Robert McChesney:  In his book The Political Economy of Media, Robert McChesney discusses the relationships and concerns with journalism as tied to commercial means, suggesting that media conglomerates and corporate powerhouses have always had an upper hand with the way journalism is reported, managed, and controlled.  Journalism is subject to market pressures and loses its objectivity because of this.  Traditional media outlets have financial backing and adhere to the views of their backers.  In the new media landscape, McChesney continues to concern himself with the limits on journalism, yet denies the promise of blogging in the democratic sector.

Ken Auletta:  As the leading expert of the ins and outs of the Google enterprise, Ken Auletta is most concerned with the future of Google in terms of Google continuing to provide the best service it can in the most unbiased manner possible.  Google’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil”, a motto which Auletta suggests is credible since Google is determined to make sure that the best information will float to the top of search results.  Committed to provided a conclusive, accurate, and “crap free” service to its customers, Google has gained the trust of all participants.  Believing that the Internet is free and should continue to be so, Google is passionate about making search effective and accessible to people worldwide.

Daniel Solove:  In a society where people are documenting their entire lives on the Internet, it becomes increasingly more important to manage your personal assets and reputation online.  With the Internet comes permanency and exposure of information, and if you are not careful about where, when, and how you display this information, your privacy can be threatened.  Users of the Internet (so, the whole world), participates in information sharing through platforms such as social networks, credit fields on retail sites, any place you enter personal information, and sometimes even non-secure banking sites.  In its young stages, the Internet is dangerous in terms of protecting privacy.  It has not been around long enough, and users have not been participating long enough, to understand the effects that information sharing on the Internet can have on privacy.  As a society, we still have semi-antiquated view of privacy.  With new generations, this view will change, citizens will become better at concealing their personal information, and new safeguards will be set in place to protect privacy.  Businesses must understand that future users (and even current users) will demand stronger privacy protections, such as opt in policies as opposed to opt out policies, as Facebook has recently embodied.

Jonathan Zittrain:  In his book The Future of the Internet, Jonathan Zittrain discusses the Internet’s future by analyzing the terms generative and non-generative.  Generative technology is that which allows for additions and alterations, such as computers that allow users to create content and push it onto the Internet, allowing for creativity and innovation to flourish in an open platform (computers and Internet both being generative).  Non-generative technologies are those that “come as are” and allow for little to no alterations, serving as fixed mediums.  The iPod is a non-generative technology, one that serves a specific purpose as it plays music and videos, yet a user doesn’t alter any of the internal settings/functions of the device.

The onset of the Internet saw many generative technologies and platforms, where users were able to exhibit their creativity by being instrumental creators of content.  Wikipedia is one of the most popular generative platforms, allowing for constant updates and collaboration.  Some people, such as Zittrain, foresee a movement toward a more non-generative Internet, one that does not “overwhelm” the majority audience, limiting majority control, and allowing for specialists to create and manage content.  People seem to be content with their non-generative technologies (iPod sales dominating), and seem more at odds with the generative (allowing for non-generative technologies to become dominate).  However, the generative is what makes the Internet the Internet, fostering creativity of all users.  If the Internet moves toward a non-generative approach, will creativity be lost?  Zittrain thinks people will prefer the non-generative technologies, ultimately signing themselves up for security, stability, and ease of mind, where users don’t have to contribute to creation, they can instead reap the benefits.  These benefits, however, will be non-generative, benefitting the technology provider in a closed product.

TRUST AND PRIVACY: Auletta and Solove

Placing trust in new online media platforms is a growing issue in our changing media landscape.  Auletta, author of Googled, speaks extensively on trust connected to Google as portrayed by its relationship between the search engine and the customers.  This grand concept of trust and the Internet is further explored by Solove, author of The Future of Reputation.  The following information about Google’s trust policies and practices will be discussed, followed by an analysis of how to best leverage the connection between trust and privacy as suggested by Solove.

“Trust is essential to Google, as it is to much of modern commerce” (Googled, 191).  Google is an extremely successful interactive media business and is so because of the trust they share with their customers.  Google started as a company that provided a search engine created by talented engineers who took every stride to create algorithms that resulted in the best search results for users.  Over the years, Google has updated their algorithms and focused on their users even more in order to ensure speedy and accurate search results.  Ensuring the reliability and user friendliness of the platform of the search engine is Google’s most important focus.  If Google is able to provide a trustworthy platform, users will flock to Google because they trust Google.  Google must be able to trust that users will trust them, but first and foremost, Google must be the initial party to exhibit trustworthy qualities before they themselves can be trusted.  With the trust of their customers (and they have an incredible trust following), Google can be sure to succeed.  As stated in Googled, “Google may be viewed with suspicion by many media industries, but it enjoys a well-deserved reputation for earning the trust of users” (Googled, 190).  Google must make the protection of user data and user demands its first priority.  If Google was to misuse user information or enter a conflict where users began to lose trust, Google could fail as a company.  “If users lost trust in Google, believed their private data was being exploited and shared with advertisers (or governments), the company regularly judged one of the world’s most trust brands would commit suicide” (Googled, 120).

The last quote echoes many of the privacy and trust issues that Solove discusses in his analyze of reputation and privacy.  In a society where we do trust large platforms such as Google, we need to be aware that just because Google is credible today does not guarantee that Google will be credible tomorrow.  At any point in time, Google can change their privacy policies and exploit our information.  As Google already has access to most of our information, it would be easy for Google to manipulate the information as they see fit for business.  In recent years, Google has begun to acquire more content by purchasing YouTube, the popular video-sharing website that generates the majority of the traffic of online video watchers everyday.  YouTube results appear at the top of search results, directing user traffic to the site.  Does this goes against Google’s philosophy of providing the most accurate search result based on user profile analysis?  My point is to suggest that if Google begins to control content, will they be blindsided by the monetary gain of directing users to their content sites instead of providing the best search results for each user determined by what is best for that specific user?  How will Google be viewed by its users then?  Will users be offended and worried that their search results are based on the content Google owns, and will they lose trust and credibility in the system they use on an everyday basis?  With day to day changes and advances that Google encounters and creates, users will begin to manage the amount of information they provide on the Internet.  We are lucky that Google is so seemingly interested in providing the best privacy rights for its consumers.  This does not mean, however, that it will always be this way.  Not knowing the future, and being able to understand that the future is unknown and practices can change is one of the biggest take-aways from Solove’s analysis.

During “Hip, Connected, and Dangerous” students learned the fundamentals of cyber-bullying.  According to stopcyberbullying.org, cyber-bullying occurs “when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones.”

Bullying used to occur in schools, on the playgrounds, or in any other public place where youth hung out.  Today, bullying still occurs in these spaces, but bullying is also happening online.  In short, bullies are finding ways to be better bullies.

Social media platforms like Facebook and MySpace have become the strongest outlets for youth to express themselves, connect with friends, and build relationships.  As youth spend more and more time online, the more they begin to depend on these social networks for whatever reasons they choose.  The more they dedicate their time to social networks, the more the dangers of cyber-bullying become prevalent.

The following graph (taken from ) outlines how the youth who are more connected to online social media platforms are at a higher risk for cyber-bullying.

Types of cyber-bullying include the following (as taken from cyberbully411.org):

1. It can take the form of a message on email or IM or a social networking site from someone who is threatening to hurt you or beat you up.
2. It might be rumors posted on your profile or spread online for others to see.
3. It might be the deletion of you on a friend’s “buddy list” to make you feel left out.
4. It could be a profile made by someone pretending to be you.
5. Or, someone hacking into your profile and writing comments pretending they’re from you.

I asked the students at the SMFA if they have been bullied in these ways, if they have seen someone being bullied in these ways, or if they themselves have acted as bullies to someone else in these ways.  Not surprisingly (although unfortunately) every student raised his/her hand.  This type of response was expected, and from that point on in the presentation I received a higher level of participation and comments.

When a student asked me the following question “Why can’t kids just turn off their computers if they are being bullied online?” I gave them a response that none had thought about before.  Turning off your social networks is not the answer, though it sounds like the easy one.  Since bullies are online finding ways to continue to taunt the youth they bully at school, the youth is no longer safe at home. If the youth who is being bullied at school can only find comfort in connecting with his/her friends made online, then an infiltration of his/her social networks can be extremely upsetting.  When a youth is no longer safe at home or online, he/she can begin to internalize his/her emotions and become depressed.

We then watched a news clip (shown below) of the suicide story of Phoebe Prince, a young high school student who committed suicide after being constantly bullied at school and online.  Stories like these are becoming more common.

Though bullying does not always lead to suicide, bullying nevertheless happens, and cyber bullying makes it worse.  Often we find ourselves saying tounge-and-cheek comments online, not realizing that the absence of inflection or tone of voice is heard in conjunction with the comment.  A statement like “Oh I hate you” that you may say in a sarcastic voice can sound like “Oh I hate you” with a mean and negative voice attached to it to someone who is unsure how to interpret your comment.  In this instance, cyber-bullying can be completely unintentional, when you had no idea that the person you are talking to is taking your comments the wrong way.  This concept was heavily discussed among the students at the SMFA conference.  For this reason, we collectively came up with a list of preventative tips for cyber-bullying:

1. Limit the amount of information you provide on social networks.  Duh, right?
2. Be careful who you add as a “Friend”
3. Never share your password, and always log out.
4. Do not respond directly to the cyber-bully.  Instead, save the information as evidence, because if the bullying continues, you can use the information to your benefit.
5. Do not encourage or participate with your friends when they bully someone online.

The last tip was the most important tip for all of us.  It is extremely easy to sit back and let your friends partake in different forms of bullying, whether it’s talking about people behind their back or letting a friend say mean things online or send ill-hearted texts.  As a group, we decided that it’s sometimes scary to tell your friends to not be bullies, but that if your friend is a bully, why are you friends with them anyway?  Not participating in the act, leaving the room when the acts occur, and not providing any type of encourage is a small step to making a difference in cyber-bullying.

No longer are we solely citizens of individual countries, but are now global citizens.  As the Internet provides an expanded access to information and we learn more about those in neighboring countries, we become attached to worldwide issues.

Prior to the emergence of the Internet, non-profit groups had a small voice.  With little funding available to them, non-profits relied on people with money and power to spread their message.  With the advent of the Internet as a means of global communication, non-profits can now create a substantial web presence, reaching a national and global audience at the same time.  Even if funds remain low, the creation of a website for a non-profit will at least give the non-profit a louder voice.

As more and more non-profits create a web presence, the more and more global citizens are connected to pressing issues at home and abroad.  Whereas non-profits once had to rely on someone rich and important to spread their message, the non-profits with a web presence can now take control of their organizations to reach the interested global public.

With this new ability to be more active in a global sense, citizens are also becoming instrumental in reporting information to one another, sharing their knowledge through blogs, unofficial news sites, and active comment/forum discussion boards.  Unlike traditional media and news platforms, some citizens find specialized information that they can post online, whether it be opinion, unique news facts, or other information they are passionate about.

The following is a list of ethics and best practices that should be embraced by citizen journalists (as outlined by my class member Brynne Tuggle):

• Seek Truth and Report It: Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information
• Minimize Harm: Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect
• Act Independently: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know
• Be Accountable: Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other

It’s important to embrace the idea of becoming a global citizen, but with great accessibility comes great responsibility.  If we are to become a more united world that is aware of all our world’s pressing issues, we need to work together to provide the most honest, informative, and ethical system of communication we can.

Why am I paying for cable television?  Because I moved in with a roommate eight months ago and agreed to pay half for cable television, even though I knew I wouldn’t watch it.  Not only am I paying for it, but I am paying for an extended package so that my roommate can watch his favorite shows which are classified as specialty shows (ex: Military Channel, MTV2, etc.).

Why did I agree to pay for something I won’t benefit from?  Because my roommate still subscribes to the idea that it’s more convenient to pay for cable television, and when you live with a roommate, you split utilities 50/50.  At least that is my moral practice of sharing space.  I could have made my roommate pay for the extra channels himself, but after the convenience of his name being on the bill and me only having to write him a check once a month, I agreed to share the expense.

I watch four television shows weekly.  Private Practice, Modern Family, Community, and Survivor.  The first three shows reside on Hulu (free service), and the last is shown on CBS.com (free again).  If I only watch four shows, and I can view them for free online, why would I normally pay to watch them otherwise (if I didn’t have a roommate)?  My answer, ideally, is that I would only pay for Internet access.  My opinion is that since I am paying for Internet access, then I am also indirectly paying for television service since I can watch shows for free online.

With the recent ability to watch television for free online, it is understandable and not surprising that cable companies have reacted to this.  As consumers start to follow the same movement away from cable television to online television as I have (and I know plenty of people who have done the same), higher rates for Internet could be implemented.  I foresee a few different options, all of which I would be glad to pay for under the right circumstances:

1. A cable television package that comes with cable tv and Internet.
2. An Internet only package (for a higher price, assuming customers are watching online television).
3. An Internet only package that allows customers to only watch affiliate online television websites (comes with your subscription).

A tactic that is already being discussed and provided as options for customers is the “TV Everywhere” package, which was released in 2009.  This service is an any service, anywhere, any time, on any device initiative that is free, with a pay wall.  This will ultimately provide more premium content on the channels/platforms desired by customers.  The following is a list of rules, regulations, and skepticisms concerning “TV Everywhere”:

• Only available for those with cable subscriptions (specific guidelines and content depending on cable provider)
• Downloadable client, up to 3 devices, access to nearly 30 major content providers
• Is it really free? Public advocacy groups say that TV Everywhere will kill off alternative outlets…is it anti competitive?
• Will advertising alone pay for this? Cover costs?
• Gives more people more access to premium content, and it increases activity online for subscribers, building the market and bringing new business at the same time
• Mobile Devices, available to all subscribers, parental control features resulting in more adult related content available

As customers begin to demand more variety in cable television and Internet packages, cable companies will need to provide these changes for their customers.  As long as I am single, only watching a select number of television shows, and trying to save money by limiting monthly expenses, I would be happy to pay for an online only service.  I’m looking forward to the changes made by cable companies in the coming years.  My fear, however, is that I could also be limited by affiliate contacts on which sites I am allowed to access.

Since there is so much social pressure to join online social networks, it becomes important for parents to comply with and embrace the digital lives of their children. These social networks have become the new public place for children/teens to hang out and interact. With self-expression, youth are learning at an earlier age how to express themselves.

But are they expressing themselves appropriately? And what are the consequences of youth not knowing how to manage their online lives?

Along with the positives of self-expression, self-education, and a sense of community provided by social networks, there remains two major concerns for youth being so highly concentrated online: safety and responsibility. There are varying consequences of fully integrated Internet lives for American youth, with emphasis on sexual predators, cyber-bullying, and accessibility to harmful and illegal online content.

An interesting find by the Internet Safety Task Force 2008 is that the risks of online danger are similar to the amount of risks of offline danger. However, minors find themselves at different levels of risks based on varying factors, with a notable slant toward minors at risk as a result of negative family relationships at home. “The psychosocial makeup of and family dynamics surrounding particular minors are better predictors of risk than the use of specific media or technologies” (Internet Safety Task Force 2008). This quote demonstrates the need for positive family relationships to further ensure child safety in connection to online technologies. Often, these positive family relationships can be ensured by an overall acceptance of the youth’s involvement in online social networks. As family members embrace communication technologies and understand how these technologies serve the needs of the participants, families can better manage and maintain their hyperconnected lives in the networked public.

The advent of social networks as the new public meeting place for youth has changed the way youth interact with one another, how they find identity through new forms of self-expression, and how they have formed a highly connected online community of social media enthusiasts. The emergence of this networked public has been instrumental in the social development of youth, with a move from the traditional and private to the modern and openly public. This open and often dangerous aspect will be an important learning tool for youth to embody a new sense of accountability and appropriate reputation management practices.

Societal norms for youth on the Internet are changing, with the main changing norm being that youth are expected to be online. It’s the new peer pressure. Since the youth are online, safety measures such as new privacy settings/options and reputation management advice will become instrumental to the progression of online social networks. Even though social networks are booming (Facebook’s population doubles in size every six months), with a lack of adherence to privacy settings, people will begin to distrust social networks. That is why social networks need to understand (and most currently are) that people (and youth) are beginning to demand privacy. This is an example of businesses and customers working together for a give-and-take agreement of services.

Google started as a company that provided a search engine created by talented engineers who took every stride to create algorithms that resulted in the best search results for users.  Over the years, Google has updated their algorithms and focused on their users even more in order to ensure speedy and accurate search results.  Ensuring the reliability and user friendliness of the platform of the search engine is Google’s most important focus.

But does it remain Google’s most important focus today, tomorrow, and in the years to come?

Everyone knows that Google makes it easy for people to find what they’re looking for on the Internet by focusing on the platform.  The content that shows up in search results is created by everyone else:  journalists, bloggers, citizen journalists, the common citizen, etc.  From its beginnings ten years ago, Google hasn’t seen a dire need to create content; they instead provide the platform for the content to exist.  If Google can profit (immensely!) through their AdWords and AdSense programs, why would they need to include a content aspect?

Regardless, Google desires growth.  In recent years, Google has begun to acquire more content by purchasing YouTube, the popular video-sharing website that generates the majority of the traffic of online video watchers everyday.  YouTube results appear at the top of search results, directing user traffic to the site.  Does this goes against Google’s philosophy of providing the most accurate search result based on user profile analysis?

My point is to suggest that if Google begins to control content, will they be blindsided by the monetary gain of directing users to their content sites instead of providing the best search results for each user determined by what is best for that specific user?  How will Google be viewed by its users?  Will users be offended and worried that their search results are based on the content Google owns, and will they lose trust and credibility in the system they use on an everyday basis?  This will be one of the largest issues for Google to face.  Should they grow as a media powerhouse or remain a credible search engine?

With the items for auction being the central purpose of the websites, online auction sites are typically organized much as one would assume they are organized.  An entrance page is presented with various popular items to attract different target audiences to specific sections of the site.  Items are also categorized into their appropriate category, followed by further options of color, size, price, version, etc.  The resulting items are represented by a photograph/description of the item in a long scrollable list of like items that users are then able to click on to view the item they choose in more detail.  On this final page, auction details and user feedback forums are available, as well as profile information of the seller including selling history and ratings.

An important aspect of auction sites, which give users the most control, is the feedback option where users are able to rate the performance of the seller, ultimately giving control to the users/purchases of the online reputation of the seller.  This rating option is available to all users, creating a truly interactive and collaborative system that aims to build a fraud free environment.  Not only does this rating option give users the ability to determine if a seller is trustworthy or not, but it serves the greater purpose of validating and ensuring the online auction site’s credibility.  There are two winners here: the users/purchasers and the online auction site.  And credible sellers

Herein lies the major roadblock to any progress of a more democratic society in the United States.

McChesney suggests people are too scared to suggest an alternative or a reshaping of capitalism because “the corporate media have encouraged the belief that even the consideration of alternatives is tantamount to a call for totalitarianism” (345).  No one wants to be seen or known as doing that.  As Americans, we are fond of our ideals, and people are hesitant to debate against that.  The commonly developed notion is that you are either for or against capitalism.  You must pick a side, and you must pick the right one.  We don’t seem to talk about Capitalism’s flaws because of this.  Also, this hesitant attitude creates the generalization that citizens are lazy and apathetic about taking steps to reform the current media system.

It’s not just the “lazy attitude” of everyday citizens that hinder reform of our media system, it’s the nervous approach of politicians.  ”Politicians fear the media” (349).

Politicians, those who have the power to take action of the change wanted by their constituents, are hesitant to react to the reforms needed in the media structure.  ”Few politicians have any desire to antagonize the media industry as a whole, with the conceivable repercussions that might entail for their political careers and agendas” (349).  Politicians depend on the media to get their message out and to promote their platforms in positive ways, and if politicians appear to get in the way of Big Business, media outlets (owned by these Big Businesses) have the potential to control the outcome of politicians’ public personas.

Both sectors (everyday people and politicians) allow for the corporate media to continue controlling the political and media related issues that they are controlling.

Other than being viewed as anti-democratic, why is it so difficult to discuss reforms to Capitalism?  Talking about the state of Capitalism is complicated.  When it seems that educated economists can’t even talk about it, it’s difficult for common citizens to form a conversation about such an already complicated and economically frustrating situation.  It’s almost beyond conversation, and when there is conversation, it seems pointless because without knowing all there is to know about the state of Capitalism and media structures, you don’t feel like you have enough to back your opinions.  The easy way out of this tenacious and overwhelming argument is to point a finger and say the supposed reformer is against democracy.

So we as citizens decide it’s too difficult to talk about these political issues and leave it up to those we put in power.  But those we put in power, our politicians, also find it too difficult to talk about and leave it up to the corporate media giants who know the most about it to make the decisions.  The big issue here is that Big Business is consumed by the idea and goal of monetary growth, not the state of fair democracy.

My classmate Conor Britain emphasizes this by suggesting, “It’s not the market system that’s the problem – it’s greed, unchecked power and selfishness.  Capitalism doesn’t advocate the individual acting for the good of the few at the expense of everyone else; it advocates for the individual acting for the good of the few for the benefit of everyone else. Humans have the capacity for great good and great evil, and corporations are no different. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss capitalism as a valid economic solution.”

The way that Capitalism is manipulated by Big Business to control the media limits the voice of citizens and politicians alike.

Not only does seeking out specific news sources serve to reinforce personal views and opinions, but it is often viewed as a way to maintain comfort levels.  People are more comfortable reading about the news they want to read about from the sources they want to find it from.

This type of approach to the news has obvious consequences.  However, it is extremely difficult to sway people who already have their own beliefs and their own news sources that they rely on to change the ways in which they seek the news.  This is noted in the ways older generations are generalized as close-minded…they embrace cognitive dissonance and aren’t willing to change.

Luckily (depending on who you ask), many of the American youth do not have these biases yet.  It is important to find ways to reach the youth before they too become polarized in the ways in which they decide to educate themselves.

As a society, we have to realize that youth are future leading contributors in online activity.  Since the online world is where most of our news is being reported and consumed, this virtual forum is the place to target the youth.

A growing number of youth embrace the expanse of information in the online world and find excitement and deep interest in self-teaching and researching, a type of modern self-education.  The freedom that the Internet provides results in youth becoming more proactive in their self-education.

Social networks also provide extensive informational resources for self-educational purposes.  For example, the status update feature on Facebook and the ability to post constant updates on Twitter are expediting the spread of information to users and receivers.  For many active youth participants, social media and social networks are some of the most heavily implemented media in their lives, resulting in the youth becoming main influencers of which social networks dominate over others.

Youth are also being proactive in sharing tangible skills with their peers, such as helping to create and maintain each other’s websites and blogs, creating a type of online collaborative environment.  This theme of youth collaboration is an important development in the changing landscape of self-educated youth.  Youth self-educate themselves with Internet “surfing” and then share their findings, information, and experiences with other youth.  No longer do the youth have to rely so heavily on traditional forms of top-down education where knowledge is passed from parent or teacher (superior) to child (inferior).  Social networking and information accessibility has created a more independent and educationally proactive youth.

Since the youth have become so independent in their self-education, it is clear that they use the Internet to seek news and will continue to do so.  Youth seek out news sources then re-tweet or post on their Facebook their views/interpretations of the news.  These posts will reach other youth, and so forth and so on.  I am not suggesting ways in which to regulate, prevent, or control the type of news presented to youth, but am instead suggesting that the youth may be the audience to target more so than older generations who are already comfortable in their ways of consuming news.