Category Archives: Personal Rants

Feb 16 1 comments
Community, Economics, Education, Media Outlets, Personal Rants

Why We Still Need the Boston Globe

The Boston Globe is currently running a 7-part series, “Ted Kennedy,” chronicling the history of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA).

The special on Ted Kennedy demonstrates the unparalleled resources of a major newspaper. The institutional history and the access it took to produce the series remain the province of the Fourth Estate, something that must not go unnoticed in this time of “the great print struggles.” More so, the piece shows how, with carefully allocated time and resources, the Globe and other newspapers can take full advantage of the platform of the web.

The videos are excellently produced, and the links to archive photos, headlines, and related documentation serve the goals of the story admirably. A community discussion forum would have brought the piece full circle and made for a resounding win, but I still see the piece as a triumphant display that the newspapers do “get it.” It’s a matter of bringing the financial models in line with a new approach to doing news, os that features like this appear with greater frequency.

I am not, in any way, trying to diminish the importance of citizen journalism. Its contributions to the way we understand our world cannot–and should not–be dismissed as in some way ‘limited,’ or as wobbly in its journalistic commitment or ethics. It is simply a different, equally significant process. Putting it into ‘competition’ with traditional media does neither form justice. I think at times it is easy to embrace citizen journalism as the underdog, and to champion it, at times, to the detriment of the respect for traditional press. The Boston Globe’s Ted Kennedy series, however, reminds us how very important traditional news outlets are to our history, and that, when given the appropriate resources, they can get it right. Ultimately the series demonstrates the rich potential for the news to unite its unique (reputation-based) level of access and traditional models of reporting with new media tools to educate and preserve in a way that, quite simply, no other institution can.

Jan 08 0 comments
Community, Emerson College, Personal Rants, Social Media

In with the Old

I recently made as my Facebook status, “Aubree Lawrence misses honest status updates.” A former student commented on the status and asked, “Aubree, what do you mean? Just curious. Does it have to do with the ‘old’ vs ‘new’ facebook?”

A quick question that prompted a lengthy response from me. (Surprised? I didn’t think so.) Facebook has a limit on comment length, and it took four full response boxes to reply to Rachael’s question. My response, in full, is reprinted below. My mind is still whirling around the topic. My friend and colleague Vanessa Rhinesmith has been blogging about managing the Social Media in her life, raising some great questions about how to integrate social media to complement her life… and not invade it. Her blog entries, my midnight status update and Rachael’s subsequent question reflect the anxieties we have about Facebook, how it is changing and how it is changing us.

Without further introduction, our exchange:

Status Update: “Aubree Lawrence misses honest status updates.”

Rachael: “Aubree, what do you mean? Just curious. Does it have to do with the ‘old’ vs ‘new’ facebook?”

Me” “Hi there! It depends, in this case, what you mean “old” vs “new,” which seems to get used at least two ways.

Old vs New can mean the formatting changes instituted about 4-5 months ago. The updates caused a lot of confusion and upset, spawning many groups with names like “Facebook, change it back or I quit.” (I made that particular one up, but you get the idea…)

But Old Vs New can mean something else. Social Media, in particular, is in constant flux, changing as the users who engage with it change. Facebook exploded past its origins as an online “who lives in my dorm” tool and became a means of community organizing and a quasi-professional tool. Its membership base grew, and the dynamics of Facebook (in my anecdotal opion) changed accordingly.

My own observation is that the “old” Facebook (”old” is such a relative term) had a degree of freedom and self-expression now missing from the Facebook experience.

In the “new” Facebook experience, one must consider the audience at large when posting… anything. Pictures, even quotes and status updates. There are tools to help manage what goes out to who, no question, but what you don’t let others see can raise suspicion among the denied. You can “de-tag” yourself from images, but your image is still out there posted indefinitely in the most navigable manner possible - a visit from a friend of a friend.

Even your profile can be problematic. I’ve recently been reconsidering my “Religious Views” profile item, which reads right now “Religious Views are lamer than scenic ones.” While early on this got a lot of chuckles, I’ve worried as my number of friends went from 30 to 170+ that I’ve been retro-actively offensive to some people. It’s hard to know what people will take seriously when they aren’t your most inner circle.

Most specifically, however, I was referring to my own status updates, which have gotten very… bland, I guess… since my Luddite boyfriend joined the Facebook party. Love him as I do, I’m sensitive to his feelings. I felt bad recently when he brought up that I posted “is bored” on New Years, when he was one room over.

I struggled Monday night to articulate my feelings into an appropriately “cathartic yet cryptic” status update. The thing is, Steve knows me very well. He’d see through “would rather be dancing” to the relationship anxieties I (and everyone else, let’s be honest) go through from time to time. He’d know it meant I wish I could turn the lights on and listen to music and make an idiot of myself dancing in the mirror at 1:30am… all things I can’t do since he lives with me. In that moment, I was remembering loving living alone. And, at 1:30a, I worried that that might hurt his feelings.

Of course, Steve is Steve, and he not only wouldn’t mind that I wrote it, but I’m sure he’d understand, and even sympathize. I can’t imagine he finds living with me all roses either! So, at 1 in the afternoon here I don’t mind spelling out word for word on my wall what, at 1:30 AM I thought might hurt his feelings. (He also would never bother to read this long of a post, so I have that going for me too.) ;)

Still, it was a moment that magnified for me personally an anxiety that I know many of my close friends feel about the way we “used” to be on Facebook. Facebook is growing in usefulness, but declining in personality. We can only wear one mask at a time, and we change masks according to our audience. On Facebook, we must try to wear many masks at once, morphing us into an “average” of all our various masks and personalities. The look (and outlook) is pretty bland. Its inevitability (the bland morphed mask) is somewhat ironic on a tool called “Face”book.

::laugh:: Does that answer your question? :)”

Is there a paper in here somewhere?

Dec 02 0 comments
Digital Natives, Personal Rants, Social Media, Virtual Worlds

The (Facebook) Arc of Despair

I heart Facebook. Not ashamed to admit it, I really do. The “why” I offer to n00bs is this: I have two half-sisters by my father and one-half sister by my mother. The math on this is irrelevant, what is relevant is that despite being separated across three states and in one case a total lack of blood relation, my three sisters and I are ALL constantly in touch. Despite the fact that they haven’t seen each other in four years, my mother’s daughter (Joy) knows as much about my father’s daughter’s (Hannah’s) first semester of college as I do. I think that’s pretty amazing.

But, the truth is, I’m just pretty much the same exhibitionist that all other Facebookers who bother with status updates are. Somehow messaging the Facebook world of something in my life brings a validation I didn’t used to lack, but somehow, apparently need. As much as I love hearing about how my sisters are doing, I’m equally eager to keep them in the loop of “what’s up with Aubree” via status updates and posted links. But I need to be mindful of my larger audience, as the private life of me and my sisters gives way to a larger audience on Facebook. Vanessa Rhinesmith in her blog Left Behind Bottle Caps writes:

How do you define [your] space - public v. private, physical v. virtual? This is something that I’m continually pondering as I reassess my involvement in various physical and virtual communities. [...] Take Facebook, in some ways it is very easy to control how I navigate within this space - I control who I friend, which requests I accept and the options that are selected for the account. However, I am aware of my responsibility as a participant and am mindful of how I want to be perceived within the space.

Defining those spaces is difficult, especially when one begins to realize you cannot “have it all,” despite the promises of technology. I too, am mindful of how I want to be perceived within these virtual spaces… the problem is that how I want, or more to the point - need - to be perceived it is constantly changing. My Facebook profile once had 15 friends who I bored and entertained with alternating lame and revelatory status updates. Now I boast many more friends, many of whom are more like ‘friends’ than friends (more like acquaintances) and even some “friends” (sometimes I’m just too polite to decline a request). Originally I wanted to have fun with Facebook, after all, it was 15 people I knew, loved, and couldn’t offend even if I tried.

But now there are these ‘friends’ and “friends” to consider. My famed weekly 11pm “is a karaoke superstar” update no longer seems appropriate, especially if I owe a Facebook friend overdue work, or work with a FB friend who expects me to have my game on for a 9am meeting the next day. Recently I have been ill, and although Facebook would have been a convenient way to keep close friends posted on my progress, I simply knew I’d be unable to respond with “thank yous” to the many acquaintances who would, by some bizarre social power of the internet, feel obliged to write “What’s wrong? Hope you feel better soon!” on my wall, or drop me a FB message. Worse, it could be perceived as a broadcast excuse for something, or a pathetic cry for attention.

It is the pending “next shift” in how I use my Facebook profile that is the most saddening. Not only do I feel I can no longer be too outrageous (”is hula-hooping to ‘Genie in a Bottle’), nor personal (”is struggling through the pain to go outside for a bit”), but now I have a new impression I want - nope, not want, NEED - to convey: A professional one.

When I graduate in May I will be starting a business managing social profiles for artists and business people who understand that they need to have an active online social presence but have neither the time, energy, nor interest to do so. Like wearing make-up to sell Avon, my own sites must exude the fullest potential of social media networking. My hopelessly unattended LinkedIn page, my neglected MySpace page, and this here blog need to be flourishing, shining examples for my (potential) customers to envy. And my Facebook page? ::sigh:: My Facebook page. No longer will this be a place where I can celebrate and whine about life’s ups and downs; no longer will I be able to use my status updates to send cryptic messages and inside jokes to friends; no longer will this is a place of personal expression, but, instead, a place of professional projection. A clean and pressed suit to go along with the rest of my presentation.

I sense the pending shift and mourn, already, the loss of my whimsical Facebook profile. Yes, I am mindful of how I want to be perceived, and even moreso of how I need to be perceived. As time goes on, my awareness and ability to control how others perceive me is turning out to be this entrepreneurs’ goldmine… and also a bit of a bummer.

Feb 02 1 comments
Personal Rants, Urban Life

WBOS Axes its DJs and Format

A wildly personal and local outraged blog entry.

WBOS Changed its format and axed its DJs
(except George Knight who will still do a Sunday morning show)

I can’t even give you the link because they’ve axed their website too.

I used to brag about WBOS… George Knight moved to mornings, but I remember saying of him “I actually feel like I’m just hanging out at night and George is over in the corner goofing off a bit, giving me some scoop on musicians I love, introducing me to great new songs and artists, and playing fantastic music.” They also played all that great Boston local Music. That’s how I found out about Laura Vecchione. WBOS - What are you thinking??

And the Studio 7 series - brilliant and philanthropic… what will come of that?

…And how weird that mid-day host Dana Marshall is now Program Director and was a part of the decision. I suddenly feel like I’ve been cheated on for weeks!

Jan 31 0 comments
Personal Rants, Urban Life

MIT’s not-so-fun-afterall house

MIT Stata Center

MIT’s Stata Center is really, well, let’s just say “Something.” I once heard some one say “The building went up looking like it had just been knocked down.” I’ve always seen the Stata Center as a gross excess of labor, time and materials that culminated in a layout so awkward it’s hard to find the bathrooms. The building is unfriendly, at best, and I won’t lie that there’s some small part of me that is glad it’s causing so much trouble.

Fast Company has a brilliant article, “Lost in the Funhouse” detailing the efforts by the MIT community to sue revered architect Frank Gehry (who is now even designing for Tiffany’s, go figure) and The Stata Center’s construction firm, Skanska U.S.A. An important question raised early in the article (and is, sadly, never properly developed) asks:

But what about the “construction” piece of the lawsuit? What if the Stata Center’s woes are really about the growing gulf between computer-aided design and literal bricks and mortar?

I recall stating in class the highly unpopular theory that the building simply wasn’t as remarkable architecturally as it would have been 20 years ago. Back in the day any subtle shift in the design meant hundreds - if not thousands - of clearly documented recalculations, all now done in nanoseconds using sophisticated CAD. Though not quite “drag and drop,” much of today’s conceptual architecture is designed by dragging a point on a line, releasing the mouse button, and watching it snap back to its most extreme–yet structurally sound–angle.

So if math isn’t part of an architect’s job anymore, surely understanding materials is. When you’re dragging that point you need to know if you’re moving wall that will be made out of steel or putty. Interestingly, that is where the “fault” lies, according to the article.

So who is to blame? Lstiburek posits that the architects should have done a better job of specifying materials and techniques. [...] In other words, Gehry’s billowing sheets of metal and unexpected angles aren’t at fault: It’s how they were specced out and implemented.

It’s a mistake Ghery has made before:

True, some of Gehry’s other buildings have been tweaked after opening their doors, as when the steel-sided Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles had to be sanded to remove a glare that could practically cook eggs on the sidewalk.

There seems to be sympathy in the article at the end, that Gehry’s reputation may be tarnished as a result of the lawsuit. But doesn’t that make sense? Or has not having to do the math relieved architects of carefully considering how the “structurally sound” 30 degree corner, where glass meets brick, is going to respond to New England weather. If anything, it seems like they would have more time to investigate such things.

MIT is on the job, and has already spent millions of dollars “fixing” the three year old building, with “tens of millions” still to go. If awarded, the funds from the lawsuit will go toward making the Stata Center leak and crumble less. One wonders if they might address the other stark architectural issue while they’re at it, and make it look, well… finished.