Blog #9: Changing the World One Click at a Time?

I think social media should only be seen as a tool to disseminate information – not the driving force behind social movements and activism. It shouldn’t be convenient to stand up for what we believe in. We shouldn’t be clicking a few buttons, typing a few words, and expecting change to just happen. It doesn’t work like that and it never will. Social movements and activism are about our freedom of speech, supporting our beliefs and pushing back against a system. This requires physical movement, discussion and person-to-person interaction.

As technology continues to advance, I’ve been watching human connection fade. We bury our faces in our phones, tablets, laptops, etc. consumed by newsfeeds, emails and text messages. A simple conversation between two human beings or more is a thing of the past. We’ve taken our discussions online. But, when we do come together, face to face, we forget how to speak to each other. We alter our conversations and lose sight of how to understand each other’s emotions. We don’t have a screen to hide behind.

What I’m getting at is that we can’t use social media as a foundation for social movements or activism, because it’ll die as fast as pushing the “post” button. It gets buried, disorganized, shredded, lost in translation. We’re so easily forgetting that change takes a tremendous amount of effort. We can’t sit on our hands, bobbing our head back and forth expecting our tweet for the day to suddenly give women equal pay, make people believe in climate change and so on.

I do think social media has a purpose. It does give ample opportunity to mobilize people to take action in larger numbers on the streets and engage those who normally wouldn’t be involved. But to make it the driving force cheapens the whole purpose of social movements and activism. Use it to garner attention. Don’t expect it to do the change for you. 

Blog #8: The "Good" Part of Social Media

"Social networks are more than just infinite repositories of the trivial, snap judgments or convenient outlets for mindless joy and outrage. They are more than the common ground and the solace we may find during culturally significant moments. Social networks also provide us with something of a flawed but necessary conscience, a constant reminder that commitment, compassion and advocacy neither can nor ever should be finite.

We cannot lose sight of what happened yesterday because we are so consumed by what happened today nor we can we lose sight of what happens today in favor of what tomorrow will bring. And yet, they also remind us that we do have today, that we can be mindful of the past and future while taking some time to appreciate the present." - Roxane Gay

This is the "good" in social media.

This is the "love" part of my love-hate relationship with it.

I got my bachelor's degree in journalism and while I enjoy and find use in journalists, I also know not every one of them is doing their job properly. Roxane Gay made this clear when she talks about the coverage of the filibuster and the leaning reports of the after coverage. While it's not always easy to keep our opinions out of our work, as a journalist, it is our job to provide the facts and only the facts -- let the public form their own opinions.

Social media is useful in the way that you can get constant updates on events (it's live coverage basically). The other part of it, is that people aren't reporting at you -- opinions fill your feed, but you know that's the purpose of the platform, whereas journalists aren't necessarily supposed to do that.

The other point I like is how she talks about the immediacy of social media. In some cases it's ridiculous, but in emergencies, it's an incredible tool that has the potential to save lives. With so many horrors happening in our world today, it's a way to inform the public in a quick and easy way that keeps people aware of what's going on.

While social media may be this beast we're all trying to control -- its services, in my opinion, outweigh the negative aspects we all know it has.

Blog #7: Activists Defined by Tools

I was drawn to Malcolm Gladwell's article "Small Change" because of this line: "Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools." 

His discussion on how activism has changed since social media came into play is important, because it shows the drastic alteration of our form of communication has become. There are hashtags created for everything to garner attention by the thousands; information is disseminated in the matter of seconds; and our once private lives have become extremely public. 

This line had me thinking about how Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have opened the doors to a new world, in some ways. We still gather in the streets (Women's March on Washington, Science March ...) but it doesn't start there. It starts online. We approach our freedom of speech in a very different way, but the question is, does this mean something? How has this affected activism ... change? Our voice? 

So, really, there are numerous questions we need to be asking. 

As I've said in class and previous blog posts -- I have a love hate relationship with social media. While I see the positives, I also see plenty of the negatives. As an employee of a communications firm, I think it's more impacting when our voices are heard, not read or written. While it is effective in some ways, you lose the human element when you live on these social media accounts to express your opinion and actively support a cause. 

Sharing your opinion and support, fighting against oppression, etc., is only going to take you so far when you're just sending off a tweet or Facebook post. I may be from the millennial age, but I still believe in the old-school way of thinking: discuss your thoughts and concerns face to face. 

Social media may be a good starting point to gather a following/get your voice out there, but the only way it truly matters is if you take it beyond that and act in person. Make your voice heard in the right way, without letting these social platform tools define you as a "user" and not a human being with a beating heart, meaningful life, and a name.

Blog Prompt #6: “Brain Death:” An App Folder On My Phone (Op-ed)

   The five social media apps on my iPhone are stored together in an app folder labeled “DEATH."

   I was born in the year 1992 – a millennial – immersed in the growing technology that has now taken over a good portion of our daily lives. CNN reported in 2016 that “Americans devote more than 10 hours a day to screen time” and that number will continue to grow.    

   Where there were once kids running down the sidewalks, biking down the alley behind our neighborhood houses, and little bare feet slapping the pavement as they ran to catch lightning bugs, the subdivision has gone silent. It’s a ghost town.

   When I was a kid, I hated wearing shoes. I’d run out the door barefoot and take off down the street on my bike. My parents wouldn’t see me until sunset and the neighbors would wave hello as I blew past their houses. My two younger sisters meandered next door to play with their friends in the mud and worms, collecting bugs in jars and such. If we wanted to play with something interactive it was outside on our bikes, the swings at the park or laying in the grass with a library book.

   Today, kids are biking with phones in their hands, mothers are handing their screaming children tablets to quiet them down while they shop at Target, and junior high students are Snapchatting their favorite Starbucks’ drink to their friends. I wasn’t even allowed to have a phone until I turned 16 – that was in 2008. Technology has taken over, especially in the world of social media. While I am all for progress, I do think we need get younger generations back outside and away from the devices for a few extra hours each day.

   I know firsthand how consuming social media can be, because I work with it 40 hours a week as a full-time job for a strategic communications firm. My eyes burn and my brain melts from my ears by the end of the day. Don’t get me wrong, I love what I do. I think social media teaches us new ways of communication, design techniques, and creative writing. While it has its negatives, the positives are equal if not greater. But what we should promote to younger generations as they come up the ranks is getting back outdoors.

   Getting them outdoors will remind them what it is to breathe fresh air, look at the rain falling from the clouds, climb the hill at the park. It brings them back to reality to focus on the now. There’s a saying that REI, an American retail and outdoor recreation service corporation, uses across their social media and website: “Opt Outside.” They believe “time outside makes you healthier and happier.”

   From my own personal experience, I think REI makes a valid point. A few weeks ago, after nonstop work for six months, I finally took a vacation. The first thing I did was hop off a plane and go climb the mountains at Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada. I finally felt the warmth of the sun, wind grazing my face and that sweet inviting smell of trees, grass and rubble. I left with dirt in my hair, scrapes down my legs and the feeling of true success after conquering a gruesome mountain side. I felt alive.

   When you stare at a screen perusing your social media accounts for 10+ hours a day, you feel drained. It sucks the life out of you. We should be encouraging kids to take advantage of the technology available to them, but even more, we should be encouraging them to #OPTOUTSIDE.

Blog Prompt #5: Op-Ed Summary

One of my op-eds will focus on communication – or lack thereof – between government agencies and stakeholders. As an employee of a communications firm, I often see problems arise with clients like IDOT because they speak in “engineer-ese” to the communities. 

Blog Prompt #4: Is Polarization a Bad Thing?

I tend to gravitate towards the “newer formats” because I find them entertaining – I don’t always agree with everything the hosts say, which is OK. I think these formats are actually a positive thing, so yes, I disagree with Jacobs and Townsley. I think the “newer formats” provide other means of getting news and opening the public sphere to individuals that don’t always seek out the latest political topics, etc.

It’s different – yes – but it’s a fresh approach to discourse with a wider audience. It allows more opinions to generate and discussions to take place from person to person. What we should be careful of is how we take in the information that is shared through these formats. It’s still entertainment, so things are blown out of proportion, exaggerated, etc. We should still digest the facts, do our research and form our own opinions.

I don’t see these formats politically polarizing – news outlets do the same thing, minus the puns and humor, etc. It’s just another outlet to connect with, learn about news topics and the like. It’s our job to determine where we stand instead of allowing these formats to dictate our views. It’s on us to educate ourselves for discussions in the public sphere – the formats are just sources to get our information.

Blog Prompt #3: Expert Commentary, Academic Fields and Intellectual Diversity

I think the more represented academic fields are often along the lines of economics and political science, and the invisible is anything related to the arts.

There isn’t a whole lot of diversity in the news, considering most of the coverage since the election has been on Trump’s “adventures.” Most of the intellectual and philosophical perspectives lean one way or another, depending on the news outlet (we see this clearly on CNN and Fox). Economics and political science often dominate the discourse and are heavily represented by the male gender.

Because of the recent political events happening in the U.S., I think there is an imbalance in the perspectives represented in discussions in the media. Depending on the outlet you can tell which way they swing. CNN has had no problem calling out Trump and showing their distaste – just as he has done towards the media (strictly observational/doesn’t reflect my political views).

About the first two parts of this blog prompt, we often see that the academic fields most cited are economics, political science and general business … the arts are buried under a mountain of money-driven jargon. Most public intellectuals don’t put an emphasis on these fields because the arts, etc. aren’t as profitable. Our society is driven by everything that surrounds money and how it can get more. But, we lose a whole other side of thought when the media focuses on one type of public intellectual – we lose the diversity aspect that is stressed in our readings.

As make my way through The Space of Opinion, the more my view is confirmed – we don’t have a diverse, unbiased media. While its objective is to remain neutral, it fails, which is why different parties prefer one form of news outlet over another … we choose based on what we subscribe to. And, honestly, it’s very difficult to disconnect from our views and present the facts without showing the people our cards (in regards to the difficulty of being a part of the media). 

Blog Prompt #2: Who Are the Leading Public Intellectuals of Our Day?

                          

Too often, the idea of who a public intellectual is in our society falls under the white, male category. But, we live in a diverse world made up of intellectual individuals of all backgrounds. I don’t let the “typical” serve as a template, especially in a world full of so many different people with more to offer than just the “typical.”

The first person who comes to mind when I’m asked about an example of a leading public intellectual today is Emma Watson. She went from this know-it-all wizard child actress to a leading activist for gender equality. In 2014, Watson was appointed as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador and helped launch the UN Women Campaign He For She, which calls on men to advocate for gender equality. 

While Watson is predominantly in the film industry, she has taken the time to get an education – she graduated from Brown University with a bachelor’s degree in English literature in May 2014. In February 2016, she announced she plans to take a break from acting to focus on her “personal development” and her women’s rights work. She’s more than the wand swinging Hermione and dancing Belle we see on the screen. She even shaped the Belle character into a whole new woman who has a career as an inventor and a more independent mind – giving her character a feminist twist. What I appreciate about Watson is how she doesn’t spew her opinion without backing her thoughts up with research, and contributes to the public sphere in a way that is motivating and empowering for topics that don’t always feel that way in this world. She’s not your typical actress … she’s a public intellectual who happens to be on the big screen now and then.  

Blog Prompt #1: The Contemporary Public Sphere

As someone whose first instinct, after rolling out of bed in the morning, is to check her social media accounts, I’m constantly locked into the virtual public spheres we know as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. I spend hours sitting at my desk at work updating our clients’ posts, managing comments and documenting discourse between our clients and their audience, or audience and audience. I think we’ve moved into a period where we heavily rely on our social media platforms as a place to generate discourse, allowing these social media platforms to serve as our public spheres.

As much as I am intrigued by this technology, I hate it equally as much – I have all my social media apps in one folder on my phone labeled “DEATH.” It’s a love-hate situation.

While there are some individuals who contribute worthy information, opinions, arguments, etc., there are even more individuals who spew thoughtless comments, posts, and visuals across all social media platforms. I think a lot of this thoughtless discourse generates because we can hide behind a screen – the human element is removed; therefore, the fear of a person’s reaction doesn’t seem to have the same effect as it does when we’re having political (or other) discourse face to face. These public spheres invite free speech, but without that human element and with a technological barrier standing between each person in the public sphere, our respect and thoughtful and intellectual discourse is thrown out the window.

Are these flourishing public spheres a good thing?

In some ways, they are – in the sense that information gets to us faster and we are introduced to new topics that we can generate opinions on and ask questions in a way that we couldn’t before. In that way, I appreciate the advancement of these types of public spheres. But, in many ways, the multiplicity/fragmentation is helping increase political polarization and conflict. The recent election is a perfect example of how it can divide people, create conflict and destroy meaningful discourse: rumors fly across newsfeeds; posts and comments are generated just to get a rise out of another; people comment for the sake of commenting (just because they can). There’s no end to this cycle because these public spheres operate all hours of the day every day.

Because of the immediacy and convenience of social media platforms, we don’t take the time to think about what we’re saying and why we’re even saying it in the first place. I think that’s one of the biggest issues with these public spheres. We’re all about what we think sounds good to us, only taking interest in those who agree with us, forgetting to understand the other side to broaden our view, and dividing for the sake of dividing.