Following the incident, I did not read much what the left or the right, FOX or MSNBC, Democrats or Republicans have to say. I only watched the Daily Show and found that Jon Stewart's reaction to be quite suitable and fits with my own conscience. Though I did not follow closely the blogosphere, Twitterati, and interwebs, I am aware of the social media power in polarizing opinions; sometimes just for the sake to be opposite of the other party/belief/view.
Carol Tenopir wrote in LJ, “When anyone can add unfiltered, unvetted, and unattributed information to a growing array of social networking sites—sites some people rely on for their news or research—we have a dangerous dumbing-down of culture and a world where truth is hard to differentiate from falsehood.” I am always interested in reading people's comment about a news article. No matter how major or trivial, you can always find very entertaining or disturbing comments that makes you wonder what kind of a person would think like that. At the same time, you can always find intelligent comments for or against the voice in the news and this I find, always refreshing to read a well articulated opinion on a matter - however, this type of thinking and writing is dwarfed by comments that are unfiltered and not thought out well. This is also reflected in what people put up as blog postings, status updates, tweets, picture uploads, or YouTube videos; a lot of noise and not enough substance.
This leads me to the Beer and Burrows article where web 2.0 provides net users to produce and create knowledge while being able to respond and react towards others' contribution. These interaction can be controlled/limited, i.e. article posting on Facebook with commenting capability. It can also be semi controlled, i.e. Twitter tweet with links. Or, it could also be open and anonymous, i.e. comments section of a news article.
In Boyd and Ellison's article, relating to the suspect's online presence, we can see that Jared Lee Lounghner's had a MySpace and YouTube account. It was concluded by the authority that Loughner was a closet political radical and more of conspiracy theory follower (from Wikipedia entry on Loughner, with appropriate references). It turns out that the Internet and social media might not have played a major role in Loughner's behavior. The Internet and social media might have been accessories to his motive but not the main motivation.
Going specifically to blogs, according to Krishnamurty (in Herring's Article), there are 4 genres of blogs: Online Diaries, Support Group, Enhance Column, and Collaborative Content Creation. We can find personal take on the Arizona shooting incident (online diary), blogs dedicated to the fallen victims of the shooting (support group), and HuffPo report on the tragedy (both as enhanced column and collaborative content creation).
I conclude this post with a brief definition of social computing: [see also Web 2.0] the use of computer technology beyond/aside from individual functionality and more towards interaction between users via different platforms/social sites. It has huge potential in swinging to both directions in terms of social phenomena as anyone can post pretty much about anything. It is a challenge for librarians and information professionals to identify reliable sources on a social phenomena, positive or negative.
The Arizona Shooting articles I read:
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/gabrielle-giffords-shot-c_n_806211.html#22_chilling
- http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/113825584.html
- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/01/11/jon_stewart_arizona_shooting/
I found it interesting that you found ways to apply blogs about the Arizona shooting incident to all four Krishnamurty’s four genres’ of blogs. Bloggers write their personal thoughts and opinion on blogs as an ‘open diary’, and deliver to others with or without editing and adding as a collaborative content creation. In the same article, a blog is likened to radio, so those open diaries and the HuffPo report are just in the air. Anyone can get it if they wish, and anyone can believe it if they wish. That is a dark side of social media on this tragedy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I’m so glad that you point out the challenge facing librarians. The biggest concern that I have about social media is how much can we rely on the sources via someone’s blog, tweet, or any kind of SNSs, and it reminds me of the authority issue, discussed in my LIS classes, regarding Wikipedia as a reference source being cited in academic papers.
I really like that you stated, "I am always interested in reading people's comment about a news article. No matter how major or trivial, you can always find very entertaining or disturbing comments that makes you wonder what kind of a person would think like that." Like you I often find myself reading these comments and wondering who wrote them, especially for local news as it could very well be your neighbor. I think this is an issue for Web 2.0 as it makes information gathering very distracting. Even for this very assignment I found myself needing to turn the comment blocker on for fear that 2 hours of research will turn into 9 hours of comment browsing. You cannot read a news article anymore with out some unknown person telling you where the lies and holes are and being directed to more and more background (be it reliable or not). This plays right into the Tenopir article as the comments on this news articles could be written by a radicle group or maybe even worse the author herself and we would never even know it.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, one definition of information centers on something new or unexpected, i.e. it's not information if you already know it. Against-the-grain comments (what you and Tenopir are calling noise or distractions here) are a common strategy to get noticed in the crowd, which may be the goal of many posters, as opposed to expressing their true opinion.
ReplyDeleteYour personal experience in using social media reminds me how powerful web 2.0 is to deliver news and get people’s attention to the ongoing events. Sometimes, we are not really into the ongoing events in the beginning, but after the ubiquitous social media keep updating the news, we are eventually curious about what is going on. In other words, social media play a role in raising consciousness about what is happening and what is crucial. When more people start caring about the events and commenting on them, the events become important and sometimes the accompanied discussion can form a force to change the society. In addition, you mentioned some blogging, tweets, and YouTube videos are not in good quality. Some of them are filled with trash words. This situation disturbs people craving for information. Therefore, I think it is important that the SNSs set up rules (some web sites have already done it) to eliminate unfiltered or unorganized statements to give most users a “clean” place to live in.
ReplyDeleteYour statement, "The Internet and social media might have been accessories to his motive but not the main motivation.", got me thinking about possible motivation from others in the form of comments. His anti-government videos specifically may have gotten either positive or negative comments and I was wondering if this may have had any impact on his mindset. We learned from our reading, "A Rape in Cyberspace" by Julian Dibbell, that comments online have real world implications. It wouldn't be out of the range of possibility that a comment from someone may have affected him, especially someone who seemingly doesn't have a fully healthy mental state.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is often hard to find online. As people have the ability to appear as anyone they want to be online, they can spin a convincing story and back it up with all sorts of "facts," some of which may be supported by people that do not exist, others twisted beyond recognition to suit their needs, and yet others written in such a way as to guide popular opinion into a mindset that the author wants to encourage. All of these things can be done in official, printed media, but if someone is found to be doing the above things, his or her credibility is destroyed and there are permanent consequences to his or her actions. Online, a person can simply fade away and reemerge under a different persona and people will be none the wiser.
ReplyDeleteI notice that a lot of people now rely on updates from Facebook and the like, for their information. John Stewart and the Daily Show also seem to be a common source of news for younger people. Like you and Phillip, I often find it interesting to browse through the commentary below news articles. It can sometimes be a challenge not to get lost in the comments rather than moving on to do something more productive.
ReplyDeleteYour point at the end is a fantastic one. Librarians/info professionals do face a tough task in determining the reliability of a source of information. In the end, I have faith that the librarian community can meet the challenge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete> Sometimes, we are not really into the ongoing events in the beginning, but after the ubiquitous social media keep updating the news, we are eventually curious about what is going on.
ReplyDeleteThis is true most of the time, but not always. I know people who really get turned down when the news or discussions about something is everywhere. It's sort of the common resistance for TV commercials. When the commercials are on, people tune down their attention and ignore the details.
When you see and hear the news everywhere you turn, you might think, without reading the news article or listening to the reporter carefully, you've already learned the event. But, it turns out you might have learned just the first half of the story or a faulty version of the story.
This is also similar to how the movie trailers work. Giving away too much story in the movie trailers sometimes stops people from going into the theater. The trailers are just like fractions of news events we would see from all different sources.