That said, sometimes they write things that are just absurd. Like this article, for example, citing a survey that shows that Congress uses social media more than millennials. It’s the same story we hear all the time, throwing out a “shocking” social media statistic that isn’t really shocking because it’s naively considered newsworthy and tends to drive pageviews. Here’s a quote from the article:

About 80 percent of House and Senate members have social media accounts, reports The Associated Press, more than that of 18- 29-year-olds, the age cohort with the highest usage of social media. Only 75 percent of so-called millenials have social media accounts.

At first glance, of course this sounds like a great story.

But let’s keep in mind three things:

• Politicians are trying to get elected. Millennials—for the most part—are just having fun.
• There are 535 people in Congress. There are countless millennials, all from very different demographics. Of course there is going to be a higher percentage on the former than the latter.
• If you are just now figuring out that social media is important for politicians running for office, you’re about five years behind.

I mean really, guys, how is this news? Of course, politicians are on social media. Of course, there is a significant portion of millennials who are not on social media (contrary to popular belief). I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a survey to tell me that.

I’m beginning to grow weary of the “____ survey says ____ demographic uses ____ social media ____ amount” article template. I mean “shocking social media stats” are just cookie cutter media at this point. How about we talk about how social media is affecting the issues? Or what innovative things one of these audiences is doing with social media to make an impact on politics? Now that, I think, would be worth reading.

The narrative so far has been that this is finally a legitimate competitor for Apple’s iPad. It’s got decent specs, a huge brand name, and it’s running the Android operating system. Oh, and it’s $300 cheaper.

Meh. I wouldn’t count on this being a competitor for the iPad any more than the BlackBerry Playbook was (that being, not at all). Instead, let’s look at this from a different angle: content.

Amazon could care less about making hardware. They’re in the business of selling products, and it doesn’t matter whether that’s their own product or someone else’s. Is the profit margin a bit different? Sure, but at the end of the day, Amazon doesn’t care what it’s selling as long as it is selling something. They sell Apple products, BlackBerry products, DVDs, hardcover books… it doesn’t matter what it is, they’ll generally sell it.

So that in mind, why on earth would they release a product to compete with the iPad when they can simply sell more iPads and continue to make money? Because it’s all about content.

The Kindle is a gateway drug for entertainment. And the one product Amazon hasn’t quite been able to crack has been content (with the exception of MP3s, which seem to be doing pretty well)—until the Kindle came along. With the Kindle they slaughtered the publishing industry, completely rethinking the way your average consumer buys books and consumes content. They priced it right and included only the features customers needed. Not surprisingly, they’ve sold like hotcakes.

The Kindle Fire is opening salvo of a new battle, this time for video content. Netflix has been king of the streaming video playground for quite some time, but recent developments suggest they could be faltering. If Amazon can get the Kindle Fire in enough consumer hands, with easy access to paid, streaming content through Amazon (and not Netflix), then they’ve just converted a whole slew of users looking for entertainment on the go. Once watching on the Kindle Fire, users gain an awareness of Amazon’s desktop streaming offerings and Amazon has an opportunity to jump into the streaming content industry in a big way. Netflix, watch out.

I had the honor of witnessing 14 other individuals give some truly remarkable presentations, and I had the incredible honor of speaking myself. I spoke on social learning, and the disconnect we—more often than not—see between the way students are learning and the way modern teachers are teaching. For now, I’ll leave it at that, but my PowerPoint presentation is embedded below. As soon as I have the video, I’ll post that as well.

Thanks so much to everyone who made the event so great, and a huge thanks to all those behind Ignite DC who chose me to be one of the speakers for this event. I’m thrilled to have played a part, and I can’t wait for Ignite DC 7!

It strikes me as a little amazing looking at how the media has evolved in only the past few short years. And I’m not even talking about social media. All the old forms, too, particularly television, have changed dramatically over the past decade or so, and even I have noticed this shift. But more than that, I’ve noticed a shift in the way we look at the media.

No longer is the media where we get our news. The media is news. No longer are newscasters simply the people telling us the highlights of the day–they’re part of the story. And, most obvious, news is clearly no longer the supposedly unbiased bastion of neutrality that it had once aspired to be. The media is, dare I say, quite possibly the most important thing our country has, and is worthy of far more respect, research, and recognition than it gets right now.

The fact that the topic du jour is “the political impact of the Stewart/Colbert rally” says it all. The mere idea of two professional cable TV comedians leading one of what could be the most important political rallies of the decade would have been laughed off even two years ago. But here we are, expecting crowds of up to 150,000 people on the national mall tomorrow, and wondering aloud what this could all mean for the world of American politics.

Anyway, I’m just musing here, but it seems amazing to me how quickly the media themselves have become the leading topic they cover. I’m not going to make any conjectures just yet as to whether this is good or bad, but it’s interesting. And it’s just another way that the media is changing dramatically in our new media world. This is new media. This new idea of how the media interacts with the world around us and how we engage with the media. This is all new. And it’s fun, and fascinating. And I’m ready to rally.

Are you going to the rallies tomorrow? Which one are you marching for–sanity, or fear?

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t seem fulfilling. I just want something a little bigger. Deeper. Politics? Teaching? Public policy? I’m just not sure that shilling on Twitter is going to give me quite the fulfillment I’m looking for. I want to make communications better. I want to change lives with words and with new ways of using those words.

I want to think different. To come up with something brilliant and innovative. I want to talk about how people are changing the world with their words and with new ways of communicating.

Who’s with me?

I’ve grown up in a world that is increasingly connected and digital. Emotions, thoughts, ideas, passions, as well as money, business, commerce, and research, all take place online. Communicated. Transformed. Developed. That’s the world as we live it.

It’s not the same for those that grew up before us. Even those born in the late 70s don’t quite see the world the same as we do, I don’t think. David Carr’s media column today in the New York Times, “Film Version of Zuckerberg Divides Generations”, really underscores these differences, I think–on an even deeper level than just technology. A key paragraph:

Many older people will watch the movie, which was No. 1 at the box office last weekend, and see a cautionary tale about a callous young man who betrays friends, partners and principles as he hacks his way to lucre and fame. But many in the generation who grew up in a world that Mr. Zuckerberg helped invent will applaud someone who saw his chance and seized it with both hands, mostly by placing them on the keyboard and coding something that no one else had.

Put simply, I couldn’t agree more. The world I know is one where the possibilities are endless. Where, honestly, collaboration is often pushed aside in the name of innovation and success. I’m not saying this is right or wrong, I’m just saying… it is.

Zuckerberg, in a lot of ways, really embodies our generation (or at least our generation from my point of view, in the “bubble” or not). He’s a little socially awkward. He doesn’t care as much about his personal image as he does the success of his company. He doesn’t care as much about success and wealth as he does innovation and influence. He’ll do anything to become who he wants to be, and let no one stop in his way. He’s connected, tech-savvy, smart, creative. He gets how others think, just not always the what or why we think what we think. Maybe it’s just me… but I can relate to pretty much all of that.

In some ways, I hesitate to suggest that our generation is somehow special or different than those that came before us. After all, almost every young generation that comes along tends to believe it is somehow different, somehow more unique and revolutionary than the last generation. Many argue–including myself in the past–that really no generation is terribly unique, that we all go through stages of conflict, of innovation, of rebellion, and then assimilation into the world as it moves on, with or without our generation.

More and more, I don’t think that’s the case. I think that now, for perhaps the first time since the industrial revolution, our generation embodies a dramatic shift in thought in the world. We think differently about, well, almost everything. About the way we communicate, the way we do business, and the way we create knowledge. We view the world differently and are generally hyper-aware of the diversity of cultures, as well as our interconnectedness. Bringing my point home, I think a lot of that has to do with the Internet, with new definitions of “media” and “social”, and to a certain extent, with Mark Zuckerberg.

What do you think? Does Zuckerberg represent us? Is this “digital divide” much bigger than just between income levels and race? Is it between generations, and does it represent much more than an ability to use technology–but in fact an entire way of living our lives and pursuing our dreams? Go read David Carr’s column today, then let me know.

If nothing else, the movie made me appreciate Zuckerberg’s work even more. It’s something to be respected, really. If I had the guts or the brilliance to come up with an idea like that, I’d hope people would think the same of me. And you know what? If I had so-called “friends” from college who wanted to try to take it from me, I’d fight like hell in and out of court to keep their grubby hands off of it, too.

In a lot ways, I’m jealous–like I’m sure many of us are. Here’s Mark Zuckerberg, barely five years older than I am, and already the 35th richest person in the world. One of the founders of an entirely new way of communicating–of living, even. He’s changed the world, significantly and quickly, and that’s absolutely mind-blowing. I want that. I want to change the world that quickly, that positively. Don’t we all?

The movie does say one thing about Mark, accurately, I think: that the money doesn’t mean anything to him. And it shouldn’t. It’s never about the money. When I make enough to survive and live a decent lifestyle, money becomes unimportant. It’s about the influence, the popularity, and the feeling of accomplishment. Especially that last one. And given that probably 95% of everything we do in life is striving for influence, popularity, or professional success (money included), I don’t think any of us have the right to criticize him. The man just donated $100 million to Newark public schools for chrissakes. Public relations stunt or not, it’s one hundred effing dollars and we should questioning motives and let him be a good person like, apparently, he wants to be.

Anyway, it was a good movie. Go see it. It might make you think, but not about what you thought it would make you think about. Does that make sense?

That’s what the AMP Summit, being held today and tomorrow here in Washington, D.C., is all about–and so far, it’s a fantastic conference.

This morning I had the pleasure of volunteering with registration at the conference, which earned me a free ticket and the chance to bump into more than few cool people right from the get-go. Once off my shift, I attended a session on online advertising with representatives from Aol, Google, and Facebook–lots of good content, albeit mixed in with some heavy sales pitches and brand plugs.

Not a whole lot of time to discuss it much right now, but if you’d like to keep up with the conference be sure to follow the hashtag, #AMP10, and check their website to follow along with the schedule of events. And of course, follow me on Twitter for all of my own exciting updates and commentary.

It’s all especially relevant lately, and here in D.C., as Stewart and Colbert prepare for their big rallies on the National Mall in October.

American University Professor Matt Nisbet has been writing a lot about this lately on his Age of Engagement blog and he has a lot of fascinating things to say. One of the coolest parts about his most recent posts on this topic, too, is that he’s interviewed one of my other favorite American University professors, Dr. Lauren Feldman, about the issue (she also happens to be our AU-SMCEDU advisor–more on that soon).

It’s all absolutely fascinating to read. Read the whole series on the Age of Engagement blog here–Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. And check out a quick excerpt below the cut.

Q: Are audiences learning about politics when they watch these programs or are these programs, as some fear, replacing the use of more valuable sources of news and information?

Feldman: During the 2004 election, the Pew Research Center reported that young people were relying on satirical comedy programs like SNL and The Daily Show and late-night talk shows like Leno and Letterman for information about the campaign. While this group was the most likely to say they learned from comedy, it was the least likely to say they learned from network news and newspapers. These trends fueled a media narrative that young people were deserting traditional news in favor of comedy.

Well, it turns out that although at a macro-level, yes, young people as a demographic are consuming much less traditional news and more late-night comedy, it is not necessarily that the same individuals who are tuning out the news are those watching late-night. A 2006 study conducted by Danna Young and Russ Tisinger found that those young people who reported watching and learning the most from late-night comedy also reported the highest rates of exposure to more traditional forms of news.

As a follow up to that study, I partnered with Danna Young to investigate whether exposure to political information in late-night comedy might actually lead people to pay more attention to traditional news. We were testing something called the “gateway hypothesis,” originally proposed by Harvard political scientist Matthew Baum.

This is the idea that entertainment programming that contains political content will motivate otherwise uninterested viewers to start paying attention to the news by making politics more salient (via its political interviews, jokes, etc.) and providing them with a cursory understanding of political issues.

Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that over the course of the 2004 primaries, the audiences of Leno and Letterman increased their attention to campaign news in traditional sources at a faster rate than non-viewers—suggesting that coverage of the election on Leno and Letterman fostered interest in conventional campaign news.

The audience for The Daily Show, on the other hand, maintained high levels of news attention regardless of that program’s election coverage. This is likely because, unlike Leno and Letterman, the content of The Daily Show is consistently and reliably political—not just during campaign events and elections, but all the time. These results confirm that late-night comedy audiences—of both The Daily Show and Leno/Letterman varieties—are not tuning into these programs instead of traditional news.

I would also argue that traditional news is not necessarily more valuable as a source of political information than The Daily Show or Colbert Report. Although it is unclear how much people learn about politics from The Daily Show and Colbert Report, any absence of learning is not due to a dearth of political substance – for example, a study by Julia Fox and colleagues found that The Daily Show was at least as substantive in its coverage of the 2004 election as the network evening news.

More likely, audiences are already knowledgeable about the news of the day when they tune into The Daily Show and Colbert Report. All in all, I would argue that The Daily Show and similar programs provide a useful complement to, rather than a replacement for, citizens’ traditional news diets.

Q: It seems that the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and SNL have become an important part of our personal conversations about politics, at least among a younger generation of Americans. If these programs are not only being watched but also frequently talked about at school, at the office, or online via Facebook and blogs, does this add to their impact?

Feldman: Absolutely. Conversations about these shows – both online and offline – only serve to increase their profile and reinforce their impact. People don’t have to actually see the original broadcast of these programs in order to be influenced by them. Moreover, when relayed by a friend or colleague, along with a personal endorsement or commentary, this is apt to give more weight – or provide new context – to the show’s message.

Comedy Central apparently recognizes the importance of informal sharing of its shows’ content; its website facilitates online conversations about The Daily Show and The Colbert Report by making it easy for people to embed or link to their video clips on blogs, social media, etc.

Privileged Straight White Male Technology Executives

Tynan points out Danah Boyd’s fun little acronym, PSWMTE, to refer to Zuckerberg right off the bat–because evidently pulling random demographic stereotypes into a long unwieldy acronym solidifies an argument about privacy–indicating that these PSWMTEs simply don’t care about your average Joe.

Let’s try a new acronym: BASJOSSI.

Baseless Accusation by So-called Journalist with an Overinflated Sense of Self Importance.

Grow up, before you attempt to kick off a long rant that you actually want people to take seriously. And, without further ado, begins my long rant.

Those Stats Are Irrelevant

Tynan points to some new conclusions in a PC Tools and Harris Interactive poll as support for his argument that users still care about privacy:

• Four out of five Americans want to keep files on their computers private from others — whether it’s their coworkers (48 percent), boss (42 percent), friends (40 percent), children (29 percent), parents (26 percent), or spouse (17 percent).
• Nearly half (45 percent) say they’d be embarrassed if those other folks saw some of the stuff they have on their PC, smartphone, wonder tablet, etc.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I’m really failing to see what the hell this has to do with privacy. Last I heard, even those pesky Facebook privacy settings can’t force you to reveal the entire contents of your computer’s hard drive, nor does it blast an LCD projection of your phone everywhere you go. These numbers are absolutely meaningless for the sake of this argument.

“…ignoring how people really feel about their privacy… is a recipe for disaster.” Sure.

That statement in and of itself is ridiculous. If that were true, then please explain to me, Mr. Tynan, how not only is Mark Zuckerberg now the 35th richest man in the world, but Facebook’s valuation has approximately tripled since 2009 and they continue to grow at a phenomenal rate. That sure tells me that people care a lot about their privacy… please note that sarcasm.

It’s All About the Illusion

When it comes right down to it people like Mr. Tynan and Danah Boyd are complaining about privacy because they legitimately think it’s a legitimate concern, and because they just want to be sure that it’s not really an emergency. It’s like screaming “fire” and hoping the sprinklers come on, just to make sure they work. Everyone wants to know those privacy safeguards are there, whether or not there’s actually a reason for them. So they constantly complain about how dangerous our lack of privacy is, despite the fact that there’s certainly no emergency–in fact, most Web privacy concerns are just plain wrong.

Why? Because deep down inside, way down, our culture is way over privacy. We (and I mean a collective “we”) passed up privacy in the 90s. We share everything–often, too much information about everything (the acronym TMI didn’t come out of nowhere, folks)–and the idea that now, of all times, we should actually be concerned about privacy… well, give me a break.

We’re no more concerned about privacy on Facebook now than we are buying textbooks on Amazon.com. We care less about what people know about our personal lives than we do care about how much milk is in the fridge. And we could care less what anyone does with the information we give them, as long as they pretend like it’s nice and safe and secure.

Eventually, we’ll be over that illusion of privacy, too. That’s probably a ways off, but boy I’m sure Zuckerberg dreams about that every night. What a world it would be if people stopped bitching about how secure their information was, and just learned to live as better people who didn’t have to worry about embarrassing secrets getting out. Think about that one.