[FYI: It was ambiguous whether you meant to comment on the article in a "post", or make a real "comment"]
Dan Gillmor's piece was more or less what I think our class's opinion was on the matter. What I am trying to figure out is (respectfully, of course) why do we need to define who is a journalist or what journalism is, because I think it is so dynamic right now that a definition will just constrain our view for what it can be.
I enjoy social media in general. Social media is the first time that people are able to be more of a broadcaster instead of a direct communicator. Think about something that happened in your life today. Now if it was 20 years ago, you'd call up someone and tell them about it, or maybe you'd send a letter to your family/friend. This is active one-on-one communication where you are forcing someone to listen in on something you have to say. Social media allows us to post less important things and allow our family and friends to only listen to us if they choose to. It is a lot nicer way to treat people's time. The downside is that now we all have an influx of useless information coming towards us that we read and sometimes it's hard to focus on the important stuff with all the noise.
Typically I "like" things on Facebook that have some connection to myself. For instance, if a friend gets a car and I am happy for them, I will like the post. I do usually skim news articles other people post, which, I have found, are usually strange or unusual news items. On Twitter, I repost things if I think the people following me would like to know about it/if it says something about myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment