new media

This past weekend I served on a panel and as a judge for a campaign training school called NEW Leadership at the Carl Albert Center for Congressional Research Studies in Norman, Oklahoma. One of the moderators commented that it's pretty difficult to quantify results from new media on an electorate, which is a discussion I feel like I often have with candidates or potential clients... heck even existing clients at least once a month!

Most people in professional politics accept that a presence online must be the norm for a serious candidate today, although many campaigns still don't believe that a professional presence is needed judging from the obscene website design and atrocious fundraising emails that I am cursed to see each week.

Depending on where you are in the country and when your primary election is being held, most candidates probably aren't on television with their advertising just yet but probably all of them have done their benchmark poll and possibly one or two tracking polls. One such candidate I'm working with has seen an eight point jump in numbers in the course of a few months. The only thing that is different is that the new media operation stepped up a notch.

Another candidate I work with put a question in his/her benchmark poll asking where the person being polled had met or heard of the candidate. This is a pretty standard question generally used to gauge the effectiveness of the media or campaign outreach. The highest number is generally something like "from TV" or "from radio" or "From the newspaper" - but because the campaign hadn't started any of these forms of outreach yet, the highest percentage was "from the internet."

When I was speaking to these young women at NEW Leadership I said that "New Media" is not a replacement for traditional media its part of a building block that campaigns should use early on to develop relationships with the electorate in a cheaper and more effective way. I told them to treat it like an online field campaign that you can eventually use to push message as well as do fundraising on.

And a big reason for all of this, couldn't have been better stated by the New York Times in a piece they posted today about the generational divide in the Columbia elections.

"Mr. Mockus “represents something totally different, something that’s not traditional,” Ms. Pacheco said. “Older people are not used to having politicians thinking outside the box.”

Using tools that are familiar to them — a Facebook page, instant messages, videos on YouTube — Mr. Mockus’s followers in New York strive to drum up support for their candidate and organize events. It is a strategy that proved successful before, they said, when a certain senator from Illinois used social-networking media to mobilize young voters and ended up in the White House."

In a close election every edge you can get is important, and an online media campaign began in October is a joke. The earlier a campaign starts online outreach the better. The the less the chance a campaign will encounter someone like me writing a blog about how bad your fundraising emails are or how embarrassing your website looks or functions.

There is an interesting top ten list I ran that addresses the slow bleed of readers from traditional media sources and poses ideas for pulling young people more into the news media.

Amusingly enough, the whole thing amounts to a 151 page PDF report. I don't think I'm alone in arguing that a 151 page report would be mistake number one, but I digress.

The first recommendation is for journalists who write more in-depth complex stories to provide contextual analysis so readers understand the political, historical, or financial implications on the topic being addressed.

Secondly, they recommend a kind of "wisdom journalism." Wouldn't that be nice? Wisdom journalism is a specific kind of reporting where a journalist is an expert in the topic he or she is covering and can give a more active, interpretive approach to the story. Amazingly enough, the report is saying young people value the kind of old school journalism that the world became accustomed to with Murrow, Bradlee, Margaret Fuller, and Nellie Bly. This is in direct contrast to the hyper-graphic super flashy hologram iNews that I feel like we see on the 24-hour cable crap.

The third is to personalize the news. Their examples are amazon and ebay which allows us to personalize everything that we want or need so they ask why shouldn't the news be that way? I don't know how I feel about this. Basically, this sounds like the blogosphere kind of news, and maybe that's what they think news should emulate. I read Kos or HuffPo because I'm choosing to read my news from a perspective that is more personalized for my agenda. But I value the lack of personalized preference in sites like CNN or the NYTimes. They deliver the news, if I wanted the spin I'd read my blogs.

Four and five are about redesigning sites and formats to make things hip and sexier, and I'll agree streamlining presentation is important. One of my greatest problems in my job now is the constant fight between the "old guard" who continue to insist that websites offer press releases, documents, and various other things via PDF. I don't think I'm alone in rolling my eyes when I click a link and watch my browser begin to download something.

Six is to make the news more civic and community focused. I think this is code for doing happier stories on good civic things that are happy or community events that are more localized and impact people's daily lives.

Seven is where it becomes art: Report on stories about young people. It seems like the only stories I hear about young people via the mainstream news are the ones that diss our generation or they're the stories that we've worked collectively in the youth movement to garner attention around for weeks. Stories about young people or issues that matter to young people give a reason to watch or read beyond that the news is relying on the topic and without a "wisdom journalism" what else is there?

Eight is to begin raising children with the news so it becomes part of the culture of young people. This is a pretty decent point - we never had CNN on TV growing up in classrooms. I was a sophomore in high school before I was in a classroom that had the daily newspaper. I loved that my college had free papers for those with student ID's. Everything from the local to the NYTimes, it was fantastic. I hope these are more accessible in schools.

Nine is providing more sharing features which references allowing access to share stories on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Any site that doesn't do this now is simply stupid. When we read something important we share it with our friends online, the easier the news makes it the better.

Finally, they encourage thinking about new approaches to TV news. This is delicious (emphasis mine):

"The network evening newscast is not a popular news platform among young people, and its market share will continue to decrease in the years ahead. Though cable news is much more popular, it too is losing ground to the Internet and will continue to. Television news is generally less dense than printed or online content per minute spent by consumers, and cable news is plagued by well-known problems. Yet it remains a powerful medium thanks to its visual strength and nearly universal penetration. Television outlets should focus on online content production and select particular topics to highlight in-depth on-air. Current.tv is an encouraging but limited example of this idea in action."

I hope we can save the news industry - I mean the real news industry. If Faux died I wouldn't lose any sleep, but quality Pulitzer style journalism deserves to be saved and its an endangered species. If these few tweaks can help them make the transition into the new world then a blessing on the house of news. The ones resistant to evolve will lose.

Ingrid Schlueter of the Cross Talk Blog wrote before Christmas that forms of "youth ministry" in evangelical churches are becoming a joke. She thinks the focus of religious institutions is placed more on the entertainment of youth rather than the religious teachings of the faith.

"The real issue is that evangelical parents are too busy servicing their debt providing iPhones and iPods and laptops for their offspring to worry about the biblical training of their children. Fathers are too involved watching the NFL on their large television screens to lead family worship. Mothers are too busy working out to achieve age-defying abs to teach children Scriptures when they rise up and when they lie down. That’s what youth group is for, they think. Except youth groups aren’t doing these things either. Youth pastors, even those well into middle-age, are bent on proving their coolness to the students in their care. They got krunk, see? They like dance-offs and air guitar competitions and having food items lobbed at their heads for entertainment purposes. Biblical training? Catechesis? Ha Ha Ha. Right."

But a piece in last month's New York Times paints a picture of a different form of young evangelical Christians. Jenna Liao begins by explaining the work she does coordinating volunteers for World Relif, an organization that works with refugees and displaced families of war torn areas.

Another, Matthew Soerens, wrote a book with friends on immigration reform from the evangelical perspective called Welcoming the Stranger.

"Without disowning longstanding causes for evangelical activists like opposition to abortion or support for school vouchers, these young evangelicals have taken up issues previously abdicated to secular and religious liberals: climate change, AIDS prevention and treatment, Third World poverty."

Soerens goes on to say that he doesn't believe his generation of Evangelical Christians are rejecting the issues their parents are concerned with, but rather widening the spectrum of issues.

In January of 2009 Matthew Anderson of Mere Orthodoxy wrote a series of pieces on the cultural and political evolution of the new generation of young evangelicals titled The New Evangelical Scandal. Among other things, Anderson discusses the break in voting support from the GOP last year, and the extent to which younger evangelicals were supportive if not enthusiastic about President Barack Obama whose message was about a broader humanitarian focus and call for the common good, rather than all about gay marriage and abortion. (emphasis is mine)

"Even if the outline of our theology is broadly the same as our parents, as it is for an increasing number of conservative evangelicals, our ethos is different. And the differences are not strictly political—the political trends among young evangelicals that have received so much attention are grounded in different concerns and emphases that undergird younger evangelicals’ approach to culture and spirituality as well. This new ethos is largely a reaction to the abuses, failures, and excesses of our parents’ generation and contains significant clues as to the future of evangelicalism in America."

A local Oklahoma City magazine had a piece about the ways in which metro area churches were turning to technology in efforts to better connect to their members and other potential flock. The piece defends the use of the so called "debt providing iPhones and iPods and laptops" to create consistent connections to this new generation that one pastor said communicates "in a way so that each person has an opportunity to know, act or respond, [all of which] which requires mul­tiple avenues of communication." And the Lord said, "Let there be Twitter," and it was good.

While some scoff at the use of new fangled gadgets to communicate in youth focused services, it seems the "true message" that the Cross Talk Blog seems to be so concerned about, might actually be getting through. What older more traditional Evangelicals seem to focus on is rather a more restricted, right-wing, political ideology backed by elders of their faith and preached from the pulpit. This might be the reason for the disconnect for younger generations of young evangelicals who seem to be more interested in acts of good works and the common good rather than shilling for Sarah Palin.

Happy Sunday!

It's no secret that the Republican party as a whole has been behind the curve on the use of Social Networking. We saw it the most during the 2008 election and now they are struggling to catch up. The Democratic party has become a powerhouse of youth and new media.

As the Democratic Party thrived on the new media frontier, the Republican Party stayed behind. The McCain campaign didn't hire a resident blogger until June 2008.
The McCain campaign was based on old-media approaches to politics -- which made sense on one level, since its candidate was in his 70s. Few Republicans knew how to use social media to the party's advantage. The danger was that a GOP mired in old ways of communication would become obsolete.

But then Sarah Palin came along. Palin's encounter with the old media was a disaster. Her interview with Katie Couric went badly. Tina Fey's impression reduced Palin to a cartoon. Palin needed a way out.
By necessity, she's found a way for the Republicans to adopt social media. She has more followers on Facebook than any politician except President Obama.

Could it be that Sarah Palin is going to be the one to go rogue on the GOP and bring them into the 2.0 age? Strangely enough it could be. Sarah Palin may be a terrible candidate but the 2008 election skyrocketed her to pop culture stardom. During the campaign she didn't stand a chance with old media, mainly because they asked questions that were logical, but on Facebook and Twitter she could say as much as she wanted no matter how wrong, off base, or false it was. She quickly found a domain where the people couldn't interrupt what she had to say, and if she didn't like something said on her post she could delete it and block them. Life was good.

These platforms allow her to speak directly to her supporters. Palin's experience with old media during the campaign soured her on the old ways of doing things. As she put it in her debate with Joe Biden, she wants to speak to the American people without the "filter" of the mainstream media.

And it seems to be working. In August, in a single Facebook post, Palin did more to shape the debate on health care than any other Republican politician. (I'm referring, of course, to her charge that the Democratic health care bills eventually could lead to government rationing of medical care through "death panels.")

Then, in October, Palin led the way in national Republican support for the insurgent candidacy of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in November's special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. One Facebook post from Palin endorsing Hoffman started a cascade effect in donations and support that resulted in liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava's withdrawal from the race and Hoffman's razor-thin loss to Democrat Bill Owens.

Meanwhile, Facebook allows Palin to burnish her policy credentials with foot-noted, op-ed length essays on health care, cap-and-trade, government spending and much else. Step by step, Palin is showing other conservatives how to use new media and social networks to their advantage. And no one seems to care.

Scary isn't it? Could the former Alaskan Governor and VP candidate made world famous by Tina Fey on SNL really revolutionize the GOP? Could the party of 'No' become the party of 'ya betcha'? Probably not but one thing is for sure, no matter how far behind the GOP falls on social media Sarah Palin will be there, oddly enough, showing them all up.

CNN Article quoted.

There's a great piece in the Village Voice about J School graduates seeking work in a questionable economy. Given the posts Craig and I have been doing about the state of journalism in the wake of the Cronkite death, I thought this piece an interesting boost of optimism from aspiring Millennial Journalists.

Even though a career in journalism "makes as much sense as signing up for a career as a Pontiac dealer," it seems the hard times are no match for a generation hell bent on reviving the profession with a boost of technology and a new fresh approach. Millennials to the rescue!

Malia Politzer's "concentration was new media and investigative journalism. "I'm a bit of a technophobe," Politzer says, so she was glad to be pushed to learn how to make websites, shoot and edit video, build flash sites, and use multimedia in her reporting. . . She had already worked as an intern at The Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong and had the opportunity to be a freelance writer covering the Beijing Olympics"

Despite the optimism, however, all of the young people interviewed aren't in full time post-grad jobs. They've scored sweet internships and key fellowships, but that hasn't actually translated into a salary with benefits.

"Being a reporter in New York is like being an actor in Hollywood," says Aïda Alami, 25, a native of Marrakesh who was a magazine major. "I needed a degree to get ahead a bit and meet people and make contacts."

Despite jobs at MTV, Google News, the 2004 Kerry Campaign, and a graduate degree from Columbia Chikodi Chima can't get his new blog funded.

"In January, I launched a blog called TechTrotter to investigate start-up hot spots of the developing world," he says. "I wanted to see where innovation is happening off the radar of the mainstream American media." . . . He generates most of the content, but says that if he were to launch his own company, it would be "a subscription-based fact-checking service that hires unemployed journos to double-check blog posts" before they're published."

The major problem with new journalists who are armed to the gills with tech experience and knowledge, is that so many papers still haven't figured "it" out. As Jack Schafer from Slate notes back in January

"The curious thing about the various plans hatched in the ’90s is that they were, at base, all the same plan: “Here’s how we’re going to preserve the old forms of organization in a world of cheap perfect copies!” The details differed, but the core assumption behind all imagined outcomes . . . was that the organizational form of the newspaper, as a general-purpose vehicle for publishing a variety of news and opinion, was basically sound, and only needed a digital facelift."

Perhaps, they should employ some of these new enthusiastic grads for some outside of the box ideas.

There is a great article in The National Journal that deserves more attention: Ed.Gov's Tough Homework. The gist is this: young people are growing up in a world where technology turns over every couple of months, and the expectation is that online experiences will be both intuitive and interactive. Most websites using the .gov domain, however, are barely a step above BBS's in the lineage of the web. It's a problem of both design and functionality, the result of which are dashed expectations on the part of Millennials, and low traffic and usage rates on .gov sites.

It's never entirely graceful when the behemoths of the federal bureaucracy tiptoe into the online waters. The Department of Education, though, faces a number of challenges that other offices don't, not the least of which is attracting young people to a site ending in ".gov."

"The satisfaction someone has with a Web site is based on two things: what they're actually getting from that site, but also their expectations for it," said Larry Freed, president and CEO of ForeSee Results, which polls visitors to government sites. "When you think about their audience profile" at the Education Department, "their audience will have much higher expectations than someone going to a Medicare site or even an IRS site."

Read the rest of the article. It's pretty shocking. The Department of Education's web pages are painted as trailblazers (or at least front-line fighters) in this struggle to modernize the government's online presence, but it's not at all clear to me that they are successful or that their strategies are correct. Traffic on sites like College.gov are shockingly low (if the article is correct, the site garners barely more traffic than a state political blog), and attempts to connect with students on Facebook have proved fruitless (though execution seems somewhat half-hearted).

I think the crux of the problem is twofold: most young people don't know where, why, or when to visit a government site (except perhaps high-profile sites like Whitehouse.gov or IRS.gov), and when they do make their way onto a .gov website, many of those sites are extremely static and information dense. It's really hard to wade through all the links and figure out how to do anything useful on them (assuming you can do anything useful, which is a big "if," since many sites are barely beyond "brochure-ware"). That's probably why:

their most popular offerings remain what the E-Government Satisfaction Index refers to as "transactional sites," such as the FAFSA form, which allow users to complete a specific task instead of just looking up information. While Education sites as a whole scored 67 on the consumer satisfaction index, the FAFSA site netted an 88.

Social media, when used correctly, can help increase traffic and some of the functionality of these sites, but more than hopping on the latest tech trend, government websites demand a basic usability upgrade. Government techies need to determine what various departments can do for citizens (and conversely what citizens would like them to do for us), and develop a really clean intuitive design that actually walks people through those processes. It would be a nice cherry on top if we could also have personal data transfer from one agency to the other using a secure account linked to our SS# (imagine if I could pay my taxes on IRS.gov using a Turbo-Tax style interface, transfer all that data easily over to my FAFSA, and maybe apply for disaster relief or unemployment insurance should it become necessary with one easy account/interface accessible from any .gov domain).

Once those core problems of usability are solved, I could then easily think of probably a dozen ways or more to use social media as a distribution channel to reach out to Millennials where they are. Thinking specifically about the Department of Education's College.gov site, I would create Facebook, MySpace, MiGente and Black Planet accounts, all supported by targeted, in-site ads; targeted Google Ads in low-income communities where college attendance is low; Twitter and other microblogging services as a way to alert students to grant/loan opportunities and upcoming deadlines. . . etc. The possibilities are endless, but the sites must first become useful.

Expectations on Millennials to contribute major accomplishments to American civic life are high and growing. Our ability to interact with government (and faith in the reliability and quality of those interactions) will be a factor in our ability to live up to those expectations. I highly recommend this article, and commend the author for asking some good questions that I don't see anyone else exploring.

Those interested in this topic from an official/constituent perspective should check out the work that the New York State Senate CIO is doing to upgrade a state legislative branch for the 21st Century.

In an outstanding example of the use of online technology and social media, the Lawrence Journal World did a twitter-view with Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew about the way his office is using social media as a way to do better outreach.

Last week I emphasized the need for accessibility through technology for the Kansas State House and Senate, but the Douglas County Clerk was well on his way of advocating for greater outreach through social media as early as last year when he first began tweeting.

Now the, somewhat young, elected official is using the new world of technology in attempts to get more young people in Lawrence (home of the University of Kansas) to vote in the upcoming city elections.

"Recently, he and his staff members have started posting messages on Twitter reminding Douglas County voters that advance voting was open this week at the courthouse, 1100 Mass.

“Social media seems to be able to spread messages quickly across multiple domains,” Shew said.

His office also has been looking at ways to expand its communication reach, especially when his budget is limited.

“Governments have to start thinking outside the bricks and mortar of the courthouse to create contact points in the new information age,” he said."

I know of no previous twitter-views but I have to say this must be one of the first. Shew goes further to talk about his outreach through a full on interview back and forth between the LJWorld and Shew.

Most Notable:

"@dgcokselections: It is an additional tool for outreach, especially for mobilization of new generations of voters who communicate via social media.

@dgcokselections: It has been gradual as we test which venues are appropriate. Using Twitter to share info that is broadcast in more traditional methods.

@dgcokselections: We are really interested in developing a full scale approach by the 2010 elections when social media will have expanded even more.

@dgcokselections: This has been in conjunction with our expanded use of the Web site to get information out to the public like online sample ballots."

I applaud any elected official who is using new technologies to reach out to young people, indeed all constituents, in their district. It does us all a disservice when we can't connect with our elected members, but with further outreach on sites like Twitter, MySpace, and Facebook we all have a stronger connection to government. In the end it will grow civic engagement and hopefully civic pride.

This week is one of my favorite conferences: TED (Technology, Entertain, and Design)". I'm a frequent visitor to the site, and gleefully developed a spreadsheet with a rating system for my favorite videos and their links so I can spread the TED love to friends and family.

Some of the greatest minds we've referenced here at FM have been TEDsters including Larry Lessig who talked about our generation's creativity and the laws that are out of step with the mash-ups we love, social networking/media author of Here Comes Everybody Mr. Clay Shirky, and David Eggers who started 826 National (from the pilot 826 Valencia) a silly shop with tutoring, writing, and publishing organizations in the back that help students with homework and get kids excited about writing.

While TED has never had someone from our movement talk about the reasons we work so tirelessly to promote civic youth engagement, TED speakers spend most of their time looking toward the future and spreading ideas about things that impact our world. The three speakers I used as an example are just a few of the hundreds of videos available via podcast or at their website that talk about issues that impact youth.

This week Seth Godin was a speaker at TED's 2009 Conference in Long Beach, CA. Godin's book Tribes talks about the ways that people connect with each other in meaningful ways are through groups with a head leader and around an idea. Ironically enough I had a conference call this week about key elements necessary when forming new youth focused organizations. It was proposed by a caller that all the money in the world is meaningless if there is no leader who can advocate the organization to potential members.

Godin argues that it is about the "idea of finding and connecting like-minded people and leading them to a place they want to go."

"The internet means geography isn't so important, so if you can find the 1,000 or 5,000 or 50,000 people out there who want to make a certain kind of change and can connect them and show them a path, they want to follow you. And you can use that tribe, that group of people, to make change that matters." Godin says in an interview with Wired.

He goes on to say that while charisma is key not all leaders are born with it, but charisma comes with the leadership. When people become leaders they rise to the challenge like some kind of latent talent we all have built into our DNA that becomes active only when tapped. "What makes you a leader is that you are leading people who want to be lead, going somewhere they want to go."

"The leadership today is about 10 people bringing you 100 and 100 bringing you 1,000. When you have 1,000 true fans, as Kevin Kelly talks about, then they're the people who are going to turn it into a movement. Not you. Your job is to take care of and feed and nurture those 1,000 people, and those people need to go to their network of people who know them and trust them, who eat dinner with them, and bring them in. It's not for you to somehow beam your message to strangers and convert them, because you can't convert strangers anymore. Not one major new consumer brand built in the last five years was built on the back of advertising. Google and Facebook, etc. are built because one person brought another one by the hand, not because someone bought ads on the Super Bowl."

As we build the youth movement we're fighting on several fronts. Some of us are seeking specific legislation or to push the youth agenda, some are seeking power with positions in the new administration, some people got Obama elected and believe that the connectivity to the youth movement is over until the next election, and others are building movements by developing further leaders.

Leadership development for the youth movement is key, but for all movements its essential. Training programs like the ones we've talked about on FM before, develop young people to take on campaigns, organizations, and eventually movements. Investing in these kinds of opportunities for young people invests in the advancement of tribes that develop around political issues and civic engagement.

Similar to the TED talk:

So... a couple of months ago some video guys hired by the state department came out to interview me in the land of farmers and such. I was nervous this was a ploy to send me to Getmo for all those mean things I say about the government. Turns out they wanted to talk tech. Which was cool. America.gov is designed to be a face to international youth to show them who we are.

I'm eager to see what the Clinton State Department will do to use this as a means to really develop grassroots democracy abroad and generate relationships with international youth. So many possibilities for this site in the new administration, particularly with HRC at the helm.

If you missed I (I certainly did) the Chronicle of Higher Ed talked about a Report on New Media where it kinda pokes fun at institutions of higher ed. Yay!

"... debate promises to be fierce on how exactly educational institutions should recognize this youth culture.

Some secondary schools and libraries, for example, limit access to social-networking sites and ban cellphones. The report argues implicitly that bans aren’t the answer, and that young people are learning despite -- not because of -- the environments that parents and educators want them to operate within.

"Youth could benefit from educators being more open to forms of experimentation and social exploration that are generally not characteristic of educational institutions," the authors write."

The report of which they speak, are the recent findings from a long study hosted by The MacArthur Foundation from the Digital Youth Research. A major finding about youth and their relationship to new media was that

"teens and their use of digital media show that America’s youth are developing important social and technical skills online – often in ways adults do not understand or value.

Contrary to popular belief, spending time on xBox Live and Facebook are neither corrupting the brains of youth nor are these sites encouraging isolating bahvior. Rather, these tools are helping both educate and connect youth.

According to the head researcher of the project Dr. Mizuko Ito

"There are myths about kids spending time online – that it is dangerous or making them lazy. But we found that spending time online is essential for young people to pick up the social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in the digital age."

See her full interview here:

The details of the study show the researchers interviewed over 800 young people and their parents, both one-on-one and in focus groups; spent over 5000 hours observing teens on sites such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and other networked communities; and conducted diary studies to document how, and to what end, young people engage with digital media.

From this they created two categories of interaction of young people online: 1. Friendship driven and 2. Interest driven. This is what it sounds like with friendship drive being around social groups and peer circles and interest driven groups are around specific information or groups that aren't local friend groups perhaps bands or X-Files addicts... things like that... Not that I'd know...

The release shows a few significant findings I'd like to highlight.

1. "There is a generation gap in how youth and adults view the value of online activity.
• Adults tend to be in the dark about what youth are doing online, and often view online activity as risky or an unproductive distraction.
• Youth understand the social value of online activity and are generally highly motivated to participate.
2. "Youth are navigating complex social and technical worlds by participating online.
3. Young people are motivated to learn from their peers online.
• The Internet provides new kinds of public spaces for youth to interact and receive feedback from one another. (this sounds right out of the mouth of Danah Boyd who was on the research team)
• Young people respect each other’s authority online and are more motivated to learn from each other than from adults.
4. Most youth are not taking full advantage of the learning opportunities of the Internet.
• Youth can connect with people in different locations and of different ages who share their interests, making it possible to pursue interests that might not be popular or valued with their local peer groups."

I feel like we know this from our daily lives already. We connect to our friends and our peers. Its what has created a true global generation that is connected to each other beyond the traditional barriers that generations before us continue to suffer.

At the same time it could be one of the major reasons that we are one of the most educated generations (a finding from Generation We). Not merely because higher education has become a requirement for those who seek a leg up, but because an increase in information delivers an increase in education simply because its at our finger tips.

When you look at older young people over 18, the Chronicle piece continues, the report analysis which believes those attending college in the next few years

"will not be as devoid of social and literacy skills as one might think, given worries about how much today’s young people are fixated on their phones and screens. Those results dovetail with a September report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which said teens’ electronic gaming experiences were “rich and varied, with a significant amount of social interaction and potential for civic engagement."

Yes, this can be used as contextual validation that you need that Wii as a gift for the holidays...

The entire white paper can be found here (PDF)
The Digital Youth Report website is here

h/t from Maya at Mobilize.org.