The Same Wavelength

It's Not So Bad After All

2005-07-25T02:33:00.000-07:00

“What?! Are you kidding me?!”
That was my reaction when Emi told us that we had to maintain a blog for the semester as part of our grade for the class. Sure, I knew what blogs were; they were those online diaries that political super-junkies and Net lovers ranted on. Well, to be honest, that was my opinion of them. Now, I can’t say that I enjoyed posting to my blog everyday, but I can say that it was more enjoyable than traditional homework requirements. It was interesting to read the other blogs and see viewpoints that aren’t always expressed in the classroom, and I must admit, I liked being able to share my own opinions and get feedback. I don’t know if I’ll keep up my blog after the final, it could be fun, but regardless, I have Emi, Phil, and my classmates to thank for introducing me to this medium and changing my preconceived notions about it.

Copyright Extremes

2005-07-25T02:30:00.000-07:00

I was really struck by the excerpt from Lawrence Lessig’s The Future of Ideas. I immediately thought of product placements in television shows and movies and how much companies pay for that “advertising.” So when someone turns down, not even turns down, but actually fights free advertising, I’m a little confused. I definitely think that people should be able to have their creative work protected, but it gets to a point at which it seems like certain people don’t just want their work protected, they want it hidden, but why? The examples Lessig gives from Twelve Monkeys, The Devil’s Advocate, and Batman Forever are examples of copyright law gone rampant. Lessig is right; these copyright law extremes are “burdens to the creative process” and will be the same burdens for innovation if they are not controlled.

Bare With Me

2005-07-24T22:36:00.000-07:00

OK, so I’ve come out and said that I think Nielsen is wrong, and I do on almost all points. You’ll have to read this entire post to know that I’m not being contradictory. I do think that Nielsen makes one somewhat valid point in, “The Case for Micropayments.” He says that “subscription fees fence you in,” and it’s true, they do. For example, a lot of newspaper Web sites make you subscribe before you can retrieve any articles from the archives. You end up having to pay a subscription fee to look at even one article. It would make more sense if sites like this would charge you a small fee for each article you download rather than making you subscribe and pay a much larger fee. This would benefit both the site and the users as the users would get what they want, and the site wouldn’t turn people away with their subscription fees.

No Case for Micropayments

2005-07-24T17:25:00.000-07:00

I know everyone has taken his or her turn, and now it’s mine turn to say, “Nielsen is wrong!” Let me break this down by taking a couple quotes from his “The Case for Micropayments” article and explain why I disagree.

First, Nielsen wrote, “ Ultimately, those who pay for something control it. Currently, most websites that don't sell things are funded by advertising. Thus, they will be controlled by advertisers and will become less and less useful to the users.” Network television is paid for by advertising, and although we pay monthly fees for our cable or satellite television, it is arguably also controlled by advertising. These media still serve their purpose and are useful to those who watch them even though they are funded primarily by advertising.

Second, Nielsen wrote, “On the Web, users should not worry about a cent per page. If a page is not worth a cent, then you should not download it in the first place.” Isn’t the whole idea of surfing the web to discover new sites and new sources of information and/or entertainment? In many cases, how will I know if a site is worth even a penny until after I have viewed it?

Nielsen also parallels micropayments for Internet usage to electricity payments. I don’t think that’s a very good analogy. Let me give you a better one. Do you like to flip channels on the television? Well, let’s say that every time you change the channel, you will be billed a few cents and that way you won’t have to watch ads. Personally, I’ll deal with the ads in order to keep my money in my pocket.

Still Studying...

2005-07-24T01:29:00.000-07:00

I need to study!!!

2005-07-23T01:15:00.000-07:00

Sorry to use one of these on you again, but it is finals week so I'm pretty busy.

We Can Handle It!

2005-07-22T18:13:00.000-07:00

What's that saying? Isn't it something like, "Give them an inch, and they'll take a foot?" Well, Shapiro would be wise to take heed to that advice. In chapter 21 of The Control Revolution, he discusses the role he thinks the government should play in regulating the Internet. I think his ideas are a little too optimistic and trusting of the government. Once you open up the door to government regulation, you might as well open up the floodgates.

One example he gives is the creation of a "privacy safety net" so that there will be "a minimal level of personal information privacy that cannot be taken from us even if we think that bartering it away with a click of the mouse makes sense." What about personal responsibility? Are we not the consumers? Is it not our information to give away as we please? Shapiro must think we're too incompetent and thus, in need of protection. He's being optomistic about and trusting of the wrong people.

Persistence Can Be Annoying

2005-07-18T23:49:00.000-07:00

OK, so yesterday I'm on the metro, and this man sits next to me and immediately strikes up an inquisitive conversation. He was very curious, asking me question after question. He was very persistent. Did I find this annoying? Not really, he was a fellow Southerner excited to be in the nation's capital so I sort of welcomed the friendly small talk that you don't find so much here in D.C. However, would most metro riders have found this annoying? My guess is probably. To some he may have been an aggravation in the midst of their busy day, but this guy wasn't really doing anything wrong. I wasn't being violated by this persistent conversation. I was just being talked to whether I invited the conversation or not.

This 3 minute conversation came to mind when I was thinking about another one of Fogg's "unique ethical concerns related to persuasive technology," the idea that the persistence of computers creates an ethical concern. I think this is more a concern of annoyance than of ethics. For instance, a pop-up screen is "in your face," but as the user, you can use pop-up blockers or you can simply choose not to click on or even read the advertisement. The same goes for unsolicited e-mails that clog your inbox. Like regular junk mail, they are aggravating, but they are in no way a violation of your ethical rights. I argue that the user is not being violated by a computer's proactive persistence but rather, just being annoyed.

Two Days Off

2005-07-17T23:54:00.000-07:00

Day Off

2005-07-16T14:53:00.000-07:00

Emotional yet Rational

2005-07-12T23:08:00.000-07:00

When reading Chapter 9 of Fogg’s Persuasive Technology, the idea of an ethical issue arising because of computers’ lack of emotions struck me as odd. I completely agree with Fogg that we are “emotional beings.” However, I feel that we are also, for the most part, rational and logical beings. Thus, are we really at a disadvantage to a piece of machinery? Do we really “expect ethical persuasion to include elements of empathy and reciprocity” when coming from a computer?

You Can't Meaure or Define "Whiteness" or "Blackness" so Don't Try

2005-07-11T01:59:00.000-07:00

The XX blogger wrote, “…my style of blogging is very white - I feel like I have to conclude everything, which leaves less room for the more deliberative communication patterns I find among African-Americans….Whites don’t really feel comfortable saying ‘I don’t know’ or just going through inconclusive cognitive exercises.” I have a problem with someone labeling something as very white or very black. Yes, we must embrace and recognize racial differences as I said before, but that does not mean that we can generalize these races. Who can define what it means to be black or white? Sure, some whites might not feel comfortable saying, “I don’t know.” Some blacks also may feel equally uncomfortable with those words. Defining anything as purely white or black is generalizing and stereotyping a race of people who have similar bonds while ignoring any variations those people might have.

So why aren’t there many African-American political bloggers?

2005-07-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

A post entitled “The African-American Blogging Thing,” raised this question on the XX blog. I read this post and then read Henry Jenkins’ article, “Cyberspace and Race,” and came to the following two assumptions.

Jenkins wrote that in our society, the average black family income is an estimated half of the average white family income. Furthermore, he wrote, “It is hard to imagine universal computer literacy in a country that has yet to ensure that all citizens can read and write-and…there is a strong correlation between race, class and literacy rates.” Taking that into consideration, it is a strong possibility that there are a proportionally lower number of black political bloggers than white simply because there are a proportionally lower number of blacks that have easy Internet access.

Also, Jenkins discusses the idea of not having a “color-blind” society per say but a society that recognizes and embraces racial and ethnic differences. One of these differences might be in the way people express themselves or the things they are interested in. For instance, there are TV shows, radio stations, advertisements, etc. that target specific racial and ethnic groups as the primary audience be they white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and so on. Perhaps political blogging is not the tool of choice for many blacks. Maybe it is a white male dominated medium because a larger percentage of white males are interested in blogging. Perhaps many black males choose to express their political opinions via a different medium.

Case Study of the Libertarian Party of Virginia Web Site

2005-07-09T23:12:00.000-07:00

The Libertarian Party of Virginia Web Site has several basic strengths that provide a good foundation to build on as well as several weaknesses that must be overcome. I will briefly address the major strengths and weaknesses of the current site.

Major Strengths:

Clear Message
The message of the Web Site is very clear. As a minor party, the LPVA uses the site to educate people about the party. The message remains strong throughout the site. The site explains the basic principles of the Libertarian Party, what is going on in the party, what specific members of the party are doing, and how to get involved in the party. Delivering this message is crucial to the party and is done well in this site.

Clear Organization and Simplicity
There is a good organizational backbone to this site that can be built upon. Because the site is well-organized, it is also very user-friendly. Any additions and changes to the site should not make the site more complicated.

Interaction
This site provides several opportunities for visitors to get involved. They can join the party, register for e-mails and/or newsletters, make a contribution, volunteer, request information and so on. This is a crucial part of a political Web Site, and this site makes numerous interaction opportunities available and simple.

Major Weaknesses:

Visually Boring
The first impression that the LPVA site gives is that it looks like what one might expect from a third or minor party’s Web site. It is completely boring with no top-quality graphics or pictures. The site should be able to compete with the sites of the two major parties, and currently, it can not do that. Graphics and pictures must be added without significantly increasing the download time of the site.

Wordy
The site is also too wordy. The welcome page especially needs to be changed as it is overwhelmingly wordy. Giving information is great and necessary, but too much information right away could drive visitors away from the site.

Take a look at the site and let me know your thoughts on it.

Mobile Phones First

2005-07-08T23:46:00.001-07:00

I agree with the point made in The Economist article, “The Real Digital Divide” that providing poor countries with Internet access will not solve the problem of the digital divide or help these countries to become rich. Developing countries are not poor because of their lack of Internet access; they lack Internet access because they are poor. As it was written in the article, “…A computer is not useful if you have no food or electricity and cannot read.” What good will Internet access do for the impoverished people in these countries if they can’t properly utilize it?

Although mobile phones also do not solve the underlying problems of the digital divide, the more widespread use of this technology in poor countries can create steps towards closing the gap a little more. I agree that they are a much more logical way to “promote bottom-up development." Mobile phones are not complicated to aquire, maintain, or use. The economic impact that they have in these countries can already be seen and will continue to grow if they are more widely dispersed. Efforts to close the gap in the digital divide should take one step at a time and focus on mobile phones before the Internet.

From the Mouths of Babes

2005-06-30T01:34:00.000-07:00

After reading Nielsen’s "Usability of Web Sites for Teenagers," I think that what teenagers expect from a Web Site is pretty much what we should all want. Basically, teens want a site that is eye-catching and not boring, one that doesn’t take much time to download, and one that isn’t wordy. Well, I think if we listened to what these teenagers want, we’d create better overall sites. Emi and Phil say in Winning Campaigns Online that the best sites are easy to use, have a download time of 15 seconds or less, have top-quality photos and graphics, and have well-written pages among other things. So maybe these kids, oops I mean teens, do know what they are talking about and can teach us something.

Responsibility is Key, and Narrowcasting is OK by Me.

2005-06-29T02:58:00.000-07:00

I’ve posted on this topic before in reference to another class, but since we discussed narrowcasting and its ethical implications in class Tuesday night, I thought I’d revisit the topic briefly.

Since the dawn of the advertising industry, companies and organizations have been gaining information about consumers in order to better target them with advertising and information. As it relates to the Internet my main argument is this: we should know that anything we do or say via the Internet is in the public domain and can be seen. That is a choice we make and a risk we take when we go online or use other new media. I see nothing wrong with companies gathering this information to target specific groups of people. A key word that has repeatedly come up in the last few discussions is responsibility, and here, it is important for there to be consumer responsibility.

Now on a political level, we have to recognize that as GSPM students, we are not like the average voter. We care about the big picture and many different issues while the average voter may have one or two issues that he or she feels strongly about and doesn’t care about the rest. This being said, isn’t narrowcasting what the average voter wants? Wouldn’t they rather hear a message about an issue they are interested in targeted specifically to them rather than a message about issues they don’t know or care about?

Narrowcasting helps to make campaigning more effective and delivers information to people about the issues that they care about or that affect them. Sure, narrowcasting may open up the door a little more for negative and/or deceitful messages. Once again, responsibility comes into play, the responsibility of the voter. Our common sense tells us all to not believe everything you see, hear, or read. Thus, the voter receives the information, advertising, message, etc., and it is then his responsibility to educate himself and discern the truth.

Create Solutions Not Partisan Propaganda

2005-06-28T23:52:00.000-07:00

Regarding tonight’s class discussion, I agree with three points made. First, there needs to be a certain degree of voter responsibility. It is up to the voter to find out where he is supposed to be and at what time. I feel a great deal was said on this topic in class so I won’t go into it further. Instead, I will focus on the other two points.

Yes, there are structural problems within our current voting system that need to be corrected so that the process will run more smoothly, and no, this is not a partisan issue. Well then, why did tonight’s discussion quickly turn into a heated partisan debate? Because films, like the one we watched in class, paint this as a partisan issue so instead of solutions being created and problems being solved, people waste time pointing fingers at each other.

The best word I can use to describe the film we watched tonight is propaganda, created to get people angry and fired up at Republicans who are "disenfranchising" would-be Kerry voters. For every line of people we watched waiting in line, I can show you an equal number of lines of would-be Bush voters waiting for 3-4 hours in the rain. In my precinct last November, a Bush precinct, on the election night, there were still people waiting to vote after 10 PM, and it was raining. Furthermore, the film focused on so called "problems" that weren’t even problems. For example, the polls close at 7:30. If you aren’t in line at 7:30, you don’t get to vote. Those are the rules. People don’t get to hold your place in line. You don’t get to be in the parking lot at 7:35 and still vote. If people were allowed to get in line after 7:30 sharp that would be an actual problem.

The truth is, actual election day problems occur everywhere with no regard for political affiliation, and they need to be fixed without partisan debate. Films, like the one we saw tonight, should portray all the problems not just those that back up a narrow point of view.

Use It Wisely

2005-06-27T23:18:00.000-07:00

Edward Cone’s article "Requiem for a Dream" covers two of the main points about campaigns that we have been discussing on our blogs, in class, and in our readings: avoiding the "overuse" of the Internet and online/offline synergy.

By "overuse," I mean avoiding the "spam problem," as Trippi called it. As I have stated before, it is important in developing an online plan that we don’t target too much, sending excessive amounts of e-mails and newsletters to our target.

On the topic of online and offline synergy, the Internet is a great tool, but in using it, we cannot forget about traditional media. We must, instead, combine the two to create a more effective campaign.

Two sentences by Cone serve to sum up the idea: "Indeed, if the Dean campaign is an object lesson at all, it's that deploying an information system in and of itself solves nothing. It's how the system's used that matters." This article serves as a concise but great example that the Internet is an important tool in campaigns, but it can also cause problems if not used effectively.

Don't Hate

2005-06-26T23:49:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that the Kerry campaign was a very poorly run campaign. That’s something that Democrats and Republicans alike can agree on, but when I read articles like James Verini’s "It’s the Incompetence, Stupid" and hear first hand accounts from people who volunteered or worked on the campaign, I am shocked at how truly inefficiently and ineffectively it was run.

As Verini wrote, many Kerry supporters were simply "Bush-haters" who didn’t know much about Kerry himself. According to Verini, "The one thing everyone did know? Kerry was not Bush. For most, that was enough." Did the Democratic Party actually think that that would be enough? Based on the articles I have read and the stories I have heard, it seems as though the Democratic Party wasn’t so concerned about winning. This was clearly their election to lose. With Bush’s increasing unpopularity and the unpopularity of the war, even a slightly well run campaign should have been able to beat Bush.

I think both parties learned, or should have learned, a valuable lesson from this election. I think one of the main reasons the Kerry campaign was so ineffective was because the Democratic Party chose a candidate that it wasn’t passionate about and didn’t feel like making an effort to get behind. In Verini’s own experience, "[He] made hundreds of phone calls; all but a handful of people claimed to be too busy to do even a few hours work for Kerry. This, despite many of them admitting to being scared as hell for the future of our country (not to mention that they were answering their home phones at, say, 2 p.m. on a Wednesday)." These people needed a candidate that could connect with them, and one that they could feel motivated about. Dislike or even hatred for the opposition is not enough. You must evoke passion from the voters or at leat the would be volunteers. The Demcratic Party failed to do that in 2004, and I just hope they keep it up in 2008.

They're Everywhere

2005-06-25T23:23:00.000-07:00

Once again, I must admit that blogs are infiltrating many aspects of our lives. I’m encountering blogs more and more in my everday life, and I'm not sure if it is because this class has opened up my eyes to the idea or if they really are everywhere. Although this post doesn’t directly relate to the reading for our class, it does certainly relate to the class and the topic of blogging. I was flipping through my People magazine yesterday when I came across the "Bachelor Blogger."
Jason Mulgrew, a 25 year old from New York City has a blog titled "Everything is Wrong with Me." In this blog, Mulgrew discusses his social life, which seems to be mostly disastrous. However, this isn’t your typical, run of the mill, "I want to discuss every detail of my boring life with you" blog. According to People magazine, Mulgrew’s site actually receives 10,000 hits a day. Funny how so many people are interested in reading about one man’s messed up social life.
This leads me to wondering. One, if Mulgrew can get this many people interested in his social life, shouldn’t it be so easy to get people interested in other amateur blogs that discuss actual issues and news. What is he doing that we need to be? Two, why don’t people care about their privacy anymore? Do they not worry that their boss, mother, friends, or even future partner or spouse may read these things? I think people use the power of the Internet without taking into consideration the possible consequences of that power. Three, why do I keep seeing blogs everywhere I turn?

Exploitation or Opportunity

2005-06-23T23:23:00.000-07:00

The New York times article, "List of Schiavo Donors Will Be Sold by Direct-Marketing Firm" relates to my post from June 6, "What's to Debate?" However, I will say that in the case of selling a list of the Schindlers' financial supporters to a direct-mail firm, there certainly is more to debate. I took into consideration the case from both sides. At first, this action seems appalling, even suggesting that Terri Schiavo's condition was being exploited. Then, I thought about the description given of the list by the direct mail firm, Response Unlimitied, "These compassionate pro-lifers donated toward Bob Schindler's legal battle to keep Terri's estranged husband from removing the feeding tube from Terri. These individuals are passionate about the way they value human life..." Could it be possible that targeting these supporters of the Schindler family would serve to give the supporters more opportunity to get involved in causes they believe in and are passionate about? The article states that this direct marketing is, "making it likely that thousands of strangers moved by [Terri's] plight will receive a steady stream of solicitations from anti-abortion and conservative groups." Honestly, maybe those "strangers" would not be so opposed to receiving information from such groups?

Where do we draw the line? Is such marketing an exploitation or an opportunity for further issue and political involvement by passionate participants?

My Day Off

2005-06-20T21:02:00.000-07:00

It’s Not Time to Replace E-mail Newsletters Yet.

2005-06-19T20:32:00.000-07:00

Amy Gahran makes some great points her article, "What are Webfeeds (RSS), and Why Should You Care?" Webfeeds are a great new tool that need to be used by political campaigns and organizations. However, I also think it isn’t time to replace e-mail newsletters yet. Webfeeds should be added to the list of marketing tools but not yet used to replace current ones.

In her article, Gahran points out four problems with using Webfeeds. Of these, I think the first one, the fact that "learning is a hassle" is the most important. The average person who subscribes to e-mail newsletters is not yet ready to use and, certainly not ready to rely solely on Webfeeds. These disadvantages can eventually be overcome. Thus, it is important that Webfeeds are used in conjunction with these other tools.

Pictures Are Important

2005-06-18T23:06:00.000-07:00

Looking at Bush and Kerry’s 2004 campaign Web sites, I was immediately reminded of what Emi said in class about the importance of the pictures on the site. As she said, photos are illustrations of the message. They are, essentially, each telling a certain story. In particular, I thought the home page of both of these sites did a great job with the pictures they used. For instance, on the Bush site, the first and biggest picture you see is that of President Bush hugging his wife. It serves to depict a sense of his values and sincerity. Furthermore, on the Kerry site, the picture in the top corner is that of Kerry receiving a military medal. Thus, focusing on a message of his honorable service and valor. The pictures candidates choose for their Web sites send out messages themselves. It is important that they are an extension of the overall message.