The world is collapsing upon itself. Or so it seems sometimes.
On Friday, I received this Facebook message:
No. I didn’t post a color to my Facebook status. I didn’t quite connect the color of my bra with breast cancer awareness. Plus, I have strong views on how society views women. (See my blogpost: “Inaction Heroes for Girls.”)
I’m not opposed to the idea of spreading awareness for breast cancer. This bit of fun just didn’t tickle my fancy…. The concept is clever, though, as a way to get a buzz going. I’m just not the “bra buzz” type.
The point of this post is not about this particular story, but rather about the relationship between social media and traditional media.
Social media is “the news” for traditional media.
Fascinating turn of events, really. Social media spreads news faster than traditional news outlets (earthquakes, Hudson River water-landings, etc.) but also becomes the news because of how fast information is spread.
So the cycle turns on itself.
Traditional news sources report the news. Viral spread of social media makes news. Therefore, traditional media reports the news of news spread through social media. Makes my head spin.
I shouldn’t be surprised to see articles like these in the paper. (And especially this one. Bra Color, i.e. “sex sells”…right?) But, let’s stick to the topic of social media. I’ve read so many articles over the last year or so about social media by those who don’t use it (and don’t see the point of it because they don’t use it). Reporters at the STS-129 tweet-up asked similar questions.
But funnier still:
why do I still have the Washington Post delivered to my door when I get most of my news through social media?
The answer? Tradition, I guess.