Make ICT4D, Not War: this is my re-do of the week 1 blog

This past Friday, I left DC, leaving behind the Wolpe Center and the classroom for our “America’s Changing Faces” class.  Although I left, I took my newfound understanding of ICT4D with me as I made my journey back home.

On my way home, I met with my grandparents.  My grandfather served as a firefighter in the U.S. Army during the occupation of Japan in 1946.  As he told old stories of his experiences, I could not help but think of the parallels between Japan and post-war developing nations of today, such as Afghanistan.  My grandfather mentioned that U.S. Army firemen were often called in to assist Japanese city firefighters because the Japanese simply lacked the technology and training to be able to fight these fires.  Over the entire course of the American Occupation of Japan (which lasted from 1945 to 1952), the U.S. invested 1.9 billion dollars in Japanese reconstruction and development—a hefty sum for that time period (link here).  But, that cost turned out to largely be worth every penny, as the Japanese economy is now the 4^th largest in the world, according to the World Bank (link).

Japan was converted quickly and effectively into one of the world’s leading democratic powers.  However, the costs were great and investment was large.  Today, America is investing heavily in Afghanistan, looking for similar outcomes.  CNN reported that (link) retired Marine General Arnold Fields has said that the 11.4 billion dollars invested in Afghan Security Facilities may turn out to be a waste of money put into an inefficient program.

Investment in concrete infrastructure seems to be getting more and more expensive.  Afghanistan is also a much larger country than Japan, and its unsure borders (Pakistan) make securing and rebuilding the nation a difficult process.  A new method must be found to more effectively invest in countries like Afghanistan, to bring about knowledge and development that may lead Afghanistan (or any other developing nation) to have the possibility of becoming a future world power, like Japan has.  I see promise in ICT’s, information and communication technologies, as the primary means of getting real development from our investments.

Americans want to begin to pull out of Afghanistan, but of course, the investments we have already made, and our national security interests, make it so that we also have an interest in a stable future for Afghanistan.  To allow Afghanistan to function in the new global economy, investment must be made to cut down on the “digital divide” between Afghanistan and the west.  Already, great strides are being taken.  According to Sada-e Azadi Magazine (link)  more than 80 percent of the Afghani population currently uses cell phones.  And, while only 8 percent have access to the internet, 100,000 jobs have still been created by internet and communications companies in Afghanistan.

Afghani GDP is going up, but would faster ICT proliferation increase this more?

8 percent internet access, is still a relatively low number.  If that number increases, even more jobs will be created, leading to further growth in GDP.  The primary barrier to growth of internet access is the price of the service.  According to the same magazine article, the price used to be as high as $300 U.S. dollars a month, but it is now close to $50 per month.  The U.S. could help Afghanistan’s growth by investing money in internet, perhaps by subsidizing costs of internet companies to bring down prices, or by investing in telecommunications structures.  Every major city has internet access, but still “11 provinces (Logar, Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Bamiyan, Daikondi, Uruzgan, Ghor, Takhar, Badakhshan and Nuristan) are yet not connected to the fibre optic network.”  In the article, Afghani Communication Minister, Amir Sangin, hoped that all provinces would be connected by 2012.  This could be a much more important long term growth investment for the U.S. than any immediate security investments.

Cell phone use in Helmand province.

In fact, increases in internet and phone access may not only create jobs, but also increase Afghani people’s interest in their own democracy and politics.  As we have seen in America, 61% of citizens get their news partially online (link).  Greater access to ICTs will lead to a more informed public in Afghanistan that will have a greater understanding of their society, and can give them the information to improve it.  From an American perspective, this could even lead to a desire among the Afghani people to further Westernize and to adopt more advanced forms of technology.  Since the U.S. is one of the leading countries in the tech industry, this could foster a new market for exporting our products.

In the aftermath of the death of the Prime Minister’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, there will certainly be a push for greater security presence in Afghanistan.  What I would stress instead, is to further stabilize Afghani society by pushing for improvements in technology.  Citizens will always have the most motivation to improve themselves.  Giving people ICTs puts them in control of their own destiny, since ICTs offer the capacity to gain information and training in order to find new ways for development.  And, as we have seen in recent years, ICT demand is high, with women even facing beatings in order to get mobile phones which offer access to “life-changing” healthcare and economic information allowing 41 percent of Afghani women to say that phones boosted their income.  (Bloomberg Link). 

Cell phones are seen as tools of “freedom” by those in Afghanistan (according to this Bloomberg article).   By freeing the Afghani people, hopefully enough development will occur that a security presence is no longer necessary.  Then we can pull out, just as we did from Japan, and hopefully admire a country that has taken growth into its own hands.

Hawala Banking vs. MPESA

In the Middle East and Asia, there is a prominent alternative to the banking system used for money transfers.  In fact, there is a system in place in some countries that allows individuals to make quick money transfers, without having a stable bank account.  This program is often used by people in rural areas, where there is little access to banks or the government’s instability leads to a lack of trusted official financial services.  It may seem that I am discussing one of the new “m-banking” systems, such as Kenya’s popular MPESA system.  However, the system I am describing has been in place for hundreds of years.  This system is known as the Hawala system.

Hawala, is a system of money transfer inherently tied with the religion of Islam for hundreds of years.  The process of Hawala transfer begins when a person visits a private Hawala agent and asks that money is given to an acquaintance in another location.  The Hawala agent then contacts (in modern times calls) the second agent who gives the cash to the original customer’s acquaintance in another city.  All of this is done for a small fee for the customer and no money actually changes hands between the two agents.  The debt between the agents is kept track of on written or electronic logs, and then settled at a later date. (http://www.wnpt.org/productions/nextdoorneighbors/somali/money.html#1)

Hawala and MPESA have not yet been hurt by the development of
the new "disembodied hand in phone" transfer process.

This seems like a wonderful system, providing money transfers at low cost, without needing a bank account which can be difficult for poor peoples to acquire with their little amounts of capital/income and possibly weak credit/financial histories.  This process, as stated before, also sounds very similar to the “m-banking system” that has popped up in recent years.  The m-banking system MPESA of Kenya (as we discussed in class) allows customers to visit an agent or kiosk, similar to the agent in Hawala, and give cash in order to put that same amount on the customer’s phone.  That money can then be transferred via phone, allowing a second party to visit an agent in a second location and to receive cash from that station.

MPESA has been given support from the west, including from the UK’s Department for International Development.  Meanwhile, the strikingly similar Hawala system has been under attack from the west, since the events of 9/11.  The primary concern is that Hawala, which is largely unregulated, will be used by terrorists to transfer cash secretly in order to fund attacks.  Recently, after a bomb went of in Mumbai in July, India has increased its pressure on Hawala systems in its own country and systems that may be bringing money in from neighbor Pakistan.  An Indian Security Analyst stated “While much of this money is normally earned money being transferred in a clandestine manner to avoid taxes, a large chunk of it is transferred by various terror groups and mafia organizations, which in South and West Asia and Russia are often interlinked with terror groups.” 

The common western opinion of Hawala,
as shown in this finely crafted picture I wound on the interwebs.

            Americans, at the same time, are worried about Hawala systems in Afghanistan.  A government audit recently found that some of the money going to Afghanistan in financial aid, may be unregulated and may be ending up in the pockets of insurgent groups, after a series of Hawala transfers.

            But, this backlash against Hawala has led to negative outcomes that come along with possible protection of terrorism.  After 9/11, U.S. pressure caused the closure of the Al-Barakaat Hawala network in Somalia.  This had instant repercussions, and the Somali economy tanked.  As a result, in 2005, the World Bank and U.N. stepped in to help restore the informal Hawala system to Somalia.

            So what causes the difference in western support for “m-banking” and “Hawala.”  In my opinion, part of this has to do with general support by the west for things seen as technologically advanced.  Increased technology in the Middle East, leads to increased information and technology in the region, which may ultimately lead to a more westernized and democratic region.   Hawala’s traditional origins, on the other hand, seem backwards and foreign.  Nevertheless, it seems silly to me to invest greatly in the facilities needed for “m-banking” if another system that serves largely the same purpose is already in place.

As you can clearly see, MPESA makes everybody happy;
except the cow, he doesn't seem to care much.

            The only relevant difference between Hawala and MPESA is regulation.  Hawala is largely unregulated, and this leads to fears of terrorist involvement.  MPESA, on the other hand, is regulated to some extent.  The Central Bank of Kenya has begun to regulate the MPESA process, which brings allows for more faith from the international community.  My question is, why can’t we see increased regulation of the Hawala system in Afghanistan and India, instead of a crackdown on its very existence.  By supporting Hawala transfers, the West could help with the economic development of Afghanistan, just as has happened in Kenya, and perhaps, actually increase the stability of the region.  However, as long as the stigma of terrorism hangs overhead, it will be difficulty for this to happen.  Thus, MPESA will likely remain the favorite son of the West, while Hawala is forced into oblivion.

Obama's Facebook Army: Can the Republicans Match Him?

Back in 2008, a young 1^st term senator from Illinois came out of nowhere in the span of two years to win the election for President of the United States.  For many, this sudden rise seemed incomprehensible.  How could Obama, an African American, have captured 70 percent of the vote from people under the age of 25?  For those who were “in the know” about social media, however, this was no surprise.  Obama had beaten McCain on the internet.  Obama had over 2 million Facebook followers to McCain’s 600,000.  Obama’s youtube video channel had garnered 97 million video views, while McCain only achieved 25 million.  For this reason, the 2008 presidential election began to be known as “The Facebook Election.”  For the first time, social media were seen as more than just an interesting diversion or as entertainment.  The 2008 election gave legitimacy to the power of social media technology to significantly change the world.  After all, one of Obama’s lead political strategists in the election was Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.  The strength of social media clearly has extended to the political realm.

Obama, checking his status as the web's premiere political overlord.

            The technological realm of social media will likely be an even bigger battleground for the upcoming 2012 presidential election.  Even the Republican primary may be won by the candidate who can emerge from the field with a strong support among younger/technophiles.  In 2008 (according to PEW), during the “Facebook election” only 46 percent of Americans used the internet, email, or texts to get political information.  By 2010, 58 percent of American adults used the internet for news about politics or the 2010 elections.  One can only imagine how much that number will have increased by November 2012.

            Political candidates are already making moves on the internet for the 2012 election.  Barack Obama’s Facebook and Twitter pages, this past June, made a transition to their “election modes.”  His pages are now being controlled by his 2012 campaign team, and there are easily accessible places to donate to Obama’s ever growing campaign fund.  Obama recently released the information that he had raised 86 million dollars last quarter.  The money came from 552,462 different people, for about 150 dollars per person.  This leads me to believe that much of Obama’s money is coming from small donations, and Facebook provides an excellent access point to send in that money.  Even Joe Biden is getting in on the act.  While Obama has over 22 million Facebook followers, Biden still pulls in a solid 300,000.  His Facebook page was just recently revamped as well.  His wall features no posts from 2008 until this past Friday.  The page will now also be run by the Obama-Biden campaign staff and will feature updates on what the VP is up to in the political world these days.  Biden also recently has joined twitter where Obama already has 8.6 million followers.

Apparently, these hip sunglasses weren't enough for Biden to be relevant
to America's youth (at least according to his campaign managers).

            The Republicans, for the moment, are lagging behind.  Palin, still not a declared candidate, leads the way with Facebook page likes (3.1 million) and Twitter followers (565,000) according to an ABC News blog.  But, as a result of the Facebook election, Republicans hope to work harder this time around to at least lessen the democratic party’s social media advantage.  ABC News wrote that, of the top 10 candidates from the 2010 elections in number of Facebook page likes, 8 of these candidates were Republicans.  Of course, the Republicans gained great ground in Congress in those elections, but can they really challenge Obama’s vice grip on the medium?  On July 20^th, the Tea-Party will make a huge statement.  They will be hosting their first presidential debate and it will take place over Twitter.

The debate is an excellent strategic move.  All  those who want to follow the debate, even if they are not truly backing any Tea Party Candidate at this time, will need “follow” these candidates on Twitter.  The Tea Party can then hope that these followers will “stay on board” so to speak, and will offer a new set of voters to whom these candidates can spread their ideas.

Michele Bachmann, left, checking her Twitter in perparation
 for her debate with the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. 

Still, it is unlikely that Obama, who has been building a Facebook army for 5 years, will be caught.  Republicans cannot expect to catch Obama, but they must make it a fair fight.  Without increased presence on social media, Obama will be able to maintain his virtual monopoly on the ability to reach a large number of voters with immediate information.

The only question that remains, is will followers translate directly into votes?  We saw that this was the case in 2008 and 2010.  2012 remains a mystery.

Is There a Doctor in the House?

The medical profession has long been home to some of the most trusted members of society.  Some may believe that the trust and respect for doctors derives from the Hippocratic oath which they make when upon entering the profession.  That oath states that they will “do no harm” and will “keep secret” certain patient’s information.  This oath, while noble, does not fully explain the dominance of the physician in the healthcare industry.  What does explain this dominance is the doctor’s access and possession of information and data.  As Jody Ranck told us in class, “data is care.”  Doctors have never been necessarily more noble than the public, nor inherently wiser than the public.  However, they have maintained a monopoly on medical information for centuries.  Yet, their grasp on this monopoly is slipping away from them.  Actually, it is not slipping, but rather, running away as every day, new m-health technologies are developed which bring the possibility of a more democratized distribution of medical knowledge.

Are doctors anything other than
monopolizers of health information?

            One primary example of this new wave of medical knowledge is PatientsLikeMe.com.  Developed initially for sufferers of ALS, PatientsLikeMe now has no restrictions on diseases/conditions of its members.  Site members input their own symptoms, diseases, and treatments (both successes and failures) so that other members facing the same conditions can better understand what treatments may or may not work.  The more members that join the site, the more data the site can build.  And of course, the data, is what makes the site so powerful.

            This New York Times Article explains that todd Smalls, a patient suffering from M.S. found PatientsLikeMe to be something better than the average health blog that he might usually see.  The site does not only seek patient’s anecdotes or provide the opinion of one publication (like WebMD might), instead the site quantifies the information of symptoms and treatments that members supply in order to deliver graphs and analysis back to the members that need information.  Todd Smalls was able to decide for himself that he needed a higher dosage of his medication, based on the experiences of other similar patients.  He then went to his neurologist who agreed to prescribe the higher dosage, and the severity of his symptoms were decreased.

            While this system shows much promise (and according to Wikipedia over 100,000 members have joined the site as of 2011), some of the information may still seem a bit odd.  That is because, the data all boils down to the self-reports of people who, unlike doctors, may not have the training to discern what is the most pertinent information to include on their profile.  For example, I was perusing the site and typed in fatigue as my symptom.  One of the treatments was “naps.”  I then clicked on naps and found that 3 of the nappers listed the side-effect of “waking up feeling just as tired as before” as a “severe” side effect of napping.  Of course, as the data grows, these outliers should generally fade away, making the data more reliable.  But for the time being, a site member may have to be wary of the effectiveness of such controversial treatments as naptime.

Look out!  You might still be tired when you wake up!

            HIPAA regulations also present an interesting status for the site.  That is, the site, since it is not a health-care provider, is not subject to the same privacy regulations as doctors and pharmacists (among others).  Therefore, the site allows patients to divulge personal information about themselves, while also including their locations and pictures of themselves (if they wish to give out this information).  This information can then be accessed by essentially anyone.  There may be some inherent danger with giving out this much access to information, but the data is completely voluntary.  Nobody has to join the site or divulge information.  Additionally, this extra information can be beneficial to those in the medical field.  Doctors, researchers, and drug companies, who are often slowed in their understanding of medicine due to HIPAA regulations, can access the site to gain a better understanding of medicine.  So, the site may not really replace doctors, but instead, make them better and ensure that those of us who still use doctors (anyone who needs a prescription) will have access to doctors whose monopoly of health data is at least a more accurate monopoly.

            Also, PatientsLikeMe is a private corporation.   This means that they make money of selling their data to researchers and drug companies for their use in developing new treatments.  Again, this seems to clash greatly with the ideals of the Hippocratic oath of keeping secrets.  Yet, once again, this is an opt-in service.  If members are aware that their information is being sent to private companies for monetary gain, then should we accept that?  Or, should these patients be compensated for the data that they are contributing that is leading to someone else’s financial gain?

Don't worry, it's an opt-in service!

           Before, doctors held a monopoly on information, and thus they were the ones who made money in health care.  If democratized information is leading to the development of healthcare, I believe that these people should similarly be making money.  However, this too leads to a series of perverse incentives (or a moral hazard), where people could essentially attempt many medical treatments to earn a profit.  In the best case scenario, PatientsLikeMe can be saving lives.  As founder Jamie Heywood says "People who use [PatientsLikeMe] will live longer; people who don’t won’t."  Some medical professionals are more cautious.  One doctor says in the same NY Times article as before, “Sometimes patients misunderstand what a doctor says to them,” he says, “so by the time it gets to the third or fourth party it’s like a game of telephone. It’s not as reliable as coming from the horse’s mouth.”  For now, doctors may still be the best option for reliable treatment and ensuring of patient's privacy and safety.  They still take their oath and maintain a level of respect.  Perhaps m-health options will never be able to replace doctors in this sense, but in the very least, they will provide more options for patients and doctors seeking medical information.

Connective Soul

“Connectivity is like good health; once you are healthy, you can pursue education.” (Quadir, I. & Negroponte. (2009). Phone vs. Laptop. Innovations, 4 (1), 25-31). 

This is the mindset behind one-to-one computing supporters (as expressed by Quadir of Grameenphone).  The priority of developing countries, in their opinion, should be to pursue one hundred percent connectedness for their populations.  They seem to believe that connectivity should come even before health, because it—in one sense—provides a new type of national health.

            This logic continues to be perpetuated in developing countries in Africa and South America, including Rwanda.  In Rwanda, one in five children die before the age of five from malnutrition, malaria, or HIV/AIDS.  Yet Rwanda spent 20 million dollars to order over one hundred thousand laptops from Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child Program.  The question remains whether or not this is a responsible spending philosophy (especially when almost 70% of the government’s budget comes from international aid).  But the fact is, that many countries are buying laptops for their children before they can feed their populations.  This shows better than anything that healthy internet connections are seen as just as important as actual health. 

Why do these countries feel this way?  The primary sentiment seems to be that these countries are currently disadvantaged by their lack of technology.  Spending on mosquito nets to prevent malaria and food to temporarily spell hunger may be short term gains, but only a drastic technological overhaul of the economy will lead to prolonged growth.  This goes back to the old adage, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish ; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

Or the new adage: give a man a computer
and he will be so busy on Facebook that he will forget he needs to eat.

The idea of the promise of connectivity for educating and developing the population can be seen outside of just one-to-one computing initiatives.  For example, MIT Scientists have been working on creating and distributing low-cost FabFI (wifi) nodes in Afghanistan, to allow for cheap and widespread internet connections for the people in certain Afghani cities.  This project is supplementing the OLPC programs that have already come about in Afghanistan.  Cheap computers alone are not enough to promote connectivity.  The computers need readily available points of connection, and MIT along with its grant from the National Science Foundation are helping to do this.

The country of India is taking its own route to increase the ease and decrease the cost of connectivity.  The Indian government  recently came out with a $35 dollar tablet.  This product was developed after the Indian government and bureaucracy decided to forego the One Laptop Per Child plan.  Instead of paying over 100 dollars per computer, India found a way to make computing possible even cheaper.  In this way striving for connectivity has led to technological advances, and perhaps growth in new industries in India.  However, these tablets are primarily being marketed to college students, leaving behind the poor people who often have the most to gain from increased connectivity and one-to-one computing.

India's $35 tablet threatens to turn the tides of the Angry Birds market.

One Laptop Per Child and $35 tablets share one primary quality.  They serve as good publicity.  All three of these stories can serve as examples to the public that their government has their best interest in mind.  But what is popular politically does not always lead to what is best practically for a population.  Less glamorous investments need to be made to insure that implementation of ICTs is not just a “drive-by” technique as some have accused Negroponte of following.  In fact, this story (linked at word "drive-by") shows that the intensity of computer use in schools with OLPC diminishes as implementation difficulties arise over time.  The FabFi program is a good example of technology, not only being introduced, but made viable and practical for the long term.  More programs like this, which promote cost effective research and development (as opposed to just cost effective hardware introduction) should allow for technology to best be implemented in order to support other necessary development programs (such as health care).  We must remember that connective health can supplement “real health” but if one out of five youths are dying before they ever start school and get their first laptop, does it really matter?

Miss Evolution

One week ago, Alyssa Campanella of California was crowned Miss USA.  The pageant is well known for its interviews in which each candidate is asked a serious of relevant political or social questions.  This year, one of these questions was whether evolution should be taught in schools.  While many of the young women stated that evolution should be taught in schools, very few of these women were in complete favor of evolution (shout out to Miss California and to Miss Vermont who called it a scientific fact).  The rest of the women were more like Miss Maine who stated that both evolution and faith (a.k.a. “both sides”) should be taught in schools, and students should be given the right to choose which idea they want to study.

            While it may be somewhat of a relief that the winner of the pageant believed in evolution and “the big bang theory,” I cannot help but be disturbed by the simple lack of scientific understanding of so many of these young Americans.  One of the more troubling responses came from Miss Kentucky who said it should not be taught in schools because, among other reasons, “scientists have their different theories.”  This is simply wrong.  Not teaching evolution is equivalent to not teaching gravity, after all both are theories.

The women mostly fell back into this usual “evolution is only a theory” argument, meaning that it is not worthy of full merit of consideration.  This belief ultimately comes from a misunderstanding of what science means by theory.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

"The Land Before Time 17" starring Jesus

These women—whether they truly misunderstand, or simply were trying not to upset an American population that misunderstands—did not have a grasp of this basic scientific concept.  Furthermore, they misunderstood evolution itself (likely because some of them have never been taught it in the first place).  Their answers seem to show that they “confused evolution of species with the origin of life.”  Evolution is a process by which species change.  It says nothing about whether or not God created life or the Earth or the Big Bang or anything.  The bottom line is that evolution exists and is not at all somebody’s “imagination” like Miss Washington says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where did this great miscommunication come from?  Why do all these women so openly shirk science in front of a national audience?  Is America really doing this poorly at educating its youth?

The most ardent naysayers will likely never accept evolution.  But if America as a whole was more open and accepting of science, perhaps such displays as this Miss USA Q&A debacle would be more upsetting to our nation’s populace.  As Nisbet writes in his article (“What’s Next for Science Communication?”) much of this problem comes from the way some scientists frame science and religion.  One prominent biologist, Richard Dawkins, argues that science and religion are incompatible.  If this viewpoint is taken, all religious people begin to see science as their enemy.  Instead of this approach, scientists must not view religion as the enemy, just as something entirely different, not as science’s rival in the power of explanation.

For most children, a museum trip is roughly
         the same as an elevator ride.  Buttons!!!

Four years ago, I worked as a volunteer at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History.  One aspect of my job involved using an electronic board to tell people about the many plants and animals that originated in ancient North and South America.  I soon found out that the majority of guests had no interest in my explanation, and had far more interest in pushing the many buttons on the electronic display to make all of the lights flash at the same time.  Does this mean that “real” museums are useless for teaching science and that virtual museums would be better?  No, I wouldn’t say that.  But we must realize that, for much of the population, science and museums represent a sort of interesting diversion, but not real truth.  Dinosaur bones are big and neat to look at, but most people neglect to understand the evolutionary implications that they should be grasping when observing these ancient behemoths.  Unfortunately, many people see science only in this sense of museum-like “wonder” because religion already occupies the position of primary world explainer in their minds.  If teachers wish to engage religious youths with the possibilities of science, they must show that there is room for the two to coexist.  Religion, in fact, could be the tool used to explain the laws of science (isn’t it possible God created evolution?).  Hopefully, in time, we will have fewer people that think belief in science is at all related to moral values (Miss Idaho) and more people that are self-proclaimed science-geeks like our new Miss USA.

Will New Technologies Really Increase the Quality of Journalism?

David Johnson has a strong belief in the potential of a future in which journalism of the people becomes as recognized and accepted as journalism of the “rich white guys” (as he may term it).  In our last class meeting, he expressed frustration in the traditional press’ willingness to bypass stories of greater importance (the many wars and struggles in the Middle East) for constant coverage of the Anthony Weiner debacle.  Although he may foresee an ideal journalistic-democratic society in which important news is covered by those best able to present this information, Johnson is also a realist.  He expressed plainly that people often don’t want to read the most important news stories because they just aren’t interesting.  Unfortunately, when the mainstream press faces this problem, they do not choose to increase the readability of significant information.  Instead, they increase the output of less worthwhile—but perhaps more flashy—content.

I really hope this isn't real.

This trend can be seen with a simple Google search.  The search “Anthony Weiner” on Google under the “News” subcategory returns 22,100 results.  Keep in mind this is a search for a man who no longer is currently a part of the government (after his resignation).  Meanwhile the news searches for Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty only returned 22,040 results combined.  All three of these people are viable candidates for the Republican nominee as the President of the United States.

There is clearly a problem when American journalists are more interested in political scandal than political relevance.  But is the answer to this really to increase the journalistic participation of the public through technology?  Will this increase the quality of our news?  Individual creation of news has been shown to have some promise.  In Iran and Egypt recent political uprisings have gained organizational support from social networking sites, causing some to call them “Twitter Revolutions.”  In Egypt (see below) millions filled the streets to protest Mubarak's government, many inspired by leaders sending messages to organize demonstrations.

My tweets calling for a lunch at Chipotle have never been met with such fervor.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/01/the-twitter-revolution-debate-the-egyptian-test-case/21296/

The above article points out that one simply cannot ignore the effects that online social networks had on these revolutions.  After all, would Mubarak have wanted to shut down the internet if the internet was having no impact on the political uprising?  Nevertheless, the possibilities for twitter's use as an organizational tool, do not necessarily foretell its use as a tool for good journalism.  This article goes on to mention that previous technologies have helped fuel rebellions.  A “texting rebellion” in  Manila and “Fax Revolution” in China did not fundamentally change the quality of journalism.

Perhaps this is an unfair comparison to make.  Texting and faxing may bring speed of transmission, but they are essentially two way messages.  Meanwhile tweets, blogs, and facebook messages do not reach just one receiver; they are immediately available to hundreds, thousands, or millions of news consumers.  And those consumers are out there.  The Pew Report, “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer” points out that on a typical day 61% of Americans get their news at least partially online.

See the report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News/Summary-of-Findings/Overview.aspx

 But, despite Johnson’s wishes, it seems as though most people are still only seeking information rather than creating it.  Although many more internet users contribute to news through links and comments, only 9 percent of internet users have “contributed their own article, opinion piece, picture, or video” in a form of participatory news-making.  I would argue that this means the era of a democratic  journalistic industry is still far away.

However, this does not mean that online social networks are not increasing the quality of news.  I would argue in fact that individual news creation is not even necessary to increase news quality.  Instead, sharing will become the vital component in holding professional journalists accountable for the quality of their material.  The same Pew report states that of the adults that get news online, 75% of them say they “get news forwarded to them through email or posts on social networking sites.”  People often no longer even need to seek out relevant news, it is being delivered to them by their friends on facebook and twitter feeds.  News that is unimportant or not of interest to the readers will not reach an audience, while relevant, quality articles will become more easily accessible as they are spread on social network sites.  In conclusion, the rise of facebook and twitter may not be creating new, better journalists, but they will most definitely be used to spread the work of better mainstream journalists while leaving the work of out-of-touch journalists to flounder in the online abyss.