HDR (high dynamic range) imaging allows photographers access to a greater range of light levels between the darkest and lightest areas of an image. If you’ve ever taken a picture of a sunset over the mountains and bodies of water, you might notice that the area where the sun appears is very bright and washed-out, while the mountains and streams are very dark. HDR techniques can fix this and make the rock and water much more visible, while toning down the sun. When done right, and HDR’d image looks a lot more like what you can see with the naked eye.

On Wednesday, Apple released their highly anticipated 4.1 software update for the iPhone 3G, 3GS, and 4. The upgrade offers various features for all iPhone users, but you must either jailbreak your phone or own the latest iPhone 4 in order to take advantage of the new HDR photography option.

But, never fear. If you’re like me and own a 3G or 3GS, and you want to shoot HDR, there’s an app for that. In fact, there are several.

The one I’ve used for this piece is called “Pro HDR.” It works for iPhone 3GS or newer, and can be purchased for $1.99 via the App Store. It’s not perfect, but for two dollars worth of smartphone software, it does the trick pretty well.

Below are three pictures depicting my MacBook Pro and part of my dining room. The first is overexposed, so that you can see the dining room. The second is underexposed, and while the dining room is very dark, you can easily make out what I have up on my screen. (Click any image for a larger version):

Using Pro HDR, I was able to combine the images and use the best parts of each, all right on my iPhone.

If I wanted to, I could also use Pro HDR to further edit the end result by manually adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation and other image elements.

All in all, I would recommend Pro HDR to casual users who want to improve the look for their “mobile uploads” folders on Facebook. If you’re looking to take particularly stunning photos, I’d suggest investing in a real camera that can’t make phone calls.

Last weekend, my friend Brianna “Spacekatgal” Wu made headlines worldwide after security officials at Yankee Stadium turned her away from the Yankees-Red Sox game because she had her iPad with her. Undeterred, she got back in line and sneaked the iPad in anyway.

During the game, she posted about the incident on the IGN forums:

The security people told me [iPads were] not allowed and I was turned away at the gates. Why on earth would they have this policy? Terrorism concerns? I couldn’t get an answer. I snuck it in under my jacket. I bring it to Fenway all the time and they don’t care.

Smaller than most laptops, the 9.5″ iPad looks like a larger version of the 4.5″ iPhone

Yahoo! Sports soon picked up the story, as did CNN, Fox News and CNET. Even as I write this blog entry, I’m seeing new headlines about the matter pop up on Google News.

So far, Yankees officials haven’t said why iPads or laptops are banned, other than that they pose “safety and security” issues–at least, according to several vague reports. My best guess as to why the devices are really banned is that they might prove distracting to fans who want to watch the game. But having used the iPad, I don’t see how it, with its 9.5-inch screen, is all that much more distracting than a smartphone. In fact, unlike the 4.5-inch iPhone, the iPad can’t take pictures or place calls.

I scored an exclusive interview with Wu earlier today. Here’s what she had to say about the ban and the subsequent media frenzy:

Q: So exactly what happened when you got to the security gate at the stadium?
A: When I went through the gate, the security guard asked me “Is that an iPad?” I thought she was just another person curious about iPads, because they’re so new. I get this several times a day. I told her it was an iPad, and she told me it was not allowed in the stadium. I asked her, “Can you tell me why?” and she said it was because of the camera. I told her the iPad doesn’t have a camera, and she just kept saying, “It’s not allowed in.” I realized debating the point was useless.

She told me that there was a bar across the street, and I could rent a locker and put my stuff inside. Given the drunken fight I’d just witnessed on the street outside that bar, I didn’t want to do that. I decided to sneak it it. I exited the gate and put the iPad under my jacket in my husband’s backpack, and went into another gate.

I was pretty nervous about security inside the game confiscating it when I started posting about the event on the IGN board, but I quickly realized they didn’t care.

Q: Why do you think they didn’t want you to bring the iPad in with you?
A: I guess the iPad could be distracting, but no more so than I find all the drunken people at a baseball game. I’ve never seen someone pick a fight because they were using their smartphone.

I think it sucks. I’ve been to Fenway about 10 times, and it’s a really relaxed atmosphere. In contrast, the overbearing security at Yankee Stadium put me on edge a bit, and I’m not talking about the iPad policy. There were people guarding every section, inspecting tickets. It just seemed unnecessary and Big Brother-esque.

Q: This issue has stirred up quite the media circus. Do you think this will lead to Yankees officials rethinking their ban?
A: I really don’t know. I think the Yankees are the Microsoft of baseball, and aren’t especially receptive to public opinion. I doubt anything will change.

Q: Fair enough. But I can’t be the only one wondering this: Why would you even want to bring an iPad into a baseball game? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being there?
A: I got bored. When the Yankees play the Red Sox, it’s always a 4 hour game. I tune out in the middle.

It seems like at every game I’ve every been to, many other girls also bring things to keep themselves entertained. Kindles, a book, their smartphones. I think many people just want something to do during the lulls in the action.

Q: What kinds of things do you do to occupy yourself during these lulls?
A: I actually Facebook with my friends and tell them about the baseball games. I can usually count on a sarcastic comment or two from you, News-Geek.com, about my love for the Yankees. I sometimes post pictures from my phone. It’s just the way people my age operate, live-blogging the fun parts of our lives.

I read comic books, I read the news, I post on the IGN board, I Facebook. I have the 3G model, so there’s almost nothing I can’t do.

Q: Do you take your iPad with you everywhere you go?
A: I am never without my iPad. I also have a Macbook Air, and I carry it in my purse with me. I like to be connected, and I like to sneak in work wherever I can. Some girls carry bags with beauty products; I carry my computer.

Q: Don’t people at games or elsewhere ever get annoyed with you for distracting them with your iPad?
A:Quite the opposite. I constantly have strangers asking to use it, and asking questions. It’s a novelty, and there’s a lot of curiosity about it. One time, I had one stranger ask to demo it, and they immediately went to the Bank of America app to log into my bank account! It really freaked me out!

I’ve never had someone complain, though after reading so many hundreds of negative comments [following the incident at Yankee Stadium], I suspect some people might be rolling their eyes at me.

Q: Is there anywhere you wouldn’t take your iPad?
A: There is literally nowhere I wouldn’t bring my iPad. It’s 1.5 pounds, why be without it? It hasn’t left my side since I bought it, except when I run outside. I’d bring it to a wedding, a zombie outbreak, I’d even want to be buried with it.

Q: A wedding? Would you use it during the ceremony?
A: No, but I’d probably sneak off at some point and check my Facebook.

Q: You have some pretty strong opinions about this stuff. Do you think the Yankees owe you an apology, or at least a better explanation for why they ban iPads and laptops?
A: No, of course not. We all put up with arbitrary rules all the time. That would be incredibly entitled of me, even through I think their policy is stupid.

Q: Do you think you’ll risk smuggling your iPad into Yankee Stadium again?
A: Probably not. Knowing the policy, I might just leave it at home and surf on my iPhone instead. I don’t want to be a jerk to the team I love so much.

People have to understand: We came all the way from Boston to see this game. We were on foot all day, touring the Natural History Museum. I had my iPad with me, of course. I had no idea about this policy. I bring the iPad to Fenway all the time and they don’t care. But knowing the rule, I wouldn’t want to break it again.

Q: Are you surprised by all the media coverage?
A: I am beyond surprised by the media coverage. People have e-mailed me stories from all over the world, and in 7 different languages so far. I’ve already seen over 50 stories that mention me by name. My sneaking the iPad in has been discussed on CNBC, and ESPN. I cannot believe it.

Maybe the coverage took off because of all of the juxtaposed social issues involved. The iPad is the new, trendy status symbol, and you’re pitting it against baseball, a slow-paced, traditional game. Mix that with the Yankees, who are both the most loved and the most hated team in baseball, and you have a story with a lot of interesting angles.

But the coverage is still very strange to me. I posted this to the IGN board, to a subsection we call the Mac GB, or “General Board.” We’re a small subset of the giant forum, and a close-knit group. I’m very fond of most of the people I post with. I’ve bought and sold Macs with them, we discuss Apple news every day, we play Steam games together, we solve each others tech problems and so on.

I feel like it’s not just me who’s gotten the attention, but all my Mac friends on the Mac GB as well.

Q: Now that this story has hit media worldwide, have you found that bloggers, reporters and commenters tend to support you in your defiance of the Yankees?
A: Judging from the comments, I think most people think I’m a stupid girl who doesn’t appreciate sports and should leave her iPad at home. There must be 1,000 comments saying “Just watch the game!” The response has been incredibly negative towards me. I have never been one to worry about upsetting other people, though. I’ve found all the negativity highly amusing.

I think MatLu, my friend on the IGN board, said it best: “There’s nothing more American than seeing a stupid rule and then proceeding to immediately break it. That’s how this great country started. Bri was just doing what comes naturally to all Americans, especially for Bostonians. It’s American instinct.“ ♦

Fascinating. So what do you guys think?

It’s actually not this simple.

I took the challenge a step further and did away with unnecessary Web surfing altogether. I even banned myself from using my iPhone for checking e-mail in the car. (I couldn’t get rid of e-mail completely as I needed it for work.) Since my husband, Steve, does all of the driving, I didn’t want to put myself in a situation where I could spend entire car rides playing with my phone.

I decided to chronicle my experiences as an internet luddite. Surprisingly, I learned a lot about myself in the process:

Day 1
8:57 a.m. – We’re in the car on the way to work and my fingers are twitching like I’m some sort of addict. (And maybe I am.) This is prime e-mail-checking time and my hands don’t know what to do with their new-found freedom from iPhone enslavement.

Suddenly, I realize I haven’t Tweeted about the blackout experiment, so I start digging through my purse. How can such a small bag be so cavernous? Finally, I find my phone and start typing as fast as I can. Like Indiana Jones grabbing his hat before the stone door shut forever in Temple of Doom, I manage to get my Tweet in before my 9 a.m. cut off. It’s going to be a long 48 hours.

11:02 a.m. – It’s been a busy morning, but I’m back at my desk now. I’m starting to realize just how much of my typical day is spent goofing off online, and it’s kind of scary. So how on Earth do I manage to stay so productive? I have no idea. I just know that I’ve been plugged into the Internet since I was 14–that’s half of my life–and it didn’t prevent me from graduating college with high honors, researching/writing a 153-page masters thesis in less than a year, or gaining some pretty successful career opportunities at NOVA Online and Boston University.

I’m not even bored right now and I definitely have work to do, yet the compulsion to “just check” all of my different sites of interest hits me every time I sit down. In a split-second, my mind thinks “Let’s go to Facebook–wait, I can’t do that; Twitter! Nope, can’t do that either; Flickr! Sorry, not happening…” etc.

My phone is ringing. Saved by the bell.

12:16 p.m.. – It’s almost lunchtime now, and one of my clerks is standing at my door, going over this morning’s crazy events. (At our hotel, every morning is sprinkled with a touch of crazy.) I look up at her as she talks, neither of us realizing that I’m absentmindedly typing “facebook.com” into Firefox’s address bar. I get as far as entering in my password before I notice what I’m doing.

What’s wrong with me?

I exit the browser as a guilty feeling builds in the pit of my stomach. That was close.

For the record, I do realize how absurd this sounds.

2:05 p.m. – I notice that every time I sit down to get a little computer work done, my cursor drifts toward the Firefox icon. It’s happened at least 10 times today already–probably more. I’ve actually stopped counting.

Steve shot this with my iPhone. I fully admit that in a moment of weakness, I asked him to upload it to his Facebook account. He declined.

I’m beginning to see that my problem isn’t really the conscious desire to connect with people, but something more deeply ingrained in who I’ve become. I’ve spent most of my formative years online. The compulsion to surf is like muscle memory, hardly any different from walking around without realizing on any conscious level that I’ve even stood up.

I’ve been following the same internet routine for 14 years. The sites have changed, but the habits remain the same. I wonder if I’m now hardwired to be a geek.

3:42 p.m. – My subconscious is getting clever. I’ve had a little bit of down time this afternoon and without realizing it, I’ve been taking actions that, if completed, would require me to log into Facebook. About 20 minutes ago, I started thinking to myself, “I’ve got some time–why not experiment with some potentially useful code for my blog?”

It just so happens that I’ve been planning on implementing Facebook Connect features that would allow people to comment on News-Geek via their Facbook accounts. This would prevent users from having to go through the hoops of registering or retyping all of their personal information to post to this site. It’s all about convenience, right?

Wrong. Well, sort of. It’s partially about convenience, but today it’s also about having an excuse to log into Facebook. I can’t implement this feature without getting an application programing interface (API) key, a unique Facebook-generated identifier that will allow users to interact with my site. I’ll have to play with this functionality another time.

5:45 p.m. – It’s after work and we’re running errands. I still don’t miss my social networking sites, but I do find myself thinking about them frequently. Every time I get into the car, I have to remind myself to not reach for my phone. So, I stare out the window–and wow, it looks like there’s a new tattoo/massage/goth attire/head shop just outside the really nice part of town. How the hell did that get there? And when?

I thought that being plugged in kept me informed, in the know, aware–and it does. It keeps me in touch in the world. But what about my own backyard?

6:28 p.m. – I cooked with quinoa for the first time tonight. I have the urge to take a picture of the tasty meal with my phone and to Tweet it, but only as a passing thought. Current realization: I am incredibly lame.

9:45 p.m. – I’ve enjoyed a nice, quiet evening with Steve and our puppy, Herbie. I’m grateful because I’ve learned I’m not so attached to the internet that these nights aren’t common. In fact, it really feels like any other night, only I’m not mindlessly playing with my iPhone every few minutes. For the first time today, I don’t feel like an addict.

Day 2
6:00 a.m. – We’re going into Nashville today and I don’t want to get up. My usual morning ritual begins with my alarm, followed by at least 15 minutes of Web-surfing via my phone as I wipe the sleep from my eyes with my free hand. Unfortunately, staring at the ceiling doesn’t have quite the same waking effect. I begin wonder how impractical it would be to get a coffee maker for my nightstand.

6:45 a.m. – It’s hard to disconnect when so many aspects of your real life and social-media life are intertwined. I haven’t given up e-mail because I have a lot of work information saved in messages and drafts.

I notice that there’s a “3″ beside the Google Buzz link underneath where it says “Inbox.” That’s way too convenient. I don’t click on “Buzz,” though, because it’s the Valhalla of social networking. It all too easily aggregates your activity on sites like Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr, and shares it with other Buzz’ers (and vice versa).

When did we all go meta? And why?

I understand the need to reach our entire potential audience, but no one cares (or should care) enough about what I say to be willing to read the phrase “I just had my first glass of soy milk since leaving Boston” three times across three different sites.

1:30 p.m. – I see an NRA poster that reads “Insure Your Gun Rights!” I cringe. My inner grammar Nazi wants to take a picture with my phone and upload it to Facebook along with some sort of snarky “fail” caption.

Once again, it’s more reflex than desire. I realize how obnoxious it is to nitpick a poster. I don’t even dislike the NRA or disagree with a lot of what their less paranoid members stand for. I find out later that insure/ensure faux pas wasn’t a one-time mistake. They’ve got the phrase all over some reading materials and this Web site.

I twitch a little.

I wonder: In an addiction scenario, would my iPhone be the dealer or just an enabler?

4:42 p.m. – It’s a long drive home, and in between conversations with my husband, I wonder what my frenemies are up to. (A frenemy is someone who pretends to be a friend but is actually an enemy. I argue that in the social-networking world, the term should extend to rivals who maintain a continued interest in one’s life or vice versa, regardless of whether the two parties even speak. Online, you don’t have to talk to someone to legally and secretly keep tabs on them.)

We are the millennial generation, sometimes called the “net” generation. I believe that we all passively stalk people from our past, simply because we can. The only difference between us and creepsters with restraining orders against them is our motivation. While conventional “stalkers” are driven by obsession and a side of chemical imbalance, we’re just curious. Any malicious intent on our part could be likened to what you might feel during a class reunion: We want to ensure that we’re happier and more successful than our frenemies, and we want to see if they’re as lame/sketchy/weird/mean as they were when we still spoke to them.

In the interest of full, embarrassing disclosure, I admit that I have a couple of frenemies I check up on every few months. I know for a fact that many of my friends, acquaintances, former students and employees do the same.

I’m fairly certain that this is why the various social-networking sites won’t add a “see who’s looking at your profile” feature. Can you imagine the drama that would ensue if you suddenly learned that your proctologist, who isn’t even your Facebook friend, looks at your account more than your wife does?

10:30 p.m. – I’ve enjoyed another great evening in with Steve and Herbie. I don’t really want to go online at this point.

Day 3
7:24 a.m. – I wake up with the realization that this hiatus is almost over. I feel guilty, like I really shouldn’t go back to life as I knew it two days ago. If you do the math, a minute here and a minute there can add up to hours wasted online.

I want to keep fasting, but I also want to publish this post and share it across my various social-networking accounts. I want to connect with others out there who can relate to me and to this entry.

I’ll compromise: I will go back to my sites, but I’ll limit my use. There will be no more idle surfing in the car, and conversations with real, physical people will have to trump internet usage altogether. This means that if I’m at a restaurant with my husband, I will not grab my iPhone at any point as we wait for our meal.

12:55 p.m. – I’m publishing this blog entry. I haven’t been to Facebook or Twitter yet. I suspect I’ll have a lot to catch up on, but I think I’ll have some lunch and pick up around the house first.

The main thing (for me, as an all-in-one new-media journalist) that older models lack is built-in video capability, but even that is changing. This past December, Qik, a company striving to bring video technology to the mobile world, released an application that turns even my first-gen’s still camera into a useful video tool.

Here’s a video I shot with Qik last month. My only complaint is that I would prefer more frames per second since these doggies are fast, but all in all, I’m quite pleased. This app makes my “classic” first-generation phone feel a bit like a 3GS light, so to speak. Obviously the 3GS, which is built for video, does a better job with it over all: The camera in general takes clearer, more vibrant photos. The video, also, is clearer and less jerky.

You can see the need for a better frame rate and quality even more so in this video I shot at a hibachi grill near my house:

The frame rate for the default Qik video resolution of 200×152 is only 15 frames per second, which is half that seen in film. Shooting anything larger will kick the rate down even further, producing a choppier shot akin to old security camera footage. That said, the application is only $0.99 and hosting is absolutely free. If money is the only obstacle between you and a shiny new 3GS with video–or if you, like me, are too lazy and attached to your older model iPhone to make the switch–you might be better off with Qik. As noted above, you won’t get the same quality or clarity, but you will get usable video.

If you’re a 3GS-less journalist or anyone else looking for a quick, on-the-fly option for raw video production, I highly recommend this program. If not, well, why are you using your cell phone to shoot to begin with?

All in all, I give Qik for the iPhone 4 out of 5 stars. It’s cheap, reliable, accessible and all-in-all a well-programmed piece of software. I’d prefer a frame rate of at least 24 FPS, but 15 isn’t terrible.

But is this acceptance of the Web “too little, too late”? In 2008, nearly 16,000 newspaper journalists lost their jobs to layoffs. And so far in 2009, another 3,000 have found themselves out of work. These figures don’t even include television, radio, the struggling magazine sector, or the Internet.

I interviewed writer, public speaker, and founder of the aptly named AngryJournalist.com, Kiyoshi Martinez, last week about our struggling profession. Although Martinez has left the reporting world, he keeps up with the industry as much as he can and is currently developing a new site, Journalism.me, which currently lists the most popular topics journalists are blogging about on any given day. Here are some highlights from the interview:

Rima Chaddha Mycynek: Your brief career in journalism includes a stint as a stringer for Newsweek and as a Web editor for five Chicago-area newspapers–at once. Why did you leave the field?

Kiyoshi Martinez in Chicago, February 2008. Photo courtesy Jason Reblando

Kiyoshi Martinez: Short answer? Money. Long answer? I wanted fair financial compensation, job stability, weekends off, good benefits and a broader range of career opportunities.

RCM: Fair enough. Is that why you started AngryJournalist.com?

KM: I started AngryJournalist after reading a report from Dr. Scott Reinardy on how the burnout rate of young journalists was on the rise. Some of the responses (anonymous) were similar to either my views of the profession or those expressed by friends in the industry. I wondered how universal these thoughts were and what journalists would say if given the platform to anonymously and freely speak their mind. For a site though that hasn’t changed much and required no extra effort by me, I’m satisfied with its results. I saw this project as more or less an experiment that has overperformed my expectations.

I think a lot of people assume that I was an angry journalist. I would say it was more a “disillusioned” or “disappointed” feeling about the industry. I’m not angry now. I’m pretty content with my life, but I do empathize with friends who are still in the industry and being let down by it. I’ve known three close friends who were laid off in the past year, one was my girlfriend. Another was my roommate in [an] internship program. And the other was my bureau chief who mentored me during my [government reporting] internship in Springfield. I think what David Simon’s essay for Esquire nailed it: you can love newspapers, but “a newspaper can’t love you back.”

RCM: Do you think the journalists who visit your site are more angry than disillusioned or vice versa?

KM: I think journalists are transitioning between anger and sadness, especially as we witness more layoffs, shutdowns and general chaos in the industry. Will they quit? Honestly, I think that decision may be made for many of them soon enough.

RCM: That’s pretty ominous, but probably not inaccurate considering the 2008/2009 job-loss figures. Do you think “angry journalists” are more intent on leaving the field now, or are they doing everything they can to keep their positions?

KM: Initially, a year ago, I would’ve said that people were making these threats [to leave their jobs] because they were fed up with management and the general way these companies were being operated. Now, I think it’s shifted to survival. The industry has no financial stability or job certainty. Additionally, all these layoffs are creating a large surplus of experienced talent for the few positions remaining. Then, throw in wage freezes and reductions, hiring freezes and more work on less people. When the odds are this stacked against you, I think that’s a good reason to leave.

RCM: Do you think there’s any hope for print, which seems to be struggling the most out of all media?

KM: I’m a pessimist and realist. It’s going to get worse. There will be less jobs, fewer publications and too little innovation too late (on both business and editorial ends). Watch for more production duties (page design, creative ad services) to be outsourced to India. Expect some publications to have full-time staff replaced by freelancers paid on pageviews. More sections will be dropped from the physical product and the newshole will get smaller. Circulation will drop further, especially in this economy. And there will be fewer print ads, too. All the ad verticals newspapers built their empires on are eroding away right now: auto, real estate, classified, retail, etc.

RCM: Surely you can’t be completely pessimistic. Is there anything at all that you feel we can do to keep professional journalism alive?

KM: A “better” economy aside, the only thing that I believe can be done by news organizations is to have a huge push to innovate when it comes to online advertising and make your services and product more appealing. Don’t pursue any editorial projects that you can’t monetize. Find new revenue streams. I would also stress an emphasis on finding a way to monetize the growth of mobile broadband Internet browsing being done, but I doubt many news orgs right now have the funds to seriously become a player in that market right now, let alone last long enough to take advantage of it.

RCM: That’s a lot to ask, considering that journalistic education nationwide still seems to be focused on the us-versus-them mentality of broadcast-versus-print. I won’t get into how arcane I think that is, but I will ask you this: How can we tweak journalism education make what you suggest possible–or at the very least, to ensure that we’re not sending students out to face a bleak future of unemployment or temp work?

KM: To justify the cost of a journalism degree, it should have business courses training journalists to be entrepreneurs. You have as good a shot in being successful working for yourself as you do for the established companies. This mythical wall between editorial and business needs to come down. This willful ignorance is a huge problem.

I can’t speak for journalism programs around the country, but I think that my undergraduate classes were mostly a waste of time. All the classwork wasn’t as valuable as the experience of actually performing acts of journalism and learning skills by practicing them. This is something you can do outside of a journalism college. You can train yourself and let your peers review you online. There are plenty of free resources to learn about multimedia. However, one class that I think was valuable was media law. Knowing about libel, copyright, the First Amendment rights, etc. was essential and helpful.

One thing that I’d stress is that anyone can perform acts of journalism. Having schooling or training doesn’t matter as much anymore. What matters now is having the tools to distribute information to an audience. One of my favorite journalism-related movie scenes is from “Superman Returns” when the editor of the Daily Planet is screaming at Jimmy Olsen for getting scooped by a kid who snapped a photo of the Man of Steel with his cameraphone.

Four years of schooling, thousands of dollars of student loan debt and a piece of paper doesn’t have anything over the guy with a iPhone and a few hundred followers on Twitter.

What do you think? Is journalism (or at least the journalistic model we’re still teaching in schools) dead? Can we save our profession?

The problem is, I never bothered using any of them. I’ve tried to get into Twitter, but micro-blogging has never really appealed to me–well, until now, anyway.

Long story short, I’ve recently come to accept two important facts of internet life:

1. Twitter isn’t the passing fad I thought it would be. To the contrary, it’s still gaining in popularity more than 2 years after its release. According to a February ’09 report from Web traffic analysis site Compete.com, Twitter is now the third most popular social networking site behind Facebook and MySpace.
2. Twitter is a symbol how internet users are now essentially online all the time. Smart phones and WiFi have really changed where we connect, when we do it, and how often we can do it. We can both have lives and yet stay in constant connection with the Web and our peers, which is a huge shift from just a couple of years ago. Sure people still have their stereotypes: To a lot of folks, if you’re online, you must be at your computer in your mom’s basement, drinking a 2-liter Mt. Dew and arguing with strangers over which “World of Warcraft” characters are the coolest. But regardless of stereotypes, things are really changing. Look at teenagers: Even the cool kids are always texting, Facebooking, Twittering, etc.

As a self-respecting multimedia journalist, I know that I should accept Twitter as the increasingly popular tool that it is. Yet it’s that journalistic part of me that really needs to decipher what’s behind the popularity of this whole micro-blogging thing. Both Facebook and MySpace offer “status update” tools in addition to myriad cool features that Twitter doesn’t have. So why do we Twitter?

While even Twitter CEO Evan Williams can’t answer that question (as he’s stated in multiple interviews) perhaps the Times of London can. Just yesterday the Times published an article in which they asked several experts about the Twitter phenomenon. The conclusion was this: We Tweet because we have an underdeveloped sense of the self. Ouch.

From the article:

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. ‘Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.’

‘We are the most narcissistic age ever,’ agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. ‘Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.’

For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, Twitter represents ‘a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.’

Those are some pretty strong accusations. But what do you think? Are those of us who Tweet or update our statuses on Facebook and MySpace narcissistic? Are we insecure? Do we need validation?

For me… I just think it’s fun. No harm, no foul. But what do you think? Are we truly just a bunch of big, fearful, attention-seeking babies?

Let me know. And while you’re at it, follow me (and my lacking sense of self) on Twitter. You can do that at right.