"Can we go to news school for a second?"

What really happened to Flight 370? That’s the question many news organizations have been posing to their viewers, diverting from their normal role of providing the facts. Instead, they’re offering theories. Since we know very little factual information surrounding the case, it’s understandably difficult to discuss the event as a whole. Although officials recently announced the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean, that didn’t stop reporters from speculating about what happened to the plane prior to this announcement. Many news stations asked users to call in with theories, while other organizations took to social media in hopes of uncovering the most entertaining user theory. RTV6 dedicated a page simply to theories surrounding the missing plane. A screencap from this page is below.

One particularly daring and disrespectful news organization, KETV NewsWatch 7 decided to tweet the photo and message below. In case you haven’t seen the TV series Lost, the news station is comparing the real plane’s disappearance (with 239 real people on board) to the fate of the plane from the fictional show. The tweet has since been deleted, but the tasteless graphic wasn’t the major problem in this situation.

There is a distinct difference between possible theories and sensationalism in the media. For example, if a news station wasn’t completely aware of the facts surrounding a home invasion, they could choose to not say anything on the subject, or instead simply work with the information they were provided to develop a probable theory. Since these news organizations had no information to work with, they were inventing their own. That pretty much goes against every principle of journalism that exists. Sensationalist theories turn into conspiracy theories and conspiracy theories are spread as false information.

In the video below, Mika Brzezinski interrupts her co-host Joe Scarborough to announce the issues she has with the discussion of Flight 370 on the station. Now that it has been determined the plane was lost at sea, maybe the theories will begin to decrease in number. My hope is that news stations will learn from their mistakes in this case and continue to adhere to the basic guidelines of journalism. If not, I fear news organizations will no longer be viewed as an accurate source of information for citizens in years to come.

A digital BFF renaissance

After tonight’s class discussion on the way we use technology to communicate, I was a little bummed out. I love my phone, but I love my friends more. It worried me to think that my tiny iPhone could have such detrimental effects on my relationships and conversations. Why can’t I use my phone to develop these relationships instead of allowing the device to hinder them? According to this article by Maureen O’Connor, I can.

The article begins with a conversation between two women regarding an intimate relationship one of the women was having with a man. The women texted back and forth, sending pictures, comments about each other’s current partners and other superficial topics. One of the women even texted a selfie to her friend and asked for the woman’s opinion (she planned on sending it to a guy and she wanted approval).

The author, a woman slightly older than me, argues that technology actually allows users to become more connected, not the other way around like many people would have us believe. She notes the texting conversation that took place between the two women might’ve never happened in real life; later in the piece, she said the conversation would have been too superficial for face-to-face conversation. Regardless, it plays an important role in maintaing the relationship.

“When my generation moved out of the dorms, technology developed to allow us to live in a perpetual virtual slumber party, gossiping with all our friends. The result may actually be more intimate than the face-to-face alternative — without camera phones, I wouldn’t have seen my friend’s lip-biting sexy face. When we text, we’re free to indulge moment-to-moment specifics: waiting for a phone call, obsessing over he-said she-said texts, trying on outfits together before going to different parties in different cities or on other sides of the city.”

It sounds silly, but she highlights an important point. Many would agree the conversations we hold on social media and through text messages may actually be more intimate than face-to-face interaction. She continues by explaining how users create their own rooms.  A Facebook thread can be used in the same way as a physical room housing all the friends. This suggests that physical interpersonal commitment isn’t always necessary in order to hold a conversation.

Instead of taking time out of the day to see a friend or family member, you are instead in constant communication with them. They are incorporated into your daily life, even if you don’t physically see them. Of course, this is not to say people can maintain a relationship solely on social media or on their phones, but it’s certainly a more positive outlook than what has previously been suggested. The author mentions a friend whose use of technology enables her to connect with others she doesn’t have the benefit of seeing often.

“As technology lowers the barrier for communication, she’s not just getting back in touch, but staying in touch, with friends who’d slipped through the cracks.”

The author explains the use of technology in terms of communicating with friends from the past and maintaining previously held relationships. She’s using texts and Facebook to remember her college days, but this kind of communication is rapidly becoming the new normal. People don’t always have time for face-to-face conversation, and that’s okay. Every now and then, shoot a person a text to let them know you’re thinking of them.

“I feel like I hear studies about how texting is ruining communication and relationships, but I honestly feel like the texts have brought us closer together. I can send a quick text in passing while I’m walking to work, a reminder that ‘Hey, I’m thinking about you,’ or ‘Hey, remember when?’ We can know a little about what’s going on each other’s lives, even when we won’t have time to talk for weeks or sometimes months.”

Technology allows us to communicate on a deeper level and maintain relationships we’ve previously formed. It’s yet to be determined exactly how effective technology is at forming lasting relationships, but that’s a topic for another day. So, the next time you see someone texting at the dinner table or at a bar, consider they may be connecting to another group, perhaps their BFFs from college. In other words, they may be playing their part in the “digital BFF renaissance.”

Hey employers, check out my Facebook page!

After reading the posts by Lauren, Kristin and Jamie on the topic of employers looking into prospective employees via social media, I thought I’d provide my own take on this issue, partly because I somewhat disagree with what they’re saying, but mostly because I like to play devil’s advocate. From the beginning, as an employer, I would be more concerned if the potential employee felt they had something to hide on their social media accounts. I’d like to believe (most) employers know candidates have social lives; they understand that those are the photos that go on social media sites. Kristin said, “College students don’t post Instagram pictures of their hard work at their internship, their religiously dedicated library visits to Davis late at night nor their academic achievements.” Employers know that. If they have a Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, they probably don’t post things like that either.

Some people may still worry that employers might see photos of their social life. If this is the case, consider what you would like to see as an employer? Would you rather hire someone who seems to communicate well with others (evident by their photos with friends) and is invested in their community (or on their campus) or someone who just takes a bunch of selfies? I know who I’d hire. Additionally, you can tell a lot about a person based on their profile picture, a point I discussed in a previous post. “Photos seem to be the primary way we make impressions of people on social networking sites,” said Brandon Van Der Heide. For example, if you were to upload a photo of you and your friends to Facebook, you may potentially look more attractive as a candidate because most jobs require some level of communication. (Disclaimer: I am not talking about candidates who post photos themselves passed out under a bar, or anything similar. That’s just stupid.)

That brings me to my next point. People are very different in interviews than they are in real life. Almost anyone can meet a potential employer with a smile on their face and a list of their qualifications, but they might just be terrible people. One look at their Twitter feed and you could likely tell what kind of person they really are. I graduated with someone whose tweets contain racial slurs roughly 75% of the time. They applied for a job, went in for an interview and the company wanted to hire them almost immediately after. One day later, after the company took a quick look at the candidate's Twitter feed, they sent him an email that said they weren't hiring him. Their reason? They saw his tweets, and he was kind of an asshole.

Now, think of someone you’ve come in contact with (someone who has a Facebook) who made you think, “How in the world did this person get a job?” We’ve all met someone like that, and I can almost promise you they did well in their interview. You may also think about someone who you work with who really shouldn’t be allowed to have a job. Just to be clear, I’m only talking about people with a social media presence; I know a lot of older people don’t use social media and therefore, can’t be considered in this category.

We share so much of our lives on these social media sites, regardless if it’s mostly the social part, so they may be a good indication of what kind of people we are. By no means do I tweet things applicable for the jobs I hope to apply for when I graduate. I tweet about the movies I watch on Netflix and who I think should be a celebrity couple, but I don’t tweet racial slurs; already, because of the things I put (and don’t put) on social media, I’m more attractive as a candidate.

I recently applied for an ambassador position for a new company. Right under my name and DOB, they asked for a link to my Facebook page, as well as how many Instagram followers I have. I don’t have a problem giving this information. In fact, I include links to my Facebook and Twitter on my resume. I do this because I want employers to know I have nothing to hide. Yes, I have a few stupid pictures on my Facebook page, and Jamie says she does too. According to this article, that doesn’t matter.

The author addresses the three major things employers look for in the social profiles of potential employees:

1. If the candidate will be a good fit
2. A candidate’s qualifications – “If you’ve mentioned your communication skills – are these supported by your online activity? What do you post or tweet about? Are you articulate, intelligent, and friendly, or are you argumentative, belligerent, and foul-mouthed?”
3. Their creativity

Bottom line, none of these things will be affected by a photo of you making a silly face.

As for me, I don’t mind if future employers look at my social media accounts, silly photos and all. I wouldn’t want to work for anyone who couldn’t find humor in that, anyway.

What did you expect?

We've talked a lot about body image and sexualizing females in the media, so this video fits right in with our discussion.

Buzzfeed recently released this video showing men playing women’s roles in three popular commercials.

People have developed different opinions on the topic of gender and sexuality in advertisements. Some say both men and women should be equally sexualized in ads, while others think neither should be featured. While opinions differ, one fact remains. Women in the media are often over sexualized in advertisements and are expected to fall into a subordinate role.

The video is designed to show the other side of this concept, as well as how the media uses this in their ads. I understand the clip isn’t attempting to be serious (it’s more of a comical representation of the sexuality concept), but my own reaction surprised me. The men looked so silly to me; specifically in the last clip, the man on the beach looked so out of place. His character was used to depict the perfect, tan and muscular man on the beach, just as the real commercial uses an attractive woman. Regardless of his physique, he just looked wrong in that scene, and that bothered me.

I couldn’t help but think the males looked so out of place because I was expecting a female. I hadn’t seen the first two commercials in this video, but I believe the original ones were “better.” In every clip where the roles were reversed, I thought to myself, “that doesn’t look right” and “that’s the place for a woman.” Are these ideas ingrained in my mind? Do I automatically expect a woman in sexualized ads? Is it because I’m used to viewing women in this way? If this is the case, I can certainly see why nothing has changed in the advertising industry. If everyone keeps expecting women in these roles, that’s what advertisers will continue to feed us.

First kiss

Less than a week ago, filmmaker Tatia Pilieva uploaded a video titled “First Kiss” to her YouTube account with the simple description, “We asked twenty strangers to kiss for the first time…” In just six days, the video has garnered over 58 million views on the site. And yes, it’s just as awkward as you’d imagine.

The video was shared on Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites, by users encouraging others to watch the short black-and-white clip; many users found it moving and beautiful. How else could you explain why a video of 20 strangers kissing went viral? When users share viral content, they are sharing emotions. In this case, they were sharing the emotions surrounding the experience of a first kiss. But one critic disagreed with the idea of sharing emotion, instead saying users loved the video because they were told to love the video by their friends or family members on social media. He said because the video was in black-and-white and played soft music while couples shared romantic moments, users were almost expected to find it inspiring. It had all the characteristics of an uplifting video, but he argued many people shared the link because they were supposed to like it, not because they were sharing emotion through viral content.

But the critics didn’t stop there. Like all viral content, the video came under heavy scrutiny by those who wanted to know more about it. Turns out, the video is actually an advertisement for a clothing company called Wren, owned by Melissa Coker. Almost immediately, sites began labeling the video as “fake,” saying “First Kiss” features famous models, singers and band members who are all wearing clothing by Wren Studio. But speaking to the NY Times, Melissa Coker said she wasn’t trying to trick anyone. The 20 strangers had never met prior to shooting, so the experience was 100% real.

“The video flashes ‘Wren presents’ at the beginning and also mentions the company in the credits. ‘There was no part of it where this was a secret,’ Ms. Coker said.”

In response to Coker's statement, Pedestrian brings up an interesting point.

"If 'First Kiss' never pretended to be anything otherwise, does its nature as an advertisement make it (retroactively) any less moving for it being just another ad for clothes - albeit a brilliant one presented in a highly-shareable format? Are whatever feelings it evoked in you rendered void now you're a little wiser to its motives; or is this no different to being moved by the performances of actors in a film?"

This is a question advertisers will have to consider when modeling ads in the future. I’m not an advertising major, but I would say this video is well done (aside from those calling it “fake”). Combining emotion and advertisements is an effective way to promote a product or a company, possibly by producing viral content. I believe more advertisers will look to boosting sales through sharing emotions and online content. With only a $1,300 budget, Coker produced an advertisement that has been viewed millions of times, far exceeding the number she could reach even during fashion week.

“You can’t reach 40 million viewers in an 11- to 15-minute fashion runway presentation.” The times have changed. Maybe it’s time for advertisements to change as well.

The price of security

I’d like to begin by presenting a question. Why would a billion dollar company purchase a small app start-up for $19 billion dollars? The answer is more complicated than you might think. Facebook recently purchased WhatsApp, an app that took in a shabby $20 million in profits compared to its new big brother company led by Mark Zuckerberg. But WhatsApp, a private messaging app, was labeled successful by Facebook’s terms, boasting 450 million users and counting. And when Mark Zuckerberg considers you a threat, he does something about it. The deal was relatively quiet. For the most part, news organizations and websites covered the story, while users accepted it and moved on. I, for one, am surprised this deal didn’t get more media attention. By that, I mean I’m shocked people didn’t freak out.

After all, $19 billion is the most any one company has ever paid for another tech company. $19 billion American dollars on something made up of signals and messages. When a person or company decides to make a purchase for an amount close to this price, they usually receive something physical in return. But Facebook didn’t need anything like that. What they needed was a guarantee of continued success. Mark Zuckerberg purchased WhatsApp to secure Facebook’s spot on the social media throne. Security has a price, and when it comes to a successful mobile app, that price happens to be $19 billion.

This seems to answer my first question of why Facebook would spend so much on a less popular app. The deal was designed to protect the company by knocking out the competition. We saw this a few years ago when the company acquired Instagram, and again when they attempted to purchase Snapchat. This article calls it the “world’s most expensive game of whac-a-mole.”

But this deal makes a major statement about the future of social media. It isn’t going away anytime soon.

Rewind five years to 2009. Could we have ever imagined we’d be here, in 2014, spending billions of dollars on one app? Inspired by this Imgur post, here are a few things that cost less than WhatsApp:

The Hubble Space Telescope - $10 billion

London Olympics - $10.4 billion

American Airlines - $11 billion

50 most expensive paintings ever sold - $5 billion

Aircraft carrier - $13 billion

We won’t pay for scientific technology to advance our knowledge of the social system and promote aerospace engineering, but by golly, you better believe we’ll be able to update our friends on what we ate for lunch.

Facebook has made it clear they are the star of the social media show, and they’ll take down any company who stands in their way. I’ll leave you with one more question. How big will we let Facebook get? If we don’t pay attention, they might just become the Google of social networking. When Comcast announced its plans to purchase Time Warner Cable, people were worried the company would become a monopoly by knocking out the competition. Although it’s on a much smaller scale, isn’t this exactly what Facebook is doing? So far, the company has made it clear they’ll do anything to stay on top, even if it costs them two years of profits and stock. They’re letting us, the users, know we can always check the little box that says “stay logged in,” and we will, because deep down we know Facebook probably isn’t going anywhere.

Mark Zuckerberg will make sure of that.

Netflix Hack Day

This February, Netflix held a “hackathon” encouraging employees and users to submit their ideas on how to improve the website. The results were impressive, and it’s obvious users know what users want. Many of the suggestions borrowed ideas from other successful websites and companies, altering it to fit the preexisting Netflix user interface. Until I saw these ideas, I didn’t think Netflix could be improved; it’s already a simple design offering a lot of video for only $7.99/month. Now, I’m just hoping Netflix will make these changes soon.  

This technology incorporates the Fitbit bracelet to monitor stats and daily activity. Although the bracelet is often used for weight loss, it also monitors your sleep. Because of Fitbit’s wireless connectivity, Netflix could connect to the bracelet and monitor when a user fell asleep. If a user falls asleep in the middle of a Netflix TV or movie, the Fitbit bracelet will recognize this and transmit a signal to Netflix telling the program to pause. When the user wakes up, they have the ability to resume where they left off. This is cool in two big ways. First, it is connecting with a bracelet primarily used for weight loss. It’s a simple (and for the most part, cheap) solution to an annoying problem, plus it could potentially advance the field of wearable technology.

Playlists are often used on sites like Pandora, 8tracks and iTunes, so why not use them on a platform for TV shows and movies? With this hack, users would have the ability to group items together. Just as you’re in the “mood” to listen to a certain type of music, you may want to watch a certain “type” of TV show or movie. Each playlist could even be based on a user’s emotions; if they were happy, they may want to watch a happy movie.

Using Netflix Beam, users with Netflix accounts could beam a program onto another device without signing in. This hack is ideal for guests who don’t want to sign in and sign out after visiting a friend’s house and watching something on the site. None of these hacks are crucial for the continued success of Netflix, but they are all designed to perfect the user experience. These hackers have stepped back and thought of things that bother them. In doing so, they may have come up with Netflix’s next big idea.

These ideas are just a few of my favorites, but you can check out all of the hacks here. Note: you can't search for these videos on Google.

Comcast doesn't care

I know there has been a lot of conversation on this topic, but this clip was too good to pass up. WARNING: CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE.

Although the video above is by a parody account called Funny or Die, there is more truth behind it than we’d like to think. The video suggests Comcast, a major company that purchased Time Warner Cable thereby making a super corporation, may be gaining a little too much control across the United States. With all that control, the fake spokesperson is essentially saying “we don’t care about you” and “we don’t have to.”

Most of us have heard about the potential negative results that could come along with the merger. You thought Time Warner Cable customer service was bad? Oh, just you wait. Comcast customer service will be even worse, because they don’t care and they don’t have to. Even if viewers threaten to switch to Hulu and Netflix (which I’ve previously done when I got tired of being put on hold with TWC), Comcast still has some control over you; the company is a co-owner of Hulu and charges Netflix for streaming content. They have their foot in every door.

The video even suggests Comcast has been called “the Walmart” of mass media simply because of how much they don’t care about their customers. The lawsuits and violations don’t seem to faze the company in the least. If they have enough money and power to purchase a (mostly) successful company for $45 billion, they certainly have enough to pay off a few companies or people.

In the end, even though this video is a joke, it’s still pretty scary to think about how much power and influence one company could have over our lives.

Twitter storytelling

This morning, I saw a link to an article titled “20 terrifying two-sentence horror stories.” I’ve seen a few of these before, but I clicked on the article anyway. Here’s an example: I begin tucking him into bed and he tells me, "Daddy, check for monsters under my bed." I look underneath for his amusement and see him, another him, under the bed, staring back at me quivering and whispering, "Daddy, there's somebody on my bed."

That’s pretty creepy stuff, but the content is not the most important factor. These stories are limited to two sentences, which means most of them will be under 140 characters (the story above is one of the longer ones), the perfect length for a tweet. Think about the emotions this “story” invoked and the fact that just a few words can make up meaningful content. When we tweet, we become storytellers. Granted, our story may not be anything more than a simple “GTHD,” but isn’t that a story in its own? Four characters is all it takes to get the point across.

Because of sites like Twitter that limit the number of characters users can post, we’re adapting to shorter stories. We’re learning how to tell them in fewer words but still invoke the same emotions as if we were sharing the story on a full page. I’d even argue we like these shorter stories better, and this is an opinion that will likely continue in the future. Not every story on the Internet will have a beginning, middle and end, but we as users can still understand the meaning behind it, even if it’s only 140 characters.

The girl who tweeted wolf

If you've been on social media in the past week, you've probably seen the video above floating around online.

Kate Hansen, a member of the U.S. Olympic Luge team, tweeted the video earlier last week after uploading it to her Youtube account (katehansen92). The 18-second clip is titled “Epic #SochiFail: Wolf in my hall,” and shows a wolf wandering the halls in the city’s Olympic Village housing. Hansen’s tweet uses the hashtags “SochiFail” and “SochiProblems,” both of which have garnered thousands of tweets from news organizations, Olympians and many others regarding the poor conditions from the host city, so it was no surprise to see a wolf wandering the halls of Hansen’s dorm.

Hansen’s tweet was retweeted over 2,600 times and the actual video has almost 5 million views. Media outlets all over the country aired the video and many news websites shared the link to Hansen’s Twitter and her Youtube account. Within 24 hours, the video had been seen by millions.

And that’s when Jimmy Kimmel stepped in.

The video was faked. The entire scene was shot in Kimmel’s studio after his staff recreated a hallway in the Olympic Village dorms. You can watch his video segment below.

As part of his show, Kimmel pieced together clips taken from the media after Hansen tweeted the video. Not only does Kimmel’s prank show the gullibility of viewers and social media users, it also shows the failure of news stations to provide accurate facts. In the reading for tomorrow’s class, we see the first Principle of Journalism is an obligation to the truth. Hansen tweeted the video as a truth, but it seems many news organizations failed to verify the accuracy of the content. A major part of journalism involves separating fact from fiction before reporting a story to the masses. Without a doubt, social media makes this more difficult. Regardless, accuracy is arguably the most important factor in the field of journalism, so reporters must be careful to verify their sources before they share. Unfortunately, it looks like many individuals in the media failed to investigate the girl who tweeted wolf.