be using Google for their research. All supporting material for their speeches must come from one of the data bases that our school pays for. Then at the very end of the course when they've mastered how to properly write a speech I may let them get away with using google. This is in effort to deter the more than half that plagiarize their work. Of course, now-a-days you cannot take for granted that they learned that word in their high school english class and have to stop and read the definition of plagiarism. I hate doing that. Then there are some who refuse to do assignments if they cannot google their information.
I do understand from the article that technology doesn't dumb down everyone. I love the example of how the invention of the scientific calculator did not discourage engineers from learning penciled math. However, the internet does not always have a positive relationship with all subjects such as english. I've seen one of my ex students in the university bookstore and she was one of the few that I knew would do well in this environment since she never wrote using acronyms. I'm sure for many other Googlers english 1301 must be a wake up call.
So yes the portion of our population that is thinking less would have to be our young people. When young people turn in major research papers not seeing a problem with writing in acronyms one has to think that their thinking is horribly distorted. Whether it be in speech class or english class all students should exercise proper grammar. Sentences still start with a capital letter the last time I read Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. (Yes, I know it is time for me to reread the book as well!) However, instant messaging, twittering, blogging, and e-mails are often written in some form or short hand with little regard for grammar. Search engines still do a lot of student's work making plagiarizing seem inviting. I wonder if there is a published study on which age groups have more success using Google ethically?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
"google or whole internet?"
Yes, I am not a deep reader/thinker.. but
After listening to NPR's nicholas Carr interview, I agreed that our brains are so "media-adaptable." I guess same things happened when TV was first introduced?
I was also googling to write about this topic, and a British librarians conducted a research about "google generation." Of course I couldn't read the whole report, but I feel like the more information is available, the more likely I become a passive information receiver. (Am I the only one who feel that way?)
After listening to NPR's nicholas Carr interview, I agreed that our brains are so "media-adaptable." I guess same things happened when TV was first introduced?
I was also googling to write about this topic, and a British librarians conducted a research about "google generation." Of course I couldn't read the whole report, but I feel like the more information is available, the more likely I become a passive information receiver. (Am I the only one who feel that way?)
Technology
"Technology is radically changing the notion of the intelligence necessary to function on the modern world" . I agree with this quote in that if you do not keep up with or embrace technology you will not be able to function in the modern world because new technology is what is being used and whether you choose to like it or not, or if you choose to learn it or not, it could adversely affect your career opportunities and maybe even your life. I think that the fear of change is what makes people so resistant to it. My marketing professor constantly emphasizes that when we aren't changing and growing we are either decaying or staying the same, and of course the best option is to grow. He also stresses that the best kind of change, that people are most open to is gradual change. With radical change many people are overwhelmed and less likely to come around and embrace the new technology because it is to much for them to digest. Unfortunately with technology there is no way to completely ease into it.
An article I read on GPS was a good example of this. The article was entitled "Will GPS make us dumb?" The article explores the question will the price we pay for the convenience of GPS cause us to lose our sense of direction? A quote in the article says "when we develop a crutch for technology, we lose the ability to do that which we did previously". I disagree with this quote in that I have never had a sense of directions and through using GPS and map quest three to four times per week for my job, my sense of direction has improved tremendously. I now remember ways I have gone previously and can avoid getting lost. The same is true for me and spell check. Using spell check has not caused me to forget how to spell, I just feel that it double checks me so that I have the best final product possible.
In the original article " Is Google making us stupid?" the article states how one man feels that the Internet has altered his mental habits, " I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print". I do not feel the same way, I feel that I still have the ability to read long works and see value in the full text. However, I find it very convenient to look at many different sources online to seek out different opinions on different topics to make sure that I am hearing the full story and not just reading something that is one-sided. So overall I agree with the article and I think that Google has indeed made it easier to think and communicate and hasn't caused us to lose basic skills like reading a map or spelling. It has only freed up our time to discover new ideas and ways of doing things. We just need to use our newly found "free time" efficiently to learn more and enhance ourselves and our society.
Beneficial Technology
When I first started reading the article “Technology Doesn’t Dumb Us Down. It Frees Our Minds.”, I was thrown off by the notion that Carr believes that Google is making us stupid. I, for one, embrace the fact that new technologies have helped make our lives better and is continuously doing so. Day to day life without basic technologies would be much more complicated, in my opinion. It is how we use these technologies to our advantage and not let it take over our lives. This article I found talks about how we can use technology to our benefit. :
This means we need to start using technology and computers rather than letting it use us. We can use technology to update many of our sociological requirements, politics, education, profession and family organization, and perhaps we do not look at doing this because it requires external evolution of the machine, sociological changes allowing new uses which are not naturally evolved, which we force upon our preconception of technology.
An example of this is something as simple as learning how to tie a tie is available to anyone with Internet access. We must embrace this wave of technology and use it for useful purposes. Computers do not “flatten our intelligence”. After Hurricane Ike, I was hooked onto the Houston Chronicle website. With the hourly updates, I felt more informed of what was happening. With Internet access, the world is at our fingertips. Who hasn’t “googled” something when they didn’t know much about particular topic. There is a plethora of information out there on the Internet for our taking. It is the person behind the computer who decides what they want to delve into. We must use it to our advantage. With the tons of information out there we should be thankful. With the release of more technologically advanced cell phones with Internet access and big screen, the possibilities are endless. Technology is ours for the taking.
This means we need to start using technology and computers rather than letting it use us. We can use technology to update many of our sociological requirements, politics, education, profession and family organization, and perhaps we do not look at doing this because it requires external evolution of the machine, sociological changes allowing new uses which are not naturally evolved, which we force upon our preconception of technology.
An example of this is something as simple as learning how to tie a tie is available to anyone with Internet access. We must embrace this wave of technology and use it for useful purposes. Computers do not “flatten our intelligence”. After Hurricane Ike, I was hooked onto the Houston Chronicle website. With the hourly updates, I felt more informed of what was happening. With Internet access, the world is at our fingertips. Who hasn’t “googled” something when they didn’t know much about particular topic. There is a plethora of information out there on the Internet for our taking. It is the person behind the computer who decides what they want to delve into. We must use it to our advantage. With the tons of information out there we should be thankful. With the release of more technologically advanced cell phones with Internet access and big screen, the possibilities are endless. Technology is ours for the taking.
How do you use technology?
Is Google dumbing us Down? or does it free our minds? I think it all depends on how you use Google. Do you use to see what comes up when you type in your name on a daily basis? Do you use it to search for a phone number to order pizza? Do you use it to find the news for the day? Do you use it to search for a scholarly article for a research paper? The way you choose to use technology will prove whether it is making you stupid or simply enhancing your human capabilities. Every new technology comes with its advantages and disadvantages. Television was once known as a vast wasteland, numbing our minds as we watched for pure entertainment. Although it is known that while watching television, you only use a small part of your brain, television brings us information quickly in a highly visual fashion and can be advantageous. If your watching the news, PBS, or the Discovery channel, you could actually be learning alot. Video games can be seen as a menace to society, dumbing down children, teenagers, as well as adults to violent. If you play video games for hours a day, it might be making you dumber or at least taking time away from your day. But some video games can actually enhance your hand eye coordination and activate parts of your brain that other technologies cannot reach. GPS Systems and Google Maps might hinder some peoples sence of direction, they can help us to go places we've never gone before both virtually and in reality. Cell phones have been seen as taking away from our face to face contact, but they also help us keep in touch with so many more people with built in address books and speed dials. Which brings me to another controversial technology that can be both a time waster and an intelligence enhancer: Facebook. Social media, if you let it, can waste so much of your time when browsing through people's pages for no reason. However, Facebook and other social media can prove to be quite functional. If you use it to find an email address or a phone number of a colleague it can be beneficial. Today I used it to find out my friend's girlfriends name to avoid that awkward question, "What was your name again?" You can also learn alot of other things about people without actually asking them. All of these technologies and many more have been criticized, so it is definitely not a new concept that technology, like Google, can be seen as making us dumber.
Most new technology makes things more simple and gives us more time to do other things, but some technology when used the wrong way can definitely be a time waster. Coming from an optimist, I think that most technology, when used correctly, will help rather than hinder your intelligence. Yes, calculators do make it easier for us to quickly calculate simple mathematical equations, but Brain Age on the Nintendo DS encourages you to do simple math in your head to activate your pre-frontal cortex. Not all technology is bad for your brain. If you are using technology responsibly you will find that it will enhance your intelligence. If technology is in fact making you stupider, that is your own fault.
My advice: Don't use technology as a crutch, use it to your advantage. Save time. Learn More.
Most new technology makes things more simple and gives us more time to do other things, but some technology when used the wrong way can definitely be a time waster. Coming from an optimist, I think that most technology, when used correctly, will help rather than hinder your intelligence. Yes, calculators do make it easier for us to quickly calculate simple mathematical equations, but Brain Age on the Nintendo DS encourages you to do simple math in your head to activate your pre-frontal cortex. Not all technology is bad for your brain. If you are using technology responsibly you will find that it will enhance your intelligence. If technology is in fact making you stupider, that is your own fault.
My advice: Don't use technology as a crutch, use it to your advantage. Save time. Learn More.
I'm dense for being tech-saavy?
In his article, "Technology doesn’t dumb us down. It frees our minds," Damon Darlin references a curious title from an article that published in The Atlantic . . . When I first read it, “Is Google making us stupid?,” I giggled. I mean, really, how preposterous is that statement?! Google makes us stupid?! But, the more I thought about it, the more conflicted I felt. Call me a fence-sitter but I needed more convincing to make a final determination about whether or not the internet is sapping the brains right out of my head.
First, I checked out the original article in The Atlantic, written by Nicholas Carr. But, his argument was really one of uncertainty, too. It didn’t help me decide one way or the other.
So, I re-read Darlin’s article. His statement, “for all the new technologies that increase our productivity, there are others that demand more of our time,” sums up my initial reactions to what he was saying quite nicely. For me, Google, like the internet itself, is a Pandora’s box of information for anyone who seeks it. What has the potential to save us time also begs us to spend more of it online! With a few key-strokes and mouse-clicks, tons of information becomes available almost immediately. That being said, research time is greatly decreased because so much is available so quickly. And that sure beats taking the time to actually drive to a library and pull the information by hand any day of the week! However, with so much information available so quickly and effortlessly, does that not also encourage an information-seeker to spend more time sorting through all the different sources that pop-up onscreen to make sure he or she has the best available? That’s where I get stuck. There’s just so much information and I want to read it all! And, the more I read, the more I empathize with Socrates when he said, “I know that I know nothing.”
World: have your say, the daily blog “where users set the agenda,” posed a similar question on August 15 with the topic “Is the internet making us stupid?” The original post suggested that, perhaps, the internet reshapes our neural networks and causes us to lose the ability to think and reason as clearly. Sixty-four respondents shared their opinions, and the majority of them felt the internet is beneficial, a God-send, even. But a few brought up disadvantageous aspects like internet lingo and its affects on children’s grammar.
Others like Nobel laureate Doris Lessing have a much more sinister impression of the internet, its relevance, and how it affects users. Lessing simply states that technology is causing a fragmenting culture, and implies that this fragmenting culture is full of self-absorbed individuals who rely too heavily on irrelevance when they should be focused on libraries, books, and tradition. Did I mention she’s 88?
Whether in agreement or not regarding the "dumbing effect" of Google and technology, I know we all have our vices and I openly admit that I’m a total media freak. A new social network? BRING IT ON!! Twitter? COUNT ME IN! I’d much rather surf through the information available at my fingertips than watch CNN or listen to NPR. Does that make me less productive than others? Not in my book. If my day isn't total chaos, then I just can't function at full capacity. Internet time for me is my daily filler. Does that make me self-absorbed and irrelevant, as Lessing suggests? Maybe . . .
I also admit that, some days, I just can’t help but check all my accounts dozens of times. But, for all those days of excess, I make sure to spend a few days tech-free . . . does it make a difference that I secretly tell myself I’m not an addict? Zoiks! Probably not.
But here’s what I’ve finally decided: Google doesn’t make us stupid, nor does the internet. We make ourselves stupid! Google simply has the ability to help or hinder us in the process. To what degree is up to each of us.
Post script: I got a spam message just yesterday inviting me to join an Adult social-networking site. Guess they’re already here! And, no, I did not open the message to get details to share with you . . . you never know what might be hiding in there! But, should you be curious enough to peep, let me know and I'll forward the unopened message to you for further exploration!
First, I checked out the original article in The Atlantic, written by Nicholas Carr. But, his argument was really one of uncertainty, too. It didn’t help me decide one way or the other.
So, I re-read Darlin’s article. His statement, “for all the new technologies that increase our productivity, there are others that demand more of our time,” sums up my initial reactions to what he was saying quite nicely. For me, Google, like the internet itself, is a Pandora’s box of information for anyone who seeks it. What has the potential to save us time also begs us to spend more of it online! With a few key-strokes and mouse-clicks, tons of information becomes available almost immediately. That being said, research time is greatly decreased because so much is available so quickly. And that sure beats taking the time to actually drive to a library and pull the information by hand any day of the week! However, with so much information available so quickly and effortlessly, does that not also encourage an information-seeker to spend more time sorting through all the different sources that pop-up onscreen to make sure he or she has the best available? That’s where I get stuck. There’s just so much information and I want to read it all! And, the more I read, the more I empathize with Socrates when he said, “I know that I know nothing.”
World: have your say, the daily blog “where users set the agenda,” posed a similar question on August 15 with the topic “Is the internet making us stupid?” The original post suggested that, perhaps, the internet reshapes our neural networks and causes us to lose the ability to think and reason as clearly. Sixty-four respondents shared their opinions, and the majority of them felt the internet is beneficial, a God-send, even. But a few brought up disadvantageous aspects like internet lingo and its affects on children’s grammar.
Others like Nobel laureate Doris Lessing have a much more sinister impression of the internet, its relevance, and how it affects users. Lessing simply states that technology is causing a fragmenting culture, and implies that this fragmenting culture is full of self-absorbed individuals who rely too heavily on irrelevance when they should be focused on libraries, books, and tradition. Did I mention she’s 88?
Whether in agreement or not regarding the "dumbing effect" of Google and technology, I know we all have our vices and I openly admit that I’m a total media freak. A new social network? BRING IT ON!! Twitter? COUNT ME IN! I’d much rather surf through the information available at my fingertips than watch CNN or listen to NPR. Does that make me less productive than others? Not in my book. If my day isn't total chaos, then I just can't function at full capacity. Internet time for me is my daily filler. Does that make me self-absorbed and irrelevant, as Lessing suggests? Maybe . . .
I also admit that, some days, I just can’t help but check all my accounts dozens of times. But, for all those days of excess, I make sure to spend a few days tech-free . . . does it make a difference that I secretly tell myself I’m not an addict? Zoiks! Probably not.
But here’s what I’ve finally decided: Google doesn’t make us stupid, nor does the internet. We make ourselves stupid! Google simply has the ability to help or hinder us in the process. To what degree is up to each of us.
Post script: I got a spam message just yesterday inviting me to join an Adult social-networking site. Guess they’re already here! And, no, I did not open the message to get details to share with you . . . you never know what might be hiding in there! But, should you be curious enough to peep, let me know and I'll forward the unopened message to you for further exploration!
Technology encourages learning...
If we were specifically talking about social networking sites, I may have to agree that they have the potential to “dumb us down” only because I think that there are a lot of young people (and even adults) who spend entirely too much time with these social networks. However, I have found that aside from social networking sites, technology is freaking awesome. We are able to stay connected with friends from all over the world, while at the same time maintaining relationships with those that are down the street without leaving the comfort of our living rooms. We no longer have to lug those big Yellow books around to get the number to our favorite restaurant and we can use a search engine instead of checking out 5 different books for one topic. I am particularly fond of the fact that I can send an email instead of picking up the telephone (sometimes you just don’t want to talk).Wired Magazine has an essay written by Tom Harford that talks about Email and its benefits (WIRED ), he argues that email “encourages more face-to-face contact”, while making it “easier to reach colleagues”.
I would argue that the technology is making knowledge more readily available and we are actually getting smarter. How often do you have a conversation with someone and you don’t understand something or you want to know more about it, probably quite often. In the past most of us would have said oh well (because we didn’t want to go to the library) but now we can “Google it” and get a million answers to one question. We are more actively engaged and interested in learning because of all of the tools that are available to us. I think that one of the best benefits of technology is that education is available where ever there is an Internet connection. Soldiers are now able to attend college online while they are serving their country, it’s not only a way for them to get their minds off what is going on around them, but they are bettering themselves! Technology has simply improved our way of living and made it easier for us to access information. Let's be honest, how many of us really checked out books!
On another note...This past weekend I took a trip to Atlanta to see some friends and I was greeted by the gas crisis. Its been on CNN for weeks, but I guess you really don't understand unless you experience it. We live in America and there are people in Atlanta without gas, filling up their luxury cars with regular (only when they can find it), cop cars are stranded on the side of the road and people are calling 911 because they don't know what else to do. Saturday night we spent a little over an hour trying to find gas and when we did find it we waited in line for an hour just to be told we can only get $20. I have never in my life been witness to an elderly woman cussing out a man in a big truck because she believed he was going to cut her in line! This is a real issue, people are literally fighting over gas and there are police officers at the stations just to keep the peace. I guess I'm so in shock about it because we live in America. I tried to take a picture with my phone but unfortunately it's not that great because there were so many lights, but you can get the idea.
I would argue that the technology is making knowledge more readily available and we are actually getting smarter. How often do you have a conversation with someone and you don’t understand something or you want to know more about it, probably quite often. In the past most of us would have said oh well (because we didn’t want to go to the library) but now we can “Google it” and get a million answers to one question. We are more actively engaged and interested in learning because of all of the tools that are available to us. I think that one of the best benefits of technology is that education is available where ever there is an Internet connection. Soldiers are now able to attend college online while they are serving their country, it’s not only a way for them to get their minds off what is going on around them, but they are bettering themselves! Technology has simply improved our way of living and made it easier for us to access information. Let's be honest, how many of us really checked out books!
On another note...This past weekend I took a trip to Atlanta to see some friends and I was greeted by the gas crisis. Its been on CNN for weeks, but I guess you really don't understand unless you experience it. We live in America and there are people in Atlanta without gas, filling up their luxury cars with regular (only when they can find it), cop cars are stranded on the side of the road and people are calling 911 because they don't know what else to do. Saturday night we spent a little over an hour trying to find gas and when we did find it we waited in line for an hour just to be told we can only get $20. I have never in my life been witness to an elderly woman cussing out a man in a big truck because she believed he was going to cut her in line! This is a real issue, people are literally fighting over gas and there are police officers at the stations just to keep the peace. I guess I'm so in shock about it because we live in America. I tried to take a picture with my phone but unfortunately it's not that great because there were so many lights, but you can get the idea.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Look who was on Colbert
Just caught up with my DVR, was a little tied up this weekend. Look who Colbert had as a guest on Thursday night. It's Nicholas Carr, who wrote the book/article that inspired the article by Damon Darlin that you were to comment on:
Stoopid is as stoopid does
I can't, necessarily, buy into the fact Google or any other medium is making us dumber. But the concept is an interesting debate nontheless, yes it's one word, just Google it to see. I liked Darlin take on what passed media sources have done to our collective thought processes. Socrates feared the impact of writing would eliminate man's ability to think. Every new medium that has come along has had it early adaptors and those that believed it would be th eend of life as we know it. There's a reason why only the rich and powerful were able to read and printed bibles used to be chained to the churches. Google it, I'm sure it's true. Information is powerful.
Some technology, not so much. During Hurricane Ike I scanned through the cable channels for a quick update on what was going on. The reporters had positioned themselves in front of a building with an awning, the reporter was making a huge deal how during the course of their stay there the awning had been ripped to shreds and even took a few minutes to allow veiwers at home to watch the torn awning blow in the wind. The need for these networks to get tyhe scoop and be there live has made all of us a bit less smart. But just think if I were able to get that information Twittered to me, I'm sure my life would have changed significantly.
I agree with Darlin about the age we are living in, a knowledge-based society. I not sure watching an awning blow in the wind due to the effects of a hurricane is knowledge. Certainly not knowledge that wouldn't have already been obvious to even the dumbest Googler. Attention is a valued commodity, but when you show me awnings blowing in the wind my attetion and eyeballs are going somewhere else, probably Nick@Nite. But just like any other medium throughout human time writing, printing, computing and Googling make life easier to think and communicate.
I will leave you with an example of how technology has made at least one person dumber.
Some technology, not so much. During Hurricane Ike I scanned through the cable channels for a quick update on what was going on. The reporters had positioned themselves in front of a building with an awning, the reporter was making a huge deal how during the course of their stay there the awning had been ripped to shreds and even took a few minutes to allow veiwers at home to watch the torn awning blow in the wind. The need for these networks to get tyhe scoop and be there live has made all of us a bit less smart. But just think if I were able to get that information Twittered to me, I'm sure my life would have changed significantly.
I agree with Darlin about the age we are living in, a knowledge-based society. I not sure watching an awning blow in the wind due to the effects of a hurricane is knowledge. Certainly not knowledge that wouldn't have already been obvious to even the dumbest Googler. Attention is a valued commodity, but when you show me awnings blowing in the wind my attetion and eyeballs are going somewhere else, probably Nick@Nite. But just like any other medium throughout human time writing, printing, computing and Googling make life easier to think and communicate.
I will leave you with an example of how technology has made at least one person dumber.
"Where can we guess this technology will lead, and if we get there, what should we do?"
Anything new with questionably unfathomable uses is going to scare people. With technology we are constantly surprised by innovations building upon each other and creating things that frequently blow our minds. Embracing these new technologies and seeing them for the tools that they are is an important aspect to evolving along with our tech-centered culture. Things come along that are new and powerful that scare certain people every year, but these new things quickly revolutionize whatever industry they pertain to and make us forget all about whatever antiquated technologies we once used (remember the introduction of the iphone?).
The article mentions Socrates and his fears about the future of writing, this is understandable when thinking about the time and how this “new” technology had the ability to change everyone’s life. It is even documented that Socrates himself never wrote down any one of his thoughts and lectures, his apprentice Plato took the task of chronicling his teacher’s voice through writing. Jesus and Buddha also never wrote down anything, but is life not more interesting because their followers did?
The example of writing may be an outdated one but there have always been fears of new technological advances that promise to make our life easier by accepting and building upon their proposed change. I have gathered in my life that there will always be a set of people that are generally resistant to change and will find any way possible to not embrace it. Whether it is blackberry phones, wifi connected laptops, or iPods; some people will hold out as long as they can before they “need” to buy or learn to use one.
The Forbes article “Technologies That Hurt Us” includes an interview with David Friedman, author of Future Imperfect: Technology And Freedom In An Uncertain World. Friedman states that areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology may create real dilemmas that end up harming humans. Friedman makes sure to include that stopping the technological progress is not possible as the benefits are far too great. The author offers a set of questions to deal with the new technologies- "Where can we guess this technology will lead, and if we get there, what should we do?" These questions may not suggest much help on the situation at hand, but it gives us an interesting set of questions to ask when presented with new technologies that have the ability to change the world.
The Southern Illinois University online newspaper had an interesting article on the pros and cons of technology. The article includes a professor saying that soon there will be a generation of people that did not know that birds chirp because they constantly have headphones in their ears. This is of course a pessimistic example of the situation but the article concludes with the lesson of moderation.
The question of how relevant the moderation lesson currently is can be argued when our society is quickly becoming reliant on technologies that help make life easier. Perhaps moderation is not the key, just a conscience mind of behalf of the user understanding that the technology may not always be so reliable. We are going to use things that make life easier; it is our new human nature, and relying on such things is nothing new (people move to the suburbs because cars have the ability to take them where they need to go, fax and email make work communication more efficient, the printing press made literacy and communication explode).
Technology is going to evolve, people can decide to evolve with it or be left behind. Some may feel that we are becoming too comfortable and reliant on new technology, but it was created to help and help it will. You can find problems with anything and new technologies keeping us from "experiencing" certain things is just part of life. I don't experience the "joy" of walking to the post office because I can email something much easier. This frees time up and allows me to accomplish more in my day, ergo the technology is making my life easier and giving me more time to do what I want to do. Is it bad that I have more time to play soccer or jog because I chose to use technology instead of wasting more time on an outdated practice? You be the judge but the answer seems clear to me.
Here is a video showing what can happen if we don't crack down on new technological advances, most importantly robots.
The article mentions Socrates and his fears about the future of writing, this is understandable when thinking about the time and how this “new” technology had the ability to change everyone’s life. It is even documented that Socrates himself never wrote down any one of his thoughts and lectures, his apprentice Plato took the task of chronicling his teacher’s voice through writing. Jesus and Buddha also never wrote down anything, but is life not more interesting because their followers did?
The example of writing may be an outdated one but there have always been fears of new technological advances that promise to make our life easier by accepting and building upon their proposed change. I have gathered in my life that there will always be a set of people that are generally resistant to change and will find any way possible to not embrace it. Whether it is blackberry phones, wifi connected laptops, or iPods; some people will hold out as long as they can before they “need” to buy or learn to use one.
The Forbes article “Technologies That Hurt Us” includes an interview with David Friedman, author of Future Imperfect: Technology And Freedom In An Uncertain World. Friedman states that areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology may create real dilemmas that end up harming humans. Friedman makes sure to include that stopping the technological progress is not possible as the benefits are far too great. The author offers a set of questions to deal with the new technologies- "Where can we guess this technology will lead, and if we get there, what should we do?" These questions may not suggest much help on the situation at hand, but it gives us an interesting set of questions to ask when presented with new technologies that have the ability to change the world.
The Southern Illinois University online newspaper had an interesting article on the pros and cons of technology. The article includes a professor saying that soon there will be a generation of people that did not know that birds chirp because they constantly have headphones in their ears. This is of course a pessimistic example of the situation but the article concludes with the lesson of moderation.
The question of how relevant the moderation lesson currently is can be argued when our society is quickly becoming reliant on technologies that help make life easier. Perhaps moderation is not the key, just a conscience mind of behalf of the user understanding that the technology may not always be so reliable. We are going to use things that make life easier; it is our new human nature, and relying on such things is nothing new (people move to the suburbs because cars have the ability to take them where they need to go, fax and email make work communication more efficient, the printing press made literacy and communication explode).
Technology is going to evolve, people can decide to evolve with it or be left behind. Some may feel that we are becoming too comfortable and reliant on new technology, but it was created to help and help it will. You can find problems with anything and new technologies keeping us from "experiencing" certain things is just part of life. I don't experience the "joy" of walking to the post office because I can email something much easier. This frees time up and allows me to accomplish more in my day, ergo the technology is making my life easier and giving me more time to do what I want to do. Is it bad that I have more time to play soccer or jog because I chose to use technology instead of wasting more time on an outdated practice? You be the judge but the answer seems clear to me.
Here is a video showing what can happen if we don't crack down on new technological advances, most importantly robots.
The Internet Makes Us Smarter. Or Does It?
I think the Internet has the potential to make us smarter. I think it just depends on how we use it. I noticed that Carina said she is learning Japanese. She went on to say "I can increase my knowledge even further by going online and obtaining online lessons to speakers in Japan all via the Internet." All the information we need is at our fingertips thanks, in part, to technology. In doing research for this post, I came across a few articles that discusses this issue. The first is from The New York Times. The article recounts an interaction between a professor and student at Roanoke college. The professor smashed the students cell phone because it rang in class. Samuel Freedman, who wrote the article, praised the professor for doing this. He goes on to say:
Another article from The Guardian discusses how it's not the Internet making people stupid, it's the screens. He mentions the Carr article and basically says that it's human nature to be distracted.
"Humans, too, will flit around, given the chance, just in case we find something that's fabulously useful to us."
He then discusses how it's the computer screens (size and resolution) along with the temptation to check email, that account for a slowdown in the speed at which we read. He says that computer screens don't offer the same quality as reading from paper. I think he has a valid point. Computer screens can cause eye fatigue and you can get distracted...very easily. He ends his article by saying:
"You know now that the internet isn't making us stupid; it's just making us read slower. Go on, go and check your email. You've earned it."
The third article I looked at is called The Interet is Making Us Stupid. The writer spoke with the author of Republic 2.0, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein states that the Internet makes it easier for us to gain information but it also allows us to avoid information we don't like. For example, I could look up all the information I wanted to about liberal issues and not look at the conservative view point. Basically, we are in an echo chamber. While I do think that there are some people who do this, there are others who do want both perspectives. The article mentions how conservatives flock to Fox News while liberals gravitate toward NPR. It's not just the Internet where things like this happen.
This is the final article I read: Stoooooooopid....why the Google Generation isn't as smart as it thinks. The article's author, Bryan Appleyard, says basically the same thing as the article from The Guardian -- that we've become too easily distracted. He says we're too easily distracted, doing too many things at once and it's slowly killing us. Appleyard says we skim but don't absorb. That may be true for some people. But I still think the Internet and technology offer ways of accessing information that we didn't have before. We can learn more about different things. And choose what we learn about in depth. As one of the earlier articles stated, we are, by nature, easily distractable anyway. The computer/internet didn't make us this way.
In conclusion, I don't think that technology or the internet is dumbing us down. I think it allows us to have access to more information, faster. I had to post the following video -- I just couldn't resist!
At age 55, Professor Nazemi stands on the far shore of a new sort of generational divide between teacher and student. This one separates those who want to use technology to grow smarter from those who want to use it to get dumber.
Perhaps there’s a nicer way to put it. “The baby boomers seem to see technology as information and communication,” said Prof. Michael Bugeja, director of the journalism school at Iowa State University and the author of “Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age.” “Their offspring and the emerging generation seem to see the same devices as entertainment and socializing.”
I don't agree with Bugeja or Freedman. According to this, I am of the generation that wants to use technology for socializing and entertainment. I see technology and as something I can learn from. Don't get me wrong, I do like to log into Facebook or watch videos on Youtube. And, I think many of my peers feel the same way. The article also discusses computers in the classroom. Bugeja is opposed to the idea and essentially says that students who are online during class are not engaging in critical thinking skills. I don't think that's the case at all. How does he know that the students aren't researching some of his talking points?Another article from The Guardian discusses how it's not the Internet making people stupid, it's the screens. He mentions the Carr article and basically says that it's human nature to be distracted.
"Humans, too, will flit around, given the chance, just in case we find something that's fabulously useful to us."
He then discusses how it's the computer screens (size and resolution) along with the temptation to check email, that account for a slowdown in the speed at which we read. He says that computer screens don't offer the same quality as reading from paper. I think he has a valid point. Computer screens can cause eye fatigue and you can get distracted...very easily. He ends his article by saying:
"You know now that the internet isn't making us stupid; it's just making us read slower. Go on, go and check your email. You've earned it."
The third article I looked at is called The Interet is Making Us Stupid. The writer spoke with the author of Republic 2.0, Cass Sunstein. Sunstein states that the Internet makes it easier for us to gain information but it also allows us to avoid information we don't like. For example, I could look up all the information I wanted to about liberal issues and not look at the conservative view point. Basically, we are in an echo chamber. While I do think that there are some people who do this, there are others who do want both perspectives. The article mentions how conservatives flock to Fox News while liberals gravitate toward NPR. It's not just the Internet where things like this happen.
This is the final article I read: Stoooooooopid....why the Google Generation isn't as smart as it thinks. The article's author, Bryan Appleyard, says basically the same thing as the article from The Guardian -- that we've become too easily distracted. He says we're too easily distracted, doing too many things at once and it's slowly killing us. Appleyard says we skim but don't absorb. That may be true for some people. But I still think the Internet and technology offer ways of accessing information that we didn't have before. We can learn more about different things. And choose what we learn about in depth. As one of the earlier articles stated, we are, by nature, easily distractable anyway. The computer/internet didn't make us this way.
In conclusion, I don't think that technology or the internet is dumbing us down. I think it allows us to have access to more information, faster. I had to post the following video -- I just couldn't resist!
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Google's Not the Enemy
To say that sites like Google and Twitter are responsible for "dumbing us down" is like saying modern medicine makes us less resilient or language inhibits our nonverbal communication. It's saying that any technology that enhances our abilities as humans takes some control away from us and makes us less capable. While these fears (which have been around for generations) are quite understandable (and are true to an extent), they aren't exactly rational. The mere fact that we have such complex technologies proves that society as a whole is much better off with them than without them. While people try to point the finger at the internet for any number of problems in society (our shorter attention spans, useless distractions or being a dangerous tool for our kids), we can't blame technology for our own shortcomings as humans. Doing so completely discounts our own accountability and responsibility.If there's one thing I remember about my 7th grade computer class (besides coding Qbasic), it was my teacher telling me that "computers only do what you tell them to do." In the same way, a technology only has as much power as you give it. Some people drive their cars every day and completely rely on them. Others walk everywhere. Just because no one goes out to hunt buffalo or wash their clothes in a river anymore here in the U.S. doesn't mean we shouldn't still be physically active. Computers are tools we can use. We can't blame technology for that. That's a cop-out.
The 2001: A Space Odyssey idea that "people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine" has been around for ages, and we're all still human, we all continue to think for ourselves and we have made advancements that have made us the most civilized nation in the history of the world. We're no closer to becoming robots than when the arrowhead was invented, and to fear technology just because it's changing the way we live our lives is borderline ignorant. Chairs aren't making us fatter, pencils aren't making us more forgetful and Google's not making us any dumber.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I Don't Know About You, But Google is Making Me Smarter
Read the full Nicholas Carr article here.
I find it hard to believe that at this point in time articles like Carr's receive so much attention. It seems to be motivated by the same song and dance of fear that has existed since Plato, not Aristotle as the article claims, first railed the writing as being less authentic and true than the spoken word.
It seems that these same fears creep into the popular consciousness each time that a particular communication orthodoxy is altered through technology. Damon Darlin nailed the paradigm when he said that these technological tools save us time, but also create myriad new distractions from everything else. Ultimately, all of these entities such as Google and twitter are tools. They are tools that allow us to communicate faster and to larger audiences. I find it hard to legitimize the argument that tools make us "dumb". That statement overly simplifies practical reality. Darlin shows the flaw in that kind of logic in the anecdote about the HP-35. The creative process is not hindered by these tools, it is only accelerated by allowing the mind to focus on creating as opposed to wasting time on mundane details.
Darlin's anecdote about Paul Saffo's idea about two basic types of people: engineers and natural scientists brings up an interesting point. Is there something hardwired in our brains that causes us to fear change? Its seems that certain people are certainly more sensitive to appeals to fear than others.
Darlin points out that technological advancement can have its drawbacks. He jokingly mentions atonal music and molecular gastronomy as such drawbacks. On a more serious note, we must address innovation with skepticism, but without being dogmatic. We must avoid single mindedness. Technology can benefit us, but look at the invention of the atomic bomb. As Ian Malcolm explains in Jurassic Park, we have to ask ourselves if just because we can do something does that mean that we should. The atomic bomb comes to mind a startling example of the Frankenstein paradigm that we should avoid.
However, communication and information tools such as Google and Twitter are certainly not their flaws. They allow those who would seek death, chaos, and destruction the same ability to communicate and access information that those of us who would use them to benefit the world have. Thinking of things in simple black and white terms does little to help one understand our current world. At the end of the day Google and Twitter are making us smarter. They allow us to tap into the collective intelligence of the entire world, and that is perhaps the most powerful tool of all.
Follow the following link to see Carr on the Colbert Report.
I find it hard to believe that at this point in time articles like Carr's receive so much attention. It seems to be motivated by the same song and dance of fear that has existed since Plato, not Aristotle as the article claims, first railed the writing as being less authentic and true than the spoken word.
The reason for not revealing it to everyone is partially discussed in Phaedrus (276 c) where Plato criticizes the written transmission of knowledge as faulty, favoring instead the spoken logos: "he who has knowledge of the just and the good and beautiful ... will not, when in earnest, write them in ink, sowing them through a pen with words which cannot defend themselves by argument and cannot teach the truth effectually." The same argument is repeated in Plato's Seventh Letter (344 c): "every serious man in dealing with really serious subjects carefully avoids writing." In the same letter he writes (341 c): "I can certainly declare concerning all these writers who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study ... there does not exist, nor will there ever exist, any treatise of mine dealing therewith." Such secrecy is necessary in order not "to expose them to unseemly and degrading treatment" (344 d).
It seems that these same fears creep into the popular consciousness each time that a particular communication orthodoxy is altered through technology. Damon Darlin nailed the paradigm when he said that these technological tools save us time, but also create myriad new distractions from everything else. Ultimately, all of these entities such as Google and twitter are tools. They are tools that allow us to communicate faster and to larger audiences. I find it hard to legitimize the argument that tools make us "dumb". That statement overly simplifies practical reality. Darlin shows the flaw in that kind of logic in the anecdote about the HP-35. The creative process is not hindered by these tools, it is only accelerated by allowing the mind to focus on creating as opposed to wasting time on mundane details.
Darlin's anecdote about Paul Saffo's idea about two basic types of people: engineers and natural scientists brings up an interesting point. Is there something hardwired in our brains that causes us to fear change? Its seems that certain people are certainly more sensitive to appeals to fear than others.
Darlin points out that technological advancement can have its drawbacks. He jokingly mentions atonal music and molecular gastronomy as such drawbacks. On a more serious note, we must address innovation with skepticism, but without being dogmatic. We must avoid single mindedness. Technology can benefit us, but look at the invention of the atomic bomb. As Ian Malcolm explains in Jurassic Park, we have to ask ourselves if just because we can do something does that mean that we should. The atomic bomb comes to mind a startling example of the Frankenstein paradigm that we should avoid.
However, communication and information tools such as Google and Twitter are certainly not their flaws. They allow those who would seek death, chaos, and destruction the same ability to communicate and access information that those of us who would use them to benefit the world have. Thinking of things in simple black and white terms does little to help one understand our current world. At the end of the day Google and Twitter are making us smarter. They allow us to tap into the collective intelligence of the entire world, and that is perhaps the most powerful tool of all.
Follow the following link to see Carr on the Colbert Report.
tech.nol.o.gy
Not that I am against technology, nor can I deny my love of Google, but for the sake of argument, does Google make us stupid? Are we at risk in this society of becoming too dependent on technology? As Nicolas Carr states in his article, Is Google Making Us Stupid?, “In a 2004 interview with Newsweek, Sergey Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.” If we become so interdependent on technology will our own ability to think and rationalize become obsolete? Like in this video of Discovery Channel’s “Ten Ways the World Will End”, where the number nine way will be by artificial intelligence.
Although this seems far-fetched, Google is finishing my sentences so well that it’s a little scary.
Before the days of cell phones, when you actually had to type in the phone number (gasp!), I had all my friends and family’s phone numbers memorized in my head. These days I would be at a loss if I misplaced my phone since I couldn’t tell you even one phone number (besides my mom’s of course). I guess I could always use facebook to get back in contact with them! This is highlighted in a BusinessWeek article, Which numbers do you need to know?. Have you ever purchased something and you hand the person a twenty dollar bill, they punch it into the register and then you say “Oh I have a quarter since I don’t want to get that much change back” and they can’t figure out the math without a calculator? I also have a friend that drove to a convention and when I asked where it was she replied that she had no idea and that she had just followed where her Garmin told her to go. I also had a friend state that there was really no purpose in learning how to correctly spell words since “…there’s always spell check”.
Although technology’s benefits far outweigh the cons, it can be seen in a negative light if it is used as a crutch and hinders complex thinking.
Although this seems far-fetched, Google is finishing my sentences so well that it’s a little scary.
Before the days of cell phones, when you actually had to type in the phone number (gasp!), I had all my friends and family’s phone numbers memorized in my head. These days I would be at a loss if I misplaced my phone since I couldn’t tell you even one phone number (besides my mom’s of course). I guess I could always use facebook to get back in contact with them! This is highlighted in a BusinessWeek article, Which numbers do you need to know?. Have you ever purchased something and you hand the person a twenty dollar bill, they punch it into the register and then you say “Oh I have a quarter since I don’t want to get that much change back” and they can’t figure out the math without a calculator? I also have a friend that drove to a convention and when I asked where it was she replied that she had no idea and that she had just followed where her Garmin told her to go. I also had a friend state that there was really no purpose in learning how to correctly spell words since “…there’s always spell check”.
Although technology’s benefits far outweigh the cons, it can be seen in a negative light if it is used as a crutch and hinders complex thinking.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Technology - Yea or Nea?
I think technology is beneficial to society and broadens people's minds. With the Internet people can connect to others around the world. So much can be learned and it is all at one's finger tips. For example, I am currently auditing a beginning Japanese class. I have learned so much in my class and I really enjoy it. However, I can increase my knowledge even further by going online and obtaining online lessons to speakers in Japan all via the Internet.
An example:
Technology is not only beneficial for educational purposes, but also for professionals as well. In this growing global marketplace technology helps bring people and businesses together. Take a look at this example:
Global Marketplace
Also, without technology some great scientific achievements would have been possible:
Furthermore, there have been so many medical advancements thanks to technology:
Of course, with technology news is readily available on-line as well.
Austin News
This makes it easy for one to be informed about local news and/or global news. If a particular story grabs someones attention they can investigate it from different news sources easily.
These are just some examples of how technology broadens our knowledge and horizons. With continual advancements in technology, the possibilities are endless. And, just for a laugh...
An example:
Technology is not only beneficial for educational purposes, but also for professionals as well. In this growing global marketplace technology helps bring people and businesses together. Take a look at this example:
Global Marketplace
Also, without technology some great scientific achievements would have been possible:
Furthermore, there have been so many medical advancements thanks to technology:
Of course, with technology news is readily available on-line as well.
Austin News
This makes it easy for one to be informed about local news and/or global news. If a particular story grabs someones attention they can investigate it from different news sources easily.
These are just some examples of how technology broadens our knowledge and horizons. With continual advancements in technology, the possibilities are endless. And, just for a laugh...
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Aftermath
I grew up south of Houston and most of my family still lives there so I've been fairly stressed out this weekend. My mom lives near the Hilton hotel they have been showing on the news. Her neighborhood sustained some substantial wind damage. She lost two pine trees in her backyard and all the branches off one tree in the front yard. She faired well compared to some of her neighbors. The neighbor across the street had two trees fall onto her home. My sister drove up to Austin with her husband and three kids to stay with me during the storm. A friend checked on her home and she lost some shingles on the roof and parts of her fence. One of my friends that lives north of the 610 loop in Houston actually found seaweed on his front porch.
I am also shocked to see the devastation on Boliver Peninsula since I used to hang there with my friends in high school. We loved to camp on the beach or rent beach houses in the summer. From what I've seen on the news it's completely under water. Check out some of these photos.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Storm Tracking From Wimberley
I have been following the conversation with half an eye, but have not had time to reply or post anything original pertaining to the current conversation. What I have been doing since last night is coordinating with friends and family as well as contacting some old weather casting friends in and around the Houston area. As you might know my son, daughter-in-law, her family, my ex and her family plus many friends are all in the path of Ike. My daughter and grand children are in College Station. All in all I have been in constant conversation with twenty plus friends and family trying to convince them to come here or find another alternative to "hunkering down". Even if there is no significant damage to them or their homes as a result of the storm, I know from past experience that they are in at least 48 hours of complete discomfort and power failure. As a broadcaster and the independent production company, I have been in many Gulf Coast storms. Not one of them was fun enough for me to have a "hurricane party" in. For now all are safe and moving to higher ground, even if they are not leaving the area completely. I would love to have been more involved in the on-line journalism discussion. It has been interesting reading. I will hopefully be able to contribute soon.
Sorry Folks, posted on the wrong spot.
Here is the re-hash of what I wrote in Dr, Royal's wordpress blog.
The first comment that I would make concerning the three articles we read this week is, the Texas State decision makers all need to read those articles. One common thread that I took away from the reading is that anybody considering a career in on-line journalism, first needs to learn the fundamentals of journalism. Good research (investigative) skills, sound critical thinking (problem solving skills), broad social, economic & political knowledge plus the ability to organize and tell a story are crucial abilities to possess no matter what type of journalistic career one might choose. In the “Old Thinking” article Taylor makes some good points about the gap between what is offered at colleges and universities and what is needed to be fully functional as an on-line media professional, but some of the responses were more pertinent to me, in that, they discuss the major issue I just wrote about. No matter how computer savvy one might be if you can’t report credible stories with clarity and conciseness and a little flare. Your just a blogger not an on-line journalist. “Mind the Gap” reflects these concepts and offers good reasons for the “Gap” and sound solutions for keeping current with technology. While running Knight Line Productions I was introduced to the Art Institute of Houston, because they were looking for industry professionals to sit on their school of video production industry advisory board. This board was not a ceremonial body. Board members met monthly at first and then quarterly with the school decision makers to let them know the latest trends, technologies and needs we had in the Houston Media and Video Production business. The school then attempted to adjust their curricula to better prepare student to fill those needs. The Art Institute did a poor job on the follow up, but put together a very impressive board of the top companies in Houston. I actually learned a lot from these gatherings from some of the large companies that I was lucky enough to be able to meet with at these advisory board meetings. Finally, the “Newspapers that Twitter” was informative in that, I knew that newspapers were going to the Web and that they were finding it difficult to come up with economic models to be financially successful; bringing their top reporters and readership together again in an on-line atmosphere. What this really tells me is that they are stating to get the fact that the Internet is INTERACTIVE and to make the best use of it their reporters and their organizations need to be interactive to rebuild old relationships and foster new relationships on this powerful medium.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Hurricane Ike coverage
I did a short video on preparations for Hurricane Ike if you guys want to check it out.
A lot of media are twittering Ike coverage as well. Statesman is @TrackingIke, @HurricaneIke is NOAA, NOLA.com /Times-Picayune @Hurricane_Ike, Fort Worth Star-Telegram @dfw_ike and KSAT 12 in San Antonio @ksatweather.
Just thought I would share since we've been on the topic of Twitter lately.
A lot of media are twittering Ike coverage as well. Statesman is @TrackingIke, @HurricaneIke is NOAA, NOLA.com /Times-Picayune @Hurricane_Ike, Fort Worth Star-Telegram @dfw_ike and KSAT 12 in San Antonio @ksatweather.
Just thought I would share since we've been on the topic of Twitter lately.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
I have more questions than answers!
After reading the article by Alana Taylor about her disappointment in the new media class she was taking at NYU and the article by Jones and Cutler about how “J-schools” today aren’t in sync with newsrooms, I started thinking about something Teresa Fore mentioned in class last semester. She was talking about how, as an undergraduate student at UT, she felt the mass communication curriculum was far out of touch with the media industry. The classes offered were perhaps too theoretical, too focused on the history of media, and not necessarily practical for preparing students expecting to enter the job market. The “Gap” Cutler and Jones mention is just a more detailed version of the concept Teresa described. And that got me thinking some more . . . is it just the “big ego” schools that are out of touch with the technologies currently being used by professional media? Or, is it large universities? In theory, it’s much easier for a small organization to adapt to change. Is this what’s happening? The little guy does an about-face to catch the crowd, but the big guy isn’t fit for the race? I’m curious to know what’s driving mass communication and journalism schools’ curriculums. So many factors to consider!
Referring back to the article by Taylor, I do think she was a bit overly critical of both the new media class and her professor. While I appreciate her understanding of the importance of new media technologies, I think there is a lot to be said for understanding the history of media. Plus, I’m a newspaper girl! I love to get quick news blurbs on news sites, but, for the detail, you have to pick up a print copy!! Besides, reading the paper is one of my guilty pleasures. I get to do it at work and they pay me for it!! hehe
As for the article about newspapers that Twitter, I was really excited to learn that the Statesman ranks in the top http://twitter.com/statesman! I was anticipating this would be the case, but it still made me smile like an idiot to see it in print! The monthly user averages aren’t very high, though. I’m wondering if that’s because Twitter is still relatively new? Or, if it’ll follow the pattern that blogging did. For every few new users, a few old ones fall off the grid?
Referring back to the article by Taylor, I do think she was a bit overly critical of both the new media class and her professor. While I appreciate her understanding of the importance of new media technologies, I think there is a lot to be said for understanding the history of media. Plus, I’m a newspaper girl! I love to get quick news blurbs on news sites, but, for the detail, you have to pick up a print copy!! Besides, reading the paper is one of my guilty pleasures. I get to do it at work and they pay me for it!! hehe
As for the article about newspapers that Twitter, I was really excited to learn that the Statesman ranks in the top http://twitter.com/statesman! I was anticipating this would be the case, but it still made me smile like an idiot to see it in print! The monthly user averages aren’t very high, though. I’m wondering if that’s because Twitter is still relatively new? Or, if it’ll follow the pattern that blogging did. For every few new users, a few old ones fall off the grid?
The school I like
I define power bloggers as the bloggers who succeeded in branding themselves. They also deliver information to others (semi) professionally under the bloggersphere.
As a “slow adapter,” my blog, which was opened and closed twice, is my personal notes, like a journal. I am always on the consumer side, but never on the producer side. I do not blog to give information for others, but it is all about what I am interested.
Last Monday, one of my professors (who I am afraid of telling her name…) said that the department wants to hear about course feedbacks. If the deparment can provide any specific classes, especially about the new media (or any other hybrid), they love to do that. O-yeah. thank you so much !!! There was always a “But.”
“May not be while I am here!!!”
As a “slow adapter,” my blog, which was opened and closed twice, is my personal notes, like a journal. I am always on the consumer side, but never on the producer side. I do not blog to give information for others, but it is all about what I am interested.
Last Monday, one of my professors (who I am afraid of telling her name…) said that the department wants to hear about course feedbacks. If the deparment can provide any specific classes, especially about the new media (or any other hybrid), they love to do that. O-yeah. thank you so much !!! There was always a “But.”
“May not be while I am here!!!”
twitters
I am trying to understand twitter, but I still feel like the point of it is essentially updating your facebook status and in that regard its just another form of voyeurism. When I first joined twitter to follow Gustav I didn’t know who else would be good to follow. I remembered reading an article in Wired about Julia Allison who essentially made herself famous from twittering and blogging, almost a Paris Hilton of the blogosphere. So I followed her, which really only confirmed my confusion with the purpose of twitter because all of her twitters were about what designer outfit she was wearing and what cleanse she was currently on. I was glad that in the article “Newspapers that Twitter” had a list of people to follow. I concluded form the article “Newspapers that twitter” that twitters best purpose is to report breaking news such as the earthquake in California or the one in the United Kingdom or the verdict from the Lewis Scooter Libby trial, but it seems difficult to know what people to follow and who will have that type of breaking news. I guess part of it is being at the right place at the right time. I think newspapers who twitter can absolutely benefit from using twitter because after someone receives a twitter they can look for the full story on the newspapers website or at the newspaper itself. In the article “Old Thinking Permeates Major Journalism School” when Alana said she was the only blogger in her classroom I wasn’t to surprised, I feel like in high school I knew a lot of people that blogged but it was such a self serving act that I never wanted to do it or be so public about it, that and it seemed a little narcissistic to think other people really cared about what you were doing, so maybe I till have that mindset with blogging. I do think that if you have a niche then blogging can be very profitable. In the article “Cover: Mind the Gap” what resonated with me was that when you go to school you expect to be taught what you need to go into the working world, however with the curriculum being so slow to change and no one really no where the industry is going for sure its hard to know what exactly we need to learn. Also the article states that many of our professors come from the old school of journalism and aren’t completely grasping the new waves of technology. I agree with the article in that the best thing we can do is to have an environment where you can collaborate with other students and with the professor in order to make the most beneficial learning environment possible.
Brave New Media
Jac may not like Twitter, but then again, this time last year I think he would have said the same thing about Face-space or my-book. As for me I thing it is my new "killer app." I remember the day I fell in love with MC. It was a Saturday afternoon and i was engineering live radio. At the other end of the station there was this very old AP computer that would give 2 sentence updates of current events. This particular afternoon it was beeping constantly. The updates it was feeding me was the terminal status of Ronald Reagan. "RR went to the hospital" "RR is getting sick" "rr is yadda yadda... ... dead." I thought I knew information before anyone else and this excited me. I remember as soon as I noticed that RR died I told the host of the radio show and we broke the news to Santa Fe. I knew then that I loved the power of the media. Along those lines here is twitter. Now I can follow friends, colleagues across the country, track hurricanes, break news (although I work in advertising). I loves twitter's simplicity. No bull shit or all bull shit its debatable - bring it on Jac. Now if i can just find the application that pours beer, or wine, or hard liquor.
I attempted to introduce my Publisher to Twitter and open his eyes this new communication tool. But it seemed to get 86ed as quick as I hit enter and sent my email. Experience is the great educator. We learn from what we know and what we have experienced. Perhaps the only way the 'old guard' will learn to appreciate the value in these new applications is if they use it of if it effects them directly. The 'old guard' don't seem to want to give the new a chance unless they see the dividends in their bonuses. Which brings me to my media mediation: which came first the editorial or the advertisement? Of course I realize that editorial content came first but all those bells and whistles were not far behind. But why doesn't the 'old guard' make that same realization and have a greater affinity for the new and the experimental. Newspapers are in such dire straights to make a buck that are not attempting utilize new tools. Whats even worse is that applications like Twitter are FREE. Now, I read the article about some of the newspapers that are using and utilizing Twitter and other applications. In my limited experience, the general corporate culture of newspapers are not digitally savvy.
As for the curriculum in schools, I guess I have always felt an academic narcissism from the majority of my professors. (Cindy is definitely excluded from this list). If experience is the great educator and professors see the world with rose colored glasses what motivates them to change from what is feeding their family. When do we get to old to lose an open mind? What are the side effects of comfort?
Overall I have been more than pleased with my education here at Texas State (much different than my education at SWT I assure you). After reading one of the articles I felt much more please with my program, and I can't wait for the future and where we will all be in 10, 15, and 20 years.
I attempted to introduce my Publisher to Twitter and open his eyes this new communication tool. But it seemed to get 86ed as quick as I hit enter and sent my email. Experience is the great educator. We learn from what we know and what we have experienced. Perhaps the only way the 'old guard' will learn to appreciate the value in these new applications is if they use it of if it effects them directly. The 'old guard' don't seem to want to give the new a chance unless they see the dividends in their bonuses. Which brings me to my media mediation: which came first the editorial or the advertisement? Of course I realize that editorial content came first but all those bells and whistles were not far behind. But why doesn't the 'old guard' make that same realization and have a greater affinity for the new and the experimental. Newspapers are in such dire straights to make a buck that are not attempting utilize new tools. Whats even worse is that applications like Twitter are FREE. Now, I read the article about some of the newspapers that are using and utilizing Twitter and other applications. In my limited experience, the general corporate culture of newspapers are not digitally savvy.
As for the curriculum in schools, I guess I have always felt an academic narcissism from the majority of my professors. (Cindy is definitely excluded from this list). If experience is the great educator and professors see the world with rose colored glasses what motivates them to change from what is feeding their family. When do we get to old to lose an open mind? What are the side effects of comfort?
Overall I have been more than pleased with my education here at Texas State (much different than my education at SWT I assure you). After reading one of the articles I felt much more please with my program, and I can't wait for the future and where we will all be in 10, 15, and 20 years.
Learning papyrus crafting in the age of the printing press
"Newsrooms and classrooms 'are not in sync,'"...
I attended a small private liberal arts university in Belton, TX. I took Journalism as an undergraduate and I think I might have spent no more than 30 minutes a week in a computer lab and I was solely using word processing and a bit of page layout. And I still struggle with word processing.
My program felt like a joke... and up until reading this first article, "Mind the Gap," I blamed it on the proximity and size of my university.
I agree with many of the other sentiments expressed here, I am very appreciative of our program here. Not only do we receive the theory and foundations of journalism, we are equipped with very relevant skills by professors who are active in staying involved and in-touch with the field.
In nearly every course I have been enrolled in as a grad student, there has been a serious, honest discourse about the transition to online and more technical coverage and reporting of the news. And it has been very balanced with no courses or professors throwing out the baby with the bath water for either camp.
NYU sounds depressing. I bet we could have scored a few NYU trust funds for our SXSW Interactive badges last semester.
And for the last article, when I read it the first time I remember feeling "Pssh... got the T-shirt"... even though I missed following Gustav on Twitter due to Labor Day business. Busted.
In honor of our programs relevancy to the current state of journalism, I have decided to post a series of honorary "new media" videos...
Enjoy!
-Chris
And finally...
I am NOT an 'early adapter'
As many of you know, it took me awhile to 'warm' to Facebook. I don't, however, believe there will any 'warming' to Twitter anytime soon. I don't see the need. I am the first to admit I don't know much about it but I don't understand why the same information can't be distributed from a website or other social networks. Websites and e-mails can be readily accessed from cell phones anywhere. I have never been so far away from a radio, television or website that I couldn't keep up-to-date on weather conditions 700 miles away. I do, however, see the need for newspapers to try and find an option for themselves to find a viable conduit to produce a revenue stream. They need to try anything. I, personally, don't see it happening. But, I'm still not sure the whole Facebook thing is going to pan out either. Only time will tell if this is the avenue for newspapers to remain competitive or even relevant.
Alana Taylor's article was to say the least interesting. It is hard to believe that NYU, a school that seems to make reading the New York Times a requirement, doesn't do a better job at keeping up-to-date with the digital times. I will question her blogging for money is easy mantra. Starting at any age, no experience, getting published, sure, but that would be the anomaly. Besides, a blog is only as good as its blogger. Just because you're blogging isn't necessarily a ticket to making a living as a blogger. If it stinks, it stinks. I may not get a lot of the new technologies or totally grasp the importance or need, but i do believe that Texas State does a good job at maintaining a format for it. In fact, it could possibly, or better yet, probably should be a tract of study at Texas State, much like writing, advertising, public relations or electronic media. J-schools that do their students the favor of imparting this knowledge and information to their students would no doubt better prepare them for what id really going on in the work environment.
Blogging and I Don't Get Along
One of the major reasons I decided to go to grad school was for the new media classes. I have yet to catch the Twitterbug and blogging is worse then a trip to the dentist. I am hoping, during the course of this class, that I will develop a better understanding of sites like Twitter and will grow to like blogging......or at least not despise it. I did have an interesting experience with blogging when one of my friends came over to my house on the Monday that Gustav made landfall on the Louisiana coast. A lot of her family members rode out the storm and were located sixty miles south of Houma. She logged onto her family's blog and could read about what they were experiencing as it happened. I thought that was pretty cool.
I thought Alana Taylor came off as a sometimes tackless, wide-eyed junior, but she did have a good point. Why pay tons of money to be taught by a middle-aged professor who has no grasp about social media and still thinks the NY Times paper copy is still the best thing since sliced bread? Newspapers will be looking for web-savvy individuals who are capable of writing online articles and blogging. Although Professor Quigley is trying, she doesn't appear to "get it" as our own professor does. Hopefully these universities will see the impending need to update their curriculum in order to accommodate the changing industry. Until then, it's just another reason why I am proud to be at Texas State, since they seem to be moving in the right direction faster than some of these more prestigious universities.
The Mind the Gap article presented a harsh reality of the gap between old school journalism and new media. Since the newspaper industry as a whole is in such a state of flux, it's no wonder that teaching about it would present a challenge. There is a valid need to teach basic writing, ethics and legal skills but also address where the industry is headed. It will be interesting to see if the universities can update the current curriculum in order to make graduating students more apt to land a job or if the industry changes so rapidly that j-schools become obsolete. The smart newspapers are ahead of the curve and have learned to adapt to the changing industry. I was excited to learn the @statesman twitter was listed as one of the top ten followed in the county since I used to work there in the Retail Advertising department.
Thankful
The articles made me so much more appreciative of the class that we are in right now. It makes me so proud to know that Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas is technologically ahead of big j-schools like NYU. Wow! I wouldn't think that they would be that far behind, but I guess it makes sence with the kind of tenured faculty they might have there. I am so thankful for Cindy Royal and her passion to teach us the curriculum of the future. I don't know why some professors are so afraid of technology. When reading some of the comments on Alayna's blog, some of the comments really scared me. Some people, who are using the internet to read this blog, find it necessary to put her down for her outlook on life and claim that paper is better. I LOLed when I read the comment about trees being a crop! That was just cynical! I am just so grateful for this class. In only two weeks I have already leared so much about twitter and RSS feeds, etc. I absolutely LOVE the hands on feel of our class room and I am sad that people at other universities do not have the opportunity to learn the way we are learning because of money or faulty faculty. I can't wait to learn more about the everchaning environment of technology!
Twittertastic
As far as first thoughts go on the articles, I just kept saying "yes! yes!" when I read through each of them. I follow Cindy on Twitter, so I was able to check these out over the weekend. But now to more in-depth analysis...
Staying with the topic of Twitter, I guess you could say I was an early adopter. I started an account in early 2007, but abandoned it because I never felt I was using it effectively. I created another account @mairalg while interning at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and I'm pretty happy with it so far. It's an excellent tool for newspapers and Web sites to get short bits of information out the public quickly. While the Star-Telegram had a Twitterfeed (@dfwtwits), some of the reporters had accounts as well which had a better following because actual people were updating those as the Newspapers that Twitter post found in most cases as well. And in case you guys haven't checked it out, Rick Sanchez of CNN has a show at 2 p.m. where he Twitters throughout with viewers about whatever news topics he's covering. You can follow him @ricksanchezcnn. It really is one of the first television shows to use this technology live and I think he does a good job.
From practicum to higher education, I would agree that there is a major gap as the NAA article so wonderfully explained. I liked this article in particular because it emphasized a few points I believe are critical to students and journalism schools.
First, I like that it had a positive attitude toward social networking. It is an important communciation tool and not just something where I go to post pictures of my dogs and see who is dating who. That's why I like Cindy's classes so much because she gets it. She knows how important it is for the media to know it is just another useful item for the reporting toolbox. Thankfully she is one of many out there that also get it.
I had the privilege to meet Alberto Ibargüen, the president and chief executive officer of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, when MTV brought the entire Choose or Lose Street Team to New York in January. The Knight Foundation is sponsoring the Choose or Lose project with a hefty grant in order to do our groundbreaking coverage of the 2008 elections. This organization is helping lead the charge into new media adaption and I love that he said some schools "are as proud as they can be that they are traditional journalism schools, devoted and dedicated to doing the journalism of the 1960s and 1970s." Those are the ones that will suffer in the coming years if they don't get on course and teach students what they need to know to get a job in the industry, which isn't easy right now.
The MediaShift entry really summarizes it all from the perspective of a student. While I do believe Alana Taylor could have been a little more tactful in her entry, she is an example of what some students think about the industry and how they are acting on their own to gain multimedia skills. It's a little brutal, but honest, and I think that's what the industry needs right now. I don't see anything wrong with working for traditional media and making your way up through that because I believe it gives you insight into what works for them and, of course, what doesn't. But on that same note, there are blogs out there that should get the credit they deserve for being reliable and correct and others that just sour the whole concept. Nevertheless, this is where we are headed and not much can stop it, whether newspapers, j-schools or anyone else wants it to.
Staying with the topic of Twitter, I guess you could say I was an early adopter. I started an account in early 2007, but abandoned it because I never felt I was using it effectively. I created another account @mairalg while interning at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and I'm pretty happy with it so far. It's an excellent tool for newspapers and Web sites to get short bits of information out the public quickly. While the Star-Telegram had a Twitterfeed (@dfwtwits), some of the reporters had accounts as well which had a better following because actual people were updating those as the Newspapers that Twitter post found in most cases as well. And in case you guys haven't checked it out, Rick Sanchez of CNN has a show at 2 p.m. where he Twitters throughout with viewers about whatever news topics he's covering. You can follow him @ricksanchezcnn. It really is one of the first television shows to use this technology live and I think he does a good job.
From practicum to higher education, I would agree that there is a major gap as the NAA article so wonderfully explained. I liked this article in particular because it emphasized a few points I believe are critical to students and journalism schools.
First, I like that it had a positive attitude toward social networking. It is an important communciation tool and not just something where I go to post pictures of my dogs and see who is dating who. That's why I like Cindy's classes so much because she gets it. She knows how important it is for the media to know it is just another useful item for the reporting toolbox. Thankfully she is one of many out there that also get it.
I had the privilege to meet Alberto Ibargüen, the president and chief executive officer of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, when MTV brought the entire Choose or Lose Street Team to New York in January. The Knight Foundation is sponsoring the Choose or Lose project with a hefty grant in order to do our groundbreaking coverage of the 2008 elections. This organization is helping lead the charge into new media adaption and I love that he said some schools "are as proud as they can be that they are traditional journalism schools, devoted and dedicated to doing the journalism of the 1960s and 1970s." Those are the ones that will suffer in the coming years if they don't get on course and teach students what they need to know to get a job in the industry, which isn't easy right now.
The MediaShift entry really summarizes it all from the perspective of a student. While I do believe Alana Taylor could have been a little more tactful in her entry, she is an example of what some students think about the industry and how they are acting on their own to gain multimedia skills. It's a little brutal, but honest, and I think that's what the industry needs right now. I don't see anything wrong with working for traditional media and making your way up through that because I believe it gives you insight into what works for them and, of course, what doesn't. But on that same note, there are blogs out there that should get the credit they deserve for being reliable and correct and others that just sour the whole concept. Nevertheless, this is where we are headed and not much can stop it, whether newspapers, j-schools or anyone else wants it to.
J-Schools and Adapting to New Media
The articles that were assigned highlighted the "gap" between "old school" and "new school" forms of journalism. I empathize for Alana Taylor and her prof Quigley who at times doesn't seem to "get" new media. The older forms of journalism permeate throughout the department. I am very fortunate for having the choice of concentrating on New Media because it is changing our everyday lives through communication. I made my first website in a little over a week in Cindy's spring new media class, which really thrilled me. I'm eager to learn more in this multimedia production class. Innovation in technology has changed the landscape of journalism and other forms of mass communication for that matter. These days for "quarter-lifers" digital know-how is a must to compete in the job market. All j-schools must experiment with old and new to blend them for future mass communicators. While reporting and writing are important, knowing the technical skills in an online enviroment is just as important. Curriculum should use the best of both worlds to maximize a student's learning experience.
I had heard of Twitter before but had never understood it's impact to disseminate information. With iPhones and other cell phones with web capabilities, a quick "tweet" is just as informative as a newsbreak on the radio or television. I felt relieved to see that many of the big newspapers have Twitter accounts, including my source of news the Austin American-Statesman . What is even cooler, is that smaller newspapers are also twittering. I believe that Twitter will make news easier to digest, as well as a more interactive way to report news. Follow me on Twitter @skb7483.
I had heard of Twitter before but had never understood it's impact to disseminate information. With iPhones and other cell phones with web capabilities, a quick "tweet" is just as informative as a newsbreak on the radio or television. I felt relieved to see that many of the big newspapers have Twitter accounts, including my source of news the Austin American-Statesman . What is even cooler, is that smaller newspapers are also twittering. I believe that Twitter will make news easier to digest, as well as a more interactive way to report news. Follow me on Twitter @skb7483.
J-Schools Gettin' Schooled
It's truly amazing how our media is changing right now. Besides giving people the power to decide what is considered "news" and providing a true form of democracy, these new technologies are changing the whole process of how we gather and interpret news. Instead of relying on one or two sources or waiting for a printed copy (or broadcast) every so often, we are living in a world where news is available anytime and anywhere - and we're getting it in such a raw and untainted form.
The fact that journalism schools (and many news outlets) are not keeping up with, or even embracing new media is absolutely ridiculous. As stated in other posts, if any other discipline was this far behind the curve, especially at its most prestigious schools, it would not be tolerated, and I'm not sure it would be overlooked to this extent. Could it have become this way because we haven't figured out a uniform or tested way of "monetizing" the above-and-beyond interactive features? I hope not, but it's possible.
I think journalists have gotten used to the idea that words sell. Better headlines and stories involving more conflict usually get higher ratings. But, we have very little research as to how functions like polls, blogs or streaming video relate to users. Too much video and people think it's annoying. Not enough, and they're bored. And, why add all these features if the story's already being told in words? While I know not everyone thinks this way, many journalism professors and news directors think they should only teach how to write effectively because that's what they know. They think that all the "extras" like social networking components are more fun or silly, instead of another (HUGE) way to engage an audience.
I'm just glad we're addressing the problem now. Being able to upload videos and create new interactive features on a site is quickly becoming a norm for news media. We see it on the best sites and stations, but somehow there's been a disconnect in thinking that learning these skills wouldn't apply to the curriculum. Sadly, it seems like journalism schools would rather brush off these curricula to other departments, or else they just think it's a waste of money.
On the Newspapers that Twitter article, I found that 3 of the 10 newspapers with the greatest loss of followers were in Michigan. That was disheartening but not surprising. But, I'm glad the Statesman was rated so highly. Most of my news now comes from Twitter...whether it's from my friends' posts or from following the actual news source. I think the fact that newspapers are using these constantly updating and personal features shows they're headed in the right direction. While only few of my friends are on Twitter, I think if more people knew about it or how they could apply it to their lives, it would catch on tremendously. The future of news is soon to be personal and will mirror citizen journalism. But there's a right way to do it and a wrong way...and that's part of what schools need to be teaching.
The fact that journalism schools (and many news outlets) are not keeping up with, or even embracing new media is absolutely ridiculous. As stated in other posts, if any other discipline was this far behind the curve, especially at its most prestigious schools, it would not be tolerated, and I'm not sure it would be overlooked to this extent. Could it have become this way because we haven't figured out a uniform or tested way of "monetizing" the above-and-beyond interactive features? I hope not, but it's possible.
I think journalists have gotten used to the idea that words sell. Better headlines and stories involving more conflict usually get higher ratings. But, we have very little research as to how functions like polls, blogs or streaming video relate to users. Too much video and people think it's annoying. Not enough, and they're bored. And, why add all these features if the story's already being told in words? While I know not everyone thinks this way, many journalism professors and news directors think they should only teach how to write effectively because that's what they know. They think that all the "extras" like social networking components are more fun or silly, instead of another (HUGE) way to engage an audience.
I'm just glad we're addressing the problem now. Being able to upload videos and create new interactive features on a site is quickly becoming a norm for news media. We see it on the best sites and stations, but somehow there's been a disconnect in thinking that learning these skills wouldn't apply to the curriculum. Sadly, it seems like journalism schools would rather brush off these curricula to other departments, or else they just think it's a waste of money.
On the Newspapers that Twitter article, I found that 3 of the 10 newspapers with the greatest loss of followers were in Michigan. That was disheartening but not surprising. But, I'm glad the Statesman was rated so highly. Most of my news now comes from Twitter...whether it's from my friends' posts or from following the actual news source. I think the fact that newspapers are using these constantly updating and personal features shows they're headed in the right direction. While only few of my friends are on Twitter, I think if more people knew about it or how they could apply it to their lives, it would catch on tremendously. The future of news is soon to be personal and will mirror citizen journalism. But there's a right way to do it and a wrong way...and that's part of what schools need to be teaching.
Journalism schools and new media education
The current journalism environment is evolving at a pace that can surely leave people behind if they do not learn and embrace new technologies that are available. Now, enough with the broad intro sentence, let’s talk about journalism and new media. I was immediately interested in the topic of the articles as this is something that I have been thinking a lot about lately. It seems that not having Cindy as a professor this summer gave me a media technology break that I would not consider beneficial in any way; I didn’t even know about Twitter.
Learning about tools such as Twitter is frankly mind-blowing to me in the fact that these programs have the chance of completely changing the industry. The journalism industry has obviously changed over the years but those papers that choose to embrace new technologies are either rewarded or looked down upon by traditional papers as embracing a fad. New media when related to journalism includes many things but their applications are so beneficial (at least in my opinion) that I find it hard to classify any of them as fads. Anything that gives us news faster and is more easily accessible than finding a tangible copy of a paper is good in my book.
Understanding the applications of new media is now of great importance in the evolving industry and the articles helped to explain the need for more new media centered classes in university journalism programs. Classes taught by older faculty with no idea on how to utilize new media applications are not entirely useless, just soon to be outdated. We need the journalism classes taught by seasoned professionals but if the landscape of journalism is changing, will these professors be enough to prepare students?
I am not attempting to gain Cindy’s favor with this statement but I consider our class lucky to have the chance to learn about emerging technologies and applications that challenge the idea of the traditional journalist. Reading the articles just reaffirmed that for me. If the face of journalism is changing every year, why are more university programs not taking up additional classes dealing with new media? I think those programs with little emphasis on new media technology will soon learn how truly important an education in the area is.
Learning about tools such as Twitter is frankly mind-blowing to me in the fact that these programs have the chance of completely changing the industry. The journalism industry has obviously changed over the years but those papers that choose to embrace new technologies are either rewarded or looked down upon by traditional papers as embracing a fad. New media when related to journalism includes many things but their applications are so beneficial (at least in my opinion) that I find it hard to classify any of them as fads. Anything that gives us news faster and is more easily accessible than finding a tangible copy of a paper is good in my book.
Understanding the applications of new media is now of great importance in the evolving industry and the articles helped to explain the need for more new media centered classes in university journalism programs. Classes taught by older faculty with no idea on how to utilize new media applications are not entirely useless, just soon to be outdated. We need the journalism classes taught by seasoned professionals but if the landscape of journalism is changing, will these professors be enough to prepare students?
I am not attempting to gain Cindy’s favor with this statement but I consider our class lucky to have the chance to learn about emerging technologies and applications that challenge the idea of the traditional journalist. Reading the articles just reaffirmed that for me. If the face of journalism is changing every year, why are more university programs not taking up additional classes dealing with new media? I think those programs with little emphasis on new media technology will soon learn how truly important an education in the area is.
Journalism Schools & New Media
I feel that there should be more emphasis on classes that teach new media at journalism schools. It seems more and more jobs in both mass media fields as well as other fields want applicants to have, at minimum, a basic understanding of various computer programs. There are fewer jobs where one can get by without such knowledge. Why would one assume mass communication would be any different?
Professors and administrators in schools of journalism and mass communication need to look beyond basic computer knowledge and focus on more advanced skills. New media is ever growing. More people turn to the Internet as their primary source of news and even entertainment. Those working in mass communication need to be able to compete online for readers.
There are fewer and fewer people who read hard copy newspapers. Online newspapers and online television news is much more convenient for many to access. Therefor, it only makes sense that journalism schools should teach more new media classes as more careers are moving online.
The future of advertising is also related to new media growth. With less hard newspaper readership comes less advertising in newspapers. Even if one watches TV, with today's technology of DVR and TIVO, it is so easy to record and skip past ads altogether. Or, if watching live TV, one can pause and then fast forward through the commercials. However, when one is online they are bombarded with ads. Sure, there is pop-up blocker. But there are ads on many web pages that can't be blocked. So, even if trying to avoid ads, some of the messages still get through.
These are just a few examples of why there is a need for journalism schools to teach mass media. As Mary Lynn Jones mentioned in the Mind the Gap article, some schools are meeting this need by offering more mass media classes and increasing funding for such programs. However, she also mentions that some schools are slow to change and continue to only teach traditional journalism classes.
Yes, traditional journalism and mass media classes are important to give students a fundamental knowledge. However, in order for students to look to the future and hopefully get a job upon graduating, they should have skills in new media.
Professors and administrators in schools of journalism and mass communication need to look beyond basic computer knowledge and focus on more advanced skills. New media is ever growing. More people turn to the Internet as their primary source of news and even entertainment. Those working in mass communication need to be able to compete online for readers.
There are fewer and fewer people who read hard copy newspapers. Online newspapers and online television news is much more convenient for many to access. Therefor, it only makes sense that journalism schools should teach more new media classes as more careers are moving online.
The future of advertising is also related to new media growth. With less hard newspaper readership comes less advertising in newspapers. Even if one watches TV, with today's technology of DVR and TIVO, it is so easy to record and skip past ads altogether. Or, if watching live TV, one can pause and then fast forward through the commercials. However, when one is online they are bombarded with ads. Sure, there is pop-up blocker. But there are ads on many web pages that can't be blocked. So, even if trying to avoid ads, some of the messages still get through.
These are just a few examples of why there is a need for journalism schools to teach mass media. As Mary Lynn Jones mentioned in the Mind the Gap article, some schools are meeting this need by offering more mass media classes and increasing funding for such programs. However, she also mentions that some schools are slow to change and continue to only teach traditional journalism classes.
Yes, traditional journalism and mass media classes are important to give students a fundamental knowledge. However, in order for students to look to the future and hopefully get a job upon graduating, they should have skills in new media.
Journalism school lagging?
The thing that I love about this industry is that new technology continues to keep the job interesting. Unfortunately, this hurts the students who don't take it upon themselves to investigate the new tools and techniques. Alana Taylor talked about her university "not offering the kinds of classes that she wants" and she mentioned that they are still focused on "traditional journalism". While I believe that the traditional methods are an essential part of an education in journalism; I also believe that graduates can't survive in the industry without being familiar with new media. Our media culture has changed from 20 years ago, even 10 years ago and it's important for those of us in the media industry to stay on top of what the rest of the world is interested in.
As long as we have people like Steve Jobs around, we are going to have to constantly adapt to our new mobile culture. We check our email in coffee shops on our cell phones and we upload videos of our crazy friends for the world to see. Let's face it, we are in a world where people like easy, immediate, interactive and user generated. I love that we can get news wherever we are and that we are logged in 24 hours a day.
In order for us to be successful in this new culture of user generated and interactive, universities need to offer more classes on new media. Mary Lynn Jones talked about journalism schools lagging in their curriculum and she mentioned that professors "may not have used these skills in their careers as working journalists". A number of the professors have been teaching for over 20 years and unfortunately a lot of them are going to lack the necessary skills to teach a course on new media. I think it's important for universities to offer classes for these professors and hire new educators that are familiar with new media. It's not enough to just teach a traditional professor the necessary skills, we need to have someone that is immersed in the culture and that uses these new tools like myspace, youtube and twitter to be able to teach us everything we need to know.
As long as we have people like Steve Jobs around, we are going to have to constantly adapt to our new mobile culture. We check our email in coffee shops on our cell phones and we upload videos of our crazy friends for the world to see. Let's face it, we are in a world where people like easy, immediate, interactive and user generated. I love that we can get news wherever we are and that we are logged in 24 hours a day.
In order for us to be successful in this new culture of user generated and interactive, universities need to offer more classes on new media. Mary Lynn Jones talked about journalism schools lagging in their curriculum and she mentioned that professors "may not have used these skills in their careers as working journalists". A number of the professors have been teaching for over 20 years and unfortunately a lot of them are going to lack the necessary skills to teach a course on new media. I think it's important for universities to offer classes for these professors and hire new educators that are familiar with new media. It's not enough to just teach a traditional professor the necessary skills, we need to have someone that is immersed in the culture and that uses these new tools like myspace, youtube and twitter to be able to teach us everything we need to know.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Video Journalist to Bloggers
It is amazing how small urban city newspapers have quickly gained an online presence fashioned after sites such abcnews.com. We quickly learned what a video journalist is and how they use the internet to upload stories edited minutes before on their laptops. Now things have sped up again and we do not have to wait for a story to be edited we can read their twitter while they are working on the real story.
I will have to say that I had never heard of twitter until Cindy encouraged a group teachers during a lucheon to try it. None of us knew what it meant and many were probably trying to figure out the rootword to define it. Which I have learned in this class is to tweet which technically still does not define it. Twitter which rhymes with glitter sounds like a gaudy accessory for a myspace page. In reality I've learned that is not what it is at all.
It is interesting seeing newspapers twitter. I was amazed to see how many major newspapers are using it. I don't know if it is suppose to be a way of leaking news while packaging it or if its their way of updating the news station or paper of what they are doing and they are just allowing us to watch it as it goes on. One things is for sure, if we are not familiarizing ourself with the latest uses of technology how can we expect our students to succeed no matter what their level? It's real simple, tech skills pay the bills. Thier tech skills or lack of will determine thier earnings. Something as simple as twitter evidently is beneficial to these newspapers.
Why not have graduate level classes that introduce the latest in tech trends and require students to create projects to master them instead of solely relying on lectures and comprehensive exams? I agree this would be an excellent time for more universities to update their graduate programs and it would be an awesome idea to have more adjunct professors who are currently working in the New Media to be part of the faculty.
The other article, Cover: Mind the Gap, hit it on the nail when it stated that newsrooms and classrooms are not in sync. Uh, no.... really? I thought Bill Gates was the only genius that had come to the conclusion that technology needs to be incorporated into the classroom more. But on a more serious note it was good article many people believe this is the case they just do not articulate it. However, when new teachers with innovative ideas come in it does intimidate older more traditional administrators as I can attest to this. It is almost better not to inspire and keep your job then to update the curriculum. Why must everything have a catch?
I will have to say not all avenues of communication on the internet have benefited journalism. This is apparent when I have students turn in papers with acronyms instead of spelling out words as they should. Or writing in lowercase when they shouldn't or misspelling "i" and "u" which maybe is acceptable when instant messaging but not in a formal typed speech.
The article on the young lady at NYU getting paid to blog was interesting. I didn't know that you could get paid to do this. Now blogging is more interesting especially since teachers are often told at technology conferences that it is a great way to have students do online journals. I thought that was the only definition to blogging however getting paid brings a whole new definition it. Judging by readers responses not everyone agrees that this is common or should be endorsed. Bottom line is this is a multimedia world undergoing globalization. Multi-media multi-skills!
I will have to say that I had never heard of twitter until Cindy encouraged a group teachers during a lucheon to try it. None of us knew what it meant and many were probably trying to figure out the rootword to define it. Which I have learned in this class is to tweet which technically still does not define it. Twitter which rhymes with glitter sounds like a gaudy accessory for a myspace page. In reality I've learned that is not what it is at all.
It is interesting seeing newspapers twitter. I was amazed to see how many major newspapers are using it. I don't know if it is suppose to be a way of leaking news while packaging it or if its their way of updating the news station or paper of what they are doing and they are just allowing us to watch it as it goes on. One things is for sure, if we are not familiarizing ourself with the latest uses of technology how can we expect our students to succeed no matter what their level? It's real simple, tech skills pay the bills. Thier tech skills or lack of will determine thier earnings. Something as simple as twitter evidently is beneficial to these newspapers.
Why not have graduate level classes that introduce the latest in tech trends and require students to create projects to master them instead of solely relying on lectures and comprehensive exams? I agree this would be an excellent time for more universities to update their graduate programs and it would be an awesome idea to have more adjunct professors who are currently working in the New Media to be part of the faculty.
The other article, Cover: Mind the Gap, hit it on the nail when it stated that newsrooms and classrooms are not in sync. Uh, no.... really? I thought Bill Gates was the only genius that had come to the conclusion that technology needs to be incorporated into the classroom more. But on a more serious note it was good article many people believe this is the case they just do not articulate it. However, when new teachers with innovative ideas come in it does intimidate older more traditional administrators as I can attest to this. It is almost better not to inspire and keep your job then to update the curriculum. Why must everything have a catch?
I will have to say not all avenues of communication on the internet have benefited journalism. This is apparent when I have students turn in papers with acronyms instead of spelling out words as they should. Or writing in lowercase when they shouldn't or misspelling "i" and "u" which maybe is acceptable when instant messaging but not in a formal typed speech.
The article on the young lady at NYU getting paid to blog was interesting. I didn't know that you could get paid to do this. Now blogging is more interesting especially since teachers are often told at technology conferences that it is a great way to have students do online journals. I thought that was the only definition to blogging however getting paid brings a whole new definition it. Judging by readers responses not everyone agrees that this is common or should be endorsed. Bottom line is this is a multimedia world undergoing globalization. Multi-media multi-skills!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)