Digital Footprints in the Sand?

When I first opened my twitter account in 2008, I was probably ahead of the game. I did it, not of my own personal free will,  but was academically extorted into it by Professor Comerford of my
"New New Media"studies class in Norrköping, Sweden.

One of the requirements of this course was that we adopted and used different forms of social media in order to better understand their potential applications.

Today as I write this blog, which was similarly founded in the same era under professor Comerford's coercion, I am starting to appreciate some of the lessons learned back when people were still confused whether twitter had anything to do with twits and if a blog was something that happened if you ate breakfast too quickly. I am also realizing that, like with any new phenomenon, things have evolved and I may have misjudged the usefulness of some of these tools.

In listening to a presentation on Digital Footprints by Tyson Seburn, a prominent figure is the TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) field in Toronto, I was immediately struck by how social media in general seems to have matured from the early days of the facebook frat party, to a true network of professional resources that are as essential to career-building today as a strong resume and clean clothes have ever been.

Specifically in the field of teaching English as a second language, in an industry that is foundationally international, the potential to build community, share resources, network, and provide teachers around the world with connection to their peers, is an advance that stands to benefit English teachers, and accordingly their students as well.

In 2009 my colleague and fellow Blog Journalist writer Russ MacDonald mused in a blog post:

 "I suppose there will always be some Twitterers (twits?) who will maintain the service, but perhaps its popularity will fade into the netherworld of internet memes (remember ICQ?)."

There is still time for this to happen, but twitter is hanging around and finding more ways than ever to make itself useful. It seems that it is not just for celebrities and advertising, but that in our busy, over-saturated internet world, we still have time for 140 characters. It doesn't seem that this trend of rushing around is about to reverse, so it looks like twitter is here to stay.

Ultimately, I found Tyson Seburn's session to be a bit of a wake-up call for me personally and socially. The tools are there for everyone to use, the digital divide notwithstanding, and it is incumbent on us to make use of them, and to help those without the savvy or know-how to "get-connected" as much as possible. Our digital footprint is no footprint in the sand. It belongs to the alter-ego known as our digital selves; a persona that has spawned itself into existence and that will only continue to evolve and grow over time.

Below is a link to Tyson Seburn's presentation slides:
http://www.slideshare.net/tysonseburn/your-digital-footprint-28851582

If I Have Nothing to Hide, Why Would I Need to Lie?

It has been awhile since The Blog Journalists have been in action, but a recent event in Canadian News has re-kindled my journalistic fire...and boy is it blazing over this one.

The report last week that the CRTC is weakening the blanket ban on false news to now only cover "any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health, or safety of the public." is a decision that could destroy the integrity of the Canadian media. One could even put forth the arguement, as some already have, that lax regulations such as these (the American version of this law is more stringent than the one proposed by the CRTC) can create an enviroment of distrust that can lead to violence such as the horrific shootings in Arizona this month. I am reluctant to blame events such as the one in Arizona on the media because, as we know, random acts of violence do happen. On the other hand, the media* is the lifeblood of our society. When pure, it serves as a source of truth that flows through us all, reinforcing democracy. In the same vein, if polluted with pathogenic stories that serve the interests of a select few however, it is not a stretch that body of our society would start to decay. This change in regulation threatens to turn us into media junkies with dirty needles full of addictive half-truisms sticking out of our arms; being told what others want us to hear instead of what is true. It sounds extreme, but watch a half-hour segment on FOX News and you'll know what I mean.

(*I dislike lumping all media together like this because when we hear this label we often think of just television or newspapers, but there are so many different media and platforms for us all to have our voices heard, epecially since the advent of new media through blogging, podcasting and social media.)

We would all like to believe it will not happen; that nothing will change; that even if little wisps of untruths started to float onto our screens, that we would see them; that they would scream out to us, or at least come with a disclaimer read at the end "Stories shown on this program may not be entirely accurate representations of what may or may not have actually happened." Yet we know that it will not be like this. To our eyes, nothing will change. We will never know.

Ultimately, anyone who wants to be a journalist whether independent or working for a major media corporation, should be bound to the pursuit of the truth. Of course everything is tinted by our own beliefs, but this should only affect our opinions on a subject, not the actual facts at hand. People that think this regulation will not change anything and that all media outlets will put the search for the truth ahead of their own agenda should not be deceived. If I have nothing to Hide, Why Would I need to Lie? If they don't have a reason for lying, why would this regulation be changed? The CRTC cited that the current sweeping regulation is in conflict with our Charter of Rights and wouldn't hold up in court. My question is, why don't they take this issue to court then? Why are they trying to slip this regulation through as if it is nothing at all? If they were truly concerned about what was right, a careful analysis of the entire issue would be made and all the appropriate democratic steps would be taken.

Under the new CRTC regulation, I might be tempted to make a bold accusation as to who I thought might be behind these changes. It stinks of the same type of behind-doors decision making that has led to a number of controversial, but relatively hush-hush political decisions in Canada over the past five years. Proroguation of Parliament. Senate stacking. Massive negative-ad campaigns. Decisions to cut off funding to political parties hidden in with other bills, essentially paralyzing the opposition.

I won't point fingers though. It won't do any good. The people of Canada are the only ones to blame if this regulation passes. If we don't take note of the issue, condemn it and do all we can to stop it, we cannot complain.

So here it is, your chance to do something: www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-14.htm

Write to the CRTC and tell them this is wrong. Tell them you want the truth and that anything less is unacceptable. Tell them that if this regulation is against the Charter of Rights, it should be discussed democratically in court, not changed without the slightest regard or consult of the people it affects.

This is about our country, our families and our lives. This is crucial. This is about the most precious thing we have: the truth.