Digital listening is a component of new media that gives people, companies, and organizations an advantage to thrive. For news organizations, it allows them to use the A/B testing method to determine which headline will generate more clicks. In advertising, web searches aid in the disposition of ads. These forms of digital listening are no different that the strategic crafting of a personal Facebook status to generate more responses. It is just like taking a picture for Instagram (at your best, with a buzzing caption) to get more likes. Even social activist that participate in social movements know just what to say to create an uproar amongst the public. Propaganda exists everywhere- and we all use the same analytic approaches on a regular basis.
In an amazing, yet flawed digital era, it is important to remember that everything is being tracked for specific purposes. If you conduct an average of five searching sessions to shop for a new car, it should be no surprise that vehicle ads will continuously appear on web pages. However, there are times when we accidentally click something, or perhaps we are doing research that is entirely irrelevant to our personal interests. In those instances, digital listening is considered flawed, and annoying.
The Internet is a multipurpose platform that has evolved over time to fit our interests. Our interests are what create filter bubbles, which show more or less of what we want to see. This particular response of digital listening may be seen on a Google search, social networking sites, and even streaming programs such as Netflix and Hulu. For example, the “Top Picks for You” category on Netflix will vary from person to person. The content to which we are exposed to by way of filter bubbles can be misleading, but I would argue that this is not unethical.
The author discusses the A/B testing method and media’s practice to place an attention-grabbing headline in the center of the page in big, bold letters. In effect, stories to the side of the breaking news are overlooked. Also, people will move on with the idea that the headline in breaking news weighs more prominence compared to other issues. During the preceding months of the 2016 election, we consistently saw one of the two major candidates on the cover page of the main news organizations in place of other topics. Considering Hurricane Matthew and the crisis in Aleppo, an oblivious individual would completely disregard other important issues as a result of propaganda. But, we must consider the fact that it gave people something to talk about- in the classroom, at work, and more thoughts were more visible on social networking sites. Certainly, this was ideal for digital listeners.
Is there a way to use analytics to create a perfect media environment? Here is a more appropriate question: Should we use research and data sets to make complete inferences on how the world works? No, we shouldn’t. Humans developed the Internet. Humans develop programs and software. Bruce Schneider stated that there is potential for getting it wrong. Again, we saw this in the 2016 election. Polls constantly predicted that Hillary Clinton would become the first female president, and the results did not correspond with predictions. Information gathered by way of analytics and digital listeners may be very resourceful. However, it is not always the most reliable practice due to shifts in patterns and ideas.
This Is Chelsey 