What happens when we all contribute? BIG Data.

Innovations in technology have created a platform for communication that is more accessible today than it ever has been.

It is not only possible for anyone to receive information, now anyone can create and transmit information on a worldwide scale. In a sense, we all now have the ability to be mass communicators, when previously this space and its reach, was limited. One challenge to this concept of accessibility is the sheer amount of information that is being created and transmitted online. It can be difficult to sift through the clutter and chaos. For instance, I googled our main topic this week: “big data” and was provided with 3,440,000,000 results. How do I know which one contains the information I am looking for? How do I know if what I am reading is credible?

When mass communication in the traditional sense of television, radio and print publications was limited to those in the communication field, there was a system of checks and balances. In the moment, reporters certainly could deviate from the plan, but they would be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. There was a script to follow on air in tv and radio. Newspaper, magazine and book editors would carefully comb over information that was published in print for mass consumption. With increased access, we lose the gatekeeper and the often the fact checker. We can’t assume everything is credible. We as receivers of information must train ourselves to chew on the meat and spit out the bones. We have to be intelligent information seekers.

While widespread access does create challenges in navigating through the vast amounts of information and assessing its value, there are many advantages as well. It brings new meaning to the first amendment. People who may have never had any form of voice representation can share their views and opinions freely. This provides us with more perspectives that may differ from the previous media influencers. Traditional mass communicators had to meet certain qualifications. They had to apply for positions and be selected to appear on air. They had to have an educational background or years of experience. They had to be able to clearly express ideas. They had to have access to publishers. They had to have resources or connections. Now, they only need wifi.

This increase in representation and perspectives provides more information on a particular topic. This adds more qualitative information to the quantitative data that already exists. Topics and issues can be studied in a more holistic way than before.

In February of 2017, the data in existence was up to 2.7 Zetabytes. It’s estimated that there are 2.5 quintillion bytes of data created each day at our current pace. We have a lot of information available. We can’t forget to note its convenience either. My google search that produced nearly 3.5 billion results, took place in .58 seconds. Can we even fathom how long it would take to compile 3.5 billion references on any topic without the internet?

This week we are discussing whether its valuable for organizations to contribute to the “clutter.” We are contemplating whether or not organizations can influence their industry online. This is also interesting to me from a journalism context. I think many communication organizations today are thinking in survival mode. That’s why so many having to close their doors, reduce publications and lay off staff. New mediums are coming in with fresh and innovative concepts. The journalism entities who are thinking of ways to salvage traditional outputs won’t survive. The ones who are dreaming of “the next big thing” will transform the world of journalism.

Everett Rogers developed a theory that seeks to explain how, why and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. This process relies heavily on human capital and suggests that a concept’s diffusion can be categorized by its rate of adoption. People are grouped into the following classifications by the degree to which they adopt an idea: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.

As we discussed on the blog last week, we recognize communication and its methods of distribution are always evolving. With that understanding, journalists have to be always looking to the future of media. The journalism field must be led by innovators and early adopters. Organizations who make up the late majority and laggards won’t be competitive enough to stay in business.

I can’t help but think about Steve Jobs relative to this discussion. Regardless of how he is viewed as a person, as an engineer and a businessman, he was a world-changer. His business approach can be summarized by his reference to Wayne Gretzky in a 2007 conference keynote speech. “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” He noted that’s what Apple was in the business of doing both in the past and in the future.

While he took big risks, his innovations have changed the world as we know it. Apple has transformed the way we live, communicate and interact with each other.

Apple is making major contributions to big data. The iOS health app on the iPhone and Apple Watch track the following four components: activity, sleep, nutrition and mindfulness. The data gathered through this app could pave the way for the future innovations in the healthcare industry. Apple’s FaceID feature, integrated into the new iPhoneX, will provide additional security for users by incorporating the use of 3D sensors to perform facial recognition. Siri provides users with the ability to speak requests and receive a generated answer through an online search or performing a task on the device. Apple’s innovations provide more opportunities to collect data, then in turn, use it to develop new ideas and concepts. They also use this information collected to improve the user experience either through updates or device upgrades.

Big data is growing exponentially. It’s changing the way we live and interact with each other. I do believe all organizations have valuable input and can have influence in their fields of expertise and that we grow and innovate by building on the information and experience of one another.

 

Thoughts and perspectives from a communications graduate student

Hi! Welcome to this blog. I’m Lauren Cochran and each week I’ll be sharing my thoughts and perspectives based on my graduate course work in communication studies. I’ll loop you in on the topics we’re covering and expand on how the overall media concepts affect us on the ground level. We’ll discuss national communication trends and what they mean for us from day to day.

I invite you to join me on this journey as I strive to gain a better understanding of strategic communication and emerging media. You can find your way back here by bookmarking the link to this page: https://lcochranstrategiccomm.wordpress.com/. I’d love to hear your thoughts as well so feel free to share your ideas and perspective in the comments section below each post.

My educational background is in journalism. I’ve always been fascinated by how people communicate. I strongly feel that when we study communication, we figure out a little bit more about ourselves as people. As I have gotten older, I am increasingly interested in a couple of facets of communication. One of those being how we communicate in groups and the different types of communication that exists in communities. The other is how our methods are changing with technology. The latter is where we’ll spend most of our time this week.

The prompt that guided our studies this week was: Are traditional media dying? There is no doubt that the landscape of the journalism field is changing, but in a sense, it always has been. The driving force of that change has always been technology. Over time, innovative communication tools have forced successful journalists and media organizations to be adaptable in an ever-changing environment. It’s become a “survival of the fittest” industry. How can we make what we have work not just this year, but five, ten, even twenty years down the road?

While it seems we are experiencing the “end of an era” in terms of changing media, it’s not a new concept for the industry. It’s one that will solidify strongholds for industry leaders and cause closings for businesses unable to adapt. Also, space will be available for new innovators to enter the playing field.

The infographic below provides a timeline for how the communication industry has  evolved.

 

While there is constant talk of the transition of traditional media, a brief look into our past will reveal a common thread – communication is ever changing. The invention of the printing press in the mid-1400s changed the world. It made mass communication possible through the printed word and prompted a major industry shift in business and personnel. This innovation paved the way for the first daily newspaper nearly 200 years later.

The invention of the radio was another earth-shattering concept for communication. In different locations throughout the country, multiple people could hear the same voice over radio-waves, adding a personalized touch that had not been possible before. That element of personalization only grew with the invention of television that made it possible to not only hear, but view another person on a screen. While it was possible to change the channel or station to adjust the information being received, the viewer/listener had limited control over the content. The world wide web changed that. The receiver of the information could play an active role in selecting the content, by seeking it out. This also changed the role of the receiver. The internet gave everyone a voice, because it gave receivers the opportunity to contribute information or feedback as well. The addition of smart phones made that ability mobile and more accessible.

While there are disadvantages to changes in the media industry, there are clear advantages in the innovative transition. I spent a portion of my professional career working for a marketing firm. We tracked media analytics for our organization. With digital journalism, we can determine the number of times our organization’s name was used every day in publications across the world. We could get a jump on negative press the minute it was published. The readership is no longer limited the the number of subscribers in a geographical area, but had a possible distribution of millions because of the digital reach. Also, submitting press releases and maintaining contact with media outlets has become much more feasible with digital communication platforms. All of these are strong marketing assets and were not possible in traditional media.

While we relish in the new possibilities, we lose traditions that we have depended on for centuries. The newspaper was intertwined with our society in such a powerful way that it became part of the everyday human experience. This experience is now being replaced by another. In my hometown, Mobile, Ala., the Mobile Press Register, the oldest newspaper in Alabama, underwent major changes in 2012. In the early 2000s, the newspaper constructed a state-of-the-art building, solidifying its place in the industry, and six years ago it laid off half of its staff and reduced its distribution. Instead of a daily newspaper, the print-edition publication schedule moved to Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays, with coverage on other days provided by its website, al.com. Mobile is now the third largest city in the U.S. without a daily newspaper.

There is a part of me that mourns the downsizing and closing of newspapers. There is something genuine and even nostalgic about holding recycled paper in your hand and reading the printed serif type. I am also concerned that other news outlets don’t allow for the depth of reporting that was previously found in the newspaper. The information is reduced to highlights that must fit in a soundbite of 30 seconds or less. Are we still telling the whole story?

Another concern is the way our news reaches us online. Analytics calculate our content and we are fed information based on the information we seek. This may only perpetuate our world view rather than expand our perspective. The newspaper, while attune to its geographical location, presented a variety of news in a way that challenged the perspective of the reader. When we view news and information online, are we still be challenged or presented with a view that is different from our own?