Strategically Communicating

Last year, I realized that I couldn’t write in cursive anymore. I scrawled down a paragraph. It was an inky mess, a hodge-podge of block letters and cursive. I tried to remember what the capital letters looked like and draw them. I knew I had lost a skill. The whole point of cursive is to NOT think about crafting letters. I remember my teacher told me over and over to stop “drawing” my letters, rather instructing me to let them flow as a series of expert strokes onto the page. I didn’t use cursive much after I god to college, but it never occurred to me that it was a perishable skill. In my case, at least, crafting 24 interjoining characters using only muscle memory turned out to be a little more complex than a let’s say— riding a bike. After years of disuse, my brain had gotten rid of my skill. It’s what Jefferey Schwartz called “survival of the busiest.”

I’m curious what my writing would look like if I continued to write predominantly in cursive. I write differently when I write on a word processor versus when I write by hand. I’m less likely to use run on sentences, and it’s easier to rearrange characters in order to clarify a message. In 2009 grade schools had the option to stop teaching cursive. This generation has always felt more comfortable with a computer than with a wide-ruled notebook. Will that have an effect on the content they produce? Could it be positive?

The EFF cautions that a blogger should not abuse the power to edit comments posted by others on their blog. This is explained in light of Section 230, which grants a blogger the right to edit in good faith certain comments which might be found to fall outside of the limits of common decency.

In this current age of internet anonymity allowing people the secrecy to post negative, obscene and altogether harassing comments, I find it difficult to navigate the ethics around editing comments. On the one hand, I am of the mind that inappropriate, hateful comments should be deleted without pause. Especially in this era of seeming media illiteracy, these comments are negative to the process and should not be tolerated as legitimate speech. On the other hand, I am a staunch supporter of free speech. Where do these two concerns meet in the middle? Where is the happy—or at least acceptable—medium?

Take the recent example of the County Music Awards (“CMAs”). Beyoncè joined the Dixie Chicks onstage for a performance. Following the ceremony, commenters posted racist and sexist remarks in such abundance that the CMAs removed all mention and video of the performance from their website. Most of me is sickened by this development; however, is not one of the lessons we are learning from this past election that we need to hear each other’s opinions, even when they are ugly? That is an answer I’m not quite ready to accept.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/03/beyonce-dixie-chicks-scrubbed-racist-cma-website-black-lives-matter/

In The Shallows, Nicholas Carr explains that for all of the internet’s merits, it has negatively impacted our ability to focus- whether on a long book or even a conversation.

While reading, I suspected he was right about this, as I remembered how I used to completely tune out the world while reading, especially before I had a cell phone. Now, I am able to do so only if I am somewhere isolated, such as at the beach or the park, with minimal distractions— no cell phone, music, or other people.

To test Carr’s theory, I kept a tally of every time I got distracted while reading his book. As it turns out, it happens embarrassingly often, and it doesn’t take much; It could be a car alarm outside or my cat walking into the room.

Ultimately, I strongly believe that the internet is a positive tool, despite Carr’s fears of its effect on our brains. However, this book has made me think about my ability to focus, or lack thereof, and it is something I will be more conscious of going forward.

To support the text, here is an interview with Carr, where he discusses the book, as well as the backlash from the first time he discussed this topic in a 2008 piece, Is Google making us stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W86P_FX6PdI

For the record, while watching this five-minute video, I checked my phone three times.

Illustration by Patrick Thomas, The New York Times.

In July, FBI Director, James Comey, took the unprecedented step of chastising presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton after clearing her of criminal wrongdoing, he went on to call her usage, “extremely careless”.

I spoke to 4 different millenials about their reactions to this series of events. These are their interpretations of Comey’s actions as well as their personal political musings on this most unusual election season.

Miranda, a 21 year old art student at Portland State University,”People are noticing sexism more, which is good but its sad to think how much we can all lose if hate is the main thing ruling the president”.

Jordan, 19, a punk nanny just back from a trip to India, asked about Comey’s actions throughout the political season, she was unaware of him. What would she say about this election,  “People are all Crooks.”

Maximilian, 21, a philosophy student at PCC,  believes Comey’s decision was motivated by, “white male pressure and the Republican culture of the FBI.” Asked for his main takeaway from this tumultuous election cycle, he said, “Trump is not qualified to serve as President, he is crooked, and an egostistical braggart and just generally unpleasant.”

Ander, 19, a security guard  who had to leave college after 2 semesters due to lack of funds and did not vote. Pressed on why he feels that way, he says, “Why? Some sort of man thing government and politics give men a lot of opportunities to be oppressive to women and in general.” asked for one defining comment about the election. “Big f-ing joke.”

Chapters 5, 6, and 7 of Spreadable Media discuss the best practices within today’s bottom-up media paradigm. “Designing for Spreadability” discusses strategies and audience motivations that content creators should consider when creating highly spreadable content. Chapter 6 takes us back to the reciprocity of gift-economy logic for independent media trying to target communities that find their content appealing but still lack promotional budgets. In terms of global media research, the final chapter assesses the increased diversity in terms of spreadability among transnational media.

In the conclusion, Jenkins, Ford, and Green discuss the mass-produced and mass-distributed content under the new spreadability paradigm. Today’s media content is customized for niche audiences by niche audiences. They explain that, “fans evangelize for entertainment they want others to enjoy” (p. 297).

I created a diagram to show how I view participatory culture from Spreadable Media:

• Fans advocate the entertainment they want to share with others.
• Meanwhile, they translate between a media text’s contexts of production and reception.
• This is then disseminated to the niche audience who attaches new meaning to existing properties. As Jenkins, Ford, and Green explain, “they act as multipliers” (p. 297).

In terms of earned media concerning Donald Trump’s campaign, do you believe that this mass-distributed content is customized for niche audiences? I’ve witnessed Republicans and Democrats alike post and retweet Trump stories every day. If you’re not a Trump supporter and you retweet a spreadable story, are you considered a part of that niche community (fans) even if you disagree with his alleged actions/shortcomings in these stories?

I was most interested by the discussion of which audiences are preferable, useful, and provide ROI. I found myself pushing back on concept of “lurkers” for several reasons.

First, the text’s introduction spent a good deal defending the word “spreadable” versus “sticky,” implying that terminology matters, as does the user’s previous context. In my case, lurking is something Donald does behind Hilary in debates; it has a negative connotation.

I would argue that lurkers are perhaps the most important media participants. Are not 99% of 2.6M readers of the Sunday NYT “lurkers” who read but do not actively contribute? Those 2.6M lurkers are incredibly important to writers, advertisers and issues, otherwise Donald wouldn’t threaten to sue publications. In my opinion, a lurker is actually a sleeper cell, reading and gathering opinions, deciding if and when to contribute back. This terminology acknowledges their potential.

By the authors’ definition, I am a social media lurker, 95% of the time. I read posts and follow people whose opinions I trust. I have very strong opinions often strengthened by my selective “lurking.” Last night a post I was “lurking” on especially moved me, so I “reposted” it. As a lurker, my posts are far and few between, so when I do post the algorithm places it at the top of my friends’ newsfeeds. I was a sleeper cell moved just right, and when I did take action – more took notice. Sleeper cells have massive potential for movement; Sounds like a positive ROI to me.

Jenkins, Ford & Green highlight in Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture that newsrooms have struggled to find their new roles, as online communities and citizens make demands on what journalist should cover. This struggle becomes apparent when content is widely spread online, but is not covered by mainstream media.

Shailene Woodley was arrested while streaming on Facebook LIVE at the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) she stated repeatedly, “I hope you’re watching mainstream media.” Her video spread like wildfire online, because users trusted her experience and knowledge about the DAPL. The video was flooded with comments that authenticated her message as she continued to share about her experience. Her message moved people from awareness to engagement, either by sharing the video, commenting, traveling to the DAPL or buying a t-shirt. Her video now has over 4.8 million views and has been shared over 88,000 times.

Woodley was able to leverage her influence to generate interest from the mainstream media about the DAPL. Her video continues to be sticky even as it spreads, because the audience remains interested in her perspective. Now it is time to observe how the media will frame the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe moving forward.

“Going viral” is the Holy Grail of digital content production. But how do you make your content go viral?

Here are a few fool-proof strategies to help you on your quest:

1. Put it in front of your audience. If you build it, they don’t come anymore. Find out where your audience is and put your content there.
2. Make it easy to share. Your audience should be able to save it, pin it, clip it, share it, retweet it, and repost it all with the click of a button.
3. Keep it open to interpretation. Don’t get too attached to your content’s intended use or meaning. Allow your audience to adjust your content to however and whatever they want to share with their friends.
4. Make it relevant to more than one audience. Anyone looking at it should be able to get something out of it.
5. Increase your chances by making more content. Virality is unpredictable, so don’t put all your eggs into one piece of content.

(Jenkins, Ford & Green, 2013)

In 2015, the most watched video of the year was an Android commercial, featuring animals from different species being friends. It was viewed 6.4 million times.

Which brings me to my last tip:

6. Include cute animals. All the tips, tricks, strategies, and industry expertise in the world can’t argue with the fact that cute animals go viral.

Reference:
Jenkins, H., Ford, S. and Green, J. (2013). Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York University Press, New York and London.

Shoemaker and Reese have written that “the ownership of media organizations has become larger and more centralized over time…” (p. 147).With the new, proposed merger of AT&T and Time Warner, our media options could become even smaller.  Organizations used to be bound to owning one type of media only. With the Communications Act of 1997, however, organizations became free to own across media boundaries. Referencing the below chart, it is easy to see the implications of this giant merger. In 1983, ninety percent of all media was owned by fifty different organizations. That means fifty different sources of news, entertainment, etc. By 2012, after the passage of the Communications Act of 1997, ninety percent of all media was owned by six media organizations. That’s right, six. With the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, this number may grow even smaller.

The good news, as I see it, is that individuals have more power than ever at their fingertips to fill in the gaps left by major media market monopolies. For example, popular bloggers and Instagrammers are able to make their individual views known through self-publishing. Of course, if one company owns the entire internet (which may or may not happen in the future), self-publishing and access to information could be much more limited. That is the danger of huge media conglomerates. Eliminating competition is also a problem posed by these mergers. For me, this points out the need for continued individual journalism and activism – gatekeeping.