This blog comment was of great value to me as it incorporated research across a number of fields. Unlike topics such as produsage where research is very limited and restricted to field experts, citizen journalism incorporates philosophies from across the communication, public relations, new media and web 2.0 domains. As the information relevant to this issue is so diverse, to gauge an accurate insight into what citizen journalism is, what it provides both positively and negatively and how it exists within the wider online content production environment, each of these disciplines must be considered individually and interdependently.
I tried to incorporate this into my blog and achieved it appropriately through making initial comment on the issues surrounding communication, quoting communication experts, Wayne Murphy, Stephen Harrington and John Hartley. I then developed this towards citizen journalism by addressing the impact the web 2.0 has had on communication and then moved away from general communication and towards citizen journalism. From this i was then able to focus on providing a definition, positives and negatives and possible trends in the future.
One downside to the way in which i targeted citizen journalism was my breadth of attack. As i addressed this issue from such a broad perspective, i faced a huge pool of information. As a result, i often found myself reigning in my blog, trying to avoid following every possible tangent that presented itself. I feel that overall i produced a fairly well balanced and concise overview of what Citizen Journalism is and how it has evolved. However, as i became carried away on quite a number of occasions i would question whether or not, i sacrificed the point of the blog.
I was trying to portray how communication had reached such a stage that the public were simply passive consumers of content and not since the golden age of politics had viewers been interested in the content they were receiving. However with the birth of the web 2.0 and citizen journalism, communication was returning to an active state and the public domain is no longer just the media.
Although this provided a good platform for discussion on wider issues and wider reading, when going over my blog, i noticed that i missed a number of possible links and relationships that existed within a narrower field. On closer inspection i did not focus heavily enough on how citizen journalism related to wider KCB201 course content, terms or trends. In retrospect, i could have improved my blog by relating Citizen Journalism more directly to Open Source Content Production, to produsage and most definitely to creative content production, but did not achieve this in the blog comment i posted online.
This may have harmed my blog comment on a small scale, but reading it through, unless you highlight this fact, the blog still provides quality information on a wide range of issues both surrounding and directly related to citizen journalism. So all in all i am still happy with my contribution.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Citizen Journalism – A battle of worth
The public sphere was once considered ‘a metaphorical space where ideas are discussed and the truth emerged; a place where what happens becomes, who hears about it, when and how’ (Murphy, 2008, week 1). It was the quickest, most direct means of communication between the public and everyone else; but this like everything else has changed. Hartley questions this democratic view stating instead that, ‘what once was a fair platform for debate is now a media machine, regurgitating a view of the world and expecting that everyone will simply agree’ (Hartley 2005).
This change in the way we absorb information can be explained by two branching arguments, both unfortunately positioning consumers as passive receivers of information. The first suggests that the reason for the change in communication comes as a result of our demands. ‘Communication in general has changed over the last fifty years. We’re not so interested in long winded opinions and actual news, we’re just happy to take it as it comes and swear that its fact’ (Dick 2008, week 5).
The other option suggests that communication methods are changing because the business of communication is changing. Communication has shifted from mediation, defined by Harrington as, ‘a three step process of communication from business, to media, to the public’ (2008, week 5) to mediatisation defined by Murphy as, ‘a coercion of information, not so much the truth, more a splintered version of it, devised for infotainment and consumer positioning. Media tells business how it’s going to be, business agrees, consumers receive, whether it’s the truth or not, it’s all about perspective’ (2008, week 1).
With the introduction of web 2.0, however, things seem to be changing in the realm of the public sphere. In a time where media owns information, we are seeing break throughs in content production, new media battles being raged, to get new opinions and information out there. This drive for people to have their opinions heard is a new brand of open source content production referred to as Citizen Journalism.
This form of content creation defined by Bowman & Willis as, ‘The act of a citizen, or group of citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information’ (2003, 9) is pushing new information out there, to be heard amongst the people and through online communities and sharing platforms, all of these new ideas can be passed around, reinstating the original purpose of the public sphere.
However citizen journalism, just like other forms of content production, houses the ability to destroy. Citizen Journalism has seen the public sphere ‘double in size over the last five to ten years’ (Murphy 2008) and although this is a positive step for public communication, any form of content production created on a mass scale has the capacity to cause an information overload. So, when all is said and done, as we learn more about the online environment and learn to control, store and produce content more efficiently, citizen journalism will, like all other forms of online content production will simply add another exciting element to global communication.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
This change in the way we absorb information can be explained by two branching arguments, both unfortunately positioning consumers as passive receivers of information. The first suggests that the reason for the change in communication comes as a result of our demands. ‘Communication in general has changed over the last fifty years. We’re not so interested in long winded opinions and actual news, we’re just happy to take it as it comes and swear that its fact’ (Dick 2008, week 5).
The other option suggests that communication methods are changing because the business of communication is changing. Communication has shifted from mediation, defined by Harrington as, ‘a three step process of communication from business, to media, to the public’ (2008, week 5) to mediatisation defined by Murphy as, ‘a coercion of information, not so much the truth, more a splintered version of it, devised for infotainment and consumer positioning. Media tells business how it’s going to be, business agrees, consumers receive, whether it’s the truth or not, it’s all about perspective’ (2008, week 1).
With the introduction of web 2.0, however, things seem to be changing in the realm of the public sphere. In a time where media owns information, we are seeing break throughs in content production, new media battles being raged, to get new opinions and information out there. This drive for people to have their opinions heard is a new brand of open source content production referred to as Citizen Journalism.
This form of content creation defined by Bowman & Willis as, ‘The act of a citizen, or group of citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information’ (2003, 9) is pushing new information out there, to be heard amongst the people and through online communities and sharing platforms, all of these new ideas can be passed around, reinstating the original purpose of the public sphere.
However citizen journalism, just like other forms of content production, houses the ability to destroy. Citizen Journalism has seen the public sphere ‘double in size over the last five to ten years’ (Murphy 2008) and although this is a positive step for public communication, any form of content production created on a mass scale has the capacity to cause an information overload. So, when all is said and done, as we learn more about the online environment and learn to control, store and produce content more efficiently, citizen journalism will, like all other forms of online content production will simply add another exciting element to global communication.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Produsage: Tomorrows content here today - comment
My produsage blog was created for the complete opposite reason to any of the other blogs i posted. With the other blogs, it was usually a personal interest that drove me to discover more about the topics themselves. But when Dr Axel Bruns covered Produsage in his lecture, i realised that i had no real knowledge of the area. This lack of fundamental knowledge made me curious to learn; not only more about produsage, but also how Dr. Bruns quantified the term and what history produsage had prior to his validation. So it was more about creating a blog that taught me something; something i could in turn pass on to my wider online community.
To ensure i met all of these objectives, i researched as widely as i could on all topics relevant to produsage. I read through every piece of literature, old, new, article, book, journal and lecture slide to try and gauge an insight into firstly what produsage was, and secondly where the ideas behind it came from.
It was at this point that i hit my first hiccup. For although i understood that Bruns had himself coined the term produsage, it was unusual to see that very limited sources of wider academic research had been conducted on the theory. It wasn’t until i came across an exploratory article entitled, ‘’ (Bruns 2005), that i realised that i couldn’t find wider research because it didn’t exist yet. The article states that produsage was a fairly new web 2.0 phenomenon. Also highlighting that it was not the original term, rather an evolutionary trend noted and created by Bruns on the back of prior research in the area.
With this in mind, I started my blog with an introduction into the history of user-generated content production. Noting first the ‘prosumer’ term coined by Alvin Toffler, moving then to how this evolved with user participation habits to Charles Leadbeater’s Pro-am theory. I was interested to see how these terms evolved, not so much with time, rather with user behaviour. Their growth seemed to be timeless, instead focusing on where consumer behaviours, user content generation patterns and web development was heading.
In saying this it was probably a downside of the article that i spent so much time commenting on the growth of user-generated content production theories, that i may have missed the focus of produsage. However i overcame this in some way by also commenting on how produsage had been applied to current online behaviours, focusing directly on how it has been taken up by Generation C (Trendwatching.com 2005), and incorporated into web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2006).
I guess i was a little disappointed that the produsage trend coined by Bruns hadn’t been researched by a larger academic audience. It almost surprised me that of all the useless information you can found on the internet, wider research on produsage could not be found. I guess this, just like everything else will eventually be questioned as the most relevant theory, and at that time will be torn to shreds, but i look forward to see further research conducted on this area. I can gladly say that from not knowing anything about this area of learning, i certainly very interested now.
To ensure i met all of these objectives, i researched as widely as i could on all topics relevant to produsage. I read through every piece of literature, old, new, article, book, journal and lecture slide to try and gauge an insight into firstly what produsage was, and secondly where the ideas behind it came from.
It was at this point that i hit my first hiccup. For although i understood that Bruns had himself coined the term produsage, it was unusual to see that very limited sources of wider academic research had been conducted on the theory. It wasn’t until i came across an exploratory article entitled, ‘’ (Bruns 2005), that i realised that i couldn’t find wider research because it didn’t exist yet. The article states that produsage was a fairly new web 2.0 phenomenon. Also highlighting that it was not the original term, rather an evolutionary trend noted and created by Bruns on the back of prior research in the area.
With this in mind, I started my blog with an introduction into the history of user-generated content production. Noting first the ‘prosumer’ term coined by Alvin Toffler, moving then to how this evolved with user participation habits to Charles Leadbeater’s Pro-am theory. I was interested to see how these terms evolved, not so much with time, rather with user behaviour. Their growth seemed to be timeless, instead focusing on where consumer behaviours, user content generation patterns and web development was heading.
In saying this it was probably a downside of the article that i spent so much time commenting on the growth of user-generated content production theories, that i may have missed the focus of produsage. However i overcame this in some way by also commenting on how produsage had been applied to current online behaviours, focusing directly on how it has been taken up by Generation C (Trendwatching.com 2005), and incorporated into web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2006).
I guess i was a little disappointed that the produsage trend coined by Bruns hadn’t been researched by a larger academic audience. It almost surprised me that of all the useless information you can found on the internet, wider research on produsage could not be found. I guess this, just like everything else will eventually be questioned as the most relevant theory, and at that time will be torn to shreds, but i look forward to see further research conducted on this area. I can gladly say that from not knowing anything about this area of learning, i certainly very interested now.
Produsage: Tomorrows content, here today.
As a society, we have faced the emergence of numerous tools and frameworks to define the habits of content users and producers. It started with Alvin Toffler’s ‘prosumer’ in which he noted, ‘the emergence of a more informed, more involved consumer of goods who would need to be kept content by allowing for a greater customisability and individualisability of products’ (Toffler, 1971 ). From there we saw the growth of ‘on-demand, just-in-time production of custom-made items’ (Bruns 2005, 1), which lead on to Charles Leadbeater’s contributory notion of ‘ pro-am’ production models (Leadbeater & Miller 2004, & Bruns 2005, 1).
However, these models, as stated by Bruns, do not consider that ‘the production of ideas takes place in a collaborative, participatory environment which breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge’ (Bruns 2005, 1). What we therefore see it the crumbling of existing content production models with produsage striding to take over.
This new trend defined by Bruns as, ‘the collaborative engagement of (ideally, large) communities of participants in a shared project… (Bruns 2006, 2) where large communities of users are responsible for content production and each change is built on iterative, evolutionary development’ (Bruns 2005, 1). This represents evolutionary development in user contribution models.
Traditional models require a team of content producers to make any changes or updates, produsage can utilise any part or piece of a community to act as content developers. This effectively opens up the doors to content produced by any web 2.0 technology. Whether it be open source content production software, social networks or citizen journalism a, ‘community as a whole, if sufficiently large and varied, will be able to contribute more than a closed team of producers, however qualified’ (Bruns 2006, 3).
Some of this phenomenon can be attributed to new media platforms such as Flickr, MySpace, Facebook and Last.fm; however just as crucial is the emergence of Generation C, a new generation of users who have the skills, abilities, and above all the interest and enthusiasm to use them (Trendwatching.com 2005).
All in all what we are faced with is a hell of a lot of information, constantly updating, evolving and growing with each piece of knowledge, idea or complaint that breaks into the Web 2.0* world, (O’Reilly 2005). It has been suggested that this will eventually become a problem, with Bruns stating, ‘until we can filter through the information the produced content will have nowhere to go, causing an information overload’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). But ‘as we become more aware of how to use the available technology properly and deliberately, we will be able to sort through interesting and relevant information, focusing on particular points and sharing these with others through an online community’ (Bruns 2008, week 6).
*Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them (O’Reilly, 2006).
Blessed blogging
Cheers gemini21
However, these models, as stated by Bruns, do not consider that ‘the production of ideas takes place in a collaborative, participatory environment which breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge’ (Bruns 2005, 1). What we therefore see it the crumbling of existing content production models with produsage striding to take over.
This new trend defined by Bruns as, ‘the collaborative engagement of (ideally, large) communities of participants in a shared project… (Bruns 2006, 2) where large communities of users are responsible for content production and each change is built on iterative, evolutionary development’ (Bruns 2005, 1). This represents evolutionary development in user contribution models.
Traditional models require a team of content producers to make any changes or updates, produsage can utilise any part or piece of a community to act as content developers. This effectively opens up the doors to content produced by any web 2.0 technology. Whether it be open source content production software, social networks or citizen journalism a, ‘community as a whole, if sufficiently large and varied, will be able to contribute more than a closed team of producers, however qualified’ (Bruns 2006, 3).
Some of this phenomenon can be attributed to new media platforms such as Flickr, MySpace, Facebook and Last.fm; however just as crucial is the emergence of Generation C, a new generation of users who have the skills, abilities, and above all the interest and enthusiasm to use them (Trendwatching.com 2005).
All in all what we are faced with is a hell of a lot of information, constantly updating, evolving and growing with each piece of knowledge, idea or complaint that breaks into the Web 2.0* world, (O’Reilly 2005). It has been suggested that this will eventually become a problem, with Bruns stating, ‘until we can filter through the information the produced content will have nowhere to go, causing an information overload’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). But ‘as we become more aware of how to use the available technology properly and deliberately, we will be able to sort through interesting and relevant information, focusing on particular points and sharing these with others through an online community’ (Bruns 2008, week 6).
*Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them (O’Reilly, 2006).
Blessed blogging
Cheers gemini21
The nerds get their turn - comment
What attracted me to writing this article was the popularity of this topic amongst my fellow KCB201er’s. I noticed, whilst searching through my del.icio.us network, that a number of other users had addressed the concept of open source software. After reading through a number of these blogs and posting comments to those that most interested me, i detected several irregularities in the content of several blogs, the way references were being interpreted but most importantly how the information was being used.
One of these users went under the blog, ‘Online Discussion Journal and Peer Review’. This fellow user was Mark Peter Allen, and just like many of the other bloggers had utilised the Open Source Initiative website. In particular Allen had used this website to support his definition of open source software, in particular the criteria distribution terms software must meet to be considered Open Source. What i found interesting about the way in which Allen had used the information was that he had not referenced the site, rather cut and paste a large chunk of the home page directly onto his blog. Outside of this, he had also stated the Open Source Software was the same as Collaborative Software.
Now as i did not know much about this field and was certainly no expert, i was not able to discredit him directly on his comments. Regardless of this, i knew that what he was suggesting was not accurate, and when i compared his comment on Open Source, to those made b other users, i found this to be true.
All of these introductory stimuli led me to compile my own blog on Open Source Software, focusing particularly on its definition and origins. I thought this was important as i later posted a comment on Allen’s blog, referring him to mine for additional information and understanding on Open Source software and its relationship to collaborative software.
The resulting blog, ‘The nerds get their turn’, considered what Open Source Software was, how it could be defined, as well as its defining features, before moving on to how it has grown throughout our society.
As many of these pieces of information had been addressed in all of the other blogs i had read on Open Source i felt it was important to provide some additional piece of information that would differentiate my blog from theirs. This differentiation came in the form of a related blog, ‘Is it really the death of Closed Media’.
At the end of my blog, i made reference to this blog, suggesting that as the greatest minds shift towards supporting open source media... nerds who contribute to the growth and development of open source media are indirectly contributing to the death of traditional media (Is it really the death of Closed Media?).
I could have improved this blog by including some wider references, or scholarly support, as i relied heavily on course content. However, the research i did include provided adequate support for the points i was making.
One of these users went under the blog, ‘Online Discussion Journal and Peer Review’. This fellow user was Mark Peter Allen, and just like many of the other bloggers had utilised the Open Source Initiative website. In particular Allen had used this website to support his definition of open source software, in particular the criteria distribution terms software must meet to be considered Open Source. What i found interesting about the way in which Allen had used the information was that he had not referenced the site, rather cut and paste a large chunk of the home page directly onto his blog. Outside of this, he had also stated the Open Source Software was the same as Collaborative Software.
Now as i did not know much about this field and was certainly no expert, i was not able to discredit him directly on his comments. Regardless of this, i knew that what he was suggesting was not accurate, and when i compared his comment on Open Source, to those made b other users, i found this to be true.
All of these introductory stimuli led me to compile my own blog on Open Source Software, focusing particularly on its definition and origins. I thought this was important as i later posted a comment on Allen’s blog, referring him to mine for additional information and understanding on Open Source software and its relationship to collaborative software.
The resulting blog, ‘The nerds get their turn’, considered what Open Source Software was, how it could be defined, as well as its defining features, before moving on to how it has grown throughout our society.
As many of these pieces of information had been addressed in all of the other blogs i had read on Open Source i felt it was important to provide some additional piece of information that would differentiate my blog from theirs. This differentiation came in the form of a related blog, ‘Is it really the death of Closed Media’.
At the end of my blog, i made reference to this blog, suggesting that as the greatest minds shift towards supporting open source media... nerds who contribute to the growth and development of open source media are indirectly contributing to the death of traditional media (Is it really the death of Closed Media?).
I could have improved this blog by including some wider references, or scholarly support, as i relied heavily on course content. However, the research i did include provided adequate support for the points i was making.
The nerds get their turn
Open Source Media is defined by the Open Source Initiative website as ‘a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process’ (Open Source Initiative 2007, 1). In addition to this, there are also a number of criteria that distribution terms of software must meet to be considered Open Source.
Coar defines these as:
1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. istribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
For further Information and definitions click here
However it is not only what software contains that defines it, but also who contributes to it. The hierarchy of Open Source Software Production, as defined by Nelson, outlines this.
EDITORS
DEVELOPERS
CONTRIBUTORS
USERS
He states, ‘The Editors decide what goes into a project and what falls on the floor. Developers write the code. Contributors write documentation, answer questions, report bugs, blog about the software, review the software, and do everything else which isn't coding. Users just use the code, but of course the role of user is why everybody else does what they do. Together, these people form a community’ (Nelson 2008, 1).
What makes this interesting in comparison to other forms of content production is the category of individual involved with Open Source software. Stereotypically you would connect young people with social networking, academics with journals and databases, but when it comes to Open Source software, nerds seem to be the ones ‘driving the bandwagon’ so to speak.
'Of course many of the eariler participants in the net came from development backgrounds, from tech backgrounds, they were people who were in many cases actively involved in developing software and programming and so the rise of open source can be quite easily explained through this' (Bruns 2008, week 7). The take over of Open Source software production, by the technological minded individuals in our society, encourages growth of this domain. We have seen this take place, even over the last ten years, with the growth of open source software in comparison to closed source media.
As quoted in the related article, Is it really the death of Closed Media, ‘open source software provides an easy technological platform, giving millions of people a voice in a very interesting format that can be easily found, linked to and engaged with by others, whatever the topic might be’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). This user relationship, when compared to closed media with, ‘declining readership, limited access to content and dependence on payment’ (Palme and Berglund 2007, 4-5) defines why this shift in support is occuring.
As demand for traditional media declines and open media increases, the greatest minds shift towards the greatest demand, which at this time is open source media. Therefore, those who choose to contribute to open source media growth and development are indirectly contributing to the death of traditional media. The power of the nerd.
If you are interested in this concept of closed media decline, click here for the related article, Is it really the death of closed media.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Is it really the death of closed media? - comment
I wanted to address this issue as it took somewhat of a different approach to research it. Unlike the other blogs which could easily have been written relying solely on course content and podcasts, the death of closed media, like online predators required far greater research to provide a true insight.
The blog itself addresses the death of closed media; however develops further to include comment on possible directions it could take to survive. To impress this stance on my readers I opened with a quote from Musings, in which he states, ‘The handwriting is on the wall: whether you like it or not, traditional closed media is screwed unless and until they learn how to function in a computer network-centric environment’ (2007, 3). From this I commented further on what taking this direction would cost closed media and questioned its worth.
My favourite point was questioning whether or not you could kill closed media, referring to the quote, ‘Personally i don't think we could ever lose closed media, because i will never curl up in bed with a cup of coffee and a good computer screen’ (Closed Media blog 2008, 2).
I would have liked to include a graph visualising the growth and decline of closed media abundance, however I could not find any that clearly displayed this trend.
The blog itself addresses the death of closed media; however develops further to include comment on possible directions it could take to survive. To impress this stance on my readers I opened with a quote from Musings, in which he states, ‘The handwriting is on the wall: whether you like it or not, traditional closed media is screwed unless and until they learn how to function in a computer network-centric environment’ (2007, 3). From this I commented further on what taking this direction would cost closed media and questioned its worth.
My favourite point was questioning whether or not you could kill closed media, referring to the quote, ‘Personally i don't think we could ever lose closed media, because i will never curl up in bed with a cup of coffee and a good computer screen’ (Closed Media blog 2008, 2).
I would have liked to include a graph visualising the growth and decline of closed media abundance, however I could not find any that clearly displayed this trend.
Is it really the death of Closed Media?
As we strive towards the new, newer and newest media, what is happening to the media that drove the foundations of media for so long? Are we seeing the death of our traditional closed media? ‘The handwriting is on the wall: whether you like it or not, traditional closed media is screwed unless and until they learn how to function in a computer network-centric environment’ (Musings, 2007, 3). It has been said again and again, closed media is losing the business battle. ‘…declining readership, access to content and illegal, but free, downloads are driving the knife into the heart of traditional media. It will be a slow death, but a death none the less’ (Sinclair 2008, 2).
As sad as it may be, there is a large combination of forces ‘including remarkable innovations in technology, surging consumer demand, industry consolidation and policy mistakes’ that are adding to this decline (Karr 2008, 3). But that just the beginning, open media in the most literal sense means, ‘anybody with a computer and a modem can be a journalist’ (Katz 2000, 10). ‘On the Internet, there is no workable definition of what a journalist is. That's a good thing. Anybody who sees him- or herself as a journalist becomes one, which is the way it ought to be and, in fact, used to be. Journalism was never meant to be an exclusive elite, and the Net has re-democratized it. Online journalism may be adolescent and chaotic, but it is freer, more diverse and participatory than its offline predecessors’ (Katz 2000, 7).
So what happens now, if traditional closed media tries to break into the open media domain, is it still considered traditional media? Closed media has been defined as ‘anything online or on paper or on cable or on the airwaves -- try to set agendas rather than permit agendas to be set by others… not trusting their consumers to really participate, they aren't willing to share the power; instead they project a formal, rigid image, preoccupied with increasingly irrelevant formats’ (Katz 2000, 12). If a newspaper goes online allowing people to view for free, at their discretion the same information paid for in a physical copy, is it still closed media?
You may say yes, in which case closed media lives on, you may say no and claim again that closed media is dying. But let me ask you a question? Can you truly abandon Closed Media? After all how do you turn your back on a printed word fixed to a page? Even if you stop buying the paper, you can’t remove the word. In an open media environment, where the words are as susceptible to change as women’s fashion, is it really traditional media that we should be worried about. ‘Print encouraged the ‘private ownership of words’, the resentment of plagiarism developed as a result’ (Pearson 2008, 1). But at least closed media warrants protection; online opinions don’t hang around long enough to come under threat of copyright or plagiarism.
‘In contrast with print, open media is, most importantly, never final — the reverse chronology of blogs, posts and content creates an implicit open-ended form’ (Pearson 2008, 2). Even once an opinion has been added to a page, ‘frequent use and ‘updates’ continually add new information, never leaving the same words behind’ (Pearson 2008, 1). The beauty of collaborative user-led content production.
As sad as it may be, there is a large combination of forces ‘including remarkable innovations in technology, surging consumer demand, industry consolidation and policy mistakes’ that are adding to this decline (Karr 2008, 3). But that just the beginning, open media in the most literal sense means, ‘anybody with a computer and a modem can be a journalist’ (Katz 2000, 10). ‘On the Internet, there is no workable definition of what a journalist is. That's a good thing. Anybody who sees him- or herself as a journalist becomes one, which is the way it ought to be and, in fact, used to be. Journalism was never meant to be an exclusive elite, and the Net has re-democratized it. Online journalism may be adolescent and chaotic, but it is freer, more diverse and participatory than its offline predecessors’ (Katz 2000, 7).So what happens now, if traditional closed media tries to break into the open media domain, is it still considered traditional media? Closed media has been defined as ‘anything online or on paper or on cable or on the airwaves -- try to set agendas rather than permit agendas to be set by others… not trusting their consumers to really participate, they aren't willing to share the power; instead they project a formal, rigid image, preoccupied with increasingly irrelevant formats’ (Katz 2000, 12). If a newspaper goes online allowing people to view for free, at their discretion the same information paid for in a physical copy, is it still closed media?
You may say yes, in which case closed media lives on, you may say no and claim again that closed media is dying. But let me ask you a question? Can you truly abandon Closed Media? After all how do you turn your back on a printed word fixed to a page? Even if you stop buying the paper, you can’t remove the word. In an open media environment, where the words are as susceptible to change as women’s fashion, is it really traditional media that we should be worried about. ‘Print encouraged the ‘private ownership of words’, the resentment of plagiarism developed as a result’ (Pearson 2008, 1). But at least closed media warrants protection; online opinions don’t hang around long enough to come under threat of copyright or plagiarism.
‘In contrast with print, open media is, most importantly, never final — the reverse chronology of blogs, posts and content creates an implicit open-ended form’ (Pearson 2008, 2). Even once an opinion has been added to a page, ‘frequent use and ‘updates’ continually add new information, never leaving the same words behind’ (Pearson 2008, 1). The beauty of collaborative user-led content production.
The end of another debate, a new peice of content for over information overload. Personally i don't think we could ever lose closed media, because i will never curl up in bed with a cup of coffee and a good computer screen. But who knows... times change.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
The Internet: A Masquerade Ball and everyone is invited - comment
My interest in creating an online anonymity blog arose from the relationship i drew between it and online predators. As stated in my blog, ‘Online Communities: Predator Paradise’, ‘many young people are being subject to, or at least exposed to dangerous and inappropriate experiences on and through the internet’ (Youth Internet Safety Survey 2001). What the rest of that quote stated was, ‘The offenders and their offences are so diverse and their anonymity is crippling’ (Youth Internet Safety Survey 2001). This idea of anonymity in online communities triggered my desire to research the issue further.
What i found in researching this issue was that there was indeed a relationship between individuals being able to attain anonymity and the number of predators lurking across the internet. What was even more concerning was the stronger relationship between anonymity, online social networks and young people, thus the original article.
In continuing my research, i found that what we are confronting is not just an anonymous market, but a global online domain that people can pretend to be anyone they want to be. This was clarified in the quote by Bruns in which he states, ‘it doesn’t matter who i am, as far as physical appearance; it doesn’t matter where i am, as far as physical location... i can find others’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). This quote exemplifies the major problem associated with online anonymity; however the problem does not end there.
The article continues to comment on related issues such as online communities and the inability to control them. My favourite point here is that an echochamber could form anywhere inside an online community, decide on anything they wanted to and no-one would have any idea. This is stated in the quote, ‘So you have your little group that decides to lock down and cult up… you produce your little echochamber (Bruns 2008, week 6), and inside that echochamber your technoculture decides that they don’t like the colour blue anymore and they are going to eradicate the colour blue. How does anyone know? How would you stop them? Who is ‘them’?’ (The Internet blog 2008, 1). Just another way anonymity is eroding the positives created by online communities.
But there are a number of ways i could have improved my blog. The first would have been to develop my research further to include the protection anonymity provides to scam artists, online hackers breeching security and safety on including personal details online as far as identity fraud. This was not included, as i believed it deviated too far from the main idea of the blog, which was related directly to online anonymity affecting online communities.
In suggesting this, another way i could have improved it would have been to present a more balanced argument. I took a fairly strong stance against anonymity in online communities. Just as you could say the way anonymity removes the social and peer pressures of society is a good thing; i stated that for the same reasons and more, anonymity is bad.
What i found in researching this issue was that there was indeed a relationship between individuals being able to attain anonymity and the number of predators lurking across the internet. What was even more concerning was the stronger relationship between anonymity, online social networks and young people, thus the original article.
In continuing my research, i found that what we are confronting is not just an anonymous market, but a global online domain that people can pretend to be anyone they want to be. This was clarified in the quote by Bruns in which he states, ‘it doesn’t matter who i am, as far as physical appearance; it doesn’t matter where i am, as far as physical location... i can find others’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). This quote exemplifies the major problem associated with online anonymity; however the problem does not end there.
The article continues to comment on related issues such as online communities and the inability to control them. My favourite point here is that an echochamber could form anywhere inside an online community, decide on anything they wanted to and no-one would have any idea. This is stated in the quote, ‘So you have your little group that decides to lock down and cult up… you produce your little echochamber (Bruns 2008, week 6), and inside that echochamber your technoculture decides that they don’t like the colour blue anymore and they are going to eradicate the colour blue. How does anyone know? How would you stop them? Who is ‘them’?’ (The Internet blog 2008, 1). Just another way anonymity is eroding the positives created by online communities.
But there are a number of ways i could have improved my blog. The first would have been to develop my research further to include the protection anonymity provides to scam artists, online hackers breeching security and safety on including personal details online as far as identity fraud. This was not included, as i believed it deviated too far from the main idea of the blog, which was related directly to online anonymity affecting online communities.
In suggesting this, another way i could have improved it would have been to present a more balanced argument. I took a fairly strong stance against anonymity in online communities. Just as you could say the way anonymity removes the social and peer pressures of society is a good thing; i stated that for the same reasons and more, anonymity is bad.
The Internet: A masquerade ball where everyone is invited.
Information... creation... produsage...socialising... all great commodities offered by the Internet. And ‘as we become more aware of how to use the available technology properly and deliberately... we learn also how to locate interesting and relevant information to share with others’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). This technoculture trend, defined as, ‘the process of focusing on a particular point and sharing these with others in an online community’ (Bruns 2008, week 6) is just another internet platform that is able to ‘transcend the limitations of physical space... finding others that are like minded and engage with them online for a very long time’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). But in the glory of these capabilities is the ability to bypass all limitations placed on anything a good thing. I mean think about it, the internet is a platform where who, what, when, where and why all become irrelevant. Every man is Hugh Grant, every woman Cameron Diaz.I mentioned in the related article, Online Communities: Predator Paradise, a comment made by Dr. Axel Bruns. He states in a lecture given to his Virutal Cultures class that in an online community, ‘it doesn’t matter who i am, as far as physical appearance; it doesn’t matter where i am, as far as physical location... i can find others’ (Bruns 2008, week 6). This is an interesting statement outlining the concern surrounding the ‘anonymity’ of online users. Now I am not just taking about what someone looks like, or where they work during the day. The internet provides complete security for those who can online, pretend to be anyone they want to.
A scary concept, but as always, it doesn’t end there…
Once you have one of these online communities. What happens then? Who governs it for example? Does anyone tell you who to allow in and how many… how often… how you communicate or what you communicate about? For each little group that forms across the internet, does anyone have control? And this is my next point.
So you have your little group that decides to lock down and cult up… you produce your little echochamber (Bruns 2008, week 6), and inside that echochamber your technoculture decides that they don’t like the colour blue anymore and they are going to eradicate the colour blue. How does anyone know? How would you stop them? Who is ‘them’? Our online environment has numerous sites that ‘support causes that we might generally see as socially distruptive; as problematic. They are online communities that work perfectly well as online communities in their own right, but ultimately support extremist political views, or ideas that are seen as outdated or no longer acceptable’ (Bruns 2008, week 6).
With this in mind, is it really so great that we can be anyone we want to? Is the freedom an overweight 40 something man gets from anonymous blogging truly worth the sacrifices of knowledge we are making? 'Anonymity can be used to protect a criminal performing many different crimes, distribution of child pornography, illegal threats, racial agitation, fraud, intentional damage such as distribution of computer viruses, etc. Who would be accountable, how can you jail a website full of words?' (Palme & Berlund 2007, & Rogers 2005)
For a closer look at the pro's and con's of online anonymity click here, for the related article, Online Communities: Predators Paradise click here.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
Monday, April 28, 2008
Online Communities: Predator Paradise
I was sitting, the other day, reading an article on online vulnerability. The article reproduced the findings of the 2001 National Youth Survey, conducted by the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children and was responsible for making recommendations on this. One of the comments made was that, ‘Many young people are being subjected to, dangerous and inappropriate experiences on and through the internet. The offences and offenders are so diverse and their anonymity is crippling’ (Youth Internet Safety Search 2001, 1).
The issue of protecting children from the potential hazards on the internet has been well documented (Nair 2006, 114). Nearly 12,000 cases of online child abuse were reported in September 2002 alone. Cases originated in the areas of child pornography (9015 incidents), child prostitution (277 incidents), child sex tourism (188 incidents), child sexual molestation (690 incidents) and online enticement of children for sexual acts (1533 incidents)’ (USF Institute for Children 2002, 4). And even though i am no child physiologist, i can establish that having an open, geographically boundless environment is no good thing in this case.
It is this that raises one of the mains criticisms of the online, in comparison with the offline environment. ‘The internet has allowed young people to become a naive and willing audience to behaviours and ideas online, that would not have been condoned in an offline environment’ (USF Institute for Children 2002, 12). Children and young people are becoming less and less scrutinising of those they interact with online, and parents are being pushed further out of the loop. ‘Many teens reported that their parents knew they had an Internet social networking site but only a small percentage of teens reported that their parents had actually seen their site’ (Peirce 2006, 1). It could be put down to a decrease in parental concern for their children, but i believe there is more to it than that.
Security and access passes, like usernames, passwords and key locks are all restricting the control parents can have over their children online. You may suggest that each person under the age of 18 has to have parental controls and access in place, but anonymity isn’t reserve for the predators, the prey has it too. After all how hard is it to click 18 instead of 16 when setting up an account?
So this is where we find ourselves. We have created an environment that supports creation, development and removes the boundaries of physicality (Bruns 2008, week 1), while at the same time opens up a new door for access to our nations’ youth. Predators are given a front row seat to anything and anyone, its like making a house out of glass and not expecting others to look in.If you are interested in stories like this, feel free to follow this link to the related article, The Internet: A masquerade ball where everyone is invited.
Blessed Blogging
Cheers gemini21
Online Communities: Predator Paradise - comment
This blog was one of my favourites to create and include for a number of reasons. The most important was the fact that i was interested in the issue of child predators in an online environment to begin with. The dynamics of creating another environment from which predators could access possible prey, in particular children and young people was an extremely interesting concept. One i wanted to further explore.
As i had a negative predisposition to this issue, one of the major battles i faced was ensuring my blog addressed all the important elements of the issue, without weighing too heavily on my feelings. Although i did carry a bias throughout the blog, most of the information supported my feelings, so i was able to reflect personally without affecting the overall success of the blog.
To achieve this balance i opened my blog with information on online communities in general, commenting on their benefits and uses throughout internet networks. From there i narrowed my field of focus to the issue of online predators and how online communities harbour this. I was also able to use this framework to address other online community elements that indirectly support predatory behaviour; commenting first on the relatively unmonitored nature of online environments and further on how the existing security acts as both a safeguard and restriction on parental guidance in these domains.
In retrospect, information on legislation and restrictions, or suggestions on possible ways to improve online domains would have added depth to my blog. But in the absence of these details, the flaws were overcome in a number of ways.
1. I addressed the issue of what was being done by making personal suggestions on how to improve the environments, such as underage children have parent peepholes to enable them access to certain areas of their children’s online share sites.
2. I commented on the required balance between parental access to their children’s sites, as well as respecting their privacy in an online environment.
3. I strengthened my argument against online communities by linking this article to the related article, ‘The Internet: A masquerade ball and everyone is invited, which raises the issue of anonymity in online communities and how this could increase predatory behaviours.
But the most effective element of this blog was the referencing i used. I started with the frameworks provided to me in the related podcast and lecture and from there moved to find external sources to support or reject those claims. As online predators are such as an opinion based subject i made sure the opinions i were quoting were from scholarly articles. This enabled me to make accurate judgements on the issue at hand and also to know that what i was saying was more likely to be true. In addition to scholarly articles i also referenced a wide range of journals and relevant statistics to ensure my statements were as accurate as they could be.
As i had a negative predisposition to this issue, one of the major battles i faced was ensuring my blog addressed all the important elements of the issue, without weighing too heavily on my feelings. Although i did carry a bias throughout the blog, most of the information supported my feelings, so i was able to reflect personally without affecting the overall success of the blog.
To achieve this balance i opened my blog with information on online communities in general, commenting on their benefits and uses throughout internet networks. From there i narrowed my field of focus to the issue of online predators and how online communities harbour this. I was also able to use this framework to address other online community elements that indirectly support predatory behaviour; commenting first on the relatively unmonitored nature of online environments and further on how the existing security acts as both a safeguard and restriction on parental guidance in these domains.
In retrospect, information on legislation and restrictions, or suggestions on possible ways to improve online domains would have added depth to my blog. But in the absence of these details, the flaws were overcome in a number of ways.
1. I addressed the issue of what was being done by making personal suggestions on how to improve the environments, such as underage children have parent peepholes to enable them access to certain areas of their children’s online share sites.
2. I commented on the required balance between parental access to their children’s sites, as well as respecting their privacy in an online environment.
3. I strengthened my argument against online communities by linking this article to the related article, ‘The Internet: A masquerade ball and everyone is invited, which raises the issue of anonymity in online communities and how this could increase predatory behaviours.
But the most effective element of this blog was the referencing i used. I started with the frameworks provided to me in the related podcast and lecture and from there moved to find external sources to support or reject those claims. As online predators are such as an opinion based subject i made sure the opinions i were quoting were from scholarly articles. This enabled me to make accurate judgements on the issue at hand and also to know that what i was saying was more likely to be true. In addition to scholarly articles i also referenced a wide range of journals and relevant statistics to ensure my statements were as accurate as they could be.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Cultural Understanding: Part Two - comment
I included this blog obviously for two different reasons. One because it completed the second part of my two part Cultural Understanding series, but also because it enabled me to explore several important course theories in the same blog.
These theories, namely the 80/20 rule and Chris Anderson’s ‘The Long Tail’ concept helped to define how cultural divergence has occurred, but also created a platform from which the application of these processes could be addressed.
Essentially the blog started with defining diversity, explained then how the 80/20 and long tail concepts explain this diversity trend and concluded with how the web 2.0 environment is taking advantage of this.
After this however, the blog moves to address the issues that arise with divergence, and the threats we face, based on social norms and behaviours of losing divergence with a social push towards convergence.
I would have liked to address how this could be overcome in a virtual domain, however did not at the time. In retrospect this would have added depth, but all in all this blog would have to be my favourite for overall content and depth of analysis.
These theories, namely the 80/20 rule and Chris Anderson’s ‘The Long Tail’ concept helped to define how cultural divergence has occurred, but also created a platform from which the application of these processes could be addressed.
Essentially the blog started with defining diversity, explained then how the 80/20 and long tail concepts explain this diversity trend and concluded with how the web 2.0 environment is taking advantage of this.
After this however, the blog moves to address the issues that arise with divergence, and the threats we face, based on social norms and behaviours of losing divergence with a social push towards convergence.
I would have liked to address how this could be overcome in a virtual domain, however did not at the time. In retrospect this would have added depth, but all in all this blog would have to be my favourite for overall content and depth of analysis.
Cultural Understanding: Part Two
Well here we are again delving into the new media world. And just as promised here is the second part of our Cultural Understanding segment.
Cultural Diversity is defined as, 'the preservation of varying ideas, beliefs, codes and creeds in their original state' (Hamner 1988, iv). Although this seems geographically distinctive, the same theory can be applied to global, state, local or hyperlocal cultures (Bruns 2008, week 4). After all it is the presence of so many cultural levels that creates cultural divergence; the topic under discussion today. (Saunders 2008, lecture 4).
Now there are a number of ways you could explain cultural divergence. But for ease of explanation I will break it down for you into a three stage process.
1. The 80/20 rule*
2. Chris Anderson's 'The Long Tail' concept
3. Application in New Media
Put simple the 80/20 rule states that of everything that is produced, 20% will appeal to a large audience, the remaining 80% only attracting small audiences. Now although business sense would tell you to target the large audiences; new media has framed its technology around the remaining 80%; using the Long Tail concept (Anderson 2004, 1).
‘The Long Tail concept can be defined as, ‘the future does not lie in hits – the high-volume end of a traditional demand curve – but in what used to be regarded as misses, the curve's endlessly long tail’ (Anderson 2008, 2). Technologies such as blogger.com, last.fm and amazon use this framework and target those consumers with interest beyond the mainstream (Bruns 2008, week 4). By media allowing, developing and harnessing this left over 80%, they are feeding the niche cultures that create cultural diversity (Anderson 2008, 1 & trendwatching.com 2008, 1).
The new media environment has only eased this process. ‘With the rise of the Internet around the globe, intercultural communications have become "a mouse click away".’ (Dahl 2000, 1).With online buy, sell and swap forums like ebay and gumtree, each new and diverse frame of mind can search, sell, buy, swap or create their own content adding to our diverse cultural framework. It is this ease of production that creates diversities first threat.
Brown and Eisenhardt state ‘the central dilemma of current business is how to achieve adaptive innovation and consistent execution without loosing control’ (2000, 28). This is explored in figure 1, which shows, ‘a company must balance on the edge of innovation without falling into the chaos trap’ (Glaser 2000, figure 1). Because new content is encouraged so strongly to create diversity, new media technologies face the risk of being overrun, unable to support all the new content. A problem which questions whether or not cultures can exist without being constantly supervised.
Milliken and Martins argue that ‘groups and organizations will act systematically to drive out individuals who are different from the majority, unless this tendency to drive out diversity is managed’ (1998, 420). From this it stands to reason that cultural levels, just the same as cultural groups will not remain different and therefore diverse unless they are constantly monitored. Social groups will naturally pull these diverse groups closer and closer to the norm, until we are instead facing cultural convergence, instead of divergence.
So you have seen both sides of the story, the decision is now yours. I look forward to hearing from you, in regards to what you think of these issues. Until then blessed blogging.
Cheers
Gemini 21
Cultural Diversity is defined as, 'the preservation of varying ideas, beliefs, codes and creeds in their original state' (Hamner 1988, iv). Although this seems geographically distinctive, the same theory can be applied to global, state, local or hyperlocal cultures (Bruns 2008, week 4). After all it is the presence of so many cultural levels that creates cultural divergence; the topic under discussion today. (Saunders 2008, lecture 4).
Now there are a number of ways you could explain cultural divergence. But for ease of explanation I will break it down for you into a three stage process.
1. The 80/20 rule*
2. Chris Anderson's 'The Long Tail' concept
3. Application in New Media
Put simple the 80/20 rule states that of everything that is produced, 20% will appeal to a large audience, the remaining 80% only attracting small audiences. Now although business sense would tell you to target the large audiences; new media has framed its technology around the remaining 80%; using the Long Tail concept (Anderson 2004, 1).
‘The Long Tail concept can be defined as, ‘the future does not lie in hits – the high-volume end of a traditional demand curve – but in what used to be regarded as misses, the curve's endlessly long tail’ (Anderson 2008, 2). Technologies such as blogger.com, last.fm and amazon use this framework and target those consumers with interest beyond the mainstream (Bruns 2008, week 4). By media allowing, developing and harnessing this left over 80%, they are feeding the niche cultures that create cultural diversity (Anderson 2008, 1 & trendwatching.com 2008, 1).
The new media environment has only eased this process. ‘With the rise of the Internet around the globe, intercultural communications have become "a mouse click away".’ (Dahl 2000, 1).With online buy, sell and swap forums like ebay and gumtree, each new and diverse frame of mind can search, sell, buy, swap or create their own content adding to our diverse cultural framework. It is this ease of production that creates diversities first threat.
Brown and Eisenhardt state ‘the central dilemma of current business is how to achieve adaptive innovation and consistent execution without loosing control’ (2000, 28). This is explored in figure 1, which shows, ‘a company must balance on the edge of innovation without falling into the chaos trap’ (Glaser 2000, figure 1). Because new content is encouraged so strongly to create diversity, new media technologies face the risk of being overrun, unable to support all the new content. A problem which questions whether or not cultures can exist without being constantly supervised.
Milliken and Martins argue that ‘groups and organizations will act systematically to drive out individuals who are different from the majority, unless this tendency to drive out diversity is managed’ (1998, 420). From this it stands to reason that cultural levels, just the same as cultural groups will not remain different and therefore diverse unless they are constantly monitored. Social groups will naturally pull these diverse groups closer and closer to the norm, until we are instead facing cultural convergence, instead of divergence.
So you have seen both sides of the story, the decision is now yours. I look forward to hearing from you, in regards to what you think of these issues. Until then blessed blogging.
Cheers
Gemini 21
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Cultural understanding: Part One - comment
The interesting thing about Cultural Understanding: Part One, is that it provides such an in depth look into the issue of cultural communities and yet it is one of two blogs that do so. The blog starts with a foundation in course content, developing onto course readings and Henry Jenkins, ending on how the theories relate to a larger community picture.
I like how this blog provides a general overview of cultural understanding and only needs to develop onto cultural convergence. Given the 500 word, word count, I would have been rushed to try and address all of the important points in cultural understanding, cultural convergence and divergence. It also gives the readers something to think about and look forward to with the posting of Cultural Understanding: Part Two.
I would have liked to go further in depth with the ideas of Henry Jenkins; I was forced to use him only as a lead in to cultural convergence. However, the foundations he provided my blog comment opened up a platform from which I could also comment on the global village trend. This in turn helped me to take the cultural convergence trend and, ‘give it life in a new media sphere (Cultural Understanding 1 blog 2008, 2).
I like how this blog provides a general overview of cultural understanding and only needs to develop onto cultural convergence. Given the 500 word, word count, I would have been rushed to try and address all of the important points in cultural understanding, cultural convergence and divergence. It also gives the readers something to think about and look forward to with the posting of Cultural Understanding: Part Two.
I would have liked to go further in depth with the ideas of Henry Jenkins; I was forced to use him only as a lead in to cultural convergence. However, the foundations he provided my blog comment opened up a platform from which I could also comment on the global village trend. This in turn helped me to take the cultural convergence trend and, ‘give it life in a new media sphere (Cultural Understanding 1 blog 2008, 2).
Cultural Understanding: Part One
Culture... 'the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another. An understanding transmitted through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art, from one generation to the next' (Dictionary.com 2008). A stock standard, 100% accurate definition, given by a man viewing the world through a microscope with both eyes shut. Now if your happy to see the world this way, fine, I'll take no prisoners. But in an age where the web 2.0 and technology rule, culture is so much bigger than that.Scholars will tell you that 'culture exist on numerous levels' (Bruns 2008, week 4), that each one 'interweaves and interconnects' (Jenkins 2006, 1) and that 'we all play a part' (Trendwatching.com 2005) and that’s what makes it so wonderful. Just by taking a step outside your front door you are emersed in global cultures, geographical culturals, local, state and hyperlocal cultures, (Bruns 2008, week 4), all waiting to be crafted, evaluated, updated and challenged by you and your imagination. Each culture developing in and around one another to the point where we can only guess where one begins, another stops and which one effected the other first.
And this my friends is where things get interesting… because culture is so interconnected it is hard to say whether we are facing one culture or many. So we find ourselves at a cross road of understanding. Some argue cultural convergence, others divergence, who's right? Are they both right?
Now if you were to discuss the idea of cultural convergence, you could not go past mentioning Henry Jenkins. Although he provides the media focused definition, ‘the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want’ (Jenkins 2006, 1). He continues to argue that convergence is not restricted to media, rather, ‘it is a word that manages to describe technological, industrial, cultural and social changes depending on who’s speaking and what they are talking about’ (Jenkins 2006, 4).
A perfect point in the discussion to introduce you to Wyndham Lewis and Herbert Marshall McLuhan; the gentlemen responsible for creating and validating the ‘Global Village’.
The Global Village term takes Jenkins idea of cultural convergence out of its media shell, and gives it life in a new media sphere. It is no longer just how consumers take in the shows they watch, or the information they are given. The Global Village explores the internet, mobile phones, social networks, plainly technology as a whole and how it all seems to be slowly converging into one small convenience network (Bruns 2008, week 5). Not only are we crossing, co-operating and migrating (Jenkins 2006, 1), ‘humankind is moving from individualism and fragmentation to a collective identity. Instead of tending towards a vast library, the world has become the equivalent of one computer moving into a phase of total interdependence, and superimposed co-existence’ (McLuhan 1962 & Lewis 1948).
So we leave it there, and ponder the effects of convergence. Join me again for Cultural Understanding: Part Two where we will discuss Cultural Divergence, hopefully finding our feet in amongst this crazy culture.
Cheers Gemini21
Thursday, April 17, 2008
General Introductions only
Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen to my new blog. We are now entering together a new phase in New Media understanding. Driven by the Master our UNIverse, Axel Bruns, we will learn, link and laugh at just what New Media offers us in our Y Generation.Welcome again bloggers!
Comment Away
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
