I’ve been an avid reader of newspapers since I was a kid…that’s a long time now. I’ve got to say that print media is losing out to social media in terms of my attention now.
Sure, I’m finding that blogging, commenting on other blogs, subscribing to news feeds and participating in microblogging and social networking is seductive. It’s interactive. It’s social. It’s creative. The knowledge networks that I can tap into seem limitless at times.
In comparison, I’ve got to the point now that I get frustrated when reading a print article that either gets things wrong or presents a view that I want to challenge…there and then… but of course, I’m not able to.
On Monday, 29 September there was a critque by Matthew Mclean in The Age on social media. Just the print version. The article was on page 11, somewhat ironically headed the ‘Comment & Debate’ section.
The article starts with “In the near future the worlds of Facebook and MySpace will suddently implode”. Why? McClean states that “Trying to entwine personality, and perhaps even one’s self-esteem , to something that does not actually exist [it's a virtual world] is a depressing and dangerous thing to do”. Mclean refers to unspecified ‘cyber-space’ critics claiming social network users are “subsuming their own reality as a consequence [of spending time in a virtual world]“.
Mclean goes on to site some ’status updates’ of his former Facebook friends as evidence of “…a lack of orginality and serious contemplation”. One example used was ‘(Name) is full after a fairly nice tuna sandwich’. So what?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fair enough. But McClean’s article takes just one element of the Facebook experience and condems the future of social networking. That is not balanced journalism. There was no reference to other elements such as news feeds, group action (that can be social, professional, educational or political) knowledge sharing or co-creation. At a basic social level, people like being able to make connections with others. Social networking provides many opportunities for connecting with others.
According to comScore, Facebook is now the most popular social network globally. But the storey is not all about Facebook or MySpace. The data also showed that social networking activity is popular globally, attracting 580 million visitors (an increase of 25% from the year before) out of a total internet audience of 860 million in June 2008.
Social networking has come a long way (in terms of use) very quickly. Much of it is still experimental, and still at the early stages of development. According to a survey by Synovate, some people do seem to be losing interest in social networking. Apparently, 58% of the people surveyed did not know what social networking is. These are indicators of a nascent service – Facebook only went public about two years ago.
Here is what Steve Garton, global head of media research for Synovate, had to say about users having a balanced on- and offline existence. “Most people online, regardless of culture, have a very strong appreciation of being in the real world. Their attitudes and behaviour show us that the virtual world of social networking can complement relationships, but not replace them. There is no substitute for real life, real friends and real relationships”. That is a far cry from users subsuming their own reality. What’s more, forty percent of survey participants agreed that online communication can be just as meaningful as face-to-face communication.
So McClean’s perspective does have some validity, but no blance. To cast down social networking on such slim evidence and virtually no analysis – under a page header of comment and debate – and with no opportunity to interact, just leaves me feeling very cool about the experience and cool toward print media.
That kind of experience is happening to me quite often with print media. So I’ve labelled it ‘Frustration Media’. No wonder it’ s in decline.
