After Reading 2 articles about new media I started realizing about the big controversy that new media has done in the last five to ten years. Knowing this I red one article called YouTube and instagram can ballster learning by Juan Carlos Castro, posted on economictimes.com, and another article called Teens social media and technology overview 2015 posted by Amanda Lenhart on pewresearch.com. To have a more simple and concrete identification we are going to refer to the article YouTube and instagram can ballster learning as article one, and article named Teens social media and technology overview 2015 is going to be referred as article two.
Lets start talking about some similarities about these two articles. The first similarity that I founded was that in both articles teens were occasionally targeted to be he point of discussion. In article one; the founder of the program in Quebec City makes the program of new media handling and proper use for teens or children. Also, article two chooses teenagers from ages in between thirteen and seventeen years old to make their investigations and percentages and ultimately get scientific results. The other similarity that I founded between both articles was that both mentioned electronic of technology devices as a tool to get access into new media. In article two the writer of the article. Amanda Lenhart bases all her information and studies on activity that is done on electronic devices. On article one, all the information that is given is about mediums that only can be accessible through a smartphone or another technological piece.
Although the similarities can be quite obvious there are some contrasting points that are interesting. On article one focalizes on a very specific field of new media, like YouTube and Instagram, which are clear and perhaps specific samples of social media. On the other hand, article two makes a more general approach to new media use, by not using specific samples of new social media to draw results and percentages. Another difference that I founded was that in article one, the foundation that was mentioned lately wasn’t just for teenagers; in any part of the article the restriction of grownups was mentioned. On the other hand article two gives the title itself as evidence to support that the article focalizes specifically on teens.
The two sources of information gave me a very obvious alert towards the noxious effects that new media is making on ourselves. Perhaps the foundation done by Juan Carlos Castro in Quebec can generate awareness on people about the damage that new media can make on people if it is used without measure. Regarding article two, the info in it is both important to know and shocking too. Maybe this article can give us an example of outcomes from bad new media use and hopefully people can start handling new social media in a more careful and responsible way.
Lets start talking about some similarities about these two articles. The first similarity that I founded was that in both articles teens were occasionally targeted to be he point of discussion. In article one; the founder of the program in Quebec City makes the program of new media handling and proper use for teens or children. Also, article two chooses teenagers from ages in between thirteen and seventeen years old to make their investigations and percentages and ultimately get scientific results. The other similarity that I founded between both articles was that both mentioned electronic of technology devices as a tool to get access into new media. In article two the writer of the article. Amanda Lenhart bases all her information and studies on activity that is done on electronic devices. On article one, all the information that is given is about mediums that only can be accessible through a smartphone or another technological piece.
Although the similarities can be quite obvious there are some contrasting points that are interesting. On article one focalizes on a very specific field of new media, like YouTube and Instagram, which are clear and perhaps specific samples of social media. On the other hand, article two makes a more general approach to new media use, by not using specific samples of new social media to draw results and percentages. Another difference that I founded was that in article one, the foundation that was mentioned lately wasn’t just for teenagers; in any part of the article the restriction of grownups was mentioned. On the other hand article two gives the title itself as evidence to support that the article focalizes specifically on teens.
The two sources of information gave me a very obvious alert towards the noxious effects that new media is making on ourselves. Perhaps the foundation done by Juan Carlos Castro in Quebec can generate awareness on people about the damage that new media can make on people if it is used without measure. Regarding article two, the info in it is both important to know and shocking too. Maybe this article can give us an example of outcomes from bad new media use and hopefully people can start handling new social media in a more careful and responsible way.