Participatory Media: News as Conversation

Corporate participation within social media hasn't been limited to Facebook pages or Twitter feeds, but now the up and coming photo blogging site, Instagram, which most of its users post photos of their personal lives. During the most recent season of American Idol, the entertainment show utilized this platform by regularly uploading photos of contestants behind the scenes and off the studio stage to give the world a personal view. By extending their media interaction beyond the one-way broadcasts on its regular television program, American Idol's social media presence allows audiences to feel more connected to the reality of the show. In a very limited sense, the updates can be seen as both news and entertainment.

While some, however, argue that such updates do not constitute journalism or news in the slightest bit, the disconnect is that these updates aren't purposefully traditional reports in nature. In other words, through digital technologies, journalism has come from a read-only lecture to a participatory conversation. As such, audiences aren't just consumers, but producers and participants. Add this to the way news is consumed: American Idol, whose young viewers access most of their news from instant sources and other social media outlets, had to adjust their media output.

Companies are realizing the necessity for participatory media and their branding strategies. Along with Starbucks, GE, Levis, the list goes on with those using Instagram aside from Facebook and Twitter. With Facebook's recent $1 billion acquisition of Instagram, the corporate presence within social media will become more apparent.

MetaFilter and Citizen Journalism in the 9/11 Attacks

Over the past many weeks, our class has analyzed specific case examples of the Internet's role in providing a tool for ordinary individuals to contribute to journalistic dialogue as events emerge. One of the benefits of using the Internet to studying citizen journalism is that fact that, to a large extent, many instances of citizen and witness journalism can still be found in their archived real-time state. The website MetaFilter, which has been in operation since 1999, is a great example of being able to 'go back in time' and track real-life responses to famous events as they occurred.

The MetaFilter entry for September 11th, 2001 provides for a particularly interesting, if not immensely haunting, analysis of eyewitness reports coming together through a unified electronic medium to coordinate information on a large scale. The first post on MetaFilter occurred at 8:58am, twelve minutes after the first plane hit the north tower (listed at 5:58am in the post, Pacific Time). Following the comments in the thread, one will find users chiming in, trying to gather as many details as possible. Only a few comments down, user TNLNYC posted at 9:06am (6:06 PST) that a second plane hit the South tower, an event which had occurred only three minutes prior. Commentators begin speculating almost immediately as to who perpetrated the attacks, and whether or not they were attacks in the first place. cCranium posted the first image in the thread at 9:33am (6:33am PST), which although taken from the website of a traditional news organization, represents an early use of using social media to spread multimedia and imagery about disasters.

In terms of commentary, one of the most striking moments of foreshadow comes from user ktheory, who states that "our focus (as Americans) must not only to bring justice to those organizing this attack, but on preserving civil liberties. During peacetime, it's easier to be socially conscious and live morally. I'm most concerned that an event this drastic will cause many to replace ideologies based on reason with ideologies based on fear." Furthermore, user Doug posted at 9:51am (6:51am PST) that "This is going to be a big turning point in the history and character of this country," which is followed by reports only minutes later that the south tower had just collapsed, the first of the buildings to fall. More than functioning as a mere log of events, comments such as these demonstrate the emergence of sentiments that would later permeate our discourse surrounding this particular historical event.

MetaFilter itself is unique in that it does not represent, in straightforward terms, an "open" and free web. Since 2004, MetaFilter has charged a $5 sign-up fee for creating an account, which although potentially limiting to some users and demographics, prevents a flood of troll and spam accounts. The site also features relatively strict guidelines, aimed at maintaining the site's purpose as a literal "filter" for the most interesting content on the web. Thanks to these restrictions, MetaFilter has remained a niche community, though its simplicity and ability to foster discussion nonetheless allow it to access as a hub for eyewitness reporting when important events and disasters occur. In this sense, it becomes a moderated, yet very much fruitful, outlet for the facilitation and preservation of discussion. In doing so, users nowadays can explore these time capsules of dialogue surrounding major events since the beginning of the last decade, providing a valuable resource not only for studying the emergence of early Internet citizen journalism, but also for discovering the rhetoric that surrounded such events within the discussion of ordinary individuals.

What Companies That Manage Brands on Social Media Have to Say About Facebook.

In a recent post by Sarah Fier on Bloomberg, the truth about what social  media advertisement agencies have to say about Facebook is revealed. The moment General Motors Co. decided to pull their ads off of Facebook, a discussion began about how companies that manage brands on social media truly feel about the effectiveness of Facebook. Frier mentions big social ad companies such as Adaptly, 22Squared and AdParlor that work with even bigger companies such as PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., Florida's Natural Orange Juice and Baskin Robbins. She talks about the discussions that have gone around among these companies about their not-so-confident thoughts about the effectiveness of having their ads up on Facebook. There is definitely a sense of disappointment and frustration with Facebook and the tremendous costs that comes along with it that doesn't necessarily promise the best advertising outcomes: “It is not easy for a brand to get Facebook advertising to work,” Chief Executive Officer Hussein Fazal said. “It’s not just about plastering the site with ads. Facebook advertising can only be effective if you have specific end goal in mind. Do they want to drive users to local dealerships? Or are they just trying to get people to ‘Like’ their brand page? There are different strategies for each." (What Social Media Ad Agencies Say About Facebook).  

There is a general consensus that all Facebook really does is aid in building relationships and creating a network- In which both are very much needed and necessary for these big companies. However, Facebook doesn't seem to do any more than that. I can definitely see why these companies feel a bit of frustration and disappointment with Facebook and inadequate advertising abilities. It seems as though the only benefit these companies receive through Facebook is the number of "Likes"on their Facebook Page. Therefore how can Facebook be used in more effective ways for big companies like PepsiCo Inc, Kraft Food Inc., Baskin Robbin, and etc.? What more can Facebook offer to these companies? What can Facebook do to make social media advertisement agencies more happy? Thus, in order for Facebook to maintain their relationships with big companies, it is important that they consider the contentment and satisfaction they bring to them as well. 

Social Networking: Changing What it Means to be Friends

A person’s friendships used to be judged based on human interaction (i.e. how much time do they spend together?); now, with the rise of social networking, a relationship, whether it is romantic or simply platonic, is judged based on how the relationship appears on social networking sites. For instance, we assume that individuals, who have been tagged in multiple photos together, as well as ‘checked in’ at multiple places together, are close friends. It is these social networking sites that generate other’s ideas about a person and their relationship with others.

In Tammy Nelson’s article, “Is ‘Unfollowing’ someone on Twitter the new Dis?” she explores how social networking affects the way in which we build and maintain relationships – both romantic and platonic. When we break up, our relationship status goes from “in a relationship” to “single;” it comes up on people’s newsfeed and everyone who is friends with you and your ex knows your relationship is over. With regards to platonic relationships, when you are upset with a friend, you can ‘de-friend’ them on social networking sites. However, in real life, there is no way for you to have a ‘de-friend’ button. As Nelson stated, we would never walk up to a person and say “I am de-friending you” instead we fade them out of our lives.  In this new outlet, we are able to let go of our anger in a passive-aggressive fashion.

If unfollowing someone (like Rihanna did with Chris Brown) is the new dis, how are our social interactions, in the real world, changing?  After we ‘de-friend’ someone, what happens when you run into them in person? Do you act friendly or non-chalant? In my opinion, I understand that de-friending individuals is common. Usually, I ‘de-friend’ people who I’ve only met a couple of times; however, even if I get in a fight with one of my friends, I wouldn’t ‘de-friend’ them. I think dealing with a problem via the internet is very passive–aggressive and doesn’t solve anything. And even though, we live in an era that is consumed with living one’s life through the internet, this is not a healthy way of dealing with problems. It is important for people, especially kids of my generation, to realize that the internet shouldn’t be the most important part of their life – either should social networking; instead, real life social interaction needs to be more important than their online counterparts. 

The Facebook Era

Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of the mother ship of social networking sites, Facebook has done more than just created a website, he has created an era. Zuckerberg may have created the Facebook era, but we, as Facebook users define it. Together as individuals we are constantly defining and re-defining Facebook, establishing and maintaining the relationship between creator and product; on a world-wide scale and at an extremely fast pace; this, according to Huffington Post writer Jose Antonio Vargas is crucial in understanding Facebook's worth.

In Vargas' article "Our Facebook: Led by Mark Zuckerberg, We Define an Era" he asks us some important questions to consider while the news of Facebook becoming public rapidly increases. Vargas asks " What value do we place on privacy and our identity? Is there a price tag for our connections and our relationships?" (Vargas) The news of Facebook going public does not only create a financial statement but a worldwide statement. Through Facebook, social media has matured and what makes Facebook so unique is that unlike Google and Apple, Facebook is personal. As Vargas points out "You go to Google to, say search for a doctor; you go to Facebook to interact with a friend."(Vargas) What also makes Facebook unique is that ordinary people from all parts of the world have invested our life in Facebook which makes the social networking site not only Zuckerberg's but ours as well. "Facebook is, at heart, what you make of it. The site is only as serious or as trivial as the people who populate it. For many it's nothing more than an addictive and irresistible distraction. For others, however, it's downright revolutionary and liberating."(Vargas) Take the young Egyptians for example, who used Facebook as a tool to help overthrow a dictator.

Facebook users are concerned about their privacy on the site because through those settings they have control over how they choose to define themselves. Facebook has become more than just a social networking site but a part of our lives and daily routine, we check our Facebook several times a day, on our phones we're notified of comments and the like, we add "friends" after we meet them, post photos of our lives, etc. All these personal investments we have made have now created a multi-billion dollar business and this is due to our involvement.

Zuckerberg explains that "Facebook was not originally created to be a company"(Vargas) but was originally created with a "social mission -- to make the world more open and connected."(Vargas) I think it is safe to say Zuckerberg was successful in his "social mission" but if it we not for us participating Facebook would not be what it is today. Zuckerberg has been compared to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and both, Zuckerberg admits were mentors to him. However, Zuckerberg may prove to be even more influential in our lives because unlike Gates and Jobs who deal with computer software, Zuckerberg is "dealing with people and our evolution from being privet citizens to having public identities."(Vargas)

The investments made by users of Facebook to the site has created the Facebook we know and use today. Facebook will continue to grow and change, but its worth inevitably depends on the trade between Zuckerberg and the users following and leading one another, because unlike other companies that only answer to highs and lows of the stock market, Zuckerberg also has us to answer to us especially in regards to our identity and privacy.

Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/technology/03facebook.html?_r=1