Childrens stories will always stick with us even as adults. While they are cute, they also provide good messages to take away. The purpose of children’s stories are not only to tell a story but to teach them a lesson as well.  In this article by Hephzibah Anderson, they talk about the themes that children’s stories have. They also talk about going back as an adult and reading all the stories that you did as a child. While some of these messages are more obvious, there are some that are more hidden and communicate a deeper meaning you would understand more as an adult. An example given in the article was the story of How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a parable of consumerism. Consumerism is a concept most children would not get but you would understand it as an adult. Childrens stories have no age limit, and they all teach lessons that we can learn even as adults.

Communication theory is about how we understand communication. By definition communication is “The relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (6). We create messages to gain a response. There are several different types of messages or texts. Texts are not just books, according to communication theorists a text is “A record of a message that can be analyzed by others (e.g., a book, film, photograph, or any transcript or recording of a speech or broadcast).” (6). Communication is not just about talking, there are various other mediums used to communicate. Another important note is how these messages are interpreted. According to Griffin, “The meaning that a message holds for the creators and receivers doesn’t reside in the words that are spoken, written, or acted out.” (7). This means that messages are not explicitly stated, instead you must interpret them yourself and everyone will interpret a message differently.

The hidden messages in children’s books is a good way to start understanding communication theory. After all communication is the process of how messages are created and interpreted through various texts. All stories have meaning and messages that they convey to the readers. Stories are created and they are interpreted by whoever reads them. Like the story in the article How the Grinch Stole Christmas, this book would be interpreted differently as a child rather than adult. An interpretation that you could make as a child is that the message is just because you have been hurt, that does not mean that you get to hurt others as well. While we can still come to this conclusion as an adult, we still have a deeper understanding and can interpret the message in a different way. For example, we can think about the messages of consumerism. As seen during the holidays there are stressed out shoppers everywhere trying to buy everything that they can for gifts or for decorations, even if we do not necessarily need all of it. Not all tales have hidden meanings, and some are more straight forward, but that is up to the reader to interpret it that way. Not every message in a book will be spelt out for us. We must come to that conclusion ourselves. Much like everything else in our lives.

Social media is everywhere in our lives today, from apps like Facebook, Instagram and twitter. Almost everyone has these apps and uses them probably every day. While there are some that choose to completely get rid of the apps, people can still be influenced by them in some ways. While no one particularly likes politics, unless of course you are in that field or want to work in it, it is undeniable that social media platforms do play a role in and in some ways can influence voter behavior. In this article by Dan Jasper, he talks about the impact social media has on politics. While the influence it considered minor it is till significant enough to be noticed. While social media has improved the way information flows, outreach and so on, he also claims that it increases political polarization, the spread of misinformation and it can cause people to get harassed. While there can be some good to social media, as you can see there are also some negative effects or influences that it can have on people. This article also discusses the ways that social media has affected and framed social issues that in turn also affect vies on politics. This article can also help us better understand the narrative paradigm, media ecology and the agenda-setting theory.

First and foremost, the narrative paradigm is “A theoretical framework that views narrative as the basis of all human communication.” (300). This means people use stories in order to communicate, and in social media personal stories can be used to influence views. Additionally, “…the narrative paradigm maintains that, armed with a bit of common sense, almost any of us can see the point of a good story and judge its merits as the basis for belief and action.” (301). We do not always judge things fully rationally and this maintains that we can believe a story if we think it is true or fits in with our beliefs. This claim also suggests that all that is needed to convince someone of a good argument is to tell a good story, facts and data are not needed in order to convince an audience. This also goes with narrative fidelity. Narrative fidelity is the “Congruence between values embedded in a message and what listeners regard as truthful and humane; the story strikes a responsive chord.” (302). Sometimes if we have had something happen to us that is similar to the story being told, we tend to believe it more. This can also be true if the story matches with our personal beliefs or values. If it does, we can be convinced that the narrative being told is in fact true.

Another important note is media ecology. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are all forms of media. Media is the “generic term for all human invented technology that extends the range speed, or channels of communication.” (310).  Social media platforms are just one of those channels we use to communicate.  These platforms also make different environments that we communicate in. These environments are called media ecology which is “the study of different personal and social environments created by the use of different communication.” (310).   Each form of communication can form different environments so this can affect what groups we communicate in. These environments can be active, political, aggressive and hold so many different views. Additionally, McLuhan claims that we are currently in the electronic age. When talking about the electronic age, McLuhan insists that we are “now in a global village. Electronic media brings us into contact with everyone, everywhere, instantaneously.” (315). We are able to connect with others across the world with little to no barriers. We can know about events that are going on in other countries and so on.

Another important topic to mention is agenda-setting and social media can play a role in it. According to the text the agenda-setting theory is “The basic hypothesis of the theory is this: Over time, the media agenda shapes the public agenda. Said differently, there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between what the news reports and how the public thinks about the world.” (368). Social media counts as one of these forms of media as it opens up so many more channels for us to receive information.  While it does have its merits there are also downsides that can cause misinformation to be spread. One of these forms is fake news. Fake news is “News articles that are intentionally and verifiably false and could mislead readers.” (374). You can see people all over social media believing false news, this is something that I have personally seen a lot on Facebook. Another important note to mention is the way that we can combine agendas to fit our preferences and worldviews.  Agenda melding is also mentioned and McCombs and Shaw claim that, “People like to spend time with those that who think like they do. The association between similarity and liking (see Chapter 9) extends to the media we choose. It’s also selective exposure because we’re only paying attention to ideas we find agreeable…” (376). We tend to expose ourselves to what we want to hear and see. This creates spaces were people come together with those of similar views.  The bad thing about this is that we are not exposed to other viewpoints because we avoid it.

The narrative paradigm can be used a lot when it comes to social media and politics.  There are several instances of people telling stories on social media. Many of these stories’ people can relate to and so they will believe.  One example mentioned in the article was the Black Lives Matter movement or even the Me Too movement.  Both of these social movements were all over social media and people were telling their stories on different platforms. There were also many people who had similar stories who could relate to what was being told. For example, say, someone was treated unfairly by the police and shares their story about it. There are people that have similar experiences, and that story will strike a chord with them. This is why these stories are believable to others because they can connect and relate to them. These are some of the reasons why these movements were so influential in politics and social media helped spread these stories.  These stories also caused political change especially in US Congress with the ME TOO Congress act and it also helped with removing men who had been accused of this conduct are sexual harassment.  This is also somewhat similar to the events that happened with the Black Lives Matter movement. Many of the activists’ cause change to happen with their stories, especially when it comes to stories about police.  There are so many people who had the same experience as African Americans. All of these stories affected everyone across the globe and promoted social and political change.  This is why stories can be so influential and the accessibility to social media helps spread these stories and information everywhere.

Social media also creates certain environments in spaces for people to communicate.  This is where a media ecology comes into play. Social media is a form of communication that was invented due to technology. Social media also extends the reach of information that can affect our views on politics and influence out behavior. Additionally, these platforms create different environments to communicate in. This is especially true for politics. As you can see on various platforms these environments can also cause divides among people. For example, say someone leans heavily to the right when it comes to politics and that they have a platform on Facebook that perpetuates their beliefs. This is an environment created for and meant to be catering to other conservatives. As you can sometimes see they will also insult or belittle those who have different political beliefs or are a part of social movements. The same can be said for someone who is on the other side of the political spectrum. Each of these platforms will create wildly different environments for people to communicate in. Additionally, these platforms allow us to communicate and connect to others globally, or in other words we are a global village. This is why social movements and politics can even affect other countries with the aid of social media. Bringing up the Me Too movement again, you could see this event that started in the United States spread globally like wildfire. The UK also took part in the movement, and it even caused 36 members of parliament to be implicated. Another example given in the article was China, even though the tag #Me Too was banned they still found a way to spread it by using the tag #RiceBunny. The same can also be said for Black Lives Matter. The issue in the United States had spread globally and there were others holding protests, vigils and painted murals in support of the movement and victims of police brutality. As you can see social media has a huge reach and can affects and expose us to what is happening globally, and these issues can cause political change even in other countries that where the issue originated from.

As a final note, social media can be used for agenda-setting especially when it comes to politics. Media can shape the public agenda especially if it is something that you are exposed to over and over again. This can also go back to the Me Too movement or Black Lives matter. The more exposed people are to it the more it can affect a person’s views on the issue. If all they are exposed to is critics of the movement or only see people speaking negatively about said movements that can cause people to have their views influenced. This is the same for others on the other side of the spectrum. If a platform supports the movements, then they are helping set the agenda, this is also the same for those who would disagree. A very important note when it comes to media is fake news. The spread of false information can leave people uniformed of what is actually going on and can even negatively influence politics. This misinformation can spread like wildfire on social media platforms and cause several issues. One huge and well-known issue with fake news that is known globally is the 2016 United States presidential election. Peoples trust in what is traditional media is declining causing people to turn to social media to get their news. Although, even social media is not immune to having fake news being spread and it can still run rampant. An example given by Jasper was a Facebook post that linked an article with false information. The post was about Pope Francis supposedly endorsing Donald Trump for president of the United States. This was a false story, but it spread like wildfire because of how fast fake news is spread. Although it was an insignificant amount, it did somewhat influence voter behavior. A final important note is agenda melding. This is where we can mix agendas in order to fit our views. We tend to only look at media that fits our views and beliefs and avoid exposing ourselves to what we disagree with or challenges our beliefs. This in turn causes us to only spend and communicate with those who share our beliefs and think the way we do. This can be seen all over social media, we will follow and listen to those who share the same beliefs that we do. Although this can cause major problems such as the polarization of politics. Social media is so divided which in turn causes the public, especially in the United States to be very divided when it comes to politics. If you listen and only view platforms that lean republican chances are that those are the only platforms you interact with, this is the same if you are democratic. Many of these platforms bash the other side furthering the polarization and influencing others to only listen to one side or the other when it comes to politics. Social media can have quite the impact on politics.

Stories have probably existed for as long as humanity has existed. We love to tell stories about ourselves and our experiences, whether they are good or bad. Stories over time also get passed down and they can become memorable. Us humans do tend to think of our lives as stories. In this article by Tom Corson-Knowles, he writes about why these stories are important for not only our lives but our culture as well. Stories can be universal, understand ourselves, teach us a lesson, broaden our perspective and even help us better understand others. Stories shape who we are.

In the text, Griffin mentions Fisher and his beliefs. Griffin states that “He [Fisher] is convinced that that we are narrative beings who “experience and comprehend life as a series of ongoing narratives, as conflicts, characters, beginnings, middles and ends.”” (297). This means that human communication can be seen as stories. Additionally we often tell these through narratives. Narration is defined as “Symbolic actions—words and/or deed—that have sequence and meaning for those who live create or interpret them.” (299). You can see these symbols in many stories, some great examples are cultural stories like myths, legends or traditions. Much of our communication is through narratives. The narrative paradigm is defined as, “A theoretical framework that views narrative as the bases if all human communication.” (300). We tell stories everyday, in our personal lives, at school or even at work.

How we tell stories, the stories that are passed down and the stories of our cultures can all be used to help understand the narrative paradigm. First and foremost, one of Fishers main beliefs is that we communicate and understand our lives as stories. When we tell others about our lives we are telling each other about our experiences and emotions that we felt at the time, along with the lessons learned during those moments. Additionally, we do often see our lives, as the beginning, middle and end. Our beginnings are our birth and childhood the middle of our story could be where we are in our lives and the end is when we near the end of our lives. Stories of our cultures always have symbolic meanings in them, which can be used as examples of narration (now that does not mean that the story is untrue). One story that you can look at is the story of Rapunzel. It teaches about the consequences of stealing and how important patients and determination are. Humans are storytellers and these stories are important can can teach us many lessons. They can teach us how to act and give us wisdom. They can influence the way we communicate, our opinions on genre and so on. Stories can influence us in different ways, especially if it is something that we see as believable or fits in, in our beliefs. When stories do fit our morals or the beliefs that we have, this is when stories are most influential to us. This is why can tell so much about us and who we are.

The media has always been a large part of American history. This article explains how it has evolved over time. Politicians especially have used media in order to influence public opinions. It has gone from the news papers, to the radio and TV, and through various other sources of media. Politicians will always take full advantage of these resources. You can see it in the past and even today. These sources have influenced everything to our views on parties, whether or not we support a war, to our views on other countries and their policies.

Griffin’s main topic is Media ecology and Focuses on McLuhan’s study. The media creates different environments and these change due to new communication technologies. Media ecology is defined as, “The study of different personal and social environments created by the use of different communication technologies.” (310). This means that different communication technologies (newspapers, radios, TV etc.) create different environments in how we socialize and in our personal lives.  According to McLuhan we are currently in the electronic age, “An era of instant communication; a return to the the global village with all-at-once sound and touch.” (315). Information and the ability to connect to others globally is so much easier. According to Postman he believed that new technology is like a Faustian bargain, “A new technology sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it destroys more than it creates.” (317). New technologies seem like a gamble sometimes they can help society and there are times when they do not.

Different mediums create different personal and social environments. As the mediums have advanced to the TV, radio and other media sites these have changed overtime. As technology has increased and gotten better, the way things are portrayed have become more emotive. People focus more on how information makes them feel and form opinions through that.  A large part of American history has been in the electronic age. This can be seen through the technologies we have used for communication such as; Radio’s the T.V, Service announcements and so on. These forms of media shape our environments, our opinions and our ideologies. One example used in the article was how the news portrayed the cold war in the 80s. The example given with this is how Poland had a crackdown on the Solidarity Union. While the media can be good and can open up new avenues for us to communicate there can be downsides to these new technologies. With how things are portrayed sometimes we do not always think fully rationally and instead think with our emotions. Many forms of media rely on our emotions, from politicians to advertisements. These technologies are controlled by people can they can heavily influence are views to fit agendas. One example given in the article was that while they covered the issue in Poland they did not cover what was happening in Turkey at them time. Such as the militaries brutal crackdown on the trade unions. A final note is that as the technologies increase is that communication and how we interact becomes impersonal.

Everyone watches the news or is exposed to it in some way. Some people get the news through papers, news channels, or even social media. There are multiple sources  were people can get their news. In this article, Zaria Gorvett speaks about how the news can change the way that we think and the way that they behave. The first example given was about the Boston marathon bombing.  According to a study one of the groups that had been affected the most were those who had consumed the news. They had shown to have a high stress response and affected their mental health. Domestically the news can affect our views on immigrants, it can affect our dreams, world views, views on other countries and so on. Although sometimes the news can warp our views negatively.

In the text Griffin talks about media agenda and how it affects our perceptions. First and foremost media agenda is defined as, “The list of issues emphasized by the news media at any given time.” (368). This means that media shows us what we should be focusing on. Secondly, the news does not just affect our opinions, “But in his most recent book on agenda setting, McCombs presents several intriguing findings showing that media priorities also influence people’s behavior.” (373). Media does influence our behaviors by a lot. Lastly,  Agendamelding is defined as, “The social process by which we meld agendas from various sources to create pictures of the world to fit our experiences and preferences.” (376). This means that we combine our sources of information to fit our own world view. This is not always a good thing because we only end up view things that we agree with.

This article is a great way to understand  how the media can set agendas, and influence the ways we think and the ways that we behave. As stated in the article, the media can influence what we focus on. In one case it can be immigration. This is a big focus here in America. Let’s take two news channels as an example; Fox news and CNN. On one hand CNN will defend immigrants that come to America while Fox News will advocate to deport them if they cross the border. They both show the story to get people to focus on it and in some ways the way the news portrays it, in order to fit their agenda, affects our beliefs and behaviors. The article also gave an example of how the news can affect our behavior. An example given was how the media frames the Coronavirus, which causes people to have high stress and anxiety. Leading people to seek out help for mental health, which has increased the demand for therapy. Lastly, Angendamelding is something that we all do. In turn many people will only look to news sources that they agree with even if it is harmful. If people are on the more cautious side when it comes to the Coronavirus they will listen to news sources that fit their views and provide them with more information. If they don’t believe in it or don’t think it is as bad as it is then they will go to sources that support their views. The news is not always a good thing as it can affect us in many negative ways.

Culture and cultural groups are everywhere, even in the work place. In America we have a dominate culture and that culture even affects the workplace.  In this article by Allaya Cooks-Campbell, she discusses what dominate culture is and what it means for the workplace. This includes that professionalism is very white centered. Allaya also discusses how sub-cultures form and how those can turn into counterculture to combat the dominate culture. At the end of her articles she talks about how we can start to promote a workplace that is not biased.

First and foremost dominant culture is defined as, ” In the US, the empowered group of relatively well-off, white, European American, nondisabled heterosexual men.” (449). Success is very white centric in America. Additionally another point made is about the aggressive approach which is, “Communication practices that are seen as hurtfully expressive, self promoting, and assuming control over the choices of others.” (451). People in these groups are often seen as pushy. A final point made in the book is assertive accommodation, “Co-cultural members whose abilities and interpersonal skills are valued work cooperatively within the dominant culture. They openly advocate for the needs of people in both cultures.” (454) This is a way to describe the middle ground where co-cultures work with dominant cultures to make accommodations without one group being pushed out.

The article is a great way to understand Co-Cultural theory. Starting with the dominant culture.  This is even seen in the workplace. Professionalism is very white centered in America. This includes how the wealthy are portrayed by media, name bias, hair and fashion among various other things. The wealthy and successful are portrayed as white business men. There is also a name bias, if you do not have a European sounding name or a name viewed as “unusual” you may be asked to use a different name or may not be hired at all. As seen not that long ago natural hair for African American women was a huge topic and still is today. There were places that viewed natural hair as unprofessional and required them to relax or straighten their hair in order to be more “professional”. In terms of subculture becoming counter culture: counter culture can easily be described as an aggressive approach by co-culture groups. Often times counter culture groups are viewed as pushy with how aggressive they can be in their approaches. Additionally, it is very confrontational in nature. As stated in the article, counter culture can not co-exist with the dominant culture, one is always undermining the other in some way. Finally,  the last part of the article is a good way to understand assertive accommodations. It takes initiative and reaching out in order to improve. It is also important to talk about the subject and include both sides in the discussion so one group is not pushed out. Being too aggressive will not fix anything. It is important to bring awareness to the perspective of other groups so perhaps both can start to understand, and perhaps meet at the middle ground.

Abuse is a heavy topic for anyone to discuss. Often times people look at abuse victims and think why did they not just walk away? Although, it is not that simple. In this article by Rhonda Freeman, she discusses how the brain can work against abuse victims. She talks about the chemicals that are released in order for us to form bonds like dopamine, oxytocin and a few others. Freeman also discusses trauma bonds, cognitive dissonance and how to eventually break trauma bonds and the best way to do it. All of these are why it is so difficult to leave abusive partners.

According to the text Griffin defines Cognitive dissonance as, “The distressing state caused by inconsistency between a persons two beliefs or a belief and an action.” (194). This means that it is two conflicting thoughts or beliefs that cause this mental state. Another point made was that, “The fox’s retreat from the grape arbor clashed with his knowledge that the grape was tasty. By changing his attitude toward the grapes, he provided an acceptable explanation for abandoning his efforts to reach them.” (194). This goes off of the definition that Griffin gave. He changed his attitude to give up on the grapes even if he knew they were good. A final point made was that, “… Festinger and his followers focused on attitude change as an end product of dissonance.” (203). Meaning that dissonance and your mental attitude about something is the product of dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance can be a way to understand abuse victims, the actions that they take and why they do what they do. What goes on in our minds is very complicated but thanks to the article you can understand it better. There are multiple chemicals that affect how we form attachments and its not easy to just get rid of. Some that were previously mentioned cause longing, craving, bonding and dependence. In abusive relationships it is very emotionally charged meaning that these can affect us more. Because these relations are often times with partners or families it leads to an addiction to the relationship, making it that much harder to leave it.  This can also cause cognitive dissonance. Freeman gave an example of a relationship and the victim was between the thoughts of he was a horrible person and that he was a good a man. The woman knew that what he did was toxic and abusive but changed her attitude that he is a good man and he did not mean it. These two thoughts are very contradictory. People in these situations also put blame on themselves which does not help and they self-deprecate or even make excuses. There are many steps to help like given in the book. Outside help can also reduce cognitive dissonance, such as inducing compliance by helping them get away. Additionally, things like selective exposure can help a lot. The best way ( but hard to do in practice because victims are isolated from everyone) is to completely cut contact, this way your brain can not release any of the chemicals that cause attachments.

Understanding culture is important to understand a company or organization. Every company has a unique culture and some are very memorable, but not always in a good way. One great example of this is Enron. Almost every one has heard of this organization who quickly rose just to collapse. One major contributor being the toxic culture of the organization.  It had an overcompetitive culture that lead to mistrust, fear, and lying among employees of the company.  The only thing that was cared about was making more and more money. If employees did not meet the expectations they were removed and replaced very easily.

Griffin talks about  culture in organizations. In one instance he states that, “For Pacanowsky, the web of organizational culture is the residue of employees’ performance- ‘those very actions by which members constitute and reveal their culture to themselves and to others.'” (283). Meaning that the culture affects how employees perform and it is very visible. Additionally, “The only way to reduce the puzzlement is to observe as if one were a stranger in a foreign land. This can be difficult for a manager who is already enmeshed in a specific culture” (239). From the outside or if you are new the culture can seem weird or wrong, but people who have been in the organization for so long are intertwined in the culture. This point is further proved by,  “These rituals are nearly sacred, and any attempt to change them meets with strong resistance….”  and goes onto say that, “… organizational rites at more traditional companies weave together many threads of cooperate culture.” (243). Each organization has its set rituals and customs and many do not want to change it because it is so entwined in the culture of the organization.

All organizations have their own unique culture. Although, in Enron’s case they stood out because the company’s culture also lead to its downfall. Not all cultures are good. How the employees performed also affected the culture. For one no one was really truthful in their upward or downward communication.  There was also a sense of over competitiveness between employees, they often times would not communicate with each other as well, by being very secretive. Many of the employees were constantly stressed with the threat of being fired constantly. It was a very cutthroat atmosphere. The last two points made by Griffin can also be understood by studying Enron and its culture. As seen in the article, from an outward perspective Enron had a very toxic culture and was a very deceitful company. Additionally, employees were very stressed as it was not a good environment. Managers thought the culture was “good” probably with how much money they were making. Because of this, they never wanted to change it and continued to encourage the employees to keep doing what they were doing, even if it meant stepping on each others throats. This is the same with the rituals and rites  of Enron. Executives did not want to change the way the company was and the actions taken by these executives also reflected Enron’s culture.

Boundaries are important in our every day lives, especially when it comes to family. Often times we experience overbearing family members who give us no space or privacy. Establishing boundaries is a great way to develop healthy relationships. In an article and podcast by Clare Marie Schneider and Julia Furlan they speak about establishing and maintaining these boundaries with family. Setting boundaries can look different to every person depending on what they are. Whether it is a privacy issue or even setting boundaries with abuse or toxic family members it is important to maintain them. Even if they do shift over time.

Griffin brings up Sandra Petronio and her study on  Communication Privacy Management Theory, she tells us the first principle of it. “The first principle of communication privacy management theory is quite clear: We see it as ours, we believe it belongs to us.” (147). This means that view private information as our property. Further more, “CPM maintains that five factors play into the way we develop our own privacy rules: culture, gender, motivation, context and risk-benefit ratios.” (147) all of these affect how people interpret and manage their lives. Another good point made by saying that, “Thus, those who own private information should consider carefully before sharing it with others…” then goes onto say that co-owners of the information, “That doesn’t mean, however, that they perceive an equal responsibility.” (149). This is important to take into consideration when sharing things with others.

The article linked above is a good way to start to understand the Communication Privacy Management Theory. First and foremost privacy is important to everyone. It allows us  to feel independent and in control of our information. This is why it is important to establish boundaries even with family. Like stated in the book culture, gender, motivation, context and risk benefit ratios play into it. In American culture we value individualism and freedom which is why we can keep our information private. In my experience as a female, when it comes to the gender aspect my parents expect me to give them information about me even though I may be uncomfortable with it. Some information just does not be need to be released unless its necessary.  Additionally sometimes the risk of telling family members private information is just not worth it. This is especially true when you have toxic or abusive family members. This explains how we view and see the life that we live, and how we develop rules in regards to our privacy. When you release that information its not just yours anymore and not everyone views that privacy the same way. For example if you share information with one family member they will most likely share it with another even if it is against your wishes. This is why it is important to maintain your boundaries or say that there will be consequences if family tries to disregard yours. Although in America there is a negative view of having consequences for family, especially when it comes to completely cutting them off. Yet it is important to do what is best for you. Finally, another point that is important to understand is that it is ok for your boundaries to change overtime. They can get stricter or loosen up overtime, as long as it is up to you.

In the age of social media, we have expanded our social networks through different platforms. Some connections are strong and we can feel close to a person, while others are weak. In the article by Lara Otte she talks about making real connections through social media. Social media allows people to have more opportunities to connect to others personally. Sometimes these connections can just be superficial, but it can also come with a negative impact on ourselves, Such as getting trolled or bullied by random people. Otte concludes that more apps are becoming available where we can make true connections with others.

There are multiple ways that the Media Multiplexity theory can be used to understand relational ties that are made through social media. According to Griffin, “Instead, what differentiated strong ties from weak ties was the number of media the pair employed. Greater tie strength seemed to drive greater numbers of media used.” (161) This means that the more ways that someone has to connect to another the stronger their relationship is. Additionally, “Haythornthwaite would say that the launch of Facebook created latent ties, or “connection[s] available technically, even if not yet activated socially.”” (164) There are multiple opportunities to connect with others on social media. Another good point is that, “the content of communication differs by tie strength rather than medium.” (165). So the way you speak depends on how close you are to another, it does not depend solely on what media you use to communicate.

In all, we can make great connections with others online. It is something that takes time and effort to form. We have a multitude of ways to create new connections. There are so many platforms like, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter that we can use to connect with new people. Forming a relationship on just one platform is a pretty weak tie, but the more we connect with that person the stronger the relationship is. What we talk about can also strengthen the ties we make with one another. For example if someone likes star wars that can be a talking point. That can be a way to grow closer to one another because of a shared interest. If you talk about something that one person does not like then the conversation will not go that far. As a result of that, you will not be able to really connect with the other person. If the situation was like this then it is just a superficial relationship. Additionally, we often just like photos or make a comment on some. Some times people get the idea that this is forming a connection with a person when it really is not. When you do this, you are not really trying to get to know the person. Finally, when you first start talking to someone online, it kind of seems awkward at first. This goes with any social interaction but sometimes it is harder online. Although the more you start to form ties, the topics can change to something you both mutually like. Meaning that your ties to the other person have strengthened.