Second Draft: Ariana Mesa

Connecting with Web 2.0
Steven Johnson and Brian Williams take two opposite positions regarding the new age in Internet- sometimes called the “You” Age. Most web pages nowadays are created by web users for web users. Therefore, people can pick and choose what music to listen to, what news to watch, and what stories to post. This new age has been seen as slightly controversial. “For some, it has power-to-the-people authenticity. For others, it signals the end of quality and professionalism,…” (Johnson, 447). Johnson believes that the new way that the Web caters to you is an asset to people. The fact that newspapers and news channels on television do not always provide local news is something Johnson believes can be solved by user-based Web 2.0. However, Williams does not think it is safe for people to choose which news they hear. He believes that there is certain news that is imperative for citizens to be aware of, and if people get to choose, then they won’t hear the things that are necessary. Although Web 2.0 makes it far too easy to ignore issues that aren’t of interest to you, it is an incredibly important and useful resource and tool for networking and sharing news in today’s society. Web 2.0 provides a fast and easy way to reconnect with old friends and keep in touch with new friends, and it also gives local communities the opportunity they need to share news.
The “You” Age in Internet has many valuable qualities as a social network. Steven Johnson discusses the idea that Web 2.0 caters specifically to your needs as a web user in his article “It’s All About Us”. The web is no longer only for informational purposes. It is a vast social network that serves as a tool that smaller communities and individuals can use to share information or specific interests. Johnson points out that Web 2.0 is an effective way of sharing information from local communities because mass media coverage generally ignores smaller stories. The mass media can’t seem to wrap their heads around the facet that small stories in their eyes may be of much greater significance to other communities. The “You” Internet is also an effective way of demonstrating that people may not always want the media’s “expert” opinions. “The fact is that most user-created content on the Web is not challenging the authority of a traditional expert. It’s working in a zone where there are no experts or where the users themselves are experts” (Johnson, 447). Social networking was never designed as an alternative to news sources, it just serves as a way for people to get the information they want from the experts they need. Those experts come from tight-knit communities in which people share their knowledge for their specific interests. Largely broadcasted news programs generally neglect stories that don’t include most of the world as a whole. This causes difficulty for those of us who wish to be aware of things that are important to us. An example of a news story that was not shown in the mass media news coverage comes from the Mojave National Preserve in California. This story should have been featured in the news because the issue it is discussing calls into question our constitutional rights.
Recently a debate has been brought to the Supreme Court regarding a five to eight foot-tall cross that is currently displayed on top of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve in California. The issue was first brought up about ten years ago when an employee at the National Park thought that the cross could be favoring the Christian religion, therefore violating the First Amendment. The First Amendment stops congress from making laws favoring one religion over the other and stops the government from showing preference of religion. Because the National Park is government property, the cross was seen as establishing religion, even though it was originally intended as a war memorial. According to this article, the cross has been seen as a war memorial since 1934. The land that makes up the Mojave National Reserve was then given to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, therefore relinquishing it from government property. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide if giving the land over to the VFW solves the problem of the claim of violation of the First Amendment. They may also be asked to see if the cross should have been allowed to be on public land.
Largely broadcasted news stations often skip over “small-town news” or stories that they feel will not impact a large audience. By focusing on the stories that only affect the world as a whole, the mass media neglects stories that can be very important to smaller communities. Why shouldn’t smaller communities be given the opportunity to discuss those issues they hold dear to them in a network? They aren’t causing any harm by providing each other with the information they want regarding the issues specific to them. Web 2.0 is very useful for when those small communities or individuals who need an expert opinion can’t rely on the traditional experts on the news. When given the chance to utilize Web 2.0, people are creating a world in which they are the experts, and in which specific information can be found among those that are trustworthy. Having specific websites created makes it easier for members of a community or individuals to find specific information that they may not be able to find on the news.
In regards to smaller stories, the article reporting on the war memorial in Mojave National Preserve should have been a highly publicized news story because it deals with something as important and serious as our First Amendment Rights. The people from the community that surround the Mojave National Park obviously had something of concern to discuss in regards to whether or not their rights as Americans were being violated by this war memorial, and the rest of America should know when our rights are being called into question. Also, the surrounding community has the right to have the media help shed light on their predicament. The war memorial caused people distress for many years. “A decade ago, [the cross memorial] came under legal attack from a former National Park Service employee who, though a Catholic himself, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The park service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby” (Savage). Not only was the issue discussed ten years ago, it was brought up again as something that clearly bothered the surrounding community. It might be seen as gross negligence of the mass media to not publicize this article on a large broadcast. Perhaps this story was ignored because it didn’t have a big enough impact on the world as a whole. But when something as important as civil rights are at stake, the rest of the world should know. Web 2.0 saved the day by making communities aware of how some people felt in regards to their rights, whereas the mass media failed to deliver such news.
As previously stated, Web 2.0 provides the world with a fast and easy way of keeping in touch with friends and reconnecting with people from our pasts. The Internet today is filled with vast social networks where people communicate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. “Web 2.0 is made up of ordinary people: hobbyists, diarists, armchair pundits, people adding their voice to the Web’s great evolving conversation for the sheer love of it” (Johnson, 446). There are countless websites that exist only to provide people with a means of communicating with one another from any given location. One such Website is Facebook, with whom millions of people today are aware of.
Facebook is a social networking website. Members create a profile in which they can share pictures, basic information, special interests, and even generate a live feed of statuses updating all of their friends and networks with what they are thinking about or doing at that moment. Not only can members of Facebook accomplish all of these tasks simultaneously, they can also browse through networks to find friends. Facebook gives its members the options of joining specific networks, such as high schools, colleges, or businesses. People can search for their friends in these networks, making reconnecting with a long lost friend quick and easy. “Facebook’s spectacular growth and loyal base of users have resulted in an unprecedented social graph charting the relationships, interactions, and histories of 200 million people on the Internet” (Shih, 36). Using the Web as a way of communication has opened the door to social activity for countless individuals. How can there be anything wrong with simple communication? Why shouldn’t people have the opportunity to utilize the gift of the Internet when it is within their reach? Web 2.0 has created a new world for people to live and take part in, one that is user-friendly and socially accepting.
There are some who say that Web 2.0 is dangerous because it makes it easy for people to ignore certain news issues that aren’t of interest to them even though they may be very important to know. “The problem is that there’s a lot of information out there that citizens in an informed democracy need to know…” (Williams, 450). Critics of Web 2.0 are members of a community that believe that picking and choosing the information you take in makes you ignorant. Williams believes that because of Web 2.0, society will ignore things that could change the world. This may be true in the sense that a teenage girl from New York may ignore the headline for breaking news in California on her Yahoo! homepage because she’s too busy typing in “www.facebook.com”. This teenager could potentially miss groundbreaking news because of Web 2.0. Then again, if the news were all that important, wouldn’t it almost be guaranteed to appear on another site, or at least every television news channel? The issues that Williams are discussing are generally big news stories, ones that could change the world. There is no doubt that people will always have some way of being informed, whether it’s a newspaper, television news station, radio, or the Internet. In fact, Web 2.0 only serves as an asset to Williams’ concern of important information being shared with everyone. If everyone needs to know this information, the Internet can be extremely helpful in getting the news to a larger audience in a faster way than television or newspapers can.
In conclusion, Johnson believes that Web 2.0 is an asset, something for the greater good of society, whereas Williams believes that it serves as an obstacle blocking the way for imperative information to be shared with the world. However easy Web 2.0 makes it for people to ignore information they don’t care about, the fact that it provides fast and easy communication to not only individuals but small communities as well outweighs any negatives. Important information will still find its way to the ears and eyes of the world, no matter how many people try to ignore it.
The future of Web 2.0 is hard to predict. It’s safe to say that the Internet will continue to grow more democratic and dynamic as new generations of users add their brains to the mix. And even though this could lead to too much clutter on the Internet, websites will always be available that are accredited. In fact, more information on the Internet could serve as a faster way of obtaining reliable information, contrary to the belief that information will become tainted.

Works Cited
Johnson, Steven. "It's All About Us." 2007. Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009. 446-48. Print.

Savage, David G. "Supreme Court Debates Legality of Mojave Cross." Latimes.com. Oct. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2009.

Shih, Clara. The Facebook Era: Tapping Online Social Networks to Build Better Products, Reach New Audiences, and Sell More Stuff. Prentice Hall, 2009. ProQuest. Web. 2 Dec. 2009. .

Williams, Brian. "Enough About You." 2007. Signs of Life in the USA. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2009. 449-50. Print.