Contributed by Enemy the Ox What makes you click on that certain link that appears on your news feed? Is it that feel-good story sure to warm your heart? Or is it that politician hell-bent on destroying/saving the country? For me, it is usually a good ol' case of street justice. The stories we see online are interesting, but more importantly they are odd and out of the ordinary. We like the unexpected or unusual. The headline is often the most important aspect of the story or link. The headline is the first sign that the reader is interested and will decide whether or not the reader will continue to the actual story. Headlines on social media are tailored in a way so that the user who is reading the headline is left wanting to know more. A headline that leads the user to a story and fulfills the reader’s expectations would have to be considered a great headline. It did the job. Before the internet, news outlets would put their top story on the front page and the headline was usually 20 times the size of the article and printed in a bold font. The front page of a newspaper acts very similarly to a headline one would see on a news feed. Unlike the paper, the online headline needs to attract the reader or viewer without the large font or the entire front page of the medium. The top story now has to potentially compete with no story whatsoever. These lackluster stories are not even stories or news; this is the garbage we think about when we hear the term “clickbait.” All headlines on the Internet can be thought of as a form of clickbait. The headline, by nature of its purpose, is a form of bait. It is designed to attract the reader with hopes the reader latches on. Generating traffic on the site is key to any successful website. This traffic can lead to content going viral. A solid headline combined with an intriguing story can be very potent. The story does not have to be true, such as the case with the ever elusive Slender Man. This creature is an online form of urban folklore. Users can write fake stories and Photoshop images to accompany the stories in hopes of it going viral within their communities. Businesses have discovered how to use the content we enjoy clicking on in order to tailor our content to what big business thinks we are interested in (Salon). The Internet may feel like an open sandbox for all to play but in reality we are in a zoo being observed stakeholders for special interests. The Internet used to be a place where we could ignore mainstream media or radio and explore the digital world with no barriers. With the popularity of social media, some barriers are more prevalent than others and we do not even notice it. This is the issue with clickbait. Businesses are in business for one reason: to make money. Internet headlines' main job for businesses is to make money and, to do that, site visitors must first click on the link. The link could lead to a very satisfying article or piece of information or it could lead you to an advertisement or a seriously depressing article with no relevance to the headline. There could be a headline that promises one service and deploys another. This is the “bait” in click bait. The bait and switch some would say. Twitter is one of the most notorious offenders of this social construction of clickbait. The online settings explicitly tell you they know what you want to read. One has to wonder about how powerful clickbait is and the future of personal decisions online.
0 Comments
Contributed by Amanda Smith We’ve all been there. You purchase your popcorn and drink and sit down in the theater to enjoy a movie. And then the person next to you pulls out their phone and starts texting. You ignore it at first because you think it is just temporary. However, that pesky little light stays on as minutes tick by. “Can you please turn that off,” you ask nicely. The person grumbles but pockets the phone before getting up to leave. Satisfied, you sit back and watch the movie. Texting is a part of our world nowadays. Everywhere you look, someone is on their phone. According to the Pew Research Center, almost two-thirds of Americans own a smartphone. Back in 2011, that number was only 35 percent. With so many people on their phones, AMC Theaters have started talking about making a change to how they handle cell phones in their movie showings. According to an NBC news article by Martha White, “AMC Entertainment's new chief suggested that the theater chain might be open to making certain movie theaters 'texting friendly' in a bid to woo millennials.” However, within 24 hours, that idea was quickly eliminated when the CEO Adam Aron listened to what people were saying about the idea. Check out whnt.com for more information. Personally, I thought this was a great idea because then people who do not mind missing part of a movie can go and waste their money without annoying anyone who actually wants to watch the film. However, I can’t help but wonder why some people need to text while watching a movie. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of going to a theater? I know I lose track of what is going on when I glance at my phone for a second when watching something. Is it really necessary to spend $10 on a movie ticket if all you are going to do is be plugged into a different world? Now, I know that some people are able to do both with no problem, but still, shouldn’t a movie experience remain a movie experience? There are some incredible movies that are being made lately that are going to be missed if we can’t put our phones down long enough to appreciate the artistry that goes into each film. Plus, what is going on in your phone will still be there when you look at it two hours later. A movie scene only lasts minutes before it’s gone. That moment of magic can’t be recaptured unless you watch the film over again. And I promise you that whatever is going on in your phone can wait two hours. I’ve been disconnected from everyone I know for 10 days during a trip to Japan, yet there was nothing life-changing that happened online during that absence. Any big news waited until I had a second to log into Facebook. In fact, it was nice not to have to be tied to my phone because I could take time to enjoy Japan without worrying about what was happening in America, especially since we are constantly bombarded by the new media that wants our attention. Take a look around you. How many ads are we surrounded by everyday? Ten? Twenty? Hundreds? I would bet the numbers would add up quickly. Even if you go to the movies, ads are playing before the film. Even the previews for upcoming movies are distracting you from what is going on, or it takes your focus off the movie you actually want to see. Instead of letting yourself be constantly surrounded by new media that is demanding attention and distracting you from the things that matter in life, take rule 32 from the movie Zombieland: Enjoy the little things. Unplug from your tablet, phones, computers, etc., and take a look around. Or, better yet, sit back and enjoy two hours of entertainment that a movie can bring without glancing at your phone. You never know what you will discover when you take the time to do that. So what are your thoughts? Should AMC still consider this change, or should phones be banned in all movie theaters? Submit your thoughts below, or share them on the Twitter page. Contributed by Amanda Smith We all have friends and, in a digital world, it has become much easier for a person to stay in contact with those friends over a long distance. However, some have raised the question over how many of your hundred-plus friends on Facebook are your “true” friends. Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist, set out to uncover the truth behind our friendships online, particularly on Facebook. Jay Hathaway from The New York Magazine covered Dunbar’s findings in the article, “Most of Your Facebook Friends Are Not Real Friends, Study Says.” The average friend count for Facebook users is 150, but, according to the study, only four could be counted on for emotional support, and thirteen for sympathy. Dunbar also concluded that social media alone cannot maintain our friendships for us. So where does that leave us? Can friendship only exist in the non-digital world? Are our “Facebook Friends” not really our friends after all? To find the answer, one needs to look at their own personal account. How many of your Facebook friends do you converse with? Five? Ten? Twenty? It may not be every day, but I bet many of those friends you converse with occasionally would be there for you. For some, it may even go above what Dunbar concluded. In a digital world, relationships are changing, but that does not mean the quality of those relationships are decreasing. In fact, it may even be increasing for some people. We all live busy lives which means finding time to sit down with everyone we want to stay in contact with is a huge challenge. Being able to connect digitally can make that much easier. In fact, my best friend and I have a mainly digital relationship, yet I would consider her my sister. We met through the rv.net group that our parents joined, and we eventually formed a tight friendship. I see her at most once per month during the non-camping season (October through April). When our two families are camping together, I can see her for a weekend or longer depending on the trip, but that is our only face-to-face contact. The rest of our friendship is in the messages we send each other on Facebook and through texts. Despite this, we have forged a lifelong friendship. We know how to be apart, yet stay close. It may not be a normal friendship, but I do not know what I would do without her. So what does that mean for our digital relationships? I think it comes down to is this: the definition of friendship is a long-term, voluntary relationship with mutual social support. Social support can include emotional help and boosting self-esteem. Whether that support is more in the digital world or the non-digital is up to you. Either platform can foster meaningful relationships, and online friendships can survive if you put the work in. In the end, it really is no different than a non-digital relationship. Contributed by Meg Takagaki On Friday, November 13, 2015, the world shivered from the terror attack in Paris, France. Not only did telecommunication outlets respond to the attack by using live reports, but also social media reacted to the event, and each social media outlet presented its own unique ways to support people in Paris.One movement seen on the Internet was Facebook encouraging its users to change their profile pictures to include the French national flag. This was the moment when I realized how influential Facebook was to the world because my Facebook NewsFeed was flooded with the colors blue, white and red. Facebook hasn’t announced the approximate number of people who joined this trend, however, it is likely that millions of profile pictures were changed worldwide. As many of my friends changed their profile pictures, at the same time, different people viewed this trend with different perspectives. One group of people mentioned that there are other effective ways to support France. Another group asked why only France gets this special filter while other countries where people die daily don’t get it. The people who changed their profile pictures mentioned that they wanted to show solidarity with the people in France. Personally, I agree with all of these opinions. Although there are ways to support France other than changing profile pictures, I believe letting people in France know that global citizens do care about them is still reassuring. Nevertheless, it is important to remind ourselves of the fact that innocent people are killed everyday for country conflicts and wars regardless of the country’s economic status. Eventually, this French national flag trend will fade away, however, I believe that it is our responsibility to take actions to support the people who underwent such trauma without being told by social media to do so. |
New and Social MediaOn this page, students provide reports and opinions on various developments and social concerns in new media communication. Categories
All
Archives
April 2019
|