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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)