When the bombing events took place I learned about it from television news and news channels. I was thinking that this is how most people received the news about the bombings in Boston. However, as I have talked to friends, classmates, undergrad students and family members, I have noticed many of the received the news about bombing from social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. This is an interesting phenomenon and I have not read any studies that talk about the implications of this trend.

Several issues are worth raising. What are the cognitive implications of learning about news from Social networking sites? Is there a difference in terms of knowledge acquisition when we compare learning about events from social networking sites to learning from traditional news media? We also have to ask how does the speed of the dissemination of news via social networking sites affect their comprehension of the events? What are the effects of the limitations of social networking channels for news comprehension? Twitter’s limitation of characters is something that is relevant here. What are the effects of such limitations in terms of presenting complex stories? What are the effects of news stories that are constantly in circulation? Does this mean “exposure” to news on social networking sites the same as “exposure” to news on traditional news media? What are the effects of people being able to comment directly on news events in circulation? Do these comments change or impact the “frame” for these news stories? How are journalists using the news media to their advantage? Is that advantage also an advantage for democracy? How are news media institutions relying on social media for their work? Finally, what are the ethical implications of using social networking sites for the dissemination and circulation of the news events?

I think these are some of the important questions that should be answered to understand the social and political impacts of the emerging phenomenon of news on social networking sites.

I attended a public lecture by Dr. Divya McMillin, who presented the spring 2013 Robert M. Pockrass Memorial Lecture on Monday, April 8. The title of her lecture was “Curing Taste: Lifestyle Television and the Globalizing Subject,” which was co-sponsored by the Penn State College of Communications and University Libraries.

Although the title of her lecture does not show it, she covered post-colonialism, India, modernity and television formats. We previously read an article co-authored by her for Dr. McAllister’s class, which was titled “Local Identities in Globalized Regions: Teens, Everyday Life, and Television.” Dr. McMillin is a professor of International Communication and these are some of the topics she covered that are important in that field.

I was especially interested in the idea of TV formats and their global export. This is an important phenomenon in international communication because it allows adopting global formats to local contents. The connection between local and global is explored in this kind of interaction. Another interesting and important idea in her lecture was India’s “soft-power.” This idea shows that India’s rise as a power is mostly economic and related to technologies and software and culture. I thought she did a great job of showing “global interdependencies” and how the flow of cultural products are involved in these interdependencies. I especially found the discussion of travel shows interesting, and they way a country like India is constructed in the language of media.

This lecture was well attended and audiences asked many questions at the end.

I saw this list online and thought it was interesting, so I’m sharing it with everyone. Although it is not directly related to communications, it does provide insight into how graduate school is commonly viewed. Do we as graduate students here at Penn State identify with some of the facts listed? You be the judge. Enjoy!

Here is the link:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/26-fun-facts-about-grad-school/