Commenting on commenting (Assignment 3b)

For my “intro to online marketing” assignment (oops, I mean Assignment 3 – haha), I originally wrote an obnoxious treatise on what the definition of journalism is. I figured that it would get quite a reaction from my classmates, even if that reaction was just pissing them off and getting lots of “you f****g suck” posted on my blog. After all, this assignment had absolutely nothing to do with soliciting comments of value. Here we were shooting for quantity, not quality.

So with that in mind, it was actually pretty easy to get people to comment. But I had to write about something bound to cut across a wider spread of my social networks. And after I received umpteen emails, tweets, and even invitations to join groups on Facebook with names like, “Yes, I have seen the video of Susan Boyle singing,” I knew I had found my ticket.

I do think that the content of the post, to some extent, matters. I say “to some extent” because ultimately the Internet is certainly populated with hordes of folks who are happy as clams to respond to banal, vile, vapid content. To write this post, I started in the real world. I made my pitch to my boyfriend, to a classmate, and to a few other folks who happened to be standing within earshot once I started ranting. This was something a lot of people had seen and reacted to. What better fodder for a commenting fire?

The comments themselves are on the sophisticated side, which is entirely due to the group of people I solicited feedback from. I sent out a few emails to friends and others in my extended acquaintance social networks. I posted it as a note on Facebook and tagged a few folks to get their attention. I used the subject line “help me do my homework” to guarantee the emails would be opened. But I also restricted the amount of people who could view the post to certain pockets of my social network. Not because I didn't want their opinion about Ms. Boyle, but because I don't like sharing writing with a wide range of people unless I am very proud of it. In that sense, I could never be a blogger in the way that Ms. Huffington told Jon Steward it should be done. I don't want to just put it out there, leave it, and see what happens. I have writer's insecurity issues.

Had I truly wanted to promote it far and wide – had I felt comfortable enough promoting the post to the full extent of my social network – there are plenty of other things I would have done. I would have posted it on Digg and told my friends to either comment or Digg the article. I would have urged them to cross-post it to other places. I would have posted it on Twitter.

But in the end, I rather enjoyed the results. In true micro-niche format, I was able to engage in an open environment (anyone is welcome to read the post, should they find it) but with an invited group of participants. And it wasn't just a circle of people patting each other on the intellectual back.

Receiving feedback was definitely more rewarding than not.

The most comments I ever got on Facebook ever.

I meant to post about this a few weeks ago when I did it, but something fascinating happened when I posted a simple question to my Facebook profile in the form of a "note."

A bizarre chain of discussions surrounding the "double space" has prompted me to inquire further. Here's the question: do you put two spaces after a sentence ends when you are typing? What is the standard?

Some say yes, some say no. I want proof. Give me citations. Chicago, MLA, AP style, tell me what you know.

I "tagged" about twenty people in the note who work across a variety of fields: journalists, copy-editors, professors, poets, administrative assistants, college students, the list goes on. It was like opening a floodgate. A remarkable twenty-one responses came in within a little more than twenty-four hours. People were unbelievably passionate about the debate. And I will tell you that there is absolutely no agreement on the subject. I myself am sticking with the double-space.

But I did have fun tagging one of my bosses at work who vehemently disagrees with me. To the point that he recently removed every double space in a piece that I sent his way. (Which is actually what prompted me to post the question in the first place). I told him that I was now "crowdsourcing" grammar and style. It's the wave of the future...

Here are some of the best replies...

Aaron:

One thing I find interesting though is that often my extra spaces are removed automatically. Such is the case in the comments I'm posting right here. Facebook apparently disagrees with my assessment.

I find this highly annoying. I believe that formatting greatly affects the power of written communication. Therefore, every effort should be made to preserve the formatting choices of the author, regardless of medium and venue. Furthermore, I think any website offering space for written publication (like this one) should necessarily include functionality for standard formatting options such as bold and italic, which is quite simple in the age of html.

As it stands now, we never know which sites are going to recognize our html formatting and which ones won't. So often times we look like idiots for writing something like this....

Ashley:

if you're writing a paper for school, two spaces. if you're writing anything else in the whole world, one space. i'm a goddamn copy editor. xo

Jennifer:

I was always told that in publishing and journalism it is one space to not take up much needed characters and space with excess space. I know in texting everyone seems to be moving to the single space to avoid using up characters. But for proper letters and clarity I find the two space much needed.

Craig:

One space. One space. One space. It's the 21st century. And yet I still capitalize Web. ... (Don't get me started on the proper spacing around ellipses.)

Fred:

Pick up any contemporary book -- I just glanced at The Omnivore's Dilemma -- and you'll find a single space after the period. To my eye, the additional bit of space looks funny. (And I was taught to type in the 80s on an actual typewriter when the two-space rule was still very much in effect. It was only years later that I actually looked at how it... Read More was done in well-designed books and magazines that I decided to forgo the additional space. In short, I trust the designers of contemporary books and magazines more than my crusty old typing teacher.)

If nothing else, I like to believe that all those saved spaces are forestalling the onset of carpal tunnel.

Talk Radio, part II. (play vs film)

Photo courtesy of kiddharma via Flickr and Creative Commons

Scott and I got into a fun little debate over Bogosian's Talk Radio last week. Since he has asked us to post a blog comparing the play and the film, I am copping out slightly by re-posting my most recent response to our conversation (which covers my thoughts on the comparison). The only thing I have to add that is not included below is that I think Eric Bogosian might actually secretly be Anthony Bourdain. Anyone else see the similarity?

Back to the matters at hand. Here is my latest rant. Feel free to join in...

I'm not arguing against talk radio as an institution for meaning-making. On that nice, academic scaffolding we can legitimize talk radio's existence. But I wouldn't make the argument that talk radio is journalism. Or, to be fair, not the talk radio featured in the play. Sounding off is not journalism. Sounding off is entertainment. Journalism holds those in power accountable. I'm not arguing that talk radio can't. I would argue that Bogosian's macho-rebellious cool cat is off on a personal philosophic journey. It has value, but it's not journalism.

Talk radio, as we know it today, has its own sordid history in the United States. Bogosian may have written the play in mid-1980s, but being just a young toddler myself in the grand decade of neon and new wave, all I can really hear is a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity. And though the rise of the right-wing conservative talk radio is often related to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, it was really the 1996 Telecommunications Act -- which repealed ownership limits on radio stations -- that turned the local downtown station into a repeater tower for the nationally syndicated ideology of the right-wing. Which returns me to the whole idea of gatekeeping and meaning-making. It was pretty easy for U.S. politics to turn to the right when talking heads who were cheaper to syndicate than paying for local reporters and investigative journalism.

After watching the film (and I presume that Bogosian oversaw screenplay and had his hand in direction as well) it just becomes more clear that this is about the one-man's libertarian journey for meaning and not about the institution itself.

And fun as it is, it sure ain't about journalism...

Commenting vs Forums

I just cracked the Slate commenting code!

Okay, it wasn't that complicated. But it was hidden which is interesting in and of itself. In the list of options next to the piece I was reading on the Amazon Kindle (the generic print, email, facebook, etc) was a link titled "discuss." Lo and behold, "discuss" led to a forum specifically built around the article.

Instead of using a comment-style format, Slate relies on a forum approach which is reminiscent of the old-school bulletin board days of the Internet. And there are a surprising quantity of categories -- over 64 different threads with as few as zero and as many as 21. And each thread can be rated (I can't really tell if the rating system is done by users or moderators, but most of the time when there is a rating system it is done by the users). So the thread with the most replies is 21, but has a rating of -2. Next in line is a discussion with 18 replies and a rating of +5.

I tried to post a reply, but after 6 efforts to retrieve my username and password from the system (which told me repeatedly that my email address already had a registered user and that I could recover my password by just entering my email address and username -- which I don't remember!) I gave up. Had I managed to get in, here are the basic points I would have conveyed...

To Tweet and be ReTweeted...

I have been using Twitter since the summer of 2008. I think that I joined because everyone else in my office started using it on the same weekend -- the weekend that our organization threw a massive conference in the Midwest that drew over 3,500 participants. Twitter was one of the many social media sites that conference goers were using to interact with each other and the outside world at the event. I remember the first few months being rather useless. I never went to the website (why would I?) and therefore never updated. Because I never visited it, I never saw what the people I was "following" were saying. I couldn't really see the point.

Later in the summer I read Clay Shirky's book Organizing Without Organizations and decided to give Twitter another shot. This time, I decided I would use it as a social tool for real life and I posted updates like "headed to the dirty" (read: the Dirty Truth, a bar in downtown Northampton) or "anyone wanna go to the show at the elevens tonight?" It was about at this time that I discovered the great advantages to syncing my phone number with Twitter. Within a few seconds I was suddenly able to send text messages to "40404" and sound off about anything.

But posting in the social media sphere is like bringing up the old kōan "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" Tweeting in the forest silently was pointless. Because I couldn't see what others were saying I completely lacked the validation that comes from using social media. I needed to experience what 140-character statements my friends were saying. And I needed to be sure that my "followers" were enjoying my contributions. In short, I needed interactivity.

In the last three months my use of Twitter has increased dramatically. I've tried syncing it to my Facebook status and mobile Tweeting, but the ultimate reward was installing an application that allowed me to see what the folks I was "following" were saying. TwitterFox was a game changer because it gave me the window to interactivity that I needed to make using Twitter at all worthwhile.

I follow an interesting crew of folks. Mostly activists, journalists, and information aggregators, nearly every Tweet I read has a link in it. I realized the other day that during this time when I am in still juggling full-time work and finishing up school there are many days where all the news I read is the news I get through my collegaues reports and the news aggregators I subscribe to.

There's an overwhelming amount of information out there. And it just makes me wonder still if the role of journalist is shifting into information facilitator. Someone speaking at a conference I went to recently put it quick succintly: The "who, what, when, where" is easy enough for anyone to find. But the why? That's where we need journalists most.

An epic journey of commenting

Last minute postings...

I began the process of commenting on ten stories, posts, etc. today. Waiting until the day of class is certainly going to impact the second part of the assignment (following the activity), but I have learned from experience that a lot can happen in one day online so hopefully I'll have at least some things to report back.

Comment #1) MassLive.com: Western Mass. road, rail projects in line for federal stimulus aid

I chose to comment on this story because I am a sucker for infrastructure projects (yeah, I know that sounds boring but just wait until this becomes something you care about, too). Personally I track the building of broadband and high-speed Internet more frequently than light rail systems, but as a Western Mass resident of almost seven years I know how badly we need updates to our public transportation options.

Comment #2) BoingBoing: LAist visits Barbie's full size Malibu house

Originally I wanted to comment on this great op-ed by Sarah Haskins in the Washington Post on Sunday, but I was suffering from a complete brain failure on what I wanted to say about it. Since a post of, "wow, Sarah. I love you. You are great" seemed like a waste of binary space, I decided to participate in the great act of connecting by posting a link to it on this BoingBoing post about a full size Barbie house. I suppose the only really interesting thing that I can find out about this is if people find a comment that is merely a link interesting or an additional waste of binary space...

Comment #3) Valley Advocate: Bardsley on the BID

Northampton is considering a BID (Business Improvement District), which is a public-private partnership that will give public funds to downtown businesses for "improvement" efforts/projects. When described by proponents of the BID, these efforts are summed up as cleaning up trash and planting flower pots. Opponents argue that this is essentially the re-creation of something like the Chamber of Commerce, except all businesses within the zone must buy-in and the results could fill streets with security cameras and additional security who will spend most of their time ushering people out of formerly public spaces (read: the sidewalks of downtown).

To put it bluntly, I am mad at the BID but haven't had a lot of time to follow its movement through city council. Here is my comment.

Can anyone post an update on where the BID is at in the legislative process?

The idea that downtown Northampton needs someone to clean up trash and graffiti is absurd. Has anyone who is arguing the downtown needs some sort of "clean up" ever actually been to a city whose downtown spans farther than two miles? Downtown Northampton is about as clean as they get.

This is a class issue under the gauze of some white Christmas lights.

Comment #4) Boston.com: SJC to rule whether Lowell curfew violates teens' rights

Curfews for teenagers? I think they do more harm than good. Looks like the courts may agree with me. My advice to the comment reading world? Screw curfews and focus on giving kids a place to go.

This was a very contentious commenting-fest with a lot of inane statements and assorted banality. I resisted the urge to tell the commenter who said that the teenage girls featured in the article must have been practicing to become prostitutes ("that's a recession proof business") to go f*** him/herself. My comment:

These curfews are pointless and I look forward to seeing how the courts rule on them. Kids need places to go, that is the biggest problem. I grew up in suburban eastern Mass and I can assure you that the only public spaces that existed were parking lots and retail chains. Put some funds into public projects that build community centers (and staff them with smart and creative people, not folks who are completely out of touch) and have them stay open past 9pm.

Comment #5) MassLive.com: UMass Amherst opens new $5 million traveler information center

I thought I was going to be outraged by this post, but then I realized they were talking about the new Transit building that houses all the buses for the UMass Transit Authority (a very important and neccesary bus system in the Valley). Actually, my best friend was a bus driver there for a few years. But in particular I responded to the part that had to do with the bus tracking systems they are hoping to have in place. Certainly a comment about surveillance will be provocative enough to get a reaction out of people?

Comment #6) YouTube.com: Yacht Rock (Episode 1: What a Fool Believes)

Alright, this one was a bit of a cop-out. But the commenting world of YouTube is vicious, so I figured my blasé post might still get a reaction. Mostly I just wanted an excuse to share Yacht Rock with the readers of this blog. So go enjoy it and talk about how great it is until your friends are sick of hearing about it. (That's what happened to me anyway...)

Comment #7) John Gorman's blog: Radio: RIAA v. NAB - two wrongs don't make it right

I wanted to comment on the Pitchfork article that clued me in to this debate (somehow I had missed this one), but it turns out the Pitchfork doesn't allow comments! Social media blasphemy! Not such a bad thing, though, because that led me to seek out a place online that would and I came across Gorman's blog which had an excellent rant against both the RIAA and the NAB in this debate. I look forward to following this one...

Comment #8) Slate.com: Uncivil Union

At first glance I thought that Slate didn't allow readers to comment at all. They have stashed the comments aside on a separate page, which surely impacts the tone and quantity of discussion going on around their articles. They have more of a bulletin board set-up. In this case, I was responding to someone's post about the Employee Free Choice Act. Now the my commenting tongue has warmed up a bit, I was a little more agressive than I had been.

His comment:

The employer- the one who OWNS or has been put in place by those who own to run the business- should have every right to hire, fire or otherwise manage as he or she sees fit. Thats how the overwheming number of businesses ARE run. Your attitude is precisely why unions times have passed and they need to be abolished. Yes, workers should have a safe work environment and should not work under slave conditions like those prevelent 80 years ago but thats about it. The lazy, incompetent or simplly insubordinate should be fired without any input from you. A boss should be able to hire his family and friends and cut out early on Friday- hes earned those perks by being the one in charge

My response:

Disagree. The employer, the one who owns or has been put in place to run the business, has no business without the workers. You say that union times have passed, but the decline of unions in this country is not because they have outlived their usefulness. They have been crippled by bad public policy (i.e., the Taft-Hartley Act). Poor working conditions still exist for thousands of workers across this country. And these workers are intimidated regularly by union-busting campaigns. Your analysis that a boss has "earned the perks" by "being the one in charge" reflects an ignorance on how privilege functions.

Comment #9) Slashdot.org: Young People Prefer "Sizzle Sound" of MP3 Format

Slashdot has one of the most intimidating posting environments. The readers all spend way too much time consuming information and tend to be well educated but lacking social skills. I responded to this idea with a more "cultural studies" approach. I assume I will be eaten alive. Also, I know I lost points for not registering and posting as "Anonymous Coward."

Anyhow, here it is:

It is interesting to consider this in the context of defining artistic creativity within parameters of the culture it arises from. Portability seems to be the most important thing as our audio players change over time. Technology is inextricably linked to art.

Comment #10) Consumerist.com: Overpriced, All Caps Book Inspires Amazon Reviewers

In my final post of this epic day of commenting, I grew weary of forcing myself to offer substantial commentary in the online world. I've been trying to balance this assignment with finishing two chapters of my thesis and calling into meetings for work all day long. As someone who has spent a great deal of her academic and professional life aware of their digital footprint, I figured my final post to this humorous article on the Consumerist may as well be tied to my college email account instead of my personal. Looks like I screwed up on that one, though. The spam filter at Smith appears to have trapped my email verification.

Too bad. It was probably the funniest thing I had to say all week.

Someone get me a drink. That took FOREVER.

A letter to Wahl-Jorgensen

We've been asked, in the spirit of reading a book about the culture of letters-to-the-editor, to compose a letter to the author of Journalists and the Public: Newsroom Culture, Letters to the Editor, and Democracy, by Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. Though forcing myself into the format of a "letter" to an academic scholar about the content of their work makes me cringe, I'll take my marching orders with only the slightest protest (which I am now done with, thanks for listening).


This book serves as an excellent primer for students just entering the field of democratic theory of media studies -- particularly by highlighting the connections between the two. The format was brilliant -- by placing letters to the editor in the context of democratic theory before launching into an enthnographic study of the newsroom culture that curates and publishes them, you gave readers an opportunity to place the high fluent (albeit well intentioned) theory of letters pages as public sphere for debate and representation of popular opinion against the juxtaposition of the workload reality that commercial newsrooms are faced with on a day-to-day basis.


I suppose there are a number of things to walk away from this book with, but the biggest takeaway for me was the impact that the commercial industry has on the newsroom. The letters editors featured extensively at the Bay Herald, as well as those interviewed throughout, believed one thing about the role of letters in the public sphere while juggling with the reality of increased demand on their time. Although the consolidation of newspapers with other media outlets is not the sole thing impacting the letters pages and their ability to mirror the public debate surrounding the issues of the day, it is at least one that could be impacted through public policy changes. The other problems cited -- the "idiom of insanity," the extensive submissions from racists or other prejudiced individuals with an axe to grind -- could be alleviated if the editors had time to reach out in the community and cultivate relationships with their readership and authors.


I wonder what you would write today, as newspapers across the country are folding and the journalism industry is desperately seeking solutions. How do suppose a non-profit paper's letters pages might differ? Or do you believe that as online readership has increased that letters still play the same role -- in your mind and in the minds of those you interviewed?


Always more questions than answers, huh?

Cheers.

Commenting on 90s nostalgia

Photo courtesy of Peacefulbean (good karma) via Flickr and Creative Commons

Steve Waksman, one of my former professors at Smith College is a scholar of popular culture, music in particular, and has started a blog to experiment with the promotion of his upcoming book The Metal/Punk Continuum. Consistently following my own tendency to post comments only to locations where I have some tangible connection to the author, I replied to one of his posts this evening (see below).

I realize that my patten of entering the public discourse in such cautious and calculated moves does detract from some of the intentions we have laid out -- either explicitly through class discussions or the course materials or even implicitly -- regarding deliberative democracy and the public sphere. But it does bring me to think about the networks in which I travel and the unintentional connections made and webs spun. I remembered to visit Steve's blog when I saw Scott's post on Van Morrison. I'm unintentionally building links between these two posts through my digital footprints.

Anyhow, here's my commentary in response to Steve's post on hating 80s nostalgia. Since I can't speak with too much authority on distaste for a decade that I remember for colorful clothing, synthesizers, music videos, and Fisher Price tape recorders, I opted to talk about my personal favorite decade so far -- at least for music -- the 90s.

The 90s are completely under appreciated. Especially musically. But I recognize that part of the love I feel for the music of this decade is nostalgia. Some of it might even be ironic. But even the music that was bad -- even the height of the corporate posturing of grunge -- was better than the Clear Channel hard rock of today. I often wonder if this is merely my own skewed perception of the years I spent in high school or if somehow that decade was actually in some way "better" musically... I too have great love for punk bands of the 80s (based on my own narrow definition of what "punk" is). I didn't discover the best of it until I was much older (great albums by The Pixies, Sonic Youth, et. al.). All I remember actually listening to in this first decade of my life was Prince. Who is incredible in his own right. (I recently watched Purple Rain. Still amazing. On many levels. But perhaps irony is the highest).

Tweeting the NSOTU

Photo courtesy of -nathan via Flickr and Creative Commons

Some anecdotal observations from "watching" Obama's address to the nation this evening.

I'm not new to a multimedia, multi-platformed, swithtasking approach to watching major moments in political television. I gathered friends over for nearly every last debate (back when no one really knew a lot about Mike Gravel other than the fact that he had one of the oddest and most humorous online videos in presidential candidate history) and dealt with the span of their reactions to my insistance that I have a laptop in front of me and a Twitter feed ticking by.

Back then, barely a year ago, I found it difficult to keep up. I would be reading a Tweet, trying to listen to a friend's comment, and pay attention to what the candidates were actually saying all at the same time. Maybe it was just being a late adopter, but it was hard to keep up.

Tonight however it was like second nature. I saw a post come up in my Twitter aggregator (TwitterFox -- which throws it into a manageable add-on for my Firefox browser) with a simple tag: #NSOTU. It took me less than a full second to realize that was the tag for tonight's speech (read: Not State of the Union). Before President Obama was even a few minutes into the speech, someone posted a link to the full text of his speech. So in addition to listening to the commentary of the people in the room, reading the Tweets, paying attention to the visual images on my television and listening to Obama speak, I was reading along.

It was hard to keep up, with about 50 new posts per minute requesting my browser to refresh itself. A lot of the comments made it feel like I was sitting in a much larger living room with a bigger group of friends. In other words, a lot of commentary was focused on how fast Pelosi rose to her feet or placing bets on when we would finally hear the phrase "clean coal."

But occaisionally there was a spark of deliberation. And though it seemed a mere speck in a large mine of banality, someone would inevitably catch it and react. So small pockets of conversation were flittering around and I saw as voyeour -- all the while keeping to myself but reading along.

Changing landscapes

Image of FlickrLand (Flickr's social network) from GustavoG via Flickr and Creative Commons

Though Wahl-Jorgensen's book is rather dry and academic, I honestly find the content fascinating. And thanks to my many years in academia, I appreciate the endlessly annotated nature of the writing, even if its coming in my least favorite to read format of parenthetical notations. However any attempt to discuss any aspect of the journalism industry seems somehow dramatically outdated when compared to the reality of the current newspaper crisis. With reports as high as 15,000+ jobs lost for journalists in 2008, the landscape for journalism has been so dramatically impacted that it can be difficult to stay focused on an assessment that doesn't take these changes into account.

Lately I've been agreeing with thinking about journalism in a new frame. With so much information at our fingertips, it is possible that the role of the journalist is changing from information provider to discussion facilitator. Wahl-Jorgensen's placement of letters to the editor next to other forms of "mediated participation" falls short in today's world of Twitter and viral social networks. The idea of radio call-in programs or television talk shows as an advanced state of participation seems distant.

But the real difference is not simply how many more ways there are to participate, it is in how we define participation. Ultimately it is important to keep one distinction in mind: those old formats relied on a gatekeeper to control access to the audience. With platforms on the Internet everyone gets a shot, everyone gets a microphone, and everyone can get an audience. Moderated comments on a newspaper article or website may control some of the conversation, but for each location it is restricted in it can move to dozens of other un-mediated locations.

Letter to the editor -- Part One

Photo courtesy of bill dwyer via Flickr and Creative Commons

I sent this in to the Daily Hampshire Gazette this evening in response to an article in Monday's paper regarding a 129% increase in applications at Holyoke Community College. I suppose now we will just wait and see...

As an alumnae of Holyoke Community College who is about to graduate from Smith College in May, I am heartened by the increase in applications reported by Kristin Palpini in Monday's Gazette (“HCC hit by wave of college hopefuls”). I enrolled at HCC merely because it was affordable, but was inspired with the quality of education I received. Programs such as the Learning Communities, which pair off traditionally separated academic disciplines (such as math and literature), presented challenging coursework. All were taught by a dedicated faculty who are tirelessly committed to the mission of education despite being under constant threat of budgetary cutbacks.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act reflects President Obama's campaign promises to both invest in education and long-term economic growth. According to the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts (PHENOM) this includes a possible $813 million for education funding in this state. At least $142 million of this will be allocated to public higher education. PHENOM also sees potential for piloting free tuition at three of the state's community colleges through federal budgetary relief for Medicaid.

The 129% increase in applications at HCC is a tremendous opportunity. Education is one of our best investments in difficult economic times. I hope our legislators work with the strong network of Massachusetts residents and organizations to ensure that every single person who wants to enroll in college is able to access the quality education our state schools must provide.

"Happy V-day, Nice Pants" (or, Commenting IRL)

Photo courtesy of Greg Saulmon at MassLive.com

In the ongoing experiment of active online commenting, I finally posted my first comment to a piece on MassLive today.

I don't know if it is entirely fair, considering my previous disclosures about enjoying the safety of social networks, as I know the author of the post. Still, I pressed send and watched the words vanish behind the wall of the moderator. Something tells me that it will be our very own guest lecturer from last week who either passes it on or hits "delete."

However this post does double-duty, as I not only took the great leap forward of adding my opinion to the pile (that would be a pile of one, as there was not a lot of traffic surrounding it), but the piece I chose to comment on had to do with commenting IRL! (That's acronym-online speak for in real life for any readers who have not spent the last four years of their life consumed by academic treatises on the Internet).

Greg's post is titled, "Things people say when you give them a space to say them." The photo captures a message that is both witty and entertaining as well as timely commentary on our culture.

He writes about these interactions with public sphere from his own experience as an online journalist:

...When you give people the space to say what they want, you're going to get a fascinating mix of incredibly smart and incredibly stupid comments.

So, today in Northampton, when I spotted a collection of paper hearts with hand-written messages taped to the kiosk outside Urban Outfitters, I felt the same little twinge of excitement that I feel when I see a news story followed by a long comment thread. What are people saying? What are people thinking?

In the case of the paper hearts, the messages were mostly predictable: ruminations on love; commemorations of anniversaries.

There among them, though, was the message above -- a paper heart talking to a chain store. In a sense, from Anonymous, to Anonymous. Is it an example of the impersonality of commerce, or an example of how there are more ways than ever to say what you're thinking?

Honestly, I'd say it is a little bit of both...