Why be informed by something you don't trust?

(Thanks to Invicta Properties)

Last week, on one of the best Twitter blogs out there, AllTwitter, I saw an interesting post , which made me stop and think for a minute.

Apparently, Americans increasingly use social media of various types to stay informed, yet their trust level of social media is actually pretty low, according to a new study.

"The Allstate Corporation and National Journal surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and over, and found that while some 60 percent of Americans believe that the internet and social media has made it easier for them to stay informed as consumers, more than two-thirds (69 percent) believe that brands and political candidates are active on social media to advertise or because they want to collect information on their customers or supporters, rather than to engage."

So in other words, these people use social media, and feel more informed because they use social media.

Yet, they also mistrust what they're reading/seeing.

What am I missing here?

How can you be "better informed" if you don't believe what you're seeing?

Of course, I don't take everything I read on Twitter or Facebook (especially Facebook) as given, without at least checking it first. If a number of different sources are saying the same thing, then I'm more inclined to believe it.

But taking something with a grain of salt and not going off half-cocked about something is far different from not believing it. Because of that, I do feel that I'm better-informed because of social media, or at least Twitter (still not sure on the Facebook front).

The money part in that excerpt is that many people believe they are being manipulated or having their data collected rather than being engaged with on social media. I'm not sure what data collection they can do other than "number of Twitter followers" on Twitter, though Facebook could potentially be a bit more insidious.

The thing is, other than the data collection angle, I don't see how social media is any different than anything else in regards to how a company, politician, or what have you interacts with the public. Yes, they are using it for advertising. They're trying to get their message out.

So you see the message. You are informed because you know what the entity is trying to get across. And yet you mistrust that message because...why? Would you trust it any less if you saw it in a commercial?

There seems to be a disconnect between these two statistics, and I'm hoping that one of you can clear up my confusion.

Because I'm at a loss.

(Yes, I said "last week" at the top of this post. I realize I've been gone for a bit. Sorry about that)

Transit Chivalry - a Lost Art?

Recently on this blog, I wrote about whether "chivalry" can exist in the modern day, or whether it's an out-dated concept.

Little did I know that the question would come up again so soon, and in a context that I hadn't even thought about. Maybe because the idea of not doing this is so alien to me?

Over the weekend, I came across an article in the Washington Post by Dana Hedgpeth, entitled "Pregnant and Hunting for a Seat on the Metro." In it, Dana says that she's 9 months pregnant, actually past her due date, and has gained a lot of weight due to the pregnancy. She talks about the time last month where she was sitting in a senior citizens seat when a blind woman came onto the bus. She tried to give her seat to the woman, and each ended up doing the "no, you go ahead" tango before finally somebody else gave up their seat for the woman.

But this instance is what really got to me.

"Another time, a friend’s husband and I boarded a rather full rail car during the evening rush hour. In a rather loud voice he said — “Excuse me, my friend here is very pregnant. Can someone give up their seat, please?”

Three people in the first row of seats looked up. Two businessmen looked me dead in the eye and then looked back down to their newspapers. A 30-something professional woman appeared to glance at me and then look back out the window."

Has society gone insane?

It seems that basic courtesy has gone out the window these days. I can't even imagine not giving up my seat to a pregnant woman, especially if she was so obviously that far along.

I have to wonder whether it's a gender thing of some kind. Would these same people have acted the same way if a doddering 76-year-old man or woman had struggled onto the bus? Do they think the pregnant woman can fend for herself because she's not struggling to walk around? (and I'm sure some women do struggle to walk around, depending on the pregnancy, so that point may even be moot).

She talked with a fellow pregnant woman on another metro ride, and they agreed that it seemed the most likely to give up their seat were young African-American men and middle-aged women (who may be doing it from remembering their own problems). The least likely seemed to be women in their 20s and middle-aged white men. Of course that's all anecdotal, but it does speak from these women's experiences.

There are two other great articles linked to from Dana's post, so I encourage you to go read that and click through to those as well.

Has it come down to the point where a pregnant woman has to *ask* for a seat on a bus or subway? And even if they do, Dana's experience when her friend's husband loudly demanded it sort of implies that it may not happen even with that. I wonder how much those people felt ashamed afterwards.

Or are they just that oblivious?

It seems that people will go out of their way to make room for mothers with kids in tow, but if you're towing a kid inside you, all bets are off. Lynn Harris asks "where were you people when I was pregnant?"

It's really sad.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 37 of Down the Hall

In this week's episode of the show, Jenny and I talk about the death of noted science fiction author Ray Bradbury, especially examining his phenomenal book, Fahrenheit 451. Jenny has some wonderful insights and I come along for the ride.

But seriously, it is a great little discussion about Bradbury and the book before we get into the rest of the episode, which is a 30-minute interview with Dr. Michael Marker, who teaches ETEC 521 (Indegeneity, Technology, and Education) in the MET program, as well as being heavily involved in the Aboriginal Education program at UBC. We talk about technology and how it's affected Indigenous Education, the importance of cross-cultural inquiry and improving the training of native teachers (or non-native teachers who will be coming into Aboriginal schools), and Michael's history of studying the ethnohistory of Aboriginal Education.

It's a truly fascinating interview, and I say that 100% because of Michael. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to sit down with him, and I found it quite inspiring.

You can listen to it, or download it, here.

And while you're at it, why not head on over to Facebook and "like" our page? It would be really great if we could get over 30 "likes" as that's a threshold that let's us do more things with the page.

So what are you waiting for?

Do it before your nap!