A story on Tareq and Michaele Salahi in today’s Washington Post begins as follows:
E-mails turned over to the Secret Service show that Tareq and Michaele Salahi had sought a top Defense Department official’s help to gain access to last week’s White House state dinner.People familiar with the inquiry into how the Salahis were able to attend Tuesday’s gala, even though they weren’t on the official guest list, said the Salahis exchanged e-mails with Michele S. Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense and the Pentagon-based liaison to the White House. It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis’ lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.
The story itself is interesting, but I was more intrigued by the last line: “It was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones, but Jones includes the Salahis’ lawyer, Paul W. Gardner, as one of her 50 friends on Facebook.” Note that the story does not explain what Facebook is, what a “friend” is, or what the significance might be of Gardner being one of Jones’s 50 friends. Rather, the authors assume you know that already. So here’s the question: Is Facebook so widely used among likely readers of the article that no such explanation was needed?
JohnF says:
Well, I don’t use it and I know the terms.
It’s hard to think of anyone who has accessed the internet who would not have heard of and understood Facebook. (However, as I typed this, I note that your spell checker did not recognize “Facebook” as a word…)
December 1, 2009, 12:57 amCornellian says:
Facebook is certainly widely known but I question the extent of the overlap between Facebook users and Washington Post readers.
December 1, 2009, 12:59 amPeter Waldo says:
Yes.
December 1, 2009, 1:02 amObserver says:
No. By way of comparison, The Economist still mentions “a consultancy” every time it refers to, e.g., McKinsey or Bain & Company, even though they have been around far longer than Facebook and are presumably more well-known.
December 1, 2009, 1:21 amAJK says:
I think I can say with utter confidence that vastly more people are familiar with Facebook than with McKinsey.
December 1, 2009, 1:27 amOren says:
Yes.
December 1, 2009, 1:48 amCornellian says:
I think I can say with utter confidence that vastly more people are familiar with Facebook than with McKinsey.
If my most famous alumnus was Jeffrey Skilling I’d want to keep a low profile too.
December 1, 2009, 1:51 amRich Rostrom says:
Observer: I’ve never heard of Bain & Company, and only vaguely of McKinsey. And I am at least somewhat familiar with the consulting world: I have friends who worked for Cap Gemini, Accenture, and some others. No one outside of certain parts of the business world have any contact with such organizations.
Facebook, by contrast, is a mass-market activity. It claims over 300 million users, and 8 billion minutes of user contact every day. Facebook-related activities make news, which hundreds of millions more people have heard of; for instance, Sarah Palin’s use of Facebook to publish her criticisms of the Obama health care plans.
One needn’t be a Facebook user to know what Facebook is, or even to know what a “(Facebook) friend” is.
December 1, 2009, 1:51 amanon y mus says:
AJK,
Or the Economist.
December 1, 2009, 1:52 amredc1c4 says:
Facebook is so widely used and known that i’m thinking of going back to posting on Usenet, just so i can be elitist about something technological, since i will never catch up with the children on the next k3wl thing.
December 1, 2009, 2:02 amNels Nelson says:
People still use Facebook?
December 1, 2009, 3:03 amPerseus says:
So do I. According to WP’s media page, their readers tend to be older (they get 26% of 25-34 y.o. but 63% of 65+ y.o.). So if older people are less likely to be familiar with Facebook, a good share of the readers of the article may not know what it’s referring to.
December 1, 2009, 4:46 amAnatid says:
Come now. Older folks have discovered that Facebook is the best way to stalk their kids, since they never call and never write.
December 1, 2009, 5:09 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Facebook So Ubiquitous That No Explanation is Needed? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zavee Team, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Is Facebook So Ubiquitous That No Explanation is Needed?: A story on Tareq and Michaele Salahi in today’s Washi.. http://bit.ly/4uT2mz [...]
December 1, 2009, 5:18 amrbj says:
Ha ha!
My mom, mid 70s (Caucasian, middle class), follows her granddaughters on Facebook, to keep in touch with them and get news about her great-grandchildren. She also emails and uses the computer to work on sewing patterns, yet relies on my sister, who works in IT, to load programs.
The answer is: essentially, yes.
December 1, 2009, 8:02 amSara says:
No. No one knows from this the implication or relevance of the fact even if they know Facebook.
December 1, 2009, 8:04 amBZ says:
Compare this reference to a story in yesterday’s Metro section of the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/28/AR2009112802319.html?hpid=newswell
The gist of the story is that real estate developers are using modern political campaign tools instead of backroom deals to achieve their goals in a big master plan. The modern tools? Facebook and Twitter. If you watch the video, those tools are used to contact and inform people who are then invited to F2F meetings, where the real work is done.
Which story has more assumptions: the one which assumes people understand that “friending” involves mutual assent and thus contact, or the one which assumes that Facebook is so innovative that its use warrants a story?
My view, expressed directly to the reporter and reflected (diluted) in the story, is that this is merely modern business communications.
December 1, 2009, 8:22 amJoe T. Guest says:
Asking whether the subscribing / purchasing readers of the Post know about Facebook is the wrong question. All of the journalists for the Post (who trend young) and most of the people who access the Post via the web will know about Facebook. Given the failing business model of print newspapers, I think you shouldn’t presume that the target audience was in meatspace.
December 1, 2009, 8:30 amneurodoc says:
Yeah, intimate knowledge of its workings not, but awareness and general understanding yes. Even I, who am not on Facebook and don’t really get why it is so immensely successful, and who is completely puzzled by the notion of endless, mindless utterances (Twitter), get the Facebook reference.
But I think there is another more significant question here – how much does it say that A is a Facebook friend of B? David Bernstein has blogged a lot here about HRW, calling attention to the personal details of staffers like Sarah Whitson. I had a look at her Facebook page and happened to see that she counts among her friends Adam Shapiro, founder of the International Solidarity Movement, which some of us view as a terrorist fan club, if not terrorist support group. This tidbit seemed to me very meaningful, but Professor Bernstein discounted it as proving little, saying that one couldn’t make much of it, especially since some people collect lots and lots of Facebook friends.
So, what are we to make of the Facebook connection between Jones and the Salahis? Not too much I think in the instant case (a lot in the Whitman-Shapiro one I think), but if the Salahis need a defense against criminal charges, then I think their Facebook connection to Jones gives them a basis, albeit minimal, to claim they thought they might be admitted if they showed up.
Putting aside all protests of “guilt by association” – being Facebook friends means a lot or it means little? I think the answer is it all depends on the context you are asking, and maybe on whom you are asking it about. For example, the Salahis might be just the sort to have gazillion Facebook friends, that is if Facebook does not limit the number one can have to fewer than gazillion. (Will now go look to see if Justice Kennedy is among their “friends,” and what other Washington personages might be there.)
December 1, 2009, 9:01 amPubliusFL says:
The story doesn’t explicitly explain the significance of Gardner being one of Jones’s 50 friends, but one can easily infer that Facebook friending may or may not be significant. After all, the sentence starts out by saying “it was unclear how well the Salahis know Jones.” As far as knowing what Facebook itself is, I agree with the others who answered “yes.” I’m betting pretty much everyone who reads that post has at least heard of Facebook, even if only through their grandchildren. Readers are less likely to understand what a “special assistant to the secretary of defense” is than what Facebook is.
December 1, 2009, 9:12 amguest890 says:
Yes, it is quite ubiquitous. Consider that Facebook accounts for a full 25% of pageviews in the US.
Like JohnF, I don’t use it, but I’ve heard the terminology.
December 1, 2009, 9:23 amKenvee says:
I think it’s pretty widely understood, yes. Also, didn’t this story involve Facebook from the beginning, with the couple posting pictures of their party crashing on Facebook? In that case, the reporter would certainly be justified in thinking that someone following the story would be familiar with the concept of Facebook.
December 1, 2009, 9:34 amSueSimp says:
I think one of the things the article is presuming people will catch the significance of is the fact the journalist went out of their way to point out that out of only 50 friends, the Salahis’ lawyer was one of them. Having only 50 friends on facebook would generally be considered to be a smallish group; it indicates someone using facebook not as a social butterfly and mass friend hoarder, but rather someone who is selective in who they facebook friend.
To follow up on neurodoc, it makes sense to discount the significance of any one friend for someone who either accepts requests from or actively seeks out and requests every person they have so much as heard the name of. But for someone with a limited list, the presence of any one person is arguably more significant and indicates a more personal relationship between them.
December 1, 2009, 9:35 amhanmeng says:
What’s the “White House”?
December 1, 2009, 9:48 amtexasfox82 says:
Well i know you guys now have a twitter account, how’s about getting a facebook? Some of us just don’t do twitter.
December 1, 2009, 10:19 amFloridan says:
At this point, explaining what Facebook is makes about as much sense as mentioning the New York Times and following it with “a newspaper published in New York City.”
December 1, 2009, 10:23 amjcm says:
You are a lawyer and have 50 friend you are:
1)too old
2)very conscious about the legal consequences of networking.
3) you really dont have friends at all, you are a lawyer
Facebook is a widely known fact that not require proof
December 1, 2009, 10:24 amVC junkie says:
In my world, “Volokh” and “VC” have long been better-known than Facewhatever. “Did you see the VC post about . . .” is well-understood. That is how things should be everywhere.
December 1, 2009, 10:42 amJames T. Carrington says:
Sue, if they have not had the FB account for a long time, 50 does not mean much. To me, Wall posts, status update comments, and picture tags/comments are the meaningful measurement of FB friendship. DB is correct that just a friend may mean nothing if you cannot use the above criteria in measurement.
If you are my friend, you can look at my profile to see all of that information if it is not marked private, and you can reasonably measure my degree of comity with a particular person if I show up in pictures with them (and comment on the picture as well), if I comment on their status update, and if I post things on the “Wall” that exists as a connection between us.
December 1, 2009, 10:53 amCardinal Fang says:
This is a refreshing change from the Post’s usual way of describing everything as if talking to a Martian.
December 1, 2009, 11:22 amDavid Nieporent says:
Or someone who is trying to get friends but who just isn’t very popular.
December 1, 2009, 11:24 amJohn Armstrong says:
Is it widely known? yes. But I’m still in favor of pointing out explicitly that “friend” on Facebook has almost nothing to do with any sort of personal relationship or affection.
December 1, 2009, 11:32 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Zavee: Good question from @volokhc: Is Facebook so well understood that newspapers don’t need to explain it? http://bit.ly/76H5c5 #socialmedia…
December 1, 2009, 11:55 amDavid Chesler says:
I have to agree with that. I have old real-world friends who don’t use Facebook; others who don’t understand the “friend” concept. I understand as far as being able to say “it doesn’t mean they’re really your friend: you’ll see more of what they post and they’ll see more of what you post”.
December 1, 2009, 12:22 pmyankee says:
I would interpret a facebook account with such a small group of friends as meaning that the user doesn’t use facebook very much. Of those 300 million facebook accounts, the vast majority are accounts that were set up once and never used again, or that are used only rarely. The bulk of facebook traffic is generated by the minority of users who use it multiple times a day (which is still an enormous number of people).
December 1, 2009, 12:40 pmA. Zarkov says:
“Is Facebook so widely used among likely readers of the article that no such explanation was needed?”
I can’t really be sure, but I think not for older readers of the Washington Post. Unfortunately the shortcoming in this article is all too typical of modern journalism. Some stories are so disconnected in the flow of information that it’s hard to follow them. Frequently important information is left out, like what Facebook is in this article. I have read news stories reporting on a crime that asks the reader to call the police if they see someone who looks like the perpetrator. But the story provides no description of what he looks like. I strongly suspect many journalists see themselves more as social activists out to reform the world than providers of basic information about the world. In many cases their product stinks and that’s why even major newspapers like the Times and the Post are failing businesses.
December 1, 2009, 1:19 pmptt says:
If you search for “facebook” at the WP, you find 1177 hits. I would assume that WP readers are pretty loyal readers, so they’ve probably run across an explanation or two in the past.
December 1, 2009, 1:54 pmgullyborg says:
So are you saying I shouldn’t just click “add friend” any time Facebook recommends it?
December 1, 2009, 2:56 pmHarryEagar says:
Anatid gets it.
December 1, 2009, 4:11 pmneurodoc says:
Forgive those of us who were once hip, or thought ourselves so, but clearly aren’t anymore – what would it add (subtract?) if VC went with Facebook? What exactly does the Twitter account do? This blogsite and the email messages that alert us to new posts in a thread don’t do it all?
December 1, 2009, 8:39 pmneurodoc says:
“Grown-ups” do this stuff? (Am I revealing myself as very much not au courant with this question?)
December 1, 2009, 8:42 pmneurodoc says:
So you think no inferences should be drawn from Sarah Whitman of HRW naming Adam Shapiro of ISM as one of her “friends” (see my post above at 9:01 AM today), because being a “friend on Facebook has almost nothing to do with any sort of personal relationship or affection”? I think otherwise.
December 1, 2009, 8:49 pmneurodoc says:
If that is the reason newspapers are failing, why weren’t they failing until a few years ago, when the internet really gained steam? You think people had no alternatives to these newspaper and that is why they prospered until relatively recently?
December 1, 2009, 8:54 pmMark Horning says:
I am vaguely aware of Facebook. I am not really sure what it does or why using it might be of any benefit. I assume a “friend” is something like an rss feed.
My parents would have no clue what Facebook is.
December 2, 2009, 12:19 amA. Zarkov says:
Look at the price of the NYT stock, it has been falling for 5 years. We should look at their earnings to be sure, but it sure looks to me like a steady erosion of public confidence in their product. Blogs have really taken off over the past 5 years too. I think it’s the blogs as opposed as to the Internet that have cut into their readership, and Craigs List has taken their classified ads. Look their coverage of Climategate, it’s nothing compared to the blogs.
December 2, 2009, 1:05 amneurodoc says:
I don’t understand “it’s the blogs as opposed to the Internet.” Aren’t blogs part of what the Internet has brought us along with YouTube, Facebook, online shopping, email, etc.? And Craigs List is a creature of the Internet too, isn’t it. I thought you were maintaining that it was what you see as the inferiority of our newspaper that was responsible for their decline, not the emergence of a radically transformative technology. I don’t know what you think a superior newspaper product would look like, if it was economically feasible to produce, but I very much doubt that your idealized newspaper product would enjoy much greater success than what the NYT and WaPo are seeing now.
December 2, 2009, 1:34 amA. Zarkov says:
The rise of the Internet proceeded the rise of blogging.
It’s both. Dissatisfied readers now have alternative sources of information.
In the long run I think all newspapers will need a radical restructuring, even the WSJ. In the short run the WSJ will prosper because they are providing the public with a superior product to most of the other major dailies. I guess you think the NYT and the others are simply suffering the ravages of the recession. That could be the real explanation, and only time will tell us whose right.
December 3, 2009, 2:03 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Facebook So Ubiquitous … « Blogging says:
[...] More here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Is Facebook So Ubiquitous … [...]
December 13, 2009, 1:09 am