don't assume technology will fix things (no triumphalism)
increased accessability
media literacy
aggregation
some form of gatekeeping
diversifying of what we have immediate access too (Leo's spaciality)
participation (both in terms of making and circulating info and in terms of assessing content)
Leo's three options for the future:
1) msm reformed by alternative and tactical media
2) alt and tactical and msm co-exist--poaching style, content and form from one another
3) msm is replaced by digital/alt media
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama on Al Arabiya
I've been hearing a lot about Obama's interview with the Arab network Al Arabiya, and was interested to see we actually read a little bit about the network in the interview with Hassan Ibrahim. Nice confluence of reading + current events. The interview is now available in several parts on YouTube.
PART I
PART II
PART I
PART II
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Delicate Balance - Group Lead by Josh
Consider your favorite movies or television shows or even novels for a moment. What is the common thread in them all that elevates them to be worthy of ranking on your personal list? Is it the style? Is it the medium? Or is it the arc of the characters and their involvement with the storyline?
The over arching sense from chapters 10, 11 and 12 –in my interpretation– was that in order to gain traction with an audience and effectively spread a message, be it a tactical media, a blog, established media or an aggregator of several forms of media the audience must be able to engage in the storyline and information. The ability to capture not only the mind but also the emotions of a person that will then also engage in the resulting dialogue is key to instill the potential of democracy in media and the expanded potential of digital media.
Traditionally media has been based on the notion that one entity creates content while another consumes said content. This notion is even apparent in Gans’ two-tier model of a central media and a secondary level of media reinterpreting and reanalyzing the first tier despite its goal of multiperpspectival coverage. This new content is still just re-digested and presented to be consumed all over again.
As advances in digital media and the Internet have grown exponentially, so too have challenges for effective use of media. Does the platform or type of media change the impact on a particular social group or community?
As we have already discussed in class, the notion of objectivity –despite being actually buried beneath bureaucracy and cronyism in many instances– and be “fair and balanced” permeates most established journalism outlets. There is also an unfounded principal of needed conflict that generates useless shouting and finger pointing on display in forms like CNN’s Crossfire or even the long standing NBC’s Meet the Press. This tension of two dominant opposites is broadcast under the flag of unprejudiced coverage, yet neglects the remaining 358 degrees of a particular issue.
Meanwhile, bloggers lose sight of accomplishment goals by injecting self-righteousness and catharsis leading the failed re-hashing of particular issues that do not advance dialogue. These new forms of sharing and discussing topics at times becomes more of a celebration of technology and less about the ability Ohmynews.com to get people to become participants in the evolution of our society. This can even be said about social networking sites.
Bruns highlights the unique blend of professional journalists co-oping with citizen journalists on the South Korean website . This evolution from a tactical media to a possible “renaissance” journalism model is no doubt intriguing. But is the social environment of South Korea too dissimilar to the United States? Or are the essential foundations of a new and more effective journalism model present to carry into the complex ream of the world’s original democracy?
The ability of people to gatecrash and gatewatch in the digital era has opened up several possibilities to make journalism more successful. Alternative media sources have been able to employ the concept of gatecrashing by force, producing as much content as possible in the DIY media realm in hopes that eventually some of that content will bubble up to the top and be accepted by traditional media sources. Is this attempt to get messages out in mass volume, knowing there will be attrition, reasonable in the process of expanding the scope of what is disseminated by the established media sources? Or will the heart of the message be lost by constantly putting the establishment under siege?
With the expansion of Web2.0 and other social networking tools opening up avenues to spread information, and more importantly engaging storylines, the difficulty is once again not losing sight of the goal, social improvement and discourse, for the allure of technofetishism.
As Twitter, Facebook and new citizen journalism sites like Spot.us begin to take shape, it will be their ability to become stable in the constant digital seas of change and innovation. (Read the Tweet Congress post.) Another aspect will be the ability of established journalism outlets to harness the potential power of these sties to combine the efforts of professional journalism with those of citizen-powered journalism. It was only recently that mainstream media websites allowed reader commenting. A long-standing aspect of the now common blog that incited discussion, if at times also devolved the conversation. This begs the question, can constructive deliberation happen on these platforms or is merely having the option available the bigger concern?
That debate is of serious consequence as the commenting tools on mainstream media outlets are still limited to some extent for fear of rogue commenters and freight of libel in addition to the lack of resources to “police” the playground. If these traditional outlets are eventually able to overcome the “adoption lag” there may be something that resembles the power of Ohmynews. But coming from the industry of dead trees and deep-rooted institutionalized journalism, there will be very few able to bridge the gap and evolve. These new iterations of news outlets will act more as a filter to all the perspectives in content being generated, running the risk of once again quashing the potential of democratic media. This reinforces the potential power of these tactical media becoming more than owners to a specific action.
An example of the potential power was illustrated in the Memogate example, if also held up as an anomaly at the same time. The influence of bloggers, though also powerful and connected to establishments, to call into question and reverse the reportage of established media source is of serious note. Even more so when taking into account that shortly after the debunking of the falsified documents only 38 percent of Internet users knew what a blog was. This relatively new media was able to take on and alter the course of a well-established industry.
The ability to have a mediated public sphere will require that moderation of both narrative elements and emotional elements together be enacted in media in order to preserve the evolution of the creators, who are also the characters of these storylines.
The over arching sense from chapters 10, 11 and 12 –in my interpretation– was that in order to gain traction with an audience and effectively spread a message, be it a tactical media, a blog, established media or an aggregator of several forms of media the audience must be able to engage in the storyline and information. The ability to capture not only the mind but also the emotions of a person that will then also engage in the resulting dialogue is key to instill the potential of democracy in media and the expanded potential of digital media.
Traditionally media has been based on the notion that one entity creates content while another consumes said content. This notion is even apparent in Gans’ two-tier model of a central media and a secondary level of media reinterpreting and reanalyzing the first tier despite its goal of multiperpspectival coverage. This new content is still just re-digested and presented to be consumed all over again.
As advances in digital media and the Internet have grown exponentially, so too have challenges for effective use of media. Does the platform or type of media change the impact on a particular social group or community?
As we have already discussed in class, the notion of objectivity –despite being actually buried beneath bureaucracy and cronyism in many instances– and be “fair and balanced” permeates most established journalism outlets. There is also an unfounded principal of needed conflict that generates useless shouting and finger pointing on display in forms like CNN’s Crossfire or even the long standing NBC’s Meet the Press. This tension of two dominant opposites is broadcast under the flag of unprejudiced coverage, yet neglects the remaining 358 degrees of a particular issue.
Watch Jon Stewart's famous plea for the senseless debate to stop. "You're hurting America," he states.
Meanwhile, bloggers lose sight of accomplishment goals by injecting self-righteousness and catharsis leading the failed re-hashing of particular issues that do not advance dialogue. These new forms of sharing and discussing topics at times becomes more of a celebration of technology and less about the ability Ohmynews.com to get people to become participants in the evolution of our society. This can even be said about social networking sites.
Bruns highlights the unique blend of professional journalists co-oping with citizen journalists on the South Korean website . This evolution from a tactical media to a possible “renaissance” journalism model is no doubt intriguing. But is the social environment of South Korea too dissimilar to the United States? Or are the essential foundations of a new and more effective journalism model present to carry into the complex ream of the world’s original democracy?
Bruns asks: “How can new forms of journalism grow beyond their beginnings as tactical media linked to specific causes and temporary actions, and move to establish themselves as a permanent fixture in the news mediascape?”
The ability of people to gatecrash and gatewatch in the digital era has opened up several possibilities to make journalism more successful. Alternative media sources have been able to employ the concept of gatecrashing by force, producing as much content as possible in the DIY media realm in hopes that eventually some of that content will bubble up to the top and be accepted by traditional media sources. Is this attempt to get messages out in mass volume, knowing there will be attrition, reasonable in the process of expanding the scope of what is disseminated by the established media sources? Or will the heart of the message be lost by constantly putting the establishment under siege?
With the expansion of Web2.0 and other social networking tools opening up avenues to spread information, and more importantly engaging storylines, the difficulty is once again not losing sight of the goal, social improvement and discourse, for the allure of technofetishism.
As Twitter, Facebook and new citizen journalism sites like Spot.us begin to take shape, it will be their ability to become stable in the constant digital seas of change and innovation. (Read the Tweet Congress post.) Another aspect will be the ability of established journalism outlets to harness the potential power of these sties to combine the efforts of professional journalism with those of citizen-powered journalism. It was only recently that mainstream media websites allowed reader commenting. A long-standing aspect of the now common blog that incited discussion, if at times also devolved the conversation. This begs the question, can constructive deliberation happen on these platforms or is merely having the option available the bigger concern?
That debate is of serious consequence as the commenting tools on mainstream media outlets are still limited to some extent for fear of rogue commenters and freight of libel in addition to the lack of resources to “police” the playground. If these traditional outlets are eventually able to overcome the “adoption lag” there may be something that resembles the power of Ohmynews. But coming from the industry of dead trees and deep-rooted institutionalized journalism, there will be very few able to bridge the gap and evolve. These new iterations of news outlets will act more as a filter to all the perspectives in content being generated, running the risk of once again quashing the potential of democratic media. This reinforces the potential power of these tactical media becoming more than owners to a specific action.
An example of the potential power was illustrated in the Memogate example, if also held up as an anomaly at the same time. The influence of bloggers, though also powerful and connected to establishments, to call into question and reverse the reportage of established media source is of serious note. Even more so when taking into account that shortly after the debunking of the falsified documents only 38 percent of Internet users knew what a blog was. This relatively new media was able to take on and alter the course of a well-established industry.
The ability to have a mediated public sphere will require that moderation of both narrative elements and emotional elements together be enacted in media in order to preserve the evolution of the creators, who are also the characters of these storylines.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Response for Thursday, January 29th
What struck me most about our readings this week was the overarching analysis of how power operates in both corporate and alternative media. What is problematic about the power dynamic of these two tiers of media is that corporate media fail to be authentically representational of the public, while alternative media's power often stops at deliberation without reaching true political impact.
Corporate media present the issues through a narrow ideological lens that privileges an elite few, such as those in political and economic power. This first tier also perpetuates what Bruns refers to as a "conflict-based narrative," in which deliberation is illusionary; if only two oppositional perspectives are represented, true democratic discourse, which is multipartisan, cannot occur. This political polarization is exemplified well in the Crossfire video Josh shared with us. Another problem with corporate media lies in its capacity to withhold or misconstrue information, as we discussed last time in reference to Moeller's piece. The result of such misrepresentation is a less-informed citizenry. If knowledge is power, then corporate media’s willful withholding of information and deceitful representations leave the public powerless to effect social justice.
Alternative media, on the other hand, offer new approaches to the ways in which power is distributed amongst citizens. Increasingly, alternatives to the hierarchical model of corporate media are emerging in which power circulates amongst producers and audiences operating collectively to challenge the dominant narrative. Socially inclusive and participatory media have been viewed by some as the answer to corporate globalization because they undermine corporate media's authority. Grassroots media production is multiperspectival, empowering citizens to create representational media that reflect diverse, authentic perspectives. As Amy Goodman relates, the more we hear a multitude of voices, the more we feel empowered to speak up ourselves and challenge the status quo. Nevertheless, even as new alternatives open up possibilities for a more just and democratic media, they are not independent of mainstream ideologies and practices. Furthermore, tactical media efforts to influence the mainstream are ephemeral, most often leaving no lasting effect. Therefore, it will be imperative for scholars to not merely be advocates for participatory media, but to also keep a critical eye on emerging media structures and their processes of production.
The power dynamics of both corporate and alternative media need further exploration. In his piece, "Gatewatching, Gatecrashing," Axel Bruns rejects a Gansian mediasphere where the second tier (alternative media) merely reinterprets news gathered by the first tier (mass media). Instead, Bruns moves theoretically beyond the Gansian model, imagining a media climate in which the two tiers inform and influence each other cooperatively. Bruns believes that when the established and activist media work in conjunction, there is great potential for emergent hybrid "industry/citizen" media, as seen in Ohmynews. (Bruns, p. 259). Perhaps it will be in the negotiation and, ultimately, the fusion of these channels of power where a lasting, democratic mediasphere thrives. It may be that powerful media organizations must become more flexible with their structure and content, allowing formerly underrepresented voices to be heard. At the same time, alternative and tactical media strategists might necessarily adopt some of the processes of established media organizations in order to have long-term credibility. How then can this be accomplished without our democratic ideals being swept away by the mainstream? That remains to be seen.
In light of our discussion about empowering minority voices, this blog,
Blogging their Dreams of Citizenship, from Global Voices Online exemplifies cyber-activism and its power to unite people in a common cause, and take political action. I find the video (taken from the blog) interesting because it stands in stark contrast to the celebrity pundits of corporate media; the "correspondents" are anonymous, yet powerful in their collaboration.
Corporate media present the issues through a narrow ideological lens that privileges an elite few, such as those in political and economic power. This first tier also perpetuates what Bruns refers to as a "conflict-based narrative," in which deliberation is illusionary; if only two oppositional perspectives are represented, true democratic discourse, which is multipartisan, cannot occur. This political polarization is exemplified well in the Crossfire video Josh shared with us. Another problem with corporate media lies in its capacity to withhold or misconstrue information, as we discussed last time in reference to Moeller's piece. The result of such misrepresentation is a less-informed citizenry. If knowledge is power, then corporate media’s willful withholding of information and deceitful representations leave the public powerless to effect social justice.
Alternative media, on the other hand, offer new approaches to the ways in which power is distributed amongst citizens. Increasingly, alternatives to the hierarchical model of corporate media are emerging in which power circulates amongst producers and audiences operating collectively to challenge the dominant narrative. Socially inclusive and participatory media have been viewed by some as the answer to corporate globalization because they undermine corporate media's authority. Grassroots media production is multiperspectival, empowering citizens to create representational media that reflect diverse, authentic perspectives. As Amy Goodman relates, the more we hear a multitude of voices, the more we feel empowered to speak up ourselves and challenge the status quo. Nevertheless, even as new alternatives open up possibilities for a more just and democratic media, they are not independent of mainstream ideologies and practices. Furthermore, tactical media efforts to influence the mainstream are ephemeral, most often leaving no lasting effect. Therefore, it will be imperative for scholars to not merely be advocates for participatory media, but to also keep a critical eye on emerging media structures and their processes of production.
The power dynamics of both corporate and alternative media need further exploration. In his piece, "Gatewatching, Gatecrashing," Axel Bruns rejects a Gansian mediasphere where the second tier (alternative media) merely reinterprets news gathered by the first tier (mass media). Instead, Bruns moves theoretically beyond the Gansian model, imagining a media climate in which the two tiers inform and influence each other cooperatively. Bruns believes that when the established and activist media work in conjunction, there is great potential for emergent hybrid "industry/citizen" media, as seen in Ohmynews. (Bruns, p. 259). Perhaps it will be in the negotiation and, ultimately, the fusion of these channels of power where a lasting, democratic mediasphere thrives. It may be that powerful media organizations must become more flexible with their structure and content, allowing formerly underrepresented voices to be heard. At the same time, alternative and tactical media strategists might necessarily adopt some of the processes of established media organizations in order to have long-term credibility. How then can this be accomplished without our democratic ideals being swept away by the mainstream? That remains to be seen.
In light of our discussion about empowering minority voices, this blog,
Blogging their Dreams of Citizenship, from Global Voices Online exemplifies cyber-activism and its power to unite people in a common cause, and take political action. I find the video (taken from the blog) interesting because it stands in stark contrast to the celebrity pundits of corporate media; the "correspondents" are anonymous, yet powerful in their collaboration.
Grassroots effort to connect with Congress on Twitter
Really interesting idea created using the relatively new tool of Twitter to start a new forum with our elected representatives in D.C.
Tweet Congress
The site is in the relatively early stages, but this could be an example of the tactical media that Axel Bruns talks about in Chapter 10. Twitter is a new form of media, possibly considered an alternative media adopting the notion of Gans' second-tier, but it has been adopted into several mainstream media outlets or first-tier platforms recently. Thus evolving out of the tactical media stature and moving towards a new form of mainstream media.
It also could be a form of gatewatching and gatcrashing depending on how the tools are used. The ability to respond to each tweet from either the populace or the lawmaker might help in driving the deliberation. This new story form does have its limitations though. Primarily, it's hard keeping complex issues to 140 characters.
What do you think? Would you be willing to converse with and read about your congressperson via a simple tool like Twitter?
Tweet Congress
The site is in the relatively early stages, but this could be an example of the tactical media that Axel Bruns talks about in Chapter 10. Twitter is a new form of media, possibly considered an alternative media adopting the notion of Gans' second-tier, but it has been adopted into several mainstream media outlets or first-tier platforms recently. Thus evolving out of the tactical media stature and moving towards a new form of mainstream media.
It also could be a form of gatewatching and gatcrashing depending on how the tools are used. The ability to respond to each tweet from either the populace or the lawmaker might help in driving the deliberation. This new story form does have its limitations though. Primarily, it's hard keeping complex issues to 140 characters.
What do you think? Would you be willing to converse with and read about your congressperson via a simple tool like Twitter?
A change in tone.
Obama did an interview with middle eastern news source on America's foreign policy in the region. I respect to this week's reading, you can see the stark differences with him and Bush. Obama's answers were respectful, informed and never fell back on empty statements about democracy and freedom.
If you look at Bush's interviews and press conferences in the mid east, they read like he's a Miss America contestant in the Q&A portion. It's sentences about freedom and democracy make for great sound bites, but actually contain any information. They do serve another purpose, however.
I don't know if anyone has read Dead Certain, a biography of Bush that came out about 18 months ago, but it talks about his style of agenda setting. Essentially, he restructures the nature of his argument so that there is no rebuttal to it. His stubbornness on Iraq, for example, was countered by his claim that no one can convince him that freedom isn't a good thing. Basically, he says his position is synonymous with freedom, and that if you disagree with him then you disagree with freedom. Why would anyone disagree with freedom? No one would, but now if you want to come at him, you're already on the defense, having to refute that claim before you can move on. It's the same thing they did with the "support our troops" rhetoric, where criticism has to begin with an explanation that you don't hate the troops.
Obama is changing the tenor of mid east foreign policy. He's not going to use empty statements to justify his positions, nor is he going to try and convince the region that our air strikes have the muslim people's best interests at heart. As he's demonstrated with his other policy decisions thus far, he's going to use his best judgement and convince us that he's right without using Bush style rhetoirc.
If you look at Bush's interviews and press conferences in the mid east, they read like he's a Miss America contestant in the Q&A portion. It's sentences about freedom and democracy make for great sound bites, but actually contain any information. They do serve another purpose, however.
I don't know if anyone has read Dead Certain, a biography of Bush that came out about 18 months ago, but it talks about his style of agenda setting. Essentially, he restructures the nature of his argument so that there is no rebuttal to it. His stubbornness on Iraq, for example, was countered by his claim that no one can convince him that freedom isn't a good thing. Basically, he says his position is synonymous with freedom, and that if you disagree with him then you disagree with freedom. Why would anyone disagree with freedom? No one would, but now if you want to come at him, you're already on the defense, having to refute that claim before you can move on. It's the same thing they did with the "support our troops" rhetoric, where criticism has to begin with an explanation that you don't hate the troops.
Obama is changing the tenor of mid east foreign policy. He's not going to use empty statements to justify his positions, nor is he going to try and convince the region that our air strikes have the muslim people's best interests at heart. As he's demonstrated with his other policy decisions thus far, he's going to use his best judgement and convince us that he's right without using Bush style rhetoirc.
Scenes from the film Network
While reading the material for Tuesday, I was reminded about the classic movie Network. Here are a few of the best scenes from it. I think these scenes really illustrate how much power the media can have over people.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pope warns against too much Facebook
Posted by Michael Paulson January 23, 2009 05:03 PM
I was so focused on Pope Benedict XVI's new YouTube channel that I missed the section of his message today directed at the 150 million of us who may be spending too much time on Facebook. The key quote, which clearly seems to refer to Facebook friending (or at least to so-called 'friend harvesters'): "If the desire for virtual connectedness becomes obsessive, it may in fact function to isolate individuals from real social interaction." Here's the full paragraph:
"The concept of friendship has enjoyed a renewed prominence in the vocabulary of the new digital social networks that have emerged in the last few years. The concept is one of the noblest achievements of human culture. ... We should be careful, therefore, never to trivialise the concept or the experience of friendship. It would be sad if our desire to sustain and develop on-line friendships were to be at the cost of our availability to engage with our families, our neighbours and those we meet in the daily reality of our places of work, education and recreation. If the desire for virtual connectedness becomes obsessive, it may in fact function to isolate individuals from real social interaction while also disrupting the patterns of rest, silence and reflection that are necessary for healthy human development."
Take a look at the original article at The Boston Globe.
Group Leader Post : New Journalisms
Media + Democracy
It's especially interesting to read Susan Moeller's concerns and questions regarding democracy within the Bush administration's definition and use of the term in light of Obama's recent election. Before reading this section I'd never really considered the ulterior motives a word like democracy can mask, but Moeller did an impressive job of outlining those possibilities.
During the Bush administration, "democracy," while a term comfortably familiar to all Americans, increasingly became part of the conservative foreign policy lexicon.
According to Moeller (and I happen to agree), the term "democracy" became a mask for a hidden agenda. It let that administration off the hook when they needed it most, and perhaps most disturbingly, the media let them do it. Instead of honoring their role as governmental watchdogs, the media (or much of it) simply regurgitated what the White House fed them. Moeller notes one leftist journalists' opinion that the New York Times should rename itself "American Officials Say."
When I was in the midst of Journalism school in 2003-2005, we were taught that media was doing a poor job of adequately reporting on the government. We heard horror stories of how reporters were basically forced to comply with the White House's idea of what they wanted reported or they were basically blacklisted from participating in future press conferences and other media events. Interestingly, Moeller's section "Without Fear or Favor" supports that same idea. Moeller explains that despite Bush's assurance that he applauded "'a society where people are free to come and express their opinion,' that statement didn't translate to the administration tolerating media coverage of information that it did not want released."
Moeller does have a positive view towards new media, with the provision that moving forward media discloses sources more often, does not play into the government's hands regarding what they want the news to be, and generally garners their responsibility toward the American public by taking responsibility for what they're reporting.
The case study of the 2004 tsunami raises some interesting questions: why was this so well covered when other, equally if not more devastating natural disasters were essentially ignored? It's interesting to think about how and why the media chooses the stories it chooses. At the time of publication, the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) publishes a list of the top ten Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories every year. The MSF website has a backlogged lists but doesn't appear to have published any since 2007. Still, they provide an interested baseline for case studies on what is and isn't reported and the reasons behind that. You can see the 2006 list here.
Despite her harsh critique of the media, Moeller ultimately supports traditional journalism:
Despite their at times crucial failures, there is still no group better equipped than traditional journalists - whatever their journalistic platform - to ask the tough questions: of politicians and scientists, of corporate executives and social workers, of the military and doctors, of academics and children. There is still no group better equipped than traditional journalists - whatever their platform - to cover the big stories and to find the hidden crises.
Democracy on the Airwaves: An Interview with Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman's show, Democracy Now! is worth checking out - even if only as a point of comparison. They cover a lot of topics in a short amount of time and have a pretty cut-and-dry style. Goodman makes a point in this interview to explain how important access is and the many ways her show is available for viewing and listening. This combined with their grassroots level reporting is a wholly different experience from mainstream media. One of Goodman's points that especially resonated with me was the idea of tv news networks' responsibility (not privilege) to broadcast on public airwaves.
While reviewing some of Amy Gooman's videos, I came across a video of her arrest at the Republican National Convention. She later explained the arrest in an interview on Free Speech TV. To hear her tell the story, it's a classic case of unlawful suppression. Goodman is so narrowly focused on a very specific set of key issues that I find it difficult to take her narrative without a grain of salt, but regardless she does seem to have a point regarding the complete inappropriateness of her arrest.
The vide of the actual arrest:
And Goodman's interview about the arrest on FSTV:
Alternative Media Theory and Journalism Practice
This chapter, written by Chris Atton, is based on the overarching theme of citizen participation in media. He writes:
Central to empowerment is the opportunity for ordinary people to tell their own stories without the formal education or professional expertise and status of the mainstream journalist.
Atton cites a study done by the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG) on how media reflects different socioeconomic groups. GUMG apparently found that there was a "hierarchy of media access where professional journalists uncritically represented the ideologies of elite groups to the public."
The first step, according to Atton, toward rectifying the problems of the current media landscape is using alternative media to enable citizens, thus allowing them to become politically empowered. I agree that empowering citizens to participate in the media landscape is an empowering and ultimately useful contribution. An interesting note on this topic is the study conducted by Matheson and Allan that found readers trust bloggers' account of events because they're transparently subjective. This is an interesting converse to the traditionally held viewpoint that journalists should be objective - a standard that is truly impossible to achieve realistically.
Community Radio, Access and Media Justice: An Interview with Deepa Fernandes
In many ways Deepa Fernandes reminds me of Amy Goodman in that she's a woman looking for an alternative way to present valuable, socially responsible news to the public. Fernandes hosts Wakeup Call, a radio show in New York City designed to deliver social justice-based news every morning. Fernandes discusses the frustrations she encountered while working for mainstream media companies - the ways they tried to tell her what story to report and the ways they censored the stories she felt needed to be told. I agree with Fernandes that these grassroots level voices really need to be heard. But I completely disagree with her stance on the story from Chiapas, Mexico. There was a massacre of indigenous people and Fernandes wanted to tell their story. Her BBC producer asked that she also get voices from the other side of the conflict - the Mexican military and government - to which Fernandes refused. She responded by saying, "Get another reporter to do that. Because this story is about the voices who are most affected." Fernandes is making a value judgment herself that is very similar to those she opposes so strongly in other media outlets.
Still, Fernandes has some really interesting points concerning net neutrality, access and the various ways we can make every voice heard. And Wakeup Call seems to do a really good job of being accessible (within its obvious limitations). You can listen to any episode at any time and can download them all for free.
See the list of shows and listen to them here.
Discussion Questions
1. How do you think Obama's use and definition of democracy varies from Bush's? How do the differences in these definitions and uses of the word change their overall messages and the way the public reacts to them?
2. How has the mainstream media treated Obama differently than Bush? Do you think they've been more or less neutral?
3. What should journalists' role in today's media landscape be? How can traditional journalists collaborate and coexist with alternative and citizen-produced media? How do these roles contribute or take away from our ideal American democracy?
4. Do you regularly view/read any alternative news sources? Anything along the lines of Goodman's Democracy Now! or Fernandes' Wakeup Call? Do you see value in these radio and tv shows and do you think you would regularly watch them? Why or why not?
5. How do you feel about grassroots level reporting? Do you agree with Goodman and Fernandes' opinion that citizens are best equipped to report on their own communities? Why or why not?
6. Do you agree with GUMG's study that major corporate media reports primarily the views of the elite upper class? Do you think media should attempt to be neutral or, like bloggers, be transparently subjective?
7. Do you think both sides of any given story should be told or do you agree with Fernandes' opinion that sometimes only one side deserves to be told?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Intersting case study of mobilization
A fellow photojournalist that pretty much despises Facebook sent the link from the NY Times Magazine. It's a pretty long read about how Egyptians were able to use Facebook to organize in a very restrictive environment.
The fact that tens of thousands of disaffected young Egyptians unhappy with their government meet online to debate and plan events is remarkable, given the context of political repression in which it is occurring.________________
By organizing online, the April 6 movement avoids some of the pitfalls of party politics in Egypt — censorship, bureaucracy, compromise with the regime. But whenever the movement’s members try to migrate offline, they find they are still playing by Egypt’s rules. They almost never meet in real life, certainly not in large groups, and when they do, the police often show up.It is very interesting to read how increased access to the Internet was a government program, allowing these groups to organize and mobilize to an extent, yet the government also infiltrated the groups online in order to try and quell the uprise. It 's a very interesting read and depiction of social groups using technology to try and change the establishment.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
What if there are people that don't want it?
Seems that despite the notion of the Obama administration proposing a broadband expansion program there might be a big hurdle to overcome other than the price tag.
Pew's Internet & American Life Project report states that there are a large number of people that don't want broadband, even if it's cheaper. Other nuts and bolts of the report illustrate that older and poorer people either don't want the added benefits or don't use the Internet to begin with.
Read all about it at ARS Technica and the Pew report.
How does this hurdle impact the ability to move towards an improved public sphere?
Pew's Internet & American Life Project report states that there are a large number of people that don't want broadband, even if it's cheaper. Other nuts and bolts of the report illustrate that older and poorer people either don't want the added benefits or don't use the Internet to begin with.
Read all about it at ARS Technica and the Pew report.
How does this hurdle impact the ability to move towards an improved public sphere?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Response for Thurs, Jan 22
In Leo’s discussion post, he brings up the two questions that Boler poses in her introduction to Digital Media and Democracy. These stuck out to me as well. She asks,
Whereas we now have the opportunity to both produce and consume media, there is an issue that is not addressed by social media being the answer alone. That is the disenfranchised population who don't have access to computers or the Internet in order to access social media, let alone the tools to produce any d.i.y. media. A cool not for profit is addressing this issue in an educational manner alone is One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). OLPC works to get computers to the world's poorest children in order to help them learn. Each laptop costs $199 and the program is funded through contributions. Perhaps something similar can happen regarding tools for reporting. A perfect example of this is the Skid Row Photography Club. A Los Angeles-based photographer Dave Bullock started the project in which homeless residents of L.A.’s Skid Row were given digital cameras and asked to take photos of their area. The images were then taken and displayed in galleries, showing a different perspective on what is widely thought of as an undesirable location.
I think that we still have several questions to answer regarding accessibility, truthfulness in media, and the role of social networks and whether they will in fact provide the perfect public sphere. I believe that, if we can somehow make technology and information accessible for all, then the public sphere, with equal status for all can be met.
- how to alter the axes of domination so that those with little or no power have a seat at the table, and
- how to conceive of media (whether dominant, grassroots, or tactical) with the capacity to intervene at the level of public perception, and that can challenge the perverse manipulation of ‘facts’ about something like global warming. (Boler 2008, 11)
Footage and images from the day Pinochet Died
Whereas we now have the opportunity to both produce and consume media, there is an issue that is not addressed by social media being the answer alone. That is the disenfranchised population who don't have access to computers or the Internet in order to access social media, let alone the tools to produce any d.i.y. media. A cool not for profit is addressing this issue in an educational manner alone is One Laptop Per Child (OLPC). OLPC works to get computers to the world's poorest children in order to help them learn. Each laptop costs $199 and the program is funded through contributions. Perhaps something similar can happen regarding tools for reporting. A perfect example of this is the Skid Row Photography Club. A Los Angeles-based photographer Dave Bullock started the project in which homeless residents of L.A.’s Skid Row were given digital cameras and asked to take photos of their area. The images were then taken and displayed in galleries, showing a different perspective on what is widely thought of as an undesirable location.
I think that we still have several questions to answer regarding accessibility, truthfulness in media, and the role of social networks and whether they will in fact provide the perfect public sphere. I believe that, if we can somehow make technology and information accessible for all, then the public sphere, with equal status for all can be met.
October 17, 2005: The Word - Truthiness
Boler mentions Colbert's "truthiness" in the introduction to Digital Media and Democracy, I wanted to include it here for those of you who may not actually watch The Colbert Report.The Media Education Foundation
I wanted to share with everyone the work that is being done at the Media Education Foundation (MEF), the organization that I worked at in Massachusetts. In response to Leo's post, which highlights McChesney's four components of media reform, I believe that MEF fulfills both the 2nd (participation in independent media) and the 3rd (education and critique).
The following is one of their pieces that critiques the ways in which the mainstream media forms our ideals and opinions from a very young age, and how children are being seduced by capitalism more than ever before. PBS anyone? I think this ties into Leo's B.L.O. discussion.
MEF Mission Statement: The Media Education Foundation produces and distributes documentary films and other educational resources to inspire critical reflection on the social, political, and cultural impact of American mass media.
"Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood"
The following is one of their pieces that critiques the ways in which the mainstream media forms our ideals and opinions from a very young age, and how children are being seduced by capitalism more than ever before. PBS anyone? I think this ties into Leo's B.L.O. discussion.
MEF Mission Statement: The Media Education Foundation produces and distributes documentary films and other educational resources to inspire critical reflection on the social, political, and cultural impact of American mass media.
"Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood"
Tardust Liberated
I just wanted to share the email I talked about in class yesterday. Saul Williams via Niggy Tardust responded to the last few days with the release of a free song/track layers (in commemoration of the inauguration?) The song is actually pretty interesting, it may be more of a critique. Of course there was a plug for some new work at the end, but from what I can tell this was more directed at the occasion. Anyway Here is some of the content. If you actually want to hear the song I can forward the email directly.
We have overcome.
Except those of us now in Gaza. Except those of us whom police kill. Except those of us who are suspects. Except those of us whom the church hate. Except those of us damned to taste good. Except those of us held by fate. We are meeting in the capitol. Word is, freedom will not wait.
All that once was never shall be.
All they could do won’t be done.
All we sang of is now happening.
[note to self:]
Must write
new songs
to become…
...And so it was. Through the collective imagination of the people, the force of will and human potential, and an unflinching ability to hold himself to task, Niggy Tardust was liberated. His ability to see beyond the boundaries and obstacles of 'genre', 'race', and suppression, allowed him to encompass a grace and sound that embodied the all. All that had stood against him, now stood with him. All that had claimed a lesser harmony, now craved voice and resonance. He stood with poets, painters, dancers, students, children of the night who had transformed themselves into a million bright ambassadors of morning, and proclaimed,
“We declare declaratives and deny the official. Based in the landmark of the G-spot, we have overtaken ourselves and overthrown our forefathers. Let there be light within the light and let it answer to the name of Darkness. We are forever risen from the deadly: the anti-virus and the All Stars. Granted power by forces unbeknownst to us. Made in the likeness of kindness. We offer anger to the angry and fear to the fearful. We dance at our own funerals to forsake the mourners…
…This is no time to cry! This is no time at all! Here is the moment of the overlooked and the unforeseeable. We are the elected officials of the people: poets and artists. We are the declarative statement of the inarticulate, the irreparably damaged goods of the bad meaning good. We are the government! We are the government! We are the government!”
We have overcome.
Except those of us now in Gaza. Except those of us whom police kill. Except those of us who are suspects. Except those of us whom the church hate. Except those of us damned to taste good. Except those of us held by fate. We are meeting in the capitol. Word is, freedom will not wait.
All that once was never shall be.
All they could do won’t be done.
All we sang of is now happening.
[note to self:]
Must write
new songs
to become…
...And so it was. Through the collective imagination of the people, the force of will and human potential, and an unflinching ability to hold himself to task, Niggy Tardust was liberated. His ability to see beyond the boundaries and obstacles of 'genre', 'race', and suppression, allowed him to encompass a grace and sound that embodied the all. All that had stood against him, now stood with him. All that had claimed a lesser harmony, now craved voice and resonance. He stood with poets, painters, dancers, students, children of the night who had transformed themselves into a million bright ambassadors of morning, and proclaimed,
“We declare declaratives and deny the official. Based in the landmark of the G-spot, we have overtaken ourselves and overthrown our forefathers. Let there be light within the light and let it answer to the name of Darkness. We are forever risen from the deadly: the anti-virus and the All Stars. Granted power by forces unbeknownst to us. Made in the likeness of kindness. We offer anger to the angry and fear to the fearful. We dance at our own funerals to forsake the mourners…
…This is no time to cry! This is no time at all! Here is the moment of the overlooked and the unforeseeable. We are the elected officials of the people: poets and artists. We are the declarative statement of the inarticulate, the irreparably damaged goods of the bad meaning good. We are the government! We are the government! We are the government!”
Group Discussion Blog Post | The revitalization of the public sphere?
Corporate Media, Democracy and The State of the Public Sphere
The state of the public sphere is a hotly contested topic, which is intrinsically related to the corruption of corporate media and the flow of information. Signs of the time include both malicious journalistic practices, empowered by governmental subsidies, but also, members of the social web working to intervene and reform corrupt praxis. Some believe optimistically that the communities set up by social networking technologies will revitalize the public sphere by providing space for informed discourse, assemblage of truth and a revolutionary shift away from commodity centered industries. While others hypothesize more modestly that the social network and Web 2.0 will grant individuals a platform to mobilize and speak out towards reform and modification of existing policy. One thing is for sure, the public sphere and democracy are in jeopardy, but the part digital media and the social web will play in the struggle is largely unfinished.
The State of the Media
How many media sources do you remember releasing apologies for their assistance in the propagating of false information on the existence of WMD?
In America after 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, it seems clear that the myth of journalistic integrity and non-biased coverage can be used to ground actions as extreme as war. Simultaneously, the corporate media mechanism silences, manipulates or makes mockery of dissenting opinions, maintaining its position of power. (Boler 2008, 1-3) McChesney’s recollection of his magazine industry days makes clear how the need for monitory solvency shapes the form and content of information presented. (Ibid. 56)
As a result the state of the public sphere is poor. There is no room for intelligent discourse when corporate media squelches voices besides the partisan approach it is endlessly repeats. However, there is a glimmer of hope, never before has the public had the access or the aggregation of resources, which translates to reforming power.
Media and Power
In the Introduction to Digital Media and Democracy Megan Boler raises two challenges about media and power. One, how do we approach/reshape the forces of domination so that those with little power or influence can enter the discourse. Two, how do we begin to imagine media with the ability intervene at the levels of public awareness and fight the malicious manipulation of information by the mainstream. (Ibid. 11) There seems to be at least three possibilities. The first, social networks are the medium, which will grant resourceless publics the power and voice they need. The second, the media event is as Wark discusses, a primitive, which cannot be dissected into puzzle pieces that form a truth. Instead of wasting resources in the attempt, a better attempt is to apply theory/criticism in a way that it “accompanies” the event, but without pretense of fully understanding it. (Ibid. 13) Finally, there is a combination of the two that functions as McChesney’s Free Press Project. That is, as an open community and continuing discourse on media reform, which moves to accompany/improve the modern media environment without relying solely on the advent of the social net for the salvation of the public sphere.
Check Out The Free Project. Think about the ways this project addresses Bolers challenges.
Free Press Project
Beginners Guide to Media Reform
Fernandes states that we should label media based on who owns them. (Ibid. 37) The public owns public media. Corporations own corporate media. Free Press has a section discussing media ownership, which helps to visualize centralization:
Guide to Ownership Concentration
Segue to Media Convergence and Collective Intelligence
While many individuals (i.e. McChesney, Dean or Lovink) active in the consideration of the public sphere and social networks are pessimistic about the ability of online social networks to revolutionize the public’s interaction with media and government, Henry Jenkins writes about the simultaneous processes of convergence and divergence. As media/technologies are dispersed and decentralized, they empower users to combine, remix and otherwise reassemble them for their own message. Conversely, as corporate entities condense and become protected by government, divergent periphery cultures emerge, like fan communities, spoiler groups and other beneficiaries of the “long-tail”. (Jenkins 2006, 11) Along the way volumes of technologies, momentary delivery mechanisms, evolve, become obsolete and are discarded. Cluttering the transmission with new and frequently unnecessary functionality. (Ibid. 13) But these ever changing tools are the driving force behind convergence, accessibility and social networking.
When we consider the dedication, intelligence and problem solving ability of the Survivor spoiler community (Ibid. 32-38). It is not hard to see how great collective intelligences like this can spawn hope for application in other areas, which is not to trivialize the autonomy and power socially networked fan communities grant.
At the same time corporate media is working hard to find new ways to capitalize on these communities. More so than ever, they are accommodating their fan’s loyalty and desire to participate, based on the strong connections this type of social phenomena creates generating “affective economy”. (Ibid. 20) This has both positive and negative effects. Fans get the interactive experience they enjoy, but is it at the cost of co-opting their grass roots initiatives?
Check out some interesting fan communities, with strong senses of autonomy and collective intelligence. The first, Lost-pedia is a fan wiki centered around the popular TV show Lost. This group provided a space to discus canon, express thoughts in a communal fashion and helped to find clues/solve plot based questions during the Lost Experience, an alternate reality game lasting several months in 2006, leading up to the start of the season.
Lost Pedia
The second, is Survivor Sucks the original Survivor Spoiler Community Henry Jenkins talks about. Think about how this community empowers its users to hurt the corporate outlet, but also how these communities could be applied to reforming the public sphere.
Survivor Sucks
The Commodification of Communication
In the United States there is a tremendous disparity between politics “circulating as content and official politics” (Boler 2008, 102). That is, the voice of alternative media is simply not heard. Instead the many thick layers of information networks give corporate media heads an escape from the duty to respond. They counter with their own contributions to the flow, writing off opposing views. (Ibid. 102) Dean suggests that the advent of social networking technologies has not created a venue for public expression, but instead has prompted the formation of “…post political formation of communicative capitalism”. (Ibid. 102) Through the commodification of communication (that which unites us as a nation-state) democracy and capitalism have been merged. (Ibid. 104) In such a state there is a dichotomy between singularity of dissent, which treats political concern as person ailment and plurality of mindset that promotes the false image of a unifying ideology. (Ibid. 106) She discounts the notions of abundance and participation as masks to the fact that our messages lose value in circulation or when they become fetishized contributions. Thus actions, such as dissenting through the social net, just add to the data pool, detracting from the message and conversely assisting corporate media in the long run. (Ibid. 106-115)
How can purported political acts (though really techno-fetisthment/the desire to contribute) cause condensation or displacement? The Barbie Liberation Organization (B.L.O.) was a fairly well publicized political action in 1993, where members of a group (many of which would later become the Yes Men) swapped the voice boxes of Barbie dolls and GI Joe’s. This act was meant to protest gender stereotyping in children’s toys. How could acts like this be co-opted by corporate media and result in devaluation of true political reform?
B.L.O.
Documentation Video
Social Media and Democracy
McChesney suggests that democracy is impossible without a mainstream press. (Ibid. 65) However, it is questionable if the ideal press, for which government subsidies were originally made ever existed. Such a press would exemplify public discourse, non-partisan approach and political awareness. He established The Free Press Project to help reform the reform movement. He states media reform has four components. The first and most important is policy reform. Second, is participating in independent media. Third, is providing media education and critique. Fourth, is movement among media producers to take a larger role in the entire media process. (Ibid. 60) McChesney doesn’t think social web media forms are the answer to the contemporary media problem, but that they play an essential role in media reform. (Ibid. 66)
Discussion Questions:
Does our love of farce/satire really speak to fundamental problems in the mediascape?
Is thinking about media by who owns them a good way to categorize media? If so, what constitutes the mainstream?
Is the contemporary movement to decentralize media having a greater effect/more likely to succeed than the 1930’s movement (Boler 2008, 57)? If so what does this mean for the public sphere?
Has the advent of social web changed the way advertising/the need for capital shapes content?
Can viral communications circumvent/subvert ideologies of commodity and spectacle despite what Dean says about the myth of abundance and participation?
How do messages get converted into contributions? Do contributions circling in the data pool lose meaning, agency or urgency of response?
How has techno-fetishment affected online communities? Facebook vs Wikipedia? Instances of condensation? Displacement?
Which, if not both are true?
Web 2.0/social net creates a plurality of truths some from the mainstream others from critique or assemblage. Is this new method of collecting and coalescing media detritus, a vision of reformed media?
Web 2.0/social net is one of many tools for reforming the contemporary mediascape and public sphere?
And the obligatory question, how have Web 2.0/social net practices affected the public sphere? Which if not all is most viable, Convergence Culture and communities as the hope for revitalization, a tool for political reform or the realization that we live in a Communicative Capitalist state.
With great power comes great responsibility. If as Amy Goodman says, media is power (Boler 2008, 11), what responsibilities does it demand?
I am open to suggestions and may add one or two more.
The state of the public sphere is a hotly contested topic, which is intrinsically related to the corruption of corporate media and the flow of information. Signs of the time include both malicious journalistic practices, empowered by governmental subsidies, but also, members of the social web working to intervene and reform corrupt praxis. Some believe optimistically that the communities set up by social networking technologies will revitalize the public sphere by providing space for informed discourse, assemblage of truth and a revolutionary shift away from commodity centered industries. While others hypothesize more modestly that the social network and Web 2.0 will grant individuals a platform to mobilize and speak out towards reform and modification of existing policy. One thing is for sure, the public sphere and democracy are in jeopardy, but the part digital media and the social web will play in the struggle is largely unfinished.
The State of the Media
How many media sources do you remember releasing apologies for their assistance in the propagating of false information on the existence of WMD?
In America after 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, it seems clear that the myth of journalistic integrity and non-biased coverage can be used to ground actions as extreme as war. Simultaneously, the corporate media mechanism silences, manipulates or makes mockery of dissenting opinions, maintaining its position of power. (Boler 2008, 1-3) McChesney’s recollection of his magazine industry days makes clear how the need for monitory solvency shapes the form and content of information presented. (Ibid. 56)
As a result the state of the public sphere is poor. There is no room for intelligent discourse when corporate media squelches voices besides the partisan approach it is endlessly repeats. However, there is a glimmer of hope, never before has the public had the access or the aggregation of resources, which translates to reforming power.
Media and Power
In the Introduction to Digital Media and Democracy Megan Boler raises two challenges about media and power. One, how do we approach/reshape the forces of domination so that those with little power or influence can enter the discourse. Two, how do we begin to imagine media with the ability intervene at the levels of public awareness and fight the malicious manipulation of information by the mainstream. (Ibid. 11) There seems to be at least three possibilities. The first, social networks are the medium, which will grant resourceless publics the power and voice they need. The second, the media event is as Wark discusses, a primitive, which cannot be dissected into puzzle pieces that form a truth. Instead of wasting resources in the attempt, a better attempt is to apply theory/criticism in a way that it “accompanies” the event, but without pretense of fully understanding it. (Ibid. 13) Finally, there is a combination of the two that functions as McChesney’s Free Press Project. That is, as an open community and continuing discourse on media reform, which moves to accompany/improve the modern media environment without relying solely on the advent of the social net for the salvation of the public sphere.
Check Out The Free Project. Think about the ways this project addresses Bolers challenges.
Free Press Project
Beginners Guide to Media Reform
Fernandes states that we should label media based on who owns them. (Ibid. 37) The public owns public media. Corporations own corporate media. Free Press has a section discussing media ownership, which helps to visualize centralization:
Guide to Ownership Concentration
Segue to Media Convergence and Collective Intelligence
While many individuals (i.e. McChesney, Dean or Lovink) active in the consideration of the public sphere and social networks are pessimistic about the ability of online social networks to revolutionize the public’s interaction with media and government, Henry Jenkins writes about the simultaneous processes of convergence and divergence. As media/technologies are dispersed and decentralized, they empower users to combine, remix and otherwise reassemble them for their own message. Conversely, as corporate entities condense and become protected by government, divergent periphery cultures emerge, like fan communities, spoiler groups and other beneficiaries of the “long-tail”. (Jenkins 2006, 11) Along the way volumes of technologies, momentary delivery mechanisms, evolve, become obsolete and are discarded. Cluttering the transmission with new and frequently unnecessary functionality. (Ibid. 13) But these ever changing tools are the driving force behind convergence, accessibility and social networking.
When we consider the dedication, intelligence and problem solving ability of the Survivor spoiler community (Ibid. 32-38). It is not hard to see how great collective intelligences like this can spawn hope for application in other areas, which is not to trivialize the autonomy and power socially networked fan communities grant.
At the same time corporate media is working hard to find new ways to capitalize on these communities. More so than ever, they are accommodating their fan’s loyalty and desire to participate, based on the strong connections this type of social phenomena creates generating “affective economy”. (Ibid. 20) This has both positive and negative effects. Fans get the interactive experience they enjoy, but is it at the cost of co-opting their grass roots initiatives?
Check out some interesting fan communities, with strong senses of autonomy and collective intelligence. The first, Lost-pedia is a fan wiki centered around the popular TV show Lost. This group provided a space to discus canon, express thoughts in a communal fashion and helped to find clues/solve plot based questions during the Lost Experience, an alternate reality game lasting several months in 2006, leading up to the start of the season.
Lost Pedia
The second, is Survivor Sucks the original Survivor Spoiler Community Henry Jenkins talks about. Think about how this community empowers its users to hurt the corporate outlet, but also how these communities could be applied to reforming the public sphere.
Survivor Sucks
The Commodification of Communication
In the United States there is a tremendous disparity between politics “circulating as content and official politics” (Boler 2008, 102). That is, the voice of alternative media is simply not heard. Instead the many thick layers of information networks give corporate media heads an escape from the duty to respond. They counter with their own contributions to the flow, writing off opposing views. (Ibid. 102) Dean suggests that the advent of social networking technologies has not created a venue for public expression, but instead has prompted the formation of “…post political formation of communicative capitalism”. (Ibid. 102) Through the commodification of communication (that which unites us as a nation-state) democracy and capitalism have been merged. (Ibid. 104) In such a state there is a dichotomy between singularity of dissent, which treats political concern as person ailment and plurality of mindset that promotes the false image of a unifying ideology. (Ibid. 106) She discounts the notions of abundance and participation as masks to the fact that our messages lose value in circulation or when they become fetishized contributions. Thus actions, such as dissenting through the social net, just add to the data pool, detracting from the message and conversely assisting corporate media in the long run. (Ibid. 106-115)
How can purported political acts (though really techno-fetisthment/the desire to contribute) cause condensation or displacement? The Barbie Liberation Organization (B.L.O.) was a fairly well publicized political action in 1993, where members of a group (many of which would later become the Yes Men) swapped the voice boxes of Barbie dolls and GI Joe’s. This act was meant to protest gender stereotyping in children’s toys. How could acts like this be co-opted by corporate media and result in devaluation of true political reform?
B.L.O.
Documentation Video
Social Media and Democracy
McChesney suggests that democracy is impossible without a mainstream press. (Ibid. 65) However, it is questionable if the ideal press, for which government subsidies were originally made ever existed. Such a press would exemplify public discourse, non-partisan approach and political awareness. He established The Free Press Project to help reform the reform movement. He states media reform has four components. The first and most important is policy reform. Second, is participating in independent media. Third, is providing media education and critique. Fourth, is movement among media producers to take a larger role in the entire media process. (Ibid. 60) McChesney doesn’t think social web media forms are the answer to the contemporary media problem, but that they play an essential role in media reform. (Ibid. 66)
Discussion Questions:
Does our love of farce/satire really speak to fundamental problems in the mediascape?
Is thinking about media by who owns them a good way to categorize media? If so, what constitutes the mainstream?
Is the contemporary movement to decentralize media having a greater effect/more likely to succeed than the 1930’s movement (Boler 2008, 57)? If so what does this mean for the public sphere?
Has the advent of social web changed the way advertising/the need for capital shapes content?
Can viral communications circumvent/subvert ideologies of commodity and spectacle despite what Dean says about the myth of abundance and participation?
How do messages get converted into contributions? Do contributions circling in the data pool lose meaning, agency or urgency of response?
How has techno-fetishment affected online communities? Facebook vs Wikipedia? Instances of condensation? Displacement?
Which, if not both are true?
Web 2.0/social net creates a plurality of truths some from the mainstream others from critique or assemblage. Is this new method of collecting and coalescing media detritus, a vision of reformed media?
Web 2.0/social net is one of many tools for reforming the contemporary mediascape and public sphere?
And the obligatory question, how have Web 2.0/social net practices affected the public sphere? Which if not all is most viable, Convergence Culture and communities as the hope for revitalization, a tool for political reform or the realization that we live in a Communicative Capitalist state.
With great power comes great responsibility. If as Amy Goodman says, media is power (Boler 2008, 11), what responsibilities does it demand?
I am open to suggestions and may add one or two more.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Facebook's BIG Obama Day
The blend of CNN and Facebook Connect generated over 1.5 million status updates related to the Inauguration Day festivities.
Could this be a step towards the model we were talking about in class with the blend of the two different notions of news sharing? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it sure is one step closer to convergence of the two and convergence of media platforms.
Could this be a step towards the model we were talking about in class with the blend of the two different notions of news sharing? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it sure is one step closer to convergence of the two and convergence of media platforms.
Aaliyah's Paper Topic
I would like to explore the use of technology in politics and whether it helps to mobilize people past the stage of deliberation and discourse online. In particular, I want to draw conclusions on whether or not there are other factors that contribute to active mobilization outside of the Internet, creating an environment where individuals more likely to participate in civic engagements and how the internet unifies groups and helps them to formulate and define ideas.
Andrea's paper topic
My paper topic is going to be centered on the issue of media literacy in education in the new digital age. Currently I am pursuing a dual master’s degree in Education and Mass Communications. My concentration in the College of Education is in the area of Curriculum and Instruction. I want to start exploring ways in which digital media has been implemented successfully as a curriculum tool and explore the ways in which educational reform can further realize the need to produce literate professionals and students. I want to research this topic in relation to instructional tools and curriculum being produced for primary education emphasizing in areas of bilingual education, special education, and the education of English language learners. I’m interested in seeing what professional development practices are being implemented in school districts and what trends student populations are exploring that can access learning through new mediums.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Josh's Twitterific Topic
With tools like camera phones or Eye-Fi loaded cameras, applications like Twitter/Twitpic or Qik and platforms from traditional news outlets such as CNN’s iReport how effective has citizen journalism become? Can citizen journalism replace the beat reporter at a traditional outlet? How have these tools, applications and platforms changed how news is shared, and more importantly how news is initially reported?
The news cycle has transitioned from disseminating information every 24 hours, to dozens of times in those 24 hours seven-days-a-week, to the now. Instantaneously news is shared as it happens. Inexpensive tools as well as some that are practically free have altered the manner in which people find out about breaking news. The most recent example of a passerby being present to share a dramatic fleeting moment was Janis Krums’ photo of passengers on the wings of a sinking plane in the Hudson River. Krums sent the image from his phone to Twitpic and the resulting image not only crashed the servers of the online photo site Twitpic, but also virally across the Internet and onto newspaper fronts across the country the following day. Other events have been documented as they occur such as the Gaza invasion by Israeli forces, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, earthquakes in California as well as China and there are several others.
Is the initial flood of raw information enough to inform a collective community? How has the persistent growth of Twitter users altered the news cycle? Have traditional news outlets been able to effectively engage various circles of social groups on Twitter to help drive and direct news gathering or sharing? How reliable can instantaneous dispatches of 140 characters or less be in the realm of facts and quest for truth? There are now news networks being created solely on Twitter. How will these seemingly radical changes of reporting also alter the business models of traditional and even non-traditional news outlets?
These are some of the questions I propose to try and seek answers to. Feel free to add more to the pile or share thoughts on how you learn about breaking news or become informed about stories.
The news cycle has transitioned from disseminating information every 24 hours, to dozens of times in those 24 hours seven-days-a-week, to the now. Instantaneously news is shared as it happens. Inexpensive tools as well as some that are practically free have altered the manner in which people find out about breaking news. The most recent example of a passerby being present to share a dramatic fleeting moment was Janis Krums’ photo of passengers on the wings of a sinking plane in the Hudson River. Krums sent the image from his phone to Twitpic and the resulting image not only crashed the servers of the online photo site Twitpic, but also virally across the Internet and onto newspaper fronts across the country the following day. Other events have been documented as they occur such as the Gaza invasion by Israeli forces, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, earthquakes in California as well as China and there are several others.
Is the initial flood of raw information enough to inform a collective community? How has the persistent growth of Twitter users altered the news cycle? Have traditional news outlets been able to effectively engage various circles of social groups on Twitter to help drive and direct news gathering or sharing? How reliable can instantaneous dispatches of 140 characters or less be in the realm of facts and quest for truth? There are now news networks being created solely on Twitter. How will these seemingly radical changes of reporting also alter the business models of traditional and even non-traditional news outlets?
These are some of the questions I propose to try and seek answers to. Feel free to add more to the pile or share thoughts on how you learn about breaking news or become informed about stories.
Matt's paper topic
I would like to write my paper on the issue of government involvement in the internet. This would manifest itself in two ways. Firstly would be the issue of net neutrality. I have no doubt that ISPs would love to abolish net neutrality and rework the internet into a cable-like system, or access to sites would be based on how much the site owners pay the ISPs to stream their pages. It becomes a question if internet should be treated like other mediums, or if the rules concerning the web need to be built specifically around the unique nature of the medium. If the free flow of ideas should mean anything, than we shouldn't lose the 'free' part of it.
The other element would be government provided internet access. Several months ago, a small town in Minnesota tried to provide free broadband for its citizens. They were then promptly sued by the regional cable provider for essentially stealing their business. This case calls into question whether or not internet should be considered something that is only available through the free market, or if government can provide it through taxes, as they do mail service. By comparison, Japan has national free broadband access for all of its citizens, and it's not some crappy 1 Mbps system either. It's incredibly fast and works anywhere in the entire nation. People taking a train from Tokyo to Osaka never lose connection on their laptops. Given that this is America, however, where business holds more sway than the people's best interest, is it likely that we will ever see something comparable? As the only western nation that thinks healthcare is a luxury good and not an entitlement, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Here's the video of Obama giving his off the cuff answer on net neutrality by the way.
And this is just one I really like.
The other element would be government provided internet access. Several months ago, a small town in Minnesota tried to provide free broadband for its citizens. They were then promptly sued by the regional cable provider for essentially stealing their business. This case calls into question whether or not internet should be considered something that is only available through the free market, or if government can provide it through taxes, as they do mail service. By comparison, Japan has national free broadband access for all of its citizens, and it's not some crappy 1 Mbps system either. It's incredibly fast and works anywhere in the entire nation. People taking a train from Tokyo to Osaka never lose connection on their laptops. Given that this is America, however, where business holds more sway than the people's best interest, is it likely that we will ever see something comparable? As the only western nation that thinks healthcare is a luxury good and not an entitlement, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Here's the video of Obama giving his off the cuff answer on net neutrality by the way.
And this is just one I really like.
Stacey's Paper Topic
I would like to delve deeper into D.I.Y. culture on the internet. Taking a closer look at YouTube mash-ups/parody and the idea that the participatory culture is giving more power to the people. Is it really giving us power and to which people? I still need to focus this idea into more of a thesis, so I would appreciate any suggestions.
Ashley's Paper Topic
The educational field's fear/rejection of digital media:
In the last several years media has become the go-to communication venue and tool for so many sects of society. Politics, religion, environmentalism, entertainment and so many other groups have rallied around digital media as a means for changing & improving the quality and flow of communication. And why should it not, after all media is something that, in this society, virtually anyone can access and/or generate. Why then does the field of education seem to fear and reject the idea of digital media as a venue or tool to its students, its communities, and fellow educators?
I find this position very odd for two reasons, one: the educational field is so often publicly criticized for not being innovative/relevant enough. Yet the current mood is that digital media embodies the very heart of innovation and relevance for a technologically literal, global, web 2.0 society. Two: there is research, much of it more than 30 years old at this point; which indicates that the integration of devices like digital media support and expand on the principles of brain-mind learning, multiple intelligences, and varied forms of learning styles. All of these issues are supposedly forefront in the evaluation of teaching techniques, curriculum, school improvement, and state and national benchmarks.
I would therefore like to write a paper which a) discusses the correlations between media and the issues I have just mentioned combined with some case studies of educators and curriculums which are utilizing digital media to fulfill these goals, and b) explore when and how this mentality of aversion/dismissiveness to media was so strongly adopted by the educational field.
I'd really appreciate any thoughts/feedback on these ideas from my colleagues. Until tomorrow.
In the last several years media has become the go-to communication venue and tool for so many sects of society. Politics, religion, environmentalism, entertainment and so many other groups have rallied around digital media as a means for changing & improving the quality and flow of communication. And why should it not, after all media is something that, in this society, virtually anyone can access and/or generate. Why then does the field of education seem to fear and reject the idea of digital media as a venue or tool to its students, its communities, and fellow educators?
I find this position very odd for two reasons, one: the educational field is so often publicly criticized for not being innovative/relevant enough. Yet the current mood is that digital media embodies the very heart of innovation and relevance for a technologically literal, global, web 2.0 society. Two: there is research, much of it more than 30 years old at this point; which indicates that the integration of devices like digital media support and expand on the principles of brain-mind learning, multiple intelligences, and varied forms of learning styles. All of these issues are supposedly forefront in the evaluation of teaching techniques, curriculum, school improvement, and state and national benchmarks.
I would therefore like to write a paper which a) discusses the correlations between media and the issues I have just mentioned combined with some case studies of educators and curriculums which are utilizing digital media to fulfill these goals, and b) explore when and how this mentality of aversion/dismissiveness to media was so strongly adopted by the educational field.
I'd really appreciate any thoughts/feedback on these ideas from my colleagues. Until tomorrow.
A hilarious remix
Here's a link to a video mashup about a girl that has never seen the original Star Wars trilogy but is asked to explain the plot based on what she has learned of the series and bits that she has seen. It's absolutely hilarious and creative but loaded with copyright infringement.
After reading the final section of the "Networked Publics" book and the observation that artists do not "really 'create' anymore, they reorganize" by Bourriaud (pg 151) jumped into my head.
Have a look.
After reading the final section of the "Networked Publics" book and the observation that artists do not "really 'create' anymore, they reorganize" by Bourriaud (pg 151) jumped into my head.
Have a look.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Brenda's Paper Topic
With the growing public acceptance of the internet emerged the utopian belief that the web is a neutral, egalitarian space where we can shed our gendered bodies. However, this belief has since been proven otherwise, as the social issues we face in the real world are invariably reflected in the virtual one. For my paper this quarter, I intend to explore cyberfeminism or feminism both as it is applied to and/or performed in cyberspace. The term cyberfeminism was coined by the Australian collective VNS Matrix in their 1991 cyberfeminist manifesto for the 21st century. Julianne Pierce, a member of the collective, has described cyberfeminism as “a viral meme infecting theory, art, and the academy.”
Cyberfeminism has been succinctly defined by artist Faith Wilding as feminism keeping up with its “cyberpotential." That is, if feminism is going to stay alive as a movement, it must mutate and hybridize itself to fit with the shifting and complex social realities as they are impacted by communication technology. Wilding urges cyberfeminists to utilize theoretical insights to develop strategies for battling “the very real sexism, racism, and militarism encoded in the software and hardware of the Net, thus politicizing this environment.” Cyberfeminism is not just concerned with theory, but also, it demands active participation and has been characterized by its online interactions, research and artwork. The cyberfeminist movement was most prominent in the 1990’s and has seemingly subsided since then. This leaves me with the following questions as I investigate this topic:
1) How has cyberfeminism redefined the conjunctions of identity, gender, the body and technology?
2) In which ways has cyberfeminism been a participatory practice? And who are the ones that have and have not participated?
3) Over the past several years, the surge of cyberfeminist research and art has subsided. Is a cyberfeminist movement still necessary? Has its goals already been achieved?
4) How has cyberfeminism exemplified social movements in general in terms of creating a virtual world based on a lived reality?
I am still formulating the thesis for my paper, but I imagine I will focus on particular works of cyberfeminist art and seek out the answers to my questions based on these findings. If anyone has a suggestion or a reference, please let me know.
1) How has cyberfeminism redefined the conjunctions of identity, gender, the body and technology?
2) In which ways has cyberfeminism been a participatory practice? And who are the ones that have and have not participated?
3) Over the past several years, the surge of cyberfeminist research and art has subsided. Is a cyberfeminist movement still necessary? Has its goals already been achieved?
4) How has cyberfeminism exemplified social movements in general in terms of creating a virtual world based on a lived reality?
I am still formulating the thesis for my paper, but I imagine I will focus on particular works of cyberfeminist art and seek out the answers to my questions based on these findings. If anyone has a suggestion or a reference, please let me know.
Leo's Paper Topic
Here is my paper topic/thesis paragraph. I'd love to have some feedback or input from the class.
Designing Multi-Function Public Green Spaces With Sustainable Praxis and Social Networking Technologies
The role contemporary parks play in American society, specifically in the urban setting, work to reify notions of separation between human and environment, which in turn cause a slew of negative effects. The integration of new critical design techniques and social technology into green spaces can support the development of hybrid locations that create positive spaces for public discourse, while working to change these negative ideologies. The creation of these spaces would help to demonstrate that the environment, the public sphere and digital social networks could all coexist in a mutually beneficial manner.
Designing Multi-Function Public Green Spaces With Sustainable Praxis and Social Networking Technologies
The role contemporary parks play in American society, specifically in the urban setting, work to reify notions of separation between human and environment, which in turn cause a slew of negative effects. The integration of new critical design techniques and social technology into green spaces can support the development of hybrid locations that create positive spaces for public discourse, while working to change these negative ideologies. The creation of these spaces would help to demonstrate that the environment, the public sphere and digital social networks could all coexist in a mutually beneficial manner.
I found an interesting documentary, "The Truth According To Wikipedia," that highlights Wikipedia as an idealistic, participatory open space, a product of the second coming of the web or Web 2.0. Users are becoming more and more engaged and the creation of knowledge is increasingly a communal activity. As one of the top ten most popular sites on the net with hundreds of edits per second, Wikipedia exemplifies the shift away from "I need" and "I want" culture to "I can" culture. I think this piece is very relevant to our discussion about Obama's campaign as a movement in the hands of the people (Yes, we can), especially in terms of the channels of power shifting from top-down to bottom-up and side to side. The video is a bit lengthy, but even the first few minutes are interesting if you get a chance.
Wikimedia from Wikipedia
Looks like Wikipedia is installing terabytes of server space to allow for more audio, video and other media files to be added to the growing resource site.
How will this effect the "communal construction" of reference information?
How will this effect the "communal construction" of reference information?
Video as a reference tool
This is a little off topic for right now, but I found this really interesting.
Here's an article from the NY Times highlighting how younger users of digital content are adapting and changing early notions of how information is found and consumed.
Do you think of searching YouTube for reference info first rather than using Google? Sounds like 9-year-olds are going through that process. The article highlights the fact that searches on YouTube have surpassed Yahoo! as the second most searched site, of course with Google in first. Funny thing, Google owns YouTube.
Here's an article from the NY Times highlighting how younger users of digital content are adapting and changing early notions of how information is found and consumed.
Do you think of searching YouTube for reference info first rather than using Google? Sounds like 9-year-olds are going through that process. The article highlights the fact that searches on YouTube have surpassed Yahoo! as the second most searched site, of course with Google in first. Funny thing, Google owns YouTube.
Snif Tag
Apparently we have now have networked dog publics:
Snif Tag Product Video from Philip Liang on Vimeo.
As a dog photographer I'm pretty hooked into the canine community but this is just way too far. I don't even have time to keep up with my own Facebook profile, much less time to help my dogs network online. What a completely and utterly ridiculous idea. It'll probably be hugely successful.
Snif Tag Product Video from Philip Liang on Vimeo.
As a dog photographer I'm pretty hooked into the canine community but this is just way too far. I don't even have time to keep up with my own Facebook profile, much less time to help my dogs network online. What a completely and utterly ridiculous idea. It'll probably be hugely successful.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Response for Thurs, Jan 15
While there are many undercurrents of themes throughout both readings and Andrea’s blogged response, it seems to me that the largest overarching theme is how we are using our technologies in relation to politics and activism.
The Howard Dean campaign may have been the first to utilize the digital tools at their fingertips to unite supporters, but it was never done as well or as famously as Obama’s recent campaign. Andrea’s links to each politician’s websites and blogs really drives that point home. Obama’s website consists of a plethora of links, blogs, responses, videos and information. His promise of a transparent government is intertwined with technology in that the ability to rapidly publish a great variety of information through the internet allows his ideal to be possible. Many see this as a giant step towards ideals - be it Habermas’ ideal public sphere or Ivan Illich’s ideal convivial society. This is not say that we’ve come anywhere near reaching either ideal, rather as an observation that the general mood among Obama supporters is one of great hope and an overall sense of unity.
In spite of these exemplary uses of technology, the majority of us are not really using it to its fullest potential. (And, in Lovink’s opinion, are not as involved or informed as we should be regarding the basic architecture of those same technologies). As Lim and Kahn note, “…the Internet is a convivial medium with a greater scope for freedom, autonomy, creativity, and collaboration than previous media. To be clear, however, there is nothing inherent in Internet technology that automatically achieves this potential.” (p. 82). Lovink is also decidedly pessimistic regarding the general public’s ability to organize themselves and use media to its fullest potential, and probably rightfully so.
It’s unlikely that people will really use technology well until they understand it well, which I suppose explains both Boler and Lovink’s commitment to media activism. The ways in which we choose to unite (ie through common causes like Obama’s campaign and presidency) and the ways in which we choose to challenge current standards and practices (ie the tension between bloggers and journalists and the potential for positive changes in our mainstream media) will really define this era. Lovink belives we’re in a sort of technological renaissance - and if that’s true, then this era will be especially prominent in the timeline of our digital media and what we choose to do with it.
Last, because we’ve been talking and reading about Wikipedia in both books, here’s Michael Scott from NBC’s The Office explaining why Wikipedia is so awesome.
Politics Discussion for Thursday, January 15, 2009
Internet as a Democratic Instrument
Since the publication of these texts I think we have seen even more of a change in how the Internet is used as a Democratic Instrument. Over the past several years there has seemed to be an evolution in the political dynamic of the Internet. As the text suggests the political environment remains a developing arena for the activist and the politician. More recently the politician and activist have utilized the social networking benefits of Web 2.0. This has begun to spark more political discourse and social change.
Convivial Society
Through access of information, blogging, interactive websites, and social networking on a local and global level I think Web 2.0 is steadily approaching the beginnings of a convivial society. However, it still is an individually motivated system that lacks in interconnection through political deliberation and mobilization. Consumerism and individualism still play a dominant role in the production and distribution of information. Interdependence and the free exchange need to be primary goals of users in order to achieve conviviality. However, many practices on the Internet model the structural system already operated outside the network by large corporations and mass media conglomerates. Meeting the requirements of a convivial society requires us to change our approach to online business practices and user practices thus changing the Internet both socially and technologically for the user.
Transforming Society
As we discussed in previous classes Web 2.0 has had a profound effect on our social environment. It is clear that it has the same effect on our political environment as well. Social networking has been able to mobilize political activism and movement towards social change on a global scale. The Zapitista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, the events on February 15, 2003 and the anti-globalization movement in Seattle are all examples of the online mobilization of politically active groups. Political activism and participation through online mobilization has been able to develop more efficiently than online deliberation. One of the ways online deliberation needs to be developed is through online forums. Effective online forums can benefit the political environment and the public sphere in the following ways:
· Participants become more thoughtful and views are taken more seriously.
· Public officials become more trusting.
· Deepens relationships with decision makers and public.
In the recent election the use of online forums involving political leaders and decision makers have been popularized and have started to be more readily integrated in the mainstream. The following link is a good example of the Internet as a democratic instrument. At least it gives the impression of that and will pave the way for even better online forums utilized by the government or important decision makers.
http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice
Other branches of government are starting to reach out through Web 2.0. I found this advertisement/PSA as a means of promoting a variation of an online forum. If it can produce the results of an online forum it could be a successful way to continue to connect government to the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avch-fRFmbw
Blogs
Blogs remain the popular forum to broadcast information, ideas, and beliefs from an autonomous perspective to the larger community. Blogs most actively contribute to the political ideal in the following ways:
· Create a bridge between private and public.
· Allows for the expression of incomplete thoughts.
· Unheard voices now have a place to be heard.
Unfortunately the blogging system hasn’t been fully able to access a truly legitimate political deliberation. The reality of blogs:
· There is an unequal distribution of readers.
· Users tend to remain within ideological lines.
· The most popular blogs continue to model the existing structure.
Blogs haven’t quite achieved uniting “the critical mass” but they have been successful uniting niche markets giving individuals a place to express their own autonomy but still providing a socially interactive and engaging environment.
I posted these links to Blog for America, the blog founded by Howard Dean and the blog portion of change.gov, Barak Obama’s site in reference to the ways in which politicians have adopted new ways to invigorate the political discourse over the past several years. Political leaders are now exploring the ideas of engaging the public and moving in the direction of a more deliberative community. This could possibly be a means to finally embrace the Internet as the new public sphere.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts
http://change.gov/newsroom/blog/
Political Remixes
I thought I would include the remix video Bushwhacked 2 that is mentioned in the text. I think this does encompass all the characteristics of an excellent remix as well as a profound political statement.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6294985583987289451
Discussion Questions:
· In what ways have you seen the Internet transforming the political environment?
· Does the Internet fulfill the criteria to create a new public sphere? In what ways does it fall short?
· How can the Internet transform to fully envision Habermaus’ idea of the public sphere? Has consumerism and individualism hindered our ability to really share in the public sphere as Habermaus describes?
· How does the Internet function as a democratic instrument and how does it resist against this idea?
· Has the Internet transformed us into a Convivial Society?
· According to the text the concept of online deliberation has been a modest occurrence through the Internet. Is this statement still true today in light of the current political environment?
· How has online deliberation and mobilization been used as a political tool in the recent election?
· What are some limitations of blogs as a political tool?
· What do you recall from February 15, 2003? Did the message reach you through online mobilization or through other forms of media?
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest
Since the publication of these texts I think we have seen even more of a change in how the Internet is used as a Democratic Instrument. Over the past several years there has seemed to be an evolution in the political dynamic of the Internet. As the text suggests the political environment remains a developing arena for the activist and the politician. More recently the politician and activist have utilized the social networking benefits of Web 2.0. This has begun to spark more political discourse and social change.
Convivial Society
Through access of information, blogging, interactive websites, and social networking on a local and global level I think Web 2.0 is steadily approaching the beginnings of a convivial society. However, it still is an individually motivated system that lacks in interconnection through political deliberation and mobilization. Consumerism and individualism still play a dominant role in the production and distribution of information. Interdependence and the free exchange need to be primary goals of users in order to achieve conviviality. However, many practices on the Internet model the structural system already operated outside the network by large corporations and mass media conglomerates. Meeting the requirements of a convivial society requires us to change our approach to online business practices and user practices thus changing the Internet both socially and technologically for the user.
Transforming Society
As we discussed in previous classes Web 2.0 has had a profound effect on our social environment. It is clear that it has the same effect on our political environment as well. Social networking has been able to mobilize political activism and movement towards social change on a global scale. The Zapitista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, the events on February 15, 2003 and the anti-globalization movement in Seattle are all examples of the online mobilization of politically active groups. Political activism and participation through online mobilization has been able to develop more efficiently than online deliberation. One of the ways online deliberation needs to be developed is through online forums. Effective online forums can benefit the political environment and the public sphere in the following ways:
· Participants become more thoughtful and views are taken more seriously.
· Public officials become more trusting.
· Deepens relationships with decision makers and public.
In the recent election the use of online forums involving political leaders and decision makers have been popularized and have started to be more readily integrated in the mainstream. The following link is a good example of the Internet as a democratic instrument. At least it gives the impression of that and will pave the way for even better online forums utilized by the government or important decision makers.
http://change.gov/page/content/discussservice
Other branches of government are starting to reach out through Web 2.0. I found this advertisement/PSA as a means of promoting a variation of an online forum. If it can produce the results of an online forum it could be a successful way to continue to connect government to the public.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avch-fRFmbw
Blogs
Blogs remain the popular forum to broadcast information, ideas, and beliefs from an autonomous perspective to the larger community. Blogs most actively contribute to the political ideal in the following ways:
· Create a bridge between private and public.
· Allows for the expression of incomplete thoughts.
· Unheard voices now have a place to be heard.
Unfortunately the blogging system hasn’t been fully able to access a truly legitimate political deliberation. The reality of blogs:
· There is an unequal distribution of readers.
· Users tend to remain within ideological lines.
· The most popular blogs continue to model the existing structure.
Blogs haven’t quite achieved uniting “the critical mass” but they have been successful uniting niche markets giving individuals a place to express their own autonomy but still providing a socially interactive and engaging environment.
I posted these links to Blog for America, the blog founded by Howard Dean and the blog portion of change.gov, Barak Obama’s site in reference to the ways in which politicians have adopted new ways to invigorate the political discourse over the past several years. Political leaders are now exploring the ideas of engaging the public and moving in the direction of a more deliberative community. This could possibly be a means to finally embrace the Internet as the new public sphere.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts
http://change.gov/newsroom/blog/
Political Remixes
I thought I would include the remix video Bushwhacked 2 that is mentioned in the text. I think this does encompass all the characteristics of an excellent remix as well as a profound political statement.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6294985583987289451
Discussion Questions:
· In what ways have you seen the Internet transforming the political environment?
· Does the Internet fulfill the criteria to create a new public sphere? In what ways does it fall short?
· How can the Internet transform to fully envision Habermaus’ idea of the public sphere? Has consumerism and individualism hindered our ability to really share in the public sphere as Habermaus describes?
· How does the Internet function as a democratic instrument and how does it resist against this idea?
· Has the Internet transformed us into a Convivial Society?
· According to the text the concept of online deliberation has been a modest occurrence through the Internet. Is this statement still true today in light of the current political environment?
· How has online deliberation and mobilization been used as a political tool in the recent election?
· What are some limitations of blogs as a political tool?
· What do you recall from February 15, 2003? Did the message reach you through online mobilization or through other forms of media?
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lawrence Lessig vs. Stephen Colbert
Really interesting argument about copyright from a recent show. It's funny as hell.
I see aspects of both sides of the battle. I'm not sure that one side or the other is absolute, the future is most likely a blend of something in the middle. And it will be based on the type of the content and the content producer.
Found this via a photography business blog that is hellbent on copyright protections. Take a read of John Harrington's freak out if you like.
I see aspects of both sides of the battle. I'm not sure that one side or the other is absolute, the future is most likely a blend of something in the middle. And it will be based on the type of the content and the content producer.
Found this via a photography business blog that is hellbent on copyright protections. Take a read of John Harrington's freak out if you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)