Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(28)
-
▼
June
(21)
- top 10 social sites on alexa
- List of Social Network sites
- reflect to 99
- Please put your blog names here
- Free blogger templates
- Home work 14
- Home work 13
- Home work 12
- Home work 12
- Home work 11
- Home work 10
- Home work 9
- Home work 8
- Home work 7
- Home work 6
- Home work 5
- Home work 4
- Home work 3
- Home work 2
- Home work 1
- Portfolio Handbooks
-
▼
June
(21)
Summary and Feedback for blog "defending social media" on speak media blog
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the blog defending social media writen by Jennifer A. Jones, I can simplily category what she asserted as three main ideas with different respectives which are the impact of social media on social culture, spreading information and culture and music industries.The social media user-generated content has been recogonized by most of people nowadays, There is no wonder for some critics come up to criticize new things. However, the point is the social development and changing always occur with suffering.The user-generated content as we know like blog, personal website makes people share their idea more convenient and swift. It also has flaws that is always exist by the time we have media. The internet did not generate it but only amplified its problem. So I think the author of the blog indicated the fact that technology today has changed social media and can not be stopped cause it has more advantages than old social media although it is not perfect yet. What we need to concern here is not to disscuss weather we should accept it but how to take advantage of it to fit our society.
Guohai ID4929433
Jennifer A. Jones reviewed on a book named "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture" by Andrew Keen. She defended the Social Media by picking up the facts that gave the wrong impressions towards the roles of social media.
ReplyDeleteThe author mainly criticized on how today democratic media provided the falsified information than the trustworthy news. He cited, 'With democratized media, we are creating a collective memory that is deeply flawed'. From his perspective, it seemed that he disliked allowing the free media, in stead of heavily scrutinized one, no matter he claimed for the sake of truth.
My argument is; democratized media is far better than undemocratic media. Under democratic media, citizens can raise issues through social media, especially, from their blogs. They pick up the issues, which are missed out by the main stream media, only to remind the social gaps and injustice. Such kind of social media can be named as citizen journalism, which stands not for the profession, but for steering the dynamic of society. Those social issues can be revealed only within the democratized media, not under non-democratized situation.
Of course, even the news or information appears from the main stream media, people should read or accept with their reasonable mind. The readers shouldn't receive the news blindly. The flaws are everywhere, and at anytime by anyone. But, it is not because of having a free social media, but because of some irresponsible persons or situations. By having the social media, people can participate more and have more options to receive the information. Besides, people can involve in the public forum for responding the current situation on everyday social problems, only on blogs or other kinds of public forum. Those are the advantages of having social media. We can't deny there are traps of giving too much freedom on circulating the information. Yet, we should establish how to develop the responsive free social media instead of blaming or restricting on it. To create a better and just world, the freedom of expression is a key stand as well as allowing the social media to practice with responsible.
by
Nai Nai (g491 9675)
Kay
ReplyDelete5029515
http://www.speakmediablog.com/2008/09/social-media-keep-up-or-fall-back.html
It's as if Keen doesn't understand that history and journalism and truth are created by humans and that humans are fallible and that truth itself changes with time. Truth is based in perspective. I'm sure a North American history book's account of a singular event would be quite different than one from Eastern Europe or a history book's account from India. I'm certain that newspaper reports of periods in history from the 1800s in this country would be considered false by today's zeitgeist. So, this "careful aggregation of truth" is itself false.
Keen asserts that in social media, misinformation can spread with frightening speed causing permanent damage to reputations. While it's true that rumors can easily spread through social media, this is certainly not attributable solely the Web.
Keen claims that bloggers are not credible because their anonymity can hide an agenda. Let's set aside the fact that most bloggers do identify themselves and their backgrounds.
Command....
It talks about the sometimes media gave wrong information to the world and it is really frightful for the people. I agree for that because some blogger gave information and people who read that and came to believe and happen a lot of problems. So as a writer has to be very careful and as a reader has to be very critical in reading.