One Post to a Better Blog

          In chapter 6 of Blogging, by Jill Walker Rettberg, she introduces the chapter by talking about how the internet is full of conversations and how "consumers communicate about products" (128). She discusses how customers "were getting accustomed to comparing other customers' reviews of products before making a purchase" (128). This really struck me because my family is dependent upon this. Even though we never comment or review an item, if my father finds one negative review about a product, he will discourage me from purchasing that product. I think that this has something to do with credibility and un-sponsored reviews. People are willing to listen to other people that have not been told by a certain company to talk about X product. If someone reviews an item and genuinely likes it and writes about it, it would give the product a bigger liklihood of being purchased. On the other hand, a product with many negative reviews, or in my family's case, just one, that item has a significantly lower chance of being purchased. Should products with negative reviews be able to hide the negative comments? Why or why not? Would this diminish their credibility?

         Later on, Rettberg discusses http://www.problogger.net/ and how the creator, Darren Rowse, used his tips to increase his own readership. Bloggers would read his blog and find some useful information. Rowse linked to participants of his "31 Days to A Better Blog" and they generally linked back to him. As they got more readers, so did Rowse due to his link on their pages.
          Another thing that Rettberg points out is that Rowse then had a "clear agenda for what he would blog about for a whole month" (149). This reminded me of another blog that I read: Undressed Skeleton. What she did that reminded me of Rowse's plan was that she planned to go vegan for a whole month. She then blogged her recipes and received feedback from her readers. She, like Rowse, had a structured plan for the month, but, unlike Rowse, she did not have her recipes set out exactly. She still had to create them, but maybe a day or two in advance, not as structured as Rowse. Is a structured blog a good thing? A bad thing? Why or why not? What are the benefits and cons?

Americas's Finest News Source

          In my last post, I talked about how I thought that radio was a two-way media. People could call in, get to ask their questions or request a song, and life would be good. Rettburg, however, has proved me wrong. In chapter four of her book Blogging, she starts off talking about how letters sent in and calls would be monitored and only select ones would be featured. This opened my eyes yet again on how media can control us. No matter what we say or send in, whoever is publishing that content can exclude our opinions. They pick the best of the best of who says good things about them. They are obviously not going to put in a negative review about themselves. Do you think that some media should find a way to publish all things sent in? Why or why not? What would come out of it?

          Later on, Rettburg explains a few ways in which blogs coincide with journalism. One point in particular really struck me. She explained that "blogs can give first-hand reports from ongoing events, whether wars, natural disasters, or crimes" (86). I watch a show called "The Newsroom" in which they recently reported on the Genoa case. They were struggling to find a reliable source, when a twitter feed came up. There were several tweets from one individual who was there, and he 'reported' what he saw. They used this information to justify their case against Genoa and to authenticate it. Later on in the chapter, it is mentioned how blogs are able to give immediate news. I compared this to the news site project we just completed in class. Those sites gave twitter feeds and showed their most recent articles that were posted. Blogs give a more immediate connection to those people who were directly involved. Instead of the information coming through a journalist, the eyewitness gives that information themselves. Rettberg finished the chapter with the very accurate statement that "blogs need mainstream media, and that today, the mainstream media also need blogs." (110)


          Kovach and Rosentiel talk about several things that journalists need to conform to. Those things are: "1. Never add anything that was not there. 2. Never deceive the audience. 3. Be transparent as possible about your methods and motives. 4. Rely on your own original reporting. 5. Exercise humility." (78). I think that although these point all should be a given, they need to be declared. Many journalists, I think, need to be reminded of these morals. They should not try to deceive their audience, because that would lose them credibility and with that, readers.

          Later on, Kovach and Rosentiel talk about fiction as nonfiction. This reminded me of mockumentaries and docudramas. For instance, when I first stumbled upon The Onion, I had no idea that it was all completely made up. I believed some information about it and proceeded to tell my friend about this awesome story that I read. Later, much to my humility, I found out that it was all fake. I believe that media that does this should have a highly visible disclaimer, either at the end or the front of the page. What do you think? Should mockumentaries and docudramas have a disclaimer? Why or why not? Benefits? Costs?

From Pigs to Posts

          After reading chapters 2 and 3 of Blogging by Jill Walker Rettberg, I definitely have A LOT to say. I thought it was particularly interesting that Rettberg started the second chapter with Plato sharing his opinions on writing: it would destroy peoples' ability to memorize something. His logic was why would someone remember something when they can just look it up? While this does make some sense, we know today that this is not the case. If anything, writing has shared with us more information on a huge variety of topics and thereby increased the level of education relative to if we did not have books. Plato also "complains that a written text is basically unresponsive" (33). Rettberg later explains that writing in blogs and online has actually created a more responsive audience. We can now comment, express our opinions, and question a certain article or post that someone has made.

          Rettberg mentions that the invention of the printing press did wonders for the spread of books and written work. She then mentions that, with the revolution of the printing press, came features that changed our culture. Those features are: dissemination, standardization, reorganization, data collection, preservation, and amplification and reinforcement. Once I read these and what they meant, it seemed very common sense. I looked back and wondered why I had not recognized all of this before.

          Another thing that came with the creating of the printing press was the spread of literacy. It was no longer upper class that had the luxury of reading. Literacy spread and continues today to do so. I do not think that someone in today's society, at least in the US, could get by without being able to read and write. She later goes on about how people reading silently was a new phenomenon. I used to get incredibly mad at my little brother when he would read out loud and would ask him to read silently. He would respond that he could not and I was terribly confused. I did not understand why he could not read to himself quietly. I guess this makes a little more sense now that I know that learning to read silently is actually a skill in among itself. How many people do you think are literate in the world today? In the US, the rates are 99%, while in Afghanistan, only 28.1% of people are literate.

          I do have an argument against a later statement by Rettburg. She claims that the radio was used as "one-to-many" type of media. My argument is that people call into radios all of the time. They get put on the radio commenting or asking for a particular song. While yes, this is still a one-to-many type of media, they listeners still get a chance to interact with the creators. It is not completely a one-way medium. What do you think? What are some other examples of a one-way media versus a two-way media? Are these the best that they can be? Should some forms of media switch?

          As for chapter three, Rettburg mentions the six degrees of separation, which I fully believe in. I recently found out that my cousin knows Maisie Williams - Arya Stark from Game of Thrones - and when I found out about this, besides being glared at by my family for freaking out, I thought about how I was only one person away from her, and by that, two people away from the whole cast of Game of Thrones. It was definitely an interesting and eye-opening experience. My cousin is also a weak tie for me, since she lives in England with my aunt, uncle, and other cousin. Since we grew up separately, she would not be the person that I would think to know anyone like Maisie. I actually found out through another aunt who told me when she visited last summer.

          Nearer the end of the chapter, Rettburg mentions danah boyd (who deliberately does not capitalize her name) and how "she identifies four characteristics of online social spaces that make them fundamentally different from offline social spaces" (76). She lists: persistence (information can be recorded and accessed later), searchability (people can find you), replicability (photos/conversations can be copied and modified so that someone cannot tell the difference from the original), and invisible audiences (not knowing who is viewing your blog). My biggest concern with these is the visibility to a professional when I leave school. My father recently warned me about another blog and how I should not advertise my habits and less than awesome things about myself. I took his advice to heart and changed some things about my other blog. I also never post anything on Facebook. It drives me absolutely nuts that people post things all the time. Anyways, boyd does have some good points about staying classy online and being aware of what you are getting yourself into. Do you think that there should be some sort of limitation or standard that some websites should put into place? Should Facebook monitor what people say and have a way to regulate it? Why or why not?