Mobile Impact: Citizen Journalism

Advances in mobile technology and the continued proliferation of mobile devices will mean a greater boon for citizen journalism. The idea behind citizen journalism, also known participatory journalism, is that individuals with no professional journalism training play an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. Mobile technology is opening up more channels of participation for people (aka citizens) who have been marginalized for lack of access to a public media sphere.  

Mobile phone subscriptions in the world are estimated to reach four billion by the end of 2008. Mobile communication hardware is growing cheaper, smaller, and more portable. Mobile technology is offering users hand-held technological convergence. The masses now have access to communication devices that can record a live broadcast, photograph or videotape an event, conduct interviews, write articles or conduct a survey or poll, all of which can immediately published to a global audience. .

The power to collect and distribute information used to belong only to media companies – a rigid, expensive and profitable information system of “one-to-many.” Mobile technology has broken down those barriers, giving all users read/write access to the larger information world – an affordable, open information system of “many-to-many.” 

So if “many to many” is the new model, citizen journalism backed by the power of mobile technology will continue to challenge the traditional structure and function of news organizations. The type of news being published by citizens ranges from highly personalized content, to groundbreaking news stories or pictures and video, as well as information neglected by mainstream media. Individuals with mobile devices are capturing ‘news’ in real or close-to-real time, often faster than professional journalists. This will continue to happen with greater frequency. For many people in the world, short message service (SMS) is their main news delivery channel, both for receiving information as well as live reporting of information.

Mobile phones are also being used by activists as tools to engage, organize, mobilize, and inform people in advocacy and social action campaigns. For example in 2001, when Philippine President Joseph Estrada was forced from office, he bitterly complained that the popular uprising against him was a “coup de text.” Protests once publicized on coffeehouse bulletin boards can now be organized entirely through text-messaging networks that can reach vast numbers of people in a matter of minutes.

Increased collaboration between traditional news companies and mobile citizen news gatherers can lead to better news coverage overall and ideally, a more informed public. Successful companies will learn to be inclusive. For example, the news content of the successful Northwest Voice newspaper and website in Bakersfield, California comes from its citizens. “We are a better community newspaper for having thousands of readers who serve as the eyes and ears for the Voice, rather than having everything filtered through the views of a small group of reporters and editors,” said Mary Lou Fulton, the publisher.

Serious competition from anyone armed with a decent cell phone and an Internet connection will also force also professional journalists to make better use of mobile technology. The “mobile journalism toolkit” that Reuters and Nokia tested in 2007 should not be a one-time experiment. Mobile phones with cameras, keyboards, small tripods and solar chargers should be required for every professional journalist. If not, how can today’s journalists expect to remain relevant in this new mobile news environment?

 

SOURCES

Bowman, S. and Willis, C. “We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information.” The Media Center at the American Press Institute: 2003. http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php

Jordan, Mary. “Going Mobile: Text Messages Guide Filipino Protesters.” Washington Post: August 25, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401379.html

Verclas, Katrin. “A Mobile Voice: The Use of Mobile Phones in Citizen Media.” MobileActive.org: November 2008. http://mobileactive.org/mobile-voice-use-mobile-phones-citizen-media

Wikipedia: Citizen Journalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism

Timeline: Citizen Journalism & Mobile Devices

September 11, 2001. According to the Pew Internet Project, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, generated the most traffic to traditional news sites in the history of the Web. The immense demand for immediate news had people turning  to e-mail, weblogs and forums “as conduits for information, commentary, and action related to 9/11 events.” The response on the Internet gave rise to a new proliferation of “do-it-yourself journalism” including eyewitness accounts, photo galleries, commentary and personal storytelling.

February 2, 2003. Following the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster, news and government organizations, including NASA and the Dallas Morning News, called upon the public to submit eyewitness accounts and photographs that might lead to clues to the cause of the spacecraft’s disintegration.

February 18, 2003. In response to the massive worldwide demonstration organized to protest the start of the Iraq war, BBC News asked readers to send in images of the anti-war demonstrations around the world. The news organization asked specifically for images taken with digital cameras and cell phones with built-in cameras. It published the best photos on its Web site.

Sunday, December 26, 2004. A 9.1-magnitude underwater earthquake caused a huge tsunami in Banda Aceh Indonesia. More than 225,000 people in 11 countries died as a result. News footage taken by witnesses with mobile recording devices was widely disseminated, stirring a worldwide humanitarian effort.

May 27, 2005. ‘American Idol’ TV watchers sent 41 million text messages. Americans are getting more comfortable sending SMS.

July 7, 2005.  Terrorists blew up three underground trains and a double-decker bus in London, killing scores and injuring hundreds. The use of camera and video phones by passengers provided the only on-scene news photos of the events.

May 2006. ‘American Idol’ sets another SMS record, generating 64.5 million SMS messages on Cingular and breaking the previous record of 41.5 million messages.

March 9-18, 2007. Twitter gets attention from news organizations during the South by Southwest Music Festival in Austin, Texas. The service was named the best blogging tool by attendees to share news and opinion, and to arrange meet ups at parties. 

April 16, 2007. The Virginia Tech massacre. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others before committing suicide. A student named Jamal Albarghouti shot video on his cell phone camera of the shootings in progress and sent them to CNN’s iReport citizen journalism website. The video clips were then broadcast widely by CNN and other media.

August 1, 2007. Minneapolis Bridge Collapse. Citizen journalists using mobile devices captured some of the first images of the devastation and posted them to CNN’s iReport website, which were then broadcast widely. These citizen journalist witnesses also helped to describe the disaster to CNN anchors on air.

September 2007. Citizen protests in Burma were largely reported to the world through photos and video captured on mobile phones. Images of monks marching peacefully in protest and being attacked in Burma reached a global online public in a matter of hours, rather than days, quickly moving the world to action.

October 2007. California wildfires. News outlets solicited, and subsequently used, submissions from people capturing news with cell phone cameras and posting them on blogs, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, etc.. Multimedia platform Veeker, which signed a deal with NBC to handle viewer uploads in 10 major cities, said that NBC San Diego recieved over 2000 submissions of pictures and video related to the wildfires.

October 2007. Nokia and Reuters announced that they had partnered to create the ‘Mobile Journalism Toolkit,’ which teams a Nokia N95 cell phone with a keyboard, small tripod, and solar charger — technologies often used by amateurs to capture local news. The toolkit was deployed to select Reuters journalists to help them file stories from the field and use the cell phone’s camera to take photos and videos of news events. “By running on handheld devices, rather than on bulkier laptop computers, the mobile journalism application enables us to create complete stories and file them for distribution, without leaving the scene,” said Nic Fulton, Chief Scientist at Reuters.

May 2008. AT&T announced the company has shattered its text messaging record of 64.5 million by generating more than 78 million messages for the latest season of ‘American Idol’ — the most popular show on television. Some argue that the ”American Idol” voting has significantly helped the adoption of SMS among the masses in the United States.

September 2008 – The Associated Press broke a story videos taken by mobile phones about Afghan children killed by US military forces. Similar stories were reported from Kashmir where hundreds of people, touted by the BBC as “Kashmir’s mobile phone chroniclers’, used their mobile phones to document atrocities during recent demonstrations that were then posted on YouTube.

U.S. Presidential Election | 2008 – Thousands of individuals, as well as major news organizations, post 160-character news updates and opinion using the social networking service Twitter. Journalists and others use their mobile devices and Twitter to “microblog.”

Where we are now:  The idea behind citizen journalism or “participatory journalism” is that people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution capabilities of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others.  Mobile phones are transforming the process of reporting, putting power in the hands of the public. Individuals with mobile devices are able to capture ‘news’ in real or close-to-real time, often faster than professional journalists. Knowing this, it has become commonplace for mainstream news organizations to soliticit audience participation, specifically photos or video footage captured from personal mobile cameras. 

—————

SOURCES:

Anti-war protest photo gallery. BBC News: February 18,  2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2763101.stm

AT&T Announces FOX’s ‘American Idol’ Seventh Season Breaks All-Time Record for Text Messaging. May 22, 2008. http://www.fiercewireless.com/press-releases/t-announces-foxs-american-idol-seventh-season-breaks-all-time-record-text-messaging?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal&cmp-id=EMC-NL-upda&dest=FW

Bowman, S. and Willis, C. “We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information.” 2003, The Media Center at the American Press Institute.

Catone, Josh. Online Citizen Journalism Now Undeniably Mainstream. Oct. 26, 2007. Read Write Web. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/online_citizen_journalism_mainstream.php

Douglas, Torin. Shaping the media with mobiles. BBC News: August 4, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4745767.stm

Hamilton, Anita. “Why Everyone’s Talking about Twitter.” Time – Business & Tech: March 27, 2007. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1603637,00.html

Outing, Steve. “Stop the Presses: Photo Phones Portend Visual Revolution. Editor&Publisher.com: March 12, 2003.

Rainie, Lee. One Year Later: September 11 and the Internet. Pew Intenret & American Life Project: September 5, 2002.  http://www.pewinternet.org/report_display.asp?r=69

Schwartz, John. “With Aid of Amateurs, NASA Builds Mosaic of a Disaster.” The New York Times: April 22, 2003. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E7DF103AF931A15757C0A9659C8B63

Tragedy Over Texas. The Dallas Morning News: Feb. 2, 2003. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2008/columbia/

Verclas, Katrin. A Mobile Voice: The Use of Mobile Phones in Citizen Media. MobileActive.org: November 2008. http://mobileactive.org/mobile-voice-use-mobile-phones-citizen-media

Videos Show Afghan Children Casualties. Associated Press: September 8, 2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/07/terror/main4423942.shtml

Wagner, Mitch. “CNN Creates Citizen Journalism Channels On Web, In Second Life.” The Information Week Blog: March 24, 2008.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/cnn_creates_cit.html

Mobile TV: Today, Tomorrow

I’ve never watch Mobile TV on my outdated phone, but I have spent an hour or so watching YouTube clips with my cousin on her iPhone.

One of my co-workers regularly downloads TV shows to her iPod and watches them while traveling. I can  see the appeal of that, if I was on a long flight or train ride and I didn’t want to cart around a bulky portable DVD player or laptop computer and I wanted to keep my 7-year-old occupied.

I have watched TV shows online, like the whole first season of “Lost.” I’ve also watched entire movies online through Netflix. But I only do that on my laptop or desktop computer.

If I had cheap, easy access to watch these same programs through my tiny screened cell phone, would I? I probably would, occasionally.   

But mobile TV is way behind in the United States. Look at what happened to Mobile ESPN back in 2006. The sports network – backed by the big dollars of Disney – offered potiential users access to awesome live TV content and an engaging interface. But it wasn’t enough. ESPN’s Mobile Virtual Network Operator business failed after only garnering about 30,000 subscribers in about 9 months. The company’s goal was 250,000 subscribers. Scaling back, ESPN Mobile is now offered as an application through other mobile providers such as Verizon.

So why didn’t ESPN’s MVNO get more traction? I think it is the cost has a lot to do with it. The value of such a portable service, no matter what the content, isn’t worth the money in the US market. You need the right phone ($$), the monthly service contract ($$), great bandwidth, lots of battery power and have a such a mobile lifestyle that you rarely get to watch or record a more traditional TV broadcasts. That formula is quite the niche.

TV viewership is declining. Audiences are shifting to online interactive media. And yes, for any TV brand to survive in the future, it has to start migrating to mobile. But consumer information consumption habits of TV content in the US haven’t shifted enough yet. Broadband cable TV, HDTV, TIVO, on-demand, premium channels – we are already paying a lot for these services. I know I don’t have enough money left to pay for TV on my phone.

An October 2008 report from Juniper Research, says that although more than 330 million mobile users worldwide will own broadcast TV-enabled handsets by 2013, less than 14% will opt for mobile pay TV services. It’s not necessary.

If anything, it will probably be the porn industry that  figures out how to make mobile TV profitable. Supposedly, the mobile porn market is projected to reach $3.3 billion by 2011 – mostly in Europe and Asia.

“Adult content business models have succeeded in other major delivery media: print, cinema, DVD, pay-per-view TV, etc. There is no reason why the mobile channel should not be equally profitable for adult content industry players,” said Bruce Gibson of Juniper Research.

Mobile is about utility, fun and instant gratification. Mobile is about connecting people with other people.

“They aren’t entertainment boxes waiting to receive content to display to a passive user,” wrote Regina Lynn, a columnist at Wired.com.

So unless mobile TV providers find a way to make mobile TV more than just a mini-sized broadcast, it is not going to become a regular part of everyday life that people will shell out their hard-earned money to have.

Podcast: Creative Cooking With Kids

My first attempt at a podcast and posting it on iTunes.

Creative Cooking With Kids

Got a young picky eater at home? Make mealtime less stressful and more fun with creative recipes you and your child can make together. In this episode, we offer a quick, delicious recipe for Snake Pizza.

Mobile News: New York Times, WTNH-TV

The following is an examination of  mobile products offered by two traditional news organizations.

The New York Times Mobile

The New York Times is the benchmark for news media organizations in terms of depth of content, audience reach, and elegance of design. The newspaper’s mobile products are no different.  The Times’ mobile site drew 500,000 page views in January 2007, grew to 10 million hits by December 2007 and then rocketed to 19 million views in May 2008.

Among the offerings:

•  Headlines or full text of all articles from today’s newspaper, as well as the Sunday New York Times magazine.
• Stock quotes, market indices and charts
• Local movie show times and movie reviews
• Search for articles and Real Estate listings
• Personalized news alerts
• Share articles with friends feature via email or SMS
• Save articles to a personal “Times File”
• Podcasts by favorite New York Times journalists (also available on iTunes) – http://www.nytimes.com/ref/multimedia/podcasts.html
• NYT Crossword puzzle

The Times’ iPhone application is even more comprehensive. It provides all of the standard mobile site offerings, as well as: 

• Offline reading
• Photo view, where users can browse the news in pictures and link to the related articles
• Customization options – select four favorite sections of The Times for one-touch access.

 According to Robert Samuels, the Times’ director of mobile products, the most popular content items are business and politics news, blogs and most-emailed stories.  Text messaging applications continue to grow for specific uses, such as stock listings or weather forecasts, he said.

In a nice example of convergence, the Times’ also connects its different mobile products to each other. For example, text message alerts allow users to easily link to related full text stories on the Times’ mobile site.

When the Times conducted focus groups on what mobile readers wanted, most of the feedback the news organization received is that “users want to have access to everything – specifically what interests them, with the least amount of clicks,” Samuels said.

——–

mobilewtnh.com

This is the mobile version of WTNH-TV Channel 8 in New Haven. The mobile site is created by LSN, Inc – http://www.lsnmobile.com/.  The site is spare, yet functional. The design is hardly engaging, but the content is useful to someone in Connecticut with a mobile device.

Among the offerings:

• Updated news and sports headlines which lead to full text articles from WTNH.com. The articles include small thumbnail images, adding some visual interest, the ability to text message the story to a friend, and a link to the next headline. Many of the articles are from the Associated Press, which tend to be available from dozens of other sources.
• Local weather. Doppler radar and satellite images,  8 day forecasts, and the ability to search by town name or zip code. All nice features.
• I-95 Traffic Cams with updated images. Very useful.
• Storm Team 8 Delays and Closings. This is an excellent offering for a mobile product.
• Connecticut parents can access this information from wherever they are. Although, it seems out of place since it’s not snow season. The same goes for the ski report, which isn’t relevant all year long. They should take it down in the off season.
• Local movie listings, searchable by zip code, and TV listings, although it offers only what’s on WTNH, not other channels (limited value).
• Flight tracker for travelers, including departures & arrivals from Bradley International Airport and Tweed-New Haven Airport (good local content)
•  Connecticut Lottery Results
• Send news tips
• Horoscopes
• Lastly, users can search for cheap gas prices by zip code. This is a super-useful application for Connecticut drivers on the go who want to save a few bucks on gas and need to find a cheap gas station nearby. I might start looking at WTNH mobile now that I know it has this feature.

SOURCES

Chainon, Jean Yves. “US: Mobile news market nearing maturity, according to NYT.” The Editor’s Weblog: August 14, 2008. Retrieved on 9/3/2008 from http://www.editorsweblog.org/analysis/2008/08/us_mobile_news_market_to_be_ripe.php

Emmett, Arielle. “Handheld Headlines.” American Journalism Review: August/September 2008.  Retrieved on 10/17/2008 from http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4582

Steal This Film II

The Technology of Dating

So I’ve come to the realization that even though I’ve been out of the dating game for 10+ years, the comical highs and lows of dating have remained the same.

There’s just more technology involved.

Nowadays, two adults who may be “interested” have countless forms of communication available to get to know each other – e-mail, instant messaging, cell phones, text messaging, MySpace, Facebook, Match.com, Second Life, etc.

We didn’t have all these things the last time I dated. I’m a 30-something divorced single mother. When I met my now ex-husband in 1994, AOL email had just emerged on the scene, hardly anyone had a cell phone and text messaging was a sociologist’s dream.

Technology certainly hasn’t cured the ambiguity of dating. It has simply led to more kinds of exchanges to misinterpret. Awkward first dates and telephone calls are augmented with heavily-edited emails and carefully-timed text messages.

All this communication is rife with nuances to overanalyze, usually in the company of gal pals and several glasses of wine.

“What do you think he really meant when his text said ‘C U l8r?’ “

It all seems so ridiculous.

As an accomplished, independent woman in her 30s, am I supposed to be using new technology to meet and be courted by eligible suitors? What are my other options? Blind dates? Hanging out in restaurant bars at happy hour to seduce buff construction workers or suited business execs with furtive glances?

Like Bridget Jones says, “I am very busy and important.” Who has time for this? What’s my motivation here?

To answer that question, I came up with a list of five highly un-technological female motivators for dating.

One. The desire to get married. Fueled by fairy tales and Disney marketing, a happily-ever-after romance is every girl’s dream. (Uh, done that. Seven difficult years of marriage followed by an unpleasant divorce. Disney sucks.)

Two. Biological clock. Most women inherently want to nurture something. The lure of pregnancy, cute babies and motherhood is strong. Tick tock. (I’ve already got a wonderful daughter. Best thing I got from my marriage/divorce.)

Three. Security. Money. Comfort. A house with nice furniture and a nice car in the driveway. Marry a man with money, have a baby and maybe you don’t even have to work!
(Whatever. My mother always warned me to never be wholly dependent on anyone, even your man. I’ve got a good job, my own money, my own house, furniture, car and a Blackberry.)

So that leads me to motivators four and five: Companionship and sex.

The prospect of meaningful companionship is a worthwhile incentive to date again in this brave new interactive world. Fortunately, I’m already blessed with a great daughter, wonderful friends and a loving family. But there’s no harm in a woman actively increasing her social network if the new company is good.

As for sex, well, the female libido can be quite the motivator. Especially when, as a 30-something woman, you hit that supposed “sexual peak” and all you have to help you out is technology – that “personal massager” from Brookstone your best friend bought you for your birthday comes to mind.

So I’ve decided to jump back on the dating train. Older, wiser, my unfulfilled expectations in check, I’m ready to embrace all that social technology has to offer. Armed with my laptop, my five email addresses and my cell phone, I’m convinced I’ll be better prepared this time when the pile of dating debris starts forming.

Recently, I asked out my dentist with a finely-crafted email.

He said yes by instant message.

We’re texting now.

Ridiculous.

The Technology of Dating by Marie K. Shanahan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at mariekshan.wordpress.com.

Remix That Video

Before the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards aired on cable television, the show’s producers announced that the network would broadcast the ceremony only once in its traditional linear form. Any future TV broadcasts of the VMAs would be ‘remixed’ versions of the show, producers said, as created by viewers and/or MTV.

The change in how MTV produced and distributed its annual awards spectacle this year serves as a key example of how traditional broadcast video is being influenced by the popularity and ‘personalization’ aspects of Internet distributed video.

On MTV’s website, viewers aren’t forced to watch the awards show in its original 2-hour broadcast TV format. MTV repurposed the content for online, dividing up the show into separate, 2- to 4-minute video segments. The short video clips can be accessed by viewers in any order and at any time, as well as multiple times.

Now, the Internet-distributed video segments don’t look nearly as good as they did originally on the TV broadcast, especially if you saw it on a big screen plasma high definition television. Online, the videos display in a relatively small window (400 x 300 pixels) embedded on a HTML page, accessed by an Internet browser.

But by putting all of the scenes from the Video Music Awards online, including clips that can only be seen on the website, MTV significantly expanded its potential viewing audience and handed users some control over how and when they can view the content.

TV versus Internet: Production Values

Audiences consume Internet-distributed streaming video differently than traditional broadcast TV. Watching online video tends to be a private viewing experience, while TV viewing can be communal.

“My relationship with television is different from my relationship with the Internet. While I’ll catch an occasional news clip online, I don’t cozy up for extended viewing in front of my laptop,” wrote Jennifer Woodard Maderazo, a media blogger at PBS.org, in August 2007. “Lazing on the couch with a remote control is much more enjoyable than hunching over a desk and maneuvering a mouse to make things happen. Video clips stop, connections time out, sound turns choppy and I end up turning off the computer and turning back to my trusty television, which lets me lean back comfortably and effortlessly rather than forward.”

Traditional TV has its advantages, especially with high definition televisions (HDTV) becoming standard. Watching HDTV can be an amazing experience – lifelike, detailed pictures with stereo surround sound. Production values are high in this medium, since HDTV viewers expect perfect quality video, incorporating more types of shots and quicker edits, finely polished. They also expect it to be seamless – not 2 to 4 minute clips that stop and start – and viewable on a huge screen, ideal for collective viewing.

But traditional broadcast video as a communication form is limited. It is one-sided and passive. It doesn’t give the audience any choices. Internet-distributed video can be digitized to take advantage of the strengths of computing, such as searching and linking, to enhance understanding and usability of the material. Online video can also be wrapped with user-controlled applications so the audience can be active, communicate and share content with each other. This participation and personalization may make for a better overall experience, despite less-than-perfect video quality.

Video that will be accessed in a tiny window on a computer monitor or mobile device needs to be produced with those parameters in mind, so the picture quality, sound quality and file size are optimized. Lynch & Horton’s Web Style Guide suggests the following guidelines to tailor video for Internet distribution:

• Shoot close-ups. Wide shots have too much detail to make sense at low resolution.

• Shoot against a simple monochromatic background whenever possible. This will make small video images easier to understand and will increase the efficiency of compression

• Avoid zooming and panning. These can make low frame-rate movies confusing to view and interpret and can cause them to compress poorly

• Use a tripod to minimize camera movement. A camera locked in one position will minimize the differences between frames and greatly improve video compression.

• When editing your video, don’t use elaborate transitional effects offered by video editing software, such as dissolves or elaborate wipes, because they will not compress efficiently and will not play as smoothly on the Web.

• If you are digitizing material that was originally recorded for video or film, look for clips that contain minimal motion and lack essential but small details. Motion and detail are the most obvious shortcomings of low-resolution video.

There are also factors of compression (codecs) and formats for consider, so Internet streaming video looks good, sounds good and be accessed by the widest possible audience.
There’s also the issue of cost.

With traditional broadcast TV, new viewers tuning in don’t cost the broadcaster anything. But webcasting has a price attached. Digital media files are very large, requiring huge amounts of server space. According to Lynch & Horton’s Web Style Guide, one second of uncompressed NTSC (National Television Standards Committee) video, the international standard for television and video, requires approximately 27 megabytes of disk storage space. Producing and distributing large amounts of popular video over the Internet may require a big investment in server infrastructure.

The landscape of consumers watching video really big on a HDTV screen and really small on a iPod means that video producers have to be willing to follow MTV’s example and ‘remix’ how they work to provide the best product to audiences no matter how or when they choose to watch.

References

Creating & Delivering Podcasts & Other Downloadable Media. 2006, June 27. Akamai. Retrieved 9/12/2007 -http://www.akamai.com/cfcgi/forms/podcasting_whitepaper.html

. Lynch & Horton. 2004, March 2. Web Style Guide: 2nd Edition. Retrieved 9/12/2007 – http://www.webstyleguide.com/multimedia/strategies.html

Maderazo, Jennifer Woodard. 2007, August 10. “Is the Future of Television Online? Not Yet.” Mediashift blog | PBS.org. Retrieved on 9/12/2007- http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2007/08/tvshiftis_the_future_of_televi.html

“MTV shakes up Video Music Awards.” 2007, September 7. Associated Press. Retrieved 9/12/2007 – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20644178/

Siklos, Richard and Carter, Bill. 2006, December 18. “Old Model Versus a Speedster.” New York Times. Retrieved 9/12/2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/technology/18youtube.html?ex=1324098000&en=c4674e65ba242ce4&ei=5090&

SMS Connections

Louise Horstmanshof and Mary R. Power wrote in their 2005 paper, “Mobile Phones, SMS and Relationships” that people are embracing SMS (Short Message Service) communication because it is quick, efficient, cheap and convenient. I agree. More than ever before, SMS is allowing human beings to maintain social and familial connections both locally and overseas.

When it comes to text messaging using my mobile phone, I’m mainly attracted to its efficiency. I consider myself to be very “time poor.” Between work, motherhood, grad school and taking care of my never ending list of daily household tasks, I have little time left during the work week to socialize with people in person or chat on the phone.

And I hate calling people on the phone when my attention is overly divided – screaming child in the background, doing work on my computer, etc. It’s rude and a waste of time for both parties.

SMS and email allows me to “make a connection and affirm my relationships” (Horstmanshof & Power, 33) with friends and family, according to my schedule.

My free time lately seems to only come along late at night – a time of day when it would be inappropriate for me to call someone’s house. So writing email or text messages, regardless of the hour, lets people know I am thinking of them. It helps me maintain friendships that otherwise might have ended due to lack of communication.

SMS is often used by those who feel like making contact, but don’t want to become engaged in a long oonversation. (Horstmanshof & Power, 46)

Now, should SMS take the place of old-fashioned face-to-face or telephone conversation? Absolutely not.

Talking to someone in person, seeing the expression on their face, looking them in the eye, hearing their voice and their tone – that kind of communication can’t be replaced by SMS or email. Despite all the technology that consumes our attention these days, we are still human beings, not machines. “Being” with other people is essential to the human experience.

Citations:

Horstmanshof, Louise & Power, Mary R. (2005). “Mobile Phones, SMS, and Relationships: Issues of access, control, and privacy.” Australian Journal of Communication, 32(1), pp. 33-52.

Why people use media

Diversion: escape from routine or problems; emotional release

Personal relationships: companionship; social utility

Personal identity: self-reference; reality exploration; value reinforcement

Surveillance (forms of information seeking)

- from “McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory: 5th edition,” 2005

Divided Consciousness

Modern society suffers from “divided consciousness,” according to Kenneth J. Gergen’s 2002 essay, “The Challenge of Absent Presence.”

Our attention spans have become increasingly diverted by new communication technologies, especially the mobile telephone. They make it easy for people to be physically present, yet “absorbed by a technologically mediated world of elsewhere.”

Gergen’s got a point. When I arrived home tonight, I walked into the room where my brother and sister-in-law were located, to say hello. Both of them were sitting in front of their computers. My brother turned away from his machine and greeted me with some old fashioned face-to-face communication.

Eye contact. Smile. “Hello.”

My sister-in-law, however, did not. She kept staring at her computer screen – absorbed in her online game of ‘World of Warcraft.’ Physically, she and I were in the same space, but she did not speak to me. She was already having a private conversation on her headset with a WOW player somewhere else in the world. (I wasn’t offended, happens all the time.)

Another example: Last night, I attended my daughter’s annual school concert. Lots of parents like me arrived early to get a good seat. While I was waiting for the show to start, I noticed a bunch of people passing the time by using their cell phones. These people did not strike up conversations with the folks sitting next to them. Rather, they isolated themselves from the “community” by conducting their own private cell phone conversations, and in the case of one parent, using his cell phone to play a video game.

Most people aren’t comfortable initiating face-to-face conversations with strangers in public places. Cell phones and other kinds of ICTs have given people another way to avoid and ignore co-present others.

“As the domain of the absent present is enlarged, so the importance of face-to-face relations is likely to be diminished,” Gergen argued.

I suppose ‘absent presence’ can be helpful if the guy sitting next to you in the auditorium is a nut job. But it certainly doesn’t lend itself to building a local community. “Absent presence” erodes public spaces – community spaces.

Yes, technology-enhanced social spaces are the norm today. I rarely go anywhere without my cell phone. But just because mobile communication devices allow us to be connected continuously with our virtual social group or distracted endlessly by ‘digital entertainment,’ they shouldn’t wholly isolate us from the people living, working and breathing right next to us.

Americans will soon live in a country in which the majority of people live alone, Gergen states. That’s OK, because we have our cell phones and email accounts, iPods and Tivo to keep us company.

And when we fall down in our homes and can’t get up, the next-door neighbors we don’t talk to won’t come help us.

Tips: Writing for the Web

Shorter is better. Why? Because people don’t read online. They scan. You have about 5 seconds to get the user’s attention. So write in simple, direct language that communicates thoughts efficiently.

Use an active, conversational voice with strong verbs. Don’t be passive. The best verbs demonstrate action, movement, things happening.

Sources: Attribution = credibility. Let me say it again. Attribution = credibility.

Hyperlinks: That’s why its called “the web.” Hyperlinks are essential. If not, go back to writing on dead trees.