Confession: I Still Don't Understand Twitter.

"Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted" was written in 2010 by Malcolm Gladwill. He is a British-Canadian author, who has been a writer for The New Yorker since 1996. Gladwill has also written four books: "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference," "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking," "Outliers: The Story of Success," and "What the Dog Saw (A compilation of stories published in The New Yorker)." Having only read it once so far, I didn't notice any underlying motivation to write this article. Other than the fact that it's his job, but I digress. Given the publication, I would assume that the audience was a national one, but I have only heard of The New Yorker a few times, so it leads me to think that it is a New York audience, or perhaps the east cost. Or a national audience and I completely miss things like this. All options are completely reasonable.

Malcolm's purpose for writing this is to let people know that social media does not necessarily lead to action, and that action happened before all of this tweeting and poking and whatever else people do online. He doesn't seem to be saying that social media is a bad thing, just that our society seems to have forgotten what activism is, and that #iranelection doesn't really do anything helpful regarding the Iran election. He points this out by comparing the diner sit-ins during the 1960s to how people are "active" today. I think by comparing to something as big as that, helps get his point across better. He also uses other sources. I didn't look into all of them, but most seemed to be pretty reliable, and strengthened his Ethos for me at least.

I've already alluded to it, but I believe this article was effective. I feel like his points were valid, the other sources helped him, and that the comparison really made it seem like people today don't do a whole lot. There is more, but this isn't my paper. So until next prompt, I bid you adieu.