Is Facebook taking over the world?

4 million people. What is this number? This is how many people visit Facebook every day. Isn't it crazy? Facebook has grown out to be a part of the every day life of millions of people. It feels like we have been using this website for many many years. Can you believe that before September 2006 Facebook did not even exist. Since then, this website has become a networking center for people who are trying to find jobs, also you can just look for you old classmate in high school and get in touch with anyone you want to. Not to mention that companies use it for advertising to reach a wider audience. So basically on Facebook you can start any kind of relationship; official and unofficial as well. Well you have probably known these, but I wonder if you know what I am going to tell you next.
FACEBOOK spread itself throughout the web. It extends social networking. How is it going to work? I read about this on cnn.com. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO announced the changes on April 21, 2010. It is all about the "Like" button, that we already know and use it pretty well on Facebook. However from now on you can meet this button all around the web, on sites such as Pandora or Yelp. What is going to happen, is that when you go on for example Pandora, a little pop up Facebook related thing will show up on the top of your screen. When you like a song on Pandora and click on the "like" button, it will automatically show up on your Facebook homepage. The purpose of this "like" buttons is that when you find something interesting and important on a website you can recommend it to a friend through Facebook.

Mark Zuckerberg calls this new invention the "Open Graph", that connects not only people but their interests too towards different fields, such as music, news, food, etc. On his Facebook blog page he said: "we are making it so all websites can work together to build a more comprehensive map of connections and create better, more social experiences for everyone. We have redesigned Facebook Platform to offer a simple set of tools that sites around the web can use to personalize experiences and build out the graph of connections people are making."



Facebook reaches far with this new Open Graph idea, trying to get as many websites as they can to co-operate with them. They are launching with more than 30 content partners, including The New York Times, Yelp, the music site Pandora, ESPN and the Internet Movie Database. CNN.com also is a partner. However what do you think, how far Facebook can go? Is it going to be the biggest and most collaborated website among all? Would you take advantage of this application and let people know what music you listen to or what news you are interested in?

Klaudia

From faces, to voices, to screens

Ok, so I don't think that the media are evil, but they certainly shape the way that we communicate with each other. It all began with face-to-face communication, something not really mediated by a medium of media. Then fast-forward many years and eventually we get the telephone; we now have the ability to communicate across long distances with airwaves and hear people's voices. Then came cell phones, which provide us the opportunity to talk no matter where we are, without a cord.

Text messaging began in the 1990s; with this technology we have the ability to type up messages, or film videos or take pictures, and send them to other via our cell phones. When text messaging first came to be  there was a very small number of people using the technology; but, now, according to BBC News, text messaging actually surpasses the amount of phone call conversations, for teens.

A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project has found that over 30% of teens text more than 100 times a day! The study also found that teenagers prefer to text friends over calling them because texting can be, "carried out under the noses of parents, teachers, or other authority figures." So, text messaging does offer a bit more privacy and freedom, which are both highly revered by adolescents.

I am not incredibly surprised by these statistics, though, because I have seen the mass popularity of text-messaging first hand; as a college student I see peers text messaging constantly before classes, after classes, and during classes. However, I do think that text messaging has radically changed the way in which we communicate as a society. One of the important ways technology affects us, that we need to recognize  according to Media Society, is through time and space. You see, text messaging has reshaped our view of time; I believe it has only further fueled our desire for fast-paced information and satisfaction. I have only to think that I want to ask a friend what page our homework was on and I can get an immediate response, usually within 5 minutes and even that is long for us today. I think this ability to acquire knowledge and communicate quickly is a blessing and a curse, because it can foster a nasty habit of impatience and actually even a constant sense of anxiety.

Another way technology, and texting in particular, has transformed our society is by teaching us as individuals new ways of communicating and even new manners of talk about things. Media Society references Birkerts, who argues that, "new modes of communication require new ways of receiving and reacting to the content of those communications." I find this statement to be incredibly true in my personal life because I can remember countless times when I have either worried about the content of a text message that I write being misunderstood, because there are no voice inflections or facial expressions for the receiver to use to decode the message, or I worry that I may improperly perceive someone's message myself. Also, text messaging has transformed the way we talk about subjects because it has been a part of creating a new vocabulary, which can be referred to as "textese" or "text speak". The "language" consists primarily of abbreviated words, but these abbreviations and variations have actually trickled into mainstream society conversations, which include face-to-face and over the phone.

I guess the element that concerns me is not the texting itself, but the idea that we may eventually become more inclined to converse via typing on a keyboard and looking at a screen, instead of having face-to-face interactions. I am pretty sure that many have voiced this concern over time, but I would challenge you all out there, and our amazing dedicated readers, to consider how much time you spend looking at your phone.

Do you check it even when it hasn't rung?

Do you check for messages or texts while you are having a conversation,

or hanging out, with someone else in person?

Think about it because, without realizing it, you may be pushing aside some face-to-face relationships.

Don't make your phone a priority! You can survive without, trust me; I lost my phone 2 weeks ago and I am doing ok ha ha.

Cristi

Influence

Tv, newspaper, Internet, Radio. In one word MEDIA. We all use and get informations from some type of media. Needless to say that the more we are dependent on them, the more we are influenced by them. This time, I am going to write this post based on something different than an article. I found a video on Youtube that portrays how mass media influences the audience. The video shows a robot woman, coming out of a box with a human face and watching Tv. However as the Tv programs change, a picture of a woman's face shows up with different features and make ups. As the viewer woman sees the changes, she changes her features as well in a way to look the same as the face on the screen.



What does this short video want to imply? It suggests that the society is influenced by what it sees on Tv, Internet, or reads in the newspaper. In my mass media class, we learnt that the media do not tell you what to think but definitely tell you what to think ABOUT. According to the media portrayals we judge people, believe in one thing and not in another thing. Not to mention that we usually buy and eat those things that are advertised to be good. Women dress and try to look similar to women they see in magazines. There are several effects the audience is exposed by the media. As I read in one of our class readings, called Joseph Dominick: Social Effect of Mass Communication, media can affect the viewers' behaviors, attitudes, and views as well. However when a child becomes more violent we cannot blame only the media itself. When we hear about violent children and that they start sexual life early, most people's first suspect is the media. They would say "It is happening because the media contain to many violence and sexual pictures." They are wrong, although not completely. Media do cover a lot of those topics but the audience's behavior depends on many other factors, such as their gender, family background, education, race, culture and who they are surrounded by. So basically media don't change anyone, however is one reason why someone might change.

This video is really simple but I found it really interesting as it leads us to an important point. The media do have a smaller or bigger effect on us. At the end the woman wants to get closer and closer to the screen, but her structure does not let her to go farther, so she breaks. I feel like this means, that the audience cannot always control or handle those influences they are exposed to. Let me show you some examples: eating disorders in women, behavior or personality disorders. By trying to be or act like those people in the media, we might lose our own identity and our life just falls out of our hands.

What do you think about this video? Do you like it or maybe don't like it?
Have you ever done something because you got convinced by the media, but then you realized that you had made a bad decision?

Klaudia

All of Those Tweets and No Money

If you think of some of the biggest and most popular social websites today you may think of, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. But, according to an article I found on trueslant.com, there was one thing that set apart Twitter from all of the other websites names. Twitter was not making any money. That’s four years with millions of users, and billions of “tweets”, and no income to show for it. So, how do you make money off of a website anyway? The same way TV shows make money, by advertising. Anyone who has a Facebook or MySpace account knows that its common to see advertisements for different random things off to the side of the screen, but not Twitter. At least, not until now. Starting soon there will be, two kinds of advertising on Twitter, promoted Tweets inside search results and promoted Tweets inside users’ streams. Hopefully this new advertisement will bring in some money for the popular website.

Then I found this article, I could not believe that something as big and popular such as Twitter was not making any money somehow. Its extremely rare to find any form of media that is not making money. It was only natural for the website to look toward advertisement as a source of income. In the book, Media Society, by David Croteau and William Hoynes, they mention how the TV industry is run off of advertisements. A show cannot be put on the air unless a certain amount of companies buy advertisement in throughout the show. Seeing how everything is moving toward the internet, its seems ideal for websites to adapt that same mentality. Many websites started using commercials, others used ads. Some of the websites that did this include, Hulu, Youtube, and Facebook. This is what have made these some of the most successful websites in the past couple of years.

You really cant blame Twitter for wanting to make money after for years with no profit. A popular website like that should not have a problem with finding companies to advertise on their website. The company knows that millions of people will see their advertisement a day. It is a good investment for any company and it’s a perfect way for Twitter to bring in some income. As I have said in previous blogs, I personally do not use Twitter, but I acknowledge the fact that its is one of the most popular websites ever, and I am glad they have finally decided to make some money.

Links:http://trueslant.com/kylebrady/2010/04/14/the-failure-of-twitter/

David S.

Different Perspectives the Media Uses

So, usually what we are supposed to do is find an article and write a summary and then tie in our course material and personal opinion. Well, I've been having a hard time finding a particular article to write about so I'm going to do something a little different and hope I don't receive a failing grade... so here it goes!

In my favorite class today with my favorite professor (media with Professor Kevin Maness), we learned about some pretty interesting things such as Gerbner and the Cultivation Theory and the "active audience." The active audience is when the reader affects media messages that are sent. We then learned about different media perspectives that the media uses. The only one that we were able to cover was "uses and gratifications." Uses and gratifications is broken down into five aspects: cognitive, affective, tension release, personal integrative, and social integrative. As we were going over the points in class, I find if funny how scarily true every point was and got a kick out of it. I could not help but think about magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Us Weekly,People, and many more.

1. Cognitive

This means learning the "how to's" and the "I go here to learn about/do...." Especially Cosmo, this is full of how to do everything from make-up to fashion to.... let's just say, many different ways of exploring what do to with your significant other. The magazine and online edition is filled with aritcles on how to wear your hair for the upcoming season and quizzes to see if you are way too picky when it comes to guys.

2. Affective

This refers to emotional satisfaction. For example, when I am in a happy mood, I tend to listen to "happy" music and when I'm sad, I want to listen to depressing music to make me even more sad (tell me you don't do that too). Grabbing one of these magazines could help with putting me into the mood of motivation. Hear me out! On Usmagine.com, there is an article on Kim Kardashian wearing no make-up. This article already has over 100 comments within a span of a few hours. Take a look. Doesn't she look "normal" as in, you have gone out looking like that and/or have seen others look like this? I know I have done this. This pictures confirms that even if you make millions of dollars doing nothing, you still look like everyone else.

3. Tension Release

The term is pretty self-explanatory - it means relaxation. Magazines and their online addition are forms of entertainment and relaxation. What could be more relaxing than reading People magazine at Starbucks or just sitting in the sun reading up on celebrity babies and Lady Gaga telling her fans 'don't have sex' (oh please Gaga, stop digging yourself a deeper hole....)?

4. Personal Integrative

This concerns people finding help with issues of personal identity. This is why these kinds of magazines are selling because women are trying to find their identity through famous people by mimicking what they wear, where they live, what they drive, and many other aspects of living.

5. Social Integrative

This is the same as personal integrative but, obviously,deals with society and not individuals. These magazines tells people that we need to worry about petty things like who is dating who, how to get a guy, how to tell your friend she just does not look good in that shirt, and so much more. It's almost as if it's more crucial to know if Lady Gaga is really a girl than... world hunger.

So, here's my different blog and I hope you liked the mix up... especially my professor and

the TA's. This may be my last post and I would like to thank all of my faithful readers. You guys

have really helped us become the best blog team in our class! I have enjoyed this experience...

in a way. I wasn't too happy about this project at first but I have learned to appreciate it more.

sARAH

Age matters

Recently, the show "Dancing with the Stars" topped "American Idol" in the number of viewers. This was quite a feat because as the New York Times article explains, "American Idol" has had quite a big and consistent following. What the article goes on to explain, though, is that just because a show has high ratings doesn't mean it gets to charge top dollar for it's commercials.

$ $ $
The money is what really counts, because as Media Society says, "Advertising is, after all, what pays the bills". You see, "Dancing with the Stars" and "American Idol" have two very different audience profiles; "Dancing"'s viewers tend to be women over 50 and "Idol"'s viewers are women as well, but younger. As result, advertisers seek to reach the younger audience.

Why is this, you ask?
Is it because they believe the younger are more susceptible to clever ads?

The president of KSL Media, David Sklaver, says that, "The audience for 'Dancing' is an attainable audience," and he noted that it might seem odd that, "advertisers tend to devalue the audience that has the most money," or in other words the older audience.

At first when I read this I was surprised because in our Media class we have discussed that advertisers typically seek the wealthier audience, but Sklayer goes on to explain that the younger audience doesn't watch as much TV, so they are less attainable. It's almost like the younger audience is playing hard to get (unintentionally, of course) and the advertisers are paying more for a chance to reach this group.

So, what does this article tell us? It gives us insight into the production perspective of TV. You see there are really only two ways to make money in the media, either selling units (the shows themselves) or selling advertising. This makes network TV completely ad-driven; and really if you think about it the programs only exist to lure us in to watch the advertisements! All this information confirms the power of advertisers and I think it is just important for us to be aware that the reason TV really exists is not really to entertain us, but to sell us stuff. This does not mean that television is evil or that you should never watch it; just know that the ads are there, whether blunt or placed carefully within the programs. Next time you want to buy a new product you've never tried before, ask yourself if you saw it on TV or what has influenced you in concluding that you ought to purchase it.

Cristi

Watch 3-D at Home

Did you like the movie Avatar or Alice in Wonderland in 3D? If yes you are going to love the next big technological investment in the media industry. Some media companies such as Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, and LG have already put their new 3-D televisions out the market. Isn't it amazing that you can have the characters basically in your living room? I found this article on the website of New York Times.

To make it more appealing, Samsung worked together with DreamWorks, and other Hollywood companies, and the band Black Eyed Peas about creating 3-D content for home viewing. So it means that after you buy the television you are actually going to have movies to watch in 3-D. Since the first question that ran came into my mind was; it is one thing that I have a 3-D Tv, but what am I going to watch, because so far there are maximum three or four movies I know about that are in 3-D? As a start DreamWorks is going to make the Shrek movies and the movie Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D. It sounds better now, isn' it? In addition the article also mentions that these televisions have the option to switch from 2-D to 3-D by pushing only one button.
Companies believe that with this invention the audience will be more active. Tim Bexter, president of Samsung Electronics America put it this way: "there will be less passive sitting back and watching television, and a more immersive, interactive experience.”
Needless to say that these televisions do not cost a few pennies. The 46-inch model is $2,600, while the 55-inch model is $3,300, plus the bundle includes two pairs of glasses and a 3-D DVD for an additional $350. Nice prizes, right? But I have no doubt that for many people it is perfectly worth it.

Technology always provides something new to us, to the audience. Although there can be economical problems, recessions, technology will keep going forward and keep reaching higher and higher. We all know that technology is a huge part of our lives, as a big percent of the population uses cell-phones, internet, watches television, listens to the radio, goes to the movies. So we can say that we are the one who keep the technology moving, as we are dependent on it. Not to mention that when something new comes out, it is in order to please our comfort. For example if we look at the post Christina wrote on April 1st, about the fact that we can control the gadgets of our devices with our skin is also made to make us feel more comfortable and enjoy it at the same time.
In the book Media Society, Croteau and Hoynes make an important point when they say that technology has an effect on our habits and can shape the use of media. They say "To understand the relationship between media and society, we cannot ask only what a new technology does to people, We must also ask what people do with the new technology." So when we are talking about technology and society, we are talking about a two-way road, where when one does something, it affects the other one.

I think it is important to see that we make technology to change and it makes us to change too. To create 3-D televisions is really expensive, but it is clear that people are going to buy it, and it will make profit to those companies, and they know it otherwise they would not do it.
Personally, I really like 3-D movies so if I had enough money to buy a Tv like that, I would probably do it. How about you? Would you enjoy watching 3-D movies at home?

Klaudia