Inter: Action, Net, Fence

Hello! Welcome to the second episode of Social Renaissance. Today we will be discussing more about online interaction vs face-to-face interaction. Uh oh, silly me, looks like the sound isn't on...LOL...Did i REALLY just LOL (laugh out loud) or did i just write it and make you think i did??...you don't really know do you? Ok that was kind of corny but I just wanted to illustrate how willy nilly we are with our “lols”. We use them even when we aren’t really laughing out loud and this is a reflection of how we can be in internet social interactions period. In the last episode of this podcast we talked about how we put on a performance on social networks and also how ambiguity can’t be easily sorted out in digital space according to Jerry S. Wilson. Because you cannot see or hear the person, you really don’t know what the person is doing or the tone they are doing it in. Yes, you can use exclamation points and all caps but that only goes so far. We also discussed how internet interaction is great for connecting globally and can be safer. Those are great points but they are not good enough to supplement face-to-face interaction with internet interaction. However, one might say, what about programs like Skype? Those are face-to-face. (switch to vlog)

Yes, Skype is face-to-face interaction, but it is still virtual and doesn’t make up for the physical touch often longed for in real time, physically present face-to-face interaction. Remember vitual hugs…*cricket noise*. I think not. Lol. But seriously, internet social interaction is dehumanizing our teens. Teens nowadays were born into the digital age and are called “digital natives” according to Tim Challies, author of the book titled “The Next Story: Life and Faith after the digital explosion”. He said during a radio interview that studies show that teens lack face-to-face interaction and conversational skills due to too much internet and text interaction. I mean, teens are disrespectful, rude and easily distracted, checking social sites and texting while at the dinner table, and worse, while driving.

We need to bring back old fashioned values and basic human morals like honesty, integrity, credibility, transparency, thriftiness, caring for others, and trust. Americans are realizing the importance of these “retro” values according to Jerry S. Wilson and now its time for teens or “digital natives” to be introduced to them. In the 50s, neighbors new each other and people talked to and trusted one another. In my opinion, this is why the crime rate was lower than it is now. As stated in the previous podcast, we will accept a friend request from a stranger before we say hello to that stranger on the street.

Again, I’m not bashing Facebook and other social interactive internet sites. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be the sole means by which we communicate and interact with others. We need to get up from our computers and get to know our neighbors and people in our community. I believe this is possible through the Interfence.

In the last episode I shared that The Interfence is a physical infrastructural interface that would be attached to every lawn in America and is equipped with physical features of Facebook. Bascially, it is your Facebook profile transformed into a non-traditional fence on your lawn. It would initiate conversation and create an interactive small town community-feel through connections of common interest. One could create a reality chat room to discuss politics, tv, movies, sports or social issues right on your front lawn. The overall goal is that like the internet, these initial lawn, real time, face-to-face conversations would begin to connect neighborhoods, communities and finally cities by making better and morally conscious people. This interaction would re-activate “retro” values in adults and create them in teens. It would be a re-implementation of the quote “it take a village to raise a child”. Another solution I propose is “Free Speech Karaoke”. This is set up like “Speaker’s Corner” in London except the soap boxes are equipped with speeches, songs, poems, etc for visitors to recite. Crowds would draw based on their interest in the piece being recited and bring about discussion and interaction.

As I wrap up this vlogcast I want to reiterate that internet social interaction is not a sufficient supplement for physical face-to-face interaction. It does have its place and I don’t propose we get rid of it all together but that we use it in moderation. If we fail to do this, we will begin to loose who we are as human beings. That would not be good for our future. Lets bring back old fashioned values and neighborly interactive ways and make the world better. Thanks for tuning in to this episode of Social Renaissance. Bye!

Sarahs fringe project!

http://fringetvshow.blogspot.com/

Check out my final project!!

TV Outside the Screen

Here is the link to my final project, a blog titled TV Outside the Screen

http://tvoutsidethescreen.wordpress.com/

newsfutureanalysis Final Project

Here is the link to my final project Blog, a Wordpress blog titled, newsfutureanalysis.

http://newsfutureanalysis.wordpress.com/

Social Interaction Podcast

Hello everyone and welcome to the first podcast episode of "Social Renaissance". Today's topic is social interaction and how social networks are not sufficient supplements for face-to-face interaction and communication. As a society, we have drifted so far from the old-fashioned ways of interacting with our neighbors, family and friends in person. Back then, people spoke to one another even if they didn't know them. Nowadays, people will accept a friend request from a complete stranger on Facebook before they would say hi to that same stranger on the street. Cities had more of a community feel but this is no longer the case because we've become lazy and have opted for virtual communities instead. Granted, in virtual communities, you can interact with people all over the world and that is a great feature. Some also believe it is safer to interact with people online rather than in person. This may be true to an extent but humans were not meant to be cooped up in houses all day looking at a computer screen. According to a trauma specialists website, it is not healthy mentally or physically.

Studies by Social Indicators Research have shown that interaction through social networking is not enough for our well-being as humans. A blogger references the study saying quote "The researchers guess this has something to do with the lack of non-verbal cues, lack of warmth, and the laziness of communication associated with Internet communication" end quote. It is often times hard to decipher a person's tone in written text and lets be honest, virtual hugs just don't make the cut.

Also, as stated in the article, "I Tweet, Therefore I am" people put on a performance on social networks. How do we weed or read through this performance to get to the truth? In the article "Don't Displace Face to Face" Jerry S. Wilson tells us, quote "Face-to-face interactions, on the other hand, allow all parties to discuss issues and identify, in real time, potential disagreements and alternative approaches to a situation. Additionally, people can read nonverbal cues to determine if there is real buy-in to an idea—or mere compliance...Ambiguity can be sorted out immediately, resulting in alignment of priorities and direction. None of this is so easy to do in digital space. " end quote.

We need to return to those old fashioned values and neighborly ways of life in which we trusted one another which meant times were safer. Jerry S. Wilson says, quote "Now, more than in many other years, Americans are being reminded of the power of "retro" values. These include honesty, integrity, credibility, transparency, thriftiness, caring for others, and trust. Face-to-face interactions lead to positive outcomes and better long-term relations than relying on the digital space exclusively." end quote.

Now I know it seems i have been bashing social networks but i propose that we actually use Facebook in particular as a model to return to traditional, face-to-face interaction. I've created an architecture project called "Reality Facebook: The InterFence". The Interfence is a physical infrastructural interface attached to every lawn in the city of Detroit and is equipped with physical features of Facebook. Bascially, it is your Facebook profile transformed into a non-traditional fence on your lawn. It would initiate conversation and create and interactive small town community feel though connections of common interest. Trust and other values mentioned by Mr. Wilson would reemerge creating a better person and city. Thus, quote"in remaking a city, man has remade himself"end quote.

This wraps up this episode of "Social Renaissance". Join us next time when we will be discussing Part 2 of this topic and a deeper analysis of The Interfence. Thanks for listening! Take care!

Future of Journalism Podcast

Podcast

Podcast Script

Welcome back, everyone, and to all you new listeners out there, this is the latest installment of my podcast series entitled “The Evolution of Media.” In this episode, I am looking at the future of journalism, and focusing on a recent spat between two media giants. On Thursday, March 10^th, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, posted online his article for the upcoming edition of the NYT Sunday Magazine, entitled “All the Aggregation that’s fit to Aggregate.” Notice the play off of the standard newspaper motto, “All the News that’s Fit to Print.”

In this article, Mr. Keller argues that the future of serious journalism lies with the like of the New York Times, and not aggregation sites like the Huffington Post. He does not believe all the positive hype surrounding AOL’s recent purchase of the Huffington Post. He doesn’t believe that it’s a sign of AOL moving into the business of actually creating more of their own content. In his view, news aggregation today means taking content created from others, repackaging it onto your own website, and in effect stealing the revenue that might have gone to the originators of that content. In his own words, Mr. Keller believes that Arianna Huffington “has discovered that if you take celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications, array them on your Web site and add a left-wing soundtrack, millions of people will come.”

Now, of course Ms. Huffington herself had to respond to this harsh criticism of her work. She posted a response later that same day on her site, with a title of “Bill Keller Accuses Me of “Aggregating” an Idea He Had Actually “Aggregated” From Me.” In this post, she defends the work of the Huffington Post, citing the fact that along with AOL News, it has over 70 percent more unique visitors than the New York Times. She flat-out refutes his characterization of her site and reminds us that it is in fact in the business of content creation. In her words, “Even before we merged with AOL, HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism.”

Well, to be fair, the New York Times does have approximately 1100 full-time employees engaged in the same old-fashioned work or traditional journalism. But, I’m not here to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. I’m here to put this in context and maybe offer some of my own original thoughts. This back-and-forth is a part of the larger discussion of what the future of quote-unquote serious journalism looks like in this country. Can old-fashioned newspaper stalwarts like the New York Times survive and make enough money in this digital age where more and more people read their content for free online? And can sites like the Huffington Post earn enough revenue from advertising to support their business-model of aggregation and minimal original content creation?

Mr. Keller and Ms. Huffington are leaders of two of the most prominent media empires of our day, so we are smart to pay attention to what they have to say on this topic and of each other. While I want to side with Mr. Keller out of respect for the institution of newspapers, I do think that the Huffington Post is making the right move with AOL. Although I do want to challenge Arianna Huffington to ensure that she defies her critics and uses this merger to beef up on paid content providers for her online newspaper. I hope she resists the urge to focus on her unique view count, and places serious and well-researched articles at the top of her site rather than “sexy” or “eye-catching” pieces. She can also avoid the labels bestowed upon her by Mr. Keller by making a clearer distinction between stories that belong on the front page, and stories that belong on the Tabloids. Her site does itself a disservice when it places these two kinds of content next to each other, giving viewers the impression it believes they are of equal importance to society.

Well, that’s it for this episode of “The Evolution of Media.” Stay tuned next week when I will be discussing the uses and abuses of Twitter.

Television: A Fickle Mistress?

---
Vlog Transcript

[“How to Save a Life” – The Fray]

My So-Called Life

Freaks and Geeks

Arrested Development

What do all of these shows have in common? They were cancelled before they could really shine. This television phenomenon will be explained in this segment called “Television: A Fickle Mistress?”

Currently, television networks are in the throws of pilot and renewal season which means two things: First, new projects are purchased and new actors are cast, all in the hopes that this script is the next success story and second, network execs decide if a show is performing well enough to move on to next season. However, what exactly is a success story in the television landscape? Is it great acting? Is it a new and unique story? Is it critical praise?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions is sadly, no. In television today, success is synonymous with ratings, ratings, and only ratings. High rating shares mean advertising dollars for the networks and therefore television shows that are out of the box or that are from a new perspective are often thrown by the wayside, never given the time or money to develop.

This story is common in television, with great programs handed a premature cancellation because of the ever-feared low ratings.  

A current example of a show that was not given enough network attention is Friday Night Lights.

Although there have been five seasons of the show, their episode count per season was shortened after season 2 and the final three seasons have been relegated to premiere on DirectTV before a run on NBC in off-months. Here is a scene of the amazing acting and portrayal of emotion in Friday Night Lights.

TEXT: “SPOILER ALERT! For Season 4”

[Tim: Hey guys, can I steal Billy for a sec, Minds?

Mindy: Aww, this is my first break ever…

Tim: It won’t be long.

Billy: I’ll be back in a second…What’s up, man?

Tim: I did it. I did it all.

Billy: What are you taking about?

Tim: You did not do anything. When we closed the shop, I reopened it.

Billy: Tim…

Tim: You had no idea this was happening.

Billy: Timmy, I can’t let you do that.

Tim: I stripped the cars. I took the money.

Billy: No…

Tim: I took the frames to the junkyard.

Billy: I can’t let you do that.

Tim: You are my brother. You are all I have. You have a family now. You are a father and you need to be one. This is my decision, this is what I’ve decided. This is what’s going to happen. You are my brother.

Billy: I’m sorry, I’m so sorry.]

[“Hang On” – Guster]

Unlike films, which tell stories in a brief, two-hour time slot, television shows are able to expand their characters and stories over a (hopefully) long period of time. However, the current model of television development precludes this kind of evolution and creativity by forcing television shows to find an audience in one or two episodes.

Like Friday Night Lights, Fringe, which airs on Fox has struggled to find a mass audience, but has a cult following and has received consistent mass critical praise throughout its first three seasons. Although fans and entertainment news organizations alike have launched a campaign to save the show, its future remains uncertain.

I would like to see a television industry that praises and rewards innovation, rather than merely reproducing stale and tired plotlines that have been seen time and time again but that are sure to bring in high ratings. Programs like Friday Night Lights and Fringe bring something fresh to television, and it is a shame that this work is not rewarded.