Facebook is Evil! (part 569million)

Journalists have never been shy of expressing their disdain for the Internets ability to "open up" amateurs and laymen to the world of media and public writing, which was a more protected sphere of exclusivity before hand. This will inevitably take the form of Twitter being derided as a load of saddos talking shite on a computer and the inevitable "evils" of Facebook. Yes it will be one extended gripe about Joe public dumbing down standards with their evil "modern media". I understand why this mentality exists with some writers / journalists. It is their turf that is being invaded, and it seems that the blogosphere and things like on line fanfic and the better youtube home made productions are blurring the lines between professional and lay media even further. But sometimes I really wish that some of the writers who sound off about this kind of stuff - would actually do some research into the things they are criticising, without visibly demonstrating that they don't have the foggiest about what they are on about. I mean people like you! Sandra Parsons. Who writes:

"Thanks mostly to the internet, the past decade has seen the end of exclusivity.

Rather than reading a book and giving serious thought to an issue, people skim information on Google and use the instantaneous Twitter to tell the whole world the first banal thought that comes into their head.

On Facebook teenagers compete to see how many ‘virtual’ friends they can accrue — I’m told the new target is one million — yet learn little about real friendship with all its complex levels of intimacy and trust.

Anyone, no matter how witless, can write a blog or put up a video on YouTube and garner thousands of ‘hits’ within hours. Privacy, reticence and modesty are seen as old-fashioned while let-it-all-hang-out voyeurism, via reality TV shows, is the order of the day."

I think the book /Internet skimming thing is in response to some research about how the two affect performance (I think it was something like that.) No one is saying never read reference books ever again. The Internet is very convenient for looking stuff up time wise, and access wise. That's why it is popular for that kind of thing. Anyone who wants to do hard research, knows that proper reference texts are better, and that wikis should be taken with a liberal pinch of salt.

The facebook rant is rather daft as well. I get so fed up with that "Facebook is no substitute for real friends." You reckon? Of course it isn't! Everyone knows that! I don't ever recall the creators of Facebook ever stating that was its intention. That is overlooked by people who point this out. It was never designed to substitute for real human interaction. Put it to bed!! The million freind goal would be extremely difficult for anyone non famous. It would require a hell of a lot of random strangers responding positively to a friend request. Hmmm. Again if she had bothered to learn about facebook; beyond second hand anecdotes - she would have known this. The "anyone can get thousands of hits on a blog/YouTube instantaneously. Yeah right! Because everyone just decides to check out some random uploading / article for the hell of it. Possibly you might chance upon becoming a viral hit, or get some publicity by a popular public medium. But if you aren't well known fame could be elusive. Don't worry Sandra, you still have quite a head start with a newspaper column!

PS. Isn't it a bit hypocritical of the Mail [Parsons column appears there] and other papers that rigorously bang on about the importance of competition in the free market and in regards to "countering" our licence funded BBC, are the first to scream blue murder and try and (rhetorically) pull the drawbridge up when their niche may be encroached upon? (still a long way to go though.) It must be working, what with all those Corens and Lawsons and Lee Potters writing articles. Christ even Littlejohns daughter gets a job at the Mail. Nice to see 'em keeping it in the family!