A Happy Medium

My views on the Internet are undeniably cynical. Part of me can't help but feel that the Internet and digital media are being glorified as an academic discipline while simultaneously stunting our intellectual growth. But the more I read, the more I realize that I am not the only person to resent change in the intellectual landscape. 

Plato was a major opponent of the written word. In her article "Blogs, Communities, and Networks," Rettberg notes that Plato "argued that writing creates a distance between author and reader that does not exist in a conversation, because you can read a text when the author is absent. That distance, Plato argued, made texts unresponsive. If you ask a text a question, it will 'preserve a solemn silence'." 

In my mind, the written word has always been the ultimate in rhetoric and communication. It is powerful and effective, able to move and challenge the audience without being subject to imperfect oratory, and able to stand the test of time. However, it hasn’t always been the premiere mode of communication. There was a time when oratory was the dominant mode of communication, and great scholars like Plato were skeptical of the effects of literacy.

Plato’s greatest critique of written word was that it was unresponsive. If you didn’t understand what the author intended by a word or a statement, the text is unable to defend itself. Plato was a firm believer in discourse—a dialogue where ideas are discussed and questions can be posed and answered. The written word is simply disseminated, but the word itself is unable to enter a dialogue.

A blog is, in a sense, a happy medium between dissemination and dialogue—a text that can respond. Walter Ong, a prominent scholar of electronic media, characterized our cultural transition from print to digital media as “a secondary orality, a return in someways to a cultural more like that of the ancient Greeks than of the post-Gutenberg society.” The permanency and salience of the written word collide with the discourse and thoughtfulness of orality in the blogosphere. Bloggers link to other bloggers. Readers survey the works and are able to respond in the comments section. The authorship can then address the questions being posed by the audience.

In her article “From Bards to Blogs,” Rettberg comments that “with every media shift there have been skeptical voices lamenting the loss of whatever characteristics the previously dominant medium was perceived as promoting.” There has always been, and will always be, some form of hesitation towards major changes in the way society and scholarship function. While I do believe that some level of skepticism towards the internet healthy, it was reassuring to hear that even literacy, which has undeniably benefited the history of the human race, was met with some uncertainty.  

Journalism vs. Blogging?

As someone who is not very privy to the internet, I had never visited a news blog prior to being assigned reading from Brian Carroll's Writing for Digital Media. Honestly, if I had been shown a news blog before reading the chapter on personal publishing, I might not have noticed that it wasn't a professional source. Blogs like The Politico, Pressthink, and Talking Points Memo look remarkably like notable sources of journalism to an untrained eye. However, Carroll makes a valid point that journalism and blogging need not be mutually exclusive.

One of the major critiques of blogging is that there is not enough objectivity or accountability in their reporting. Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS news, claimed that "you couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [of professional journalists] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." While that concern is valid, what about the various pressures that professional news sources are under? Wouldn't a news corporation like CBS be under more pressure to sensationalize stories to receive high ratings and please their advertisers? That can affect the objectivity and accountability of reporting as well.

The fact is that these days, bloggers can be journalists, and journalists can be bloggers, by virtue of the fact that original reporting can be delivered both professionally and unprofessionally. The same goes for opinion and commentary--it is not limited to either sphere. Blogs can even be called a form of journalism if they deliver original reporting that has been verified, and if it is delivered with speed and transparency. Also, news blogs that fixate on opinion and commentary are inextricably linked to journalism because they rely on journalists to provide them with topics and issues to comment on. Blogging and Journalism, rather than being at odds with one another, have become interdependent.

The Evolution of Social Media

The findings of Sir Isaac Newton, the British scientist who discovered gravity and the three laws of motion, were absolutely revolutionary. Humbly, he once wrote "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This is just as true now as it was for Newton then. Newton leaned on the work of men that came before to lead him to his findings, as did the revolutionaries of today.

Often, I have found myself giving ample amounts of credit to Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Silicon Valley for inventing Facebook, Twitter, iPhones, and other elements of digital media that define the way we socialize. However, it is undeniable that they were standing on the shoulders of giants from generations past. Concepts for these social media outlets were not invented by these men; they were built on the foundations of ideas dreamed up long before their time.

As I read Hernandez's article from Wired.com "Facebook?! Twitter?! Instagram?! We Did That 40 Years Ago," I was struck by the similarity of these concepts from decades past that so closely resembled what we have today. One program in particular, Plato, reminded me of one of my favorite scenes from the 80's movie Pretty In Pink...

This version of instant messaging and digital media looks completely archaic to me and my generation, but at the time it was futuristic. Part of me can't help but wonder if Mark Zuckerberg saw this movie when he was a kid and was inspired by the idea of social digital communication, and remembered this scene when he went to create Facebook messaging. While I am unsure of whether or not Zuckerberg is a fan of Molly Ringwald movies, the question still stands--where are these innovators of social media getting there inspiration? Undeniably, they have been building off the ideas generations past.

That being said, they have undeniably done wonders with these dated ideas and brought them up to the 21st century...

Comparing Molly's clandestine internet messaging in the library to the modern wonders of Facebook, Twitter, and the Social Media Revolution, it becomes evident that although they were standing on the shoulders of giants, modern innovators have done wonders with the web, and should be given the ample amounts of credit they are due.

Verification, Headlines, and Hypertext

Over the years, objectivity has become the obsession of the journalistic world. Every magazine, newspaper, and news channel is eager to present themselves as fair and balanced. In their article "Journalism of Verification," Kovach and Rosensteil explicate what objectivity should mean for the modern journalist. They would argue that "fairness and balance take on a new meaning. Rather than high principles, they are really techniques--devices--to help guide journalists in the development and verification of their accounts." Their argument is valid, because no journalist can truly be unbiased. People come with opinions--opinions that affect the way they search for evidence, the way they ask questions, the way they report what they have found. Verification is important because it helps "journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information--a transparent approach to evidences--precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work."

Kovach and Rosenteil included five steps of Verification:

1. Never add anything that was not there.

2. Never deceive the audience.

3. Be transparent as possible about your methods.

4. Rely on your own original reporting.

5. Exercise humility. 

In my opinion, all of these fall under the overarching umbrella of transparency. It is not only vital for a journalist to be transparent about their methods, but also any potential biases, mistakes, or misunderstandings that could come from their work. Humility would closely trail transparency, because being transparent, human error is a reality of all work.

In Brian Carroll's book Writing for Digital Media, he discusses the concept of headlines and hypertext, both of which infuriate me to no end. Headlines and hypertext validate people who chose to scan articles rather than engage them, which is detrimental to the journalistic field. If journalists are required to write inverted-pyramid style articles that are broken up by section in order to keep readers attention, they are doing so instead of being given free reign to delve into the depths of an issue as they chose, or truly expand on the circumstances at hand. Even further, chunking these articles into small manageable paragraphs and then headlining them accordingly allows people to skip over what they don't want to read, or skip to what they do. This method is not encouraging people to be thoughtful about the issues or giving them a fully rounded mindset.

Also, news websites such as BBC, CNN, and World News all provide long headlines for articles that give viewers the gist of the story without even having to read it. For example, a few headlines from BBC today read:

-Netanyahu Set Back in Israel Poll

-European Transaction Tax Agreed

-Attacks in Nigeria Leave 23 Dead

This style of writing for digital media is not doing the population any favors, as it once again enables readers to be informed, but not knowledgable about the troubles facing our world.

NPR Case Study

What is your first impression of the site?

The website is organized and not overwhelmed with pictures or text. Headlines are clearly laid out at the top and the different genres of news are clearly marked below. It is well divided on the site, and the viewer can see the different sections that are available to them. It also followed the three second rule because it loaded quickly.

How does this site establish credibility? How does it establish trust? Or does it?

 It does establish credibility.

- It is a well respected organization and well known (National Public Radio)

-It has been updated recently (Copyright 2015)

-Definitely is professionally designed

-Comprehensive info that is attributed to a certain source, and if you click the authors name of a particular article, their credentials are listed

-Viewer has access to the websites privacy policy

-Easily accessible “contact us” link

-Search capabilities

-AURL that ends in .org

What is the general writing style?

 The writing is very concise and does not show any flowery or overly lengthy writing. The articles seem fairly objective from the articles that we observed. The language is simple and clear, easy to read.

Does the writer identify with his or her readers, or not? How (or why not)?

 Not particularly. We are not sure if it is very important for an author of a news article to relate to one’s reader. The author should remain objective and communicate the news.

Does the writing style get to the point?

Yes.

 How is it arranged? Is it arranged in reverse pyramid style?

It is definitely in the reverse pyramid style. It presents the most important points/main point in the first paragraph and then elaborates from there.

Is content shaped for scanning? How is the content layered?

Yes. It is broken up into very small paragraphs and has subheadings which makes the articles easy to scan and find information.

Is the tone or rhythm of the site consistent throughout?

NPR seems to have a consistent tone throughout its site. The news articles seem to demonstrate a similar and professional tone.

How does the site use headlines?

It uses them! They are bigger, bolder, and sometimes colorful. The headlines give a good description of what the article entails.

How does it use links? Effectively or not?

  The links are there and they work.

How is multimedia used? It is distracting? How is it displayed on the site? Does the multimedia tell the same story as the same text, or as different side of the story?

We think that the pictures and videos definitely enhance the articles. They are pertinent to the information and are not distracting. They are integrated into the progression of the article, and do not overwhelm the article.

How does the site “package” the stories?

NPR does not seem to consistently package story. In some articles, there are packages, and in others there are not.

How are graphics used?

 Graphics are used pretty sparingly. They are interspersed with text and do not overwhelm or crowd the eye.

Can each page stand on its own?

 Each page seems that it can stand on its own. On each individual page, you can access home, other subcategories, and links to the privacy policy, and contact link.

How is the navigation? Do you get lost? Do you always know where you are? How or why not?

The navigation is really easy. You can’t really get lost because you can always get home (always located at the top left hand corner of the page).

How does the site incorporate/interact with its audience? How does it embody the social aspect of the internet?

 In the top right corner of the website you can access the “social network” element. At the bottom of the page you can click a link to follow NPR on Facebook and Twitter.

How would you rate the usability of the site? Elaborate...

We feel that the NPR website is very user friendly. You feel that you can access all the articles and can’t get lost on the website. Everything works efficiently and follow the three second rule.

How would you improve the site?

The website is a little bit congested. There could be a little bit more free space. Maybe give each section a little more room to breathe, and don’t put them on top of each other.

A Superficial Shift

While I recognize that the progression of digital media in the past decade is an incredible feat, I can not help but be discouraged by its effects on human habits. In my life, very few things have the ability to make me happier than an eloquently phrased idea or an effectively executed analogy. Since I was a child, I've had a fascination with words--the way they can stir us, still us, mold us, and change us. But those effects require the careful deliberation and undivided attention of the reader, and I believe that the internet has in many ways discouraged us from this kind of profound thought. This is just as relevant for me as for anyone else. When I visit a website, I don't want to take the time to dive into a lengthy article. I scan a webpage for the information I need, and then move on as quickly as possible. Brian Caroll's Writing for Digital Media confirms that this is true for most internet users, and so producers of content are forced to write with this truth in mind. Although it may occasionally be found there, the internet simply does not encourage quality writing.

According to Caroll, the job of a digital media writer is to respond to these trends by occupying three roles--the communicator of a message, the organizer of information, and the interpreter. They are urged to appeal to web users who are "monsters of impatience," and by doing so "switch from 'think paper' to 'think Web' mode." Writers and producers of digital media are under pressure to create work that is scannable and skimmable, with multimedia rich elements and linking to help the user explore a topic more in depth beyond the article itself. Often, visual style is more more important than the information itself. If content is easy to find, easy to read, and aesthetically appealing, it will attract the attention of more people.

Maybe I am cynical, but I find it very hard to believe that this conducive to great work. It seems to me that writers are being asked to dumb down their work for an intellectually lazy population. Curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge have been superseded by convenience and quick facts. Writing has become vastly more superficial to meet the expectations and demands of internet users.

Is the internet reducing the amount of quality work produced, or simply creating a whole new genre of communication? Should digital media writers and creators continue to mold their work to meet the trends of internet readers, or rather should they stay true to good authorship and force the public to elevate their standards?

A World Gone Digital

In reading his article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" from the July/August 2008 edition of the Atlantic magazine, I gradually began to resent author Nicholas Carr for his comments on today's generation's inability to focus on dense works of literature, as well as their failure make in depth connections about that which they read. As a Communications major with a focus on rhetoric, I took great personal offense to these statements. Patronizing, illegitimate, cynical were all words that came to mind as I read his case about the affects of the Internet on the brain. In the same breath as my disapproval, I had already disengaged from the article and begun to browse Pinterest for recipes while composing a text to my roommates about our dinner plans. In that moment, I was struck by just how true his statements were. Something has assuredly changed in the way my brain, and other's brains, operates.

It is irrefutable that the Internet has revolutionized society, but I had never before considered the effect that it would have on the human brain. According to Carr, the Internet has the tendency "to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration," and since people today are shifting much of their reading to the Internet, this greatly affects the manner in which the brain operates. When I got over my initial qualms with Carr's argument and reflected on my personal habits, I could see how much his argument rings true. I cannot maintain focus on an article or a book or an argument as long as I feel I am supposed to. My brain is not conditioned to handle large amounts of thick argument or intricate wording. Since much of my literate life is centered around the web, my "intellectual technologies" have been reprogrammed accordingly. I expect clear, concise snippets of information.

However, I would not be quick to claim that the Internet is making us stupid. Socrates feared the effect of the written word would stunt intellectual growth, because "he couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom)." In the same way, the Internet has begun a whole new sphere of intellectual activity and creativity which will undoubtedly flourish in the coming years. This brings into play the concept of "electracy" which "is to digital media what literacy is to alphabetic writing: an apparatus, or social machine, partly technological, partly institutional." Our intellectual technologies have been reprogrammed due to the Internet, and the ability to collect and decode information from digital media and contribute to the web becomes a skill set necessary for any member of the modern generation.

As someone who is relatively unversed in the ways of technology, my biggest aversion to electracy and the Internet is the thought that it can sometimes give precedence to the calculable over that which is beyond calculation, and I see it reflected in my own life--I expect clear, quick, and simple answers to my questions, which has often discouraged me from curiosity. Carr recognizes this shift in attitude, and notes that in the digital age, "ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed." If the world can reach a healthy equilibrium between the concrete objectivity of the Internet and the stimulating relativity of thought and debate, than electracy will be of great benefit to the modern world.

Mission Statement

Last semester, I was blessed with the unbelievable opportunity to spend four months of my life in Florence, Italy. I got to see, do, and experience things I had never dreamed possible. I learned more about the world, about people, and about myself than I ever imagined I would. I was blown away by languages, cultures, and lifestyles far different than my own...It was life altering to say the least! During my time abroad, I kept a blog to ensure that my family and friends stateside would be kept up to date on the ongoings of my life. Writing has always been one of my greatest passions, and to have a venue to record my various European adventures in words brought me so much joy. Although I am still unsure of how and what to pursue for work post-graduation, I know that I would love to continue to write.

Seeing as I have always been technologically impaired, creating a blog was initially a daunting task, but the more I did it, the more I began to enjoy using digital media to communicate to my loved ones at home. Since the world continues to progress towards sustainability, the paper back book is now being replaced by iPads and kindles, avid readers of the Times and the Wall Street Journal are turning to their internet browsers instead of their front porches, and printed flyers and pamphlets are superseded by Facebook events and tweets. This class will help me more fully enter the 21st century as I prepare to look for jobs as a writer. I hope that this class will continue develop my appreciation for different technologies, whether it be blogs, podcasts, websites, or other things of that nature.

I designed my blog with simplicity in mind. I am usually distracted by flashy websites, and I hoped to keep mine as basic as possible so as to not distract my reader from my entries. I chose blogger as my platform because I have become accustomed to it over the past few months, and I have a basic knowledge of how to use it.

I am very much looking forward being challenged and strengthened by this course!