What is Civic Media?

I obviously have a Civic Media blog (I mean, its right in the title). But a few people have asked me what exactly civic media means. I usually spit ball some sort of answer, not really defining it, but giving examples of civic media and what it does.

If examples alone were the definition then civic media could be described as open source software, social media, technological innovation, slacktivism, smartphones, facial recognition, DRM, sustainability, unpleasant design, et cetera.

Today in class, my classmates and I formed groups and wrote working definitions for civic media. As such, we discovered that civic media can have various definitions that, while true, describe different aspects.

Ricarose Roque defines civic media as “any use of a medium that empowers a community to engage within and beyond the people, places, and problems of their community.”

This seems like a great definition; it is clear and concise. But lets break down the parts of civic media:

• CIVIC – in relation to a city or community and the people in it
• MEDIA – the means of mass communication through a medium

Now, taking what each part of civic media means we can begin to try and understand a working definition.

Photo by Ethan Zuckerman

My group and I made an original definition of civic media, defining it as “how one citizen can communicate a message to the community by means of online/offline platforms; highly influential or consumed regardless of merit”.

This is a very able definition – there are a lot of key words in play. For example, there is an emphasis on the individual as well as the community. We mentioned that civic media can be encouraged by online and offline media platforms; everything from newspapers and television to Facebook and tumblr. My group also made a point to comment that the message is usually highly influential or consumed (meaning A LOT of people see it), but that the message does not necessarily have to have merit to be influential/consumed.

While we like our working definition, the professor commented that civic media does not always have positive effects; it can have negative influences on a community or group of people.

Civic media can be positive because it can engage and empower a community. It can foster relationships and reduce communication barriers. Civic media can also create opportunities for individuals and communities look to solve a problem or promote a solution. Furthermore, it can inspire innovation and deliver that delivers collective information to influence or engage an individual or group within and beyond the people/community. Civic media can support rarely heard voices.

However, civic media can also have some negative effects. It can lead to isolation and reduce human contact. Civic media can effect productivity and distract individuals and communities from issues of reality. Moreover, it can encourage people to disengage on a personal level and engage on a technological one. Civic media can blur the line between roles like reader-publisher and audience-broadcaster.

Civic media can facilitate communication structure that become a means to an end, be it positive or negative. As such, my group and I improved our description of civic media. Our altered working definition for civic media is: “how one citizen, with the support of a community or individuals, can negatively or positively communicate a message to the community by means online/offline expression. It can be highly influential or consumed regardless of merit. It can stir up engagement or further isolation of individuals or communities”.

What do you think of our new definition? Do you agree or disagree with certain points?

The Drama Behind the Social Media Generation

I truthfully cannot remember life without an Internet. When I was born the Internet was the next big thing in technology. And it’s the same with most students – we have all grown up with even some access to the most primitive forms of AOL.

Photo by gizmodo.com

Today, websites like Facebook and Twitter have become a basic part of everyday life. Even though you can probably remember a life without social media, other generations cannot. Social media is changing our personal lives, our social lives, and our academic lives.

In the study “The Drama! Teen Conflict, Gossip, and Bullying in Networked Publics”, Alice E. Marwick examines how teenagers have conceptualized ‘drama’ in the Age of Social Media. What does drama mean to teenagers? What are their motivations? What is its relationship to networked technologies? How does the perception changed from public to private settings?

What is drama?

Photo by Disney

According to Urban Dictionary, a website intended as a dictionary of slang or cultural words or phrases not typically found in standard dictionaries as defined by the public, teenagers define ‘drama’ as “A way of relating to the world in which a person consistently overreacts to or greatly exaggerates the importance of benign events”. Through this definition people who are chronically bored or those who seek attention typically use ‘drama’ as an attempt to drag other people into their dramatic state, thus gaining attention or making their own lives more exciting. Drama consists of backstabbing, blackmailing, disharmony, gossip, and unnecessary malice.

Teenagers use social media to gather attention, to manipulate public perceptions of themselves and other, and to become involved in other people’s lives.

According to Marwick, the use of ‘drama’ permits teenagers to distance themselves from acts of ‘bullying’. Drama can be used alternatively to preform in front of an audience as a defense against acts of aggression, gossip, and bullying on other social media.

Drama utilized by teenagers can include:

• Posting inappropriate videos/photos with an intended fallout
• Conflicts that escalate into public standoffs
• Aggressive actions between friends and/or enemies
• Pleas for attention
• Passive-aggressive interactions between “frenemies”

Merwick asserts that dismissing conflict as drama allows teenagers to “frame the social dynamics and emotional impact as inconsequential, allowing them to ‘save face’ rather than taking on the mantle of bully or victim”.

Drama is ever-present – both with teenagers and young adults. While the term ‘drama’ has an immature, petty connotation is aptly applied. By using the term ‘drama’, teenagers are able to lessen the importance of conflict in their lives and blur the lines between serious and non-serious actions. Similarly, term ‘drama’ – in lieu of ‘bullying’ – allows teenagers to remove themselves from terms such as ‘bully’ and ‘victim’ in order to make themselves, and their actions, appear normal.

How to avoid drama:

1. Don’t lie or exaggerate for attention
2. Be diplomatic
3. Don’t gossip
4. Be confrontational, not backhanded
5. Don’t get involved with other people’s drama
6. Be nice
7. Don’t be easily offended

And how about you? How much drama is in your life? Do you feed other people’s drama? How can you avoid it or reduce it?

Does Slacktivism Work?

What is slacktivism?

Photo by the.generation.net

Slacktivism is a word blending ‘slacker’ and ‘activism’ into one. The term generally refers to the “feel-good” measures people will go through to support social causes that do not directly affect the participant. Slacktivists mostly act through a sense of self-satisfaction gained from minimal effort.

Common examples of slacktivism include: signing online petitions, joining organizations without contributing to the organization’s efforts, copying and relaying messages on social media, and altering an avatar on social media to raise awareness.

An extreme example of slacktivism is the non-profit Invisible Children campaign. This social media campaign and documentary was started in 2004 to bring awareness to the activities of Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Central Africa.

Kate Dailey, in her article entitled “Kony2012: The Rise of Online Campaigning”, questions if using Facebook and Twitter to promote change is pointless or if online campaigning is the natural extension of our social media habit.

Photo by Invisible Children, Inc.

While Invisible Children did raise awareness to the plight of child soldiers in Uganda and the horrible crimes committed by Joseph Kony, Kate Dailey reports that the documentary oversimplified a complicated situation that was a summation of multiple geopolitical causes, not the crimes of one warlord. Truthfully the non-profit raised 13.77 million USD (2011), but it is uncertain how much of the donations made it to Africa and went to what it was raised for. Kate Dailey goes on the state that this type of slacktivism is a misguided idea that social media has the opportunity to actually cause substantial change with a push of a button.

It is foolish to believe that Facebook and Twitter can solve international struggles countries away. There’s a difference between influencing advertisers to raise awareness and stopping and apprehending a dangerous warlord. The naivety of the social media generation is unlimited.

“Liking isn’t helping.”

In fact, a recent study proves that online activism doesn’t work. Researchers examined the “Save Darfur” Facebook group and found that despite having 1.2 million members, the group only raised approximately $100,000. It was in this way that the “Save Darfur” Facebook campaign* created the illusion of activism rather than enacting actual change.

*(It is important to note that the study only examined that online portion of the Darfur campaign, not the whole movement.)

Social media obviously will have different mediating impacts on movement engagement depending on conditions and goals of collective action. There are many variables that go into making an online activist campaign successful, such as:

• if collective action taken with the participants’ own interests
• if a “rich nation” is conducting a solidarity campaign in the name of another nation
• if people “need saving”
• if the impact are local/national/global
• if the public sphere is open and uncensored
• if the level of repression is high
• if the degree of online integration is substantial

All these factors have significant consequences for role of social media in civic engagement and activism. In general, online activism fails. But there are a few cases that succeed, and succeed beautifully.