Benefits of constant media use far and few between

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

We live in a media age. The young folks are submerged in a complex media landscape that involves being constantly connected to the Internet. Americans aged 8 to 18 years old spend more than 7 1/2 hours a day in front of a screen, be it television, computer, iPod or smart phone.

Ever watched TV and surfed the web at the same time?  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation study, since more than one medium is being used at a time, a person can actually pack in close to 11 hours of media and Internet time per day.

The Millennial Generation, or those among us who are somewhere between adolescence and late twenty-something, modus operandi is to be hyper-connected all the time. If I am in front of a computer I am also logged into Facebook, Twitter and  both of my e-mail accounts (at least). I often boot up my computer as soon as I wake in the morning, and it stays on and open until I go to sleep at night — closing only when I need to relocate to another class or Internet connection.

I have been wondering lately, however, if this normalization of absurd amounts of screen time is all that good. Sure, there are benefits to online attachments. I can find academic articles in moments for classes, and it saves paper to use electronic textbooks and consume news media online. I also talk to my sister a lot more often than I did before we were both on Facebook. But in all honesty, I am not doing any of these laudable things in 95 percent of my time connected to the web.

For example: have you seen Go Fug Yourself? Two chicks in LA make very snarky fun of terrible celebrity fashion. Could there be a more sublime time waster? Or, when I’m not spending time reading Texts From Last Night, where unfortunate text messages are revealed, I am perusing Overheard in the Newsroom, where journalists' unfortunate conversations are posted. I have more than one list of bookmarks in my net browser, organized by category, where more gems of worthless time suck can be found.

Maybe I just need some new blogs to destroy my days with, but this endless Internet routine is just plain boring. Nothing really exciting happens on the Internet — my friends make meaningless observations on Twitter, I get slews of emails from MU administration, and I obsessively read the New York Times (and not usually the really newsy part).

There is a social pressure not only to be constantly connected but also to be constantly seeking stimulation. There is no just having a coffee, you must be online and having a coffee, or texting and having a coffee. It is infinitely frustrating to want to sit and read a book but feel the necessity to check in online every hour. Nothing is really happening, no one said anything that can’t wait until the book is read, but it is imperative to be present online.

The Internet age has many advantages. An entire generation of Americans is dependent on portable communications devices to stave off the smallest amounts of ennui. The philosophical standard for existence is no longer “cogito, ergo sum” (not that this standard was ever the final word on the proof of existence). We now subscribe to: I am online, therefore I am.

Erin K. O'Neill is a former assistant director of photography and page designer for the Missourian. She is also a master's degree candidate at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.

The problem with Facebook photos

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

I was an early adopter of Facebook.com. It became popular in 2004, my freshman year of college. This was before all the colleges and universities in the U.S. were able to register, and a few years before Facebook was open to everyone. So, most of my kind-of-adult social life has been influenced by the social networking culture that Facebook has spawned.

This means almost constant awareness of the danger of Facebook photos. Any photo taken of me (or you) in any condition, can be uploaded and shared with the world, regardless of my (or your) preference. Facebook, in its own way, encourages the proliferation of images, no matter how inane or embarrassing the images might be.

Most people I know who are not members of the photo nerd brigade upload as many photos as they can to Facebook — unlike other digital photo upload sites such as Flickr or Photobucket, Facebook does not have a limit. Some people literally upload every frame they take with their digital cameras, without restraint.

“Photography has become almost as widely practiced an amusement as sex and dancing — which means that, like every mass art form, photography is not practiced by most people as an art,” author and critic Susan Sontag wrote in On Photography.  “It is mainly a social rite, a defense against anxiety and a tool of power.”

Facebook is the equivalent of being stuck in a friend’s vacation slideshow. Do I really need to see every photo someone took at a party, including images of one person with their arms around every single person in attendance? Or, every single frame of a friend’s vacation to Iowa City?

“Photographs will offer indisputable evidence that the trip was made, that the program was carried out, that fun was had,” Sontag wrote. “Photography has become one of the principal devices for experiencing something, for giving an appearance of participation.” This is a shame.

Photography should not be a means through which a person experiences life. It takes a person out of the moment, and anesthetizes the life experience, putting distance between the person behind the camera lens and their life. I am in the business of providing photographic proof for this fine newspaper, the Missourian. I know aspiring professionals who live and breathe photography — and I know a few who can’t function without a camera in their hands and their eyes looking through the viewfinder.

Why do people need indisputable proof that they had a good time? And furthermore, why do people need 120 frames of said photographic proof?

“Needing to have reality confirmed and experience enhanced by photographs is an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted,” Sontag wrote. “Industrial societies turn their citizens into image-junkies.” It is a socialized compulsion to photograph one’s life. There is a sense that if it is not photographed, it did not happen. Facebook plays into this insecurity — if the photos are not on Facebook, it must have been a boring evening.

But any serious documentary photographer knows that things happen outside of the camera’s gaze all the time. Photographers speak of capturing “the moment” or “the peak action” of an event — the best and most visual slice of time, with the most visceral visual emotion, the 1/125 of a second that tells the story. This is a hard task. It is more than having your friend say “cheese” or standing under the Gateway Arch. There are no do-overs, no posing. Photographers miss the moment all the time, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

So I ask for some discretion from the public. No one needs to see 200 photographs from the party last night. Take it easy, shutterbug. Pick, say, five images. Or better yet, leave the camera at home and have a good time without it.

Erin K. O'Neill is an assistant director of photography for the Missourian and a graduate student at the Missouri School of Journalism. She is a Facebook user, but posts photos to her blog.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.