Op-Ed piece on News Media

Referring to the Wikipedia page on News Media; I will analyze the legitimacy of the process involved in creating a Wikipedia page. College and University students are well advised to avoid visiting Wikipedia for credible information to support their opinions on a topic area, for good reason. Wikipedia is essentially the collaboration of opinions from anyone on the internet, similar to a water cooler chat at work. Wikipedia does not require much from people for credibility in order for them to post a page; usually a couple references thrown in and a grammar check will make you a published author in the world of Wikipedia. The website being open to anyone online to create or edit information does not ensure that the information is at all accurate. What is required of a publisher to create a page is that they cite statements that may be argued; they sure make it easy since there is no definite guideline for what material 'may be argued'. It would be wise not to regard pages on Wikipedia relating to real people who are either living or dead because the workers at Wikipedia require much more legitimate sources for those papers than any other. Slander is taken most seriously and the pages that do not substantially prove their case are deleted as soon as they are published.In order to analyze how accurate Wikipedia pages are, I decided to select to look at the Wikipedia page on News Media since it covers my topic area of interest and is a large topic that would require plenty of detail and background. My first concern when I come to the News Media page on Wikipedia is that it features an image at the top of the page representing an event that occurred in 2004 which means that the page is quite dated. It is important to realize that the timeline for information is a lot tighter than printed media because information changes everyday and since there is no lengthy process to author on a Wiki page, there is no reason to use an example that is five to ten years old. The fact that this article in particular has not used current material means that is has not been revised up to date and  in a field where new events occur every second it is crucial to address new material in order to be recognized. If I were undertaking a research paper on News media I would not give this page a second look as it does not help me focus on what is going on with News media to date.
Another issue with the News media page is that it focuses on broad outlines of different media; television, broadcast,internet, etc. There is a brief paragraph at the end that discusses news coverage and the way it is covered by the media. The way that the page is formatted is very similar to an encyclopedia where the information present is not usually saturated around a specific idea, just a politically correct summary of what the topic represents with brief definitions and few relevant examples. Wikipedia appropriately markets itself as a free encyclopedia. According to Jensen (2012) Wikipedia makes efforts to do what many encyclopedia companies do not, that is to encourage more participants to edit and author and to constantly keep information up to date. The issue is, not every Wikipedia page is kept as up to date as most encyclopedias as they tend to revise and put out a new edition every one to two years. This is truly evident if you visit the news media page. The page has received some criticism that would be helpful to the author(s) and future authors of the page. One writer argues that News media is not a common word and should not be used as such. It would be wise for the author(s) of the page to have described how the word news and media work together to form a common term that could be used, with enough background information on the development of the term to justify using it in an academic paper. A student looking to find information on how news media works was unable to pull anything from the page seeing as it mainly covers the what where and who and neglects to address the why and how that is crucial for understanding a topic. The talk section of Wikipedia is very helpful and should be addressed by authors who wish to add opinion to the topic. It is apparent that background information is the key to helping people understand the topic you cover. while the article by Brown (1996) argues that old media will diminish as new media rises; it is crucial that both go hand in hand. In order to post something of validity on the internet, you must have found some kind of factual information from a primary source i.e. a document, journal, article, or news broadcast. Facts are derived from past experience and research so it is imperative that old media be used to cover information through new media. Jensen suggests through experience that old media are often overlooked simply because society prefers fast and inexpensive which is supported by the trends in the type of media used and purchased. Wikipedia users tend to borrow their material from recent sources because it is easy to find free samples online. The author(s) of the news media page should have used a combination of information from old definitions of news and media, but also looked into new theories about news discourse and media analysis in order to provide readers with enough information to find a starting point and a personal opinion on what news media is all about.

Wikipedia initial post

       Before reading the articles by Brown, Van Dijck, and Royal, I took all of the advice my professors gave me in not trusting Wikipedia as a reliable sources. As a university student I was well educated about the pitfalls of using Wikipedia as a way to validate an opinion. To me, Wikipedia has always been like a chat in the cafeteria at lunch, everyone has the opportunity to present their opinion to which some opposition may be met. Brown and Duguid (1996) support this notion that once written or printed material is circulated, a community forms and creates discussion on a larger level. The main difference between the validity of a printed document and a Wiki page is that a document written forty years ago had to go through several processes before it was circulated and determined to be valid. As Royal and Kapila (2009) argue, the internet is so massive and intricate which means that it is not possible to regulate online posts as well as printed documents were controlled under social institutions.  It was actually surprising to find out from the Wikipedia page on regulations that there are rules and guideline that users must follow.
       After reading the articles about Wikipedia and the evolution of media, my opinion of what Wikipedia is and how it functions has not changed much, however my opinion how society reflects how Wikipedia functions has. Van Dijck and Nieborg (2009) explain how social media is reinforcing the social institutions that used to govern which category documents fell into (good or ill) and whether they were valid or not. This article was very informative because it addressed the fact that Wikipedia has not totally revolutionized society, it has forced society to come up with terms like co-creativity and mass community as a way to escape the negative connotations of phrases like consumer and mass market. Before reading the articles, Wikipedia was a website that could be glanced over as a way for me to start brainstorming direction I wanted to take with my research and I will continue to look at it that way. After reading the articles my understanding of how much Wikipedia is actually controlled has changed. I understand that revolutionary terms like co-creative team and mass communities are really the same as mindless consumers and free marketing information. By posting our opinions in online forums like Wikipedia, we are allowing ourselves to be analyzed by institutions to better market to us and appeal to our consumers needs in a more sophisticated and sneaky way.

The comments received in relation to my initial blog post supported my idea that social media is a free platform, that is naturally not patrolled or regulated. People posting on these forums must be aware of entire audience as I stated, and may have to take more precautions about what they choose to post. There are a lack of comments on my post at this point for me to address any opposition. The commentator of my post agreed with and supported the points I made.

Initial blog post

Through my personal experience with social media, it is a great platform to use  for connecting with friends, others whom you may have just met or past friends you are reconnecting with. In general, Facebook and Twitter are public forums that allow an individual little to no privacy when interacting with friends and followers. The many features of Facebook allow you to keep some information private between you and one person by using personal messages or direct messages on twitter. Facebook and other social media do not serve much purpose for personal privacy because anything you type and publish goes to one or more people. With that being said, I have mainly used  Facebook for sharing ideas with other people; inviting both support and criticism from those on my friends list. When making a post I am always aware that anyone has the ability to see what I have written and that even if deleted, it still exists somewhere. I release more private information through my personal messages were I connect on a deeper level and usually with someone whom I have developed a level of trust with.

The way I use my social media relates well with the article "The Flight From Conversation" since I primarily send and receive private messages from close friends on Facebook. I definitely struggle by missing out on some face to face interaction in favour of sending a message or two on Facebook. I do not find much entertainment or fulfillment from role playing and creating new identities online rather I present an image that is close to how I present to close friends and family yet appropriate for the average person to see. The image I present is normally an image I wish to fulfill in my every day life so it is in a way a goal that I can live up to when I personally interact with people that have read information about who I am on social media. In the same way that who I am or who I wish to be affects my presence on Facebook, the use of Facebook and other social media affect the way I behave. The connected feeling that Facebook provides leaves me at times feeling slightly paranoid or anxious when no one is around and there is no access to social media it is almost as addictive as a drug.

Although connecting with others provides great comfort, it takes away from one's personal identity because we are always posting for someone to read and respond or waiting to see how someone responds and then shaping your responses from the direction the conversation has turned to. This implies that online identities are in large part formed by our interactions with others. The criteria that I use when making a public or private post is similar to a company putting out an advertisement; I figure out who my target audience is and then I write a post that will appeal to them, either something directly related to them or a topic that they are passionate about. I then consider my online identity at the time (it evolves over time) and make a post that both represents how I would like to be seen and that appeals to the intended person(s).

I admit that my online identity would be very different if I was not aware that I was under constant surveillance, I would feel more free to post pictures and words that may not be appropriate for certain people on my social media. The fact that everyone can have access to what is posted on social media takes away from the interaction that you can have with people face to face because although I may plan a target audience I always have to consider the whole audience; everyone.

Welcome to my Blog

My name is Kate Carpenter, I am a student at Brock University going into my fourth year. I am taking a business communications undergraduate degree. My strengths lie in my willingness to take risks in life and to connect with people. I learned quickly in my university career how important networking is and I enjoy meeting new people whenever I have the opportunity. Although I have a passion for consuming entertainment media like reality television and sitcoms, the business side of the media industry is intriguing as it challenges you to be aware of what you consume and how material is produced for consumption. Media is something that cannot be ignored and provokes controversy on a daily basis. As much as I enjoy consuming reality television and material possessions seen in the media, I enjoy discussing these topics even more and dissecting the way that the media works from a business standpoint. I chose to focus on news media and entertainment because that industry works in a very business-like manner aimed to build profit. Although news media is about real life events and real life people, the information is framed and manipulated into story form and delivered to viewers in an easily digestible way. I am interested in keeping up with current media trends and this past winter and spring there has been extensive media coverage of a murder trial that took place in Maricopa County, Arizona and was covered worldwide on almost every news station. Watching the news coverage of the same real life event on several different television stations and on many websites gave me a lot of insight about how different companies work to produce consumable media. The Jodi Arias trial has been produced in the media in the same fashion as a Hollywood narrative. The content of love, betrayal, and death gave the media tons to work with in captivating audiences to keep up with the trial as though it was a television series. The media did very well to pull me in and I enjoy dissecting the way that the media turned a live event into a television series by connecting the audience with the people involved so much so that they become household names. News media camped outside of the courthouse and film for hours and every day seemed like a red carpet event with lawyers signing autographs and average citizens speaking about the experience as though they are a celebrity by association even though they have no connection with the events unfolding. I will talk about this case thoroughly as I discuss news media and entertainment media; the ways that they work together to be a part of the wealthiest industry, how they connect audiences to events and people unknown to them and how easily  average people can have their fifteen minutes of fame.

The following are links to websites that are linked to my topic:

http://www.greggbarak.com/whats_new_6.html
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/jodi-arias-verdict-valley-woman-shares-what-life-is-like-inside-the-perryville-complex
http://www.azcentral.com/news/jodi-arias-trial/
http://www.hlntv.com/clusters/jodi-arias
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/12/amid-many-trials-frenzy-over-arias/2152919/

These are links to other blogs that are associated with my topic:

http://mediacriminaljustice.blogspot.ca/
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/category/jodi-arias/
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/08/jodi-arias-convicted-of-first-degree-murder/
http://mixedbagblog.com/
http://www.accenture.com/us-en/blogs/media-entertainment/default.aspx

Here are some Tweets related to my topic:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Trial&src=hash
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MediaCoverage&src=hash
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23newsmedia&src=hash
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23jodiarias&src=hash
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23mediareports&src=hash