Pandora- The Music Revolution

We've seen website personalization before, with Google and Wikipedia. With Pandora, we're taking things to a whole new level: taste personalization of all recorded music. Not only does Pandora allow the user to pick music that they like and play it for them, but it takes tastes a step further by playing music similar to what you choose to expand your knowledge of the genre.

It is clear that the internet is transforming from generated content to user-generated content. Pandora arguably does not produce content but produces a product... a user-generated product that can be mass-produced. The idea behind it is genius, the business model might not be as genius.At this point, Pandora has virtually no business model and is in danger of going under despite the fact that it is the most used music website. Can a business like this succeed, especially without using advertising? If the industry continues the way it is going, the answer is no. This however, does not mean that they can't change the way the industry works.  I hope they do!

Wikipedia, The Same As Google?

Like Google, Wikipedia is because it is all about the user. The key is user-generated content. Anyone can write anything on Wikipedia. A historian can write a detailed account of an event on wikipedia to be made public or a student can write an article about their best friend from their study-abroad trip to Ghana. Since we have established that Google is inevitable, we need to establish the what kind of company Wikipedia is.

In regards to a propaganda standpoint, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the simple reason that anyone can post anything regardless of its accuracy. However, this aspect gives Wikipedia users a significant amount of freedom. It is a customization of information- the ultimate source of propaganda.  Therefore, the inherent goodness/evil of the company, unlike Google, rests solely with the inherent goodness/evil of its users. It will be whatever the uers want it to be.

Can You Live Without Google?

    The Google empire is quickly expanding and growing evermore present in American society. The questions everyone wants answered now, are why, is it necessary, and can the industry exist without it.

Google has become part of our every day language, a verb unto itself. It got to be like this because Google started by making every search as relevant as possible. This revolutionized the industry. From there, Google expanded it's horizons to include mail, videos, maps, documents, reader, etc. making everything easy to share and relevant. This has been unparalleled.

Why? This answer comes in two parts: Google is compatible with everything and Google is adaptive. In regards to Google being compatible, it goes along with just about anything. Anyone can use it, anytime, anywhere. However, Google being adaptive is key. It will always be relevent as a search engine. It's inherent ability to allow customization makes the website whatever the user wants it to be. While what the user wants may change, the pertinance of this webstie never will.

Therefore, Google is necessary because of it's relativity alone. We cannot exist without it. I don't think there will be another search engine to become the next Google, but I am sure that by fusing different ideas together, other companies wil have a chance to compete against this giant by making their products more relevant, even than Google.

Portrayals of the American Dream

     A while back I got to thinking more about the nature of the American Dream and how it is represented in the various mediums we have access to today: television, radio, internet, and print. The American Dream involves an unwavering dedication and continuous pursuit of a goal. I got to thinking about how people achieve their goals: through communication, or rather I should say, through persuasion. The Media Industry offers a unique for people and the country at large to not only pursue their goals, but to gain popular support in their pursuit.
     In television, we have different channels pressing opposing viewpoints which encourages debate, actual debates between rivals, interviews, and entertainment shows. In radio, we have interviews, music, and talk shows. On the internet, we have blogs, online editorials, social networks, email, and instant communication which sets the stage for dialogue. Print media, does a lot of exposes and editorials with different takes on stories being imposed by each respective source. All of these have different messages behind them, each different than the next. As a result, we perpetuate democracy and opportunity for people to express themselves and their views to the public.  
     It got me thinking what is the most accurate portrayal of the American Dream in the media. Is it the deep connection that can be formed in television as a result of auditory and visual stimuli? Is it having the freedom to pick and choose what you want on the internet and disregard the rest? Is it living vicariously through someone else's song lyrics on the radio? Or choosing your next haircut based on what you see in print magazines? Or, is it all of the above?

Making the World A Smaller Place

     One of the clearest effects and most recognized facts about  media in general is its ability to make the world a smaller, more accessible place. Whether you are watching a news story in the United States about the conflict in Burma, reading a magazine about fashion trends in Paris while on the New York subway to work, emailing a friend or colleague in a different country, or calling your local grocery store to have your groceries delivered to your apartment, today the farthest thing from you is actually as close as your fingers to a button.
      Originally, radio was so exciting because it allowed the general public to feel a closer connection to the people transmitting messages through the media, like Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats".  This caused the public to not only better understand Roosevelt's political policies, but to understand and appreciate him as a fellow human being. It created a significant amount of allegiance and trust in our nation.
     Throughout history, media has always been so attractive to the general public because of it's ability to make it's public figures readily available to the individual. Once again, this was shown in the Presidential race between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy Jr.  Polls widely showed that people who watched the debates on television rather than listening to them on the radio largely favored JFK whereas people listening on the radio generally endorsed Nixon. Ultimately, JFK won the election one of the many reasons for this was due to the fact that he was able to bring himself closer to the public through the use of television. The public saw him, not as a politician with an agenda to change the nation, but as an honest, hard-working, and trust-worthy human being who was worthy to take on the task of representing our country.
     Now with the advent of the internet and new media, the question becomes, how public figures maintain a human side with this new technology. What we have seen repeatedly in political polls and even the exploitation of celebrity gossip is that public figures today are only objects.  Arguably more so than ever before, the general public feels the separation between themselves and their leaders.  Leaders and celebrities have always and will always have their own agendas which they will pursue through the media but the difference today, is that the reality of their characters is not shown. Many people in younger generations today identify themselves more with characters from television shows, movies, or even novels than they do with modern politicians or celebrities outside of their roles on television.
     Media traditionally brought public figures closer to the general public but today it appears that to individuals, public figures have become merely objects that are unable to retain an essence of humanity. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that because the world is so fast-paced today that public figures feel they do not have the time to maintain that personal connection to the masses because they are more concerned with propagating their own agendas.
     Characters in television shows, movies, and novels are intended to represent the ideals of our society and while they may be fatally flawed consistently retain a sense of humanity about them.  The interesting thing is, politicians and celebrities are also supposed to be ideal figures in our society. But why is is it that one is regarded as the hero and the other as merely a "lesser of two evils"? History, especially in the United States is written because people have always been passionate about something that they pursue and promote.
     Things were personal for both individuals and for the masses. Today, why is it that can can get so close to individuals through various forms of media yet public figures feel more distant than ever? Can we bridge the gap between the public and public figures through the use of new media? Is there a way that new media can reverse the objectification of public figures and present a more human side? Is there a way to instill passion in a nation without creating a personal connection and trust between leaders and the masses with the various forms and methods of media today?

Interesting Statistics

Wi-Fi In The Sky

         Can you think of anything worse than having to sit through a long plane ride without having access to the rest of your life? Oh, and by the rest of your life I mean your work emails, the homework assignments that can only be accessed though the internet, hearing about your kid's little league game, watching the latest episode of your favorite TV show, or keeping up with the particularly hilarious emails from your friends.
          American Airlines has become the first airline to provide an in-flight internet service, called Gogo, for varied fees depending on the length of the flight. I should probably mention that the service is only available on one aircraft at the moment, but American has plans to extend its services to the whole domestic fleet! Say goodbye to that egregious feeling of disconnect that has become inevitable once the cabin door has been closed and you prepare for take-off.
          While this is news to me and I'm sure to a bunch of other people, this technology just celebrated its 1 year anniversary. Last night, I was packing for my weekend trip from New York to Denver to attend a friend's wedding.  As I was packing, I received a call from my boyfriend who traveled to Denver earlier that day claiming that he was able to have internet access throughout the flight once the aircraft reached 10,000 ft!
           In an attempt to understand the extent of personal freedom which I will apparently be offered during my flight to Denver later today, I was curious to see if this wi-fi extended to my cell phone. From what I've researched, I can use my phone as a computer but not yet as a phone.  I have heard that there are talks between Skype and American Airlines to make this feature available which would make it possible to both avoid and prevent life interruptions that are currently inevitable on airplanes.
           It is clear that wi-fi in airplanes will soon become customary. Without a doubt, the next in-flight development will be to give customers access to their phones and text messages.

Happy travels!