Social Media: A Good Starting Point

Before the rise of the Internet and social media at the end of the 20^th century, when Americans wanted to catch up on current events, they retrieved newspapers from their driveways or turned on the TV to tune in to the evening news. Now, with an increase in the number of online news sources as well as an increase in the various technologies people use to search for and receive news, the options are endless.

Average citizens have the ability to share news with others through social media. Not only do they have access to different avenues to voice their opinions, recent statistics show they also have enormous influence – as the influence of the traditional mass media decreases.

According to a Gallup poll of Americans’ trust in news media conducted in Oct. 2009, 45% of Americans reported that they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the media. 18% reported having no confidence at all. Traditional media is taking a major hit. In fact, a January survey by Public Policy Polling found that FOX News is the only major television network with a greater percentage of trusting viewers than distrusting.

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll measuring the number of Americans following political news in Sept. 2008 found that an increasing number of Americans – 43% – reported that they follow national politics very closely. Still taking the historic significance of the presidential campaign into account, Gallup noted that the growth in the amount of news sources on the web might have also contributed to this high percentage.

Additional surveys have shown Internet users trust their peers for information about new products and services over advertisements. In his social media blog, “Socialnomics,” Erik Qualman reports that 78% of consumers trust peer recommendations while a mere 18% trust advertisements.

But are social media outlets credible news sources? What motivates people to trust the user-generated content of blogs, Twitter and Facebook over the professionals? And even if citizens do trust these sources, should they?

From personal experience, I ask myself two questions to decide whether news from my peers and other users is reliable:

1. What is the source’s intention?

Knowing a person’s purpose for posting news is crucial to assessing its trustworthiness. Typically, if a friend tweets or updates a status about a pop culture event, entertainment news or a strange fact, I take it with a grain of salt. Since pop culture isn’t a weighty issue for most, people post updates like these with little thought about the source of their information – whether it is a fan club’s Web site, a pop culture blog or another peer’s status.

For example, in January, Internet users prompted the spread of a rumor that Johnny Depp had died in a car crash. Fans mourned on Facebook and Twitter as word circulated about his death. A search of Johnny Depp on Google trends for the Jan. 2010 shows a significant spike in searches for him on Jan. 24 when the rumor spread. Soon after, major news sources like The Huffington Post reported the claims to be false.

In addition, I take into account a person’s beliefs. My peers with strong viewpoints may post facts from a one-sided perspective, manipulating the information or not reporting it in its entirety. Instead, they present facts that reinforce their opinions.

Contrary to what I have said up to this point, I believe people may have good intentions when they post news. This raises my level of trust in what they report. When my peers have a vested interest in their posts, the information they provide is the most credible.

For instance, after the earthquake in Haiti, several friends posted news about Haiti and ways to help. Many of these individuals spent a couple weeks in Haiti over the summer for a mission trip. Because they had invested their time to help the Haitian people, I knew they truly cared about the victims of the earthquake and would post information about reliable aid organizations like Partners in Health and the American Red Cross.

2. How much does the source know about the topic?

A source’s knowledge about a subject can come from education on a topic, continually staying up to date on it and/or experiencing it.

I am more inclined to trust people who regularly follow current events and study certain topics when they provide news. The updates on the Facebook profile of an economics major in my sorority who follows current events and is an economics teaching assistant are reliable starting points for news on the state of our nation’s economy.

Likewise, someone who has experience with an event is more reliable than an onlooker. This can be particularly helpful when people comment on products and services. For example, I trust restaurant recommendations posted by my friends who eat out on a regular basis.

As I reviewed my answers to these questions, I noticed the similarities to my criteria for a trustworthy news source on social media and the criteria journalists use to find reliable sources for their stories. Social media has eliminated the journalist, and it is now up to the citizen to filter out the credible sources from the misleading.

However, even if I decide a friend or another user is credible, I use their comments as a notification of current events. From this initial update, I check other at least a couple other sources. What sources you ask? Traditional news sources – newspapers, online articles and television networks. I have my reasons for this decision as well.

1. Accountability

Traditional news sources are held accountable by not only their readers, but also by their advertisers and the government. When newspapers print an error, they print the correction to maintain the trust of their readers. In addition, federal laws prohibit newspapers from printing libelous statements.

2. Professionalism

Reporters are well-educated in the field of journalism. They are trained in information gathering and news writing. In addition, newspapers and television networks have a lengthy editing process designed to decrease the frequency of reporting errors. Several pairs of eyes read over a story before it is delivered to the public. Articles printed in The Daily Tar Heel are read by at least three editors before going to print.

3. Objectivity

Newspaper articles and broadcasts include data and several sources from both sides of a subject. Stories typically include information and quotes from at least three reliable sources. This creates well-rounded stories and gives both sides of an issue representation in a single article or report. Also, it has now become common practice to include links to primary sources in online articles so citizens can review the sources for themselves. Traditional news sources are more likely to link to the most credible primary sources – but not always.

I found it interesting that most of the links in a New York Times article about Obama's expansion of healthcare led to explanations about the person or subject by other articles in The New York Times. Even then, I still trust the breadth of articles in The New York Times. Together, I rely on them for more accurate news than a collection of blog posts.

While social media has its upsides when it comes to providing news, it is still ridden with underlying flaws. In the future these failings may be worked out, but for now, I’ll stick to my trusted sources for the final word on current events. And on that note, I’m going to check my RSS Feed.

The Internet Experiment

Background:

The WORLDwide web. When you actually consider how much information is at your fingertips when you access the Internet, it can be daunting. Sorting through the excess information to find exactly what you’re looking for can be even more challenging.

A few years ago, USA Today’s Andrew Kantor wrote that there was too much information on the Internet to organize it systematically. Recently, new search engines, such as bing (the site with the clever commercials), have attempted to alleviate this problem and streamline the search process.

Research Question:

So where has this information overload left the public? Can citizens access the information they need to make informed political decisions?

The Internet has been praised for its democratizing effects on our society. The web provides citizens with updates on campaigns, elections, government actions and representatives from official government entities, news sources, leaders themselves, databases, and more. They can even be informed by other citizens.

National politics and news have a dominant presence online, but what about state and local politics? And obscure information that citizens need to understand and influence the policies of their community?

Method:

To investigate, I will try to answer the following three questions presented by Professor Towns using the Internet…

Results:

1. What did Gov. Beverly Perdue’s last campaign finance report show for cash on hand?

Step 1: I searched “governor beverly perdue campaign finance report” on Google. The search did not produce results about how much “cash on hand” she raised, although I did learn about the controversy over her expenditures on undisclosed flights from the first page of links. Next, I added “cash on hand” to the end of my previous search. Success! The second link took me to the North Carolina Democratic Party Web site that reports Perdue raised $1.4 million cash on hand.

2. How many voters are registered in NC – and what is the breakdown of R, D, and I?

This time, I searched “voter registration north carolina.” The first link was the North Carolina State Board of Elections Web site. Easy enough. The bar at the top of the home page lists the total number of registered voters in North Carolina – 6,038, 531. The breakdown? Democratic: 2,734,258; Republican: 1,918,603; Libertarian: 6,733; Unaffiliated: 1,378,937. And it’s up-to-date. The numbers are based on registration data from Feb. 14, 2010.

3. Pick a prof – any prof at UNC – and find his/her salary.

Hmm…since I’ve been studying for my international politics exam tomorrow, I’ll look up how much my associate professor of political science, Thomas Oatley, makes. Searching “thomas oatley” produces information about his research, education, blog and teaching experience. But what about his salary? After scrolling through the first six pages, I had no luck.

The faculty and staff data page of the UNC-Chapel Hill Office of Institutional Research and Association Web site did have links to charts that list the demographics of the professors as well as the median and mean salaries of each position in the schools. However, there were no specifics. Bummer.

Next, instead of searching specifically for Professor Oatley, I searched for applications and tools that could help me find out his salary. This proved to be the superior method. The North Carolina System Salary Database on triangle.com listed his total salary and his hire date. The Daily Tar Heel’s data center is also a good source of statistical information about the university. It too has a tool to look up the salaries of UNC system employees.

Analysis:

The first two questions were extremely easy to answer. I was impressed with how fast I was able to find reputable sites that gave me accurate results. Information overload or not, search engines know how to sort prominent data.

The last question – more personal and local – was a challenge. The more specific the information, the harder it is to find. Ironically, specific information is often more applicable to citizens’ lives. It applies to their communities and the people who directly influence their daily lives.

Conclusion:

While there should be restrictions on how much information is available on the Internet, practical information, like the data above, should be accessible for the average citizen. After all, if the people who would use the information can't access it online, the Internet does not serve one of its main purposes.

Facebook and Twitter: Legitimate News Sources?

Facebook and Twitter have revolutionized the way we view social interaction. These social networking sites provide a link of constant communication between individuals, friends, families, businesses and organizations. Users can update friends about what they’re doing, upload pictures and post comments.

But it’s not strictly fun and games (No, I’ve never played Farmville. I’m too scared I’ll get hooked). Twitter and Facebook have connected citizens to traditional news sources as well as to government officials. Status updates, event invitations and group messages communicate political information on a daily basis. So what may seem like aimless browsing on these sites can actually be enlightening.

Facebook, invented by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, is a social networking pioneer. The profiles themselves are informative as well as the various applications – fan pages, groups, messages and events. Politicians have capitalized on the popularity of Facebook, using it to gain support and trust from some of the over 350 million users.

Local leaders, including Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and the Town Council members (with the exception of Laurin Easthom and Penny Rich), have Facebook profiles.

Sure, it may be interesting to know that if Mark Kleinschmidt were a Greek god, he would be Zeus (according to the quiz results on his wall). But his Facebook also includes news about Chapel Hill, including status updates about emergency weather conditions and the dedication of a new community center playground. His Facebook comments about current policy-making, such as the passage of Kansas death penalty repeal bill by the Senate Judiciary Committee, give viewers further indication of his views on specific issues – views that will guide his future decisions as mayor. Finally, he updates users on national political decisions that will directly affect North Carolinians, like federal government’s high-speed railroad investment.

Politicians’ profiles can be particularly important during campaign season. From information on Facebook, voters can make decisions about which candidates they support. Student government candidates at UNC have wisely chosen to hop on the Facebook bandwagon. Exposure is everything. And what better way to get your face out there than on Facebook? Supporters have changed their default pictures to the candidates’ campaign images with captions that remind viewers to vote on Election Day. Candidate groups are even more informative, often listing platforms and updates on the campaigns.

Facebook groups and fan pages are also developing into reliable news sources. Fan pages for traditional media sources are my first choice for news on Facebook. National news sources are most likely to have pages with links to news articles and breaking news reports. For example, the fan pages of The New York Times, Fox News and CNN all included updates about Sarah Palin’s keynote speech at the first national convention of the “tea party” coalition.

Local news was harder to come by on Facebook. The Daily Tar Heel has a strong presence on Facebook – a DTH fan page and three groups. On the other hand, The News & Observer only has a group for past employees, which is not very useful for citizens who want to know more about local politics.

Event invitations are another great way to learn about on-campus happenings, such as the upcoming UNC A Capella concert to raise money for Haiti. The periodic messages sent out by event planners (although sometimes pesky) can be helpful reminders to attend and participate.

Twitter, the microblogging site invented by Jack Dorsey in 2006, resembles an RSS feed with updates from family and friends, news sources and even individual reporters like Anderson Cooper and Bill O’Reilly.

News sources have recognized the value of including links to articles, pictures and videos. Url shorteners like bit.ly allow them to post shorter links to make the most of the 140-character limit.

I prefer Twitter to Facebook as a news source because it’s more convenient. The updates about current events in addition to updates from my friends and family are all in one place. It’s fast and convenient – two qualities my generation values.

Facebook and Twitter have noticed the growing affinity for technology that is quick and simple. The sites have teamed up, further connecting users to one another. Facebook has an application called the Twitter exporter that translates tweets into status updates on users’ Facebook profiles. This allows people to spread news on two different sites at once, maximizing their audience.

The best part about these sites is that people no longer have to seek out news. Instead, news comes to them. Owners of smart phones (unfortunately, I am not one of them, ahem mom and dad) can check Facebook and get Twitter updates straight to their phone. Now that’s breaking news.

It’s also a two-way street. Traditional news sources not only increase readership through Twitter and Facebook, but they also get immediate feedback from their readers through comments and retweets.

News sources are capitalizing on this line of communication by asking readers for story ideas and input about articles. For example, the story idea for an article I wrote in The Daily Tar Heel about damages to Knotts Funeral Home came from a tweet from a former staff member a couple weeks ago. A tweet today from Newsweek also solicits users’ responses by asking them for their thoughts on the necessity of corporate layoffs. The catch? Responses must be six words or less. Talk about short and sweet.

Social networking sites provide us with some of the most up-to-date political news. Facebook and Twitter are the link between readers and traditional news sources. The sites also fuel discussion about current events among reporters and readers.

State of the Union: Straight Up

According to the White House blog, I was one of almost 1.3 million people who watched President Obama speak to our nation’s leaders and the American people in his State of the Union address on Jan. 27. Despite the atypical length of the speech – approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes – watching it firsthand made me feel empowered and informed as a citizen.

Since I received the information directly from President Obama, the primary source, I could interpret the speech from my perspective. Reporters and bloggers sift through the speech and select what they believe are key parts. However, what may be the most important issue to one person may not be as important to another.

For example, The Daily Tar Heel reported that Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt tweeted about Obama’s goal to eliminate the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. At the same time, Laura Rozen, a blogger for POLITICO, focused on the president's little emphasis on foreign policy.

Although specific issues, such as the proposed freeze on non-defense spending, were consistently topics of controversy among analysts and government officials, their perspectives on the issue were quite different. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who delivered the official Republican response to the address, said that the freeze will not be enough to alleviate economic hardships – that instead government needs to be limited further. Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, a columnist for The New York Times, called the freeze a “dumb policy idea.”

In addition, analysts and bloggers often focus on the tone and delivery of the speech more than the content. Michael Crowley, a blogger for The New Republic, wrote that Obama gave a “strong, fluid speech” with “some memorable, lighthearted moments.” On the converse, Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst refererenced in a CNN article, noted that the speech was “underwhelming” and lacked middle ground.

Many of the specifics of the speech, such as the timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq and the executive order to create a Bipartisan Fiscal Commission, were omitted from articles and blogs more focused on the themes of the speech or what Obama was missing. Even though some of the specific promises may seem challenging or unrealistic to critics (e.g. doubling the nation's exports in the next five years), Americans should still be aware that these proposals are being considered.

Witnessing the atmosphere of the chamber both added and detracted from the speech’s impact. Although the applause delayed the speech, it gave some indication of how much support each issue has among members of Congress. For example, there was less applause for the spending freeze than for other issues, such as clean energy and education reform.

The reactions of specific individuals and groups to Obama’s remarks were intriguing. The president’s critique of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was defied by Justice Alito. Also, the Joint Chiefs of Staff met Obama’s proposal to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with stoicism.

At the same time, the expressions of Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi frequently detracted from the speech, attracting my attention toward them and away from the president. Unlike the other individuals who were temporarily caught on camera, Biden and Pelosi were conscious of their presence onscreen. As a result, their response to Obama’s comments were contrived. At best, Biden’s constant nodding and Pelosi’s disappearing and reemerging smile were entertaining.

I also witnessed the occasional tension in the chamber during the speech and Obama’s forced use of sarcasm. When he did not receive a positive response to the spending freeze proposal, Obama noted that the freeze would not go into effect until next year when employment conditions have improved. He then awkwardly joked, "That's how budgeting works." He also called out critics of global warming, stating "I know there are those that disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence" for climate change. Finally, he continually referred back to the faults of the Bush administration, remarking that the deficit and war existed before he "walked in the door." After noting all the problems he inherited, he said that he was "just stating the facts." These moments showed Obama's struggle to gain support from both the Republicans as well as his own party.

Although the speech itself is my first choice as a source for information about the State of the Union, newspaper articles and blogs do have several benefits and are great supplements to the address. Reporters compile information about relevant current events and put the speech in political context. The "State of the Union: Reactions, Analysis of Obama's 2010 Address" on The Huffington Post's Web site provides multiple comments from political experts who look at Obama's speech through the lense of his actions over the past year.

Political analysts also have a more comprehensive idea of what to expect. An article on FOXNews.com, "Obama to Push Jobs, Education Spending in State of the Union Address," outlined Obama's goals, including an increase in educational spending, an increase in jobs and a persistent push for healthcare reform.

Also, reporters can compare the speech to speeches by past presidents in comparable political situations. The News and Observer's article, "Obama channels Ronald Reagan: 'Stay the course,'" likens Obama's address to Ronald Reagan's speech in 1982, which also encouraged citizens to have faith in his policies despite hard times. (The president may have noticed this similarity -- he said that he was embracing the vision of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy when he discussed the threat of nuclear weapons.)

Just as the intervening applause during the speech was grating at times, the personal attacks and ad hominem arguments of bloggers can get in the way of relevant information about the speech. However, blogs present a wide variety of perspectives from Michelle Malkin to the Daily Kos.

The comments on blogs allow for political debate that can increase readers' knowledge and present ideas that one may not have considered. Talking Points Memo blogger John Marshall invited comments from readers an hour before the speech, asking his audience to "bring it on" with their expectations. The Washington Post editor Robert G. Kaiser asked for questions and comments from audience members about his State of the Union: Analysis and responded to their posts, creating a political discussion.

Blogs and newspaper articles add to readers' understanding of the State of the Union, but they are no substitute for the real deal. So next January, grab the remote -- or your laptop (YouTube, anyone?) -- and tune in.