Blog Post #2

Every time a new medium is introduced to society, the logic that supports it emphasizes how it’s going to bring us further into the future. E-books were going to digitize and simplify libraries. Social media was going to enliven our social lives. And most importantly, these new media are only going to make us more connected.

Or are they? The awe inspired by these transformative technologies blinded us from considering perhaps the most important question associated with them: is it feasible that someday these technologies will begin to make us more disconnected? In a 2012 article on Forbes’ website, Susan Tardanico sought to explore this question. Throughout her article, Tardanico’s tone is condemning. She explains how social media has broken traditional face-to-face conversation and how it’s created a gap between older generations and those accustomed to new media– especially in regards to business relationships– before going on to give suggestions for how to keep e-communication real.

This graphic gives a look into how much different generations utilize new media. It was used in a Pew Research Center article regarding social media marketing.

Her arguments are very similar to some of Sherry Turkle’s in her TED Talk about Alone Together. Both media texts discuss our growing tendency to hide behind our screens and how important interpersonal elements are lost when communication via digital technologies. Another similarity between the two are the solutions they offer. Both advocate for being wary of the detriments these technologies can have on our conversations, and explain that if we do so, we can again begin to derive the conversational benefits these media intended to produce. Tardanico’s piece also possesses similarities to Alone Together itself. Tardanico explains how younger generations are less comfortable with traditional interpersonal communication, instead preferring instant messages or email– a concept that builds on Turkle’s idea of an online identity, where users are free to construct their optimal self.

Overall, I think Tardanico’s article is a good example of general new media effects, as the effects she includes have been demonstrated time and time again using all new media– not just social media– as tests. A study from Elon University surveyed a random sample of students to find out how the rapid expansion of technology has affected face-to-face communication, and the researchers stumbled upon some pretty ominous conclusions. First, they deduced that people are becoming more reliant on their technologies and are less likely to engage with others– even friends and/or family. Another conclusion they drew was that the mere presence of these technologies can degrade the quality of a conversation. These findings are not that different from Tardanico’s or Turkle’s, and their replicability indicates that they’re substantial.

More evidence supporting Tardanico’s claims comes from a Huffington Post editorial by Thomas White. Like the previous works, White emphasizes the prevalence and danger of what he calls the “social media mask” or “social media shield,” referring to both out online identities and the false sense of security our screens provide. He also cites social media usage statistics, inferring that their sharp rise means that more and more people are needing a mask or shield. These findings are discussed everywhere from scientific studies to editorial essays to our classroom. Clearly they’re no hoax.



  1. Tardanico, S. (2012). Is social media sabotaging real communication? Forbes. Retrieved from
  2. Pew Research Center (2010). Percentage of adults with home broadband, by generation. Retrieved from
  3. Turkle, S. (2012). Connected, but alone? Ted. Retrieved from
  4. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Retrieved from
  5. Drago, E. (2015). The effect of technology on face-to-face communication. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 6, 1. Retrieved from
  6. White, T. (2013). Why social media isn’t social. Huffington Post. Retrieved from



Blog Post #1

It took Leo Tolstoy nearly 1,500 pages to produce his Napoleonic war epic War and Peace. Ayn Rand’s philosophical opus Atlas Shrugged ran over 1,100. When it comes to writing, conventional logic suggests that it takes words– a lot of them– to catalyze a cultural transformation.

The late, great David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest— whose page count broke the millennium mark itself– predicted many things about a then-future America: TV on-demand, video chats, even celebrity presidential candidates. But there was one thing Wallace couldn’t foresee: the rise of Twitter.

But can you blame him? When Twitter was first conceived, its concept was radical, and in many ways it still is. No lengthy discourse. No instant messaging. Just quick, catchy messages and hashtags. However, a closer study of Twitter’s characteristics help us to understand tweets and how they determine pop culture’s newest crazes.

Tweets, the content produced on Twitter, are limited to 140 characters. Other media can be added and similar tweets can be connected through hashtags. Tweets are appropriate at any time, the feed refreshes at a moment’s notice, and the audience is gigantic, as evidenced by the graphic below:

With these characteristics in mind, Twitter’s content makes sense. Captivating, concise messages are used to capture attention, hashtags are used to join a conversation, and links to longer pieces often accompany tweets. Twitter’s huge user base and the opportunity to “go viral” explains tweets’ memetic nature.

In his The Medium Is the Message, Marshall McLuhan wrote that the change of scale, pace, or pattern it introduces to society is a medium’s “message.” By introducing a real-time, quickly-read platform to practically¬†everybody, Twitter changed all three, so resulting cultural changes are no surprise. Bloggerati, Twitterati— a book by Mary Cross about pop culture in the digital era– details some of these effects. For example, Twitter’s global audience and centralized psyche encourage a mob mentality or conformance to the norm. The concept of an ever-present “panel of judges” studying and analyzing their updates scares some from sharing their true ideas, which, as we learned in class, can carry over into real life. My experiences with Twitter mirror this. In theory, Twitter is supposed to offer a diverse array of voices, but I find that the nature of the majority of tweets seems to be the same. It’s not all bad, though. These very same characteristics allow for rapid and widespread social movements. On her blog, PhD and media researcher Bonnie Stewart identifies Twitter as a still-powerful and visible voice, offering its role in mobilizing the #Ferguson movement as evidence. Twitter’s hashtag feature allows for the consolidation of such a voice, and its sheer volume of users ensures that that voice will be heard.

Another byproduct of Twitter, for better or worse, is its shaping of popular opinion. I mentioned earlier that Twitter encourages conformance, but how? Why? Chinese researchers conducted a study to find out how Twitter can shape public opinion, and had some interesting findings. When an issue first comes about, opinions vary– expected behavior due to the diversity of voices. Over time, however, opinions regress to a mean that’s very difficult to change. Once the opinion is set, it’s seen as the norm, encouraging groupthink. Evidence: run a Twitter search for Nickelback. Everybody seems to dislike them, but does anybody know why? It seems as though Twitter is capable of determining a culture’s views, as if that culture’s individuals aren’t capable of doing it themselves.



  1. McLuhan, M. (1964). The medium is the message. Understanding media (pp. 23-35). Retrieved from
  2. Cross, M. (2011). Bloggerati, twitterati: How blogs and twitter are transforming popular culture. Retrieved from
  3. Stewart, B. (2012, September 2). Something is rotten in the state of…twitter [weblog]. Retrieved from
  4. Xiong, F., & Liu, Y. (2014). Opinion formation on social media: an empirical approach. Chaos, 24, 013130. Retrieved from