The last couple of days, I’ve been thinking a lot about “social media.” I’m not an expert, I grant you. But I do see where the lines are blurring, and that is something that culminated in my responses to Pat Thornton earlier today on Twitter.

What is “social media?”

To hear some people talk, it’s closer to Facebook, MySpace and Twitter than it is to blogs and podcasts and YouTube.

But I’m going to argue that “social media” encompasses all those things. It is FaceBook. It is Twitter. It is MySpace. It is YouTube. It is blogs. It is even – gasp – comments!

Because social media isn’t about the platform, rather it’s the ability of people to interact with the content, to provide feedback, to provide their own views on whatever content is supplied. Some media are more social than others. I’d argue that newspapers – for instance – are gradually moving toward a greater social media presence through the use of blogs and comments. But it’s a slow movement. Some are more attuned than others.

Twitter sounds like a good example of “social media,” since people can respond to one another and follow one another, but, honestly, that’s been happening since the beginning of the blog explosion in 2001. “Social Media” is really just another term for “Web 2.0.”

Now, the real crux of the issue is whether people “respond” to “social media” and change their practices based on the feedback of their userbase (for a great discussion of this, listen to this episode of On the Media).

If I really wanted to dissect “social media,” I’d come up with an operational definition that excluded some of the simplistic means of “socializing” media (like comments) and go through every media outlet and score them on their “social media” ability. It’s a good idea, and one I’m throwing out for free to anyone who might like to apply for a grant. I’ve got a dissertation to finish.

The point being, “social media” is amorphous. You can’t nail jello to the wall. Let’s quantify the phenomenon with better data before talking about who’s doing what. I would welcome the details.

No related posts.

This morning, I sat in a panel about the role of the Internet in the 2008 campaign. Here are my notes from the panel:

Aaron Smith – Pew Internet researcher: Two trends – 73 percent of americans are internet users. this campaign, we’re seeing record-setting levels of interest in the campaign. 40 percent of all adults were going online to get information about politics. 20 percent were going online every day to get political information. Online video – 1/3 have watched online videos about politics – double in the past (13 percent). Primary, unfiltered campaign materials – 1/3 of internet users. web 2.0 is 10-15 percent of internet users. compared to 04-06, double or triple from small starting point. Social networking sites – first time we asked about sn sites. this year, 10 percent of all adults have gotten some sort of campaign or political information from social networking sites. 2/3 of 18-29 year olds have profiles – 1/2 of them have used those sites to get political information.

Mark Tremaine – UT-Austin: 2008 – what’s happened is a lot of top blogs have become group blogs. During the Democratic primaries, objective blogs didn’t succeed. Clinton/Obama split occurred on the liberal blogs, not strictly along gender lines.

Georgia Logothetis – Daily Kos – georgia10: The blogging medium has exploded within the last 5 years.
1. the interaction between blogs and the traditional media, and what effect will the blogs have on the fall election?
The type of people that blog are not elite, they’re not a specific class. It’s empowering, and that’s what the medium does. It’s empowering for the average american to go into a medium and say “I have a valid opinion about politics.”

(Blogs) operate as a fact-checker on the traditional media. Beauty of the blogging medium … when I post a blog post, when I cite to something, I have to hyperlink to my source. when someone writes an opinion piece, they don’t have to disclose to the reader their sources.

Context – blogging has exploded. citizen empowerment. along with empowerment comes a more rabble-rousing electorate. People become more informed. they are demanding more from their politicians.

Tom Johnson – Texas Tech: Social network sites have really played a major role, particularly with the Obama campaign. You tube is a two-edged sword for candidates. it allows them to present themselves unvarnished in the media. No real control over what gets posted. Any gaffe that they make gets on there. Social networks makes politics local. Supporters keep in contact with each other. Way to connect with young voters. To a certain degree, pollsters have underestimated the power (facebook) has.

Bill Adee – Chicago Tribune director of innovation: (Regarding the John Edwards affair story) One of the huge issues facing organizations like the Chicago Tribune. We would have gotten killed by our readers for (covering the story in October). By not doing so, we’re getting killed today. We get held to a standard that our own readers aren’t willing to hold themselves to. More than our business model, it’s also our journalism that’s putting us in a tough spot too – the standards we’re holding ourselves to.

No related posts.