Making a Media ImPRession

      A large-scale, corporate-controlled enterprise can be highly intimidating.  Many imagine a smoke-filled room where directors and board members sit and attempt to plot their next way to profit.  Public Relations, however, helps bridge a mutually beneficial relationship between a business and its customer by informing both parties of the other's intent and desire.  Because the public demands authenticity and can usually detect what is real and what is not, Public Relations has become a time-tested profession that has perfected the skill of narration and engagement.

      Now that PR practitioners have proven themselves to be skilled in strategic communication, the field of Public Relations is currently in a new transitional mode and is experiencing some growing pains.  Some professionals argue that the field of Public Relations is fundamentally different than Social Relations (SR).  They say PR practitioners primarily utilize announcements and events for message release, while SR practitioners engage in frequent communications about more routine things.

      Although PR personnel have not been predisposed to maintain proficiency in both social and digital media, they should be trained to communicate in these mediums because they will exponentially increase the “reach” of the message.

Recapping the Call to Change of the Role of Social Media In Our Lives

Is social media making us socially awkward? How online relationships are affecting real-world relationships. My call to change is not necessarily a shock to many, as we are well aware how much time we usually spend and waste on social media. I desired to understand how we got to this point. Working my way through history, starting in the 16^th/17^th centuries, I found out what media existed and how it was used throughout time. This helped me understand how it evolved into something that enslaves many of us today.

Starting with my very first post dealing with call to change, I actually started with a topic dealing with useless conversation starters. I talked about  how we should liberate ourselves from pretending to care that we actually want to talk to people, and instead, find ways to desire and seek after conversions we can enjoy and build relationships from. I found that this topic didn't have much to support it, but it allowed me to build into my topic of social media and the importance of real life relationships.

The Evolution of Social Media

• The Evolution of “Social Media” over the 19^th, 20^th, and 21^st centuries
• My call to change of how social media has taken over many of our lives can find its root from as early as the 19^th century.
•  The invention of the steam press in the early 19th century, and the emergence of mass-market newspapers such as the New York Sun marked a profound shift. The new technologies of mass dissemination could reach large numbers of people with unprecedented speed and efficiency, but put control of the flow of information into the hands of a select few. For the first time, vertical distribution of news, from a specialist elite to a general audience, had a decisive advantage over horizontal distribution among citizens.
• This trend accelerated with the advent of radio and television in the 20th century. New businesses grew up around these mass-media technologies. In modern media organizations, news is gathered by specialists and disseminated to a mass audience along with advertising, which helps to pay for the whole operation.
• In the 21^st century, the internet has disrupted this model and enabled the social aspect of media to reassert itself. In many ways news is going back to its pre-industrial form, but supercharged by the internet. Smartphones and social media such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter may seem entirely new, but they echo the ways in which people used to collect, share and exchange information in the past.
• Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist said, “Social media is nothing new, it's just more widespread now.” He likens John Locke, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin to modern bloggers.
• This leads me to conclude that social media has technically been around for a long time. We don’t understand how we lived before smartphones, but we did. We can coexist with social media, but my call to change is to get us to not let it overtake us. It is still growing, and pretty soon we will have to check 10 things before we can do anything. If anything, my call to change will help keep us socially aware of our surroundings, and how we must wisely use social media to better this World, and not just for the betterment of ourselves.

Let's Use Social Media

I think we need to put more effort into sharing the gospel online.  When Elder Bednar encouraged everyone in the church to use social media to share the gospel, he said that he hoped that it wouldn't be a "flash flood" but rather a continuous stream of sharing online using social media.

Has Social Media Made Us Less Social?

One night when I was surfing Facebook, Snap-Chat, Instagram, etc., I realized how much it actually controlled my life. You don't even realize until you think about how much you are actually using them. After surveying some people that I knew and also didn't know, it came to my attention that this is a real issue. So I proposed a changed frame of reference to not rely on social media as much. This would allow us to build stronger bonds and relationships with those around us in route to building a better world. Enjoy!

Connected, But Alone

Has social media made us less social?

You would think ‘social’ media would include a lot more interacting and socializing, just over various media instead of in-person or other ways. But over the past few years, people of all ages and demographics have integrated their lives with social media and can be found spending lots of time on their phones or other devices. I desired to discuss this issue with others. In an online forum, I asked this very question and received some very good feedback and discussion.

One response I received that answered yes said, “People no longer need to be able to communicate properly with others due to the fact that the internet is doing it for them. The ability to use internet phones to check social media sights has turned places like coffee shops and cafes into non-social areas. Instead of approaching strangers to be entertained in new situations people are just pulling out their phones and checking their social media so that they can feel connected to others without actually being connected to others.”

Another response that answered no talked about how “[social media] helps us grow a better social understanding with each other.” He stated that we can get to know people better by seeing what they are up to all the time through pictures and other media, and helps us stay connected with them.

Overall, I received about 75% of responses that said yes it has made us less social, and 25% that said no it hasn't. One particular response that stuck out to me the most gave me a link to a TED talk by a woman named Sherry Turkle. She is an author who wrote a book called: “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.” I have posted the video below to this TED talk and it really hits home this idea to change the way we use and rely on technology/social media. It is great to be connected, but when your relationships are all online, we tend to actually feel alone and that is when it has to change.

Of Anonymity

While I was reading Joseph P's post, one thing he said caused me to think more on the subject of anonymity. 

Joseph said, "In a world with social media, there doesn’t need to be anyone behind a statement. Anonymity is rampant and other forms of communication are dying off." It made me wonder, does social media really encourage anonymity? Or is there a possibility that our social identities inhibits anonymity, forcing us to take responsibility for what we say and do?

To quote Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In regards to social media, what's in a profile? In a personal brand you establish on social media? It's a representation of you, no matter what you post (or don't post). 

Does social media inhibit or encourage anonymity? I would think it inhibits it, to the extent that users want to establish themselves as influencers in their social realms. I remember my public relations professor warning us that when we made our profiles private, it implied we had something to hide (from future employers). Companies often "stalk" potential hires to see what their real lives are like. So back to Joseph's statement, I would change it to say that in a world with social media, there does need to be someone behind a statement. If you want your name to be known, you must carefully craft and strengthen your personal brand. 

On the other hand, I can see why some people may create fake identities, to hide their names and stay under the radar. It's easier to bully others and secretly stalk your ex as an anonymous person. It's true, no one could know the difference between a real online identity and a false one, but it'd be hard to maintain a falsified personal brand in the real world. 

This idea of taking credit for who you are reminds me of Petrarch's thoughts on humanism. Social media has given many public figures a new level of control over what their audiences think of them. Supermodels have come out of the shadows, celebrities have connected with fans on a new level (Taylor Swift interacts with super fans on Tumblr regularly), and brands have reinvented themselves, all thanks to social media. 

So yes, social media is an opportunity to avoid your true identity, but it is also an opportunity to embrace your individualism and take control of what others know about who you really are.

Do Social Media Hinder or Assist Communication and Culture?

In Montaigne’s essay “Our Affections Carry Themselves Beyond Us”, there is a quote that reads “The mind anxious about the future is unhappy.”  In today’s civilization, we are often concerned about the future.  We are taught early on in school to be preparing for future schooling and careers.  Of course, communication comes not only through school, but also through church and media.  In church we are taught to be anxiously engaged in good things, and in the media we are constantly informed of what is going on around us.  All of this begs the question, does our increased communication destroy our communication and therefore our civilization?  More specifically, do social media help or hurt us?

In my own life, I have personally experienced the good as well as the bad of social media.  Social media is a fantastic way to communicate with friends and family who one would otherwise lose contact with.  One of the hardest things about serving a mission for the church is having to leave those one baptized or was close with for some other reason.  Facebook, as well as other social media, is an excellent way to keep in touch.  I have used Facebook on different occasions to keep in contact with those I was close with on my mission.  I’m glad that I’ve been able to maintain contact.

However, Facebook also has a dark side.  I have been absolutely amazed by how often I get caught up looking at other people’s lives and seeing how great they are.  I realize that typically people post only positive things about their own lives and that their lives are not perfect; however, it is difficult to not be at least a little jealous of the good going on in other people’s lives, and to feel like their lives are in fact perfect.

For example, I can remember seeing a guy who served in my mission in a picture with his girlfriend.  Everything seemed so perfect in his life at that time, and I was frustrated and very anxious about my future, specifically my future with dating.  I can honestly say that my mind was anxious about the future, and that I was unhappy, which goes along perfectly with the quote mentioned above.

In the end, I suppose we all have to decide how to use social media in our lives and civilization.

Of Appearances

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know." - Michel de Montaigne 

We live in a world in which we as human beings gravitate towards social media. We love being in the know - knowing what's going on in others' lives as well as sharing what is happening in ours. What we love so much about social media, is that we have the ability and the power to present our ideal selves. Our profile says and shows whatever we want it to about who we are. Our profile is our "picture-perfect" persona. By having the Internet and a computer screen as a filter, we are able to communicate to others only what we want them to see. We can leave out all the baggage that we are carrying in our lives and only show the good parts. Someone posts a picture of them on a hiking trail in the mountains to express, "Look how athletic and outdoorsy I am!" What they left out from their convenient Instagram post is that their tent collapsed in the middle of the night, the thunderstorm doused their campfire, and they got a massive outbreak of poison ivy. Another Facebooker posts a picture of their egg-white omelet they made for themselves for breakfast, attempting to send a message of, "I'm so healthy, and also, I cook!" They left out that they had to throw away three burned omelets before finally making one that was posting-worthy. We take millions of selfies before finally posting the one that is most slimming. Pictures and posts on our personal online profiles communicate to our society and the world around us who we are. But it isn't the truest version. 

Even I am guilty of this. This summer I went on a dance study abroad to Italy. It was an all girl program. Over the course of the 6-weeks that the same 25 girls were together, new friendships were created, but as you can imagine, a lot of drama was created as well. When I got home from my trip, I posted a video on my Facebook that my friend had made of our summer. It showed all of us girls dancing around the streets, laughing, eating gelato, etc. It gave off the appearance that I had the most wonderful, perfect, romantic summer in Europe with my 25 best friends. And I'm sure everyone who watched that video believed that. And in many ways, it was an amazing summer. But what the video didn't show, nor would I have wanted the entire Facebook world to know, was the drama that occurred and the cliques that formed among the girls that absolutely drove me crazy and hurt many feelings. 

This idea of social media and photography has influenced who we are as a people today. It has influenced how we communicate ourselves to each other. We communicate only half-truths. We want to only show our best selves. While this can be a confidence booster as we focus on the best and most exciting parts of our lives, it puts a lens over who we are as a person, and we are never seen truly in focus. 

Of Social Media

When wondering whether or not clothing has benefitted mankind, Montaigne theorizes, “Now, all other creatures [are] sufficiently furnished with all things necessary for [their] support,…it is not to be imagined that we…are brought…defective…and in such a state as cannot subsist without external aid.”

@GutenbergHumanist

I don't know about you, but I love social media. Whether it's Facebook, Twitter, blogs, or Instagram, I love how easy it is to hear and be heard. Nowadays, social media has become a buzzword of sorts. But what would you say if I told you this buzz started over 550 years ago? Thanks to Johannes Gutenberg, the ways we spread our thoughts around in the western world have been changing more and more since 1450.

In his post “From Gutenberg to Facebook?”, Sean M. argues that Facebook (and I’ll take the liberty here of applying his argument to all forms of social media) follows the legacy of the printing press in its spread of information. I couldn’t agree more. He then goes on to discuss how the development of social media has led to both greater connection and disconnection from those around us, asking the question “What would Gutenberg think?” I however, want to focus on the question of “why has the spread of information led to greater connectedness and disconnectedness simultaneously?”

Knowledge/Truth Properly Spoken is Persuasion

In an attempt to say something of meaning without repeating what has already been said I do feel that the rhetorical ideals of invention and logos are key in both Elder Bednar’s speech and Socrates’ banter with Gorgias and Callicles. Coming from a background in sales I have always backed and really believed more in the “how” you say things over the “what” you say. James McClatchy mentioned in his post more about how the rhetoricians Socrates argues against feel quite similarly, and that “skill” is more important than knowledge in persuasion. In contrasting Socrates arguments made in the Gorgias, I think Socrates would have been overjoyed to have had Elder Bednar as a partner.

Coming October 10th - Just curious, what does everyone think about this movie?

                Although Elder Bednar is good at both the “how” and “what” of speaking, his address was so direct and knowledgeable of the topic that the viewer, speaking for myself at least, is persuaded by the mere content of what is being presented. Elder Bednar doesn't have to sell us on anything, as the message or “what” is being said sells itself. The part of the presentation that really took me back was when he got everyone’s undivided attention by directly asking for it. The reason that stood out to me is that I haven’t really heard that kind of a statement from a general authority before. I would assume this is because we are usually drawn in anyway by the “how” of their talk or presentation. It was the cherry on top that said to me Elder Bednar has spent time on this, and he knows what he is talking about. He knows what he wants to say, and what he wants us to do and doesn't need any kind of sales pitch to get us motivated to do it. 

Different Styles, Same End

Through Instagram, I can challenge others
to post their favorite scriptures and spread
the gospel.  These are all the people I
challenged!

Both Socrates and Elder Bednar present to their respective audiences the dangers of communication in deliberative addresses.  The styles of Elder Bednar and Socrates are extremely different but actually lead to the same end: their audience cannot refute them.

I loved the #BecauseofHim movement and
 tweeted and retweeted about it often.

Socrates spoke directly to a very few people: Gorgias, Callicles, and Polus.  Because of this, there is a “back-and-forth” to the messages that Socrates gives.  People can refute him and do so constantly.   In contrast Elder Bednar’s audience is the entire world.  His message is that we can spread the gospel through social media in huge ways, so he obviously thinks that his own message, recorded on video for everyone to see later and for thousands of people to actually witness, will have a world-wide audience.  Because of this audience, there is no “give-and-take.”  He simply lays out his argument so no one can refute him to his face, but still might disagree with him.

I also love the hashtag #LDSconf.  It
helps create discussion with my
non-member friends.

Because the audiences are different, the persuasive appeals of ethos and pathos between Socrates and Elder Bednar differ.  Socrates increases his own ethos and pathos by shaming others.  He proves Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles wrong and contradictory in order to make himself look like the one for whom to turn for wisdom and uses outside references sparingly.  He appeals to emotion by making others feel shame for what they said.  The effect of this shaming creates a situation where no one can refute Socrates.  Elder Bednar, in contrast, showed clips of worthy prophets and apostles to increase his own ethos by association and used the motivating word of “exhort” to motivate people to action, which creates a spirit of good-will toward Bednar where one truly believes his argument enough to not refute him.  Therefore, both Bednar and Socrates create the same inability in their audience for refutation but through different means. 

Unlike my social media, Socrates could
only speak to a few people at a time.
That's why his approach to his audience is
different and much less pleasing than Bednar's.