In this weeks course, we learned about a slew of varying technologies which either have, almost did, or are currently changing the media landscape. These ranged from older mock-ups of the current internet by AT&T, to digitally mapping fingertips which were innovative in 2009.

Today, such landmarks in technology have really started to create their footprint in our media world. I could most likely log onto Facebook right now and in less than a minute find a 360 video, a Facebook live video, or some other newly emerging piece of programming which has created a newly immersive experience for social media users. Industries are finally starting to embrace these things and the technology has come far enough to where it may start to make a huge impact on how media companies go about telling stories.

I was told once not very long ago that if your degree says “journalist” these days, that really doesn’t have a definition anymore. As of now in 2016, if you are a “journalist” at an outlet which has a respectable social media presence then yes, you probably write stories. But you most likely are a social media manager, producer, writer, editor, publisher, and talent. You are required to think on the forefront of whatever is next. That means as I further my career in journalism, who know what is going to be expected of me. I remember when I was in my undergrad and I went into broadcasting I (naively) only ever say myself having to talk and report stories. Ha…ya right. There could be a new technology that hits the market tomorrow which audiences want to engage in that may constitute the whole of my journalistic existence at a company soon down the road.

I think what is most important is to stay flexible. Adapt to change, and be aggressive. It’s either you can embrace new technologies and make them work for you, or you will get left behind for lack of evolution. That’s how evolution works after all, survival of the fittest.

Or should we be praising ad-blockers? As consumers, and as a normal internet adventurer, I say of course! How great is it to not have to deal with pesky ads while you’re watching Hulu or to never have to see a pop-up again? Yes, software like this exists and it’s free and legal. Believe me, I use it. But the below article describes how this poses a big issue for advertisers and companies like Google who make a huge profit off of being the facilitator for many companies to get their ads and messages out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2015/09/11/wolff-ad-blockers-impair-digital-media/72057926/

Now Apple has included this option in Safari and iPhones. Now the average American who is about as good at in depth technology tweeking as changing the background on their phone can easily start to utilize the benefits of ad blockers that us people who know our way around the internet have been using for years.

Unfortunately for the advertisers, that lowest common denominator of tech-noobs were easy ad space and doops to the features technology could use to thwart the efforts of advertisers technology. But, it’s all on now.

The post I am making is about an article written by the Guardian at the following link:

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2015-08-12/moonilal-rowley-journalist%E2%80%99s-claims-take-lie-detector-test

I found this article to align very well with out topic of journalistic claims and whether they are true/how they can be trusted. In this article, a journalist claimed that a politician was sexually harassing one of his prior employees how apparently quit because of inappropriate advances made towards her.

In response, this politician (who wants to be Prime Minister of Trinidad) defended himself and said these were bogus claims. The journalist simply came back to challenge the politician to a lie detector test if he’s not lying.

But the underlying point of bringing this article into discussion is how claims by journalists can have resounding affects on the world around them. Was this journalist lying? Who knows. They outwardly called out the politician and challenged them to a lie detector test so they must feel they have some leg to stand on. But regardless, the claim has been published and the moment such claims by journalists reach the public, damage has already been done.

Do you feel this is a good representation of how unproven journalistic claims can influence others?

The article which this post is in reference to is as follows:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/microsoft-acquires-organizational-analytics-company-volometrix-3624667/

The reason I find this so interesting is because it ties into our lessons of the important of data driven companies (or in our instance, journalism) in today’s market. It sort of boggles my mind that a corporation as large as Microsoft is not on the cutting edge of analytics while companies like Facebook, Google, and even Twitter are known for their analytical capabilities. That being said, this is proof that the need for data driven business is not going to go anywhere.

In reality, those who have the most accurate way of utilizing data, and predicting business through it, are at an extreme economic advantage. The same can be said about the journalistic world. It would help journalists like us better understand our demographics, and post accordingly. It would also help us see where concentrations of posts are being had during major events thus making finding sources that much easier.

All in all, probably a sounds investment for Microsoft.

For this weeks assignment we are to reflect on an article of our choosing which is regards to media law and censorship of social media. I chose an article on an event which took place recently involving multiple atheist bloggers in Bangladesh. The link is as follows:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/04/washiqur-rahman-blogger-killed_n_6980150.html

The reason I chose this one is because it truly touches on the issues involving many countries and censorship. However, what makes this one unique is that the punishment was not inflicted by a state-mandated law. Instead, the religion of Muslim has such a strong hold in the country that citizens took a brutal vigilante justice into their own hands.

I like this article because I think it brings a whole different aspect of discussion to the topic. Sure, it’s pretty black and white about what you can and cannot do on the internet when the government makes laws about it. But what grey area is involved legally when an entire society wants to brutally murder someone in a country that has an overwhelming majority view? This investigation is still pending but it gets even more interesting when the country in question does not hold their citizens as accountable for such actions as they do in the US. Or, if the governing parties are also so blindly religious that they support the murderer instead of the free speech activist because their beliefs align.

So as the lectures went on this week about what Social Media truly means, and how it’s different facets are dissected, I couldn’t help but wonder if younger generations see the topic as black and white as we do. It started to get me thinking that perhaps it is easier for us as the ones who grew up during the evolution of social media progressed, to understand the influence it had on us. I feel as though it is easier to be self-aware of the personal impact of social media when you once had a time when it’s presence, and all it’s abilities, were not around. Then every time a new medium came a long (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat) we were able to critically analyze how it has changed our perspective of the social media world, and the impact it’s new ability has had on us.

Now, that being said, imagine you were born in the last 10 years. Every single thing that we find new and exciting about social media has either not been engrained in your mind yet, or you are like a ton of other American 10 year olds and you already know how to use it. Do these kids have the same amazement and appreciation for the technological and social advances that we do? I personally doubt it, but who’s to say?

This idea also leads to another train of thought: If these younger generations are growing up with iPhones, virtual reality games, etc. Are their levels of excitement being burned out? If you grow up with something like modern technology from a young age, then I feel you would be less likely to find it intriguing as an adult. We as adults find the fact that you can Skype your friend across the world astounding, still. But why would they? This has always existed to them. What would have to come next for this next generation to be wow’d by social technology? Food for thought.