Royal Wedding Watch

Kate Middleton and Prince William are getting married.  But if you have read any newspaper, magazine, social media, or just been in public over the past month you probably couldn't avoid knowing that.  It has been a main topic of conversation on Twitter for weeks and most major news sites like The Washington Post, The New York Times and Huffington Post all have dedicated a section to coverage of The Royal Wedding.  

It is as big a deal in America as it is in Britain.  But is the coverage spurred by Americans' infatuation or the other way around?  Every facet of the wedding has been reported in every different medium.  Open a newspaper, log on to Twitter, Facebook, or turn on the TV and you can see every detail (available) about Kate's dress, the cake, speculation about honeymoon destinations, what Harry and Pippa will be wearing.  A majority of this extended coverage is through social media or online versions of major newspapers.  With limited space in the printed press, only highly important and timely news is printed.  But with no space constraints in the world wide web anything is possible.  Stay updated for more coverage of the Royal Wedding! 

Just a Mirage? Debating the Economic Impact of Social Media

Although the economy is currently troubled, TIME magazine points out that there is one area that is thriving: social media. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Groupon, Yelp, Flickr, are just some examples of companies that barely existed five years ago, but are now together worth billions. For the most part, these companies are private, but have drawn the attention of Wall Street and other investors. There is no doubt that these companies enrich their founders (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg is now the youngest billionaire in the world!) and their investors, but do they add anything to overall economic activity?

Jobs in social media are growing fast, but there were only 21,000 listings last spring, which is a tiny fraction of the 150 million-member U.S. workforce. The article poses the following questions: "Do social media tools enhance productivity or help us bridge the wealth divide? Or are they simply social--entertaining and diverting us but a wash when it comes to national economic health?" The answers to these questions are still unclear; for the most part, only time will tell.

Currently, billions of dollars in investment capital are being spent on these ventures. In order for the U.S. to have a fruitful economic future, that capital needs to "grow the economic pie and not just among the elite of Silicon Valley and Wall Street." Furthermore, as the article poignantly points out, "The U.S. retains a competitive advantage because of its ability to innovate, but if that innovation creates services that don't turn into jobs, growth and prosperity, then it does us only marginal good."

Since it's still fairly early in the game and all of these social media tools are relatively new, it is difficult to answer these questions definitively. Many of these same questions were being posed 20 years ago during the first Internet explosion: "Were Netscape and the Web enhancing our economy, or were people just spending more time at work checking out ESPN.com." The article also explains, "Official statistics weren't designed to capture benefits, and didn't--until statistics mavens at the Federal Reserve, urged on by Alan Greenspan, refined the way they measured productivity. As a result of these somewhat controversial innovations, the late 1990s became a period of substantial technology-driven gains."

Therefore, 20 years later, history may be repeating itself. There is a possibility that social media tools are indeed laying down a foundation for new industries and jobs but aren't yet registering on the statistical radar. Many companies do indeed believe that social media tools make them more competitive. "Ford and Zappos, for instance, use Twitter to market their products and address consumer complaints." Many companies have created internal ways for employees to communicate across divisions through social media, for example using Yammer. Even industry groups for engineers, doctors, and human resources professionals are using social media to share new ideas and best practices on a regular basis, instead of periodically at conferences. One senior executive at Manpower said, "we should think of social-media tools as today's version of the telephone. Yes, they are used for frivolity and all sorts of noneconomic activity (chatting with friends, passing the time), but they also help communication happen more efficiently."

One major question that lingers is "what proportion of the social media benefit will be captured economically by consumers vs. by corporations." Social media gives people the platform to share ideas, compare prices, assess which companies are good to work for, enhance education. But the major caveat is that the people using these tools are the ones who can afford to spend money on technology and have a higher education, not the tens of millions of people in the world who can barely find their next meal. A Pew Research Foundation study found that only 45% of adults making less than $30,000 have access to broadband, which is essential for using social media.

Therefore, it seems that social media is just another contributor to "economic bifurcation." There is no doubt that companies are benefiting from these tools, even if it's hard to specify any numerical gains. Individuals are benefiting too--getting good deals on Groupon, finding jobs on LinkedIn, and keeping in touch with old friends on Facebook. But as the article points out, "the irony is that social media widen the social divide, making it even harder for the have-nots to navigate." If all of the news were to transfer to Web news and be posted through social media only, what about all the people who can't afford to buy a computer or pay a monthly Internet fee, but who can afford to pay a couple dollars for a newspaper or watch free television? Are they to be left uninformed?

On the 29^th of March, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported that a Facebook page that was calling for an intifada against Jews in Israel, was removed from the social media site. But they did not follow the story: news sources in France, Germany, Israel and United Kingdom reported on April the 4^th that Facebook was sued by an former American Justice department prosecutor because of that page. However, the story was covered by the Huffington Post in a really short article.

Does that mean the Huffington Post is more free than the other news sources to reassess the impact of the social media giant or that the American audience does not care?

The New York Times announced on March 27^th that the former White House’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, may be hired by Facebook. The day after, the information was analyzed by many news sources worldwide.

The Washington Post, in its business section, sets the story back into a wider trend, analyzing in a really long article, the relationship between the White House and tech companies over the years. On the contrary, Fox News only report the story in a paragraph in its media section. The same discrepancy can be found in the foreign press (at least in the French one): the main leftist newspaper covers the story, analyzing how the link between the White House and Facebook could affect the tax policy, whereas the right wing newspaper only evokes the story in two paragraphs, underlining the fact that nothing is sure for now.

Facebook and its many uses

When Mark Zuckerburg created Facebook, he did so as a social networking site.  But, as we all know, its use has become so much more important and influential than the original inception.  In a very short amount of time, a Facebook page supporting Col. Moammar Gadhafi recieved over 66,000 "likes" as of Tuesday.  Facebook is a means for these people to unite.  Especially in a more divided region, such a tool can be especially powerful in sharing opinions and uniting.

Just as it is a powerful tool politicians and activism, Facebook is also a much greater tool for social publicity than envisioned.  Lionel Messi, soccer player, got close to seven million followers his first day on Facebook.  He hopes to use the site to stay more closely connected to fans.

Facebook has evolved with features such as the "like" button and "fan" pages to allow individuals to stay abreast of the latest news.  Weather it is an artist/band announcing their upcoming concert or an athlete telling fans about sports news or a newspaper directing fans to important stories or even a political activism group getting support for an issue and organizing members. This feature allows everyday people to be more involved with the news, the news that they, that we, are a part of.

Obama Tweets Too

About a year ago Obama posted his first tweet. Although he already had a Twitter account, he had never posted his own claiming his "thumbs [were] too clumsy to type things over the phone."  But that has all changed.  However, a majority of people believe that his Jan. 18 2010 tweet in support of the Red Cross was a rarity (shown in this Huffington Post poll).

However, weather it is Obama himself or, more likely, his press staff, @BarackObama has over 7,200,000 followers and, since inception, has posted 1,307 tweets.  These updates range from showing support for various causes, announcing events or speeches, updating the public or even, as he did today, announcing that he is gearing up for the 2012 Elections.  

Twitter will likely play a large role in the 2012 Elections for all candidates.  It already is a significant means for politicians to keep in touch with their constituents from DC and will surely increase as they try to garner support.  The Hill recently reported that Republicans are outtweeting Democrats.  

The "Twongress" report shows that 89 Republicans are actively tweeting, compared to 43 Democrats. The divide is especially apparent in the House, where 42 percent of the Republican Caucus is tweeting, while only 12 percent of the Democratic Caucus has found a Twitter audience.

 

One of the most important civic duties is to remain informed and aware.  Sometimes though, the public needs a little help.  And oftentimes, youth can fall to the wayside.  Posting short updates on Twitter (that often lead to more in-depth posts) reaches out to many youth and older citizens alike.  In my mind, anything to keep the public informed is all good.    

 

notes on a news cycle

“We never look as similar as we do when we compete with each other over explanations for violence, in the comments sections of the blogosphere’s blame game. I haven’t wanted to go out there again. Easier to stay inside Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr and get my news links from people who think like me. But if Girard is right that sameness, rather than difference, is where violence comes from, this may be part of the problem in the first place. The internet now fabricates for us too small and homogeneous a town” -Kristin Dombek’s Notes on A News Cycle for N+1 Magazine

When the shooting of Arizona Congresswomen Gabi Giffords was first reported in the news, it dominate all other issues. In a state of the shock, the news media immediately began to try to find a “root cause” for this random act of violence. Dombek’s piece for N+1 magazine represents one of the most sophisticated takes on the media’s subsequent “blame game”. As Patterson noted in his article The News Media: An Effective Political Actor?, journalists “must create a new version of reality every 24 hours, giving the journalist little time to reflect back or think ahead” (445). Yet, as this article shows, magazines typically provide a space for more reflection and in-depth research (Just, Common Knowledge). Dombek’s article tries to analyze the role of new and social media in the creation of an attitude of “sameness”. Because sites like Facebook and Twitter allow you to control who you “follow”, you are essentially becoming your own news producer. While these sites also gives us constant access to 24 hours of news and they might be creating a system where people have little time to reflect on alternative opinions and a need for causation. Dombek concludes the article by pointing out that some things cannot be explained and instead just “invades us from the outside”, and that we need to understand a whole story before jumping into a viral internet frenzy.