Social Media for Good

Lately there have been quite a few natural disasters that have reeked havoc across the globe. While the devastation is far spread and horrific, there is also an outpouring of support and generosity to those who are left in the wake of floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunami's....

There are hundreds of organizations dedicating monetary aid and manpower to help nations rebuild. And there are hundreds of ways they are collecting their support. Organizations such as Compassion International are utilizing the internet to generate donations and keep supporters updated on progress.

The outpouring of funds for earthquake relief in Haiti has been tremendous. Causes is one was that Facebook users are able to show their support. But there are many other ways that the media is generating funds... texting donations to the Red Cross and UNICEF has become immensely popular.

While some view social media and the internet as a tool of procrastination (see any college student's status update), this is one example of a very positive impact technology can have. So make a donation, gather supplies, or sponsor a child from one of these recently hit locations in Chile or Haiti or another country that is plagued with poverty (my heart is in India).

We can all make an impact and the internet makes it a little easier. Here are my picks for donating online:

1. Compassion International- sponsor a child or make a one time donation to help children throughout the world
2. The Red Cross- They have initially pledged $50,000 to Chile disaster relief
3. UNICEF- Reaching more than 150 countries, their aid is immediate and impactful
4. Operation Blessing- Help break the cycle of suffering by providing a well, job training, or other gifts that will last a life time
   

Normally Critical

How frequently do you hear something you wish you hadn't? Maybe it was a bit of gossip, maybe some slightly depressing news.... Either way, it was broadcast without so much as a thought about what you wanted to hear.

The same happened on Friday. Many people were caught off guard when they witnessed the horrific video clip of the Georgian luge contestant, Nodar Kumaritashvili, losing control and crashing into a steel pole. Since the video clip surfaced, some networks decided to stop airing the film after their initial airing, while others have made a decision to begin airing it after much consideration. Should news outlets be more critical of footage? What did the network executives base their decision on? Ratings? Demand for the footage? Demand by the shareholders?

There are many of us who have grown up being told to think before we speak and to say something nice or say nothing at all. Where do videos come in that replay death and tragedy? What about beatings? Does the video add to the story or does it just sensationalize the event? How do videos like these help society? At what point do we, the audience, say that we do not want to see things of this nature?

Yes, I believe the media-- whether televised, broadcast, or uploaded-- has a responsibility to the public to share information that is meaningful and that has the potential to impact lives. I believe that the media should make all of the details available to whoever wants to know them. I do not think that these types of video are "news". Death is not news, it is part of life. Playing this young mans last moments over and over does not help society. It does not help his family. It certainly does not help him.

Blah Blah Blog

How did it happen?

One day there were online journals like Xanga and LiveJournal that publicized a lot of teenagers private thoughts. Today CEO's and journalists are using blogs to communicate with a nearly unlimited audience.

Instead of an online diary, the most popular blogs are sources of information about trends and developments in specific industries. Physical proximity does not limit the conversation. Anyone can contribute to the message and ideas can be bounced from sea to shining sea.

But I can hear my mother, "don't put your personal information out there!" Her fear of sharing too much information is what motivates corporations to hire staff to promote their products and services.

By sharing publicly there is a much wider range of potential input, exponentially greater possibility for feedback, and a blog can be shared instantaneously through Twitter, Facebook, Digg and multitudes of other sources.

Unfortunately, yes there are drawbacks, dear mother. Anything can be posted. Accurate, inaccurate. Confidential. Strategic. Sacred. There's little regulation and generally no filters. It's freedom of speech! With this first amendment right there is a choice: participate or observe. Blogs allow for silent participation and vocal involvement. So if something is blah blah boring, maybe someone should say something about it!

Obviously, I think blogs are great! Ideas and dreams can be shared, deleted, and edited. Nothing is constant and there is a plethora of input. Maybe you feel differently? Are blogs just blah blah blah thoughts or do they actually aid in meaningful conversations? What do you think?

Update: Even the Pope thinks blogging is a good idea... http://mashable.com/2010/01/24/pope-priests-blog/