Government

Institutions

Social Media

People

PS: Groupmates, after pondering about the paradigm, I proposed changes in

the theoretical perspective that we previously agreed on. I understand that
the original paradigm shows that from the government, the arrow did not
cross THROUGH the “Social Media” box and instead, we created another
arrow connecting the “Social Media” box to the “People” box. Also in the
original paradigm, the arrow from the “People” box went STRAIGHT to the
“Government” box in contrast to what I am proposing now, wherein, from
“People,” the arrow passes THROUGH the “Social Media” then up to the
“Government.” Kindly consider my explanation, which you may discuss and
agree/disagree with.

Explanation (for the report)

In the previous years, the government’s mode of communication with its

people was one-way; the government would disseminate its messages in
form of announcements, circulars, memorandum orders, executive orders,
and others through traditional media such as radio, television, and
newspaper. The people’s only way of reaching to the government is,
likewise, through the use of these traditional media. The problem, however,
with these media is that they are constrained to accommodating only a
limited number of people. Because of this, there are people who would opt in
writing directly to the concerned government agency to air their concerns.
The government, on the other hand, would have hard time in replying to
each of concern for the lack of having efficient medium to use in replying.

The advent of technology collapsed the physical boundaries that used to

limit the people in communicating with each other. It dissolved these
problems in communication. Communications became faster through the
introduction of electronic mailing system or e-mail. Innovations that led to
the creation of what is now called, “social networks” also made
communications between two or more people more accessible and casual.
Social networks that are composed of blogging sites such as LiveJournal,
Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and Multiply, and micro-bblogging sites such
as Plurk and Twitter have eased the communication purposes between and
among people. These sites have also been venues for social activism in
pushing for causes, be it political, social, environmental, etc.

The adaption and addiction of people in the social media gave government
institutions a new venue in disseminating important messages. This time,
they allow feedbacks to be aired directly to them.

The paradigm shows two concrete circles, namely, the “Government” and
the “People.” These two CONCRETE circles connote tangibility or real
presence of two communicating points, that is, the government and the
people. The government courses its communication using a social network
which, in the paradigm, is in a dotted box. The dotted box connotes the
intangibility of the social network; its being virtual. In contrast to traditional
media like radio, television, and periodicals, the contents found in the
website are plenty, in soft copy, and erasable. The dotted box connotes the
social media’s vastness in scope and being “on air” or intangible. But the
innate property of the social media is also its way to become the most
accessible source of information now, at least for the people who have
access in the internet.

The arrow that passes through the “social media” from “government” to the
“people” indicates the penetrability of information to the people. It also
connotes the fast delivery of disseminated information to the people.
Likewise, people have found in social media the ways of reaching out to the
government faster, hence, the reverted arrow. In the paradigm, the “Social
Media” is something that is neither controlled nor owned by anyone and is
just being used merely for dissemination purposes.

To test the feasibility of the paradigm, the group will research on the
subscription rates of select government social media accounts and will also
conduct a survey among people who access information through the social
media.