Source: Stone, Brad. "Clicking for a Cause". New York Times. 6 December, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/giving/12FACE.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Social%20Media&st=cse
Summary: Many charity groups are using social networks to raise a significant amount of donations. One example was, Brad Sugars. By making just few clicks on Facebook, he was able to raise $8,000 dollars for the Cancer Schmancer Movement. He installed a program, "Causes", on his profile page and encouraged all his friends to donate $38 to the cause and was successful. The social media is easy access to get the word out about these nonprofit organizations, thus making it easier to receive donations. "The age of social media has empowered amateur journalists, fledgling presidential candidates and creative corporate marketers. Now, some say, it is time for nonprofit groups to harness the power of 140-character Tweets and Facebook status updates to recruit volunteers, spread awareness and solicit donations" (Stone). Mr. Scott Harrison of the nonprofit group, Charity: Water, agrees, "The only way we can truly expand our efforts is through tapping individuals through social media.” And several other organizations have been as successful as Harrison's. A survey from the University of Massachusetts claimed that about 8 in 10 of the top 200 American charities said they used social networking and 9 in 10 thought that their use of social networking was successful. Unfortunately, this kind of work for a charity is very time consuming and may not be rewarding. But, they look on the positive side saying that if they get them interested, people may donate or take action later. Director of market development at Facebook, Randi Zuckerberg, said, "In the old-fashioned view, getting involved meant one of two things, giving time or money. Now there are a dozen things you can do in between, including giving your reputation. I think when we look back and can quantify it, we’ll see it’s pretty valuable to tell your network you are validating a viewpoint on something.”
Response: I think this shows a very positive outlook on social media. In our time period, we tend to see very negative points of view on any type of media. This kind of aspect is refreshing. For how widely spread and quick Facebook and Twitter are, this idea would seem logical. I notice many invitations by several friends to help with one cause or another on Facebook, and it draws my attention. Word of these kinds of charities expands broadly, which gets more and more people involved, which gets more and more donations; we get a domino effect. True, not all organizations get profit from using social networks, but at least they are catching people's attention to the cause their fighting for. Social media has already proven itself as an enormous role in the future. I'm happy that we are putting it to good use. If you're going to spend time on Facebook and Twitter, why not take one click and be of some help to a charity?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Mormon Media
Source: Campbell, Joel. "Mormon Media Observer: Favorite LDS online media". Deseret News. 15 November, 2009. http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/joel_campbell/?id=8103
Summary: The church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is taking a new turn on media very seriously. They are enjoying the privilege to offer new channels, websites, and other forms of media to share its uplifting and spiritual messages to a vast audience. Just recently the church has opened up a Mormon Radio Channel, which offers conversations about different topics from "Scripture Stories" to "Legacy". Another added media was The World Report, a channel showing different things happening in the church worldwide and is shown between conference sessions. This production is now becoming available through podcast and video formats. There are messages now available through YouTube and they are opening up new channels specifically for the New Era, the Ensign, and other newsletters that share the Church's beliefs. Most of which you can download in an MP3 format. By advancing in the use of media, the LDS church hopes to make all information provided by them accessible to all who desire it.
Response: By being a part of the LDS church, I find this news joyful! I am happy that we are opening up new forms of media to spread the word about our church and its beliefs. I remember grandparents telling me how communication was very limited back in the day, now look how far we've come. Its a smart move that the church would put the advancing technology to proper use. By adding computers and TVs into the world, we have opened an entirely new world of communications and media that is accessible to people worldwide. What better way to spread and share your beliefs. One specific thing I like about this is that the church isn't just using the Internet or TV channels, they are putting all forms into use, which offers so many options for receiving their messages. I'm so excited to see how the advancements of our world will increase the media that our church will be able to put out.
Summary: The church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is taking a new turn on media very seriously. They are enjoying the privilege to offer new channels, websites, and other forms of media to share its uplifting and spiritual messages to a vast audience. Just recently the church has opened up a Mormon Radio Channel, which offers conversations about different topics from "Scripture Stories" to "Legacy". Another added media was The World Report, a channel showing different things happening in the church worldwide and is shown between conference sessions. This production is now becoming available through podcast and video formats. There are messages now available through YouTube and they are opening up new channels specifically for the New Era, the Ensign, and other newsletters that share the Church's beliefs. Most of which you can download in an MP3 format. By advancing in the use of media, the LDS church hopes to make all information provided by them accessible to all who desire it.
Response: By being a part of the LDS church, I find this news joyful! I am happy that we are opening up new forms of media to spread the word about our church and its beliefs. I remember grandparents telling me how communication was very limited back in the day, now look how far we've come. Its a smart move that the church would put the advancing technology to proper use. By adding computers and TVs into the world, we have opened an entirely new world of communications and media that is accessible to people worldwide. What better way to spread and share your beliefs. One specific thing I like about this is that the church isn't just using the Internet or TV channels, they are putting all forms into use, which offers so many options for receiving their messages. I'm so excited to see how the advancements of our world will increase the media that our church will be able to put out.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
NFL on Social Media
Source: Wine, Steven. "Some NFL teams clamp down on tweets".Deseret News. 1 November, 2009. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705321376/Some-NFL-teams-clamp-down-on-tweets.html
Summary: Many teams in the NFL are cutting down on blogging and tweeting. The Miami Dolphins are leading this idea by banning fans and reporters from using social media while watching training camp practices. They continue this idea by having their players restricted with using twitter and blogs. The article explains, "Like many Americans, coaches are anxious and a little confused about the rapid pace of change in communication" (Wine) and this is just one reason they are coming down with restrictions. The other reason is, "They fear opponents might gain a competitive advantage from even the briefest tweet about injuries, personnel decisions, trick plays or food" (Wine). Following very close policies include, the Broncos, the New England Patriots, Buffalo Bills, Indianapolis Colts, New Orleans Saints and Detroit Lions. They similarly don't allow reporting from the practice field. Some teams are not as strict on social media as the Dolphins; the Chargers for example allow twittering, but they fine players who tweet about complaints, they are still controlled about what they can say. NFL spokesperson, Brian McCarthy stated that the organization encourages players to tweet, "When done properly, it's a tremendous opportunity to talk with fans" (Wine). All in all players, fans, and reporters may use twitter and other social medias, but what is said on these websites and newspapers will be controlled differently by each NFL team.
Response: I think this is a perfectly fine idea for the NFL. We have come to learn that sometimes the media that is put out cannot be controlled the way we would wish, but I think this is a polite way for coaches to control what is said about their teams. The media should not have to show every negative thing about these football teams. True, one could bring the question up, doesn't this go against freedom of speech for fans and reporters? But in truth the coaches have the right to create these restrictions because the supporters and journalists have been allowed on the NFL team's property and should obey what they require. These restrictions do not take away the ability for reporters to write what they want to, but it does ask that they do not write while watching a practice. I do like the idea that each team's coach chooses for their own team and it is not forced on all teams. It should be the coaches decision on how controlling they want to be about what is said about their team. I do like that they still allow players to communicate with fans, but in an appropriate manner. I think this organization has the right idea on how to properly control the media.
Summary: Many teams in the NFL are cutting down on blogging and tweeting. The Miami Dolphins are leading this idea by banning fans and reporters from using social media while watching training camp practices. They continue this idea by having their players restricted with using twitter and blogs. The article explains, "Like many Americans, coaches are anxious and a little confused about the rapid pace of change in communication" (Wine) and this is just one reason they are coming down with restrictions. The other reason is, "They fear opponents might gain a competitive advantage from even the briefest tweet about injuries, personnel decisions, trick plays or food" (Wine). Following very close policies include, the Broncos, the New England Patriots, Buffalo Bills, Indianapolis Colts, New Orleans Saints and Detroit Lions. They similarly don't allow reporting from the practice field. Some teams are not as strict on social media as the Dolphins; the Chargers for example allow twittering, but they fine players who tweet about complaints, they are still controlled about what they can say. NFL spokesperson, Brian McCarthy stated that the organization encourages players to tweet, "When done properly, it's a tremendous opportunity to talk with fans" (Wine). All in all players, fans, and reporters may use twitter and other social medias, but what is said on these websites and newspapers will be controlled differently by each NFL team.
Response: I think this is a perfectly fine idea for the NFL. We have come to learn that sometimes the media that is put out cannot be controlled the way we would wish, but I think this is a polite way for coaches to control what is said about their teams. The media should not have to show every negative thing about these football teams. True, one could bring the question up, doesn't this go against freedom of speech for fans and reporters? But in truth the coaches have the right to create these restrictions because the supporters and journalists have been allowed on the NFL team's property and should obey what they require. These restrictions do not take away the ability for reporters to write what they want to, but it does ask that they do not write while watching a practice. I do like the idea that each team's coach chooses for their own team and it is not forced on all teams. It should be the coaches decision on how controlling they want to be about what is said about their team. I do like that they still allow players to communicate with fans, but in an appropriate manner. I think this organization has the right idea on how to properly control the media.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
I.M.B. and Local Governments Unite
Source: Loher, Steve. "To Do More With Less, Governments Go Digital". The New York Times. 11 October, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11unboxed.html?_r=1&ref=technology
Summary: State and local governments feel their political pressures are calling for action, and that action is the use of the technology. I.M.B. threw a conference, along with Brookings Institution, in New York this month with the theme "Smart Cities". They expressed that money is to be made by helping local governments "tackle thorny problems in traffic management, energy use, public health, education and social services — and that technology has an important role to play" (Loher). They continued on about how the government holds so much data, from building permits to Medicaid cases, and that technology is its organizing answer. “The mistake people make is to think that collecting the data is the endgame,” said Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, "We actually use the data” (Loher). Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that New York has taken a rush with this kind of service. In 2002, the city began a “311” telephone number to answer questions about government services and in 2006 the city began NYC Business Express, an online service, to make it easier and quicker to start a business. On top of all that the New York Fire Department, in partnership with I.B.M., is developing a system that allows firefighters to call up building information on hand-held wireless computers on their way to a fire. California and Dubuque, Iowa have also caught up on this fad train and have started using these data warehouses. “For us, it’s a living lab,” said Robert Morris, head of services research at I.B.M. “We want to learn things in Dubuque and then export the best practices” (Loher). The true hope is to to create technology and skills that can be spread from statewide, to nationwide, and then possibly worldwide.
Response: It seems rather strange that our world has become so dependant on technology. Just look at the New York examples above, from service telephone numbers to answer questions to online access to begin businesses. Yet, there is the firm fact that its through technology that we are able to accomplish so much and reach such a wide audience. Through my own experiences, I've come to learn that computers and phones make things easier to organize, so I think this was a smart move of I.M.B. and state governments to follow through with this. Our government has so many things that they need to keep track of and this is an easy solution. And it isn't just sticking at a political level, businesses are finding it just as useful. Through these data systems, businesses will be able to run quicker and easier than ever. Not only that, but by taking this technology route, they are able to reach out and spread their businesses worldwide. Good luck to I.M.B.'s goal of creating a developed system that can be sold nationally, and hopefully, throughout the world. Some thing deep down in my gut says that they just might reach it.
Summary: State and local governments feel their political pressures are calling for action, and that action is the use of the technology. I.M.B. threw a conference, along with Brookings Institution, in New York this month with the theme "Smart Cities". They expressed that money is to be made by helping local governments "tackle thorny problems in traffic management, energy use, public health, education and social services — and that technology has an important role to play" (Loher). They continued on about how the government holds so much data, from building permits to Medicaid cases, and that technology is its organizing answer. “The mistake people make is to think that collecting the data is the endgame,” said Michael R. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, "We actually use the data” (Loher). Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that New York has taken a rush with this kind of service. In 2002, the city began a “311” telephone number to answer questions about government services and in 2006 the city began NYC Business Express, an online service, to make it easier and quicker to start a business. On top of all that the New York Fire Department, in partnership with I.B.M., is developing a system that allows firefighters to call up building information on hand-held wireless computers on their way to a fire. California and Dubuque, Iowa have also caught up on this fad train and have started using these data warehouses. “For us, it’s a living lab,” said Robert Morris, head of services research at I.B.M. “We want to learn things in Dubuque and then export the best practices” (Loher). The true hope is to to create technology and skills that can be spread from statewide, to nationwide, and then possibly worldwide.
Response: It seems rather strange that our world has become so dependant on technology. Just look at the New York examples above, from service telephone numbers to answer questions to online access to begin businesses. Yet, there is the firm fact that its through technology that we are able to accomplish so much and reach such a wide audience. Through my own experiences, I've come to learn that computers and phones make things easier to organize, so I think this was a smart move of I.M.B. and state governments to follow through with this. Our government has so many things that they need to keep track of and this is an easy solution. And it isn't just sticking at a political level, businesses are finding it just as useful. Through these data systems, businesses will be able to run quicker and easier than ever. Not only that, but by taking this technology route, they are able to reach out and spread their businesses worldwide. Good luck to I.M.B.'s goal of creating a developed system that can be sold nationally, and hopefully, throughout the world. Some thing deep down in my gut says that they just might reach it.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Palin's Fight Against the Media
Source: D'Oro, Rachel. "Palin to media: Leave my kids alone". Deseret News. 27 September, 2009. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705279314/Palin-to-media-Leave-my-kids-alone.html?pg=2
Summary: Sarah Palin has decided to fight against the bloggers and news organizations who gossip about her children. Yet, though that may be a good motivation to argue against the news, many people are claiming that it is her way to keep her name in the spotlight. She also could be doing it to gain some supporters. Recently, Palin has been going against People's Magazine and the Associated Press that have written stories about her eldest daughter, Bristol. She argued harshly against the idea that because Bristol was pregnant, she and her fiance were high school drop outs. She also went against the rumors that her 9 month-old son, Trig, was actually conceived by Bristol in a secret and previous pregnancy. She says that she has no political intentions in fighting against the media, she just wants to protect her family. Palin said, "It's all about the family. I'm wired in a way that I can take the criticism. I can take the shots. But any mother would want to protect their children from lies and scandalous reporting" (D'Oro). When some of her comments are reported, she bickers that they are taken out of their original context and made to be a conflicting situation. Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington, said about Palin, "I think she's exploiting and cultivating the anti-intellectual and anti-elitist side of the Republican party. She's trying to salvage her reputation, so she attacks the messenger" (D'Oro). Many others believe that she contradicts herself. Before being named as McCain's running mate, she was asked about how political figures should respond to such media. She answered that they should ignore it and not bring that kind of attention to themselves. Yet, here Palin is, doing the very thing she previously said was wrong. She insists that she isn't complaining about the treatment of the press, she merely is just protecting her children against the media who shouldn't be putting them in the spotlight. The media argues back that the children of high political figures are always in the spotlight and that they don't just attack her family. "Palin is fueling the stories she condemns by talking about them instead of ignoring them," said Janis Edwards, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama. All in all, most people aren't buying Palin's excuse of protecting her children as much as they are buying the fact that her intentions are to be and to remain in the public eye.
Response: This kind of situation has me sitting on the fence. For one, I agree with the media. They can't help to notice stories that sell and use them and they can't help it when Palin brings her family into the public view. It really is hard not to observe that Palin is using these attacks on the media to keep the attention on herself for her political career and for her hopes of running for a Presidency in 2012. But, is this the truth? Because this is what the media claims, does that mean we should also judge Palin in this way? One can fall on Sarah Palin's side and say that she is just being a protective mother. I know for one that my mother would strive hard to make sure that I was safe from gossip and rumors. But Palin's at a whole new level. This isn't just some high school kids saying whatever they want, it's in the national news, open to everyone to read, hear, and judge. She honestly could be really trying to keep that kind of embarrassment away from her children, not just herself. And who says that the media has the right to go off about such things? Having a father who works closely with political figures, I hate it when the local news writes false stories about him, claiming that he's conspiring against this or sucking up to this senator. It isn't true and only hurts our family. What I believe the media's purpose is is to be giving the public the facts about events that we can not see personally. I believe that the media crosses the line when they start to bring in negative comments and stories about certain public celebrities and their families. It refers to my previous blog that it's okay to toss in your opinion, but what the media doesn't realize is that sometimes their opinions are taken as facts. Say what you wish about Palin, but it doesn't mean that it's true, whether it sells your news or not.
Summary: Sarah Palin has decided to fight against the bloggers and news organizations who gossip about her children. Yet, though that may be a good motivation to argue against the news, many people are claiming that it is her way to keep her name in the spotlight. She also could be doing it to gain some supporters. Recently, Palin has been going against People's Magazine and the Associated Press that have written stories about her eldest daughter, Bristol. She argued harshly against the idea that because Bristol was pregnant, she and her fiance were high school drop outs. She also went against the rumors that her 9 month-old son, Trig, was actually conceived by Bristol in a secret and previous pregnancy. She says that she has no political intentions in fighting against the media, she just wants to protect her family. Palin said, "It's all about the family. I'm wired in a way that I can take the criticism. I can take the shots. But any mother would want to protect their children from lies and scandalous reporting" (D'Oro). When some of her comments are reported, she bickers that they are taken out of their original context and made to be a conflicting situation. Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington, said about Palin, "I think she's exploiting and cultivating the anti-intellectual and anti-elitist side of the Republican party. She's trying to salvage her reputation, so she attacks the messenger" (D'Oro). Many others believe that she contradicts herself. Before being named as McCain's running mate, she was asked about how political figures should respond to such media. She answered that they should ignore it and not bring that kind of attention to themselves. Yet, here Palin is, doing the very thing she previously said was wrong. She insists that she isn't complaining about the treatment of the press, she merely is just protecting her children against the media who shouldn't be putting them in the spotlight. The media argues back that the children of high political figures are always in the spotlight and that they don't just attack her family. "Palin is fueling the stories she condemns by talking about them instead of ignoring them," said Janis Edwards, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama. All in all, most people aren't buying Palin's excuse of protecting her children as much as they are buying the fact that her intentions are to be and to remain in the public eye.
Response: This kind of situation has me sitting on the fence. For one, I agree with the media. They can't help to notice stories that sell and use them and they can't help it when Palin brings her family into the public view. It really is hard not to observe that Palin is using these attacks on the media to keep the attention on herself for her political career and for her hopes of running for a Presidency in 2012. But, is this the truth? Because this is what the media claims, does that mean we should also judge Palin in this way? One can fall on Sarah Palin's side and say that she is just being a protective mother. I know for one that my mother would strive hard to make sure that I was safe from gossip and rumors. But Palin's at a whole new level. This isn't just some high school kids saying whatever they want, it's in the national news, open to everyone to read, hear, and judge. She honestly could be really trying to keep that kind of embarrassment away from her children, not just herself. And who says that the media has the right to go off about such things? Having a father who works closely with political figures, I hate it when the local news writes false stories about him, claiming that he's conspiring against this or sucking up to this senator. It isn't true and only hurts our family. What I believe the media's purpose is is to be giving the public the facts about events that we can not see personally. I believe that the media crosses the line when they start to bring in negative comments and stories about certain public celebrities and their families. It refers to my previous blog that it's okay to toss in your opinion, but what the media doesn't realize is that sometimes their opinions are taken as facts. Say what you wish about Palin, but it doesn't mean that it's true, whether it sells your news or not.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Conspiracy Culture?
Source: Rubin, Trudy. "Internet fueling rise in false theories." Deseret News. 13 September, 2009. G3.
Summary: As debates are recently being played out, one question comes to mind: "Could a conspiracy culture take root here?" (Rubin). In Pakistan and the Middle East public views are being spread by conspiracy theories. If it is printed in the newspaper it must be true no matter how outlandish. After the 9/11 attack some believed that it was carried out by Jews. A couple of Saudi graduate students believed it to be true and confirmed it with Rubin, as well as a leading journalist in Pakistan; keep in mind these are educated people. Because their news is broadcasting this theory, they believe it to be true. So thank heavens that's not happening in the United States, right? Wrong, as we read our newspapers, watch news stations, and read blogs we've come to see how easily we are convinced that an opinion is fact. So what are the facts and will we ever get them? Yes, but not often; "Brave journalists who try to write truth are risking their livelihood, or their lives" (Rubin). Richard Hofstadter was one such journalist in 1964. He wrote about the anti-Masonic movement, the anti-Catholic movement, the theories on a conspiracy of international bankers, race, and more. But even with such writers things have changed drastically because of the Internet. We go on news websites and ideological websites and count that as fact. "Unverified opinions, rumors, and emotions are served up in lieu of facts, but are often accepted as gospel" (Rubin). On the subject of health care, one could read a blog about how our new president stirs up trouble and rage in citizens over the matter, and that's why people are against it. It is taken as a fact and with all these opinions going around it makes it a perfect place for conspiracy theories to begin. With the Internet spreading information so quickly it makes a wide audience have the ability to read and believe such statements and opinions. "I have seen how a conspiracy culture distorts politics in the Middle East and Pakistan. Believe me, you don't want that here" (Rubin).
Response: I agree with Trudy Rubin that many times the American public will take opinion as fact. We are shown this through commercials; because one celebrity we like says they use this kind of acne care, we believe that it is the most effective and we buy and use the product. But that is either staged or just that celebrity's opinion. We hear it through the news and journalists, those very people we trust to give us the events that we personally can not see, and we believe them. Many times those events are told through opinions, but its hazed over as if what we are being told is a fact. So are their conspiracy theories? I personally don't believe there are and won't until literally proved there are. In some ways I wonder if Rubin is a little hypocritcal. For example, Obama's government single payer health plan could very well lead to rationed health care, expecially to the elderly. It appears to have done so in Great Britain and in Canada. She mentioned a lot in her article that Sarah Palin and Sen. Chuck Grassley made untrue claims about Obama's health care ideas that convinced some of the public to be against it by refering to potential decisions to withhold highly expensive medocal care from the aged as "death panels" ; all this just because political figures said that's what's happening, so it must be true. But she's a well-read journalist and here she is trying to convince us that what they are saying is untrue. She mentions that the news, whether Internet, radio talk shows, or newspaper, we look at to hear about the debate is mostly conservative. I take that as a conspiracy of opposition towards conservatives (not to mention that fact that Palin is a conservative). There is plenty of liberal centered media that share information with their own bias or twist. People are not just paying attention to conservative based media. Overall Rubin may be correct. Shared biased opinions are definitely being taken as facts.
Summary: As debates are recently being played out, one question comes to mind: "Could a conspiracy culture take root here?" (Rubin). In Pakistan and the Middle East public views are being spread by conspiracy theories. If it is printed in the newspaper it must be true no matter how outlandish. After the 9/11 attack some believed that it was carried out by Jews. A couple of Saudi graduate students believed it to be true and confirmed it with Rubin, as well as a leading journalist in Pakistan; keep in mind these are educated people. Because their news is broadcasting this theory, they believe it to be true. So thank heavens that's not happening in the United States, right? Wrong, as we read our newspapers, watch news stations, and read blogs we've come to see how easily we are convinced that an opinion is fact. So what are the facts and will we ever get them? Yes, but not often; "Brave journalists who try to write truth are risking their livelihood, or their lives" (Rubin). Richard Hofstadter was one such journalist in 1964. He wrote about the anti-Masonic movement, the anti-Catholic movement, the theories on a conspiracy of international bankers, race, and more. But even with such writers things have changed drastically because of the Internet. We go on news websites and ideological websites and count that as fact. "Unverified opinions, rumors, and emotions are served up in lieu of facts, but are often accepted as gospel" (Rubin). On the subject of health care, one could read a blog about how our new president stirs up trouble and rage in citizens over the matter, and that's why people are against it. It is taken as a fact and with all these opinions going around it makes it a perfect place for conspiracy theories to begin. With the Internet spreading information so quickly it makes a wide audience have the ability to read and believe such statements and opinions. "I have seen how a conspiracy culture distorts politics in the Middle East and Pakistan. Believe me, you don't want that here" (Rubin).
Response: I agree with Trudy Rubin that many times the American public will take opinion as fact. We are shown this through commercials; because one celebrity we like says they use this kind of acne care, we believe that it is the most effective and we buy and use the product. But that is either staged or just that celebrity's opinion. We hear it through the news and journalists, those very people we trust to give us the events that we personally can not see, and we believe them. Many times those events are told through opinions, but its hazed over as if what we are being told is a fact. So are their conspiracy theories? I personally don't believe there are and won't until literally proved there are. In some ways I wonder if Rubin is a little hypocritcal. For example, Obama's government single payer health plan could very well lead to rationed health care, expecially to the elderly. It appears to have done so in Great Britain and in Canada. She mentioned a lot in her article that Sarah Palin and Sen. Chuck Grassley made untrue claims about Obama's health care ideas that convinced some of the public to be against it by refering to potential decisions to withhold highly expensive medocal care from the aged as "death panels" ; all this just because political figures said that's what's happening, so it must be true. But she's a well-read journalist and here she is trying to convince us that what they are saying is untrue. She mentions that the news, whether Internet, radio talk shows, or newspaper, we look at to hear about the debate is mostly conservative. I take that as a conspiracy of opposition towards conservatives (not to mention that fact that Palin is a conservative). There is plenty of liberal centered media that share information with their own bias or twist. People are not just paying attention to conservative based media. Overall Rubin may be correct. Shared biased opinions are definitely being taken as facts.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Utah government heads towards social media
Nielson-Stowell, Amelia. "Cities use social media sites to reach residents". Deseret News. 26 Aug. 2009. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705326130/Cities-use-social-media-sites.html
Summary:
The Utah Association for Government Communications now allows the use of commonly used websites, Facebook and Twitter, as a new forum where city leaders can communicate with the public. It started in the beginning of this year and has been increasing throughout the year. Government officials find websites spread the word to the public very quickly addressing emergencies and other things going on in their districts. It allows them to share a little bit on a personal level as well. One such leader would be Salt Lake City Mayor, Ralph Becker, who one afternoon posted on his Facebook status, "Mayor Ralph Becker is repelling off the Grand America today at noon to show support for Special Olympics Utah!" St. George Mayor, Dan McArthur also enjoys being a little more personal on the websites. He claims, "it gives me a chance to be instantaneous and sometimes funny." Now these men and women are opening up to whole new, large, and diverse audiences. The government leaders, though some were on the fence about using these websites, are now finding it very quick, useful, easy, and enjoyable. "It seems such a perfect fit for us to use what's fast becoming one of the most popular means of communication," said Herriman's public information officer, Nicole Martin. And another bonus is it's free!
My response:
I think its very interesting that the internet has become so important and used in citizen's lives that instead of sticking to the old tactics, government officials are putting these famous sites into play, where they can spread the word about their communities, themselves, and what they're up to. It just goes to show how quickly technology is taking over. I do believe it is something they need to do to keep up with modern communication and reach a large audience. They've gone where the public has gone and now they're realizing that it's quick and efficient. Personally, I think it's rather funny that the officials put their status to show what good they're up to at the moment. It's great for them, but at the same time it could appear to be showing off. One very helpful use is how they can spread the word quickly about emergencies. In the article, Amelia Nielson-Stowell gave the example of Centerville's Lisa Bednarz who, as part of her job, twittered about a water main broken in the area. It lets the citizens know what is going on and what is being done about it. It was a very smart move of the Utah Association for Government Communications to allow city leaders to start using Twitter and Facebook. The use of the internet is increasing and now people my age, as well as older and younger, who like me, don't read the newspaper often, can have easy access to what my city leader is up to. A bonus, I don't get it through the "grapevine", I get it through them personally.
Summary:
The Utah Association for Government Communications now allows the use of commonly used websites, Facebook and Twitter, as a new forum where city leaders can communicate with the public. It started in the beginning of this year and has been increasing throughout the year. Government officials find websites spread the word to the public very quickly addressing emergencies and other things going on in their districts. It allows them to share a little bit on a personal level as well. One such leader would be Salt Lake City Mayor, Ralph Becker, who one afternoon posted on his Facebook status, "Mayor Ralph Becker is repelling off the Grand America today at noon to show support for Special Olympics Utah!" St. George Mayor, Dan McArthur also enjoys being a little more personal on the websites. He claims, "it gives me a chance to be instantaneous and sometimes funny." Now these men and women are opening up to whole new, large, and diverse audiences. The government leaders, though some were on the fence about using these websites, are now finding it very quick, useful, easy, and enjoyable. "It seems such a perfect fit for us to use what's fast becoming one of the most popular means of communication," said Herriman's public information officer, Nicole Martin. And another bonus is it's free!
My response:
I think its very interesting that the internet has become so important and used in citizen's lives that instead of sticking to the old tactics, government officials are putting these famous sites into play, where they can spread the word about their communities, themselves, and what they're up to. It just goes to show how quickly technology is taking over. I do believe it is something they need to do to keep up with modern communication and reach a large audience. They've gone where the public has gone and now they're realizing that it's quick and efficient. Personally, I think it's rather funny that the officials put their status to show what good they're up to at the moment. It's great for them, but at the same time it could appear to be showing off. One very helpful use is how they can spread the word quickly about emergencies. In the article, Amelia Nielson-Stowell gave the example of Centerville's Lisa Bednarz who, as part of her job, twittered about a water main broken in the area. It lets the citizens know what is going on and what is being done about it. It was a very smart move of the Utah Association for Government Communications to allow city leaders to start using Twitter and Facebook. The use of the internet is increasing and now people my age, as well as older and younger, who like me, don't read the newspaper often, can have easy access to what my city leader is up to. A bonus, I don't get it through the "grapevine", I get it through them personally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)