What Would MM Think?

Colin posed the question, "What would McLuhan think about our class?" Honestly, I think it would be a mix of excitement and anxiety. As Matt D. points out in the comments to Colin's post, there are increasing number of students using laptops during class time. During a media class, this could be both a positive and negative. When studying media, having the tools that you're discussing right in front of you could be a good thing, assuming that the said laptop is utilized correctly. However, at the same point, it seems to be McLuhan's exact fear of users blindly utilizing technology without thinking about it. In fact, it couldn't be a better example for it. Instead of paying attention in a class designed to talk about the intersections of old and new media types, people are absorbed into a piece of technology. It seems to be McLuhan times 10!

However, at the same point, McLuhan might be pleasantly surprised to see the increasing number of upper level classes that have media and the way it affects our lives on the syllabus. Let's face it, over the past 10 years, talking about emerging media in an academic environment has broadened tremendously. No longing does a student have to be in a Computer Science course to be able to seriously discuss technology. We all sit in an English class and have covered such topics as Twitter and Facebook, two technologies that have barely/not existed for 5 years. Forget about a history of scholarship, Trinity is offering a course on topics literally as they are taking hold. Rather than sitting back and allowing these new techs to blindly take over our lives, we've spent the better half of the semester critically engaging with alot of ideas and themes that many mainstream American's take for granted or even worse, don't even think about.

We now live in a time period where emerging tech takes significantly less time to reach a wide usage. For McLuhan, the speed in which computer and user interaction is moving would have to be worrisome. Rather than saying stop and think, people are flying into these new ideas without considering their impact. I'm not sure that McLuhan could have imagined the speed in which we now consume information, not to mention the number of ways that we can. However, the very fact that our class exists is proof enough that we need not be worried about these technologies, but must merely more carefully consider the advantages/disadvantages that they offer. I'm throwing it out there that McLuhan would be happy with our class, some minor quibbles aside. At the very least, he'd be happier with ours than with other classes, in which the same type of laptop use is permitted despite nothing on the syllabus that warrants their being there.

What Now? Consumption Habits?

2. What are MY content consumption habits, at that point?

Not sure. I'm guessing that I'll still rely on blogs a great deal. I like the idea of blogging and there is a plethora of legit bloggers producing really excellent work. I have no reason to think that blogs will suddenly cease to interest me. Cover your eyes and ears blog-haters but maybe blogs are going to be the newspapers of my generation? They're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm ok with being entirely online. With the advent of internet TV, both in original and syndicated content, I'm wondering if everything won't come from the 'net? Windows 7 is heavily emphasizing home networks as something even the most tech-handicapped (this was found on the Official WindowsVideos channel) can create/use/maximize them. Now, we can link together our computer, gaming system, Blu-Ray player, television and stereo into one large network, streaming video and audio both ways to every device in our house, with all of the content coming from the net. Cable TV should be bracing themselves for a big change.

In undergrad, having not the money to subscribe, the time or energy to walk across campus to my tiny mailbox to pick up a stack of paper with day-old-news, I made the jump to an almost all-online news consumption habit a few years ago. I can't remember the last time I sat down with a mainstream paper to read about the news. In the past couple of years, almost all of my news consumption is online as even the slowest newspapers have finally begun to realize that this internet thing may be for real and as a result, have digitized their content for internet reading. While I can enjoy and sympathize with the nostalgia for the good ol' days of newsprint, I'm not sure its continued existence is as important as some of the Armageddon forecasters seem to think it is. Journalism will be ok without newspapers: there are enough journalists that care deeply enough about their craft and jobs that they'll figure out a way to make it work and even the most skeptical folks will come around eventually.

I am guessing that I'll be using mobile devices a great deal more to consume my news. As smartphones continue to evolve and tablets become more prominent, mobile users will be in heaven. You'll be able to consume your news wherever you go. Even now, you can watch live sports on the go with the correct subscription. This idea of mobile content is where we're headed. It's nice to sit at your computer watching streaming video. It'll be cooler to do it while walking down the street.

What Now? What Comes After Newspapers?

Going off of Colin's prompt, there are three things that need to be addressed in the wake of newspapers demise:

1. What do YOU see in [their] place?

2. What are YOUR content consumption habits, at that point?

3. What role do you see yourself playing, possibly even as a content creator?

I'll take them one at a time:

1. What do I see in [their] place?

Blogs, Social Networks, News Aggregators, Tech still TDB.

For starters, I get as much of my news from blogs today as I do from more traditional news outlets. In fact, anything cultural, I'll get from a variety of blogs that I've rounded up and read regularly. Film, Music, TV, etc. are all better covered by bloggers and internet only journalists than they are by any mainstream newspaper (NY Times Film section aside. AO, you're the man! But I actually think your internet-only material is better than some of your print stuff, brilliant!) The news is quicker and more personal (After art is best covered from a subjective opinion. There is nothing worse than objective art coverage). As film critics get the ax across the country, the blogosphere is filling with film writing that is really excellent: informative, insightful and passionate.

Social Networks already have cemented themselves as invaluable tools for news coverage. All you Twitter haters need look no further than the Iran Elections and the Mumbai terrorist attacks for the reason why Twitter must exist. At a time when, in Iran, the government had widespread censorship over what could be reported about the uprisings surrounding the elections, leaving, in the process, the mainstream press in the dark, Twitterers across the country became THE source for news. What followed was a tremendous amount of unfiltered, unedited information revealing the real truths behind what was happening. Combined with grainy, pixelated YouTube videos, these brave activists/citizen journalists risked their own lives to shed light on the ugly conditions of a country fighting to reclaim itself.

There is no reason to think that Twitter has seen it's peak or even, it's entire potential. This is a service that will continue to mature and evolve. The Twitter train is leaving the station and you can either choose to acknowledge its growing importance and get on board or get run over. It's not stopping once it's fully on its way. I'm not sure that Facebook will have the same importance as a news source. As the more innovative Twitter has grown in popularity and importance, Facebook has merely copied it. The new news feeds are directly modeled on Twitter's platform and as long as Facebook continues to focus on useless, time wasting apps like Mafia Wars and Social Interview rather than truly innovating as a worthy news platform, it'll stay as a nice way to stay in touch with friends but nothing else. I'm a fan of Facebook for what it does but it isn't Twitter and doesn't have the same level of excitement surrounding its potential.

News Aggregators have already established themselves as a vital and fun portion of the 'net. As newspapers bite the dust, they'll only continue to grow in importance. Rather than having to wade through pages of stories one isn't interested in (which may actually be a good thing), one can search for a single news item and get a range of coverage (which may actually be a better thing). No longer is someone forced to rely on just the Courant's (or AP's) coverage of an item. Now, you can see more coverage than anyone could possibly know what to deal with. If you're not looking for a single item, head to Google News' main page and you've got yourself the front page of a region-less, multi-sided newspaper. It'll take an adjustment for readers who like folding newsprint but it's not an impossible leap.

Finally, by 2014, who knows what'll be around? Let's take a look at five years ago. In 2004:

-Facebook was just being founded. Now, it's a widespread phenomenon that has 300 million users in 5 years.
-Digg was founded. Now it's one of the most popular social news networks on the planet.
-A small email service was launched. Gmail now has 146 million users despite being in "beta" for much of the five years.

That's just three services that are now synonymous with the larger internet. Impressive to say the least. Now, what comes in 2014? Who the hell knows and really, who the hell can guess? Was Twitter predicted in 2004? Certainly not by the just-launching Facebook, which had no newsfeed. Certainly not by a large portion of the Facebook audience who flipped their collective shit when the news feed was introduced (now, almost all of which, I'd be willing to bet, spend 90% of their Facebook time gleefully scrolling through their feed, while cursing the hand that fed them, Twitter).

My guess? Probably something along the lines of Google Wave, an even-more-instant-than-Twitter real-time-service that somehow gets news to millions in a blink of an eye. That'll actually be it's name: EvenMoreInstantThanTwitterRealTimeServiceThatImprovesOnTheIdeasOfGoogleWave. Google Wave users will hate it.

Best Way to Use Twitter?

Just as a start to my week's posts (I'm a Twitter believer), I think the easiest way to look at the difference between the Facebook Status Update Feed vs. Twitter's feed is that Facebook's is designed to keep track of people you know. The beauty of Twitter lies in it's ability to follow people you don't. As a result, where Facebook is a way to keep tabs on your friends and their activities, Twitter is much more a true news feed from around the world. It is entirely user-generated and operated.

Some people were complaining last night that they didn't have enough people to follow to make Twitter worthwhile. I'm not sure Twitter is meant to just check in on friends. It is easy, however, for people you want to hear more from (sports figures/writers, movie/music critics, industry leaders, stars) to broadcast their thoughts. I don't necessarily "know" or need to know ESPN's Adam Schefter but I "know" the Twitter Adam Schefter, who has the best breaking news on the NFL around.

Mobile Options

I was thinking that either an app or mobile site would be a must, although I lean more in the direction of a mobile site. Most phones are still without Flash support for their browsers, although it is supposedly coming to the Mobile Windows, Android, etc. based phones (Pre, Blackberry) but not the iPhone, which has posited Apple as the fastest growing company in terms of market share in the mobile phone industry. The lack of Flash support renders an increasing number of websites nearly unusable, formatting aside. While we discussed that its possible to scale and scroll through a site, it's undeniable that a website designed for viewing on a larger screen has a dramatically different experience on a mobile device without a mobile option.

Take ESPN.com, which according to Alexa, is the 61st most visited site worldwide, 16th in the US. ESPN's site is loaded with Flash video and without the mobile option, it loses much of its appeal. However, that mobile option streamlines the site significantly without removing much content. It's formatted for a smartphone's screen, not a lap or desktop's. As more and more people buy into the smartphone idea (7m iPhones were sold in 3Q 2009 alone), we need to somehow acknowledge and cater to this growing segment. While the browsers on these devices are becoming increasingly powerful and are less of a limitation, the size of the device and more specifically, it's screen is. Links are unusable without sizing and scrolling and only the most dexterous of users can click on a small hyperlink without a zoom. The mobile option (or app) eliminates the step of zooming, scrolling, etc. While it may only be my own laziness, I much prefer visiting sites with mobile options than ones without.

Almost every major site on the web has one. I'm thinking we should have that option as well if the user so desires it.