JOE PATERNO, LONG TIME COACH AT PENN STATE, DEAD AT 85

STATE COLLEGE, PA – January 22, 2012 – Joe Paterno, head coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions from 1966 until 2011 died of lung cancer Sunday at age 85.

Paterno died at 9:25 a.m. of “metastatic small cell carcinoma of the lung.” as detailed in a statement released by Mount Nittany Medical Center. Surrounded by family at the time of his death, Paterno had an exceptional career which included more wins than anyone in major college football. He won 409 games and took the Nittany Lions to 37 bowl games and two national championships. More than 250 of the players he coached were drafted to the NFL. (espn.com)

"He will go down as the greatest football coach in the history of the game," Ohio State coach Urban Meyer said after his former team, the Florida Gators, beat Penn State 37-24 in the 2011 Outback Bowl. (espn.com)

His family, though requesting privacy, released a statement Sunday morning to announce his death:

"His loss leaves a void in our lives that will never be filled…..He died as he lived," the statement said. "He fought hard until the end, stayed positive, thought only of others and constantly reminded everyone of how blessed his life had been. His ambitions were far reaching, but he never believed he had to leave this Happy Valley to achieve them. He was a man devoted to his family, his university, his players and his community." (espn.com)

Paterno’s career ended controversially after he was fired from Penn State following the aftermath of a child sex abuse scandal.

For inquiries, please contact Erika Gore at erika.gore@snhu.edu

Social media tools

A few social media tools I've tried or participated in include blogging, mobile, online collaboration tools, photosharing, social networking sites, social bookmarking, Twitter, video games, texting, and RSS feeds. For this specific post, I've decided to post examples of my engagement in blogging, video sharing/video games, and social networking. The links to my examples of each are below:

• Social Networking: my LinkedIn profile
• Video Games/Videosharing: my gaming page on YouTube
• Blogging: Rawr Nail Cosmetics - the blog that supports my home-made nail polish hobby/venture

In my opinion, the social media resources that would most impact audiences or be most successful are video sharing, mobile device integration, and a combination of RSS Feeds and social networking. I feel that social media is so big and encompassing now that it almost needs to be simplified and directly reach the audience rather than rely on them to identify or find what interests them. This is why mobile has been so successful, and continues to be, because it reached people in real time, wherever they are, no matter what they're doing.

I chose video sharing because individuals in general are bombarded by information and I've found that people are more apt to click on a video than they are to read through a full article or blog post. This helps cut out some of the noise, reduce the time commitment of the audience, and makes the content more relevant and direct. Society is becoming increasingly more visual so video sharing strongly supports that.

Lastly, I chose RSS feeds integrated with social networking. According to aids.org, 584 million people are using social networking each day. An RSS feed alone is a great strategy to deliver content and convey messages to audiences in real time and in a relevant manner, but integrating that with a "location" or "site" where they are inputting valuable information about their likes, dislikes, preferences, network, resources, etc. is only a huge benefit to not only the individuals included in the feed but the designer of the feed itself. Having access to this data will increase the ability for the feed to deliver targeted content to the audience but will also increase the level of use and visibility among audiences.

Unrestricted Web Publishing

The article I chose to evaluate was published on the New York Times online by Justin Gillis. The article, titled Scientists Report Global Rise in Greenhouse Gas Emissions, discusses new statistics and report numbers detailing the rise in greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world.

When analyzing this article for credibility, I find it credible due to the credentials of the author, the organizations the author is affiliated with, and the report from which the author reiterated his findings.  The author, Justin Gillis, is a well-renowned, highly acclaimed environmental science writer for the New York Times. He has won awards for his work, including the 2011 Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism. Additionally, he completed a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at Harvard and MIT during the 2004-2005 academic year. There, he took courses in biology and environmental science.

The data he communicates in his article is drawn from a report published by a tracking initiative, the Global Carbon Project, and has also be published in the journal, National Geoscience. Throughout his article, he provides quotes from the World Meteorological Organization and Glen P. Peters, a scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research.

One of the items that concerned me, however, was that throughout his article he mentions “scientists” have stated these findings however he only cites the report and quotations from Glen P. Peters. He does not list any additional experts who either participated in gathering the research or have the expertise to corroborate what’s being said.

This article is a case where while it seems that much of the findings came from the report and no direct quoted sources. For a scientific article like this, there should be more direct quotes, citations, and support from experts to substantiate the claims of the report. From a web publishing standpoint, one would assume that these sources are enough to prove that what is being conveyed is in fact true. You would see that the information comes from a scientific report, that that report and this data has been published and that the writer has expertise, and even a scientist agrees. But the scientist who agrees helped write the report, the writer, himself, doesn't have a degree or any other credentials in this area, and the findings of the report have not been peer reviewed or published in an academic journal (at least to the audience’s knowledge). Unrestricted web publishing would allow this article to be passed off as new fact, as a testament to what’s “true” and a factual account of global warming when in fact, it’s just telling the results of a report. Anyone with the credentials to analyze this data and not be biased to it has not been presented.  This type of publication could lead people to develop strong assumptions about global warming whether correct or incorrect, and on a political scale, could sway public opinion to one party over the other.

Social Media and Truth

How do you know what you know? Name one new thing you learned using a social media site today and explain why you believe it is true. What source did you use to acquire this information? At times, are social media sites reliable for obtaining credible information? 

Personally, I know what I know from research. I’ve always been a critical thinker by habit. Whenever I hear new information about anything from political to entertainment to new scientific discoveries, I take it upon myself to research at minimum:

 a) the subject at hand

b) the perspective being presented

c) the opposing perspective, and;

d) the qualifications of the parties presenting the information

I grew up in a household with two parents who were passionate about everything from politics to science to history to healthcare, and so on. However, they were both subjective people. As long as information was presented from a news or media source they trusted, it was true enough. I learned, at an early age, that to get accurate, truthful information, it was going to take more than just regurgitating public opinion to fully understand and “know” what I was talking about.

On social media today, I learned, or at least heard, that more marriages in India are becoming love-based than arranged. Event he arranged marriages now, more often than not, are between couples who met, fell in love, and told their families of their intent to be married. The families, then, would ask the couples if the couples would allow them to arrange it. I shy from saying I believe it is true because it came from the Facebook page Humans of New York where a photographer interviewed an Indian source that I believe is reputable, though I have no way of verifying that. The only verification, albeit shallow, I receive is that I have been following his project for quite some time, and he has traveled the whole world using photojournalism and brief interviewing to capture a brief window into the lives of individuals across the world. I believe him to be reputable, through his posting of perspectives highly controversial that serve him no immediate positive benefit, however, again- this, I have yet to confirm.

I think social media sites are reliable for generating awareness and for notifying the masses of an event in real time. In terms of obtaining credible information, I, personally, feel there are too many messages without verification and without accuracy drifting around the social media space for it to become a true credible source of information. Messages, many completely developed without adherence to guidelines are portrayed as fact when often they are purely based in opinion or unsupported by credible sources. Sometimes, too, the news sources that use Facebook and twitter prematurely report information, choosing to update it throughout the day rather than get their fact straight in advance. I think the ability for social media to be used as a credible source of information becomes skewed when we allow anyone regardless of qualification to comment or direct public opinion through the presentation of unqualified and unsupported  information.

Influence of the Media

What forms of new media do you use daily? How has new social media influenced your perspective of events? Are these positive or negative influences?

New media that I use daily include a number of different forms, for example:

·         Facebook

·         Twitter

·         LinkedIn

·         Instagram

·         Video Games

·         Internet

·         A variety of iPhone Apps

Some of the ways social media has influenced my perspective of events is by rapidly increasing the speed at which I receive the information and the verify it. Social media allows individuals to know what’s going on in the world in real time, and not only provides the information about the event, but provides qualifying information to supplement the validity of the perspective of the event that was communicated. With traditional media, it could sometimes take days (depending on the type of story) to have “truthful” details or conflicting statements corroborated. Now, corroboration, conflict, and validity is occurring within a matter of minutes or hours. For me, this has both a negative and positive effect.

Positively, it allows me, as someone with not much time to follow up on the news or current events, the ability to “scan” the news and remain relevant and informed without having to sacrifice a large part of my day to do so.

Negatively, however, the ability to communicate or distribute information digitally from anywhere allows for a tremendous amount of information to be absorbed at once. This, often, overwhelms me and causes me to choose what its important or choose the interest that catches my eye the most rather than considering multiple topics that may be of equal importance. I essentially have to create my own filter; barring otherwise important topics from receiving any further analysis or research simply because I don’t have the time or energy to look at everything. This “filter” can lead to my indifference at times about certain issues because the urgency of social media can artificially create “importance” regardless of whether the issue is impactful or not.