As you can possibly surmise from my Twitter feed, I’m into politics. So, when the opportunity to see the Queen’s speech arose, I jumped at the chance. The Queen’s speech is akin to the State of the Union address in the US. The Speech and the State of the Union explain the administrations’ agenda for the upcoming year. However, the US address lasts up to two hours, the Queens Speech is up to 15 minutes.
I assumed I could attend the Speech but I was wrong. Researching online, I learned that the general public cannot attend the Speech but it can be viewed online live, via archive on YouTube or the public can read the transcript at the conclusion of the speech. When the Queen is finished, she and other royal family members and personnel, and dignitaries have a procession from Westminster Hall back to Buckingham Palace.
Although I could not attend the Speech, I learned that the House of Commons Members of Parliament (MPs) and the House of Lords members debate the Speech later in the afternoon. I walked from House Guards Avenue to Parliament Square dodging barricades along the way. The walk took me along the Thames, past the London Eye to Parliament Square and to Big Ben. I met many Metropolitan Police Officers along the way.
I knew I ‘d finally reached the entrance to Westminster Hall when I saw a political rally across the street. (insert pictures of political rally). When I reached the entrance, I spoke to a Palace Guard to ensure that I was in the right location and that the MPs would be in session to debate the Queens Speech. The Guard confirmed the location and debate and stated if I’d like to attend to stand in the que at the gate.
Waiting for admission
While waiting in line, I met a lady from London who was also there to attend the debates and who was politically aware. We struck up a conversation about the Parliamentary procedures, my visit to London, a project that she was working on and other things. During our conversation, the line began moving to prepare us for entrance into Westminster Hall. Each of us were asked which Chamber we would like to observe and I stated the House of Commons. Upon entrance, we went through security (similar to airport security) and were led to the entrance of Westminster Hall and proceeded toward the left hand set of stairs.
At the top of the stairs, we exchanged our green gallery cards for an information card where we were to enter our name, address, etc. After we submitted the information card to the attendant, we were instructed that no photography was allowed past that point. We waited until we were allowed to proceed up to the cloak room. The staircase up to the cloak room is narrow and winding.
The cloak room attendants both women and men dress in formal attire akin to tuxedos, black coat with tails and white crisp shirts. At the top of the stairs, we exchanged all electronics (phones, iPads, etc.) for a yellow key tag that identifies the wood shelf where our belongings are stored. After that point, we proceeded to the public gallery.
In the gallery
The gallery seats approximately 100-150 people and the seats resemble pews in a church. The seat backs were high and the seats rather narrow but comfortable. Speakers to hear the proceedings are on each of the last three rows of pews in the Gallery. Approximately 75% of the Public Gallery seating is behind glass. There are two television sets on each side of the Gallery. One television shows the MP that is speaking, the other displays where proceedings are in accordance with the agenda, the time when the agenda item began and the current time. The remaining 25% of the Public Gallery is not behind glass. This part of the Gallery is reserved for special guests or those invited by their MP to attend. Across from the Public Gallery is the press area. In this area, reporters for various media outlets observe the proceedings.
Today was particularly special. It was the first time since 1992 that the UK’s Conservative (Tory) Party has held a majority since 1996. This majority means they only needed to capture 326 out of the 650 seats in the UK Parliament; the Conservative Party captured 331 seats. The Lib Dem party lost 49 seats, the Labour Party lost 24 seats but the Scottish National Party (SNP) gained 50 seats. The SNP pushed for a referendum for Scottish independence from the UK. The day saw many historic milestones and may later prove to be a contentious year for all political parties.
Notable attendees at the debate, in order above, included Nick Clegg (former Deputy Prime Minister), Alex Salmond (Shadow SNP Westminster Group Leader (International Affairs and Europe)), Theresa May (Home Secretary), George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Secretary of State), Harriet Harman (Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition/interim Labour Party leader), John Bercow (Speaker of the House of Commons) and, of course, Prime Minister David Cameron. Prior to commencing the debate, some MPs were sworn in after which proceedings began.
Queen's Speech debate
There was no pledge of allegiance or anthem, the business of the day simply began. Prior to direct debate, a motion to begin debate on the Queen’s Speech is in the form of a humble address and is put forward by a proposer (long standing MP). The person who seconds the motion, seconder, is a relatively new but considered up & coming MP. The motion and second contains good-natured teasing and humor and serve to flatter each MP’s constituency. After the motions are put forwarded and seconded, debates begin. During the debate, there is a segment for Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs). The party opposite, in this case Labour’s Harriet Harman, poses questions to the Prime Minister on topics ranging from campaign promises to government finance to NHS services. The atmosphere is rowdy, raucous, the MPs point at one another, make faces, boo, applaud and cheer. It is truly fun to watch!! At the conclusion of the PMQs, other MPs ask questions of the Prime Minister about similar or other topics.
What we usually don’t see on television is when the Prime Minister or party opposite leader leaves the Chambers. Today, Prime Minister Cameron remained well into other proceedings on the agenda. The proceedings began at 2:30 pm precisely; Cameron remained until approximately 4:30 pm. The Labour leader had long gone. After Cameron left, I gathered my belongings from the cloak room and went back downstairs. Since I was there, I figured I’d take a chance to see if the House of Lords was in session. I was directed to the attendant’s desk at the House of Lords and, thankfully, the Lords were still in session! They also responded to the Queen's Speech delivered earlier in the day. I scurried to the cloak room, surrendered my electronics and took a seat in the House of Lords.
House of Lords
Earlier in the day, the Queen had given her speech from those very chambers. The Public Gallery in the House of Lords is plusher; red pew-like seats throughout border the walls but provide a view of the chambers below. The Leader of the House of Lords and her deputies sit in the middle of the chambers on an ottoman (Woolsack) to facilitate the proceedings. The Public Gallery is not behind a glass but televisions are at both ends of the Gallery for easier viewing. I was only able to sit in the House of Lords for 10 minutes before the proceedings adjourned for the day. However, in that brief time, I noticed that the Lords were more subdued and less raucous than the MPs. The chambers were larger (to accommodate the 750-800 Lords) and more ornate.
Overall, the day was fabulous and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. I'm truly thankful I had the opportunity to participate in such historic events and for the opportunity to experience them first hand!!
Today, we visited FUGU PR, a boutique PR firm that caters to a range of clients from Doc Martens to TEDx Brighton to the Patient Safety Congress which garnered press in the BBC and Daily Mail. FUGU PR's owner, Vicki Hughes, has over 20 years of PR experience and has seen the industry evolve drastically. From Vickie's vast experience and wisdom, she shared the one aspect of PR that has not changed is the practitioner's ability to tell a story.
PR is about content. The goal is to develop interesting content that is relevant for the client. Interesting content lends well to getting the publics of Vicki's clients focused on an issue, product or service. A compelling narrative (i.e., story) leads to a change in attitude and/or behavior. People are interested in stories which capture the minds, hearts and ultimately brand loyalty of the consumer. Although the client may have a compelling story, the PR agency must carry the story above the din of other "great" stories. This is done by meeting publics where they are and meeting them there often.
Vicki mentioned the rule of seven touches by Dr. Jeffrey Lant which states that "to penetrate the buyer’s consciousness and make significant penetration in a given market, you have to touch the prospect a minimum of seven times within an 18-month period." Each touch is an opportunity to establish, build and manage the relationship between the clients and its publics. FUGU PR manages the public relations aspects of her clients relationships with their publics. Compelling narratives created by Vicki's team and engaging relationships through multiple touches lead to the establishment of a reputation.
A reputation is what an organization does, what it says and what others say about the organization. As an analogy, pretend you're at a bar. John begins talking to you saying he's kind, polite and has a great sense of humor. How you feel about that? It may seem self-serving on John's part. Now, Derek walks up to you and tells you John visited his grandmother for an afternoon because she was lonely. At the end of the visit, Derek's grandmother was smiling, laughing and could not stop talking about the great time she had with John. Now, how do you feel about John? John's words seem to have more credibility after hearing from Derek. That's the essence of PR and analogous to what Vicki's firm does for its clients.
By Hunter7Taylor (Inger Eberhart)
We have completed our tour of Dublin and it's time to go. We have been here six days and bonded over sushi, traditional Irish fare and our collective wanderlust (ok, we got lost). Taking this journey as a group has allowed us to have some wonderful experiences, meet the locals and share taxis with drivers protesting about everything from the smart water meters to Michelle Obama vacations to historical places in Dublin. Oh, and we also visited the US Embassy, RTE Radio & TV, Failte Ireland & Guinness :-)
I'm from the government & I'm here to help
These words were spoken by Ronald Reagan and he stated those are nine of the most terrifying words in the English language. However, in this instance, this is not the case. At the US Embassy, we spoke with Jen McAndrews about her career as a cultural attache in Israel, Pakistan and now Ireland. She provided very straightforward, in-depth information about her career and duties in the State Department. Her overall duties in each assignment were to create events that supported the US's policy directives for the area. For example, in Pakistan, Jen coordinated a music concert in a place where music is generally forbidden and musicians' work is not protected under copyright; in addition to the ongoing terrorism threats and general security issues.
At RTE, we spoke with Killian McCrae. RTE is a nationally-funded television and radio organization. They acquire funding from a broadcast fee attached to each household (180 euros/year) and through advertising. The variety of programming includes news, soap operas, dramas, politics and a myriad of other shows. The overarching goal of the agency is to engage diverse audiences through a variety of programming delivered effectively, efficiently and economically across the audience's choice of platform (digital, television, etc.) Although the station is a government entity, they operate as if they were a private, non-profit organization with the needs of the viewers at the forefront of their corporate strategy.
That was one word that Failte Ireland used to lure businesses, tourists and residents to Ireland. Tourism is one of Ireland's biggest industries and Failte Ireland wants you to fall in love with everything Ireland. Whether you are a great escaper fleeing the rat race, culturally curious about what makes Ireland the place that it is or a social energizer emboldened by the night life, there is always a place for you in Ireland. Energize at Temple Bar, track your heritage at the National Library or have your breath taken away at the Cliffs of Moher.
Danielle and Alex are two of Ireland's best ambassadors who have replicated their energy and enthusiasm to thousands of business owners throughout Ireland. The team of over 400 employees serve one purpose and send one message: Failte (Welcome to) Ireland.
Guinness: The Brand Experience
Ireland's number one visitor attraction (1.2M/year) is not just a beer company but a brand experience. 93% of their visitors are from countries worldwide and the majority of those visitors are new. Instead of just drinking a beer, Guinness markets itself as a must see attraction which has rocketed it to one of the top five paid experiences in the world, think Coca-Cola in Atlanta, VW in Germany & Hershey's in Pennsylvania. Just a few elements of the brand experience: Guinness Academy (learn to present the perfect pint), marketing (whistling oysters & a fish on a bicycle), Gravity Bar (Dublin 360). Each interaction is to foster & deepen brand love by creating unique & shareable moments.
Saturday was such a fun day! I attended the Pow Wow Indian Festival. It was a wonderful opportunity to learn about the Native American culture through, not only vendors, but dance and a celebration of the Native American heritage. Thank you Rolling Thunder.
This week's readings were not as celebratory of the new online world as the previous weeks. We learn not only of the downsides and dangerous assumptions of this interconnectivity but also of its implications in business and government. The overriding themes of the week's readings were choice, capitalism and collaboration. The readings were:
In the interest of transparency, I do not have any affection toward Cass Sunstein. This is not because of the current article (published in 2001) but because of an article he wrote in 2008. In the 2008 article, he proposed that government agents infiltrate organizations that "conspire" to undermine the government's good works. The agents would infiltrate "chat rooms, online social networks, etc. while touting the pro-government message. The goal would be to undermine the activists' works while restoring faith in the government (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/chrisfield/2012/09/05/dangerous_liberal_4_cass_sunstein). It is with this eye that I analyze the 2001 article.
The 2001 article rests on the foundational question: How will the internet, the new forms of television and the explosion of communications options alter the capacity of citizens to govern themselves? He rests his arguments on "the growing power of consumers to filter what they see." He presumes that audiences will continually and only seek those sources of information with which they agree and that audiences should be inadvertently exposed to materials they would not have chosen. First, there is a difference between exposure and availability. In a democracy, the information may be available. The citizens should have a choice if they want to be exposed to it. The governing powers of the democracy would ensure the citizens had a choice.
Sunstein states citizens should share common experiences which, in a heterogeneous society, common experiences lead to the solution of social problems. He assumes citizens have the same interpretation of the shared experiences. His viewpoint does not allow the individual to interpret an event through his/her personal experiences and viewpoint. There is a reason eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable.
The nostalgia he refers to as unproductive is the same nostalgia that generated the general intermediary/street corner/commons news sources. In the days of fewer media choices and outlets, there were general magazines that covered many subjects (e.g., National Geographic, Time, Newsweek). However, readers still had the choice to engage in those sources. Sunstein belies the days in which the environment he desires to create actually existed.
The underlying theme through Sunstein's article is the lack of choice. There is no choice to select desired news sources or in the interpretation of one's experiences. The individual will not willingly choose to research viewpoints outside his/her own beliefs and, later in the article, Sunstein states "it is because choices that seem perfectly reasonable in isolation may, when taken together, badly disserve democratic goals." In short, the individual should not have choices because it may be for the common good. I suspect Sustein will define the common good.
As a side note, Sunstein was appointed as President Obama's Regulatory Czar in 2008. The Regulatory Czar oversees the effectiveness of federal regulations.
At the base of McChesney’s article is that both celebrants and skeptics of the internet ignore capitalism as the driving force behind the actions of companies such as Google and Facebook. The internet operates under the guise of democratization; however, the true driver of the internet is profit while democracy/public policy secondary. In my opinion, the internet is the new playground for monopolies. The government often intervenes when companies appear to have a corner on the industry. For example, Southern Bell (telephone company) was order to split into separate entities in the 1980s. The resulting entities were Bell South, Southern Bell and AT&T among many others. This allowed entities such as MCI (long distance carrier) to enter the market. I presume the government understood, in essence, telephone technology and could foreseeably regulate it. However, since the spread of the internet, technology has developed rapidly and continues apace; it is difficult for the government to keep up. What has occurred is the government goes to entities such as Google, Facebook and Apple to learn how to coordinate their efforts. The government gets information while the large internet and technology agencies can maintain their respective monopolies veritably untouched by government regulators. It is in the government’s interests to “turn a blind eye” to the monopolistic activities of the major internet companies. As of now, the internet remains a playground for monopolies.
Another example of the government’s inability to keep up with technology is Uber. The logic behind Uber is a rider schedules a ride with a driver registered with the Uber company and application. The driver uses his/her own car and the rider gets to the destination. The payment is made via the Uber app. The cost for the Uber rider is less than that of a taxi. The taxi industry in Georgia has gone to the state legislature to request that Uber be regulated out of business. In this case, the taxi industry is asking the government to remove or severely hinder another’s activity in the marketplace.
The mass collaboration and collective knowledge celebrated in previous weeks are not as mass and collective as first thought. According to Van Dijck & Nieborg, “of those people who use the internet regularly, 52% are inactives, another 33% are ‘passive spectators’ and only 13% are actual creators.” The democratization of the internet is not as democratized as first believed. The tools are available but not widely used. Just as the television did not displace the radio, the internet will not displace the television. As Jenkins mentioned in his book Convergence Culture, previous communications technologies exist side-by-side with new technologies.
With the majority of internet users merely watching or inactive, this begs the question: Are companies receiving a true impression of their customers? If only 13% of the internet users are actual creators then the companies only hear from a fraction of their customer base. This fraction influences online market buys, brand messaging and brand perception in the online community. Collaboration is not truly everything if a small minority are the only collaborators.
The week’s readings centered on the democratization of technology. Some of the arguments were true such as: 1) we have become consumers and producers of media; 2) mass collaboration allows for a more participatory culture and enhances human development and 3) technology has affected how we view our political systems, economies, cultures, etc. The democratization of the internet has created these scenarios. Although the internet is readily available to many, barriers still exist regarding access and full democratization. With this, the authors of the week’s readings look upon democratization as a positive but do not fully explore the implications of ownership, collective intelligence, participation and organizational structures.
What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine
A disturbing argument is that intellectual property or proprietary information should be shared for the common good. Corporations and organizations thrive on their expertise in a product or service. There were likely many episodes of trial and error to arrive at the precise formula of ingredients or actions that set the organization apart from its competitors. Companies invest time and money and should, rightfully, benefit from the investment. Additionally, the common good for one entity is disastrous for another. In short, to suggest a company willingly acquiesce proprietary information or intellectual property is woefully naïve. The concept of ownership is threatened when it is suggested that intellectual property be shared without regard to the impact to the company for the ambiguous “common good.” When Google publishes its search algorithms, I may change my mind.
You don’t know what you don’t know
Intellectual property would be relinquished to contribute to the collective intelligence. The authors argue for collective intelligence which is the contribution to the general body of knowledge from many; it is the Wikipedia model of sharing knowledge. If many agree on information, it is assumed that information is accurate. However, that is a dangerous assumption. Because a group agrees on a statement, it does not automatically make the statement accurate or credible. Consensus does not equate to truth or credibility. Benkler mentions the Babel objection which states “when everyone can speak, no one can be heard, and we devolve either to a cacophony or to the reemergence of money as the distinguishing factor between statements that are heard and those that wallow in obscurity.” The consensus is the voices of those who have the money, power and/or influence to be heard while truth, credibility and other viewpoints are drowned out or do not receive an adequate public hearing. The quality of the collective intelligence is only as good as the allowance of the dissenting voices to be heard.
As a side note, there is an immeasurable amount of data available via the internet. Data is simply facts and figures. When the story is told about the facts and figures, the data becomes information. The internet is certainly rich with data and some information. But how much is true knowledge? In my opinion, knowledge does not occur until the information is applied. Collective intelligence is a side effect of the internet’s capabilities but how much knowledge truly exists? Who is to say true knowledge is not in the small chorus of dissenting or other points of view?
The internet has certainly allowed many people the opportunities to participate in a community. The community can range from quilt makers to school groups to political parties. Participation can occur in the real world (off-line), via the internet (online) or both. Individuals can serve as a member on the board of directors which requires more engagement and time or the individual can simply visit the community and not engage or communicate with anyone. Everyone is invited to the virtual community which may only have 5% true engagement while 95% are on the sidelines. The deeper question is: does participation equate to influence? The community may have the numbers but only a small percentage of the community is active and, therefore, influential. The small percentage of the influential must also overcome the moneyed interests. For example, activists circulate petitions for individuals to support or oppose the Keystone pipeline. The average working American may add his name to the petition along with those of his neighbors, co-workers and friends. The activists pass this petition on to the congressman. However, the congressman may have large money donors that have the access to speak with him directly. The direct conversation from a larger money donor may have more influence on the congressman than the petition from thousands of his constituents.
No one is in charge
Jenkins mentioned the concept of adhocracy. An adhocracy is “an organization characterized by a lack of a hierarchy. Tapscott and Williams refer to it, in a sense, as peering. In short, a hierarchy does not exist. As tasks change so do the leadership roles. The idea of an adhocracy sounds intriguing but practically, I question if it can work on a large scale (e.g., organization-wide). Work groups and project-based work groups, regardless of geography, may be able to transfer leadership decisions based on group members’ core competencies. However, on a larger scale, someone must have the authority and be willing to take responsibility for longer-term, higher impact decisions. Hierarchies will continue to exist to a certain extent. The idea of an adhocracy is appealing but with limited applicability.
Briefly, one statement that Benkler made troubles me. The statement is as follows: “Different liberal polities can pursue different mixtures of respect for different liberal commitments.” In other words, governments (either local, regional or national) decide which freedoms or constraints they would like to allow or limit. The section mentioned Singapore as an example of a trade-off between freedom and welfare. I think China is a mix of communism and capitalism. The U.S. is primarily market-driven but struggles with the expansion of government regulation. Many around the world are a part of the networked information economy. We have the capability to peer into the governments and political happenings of other nations. Our ability to see their struggles and their ability to see ours exposes the challenges of mixing and matching freedoms to find an ideal balance.
In a nutshell, the democratization of technology has led to advancement in culture, economies and our viewpoints, however, the implications have yet to be fully explored.
Take a look at this fun video that is a wonderful example of the miscommunication at its finest: Communication: Sender/Receiver, Abbott & Costello Comedy Routine:
Although this is an older comedy routine, it is a perfect example of miscommunication between the sender of the message and the receiver. Over 60 years later, we have cell phones, text messaging and, lately, social media as tools to communicate with one another. Jose Van Dijck is the author of The Culture of Connectivity: A critical history of social media which was published in 2006 by the Oxford University Press. She examines the rise of social media with a critical eye. The first chapters explore social media’s governance, ownership, users/usage, business models and technology. The remaining chapters provide examples of social media sites and their impact on our culture. Aside from the author’s thoughts, I will provide my thoughts of the remaining chapters and what would have provided more balance to the author’s perspective.
One of the overarching themes that I see is that the consolidation of traditional media is occurring in the new media (networked world). Brands such as Fox and ABC produce content and own the channels of distribution for the content. For example, Disney’s Hannah Montana show is produced by Disney. The new season is promoted through ABC’s Good Morning America and the Hannah Montana’s popularity is advanced through movies produced by Touchstone Pictures. In the era of the networked world, Google provides users a full platform of services. The user can access the web through Chrome, search the web using Google, view videos via YouTube, check the email with Gmail, store documents on Google Drive and purchase online using Google Wallet. With this, Google can serve users personalized ads based upon the users’ interaction with the platforms. Google owns the platforms to serve the internet to the user while providing features to enhance the users’ experience on the internet. Is this the era of networked world consolidations as the 20th century was the era of consolidated media? Not sure, as this is a relatively new era and one that is less developed than traditional media. The book did not touch on this aspect as much although parallels could be drawn between the two.
Another interesting phenomenon is one of ownership. This is especially true in the story of Flickr. Early adopters of the site tended to claim ownership of it. The users then became irate when corporate interests become involved in the site. Yahoo! wanted the site for the user data while Flickr users wanted to maintain the community aspect of the site. Either way, the company itself remains private which means the owners can do what they surmise is best for the entity. It is not a publicly traded entity. The early adopters equated usage of a social media site with ownership of it. Spending a lot of time at the site and on the site as part of a user community does not necessarily equate to the time and effort spent to develop a site and make it available for use by the end user and profitable for the company. Many social media sites companies struggle with issues of monetization. How does the site make money? Even still, can the site turn a profit? Corporate interests will eventually govern many social media sites. Google sells ad space to organizations and delivers content to users based on the user habits. YouTube offers the same ads either as a pop-up within the video or as a prelude to it. In short, either the user will see ads in exchange for the free services or the user will pay to not see the ads. The old saying “nothing is free” is certainly applicable in this sense.
Adhocracy: everyone is in charge, occasionally
The author posed the idea of an adhocracy which is the polar opposite of a bureaucracy. In an adhocracy “thousands of ad hoc, multidisciplinary teams form temporary alliances to create and maintain content according to narrowly defined tasks.” This definition applies especially to Wikipedia which has thousands who contribute to the online encyclopedia of knowledge. In short, everyone takes turns to be the leader in their content area. However, this is not quite accurate. The adhocracy is more of an ideal than a reality. According to the author, bots are used for tasking ranging from administration to editing to creating entire pages of data. The bureaucracy still stands and it is governed increasingly by automation.
Social media: why not?
Users agree to exchange privacy for connectedness. This is truly the users’ choice. The companies can only share what is first shared with them. To play devil’s advocate, it would have been interesting to hear about those who are not on Facebook or other social media sites. What would they say about the world of sharing? Why are they not on these sites? Why do they choose not to engage? Are non-users more connected off-line than their online counterparts? It would have been interesting for the author to explore the other side of the argument. The reader is not provided a balanced view of this larger aspect of social media; those who do and those who don’t.
Anecdotally, those who do not engage in social media see the entire concept as a popularity contest. Perhaps, they are right and choose to maintain a sense of privacy. Even the author refers to it as the “attention economy.” Advertisers will pay a premium to get as much of the users’ attention as possible.
Everything old is new again
The book was published in 2006; it is now 2015. The 11 year real-time span may seem like an eternity in technological years. However, people are not that different. At the core there is a desire to connect with others. Earlier, it was face-to-face via oral history. Then it was through the printed press. Connections were made in places less local. Next, we connected via television to foreign lands. Now, we connect to one another without the previous barriers of distance, time, geography and language. Through these changes, likely, the definition of relationship has evolved much as our tools to communicate have evolved. Maybe at the dawn of radio, many listeners felt they had a relationship with the story teller or news broadcaster. With the advent of television, maybe the listener felt he or she had a relationship with the actor or actresses on the favored television shows. With social media, we think we have a relationship, not with the central character in a broadcast, but with one another. We have relationships with the ordinary person who, much like us, goes to work each day, does what is needed to support the family and has dreams and desires of either a better life or for his or her current life to not change.
Social media and its corresponding technology co-exists alongside the other ways that we have communicated for thousands of years. Although the definition of and tools used to establish relationships have evolved, we yearn to be connected to one another. Add social media to the tools we already use to establish relationships.