Who makes who dumb?

Can Blogs Revolutionize Progressive Politics.

The answer to the question is hasn’t it already? The article talks to blogging revolutionizing progressive politics but I think blogging has lead to more individuals learning and speaking out about politics and the knowledge these individuals have. The examples given of the individuals who where hired as campaign consultants or are consulted with on strategy because of the how involved in the blogging world they are.


Three key ideas of bloggings effects on politics are it promises to be a populist revolution, creates more participation and overcomes financial and ideological muscle. The revolution is already being seen as stated earlier with the higher of campaign staff based on the knowledge of politics through the amount of blogging that occurs from one individual creating stature. The participation is seen through all the online poles that are taken during the campaign race and I myself was constantly going online not to blogs but to websites to see which candidate was leading in which state. This type of data could only be obtained through participation of online voting and participation. The financial aspect is seen through politicians getting on and blogging themselves. This not only to gain support but also to see what people’s concerns are and to address them in order to gain more votes.

The most difficult concept in this article was about the bloggers not being diversified enough. I understand in the aspect that not all individuals have access to the internet and are capable of blogging do to that lack of access but I still feel that the diversity achieved through blogging is more so than any other type of communication or action.

Relating this to my real life situation is like I said earlier that I believe blogging has already revolutionized politics. If any Joe Six Pack can go on and blog about how they feel on a certain subject throughout the campaign trail and the candidates have the capability to see what Joe Six Pack has written then those words have the ability to change how the candidate is campaigning in addition to showing the opponent how the people feel and maybe changing their campaign style as well. I believe blogging is a very powerful tool.

Questions: How diversified are blogs and bloggers?
Does this diversity lead to differences in campaigning?



Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Apparently according to the author of this article Google is making us dumb because a search engine like Google provides us with information in such a manner that it is making us sort of ADD. But I’m not really sold that the author truly believes this because at the end of the article the author writes “So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism” which to me means this thought is really not a belief.

Three key ideas are the adaptation of Google is changing the way we learn and process things, Google is making us stupid, and even though the brain is a clear example that you can teach an old dog new tricks because of Google this is now not possible.

Because of Google the way humans learn has now been changed and can be seen in this statement, “We are how we read. Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else.” Advertising has changed according to this quote, “As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets” again creating that sense of immediacy and what I like to call ADD. The author feels that this will get worse by this statement, “The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best method”—the perfect algorithm—to carry out every mental movement of what we’ve come to describe as “knowledge work.”

The most challenging concept for me is why is it not mentioned about people allowing this. Are people really that naïve to allow things like Google to change their way of thinking. Why is it that this can happen? A common phrase that I always say to people, and maybe this is because I consider myself a leader and not a follower, is if Johnny jumps off a bridge are you going to do the same thing. How can the author put all the blame on Google and not sit there an write about how people are making themselves dumb by not thinking for themselves and using a search engine like Google as a tool for knowledge instead of letting it overtake your life.

This is definitely an argument I would like to research further but put more emphasis on the user and not so much on the producer. Just because the tool is there and promoted does not mean that user should be totally left off the hook for not using the tool correctly. I believe each individual has a brain and if they choose to use it or not is their perogitive.

Questions:
Should the user be held responsible for letting themself become dumb?
Should Google be held responsible for making people dumb?


Podcasting

The podcasting piece was about how useful podcasting is. Podcasting gives a company, and individual or whoever else would like to use this technology the ability to reach a broader niche audience. Podcasting also gives the ability to archive and allow the publisher of the podcast to see who has downloaded or how many people have actually accessed the podcast. Lastly Podcasting allows for both audio and video together for a more effective message.
Key concepts are the archiving of the media so individuals can access whenever and may be very useful for something like a training session. Using the video and audio will allow for a more effective training session and the ability to go back and view as many times necessary in order to understand and use the training to it’s maximum capacity. Lastly the podcasting allows for all individuals to access and is not just limited to certain people.

The most difficult aspect for me was what if an individual does not own an ipod and does not want to, how then will they be able to participate in this type of technology. Why would a university want to keep such an interesting type of learning experience segmented from an individual who does not prescribe to the ipod type lifestyle.

Will podcasting lead to a different type of college experience?
How will podcasting change the student-teacher type of learning environment?

This was my first podcast to ever listen to and I have to say it was very interesting and I have never thought of podcasting in terms of training. I think for a company to invest money into training sessions placed in a podcast would be very cost effective and would enable all employees to received the same training from the same instructor every time. That way the employee cannot say that each individual received a different type of training. I am definitely going to look more into podcasting and how it can benefit me in my everyday life as well as bring it to my company to see if it can help with training employees.