Please feel free to expand on your feelings about Facebook in the comment section below:
Posted by S.
You may be thinking, what is SMADHD? Break it down for me. Smad-hud?
She’s Mad At Dad in Hi Def?
OK, OK, it stands for: Social Media Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and I believe that’s my affliction.
Too much Twitter. Too much Facebook. Too much networking, trying to communicate in the ether with social media mavens with followings five times as large as mine. Trying to get noticed. Trying to spread the word. It’s too much! When will it end??
But I can’t stop. I think I’m addicted. I like looking at the bit.ly stats of the links I send out. I like checking my Klout report to gauge my influence on Twitter. I love meeting new tweeps! I love getting new Facebook fans! It’s like an alternative reality that I have a little bit of power to control.
The funny thing is, I am not alone. There are many out there who suffer from SMADHD, but they have no way to diagnose their symptoms. So, I invented this acronym to describe the problem.
The only real treatment is to log off. Break loose. Take a breather. Maybe go to a desert island with no Internet and no cell phone reception. We as a society are already walking around plugged in to our hand-held devices for a majority of our waking hours. Our screen time is longer than our face time. What will be the implications? The floor is open.
Posted by S.
Change is afoot. We are gradually heading into a media-centric society. Though we are well into the information age and the digital age, we have not yet transformed completely into dutiful robots, tuned in only to our hand-held devices.
Chang is a-coming, however. Watch for social networking feeds and status updates to appear in Google searches. Watch for changes in the way Facebook and Twitter are used. Watch out to not lose yourself in the midst of the uploading, downloading, posting, updating and texting. There may be more to life than pixels. Maybe. Maybe not.
It could be the revolution we’ve all been waiting for.
The results are in on our Michael Jackson poll with the majority of our readers learning about the pop star’s death online.
Forthy-three percent of voters learned the news through an internet news source such as TMZ, People.com or Yahoo! This is followed by 29 percent who heard the news through other outlets (including television and instant messenger). Finally, Facebook and Twitter were tied at 14 percent.
Other than voters who chose television, pretty much everyone heard the news online. Not one person in our poll read it in the newspaper or heard it on the radio.
If Jackson had died in the middle of the night, would the results be different? What about in other countries? We did receive a tweet from a chap in Melbourne, Australia who, because of the time difference, woke up to hear about MJ’s death on the morning news.
Since the Gloved One’s passing took place in the middle of the American work day, when the majority of American workers were sitting in front of a computer, it seems only natural that most Americans would hear about it online. This is particularly true given the immediacy of the internet, and the ease of texting, e-mailing and sharing links.
So what does that say about newspapers? How can they keep up and stay relevant when the internet always beats them to the punch? If newspapers don’t adapt to this reality and find new, more in depth ways to present information, they will sadly continue down the path to extinction they are already on.