What does this mean for social media? With social media sites like Facebook using more and more bandwidth, internet service providers could begin to restrict access or slow the speed for these sites.

The case was introduced to combat the overuse of file-sharing services like BitTorrent. Sites such as these are used to transfer large files like full-length movies. The popularity of such sites has been rising, affecting the speed of other user’s internet.

While the court case specifically targeted file-sharing websites, the ruling could also have serious implications for social media websites. Many Facebook users have hundreds of photographs and share videos with friends on a daily basis. The mass sharing of media undoubtedly slows down the network; now that internet service providers can restrict or slow certain websites, it is by no stretch of the imagination that these companies could begin to restrict or slow  social media access.

Social media websites could also start to use less bandwith by focusing less on multimedia sharing or other operations that use a lot of bandwith. Facebookcould begin to remove the ability for users to post videos on their friends’ walls.

As a result of the ruling, YouTube, the world’s second largest search engine, could be in trouble–much of YouTube’s traffic comes as a result of sharing videos on social media websites. I can’t count how many times I’ve watched a video that a friend posted on my wall or someone posted as a tweet or status.

In addition, the new ruling has prompted fears for companies like YouTube and Google that provide multimedia that internet companies will begin to ask customers to pay a fee to watch videos in high-definition, something that takes up a lot of network capacity.

As free services, the last thing social media sites would want would be slowed or restricted access caused by internet companies. If access is slowed to sites like Facebook, users may look elsewhere for smaller sites to fulfill their social media needs.

Though the ruling is consistent with the country’s firm capitalist tendencies, it severely threatens the beauty of the Internet as we know it today–the ability to openly and freely share information with all users around the world.

The official number of iPads sold in its opening weekend has not been confirmed, but websites such as the New York Times online (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/technology/05apps.html?pagewanted=2) have estimated the number to be around 700,000. I personally don’t know anyone who has bought one yet, but I’m almost positive I’ll start seeing iPads begin to appear in waves on campus.

Though the release of the iPad may mean greater success for the already flourishing Apple Company, what does the iPad mean for the so-called social media revolution? Will it actually increase the ability of users to access and spread information? And most importantly, will it allow for print media news sources to finally be able to gain revenue for its services?

Though I still have yet to see one in person, I believe the iPad will revolutionize social media. From a realistic perspective, the iPad is incredibly similar to the iPhone, which has undoubtedly increased the circle of social media users. The 3G network allows for users to access the internet essentially anywhere, creating an expansive and instantaneous network of news sharing. The iPad will not only appeal to those who don’t already have iPhones and Blackberries, but it will also begin replacing laptops, which are now the most common and preferred method of accessing the internet.

The iPad lacks a keyboard and mouse, making it a less productive machine than a laptop. But the iPad isn’t designed for typing papers–it’s purely designed for consuming media. According to a blog on the New York TImes website (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/technology/personaltech/01pogue.html?pagewanted=2) , the iPad is faster than the iPhone, allowing for users to access and spread news faster than before. Companies will also begin making applications to adjust to the bigger screen. For example, newspapers are beginning to make apps that will display entire newspaper pages on the screen of the iPad.

The iPad will also greater engage media outlets in this new social media revolution. Print newspaper outlets, hoping for a saving grace to sweep them out of their struggles, are looking to Apple to pull them out of their inevitable downfall. Newspapers are hoping for Apple to do for newspapers what they did for music–create an online media store similar to iTunes to finally generate the revenue for online media that newspapers having been searching for for years.

If newspapers get what they want, Apple will begin to charge for their media applications, effectively making users pay for news. But will this fly with the common citizen? Will it turn people off from the iPad when they could just use a laptop and get their media for free? How the iPad will affect old media, only time will tell. But the iPad seems to be an incredibly promising tool for the proliferation of social media.

Despite my complete lack of interest for local politics, I would consider myself very interested in politics, but that interest for me, and many people in my age group, is solely limited to politics on a national scale. I love reading about the latest vote in Congress, the newest scandal, or the most recent slip of the tongue on the campaign trail. National politics to me is always exciting–there’s always something going on that influences millions of people. The implications for what is being debated in Congress surpasses those of a local legislature.

And I don’t think I’m alone in my local-politics-is-boring sentiment. Millions of young adults like me are barely interested in local politics, let alone politics in general. Heck, it was a miracle that Obama and his campaign even got people in my age group to register to vote.

So what makes local politics so boring? There’s a number of reasons, but the most powerful one is that, to be completely redundant, local politics IS boring. Local politics lacks the controversy and scandals that, depending on your opinion, plague or enliven national politics. Looking back on years past in national politics, it wasn’t the close votes or vetoes that I remember, but rather the individual people–Mark Foley, Bill Clinton, Joe Wilson–that were involved in the scandals that dominated the 24-hour news networks.

Sensationalism and scandal aside, local politics lack the issues that people of my age group care about. The drinking age, health care, environment, and the legalization of marijuana–all issues that are most discussed in my friend circle–are all national issues that are debated on a national scale. I would be hard-pressed to find an instance when my friends and I discussed the increase in funding for water treatment or whether funds should be given to build a new playground at the local elementary school.

What’s most ironic is that though national issues are the ones I pay most attention to, it’s the local issues that affect me the most. Local politics determines funding for the public schools I attend, maintenance for the roads I drive on, and taxes that I have to pay. If we lived in a perfectly rational world, it would be local politics I would be more interested in, not national politics.

So what needs to be done to get people my age interested in local politics? What’s needed isn’t more scandals or controversy (though that would probably create more interest–just not the right kind of interest), but greater conversation about the issues that directly affect people of my age. I doubt that many of my peers know that the drinking age is not determined by Congress, but state legislatures–informing young adults on the logistics of issues such as this will not only make them better voters, but also more active and participatory in the local political arena.

State and local politicians need to have a greater presence in social media such as Facebook and Twitter to get their voices heard and get young people involved in the issues that directly affect them. I’m friends with my local Congressman, but none of my local representatives; however, of the three delegates in my district, only one of them has a Facebook page. Being friends with my Congressman on Facebook has been surprisingly beneficial to my evaluation of his work–I get to see pictures of him around Washington, meeting with important officials and other Congressman to enforce the idea that he’s working hard for the people in my district.

Local politicians need to do the same, but for different reasons. In today’s society, companies are busy trying to figure out how to create interest in something that deserves none. Local politicians are faced with a different task–figure out how to create interest in something that deserves more attention that its getting. Social media is a growing and advantageous resource to reach young people, and it should be interesting to see how local politicians use it for the upcoming 2010 elections.

In 83 newspaper editions, the breakdown of stories published was this:

336 local politics stories

271 state politics stories

567 national politics stories

1,416 sports stories

5,209 total articles

The results are pretty staggering. From just a quick glance, it is clear that politics in general has taken a backseat to other subjects, namely sports. Though not counted, entertainment and arts stories were also published in large numbers compared to stories about politics.

Political stories account for only about 23% of all stories published. And of that small minority, only 29% of that is stories about local politics.

So, as journalists, what can we make of these results? To be completely honest, it kind of makes me want to become a sports writer (luckily, I’m already on the sports desk at the Daily Tar Heel), but that’s only a temporary solution to the larger problem–the decreased role of print newspapers in reporting politics. With websites like Politico and the Huffington Post, has print journalism become obsolete in the reporting of politics?

For that question to be answered, we will have to wait a few years. But for now, with the popularity of blogs and social media increasing in the political arena, it looks as if political reporting has moved to the 24-hour news cycle of the internet.

What else is alarming is the absence of local political news in these newspapers. If the internet and television is beginning to dominate the field of national politics, then where is local politics going to be covered? These statistics show that print journalism has failed to step up and cover local politics, leaving the door open to a number of media to take over.

Last week, two bloggers from www.chapelhillwatch.com, a blog that reports on the politics in the town of Chapel Hill, visited our Citizens and Media class. Their visit impressed upon me the growth of blogs in the field of local politics. With newspapers absent in local politics, it looks like local political blogs may begin to come to the forefront.

Every time I log on, I learn something new–the most recent celebrity death, the latest ridiculous Sarah Palin quote or sports scores.

In fact, I’ve become so reliant on Facebook as a news source that I’ve started to not check this information with “credible” news sources like newspapers and online media outlets. I, like millions of other users of social media, am very trusting of what my peers have to say. I trust that they got this information from “credible” sources and checked their facts before posting.

But is this really that big of a deal?

Honestly, I can’t remember a time social media has given me false information. Maybe my friends are just really reliable, or I’m not Facebook friends with muckrakers (flashback to the early 20th century before social media–how did we survive?).

My favorite way to use social media is to get news during Baltimore Ravens games. Being from Baltimore, I love the Ravens, and many of my Facebook friends are Ravens fans as well. During games I will keep my Facebook open, constantly updating my reaction to the game while reading other fans’ reactions. It’s a great way to communicate with other fans, especially when I’m a few hundred miles away from most of my friends that are watching.

I think the most famous incident of the usefulness of social media for news is the death of Michael Jackson. I remember logging onto Facebook and seeing my entire news feed flooded with statuses reading “RIP Michael Jackson.” I think just about everyone in my age group found out about his death from Facebook or Twitter.

Then again, I really can’t rely solely on Facebook for all of my news. While it’s a great way to narrow down what news I see–I only see what is of interest to your friends/peers/people in your hometown–it is by no means a trustworthy source. It can be trustworthy in the sense that it is factually correct, but it isn’t reliable in the sense of giving a broad spectrum of perspectives.

As I have learned in studying journalism, giving multiple sides of a story is not only responsible but also the best way to present information. On Facebook, people can only report on the facts they want–they are not held responsible for what they say or the facts they present.

In this sense of the word “reliable,” Facebook is a great jumping-off-point to find “reliable” news from credible websites that check their facts, interview reliable sources and present multiple perspectives of a story. The news that peers post on social media allows users to further explore this information, making social media important in the circulation of news and information.

1. What did Gov. Beverly Perdue’s last campaign finance report show for cash on hand?
2. How many voters are registered in NC–and what is the breakdown of R, D, and I?
3. Pick a prof–any prof at UNC–and find his/her salary.

1. Answering this one took a bit of work. My first Google search, “Governor Bev Perdue campaign finance report” yielded promising results, but none of them answered my question. So I decided to start a new search, “Governor Bev Perdue cash on hand.” I should have clicked the “I’m feeling lucky” button because the first result was exactly what I needed. An article straight from the governor’s personal web page (http://www.ncdp.org/content/perdue-raises-234-million-14-million-cash-hand), the news release informed me that the Perdue campaign had $1.4 million as of her last campaign finance report.

2. This question was much easier to answer. I simply searched “NC voters by party” on Google and the 8th result was exactly what I needed. According to NC Voters (www.ncvoters.com), 6,267,382 North Carolinians are registered to vote, including the 780,000 that registered in 2008. According to NC Voters, 45.6% of registered voters are in the Democratic Party, 32.0% in the Republican Party and 22.4% unaffiliated.

3. Again, this answer was easier to get than expected. A quick Google search of “unc professor salary” yielded promising results, but the 5th result was the best. The link (http://apps.newsobserver.com/know/uncga/) brought me to the University of North Carolina System Salary database, a tool that allows a user to search the salary of any employee in the University of North Carolina system. I decided to search for the salary of my English professor, Matthew Taylor. He is fairly young, and I thought it would be interesting to see how much money an English professor straight out of graduate school makes. It turns out his salary is $60,000–not bad for an assistant professor still in his 20′s. I actually had some fun with this search engine–it turns out that my political science professor makes $225,000. Maybe I’ll start paying attention more in lecture.

Finding these answers was shockingly simple. I learned that with a specific Google search, a citizen can find pretty much anything, especially statistics provided by the government.

I can’t really think of any way to improve this system. Honestly, if someone can’t find these answers, they need to improve their Googling skills. The only thing that may make this process easier would be to centralize government information. Each of the three answers came from different websites, and to be honest, not all of them were 100% credible. Maybe a government-run website could centralize this information to make it easier for citizens to obtain.

Facebook is better organized for finding information than Twitter–Facebook has “Pages” and “Groups” dedicated to specific entities, while Twitter is just a haphazard scattering of posts. Twitter is almost impossible to search unless one knows the specific person or quote he/she wants to find. However, a search on Facebook yields a wide array of more narrow results, including the Pages and Groups that have information about one specific topic. Twitter is based on the individual–its content is determined by what individual people have to say–while Facebook is more of a group effort, as people in specific groups can comment on the specific topic within the Group or Page.

For example, a search of “Chapel Hill” on Twitter yields only tweets regarding Chapel Hill from random tweeters. However, a search of “Chapel Hill” on Facebook yields many specific pages regarding Chapel Hill, such as “Town of Chapel Hill” and “The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” Facebook is thus more organized than Twitter when it comes to news, as the user can search a general term such as “Chapel Hill” and find one page dedicated to a specific group with news pertaining to that specific topic.

The “Town of Chapel Hill” page on Facebook is a direct news source from the Chapel Hill town government. The page is updated daily, and links to news releases from www.townofchapelhill.org are posted on the site. These news releases include information about community events, recently passed laws and weather alerts, among other things.

The “University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill” page on Facebook is a direct news source from the administration. The page is updated on a daily basis and links to news releases posted by the school on its website www.unc.edu. These news releases include information about school events, student/faculty achievements and actions of the administration.

The Town of Chapel Hill, the local government for Chapel Hill, also has a twitter feed. The feed is updated daily with the exact same posts as the Facebook page. However, the Twitter feed doesn’t have the pictures and subtext that the Facebook page has. The Facebook page is more conducive to quick navigation of the news–a user can just glance over the page to see the news posted, while the user must clink on the links on the Twitter feed.

UNC also has a Twitter feed; like the Town of Chapel Hill’s feed, it’s the exact same as the Facebook page without the pictures and subtext, and is thus less conducive to news.

Overall, these sites provide a wealth of information about Chapel Hill and UNC. Though they only provide a select amount of information, the news is posted instantly and the feeds/pages alert their followers of these updates. These websites are thus very useful for obtaining information, though Facebook seems to be a better source than Twitter.

Needless to say, the minute after the president ends his speech, there is a constant flurry of opinions throughout the media. Representatives from the left and right want people to hear their two cents, they want people to get their perspective of what the speech means for the country’s future.

But what if you weren’t allowed to watch coverage after the speech? What if you had to rely on your own devices to interpret and analyze the president’s promises? That was the task that my JOMC 490 professor gave to me and a few of my other classmates–watch the State of the Union address without looking at any media coverage after the address was over.

The entire experiment was set out in three groups: one third of the class would watch the address without looking at any coverage afterwards, one third wouldn’t watch the address but would read newspaper articles about the address, and the other third wouldn’t watch the address but would read blog posts about the address.

I’ve watched a few SOU (State of the Union) speeches before, so I thought I knew what to expect. But I immediately was proven wrong. Obama’s rhetoric was much different than that of Bush–Obama started off his speech in a historical context, reassuring Americans that we are “always destined to succeed.” There was much less clapping in the opening remarks than I thought there would be, as Obama’s tone was much more somber than Bush’s addresses.

But most importantly, I was surprised at how informative the speech was. Obama used a lot of quantitative information in his analysis of the past year’s economy and his plans for the future. For example, he set out a lot of time tables–doubling exports in five years, freezing government spending for 3 years–and a lot of numbers–$10,000 tax credit for 4 years for families paying for college and the current 10% unemployment rate.

Obama’s focus on the economy throughout his speech gave me a better perspective on what his primary goals for 2010 will be. The fact that he didn’t mention health care, the current dominating issue, until 30 minutes into his speech also gave me the idea that he wants to move focus away from issues not regarding jobs and exports. Though Obama integrated health care into his economic plan, it was clear that he wanted to focus on a few things to improve our economy–increase jobs by developing clean energy and increasing infrastructure projects and doubling exports by 2015.

Though I was informed of his future plans and his evaluation of our country’s current situations, I still felt like there was something missing from my experience–the perspective of others. As a college student, I stay informed to the point of understand what’s going on in current events, but I don’t have time to ananlyze everything the president say in his speech. I really would have appreciated the insight of an expert to tell me which of the president’s proposed policies is feasible, realistic, or downright impossible to achieve. Watching the speech without any expert analysis was difficult, as I was left to my own devices to determine the validity of the speech.

For this reason, I don’t feel as informed as I have in the past when I was able to read newspaper analyses or watch political pundits argue over the president’s rhetoric and promises. It was interesting to see in class how different the perspectives were amongst those who were able to read media after the speech. Those in my category didn’t have too strong of opinions on the speech–many thought it was well-delivered and informative. But those who read expert opinions were able to analyze the speech in a deeper way and point out flaws of the speech that I didn’t pick up on (namely Obama’s jab at the Supreme Court). Also, those who read blogs/newspapers were able to point out that Obama’s talk of tax cuts and health care were contradictory and unrealistic, while I was caught up in the rhetoric of the speech and felt that Obama’s plans were all possible.

As suggested by its name, BlueNC is a liberal blog, while Civitas Review has a conservative slant. What surprised me the most was the news value of these bl0gs. Though the posts had opinions and biases respective to the blog’s political slant, most of the posts had factual information and were informative. Many posts used direct quotes from news articles from credible newspapers before giving their opinions, which made the blogs a lot more credible than I thought they would be.

However, some posts were all opinion-based, with many having a wry or sardonic undertone. For example, BlueNC joked that North Carolina was designing a new flag with logos from corporations like Bank of America and Blue Cross Blue Shield; this post was designed to point out that corporations have a large influence in North Carolina’s government. Civitas Review is less sarcastic in its tone, taking a more serious approach to issues such as health care and government spending.

Though I always welcome humor in news (I’m a big fan of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart), I really didn’t like BlueNC’s sarcasm in its posts. I feel like it comes off as unprofessional and whiny when I’m trying to get news. Then again, maybe blogs aren’t the best place to get news.

What actually surprised me the most was how often the blogs were updated. As a weekly blogger, I couldn’t imagine updating my blog more than once a week. But both blogs update multiple times per day, reacting to major events in the 24-hour news cycle. The frequency at which they update their blogs shows that both sites aim to be legitimate sources of news–they want to have a say on everything that is going on, and they want people to use their website to get a perspective on news as it happens.

Coming from Maryland, I have a pretty limited view of North Carolina politics. And after reading these blogs, I can’t really say that I have a better grasp on politics in N.C. Maybe it’s just that state governments are similar, but the blogs discussed many similar issues that I hear in Maryland–education reform, corruption, health care. Both blogs have a mix of national and state concerns, and the posts about state government are pretty similar in both blogs–both find fault in the state’s budget, education system, and political figures.

Baltimore, Maryland has a lot of names–but for me it’s what I call home. I’ve lived in the Baltimore-metropolitan area my entire life. I have an immense amount of pride for my hometown, and I think it to be the greatest city in the world (minus the perennially high crime/heroin/syphilis rate).

As a freshman at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I’ve been called both a “yankee” and a “southerner” because of my geographic positioning. I consider myself neither. Obviously in historical terms, I would be considered a yankee (Maryland fought in the Union in the Civil War), but I don’t associate myself or many of my fellow Baltimoreans with the “Northern” way of life. And I definitely don’t consider myself to be a “Southerner.”

So where does that leave Baltimore? In my opinion, in a league all by itself. It has the charm of the South with the efficiency of the North (switch “North” and “South,” and you’ll get JFK’s famous quote about his feelings on D.C.). Removing itself from any geographic classification, Baltimore has developed its own, unique “personality.” I can say “y’all” without getting weird looks, but I can also get clobbered in the crosswalk by a CEO rushing home in his 9-5 commute.

Needless to say, we also have the best seafood in the nation (and the best football team–Super Bowl Champs in 2011. You heard it from me first).

With this middle-of-the-road, everything goes attitude in Baltimore, we tend to get our news from a variety of sources. As a major city, we have our own newspaper–the Baltimore Sun–and 4 local news stations–WMAR, WBAL, WJZ, and WBFF. We also have a variety of talk radio stations.

These large-scale media outlets are great for getting national and state-wide news. The Baltimore Sun, like any newspaper in the country, has had its tough times. It has had to lay off many of its senior writers and eliminate its international correspondents because of budget concerns. Still, the Sun does great work investigating local issues, such as education and crime.

On a more local level, my town (Towson, Md.–it’s only a mile outside of Baltimore, so I consider myself more of a Baltimorean than a Towsonite) has its own newspaper in the Towson Times. Towson, a town of about 60,000 people, doesn’t have too much news to report, but this weekly paper does a good job informing citizens of high school sports scores, education issues, recaps of celebrations/events, and other small-town news.

My neighborhood has its own monthly newsletter, which informs residents of crime reports, community events, and neighborhood meetings.

Again, with Baltimore being a major city, many have also turned to the Internet for their news. The Baltimore Sun has its own website and Twitter feed, along with many of the television stations. However, news has also become more individualized, as many citizens have started their own blogs or Twitters. Local celebrities, such as Ray Lewis, have their own Twitter accounts, making up-to-date news more accessible.