Am I Guilty of Being an Annoying Facebooker?

By Kelly Indrieri
I came across a CNN.com article by Brandon Griggs this week and couldn't resist opening the link and readying myself to judge all of the "annoying Facebookers" out there. Thank God I am not one of them. After all, I never self-promote. Okay, maybe just once or twice, but who hasn’t? While I try not to reveal the mundane details of my life, surely people would be fascinated to know that my brother is coming to visit this weekend, or that I cant sleep. And I never lurk on the pages of people I don’t regularly communicate with. I’m not a peeping Tom, after all! I am bigger than that (unless of course its my ex-boyfriend, but everyone does that, don’t they?).

Okay, maybe I am an annoying Facebooker…but only to a small degree. I am not a chronic inviter, I don't collect friends and I have never been accused of being a crank. At the end of the day, we have all been guilty of one Facebook offense or another, but one person’s annoying status update is another person’s insight into a friend. One person’s lurking is another person’s chance to say, “I’m over you” or “See what you’re missing.” Might not all be great things, but the one thing we ARE all guilty of is the addictive power of Facebook. In fact, I bet its open on your computer right now...if so, feel free to shoot me a friend request at facebook.com/kellyindrieri. I’m thinking about starting a new collection.
Like this article? Digg it!

Questioning the Future of Journalism

By Julie Tangen
I did a double take when I saw the San Francisco Chronicle (or what’s left of it) on the newsstand today. Sadly, San Francisco's last paid-circulation daily paper has dwindled down to just a few pages of content. It’s not just our city, though. Across the U.S. we’ve seen circulation numbers plunging, ad revenue dropping, staffs being slashed, papers folding and many others declaring bankruptcy. Why? I believe it’s partly due to the fact that we—as consumers of news—have just become too darn impatient. Today, Facebook, Twitter and blogs give us our news as it happens (for free) and the bottom line is that we no longer need to buy a newspaper to find out what’s happening in our world.

While it’s much easier to follow a favorite blogger or Twitterer, I can’t help but wonder if and how this hurts traditional reporting. A journalist (ideally) has a professional responsibility to verify information, check sources, print facts, portray the story from different viewpoints, and have a pretense of being objective. To this end, what a journalist writes has gone through some sort of peer or editorial review process. If publications continue to cut staff and resources, this level of responsibility will surely change. But will this change be for better or for worse? Do you think this new age of ‘digital journalism’ will provide new and better ways of telling a story or are we trading quality of reporting for instant access?

Like this article? Digg it!