Maybe I Shouldn’t Have Googled That…

It’s actually extremely frightening when you think that there’s someone out there who is able to see everything you’ve searched on google. Until you think about it, you might not realize how much information you give out through google searches. What you’re interested in, where you’re going on vacation, who you want to know more about, where you shop. Almost your whole life is in your google searches. And how many times do you actually think about this before you go typing into the search engine? I asked my roommate what she thought of google and she said it was “a great stalking tool”. Of course it’s a great stalking tool for finding out if your latest crush was on his high school football team and what not, but what if someone was able to see all the people you have googled? After I mentioned that she immediately realized how embarrassing and awful that is. It’s so funny because people assume that their information is safe, and that no one is ever going to find out what they do on their computers. But that’s completely false. Everything you do on your computer is stored away, and let’s hope that the wrong people never gain access to those files.

Google is a double edged sword. It can give you so much information, but it also learns so much about you in the process.

What An Awful Motto

“Don’t be evil”. What kind of motto is that? This motto makes me even more nervous about google employees. Are they employing people who might be evil? Isn’t it implied that your employees shouldn’t be evil? Does it really need to be written out in a motto? As it says in one of the articles “Don’t be evil’. Google generally apply those words to how we serve our users”. Are there companies out there who want to be evil to their users? I just think this is a ridiculous motto. Something standard and along the lines of “we work to serve you” is better than “don’t be evil”. Google states that they “expect all of our employees and Board members to know and follow the Code”. Don’t all companies sort of expect their employees not to be evil?

“Meeting” “Friends” On Facebook

Is it healthy and normal to “meet people” on facebook before actually physically meeting them? Is facebook making it much too easy for people to become friends without actually knowing anything about each other?

I didn’t really think so until my first day at college.

I’m actually a transfer from Union College, so the story takes place in the magical (ha!) little town of Schenectady, NY.

Over the summer I had contacted my roommate on facebook, and a few other incoming freshman had friended me, but I hadn’t posted on anyones wall or really tried to make an effort on facebook. I figured that would be kind of weird, and I didn’t want to be known as a facebook stalker even before I got to campus.

Oh boy, was I in for a surprise.

I walked into my dorm, and it was like people had known each other for years. I actually thought everyone on my hall had gone to the same high school because they acted like they knew each other that well. When I found out that they “knew” each other from facebook, I was amazed. People had already swapped numbers, I met two people who were already listed as “in a relationship” on facebook with each other before they had even met, and some girls already had been in facebook fights. And the crazy thing was that I was the only person who thought this was weird. Everyone had so openly accepted their new facebook friendships, that no one realized how incredibly odd it was to have never met someone they considered a “friend”. I was amazed that people could become friends with one another based on how they looked and talked online. Isn’t it natural to base someone off of a first impression rather than a facebook picture?

This is just one example of how facebook has already changed human experiences, and I’m sure if facebook continues to grow at the rate it is, many more experiences will be altered by facebook.

What’s Appropriate For Facebook

This article absolutely floored me. I’m actually just flabbergasted that someone made a poll asking such a ridiculous question. Not only are you talking about murdering someone, but we’re talking about a president of a country. This is absolutely unacceptable. Facebook took down the poll as soon as it was alerted of it, but this then begs the question of what the people at facebook have the control over. 

 

As you most likely know, people are rude, mean, and cowardly when it comes to writing something online whether it be on blogs or on facebook. I’m sure there are many extremely damaging groups, postings, polls, and pictures of people far less famous than President Obama. So, would facebook delete that content? What is facebook willing to remove from its site?  If there were a poll asking if I should be killed, would facebook take that down? 

 

Video game critic, Jack Thompson, thinks he should be granted the same privilege as President Obama. Thompson is filing a lawsuit against the site for “failing to remove threatening content that was posted by its users”.  

 

I’m sure many people who use facebook can find something that can be construed as “threatening content”. After this Obama poll fiasco, hopefully facebook will tighten up on what content is able to be posted. I know that might be limiting the freedom of speech aspect, but somethings are just not appropriate to be online. 

Your Online Legacy

These days, not only do you have to make out a will, but you need a will for your online accounts. This is actually a somewhat frightening thought.

 

I know some of you have noted that it’s comforting to see someone’s facebook profile after their death, but to tell you the truth, it kind of creeps me out. I don’t want someone’s lasting memories of me to be what they saw on my facebook, and I most certainly do not want someone telling me to “rest in peace” via facebook. I’ve actually given this some thought and have told my roommate my password explicitly stating that if I kick it, I want my facebook deleted. 

 

But what happens to all your online accounts when you die? There are so many you probably can’t even remember them all right now. Well, in case you don’t have an heir you feel comfortable giving all your information to, there are some websites that can help you out. They do seem a little odd, but hey, who am I to judge if you want to send out a prerecorded goodbye email. 

 

This is just one more way in which the online world has made the real world a little stranger. 

Stop Killing Facebook!

I know some of my classmates have had limited or no interaction with facebook, so I just wanted to clarify a few things. I’m somewhat of a facebook veteran, having used it for almost five years, and I’ve learned the ways in which you can use it without being a facebook creep. When facebook is used “correctly” it is a great tool to keep in touch with your friends, to contact people, and to learn what’s going on in the world. 

 

But the people who “misuse” facebook are slowly killing it. 

 

The first type of facebook misusers are the “I like to tell my entire life story on my facebook status” people. This week’s reading includes a few articles about people who detail their entire lives on their facebook statuses. Please, don’t think that every person with a facebook divulges their most personal thoughts on this site. That’s not to say that some people really do misuse facebook. There are people who chronicle their every thought and action on there, no matter how personal or uninteresting it is to the rest of the world. It’s extremely inappropriate to be discussing a law suit or a divorce on on there. Facebook is not the place for that, and that’s not how the site should be used. If a social networking site is where you go to tell people about your personal troubles, then you probably should get some actual friends. It annoys me because these people are giving facebook a bad reputation, and are slowing killing the site. 

 

The second type of facebook misuser is the “I actually persuaded someone into being my significant other, so I’m going to suffocate you with pictures of us, and our relationship status”. These people very often are also the first type of facebook misusers. They use their facebook statuses to further push their relationship in your face. If you are willing to put your relationship on facebook for everyone to see, I have absolutely no sympathy for you when the breakup eventually occurs. One of the readings notes on how public the end of relationships can be on facebook, as if that’s facebooks fault. Facebook is not demanding that you put up your relationship status. You could simply not put a status down. 

 

The third type of misusers are the “I’m so awesome that I get drunk and take pictures of it” people. Facebook gives you the freedom to post pictures of almost anything, so use that liberty correctly. If you get kicked out of school, go to jail, don’t get a job, or get fired from a job based on something you’ve done in pictures you posted, I don’t feel sorry for you. If you use facebook wisely, you shouldn’t have any problems. Also, if some damaging pictures of you do surface, you could simply untag them, so they don’t show up on your facebook. 

 

The fourth type of misusers are the “I’m going to become a fan of everything on facebook”. I don’t really understand what the point of becoming a fan of what “not being on fire” is going to do. Really? You don’t like being on fire? I highly enjoy it. That being said, I am a fan of certain things like the musician Eric Church and Baseball Digest because they actually send useful notifications like when his next album is coming out or when a new article has been written. 

 

The fifth type of facebook misusers are the “I don’t know you, but I’ll friend you anyways!” people. Don’t think that just because someone friends you that you must accept it. I most certainly don’t. Dear Omar from Brazil with whom I have no mutual friends, I will not accept your friend request. Facebook should be a connection between people you actually know. There’s no shame in having only 100 friends if that means you actually know and talk to them. 

 

The last type of facebook misusers are older people. Yes, I said it. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Many of the people who post too much information, seem to be on it too much, and have no shame on commenting on every picture are not people in my generation. I’m facebook friends with many of my friend’s parents (that’s another thing, once one of them acquires a facebook they will friend all of their children’s friends) and they typically write too much personal information on it. I’m going to go ahead and blame it on them not knowing the etiquette of facebook (which is it’s okay to creep on other people’s facebooks, but just don’t let them know about it). The stories we read about too much information were from people of an older generation. I know it’s easy to blame kids for all this crazy new technology, but really most of us are using it “properly”. 

 

Now that I’ve complained about all the ways in which facebook is not used correctly, let me point out a few ways in which facebook should be used. Firstly, facebook is a great way to keep in contact with friends. In a previous class many of you stated that if you lost contact with friends over time there was probably a reason for it. Well, I use facebook, not to get in touch with old friends, but to keep in touch with currant ones. Sometimes when you don’t have time for a phone call, it’s nice to just drop a little post on their wall to say hi. Facebook can keep you updated on their lives through pictures. You can look at their dorm room, or of them at a football game they went to last weekend, or whatever else they might have posted. It’s also a good way of learning what’s going on by being fans of certain things, and sometimes status updates can be nice when done properly (ex. “Can’t wait to see my friends in a few weeks!”)

 

So, as your perusing these articles please don’t think that your friends, children, or whoever else you know that has a facebook, is going facebook crazy. Most people have the good sense to use facebook properly. 

Accomplished Journalist vs. Notorious Blogger

Last night’s conversation about what constitutes as journalism reminded me of a this segment on Costas’s Now which happened about a year ago. Buzz Bissinger, an acclaimed sports writer who has won multiple prizes including the Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism, just goes off on sports blogger Will Leitch. 

 

This segment brings up a lot of questions that we have in class, and it’s very interesting to hear an accomplished sports journalist and a professional sports blogger voice their opinions on this matter.

 

To begin with Bissinger comments on the way in which blogs are written saying that most of them are “glib, profane, and quick”. Are these guys really trying to “perfect the craft”, or are they simply spewing out juicy information that the public is going to eat up? If you take a look at the popular sports blogs such as The Big Lead and Deadspin, it’s going to appear that they are just trying to attract readers with funny, and sometimes extremely crude articles that embarrass athletes, and other sports writers. As Leitch notes, it’s hard to attract readers to the site, and they are clearly doing so by any means necessary even if it doesn’t live up to decent journalistic standards.

 

I can also see Leitch’s point of view. Yes, many writers such as Bissinger can do a better job at “evoking a game and a moment”, but that’s not what the masses want to read anymore. They want, as Leitch pointed out, a writer who is “like a normal, everyday fan”. This is what bloggers are able to give us. They may not be able to paint a beautiful picture with their words, but they’ll be honest and tell you the facts. 

 

This clip also brings up the issue of what constitutes as news. Should pictures of a backup quarterback playing beerpong in his house be newsworthy? Maybe not. But how about the story of Josh Hamilton. Just a little recap here on Josh. He was a former number one baseball draft pick. Before he got to the bigs, he became a crack cocaine addict and dropped out of baseball. After a few years, and he has cleaned up his act, kicked the alcohol and drugs, got married, and became a premiere player in the majors. This has been a highly covered feel good story about a young man who has turned his addiction around through his faith in God. It was a feel god story, that is, until Deadspin posted drunken pictures of Josh dancing, and licking whipped cream off of some young ladies. Is this newsworthy? Should the public know that Josh temporarily fell off the wagon? Or is this just a ploy to attract readers and embarrass a famous athlete who has clearly struggled with his addictions? How much information about athletes is too much? 

 

I’m really on the fence with this kind of thing. To be totally honest, from time to time I will read Deadspin because some of their information is actually pretty good, and newsworthy. Everything is condensed in one site, it’s very accessible, and easier than paging through a newspaper or even searching through another site such as ESPN.com. And to be honest, sometimes it is entertaining to see your favorite, or least favorite, player completely drunk or doing something else stupid. 

 

Well, I thought it was entertaining until the pictures of Josh were posted. You see, I’m a huge Josh Hamilton fan, and I think it was wrong to post those pictures. Maybe I’m doing somewhat of a double standard here, but I really don’t think posting pictures of say Matt Stafford at a party are as awful as posting the pictures of Josh. Maybe it’s because Stafford is younger, and it’s more acceptable to make those mistakes when you’re a rookie. Maybe it’s because Josh is married, and I feel bad for his wife in children who have to deal with the exploitation of these pictures. Maybe it’s because this is so much more than just a picture of a normal athlete getting drunk. This is a former drug addict who obviously has some problems with these types of things.

 

Even though I don’t approve of the pictures, it does constitute as journalism, and unfortunately, this is the way in which sports journalism is moving. I think bloggers need to be more conscious of their decisions. Their shoddy attempts at journalism don’t really add anything to the public’s knowledge of sports, and they just try to tarnish the reputations of athletes. I think it’s very sad that sports journalism has come to this, but it looks like this type of journalism is here to stay, and writers like Bissinger will soon be extinct. 

 

The Plagiarism Debacle

I really don’t understand how this happens to a newspaper. It’s embarrassing, it sets an awful example for other journalists and readers, and I find it to be just ridiculous. I’m aware that their have been cuts, and that many journalists are overworked. But you’re talking to a college student who also holds down a job, and is on a sports team. I’m not buying the overworked angle. I just think it’s unbelievable that a professional establishment like the Courant would not notice such a thing as plagiarism before it goes to print. There are all sorts of excuses you could come up with as to why this happened, but there is no real excuse that I’ll buy. Such a thing simply should not happen. If I somehow have managed not to plagiarize in my fourteen years of schooling, I’m sure that a trained professional can somehow avoid it as well. 

 

Gino’s Daughter

I am not okay with this at all. I’m not quite sure what Gino Auriemma’s daughter is going to blog about that a sport writer cannot write about. Maybe I just think it’s slightly ridiculous because she’s not going to be critical of the team, or her father’s coaching, and that’s a big part of covering a team. You know that she’s probably just going to write fluff pieces about cute inside jokes the team has, or something else equally ridiculous. I don’t think she should get a special privileges just because she’s the coaches daughter. If she really wants to gain real writing experiences where she can openly criticize and report on a team properly, maybe she should not cover UCONN women’s basketball. 

Hartford Courant

To begin with, I am not a huge fan of the Hartford Courant. Last year they ran an article on my high school which I found unfair, and after that I simply stopped reading it. But this week I decided to bite the bullet, and read the Courant online. 

 

I really think that newspapers are a business, and they will print what sells. The Courant does this to some extent. They are more fair than some other papers, I’m looking at you, New York Post (who ran one of the most one-sided, slanderous, and factually incorrect articles I’ve ever read), but I still don’t think they’re totally middle of the road. They probably need this to sell papers. Having a more conservative rather than what I believe to be a slightly liberal voice, will not sell them any papers in the blue state of Connecticut.

 
On the topic of the site design, I think the style is fine. It seems a little clustered, and there’s a lot of unfortunately placed advertisements, but it’s not so bad that I wouldn’t read it for that reason alone. 

 

The most important section of the paper (the sports section, obviously) is pretty good. They do a good job of covering all the regional teams, as well as any other major happenings. Their coverage of the Huskies is great, and they also have good coverage of high school teams, and regional minor league teams. The only design problem I have with this page is not having the scores on the top of the page, instead of an advertisement. Other than that, I really don’t have any other problems with this section.