Chorazy Thoughts

One for the political communication kids

2008-05-21T21:28:00.007+10:00

So this post is completely unrelated to KCB201 Virtual Cultures, but it is related to another QUT unit that I am undertaking this semester; KCB302 Political Communication.

For any of you struggling with the last couple of weeks of semester, here is something that might take your mind of it for a short while and bring a laugh to your lips. Even if you know nothing about the contest between democrat presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama it may still be mildly amusing...

Don't get too excited - it's not quite as risque as the YouTube still looks below.

It brought a whole new meaning to political communication for me.
Kudos to creator wolf084.
Enjoy.

For those of you who take politics a little more seriously, I wish I had been in Parliament on the day John Howard and Paul Keating went head to head on the "great censure motion"! At the beginning of the parliamentary year in 1995, where Australia had the worst current account deficit on record, this was an amazing moment in Question Time where Howard introduced a censure motion against Keating. Poor Mr Speaker (the Hon. Stephen Martin) had a difficult time with this one.

It begins...

Who ever said John Howard was unflappable? If you ask me he was absolutely riled! You don't see this sort of high dudgeon from Howard these days - perhaps it's because as (former) Prime Minister he felt he had to tone things down and maintain an unemotional refined image. What a shame.

Even better is the reply by Keating...

As always it is done with a fair amount of personal invective and spiteful vigour. And people say politics is stale and yet they can watch programs like Big Brother?

This sort of fervourous debate gives me faith that Australian politics is not quite as dead-beat and boring as we are sometimes criticised of.

Playing The Election Game: Politics In The Movies

2008-05-16T08:29:00.006+10:00

Dogs Show Their True Colours

Released in the midst of the “monicagate” era in the United States, the films Wag the Dog [1997] and Primary Colors [1998] deliver some biting political satire that takes “all the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players” to a whole new level. In the worlds of Wag the Dog and Primary Colors life is like a play, but it is a play promoted by the media and directed by the politically savvy. There might be nothing new to movies that poke fun at people, politics, the media, and the government, but the thought provoking cynicism on the theme of power and control hits uncomfortable close to home.

Wag the Dog, like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove, is somewhat disconcerting as the concept is so absurd, yet potentially plausible. After being caught in a scandalous situation just days before the election, the President’s chances of being re-elected are slim. The president’s political consultants move swiftly to manipulate the media (and the voting public) and direct their attention away from the allegations – focusing it instead on terrorism and a manufactured war with Albania. It is the parallels we can draw to reality here that make Wag the Dog so effective. While the president is not named in the film, references are made to the Gulf War and the assumption can be drawn that George Bush Senior is the president in question. The film also eerily pre-empted President Clinton’s actions in his second term of office, where the Lewinsky scandal broke and questionable military operations like Desert Fox were undertaken.

Based on Larry Beinhart’s book American Hero, the film satirises the relationship between politics, the media, and public opinion. The film implies that politics is about mass entertainment and that the political process is about being bigger, better, and louder than your opponent. Playing on the notion that the media also pursue these noisier stories, in the world of Wag the Dog the press can be fed anything and they will lap it up, as long as it is going to sell more news. Here the truth becomes of little consequence as “truth” is defined by whatever the public is convinced to be true. Wag the Dog alludes that reality is constructed for us by media advisors who use the media to showcase their latest political agenda – and in a hall of smoke and mirrors it is difficult to tear your eyes away from the Hollywood glamour, even if you wanted to.

The real-life resemblance in Primary Colors is more overt. The film was based on then-anonymous author Joe Klein’s 1996 roman à clé. Klein’s politically charged novel by the same name was a fictionalised account of Clinton’s run for the presidency in 1992. It drew considerably from his own notes at the time (as a reporter for Newsweek) as well as Pennebaker and Hegedus’s documentary The War Room [1994]. Primary Colors (the film) exploited the use of a visual medium and candidly parodied the Clintons and their campaign team. Primary Colors is “a neat examination of the power of the American media machine and its insatiable appetite for political intrigue” [Harvey 1998]. Here the political process is seen as dominated by the media, with politicians at their mercy. The goal of this crazy game is to stay a step ahead of your opponent, be ready to counter any censure in an instant, and be prepared to sling some mud of your own.

Primary Colors illuminates that ideals are often compromised throughout the political process in the pursuit of victory. But what for victory if at any price? In Primary Colors our heroes are portrayed as sacrificing their morals on the premise that flaws are redeemed, and underhanded tactics are justified, when it is in the pursuit of loftier goals. While this may cause a crisis of conscience for a time, once caught up in the momentum it is all too easy to lose sight of reality. The media further capitalises on this excitement, whipping the public into a frenzy, with little care as to how or why they do so as long as they’re receiving the attention and the revenue that follows. It is unfortunate that both the media’s and the public’s appetite for intrigue is essentially undoing us. Truth, if there is such a thing, is distorted either in pursuit of a scoop, or simply by anyone looking to discredit people in power. It is an environment where you are guilty until proven innocent – and even if you are innocent it will often be too late.

Wag the Dog and Primary Colors may differ in their representations, but they both ultimately deal with the concept of power and control – power over the people and public opinion, and control of information and truth. Wag the Dog insinuates that it is political operatives who wield the power, with the media as their conduit to control. Primary Colors suggests that power is shared between opinion leaders (and of course their advisors) and the media, with both having a level of control over publicising information and creating truth. Whichever notion you side with, it is obvious that the issues of power and control have not dissipated with time. A decade on, these films are still as relevant as if they had been released recently. Today we can relate to the issues in the films from our experiences with the “wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the constant scandals paraded in the media, but it is the core themes that really play with our conscience. While we may be sceptical of the things we see and hear in the media, we have little reason not to believe in the information we are given. Can we trust politicians and their advisors? Do the ends always justify the means? Who is public opinion and “truth” constructed by? How would we know if it our reality is being manufactured for us? We will all have different answers to these questions, and it is up to us to find them.

I would like to believe that we, as individuals, have both power and control. I would like to believe that we all have the power over our own lives, and as such have control over our thoughts and behaviours. Perhaps it’s because I just don’t like the idea that I am being subtly manipulated by other forces. But whether I like it or not the question remains; how would I know if I am, and would it make a difference? At the end of the day they might just be entertainment, but it is films like Wag the Dog and Primary Colors that advance the rational, critical, and independent thinking of audiences and encourage us to form our own opinions. It is my hope that if we know the rules of the game then we can, at least in part, play the game ourselves.

Memorable Quotes

Wag the Dog

Conrad Brean: What difference does it make if it’s true? If it’s a story and it breaks, they’re gonna run with it.

Conrad Brean: We’re not gonna have a war, we’re gonna have the appearance of a war.

Stanley Motss: I’m in show business, why come to me?
Conrad Brean: War is show business, that’s why we’re here.

Conrad Brean: What’s the thing people remember about the Gulf War? A bomb falling down a chimney. Let me tell you something: I was in the building where we filmed that with a 10-inch model made out of Lego.
Stanley Motss: Is that true?
Conrad Brean: Who the hell’s to say?

Stanley Motss: It’s all, you know, thinking ahead, thinking ahead.
Conrad Brean: It’s like being a plumber.
Stanley Motss: Yea, it’s like a plumber – do your job right and nobody should notice. But when you fuck it up, everything gets full of shit.

Conrad Brean: Why does the dog wag its tail? Because the dog is smarter than the tail. If the tail were smarter, it would Wag the Dog.

Primary Colors

Henry Burton: A man who believes what I believe and lies about it to get elected, as opposed to a man who just doesn’t give a fuck… well, I’ll choose the liar.

Richard Jemmons: The media giveth and go fuck yourself.

Governor Fred Picker: You know this is a terrific country, but sometimes we go a little crazy. Maybe that’s part of our greatness, part of our freedom. But if we don’t watch out and calm down, it might just spin out of control. You know the world is getting more and more complicated, and politicians have to explain things to you in simpler terms, so they can get their little oversimplified explanations on the evening news. And eventually instead of even trying to explain things they give up and just start slinging mud at each other. And it’s all to keep you excited. To keep you watching, like you watch a car watch or a wrestling match. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what it’s like – professional wrestling. It’s staged and its fake and it doesn’t mean anything. And that goes for the debates. We don’t hate our opponents, hell half the time we don’t even know them. But it seems it’s the only way we know how to keep you all riled up. So what I want to do with this campaign is kind of quieten things down and start having a conversation, about what sort of country we want this to be in the next century.

Libby Holden (on pandering to the media): Lets just scrape away your last little shreds of dignity and wallow in the trash.

Governor Fred Picker: … no matter what I do, the press is still going to find out the rest of it, aren’t they?
Governor Jack Stanton: If they think it will sell one newspaper, yes.

Governor Jack Stanton: We can do incredible things. We can change this country. I’m gonna win this thing. Look me in the eye and tell me that you don’t want to be part of it.

Recommendations

If you liked Wag the Dog or Primary Colors then Chorazy Thoughts recommends the following films:

The Great Dictator [Chaplin 1940]
Dr Strangelove [Kubrick 1964]
The War Room [Pennebaker and Hegedus 1994]
Canadian Bacon [Moore 1995]
Thank You For Smoking [Reitman 2006]
Land of the Blind [Edwards 2006]
All the King’s Men [Zaillian 2006]

An introduction to Bill Hicks

2008-05-15T08:12:00.004+10:00

If you haven't heard of Bill Hicks then I suggest you go check him out. A friend introduced me to his work some time ago, and continuing with my YouTube indulgence, what follows is an excerpt from an appearance Hicks made on One Night Stand:

It's over 14 years since Bill Hicks died, yet his legacy still remains.

Hicks is also quoted towards the end of Zeitgeist. If you don't know what Zeitgeist is I suggest you read my previous posting/s on it.

The cream of the crop

2008-05-15T08:06:00.003+10:00

After struggling to verbalise why I am such an avid supporter of citizen journalism I thought I'd try a different method.

The following three YouTube posts all introduce the concept of citizen journalism and define it in there own way.

Citizen Journalism - What Is It?
Posted by Robin Good on August 23, 2006

I think this one was actually shown in one of our tutes, but I finally got to watch it properly this time around, instead of crowded around the one computer screen trying to see from half way across the tute room...

Behind the Citizen Journalism Revolution
Posted by digitaljournal on December 28, 2007

This one also features on Nat's blog.

New Media and Citizen Journalism
Posted by Whaschmackity (aka George Dorrence) on July 26, 2007

This one also features on Brendam's blog

COMMENT in response to Matthew Randall's Blog

2008-05-14T14:08:00.005+10:00

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Matthew Randall entitled YouTube Political Parody and Satire Videos, that was published to his blog on Friday, May 2, 2008:

I love YouTube. It becomes blatantly obvious if you look over my blog. I’m also a fan of political satire. So I enjoyed reading your post Matthew, thanks.

It was great to see someone go beyond the concepts that Bruns has presented us with this semester. Your discussion of the public sphere, for example, was well supported with relevant quotes from your references (although hyperlinking your references would have been helpful) and demonstrates critical engagement with the information rather than simple regurgitation of unit content. I believe your argument would have been more sophisticated if you had provided actual examples of political parody/satire videos from YouTube. They’re not hard to find! I find Unleashed: Sledge (aka abcaustralia) a great place to start, otherwise the trusty YouTube search function rarely fails to produce something worthwhile.

I must admit however that I was disappointed you did not even mention citizen journalism. Not only does citizen journalism receive considerable treatment on YouTube, but it plays a pivotal part in the contemporary political sphere [Bruns 2008]. Your vague referrals to produsage and produsers don’t quite cut it for me when considering that a hefty amount of the political satire on YouTube (and elsewhere on the internet) comes from citizen journalists. Fellow KCB201 bloggers Brendan, Nat, and Kate all use YouTube examples to support their arguments on citizen journalism and politics. I recommend clicking the hyperlinks and checking them out!

I’m so glad Bangeman’s [2006] concern that YouTube’s rapid success after its introduction in 2005 wouldn’t last has so far proved to be unfounded. Of course this is probably due to the fact YouTube is now corporately supported since Google bought it out in 2006 [Bylund 2006; Sandoval 2006], but I’m not complaining: as long as YouTube produsers are able to upload, view, and respond to posts without restrictive limitations then I am content. Even if these users are politicians, I believe they have just as much right to promote themselves and their campaigns through YouTube. I don’t think this is exploiting YouTube as a medium for the people – it is still the peoples’ choice as to what they watch.

REFERENCES

Bangeman, E. 2006. YouTube's Future (or lack thereof).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061003-7892.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Ten Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-10-slidecast-citizen-journalism?src=embed (accessed May 9, 2008).

Bylund, A. 2006. Google Buys YouTube. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061009-7942.html?rel (accessed May 12, 2008).

Sandoval, G. 2006. Is YouTube a flash in the pan?. http://business2-cnet.com.com/Is+YouTube+a+flash+in+the+pan/2100-1025_3-6089886.html (accessed May 12, 2008).

We are the gatekeepers

2008-05-13T20:36:00.007+10:00

Truth.

What is it? How do you define it? Does it even exist in the first place?

I believe truth is whatever you want it to be. It is what you make of it, as simple as what you yourself believe to be true. The real challenges lies in figuring out what we believe in. This is what I see as the outstanding benefit of citizen journalism.

Citizen journalism is not a new phenomenon. Predating even the photocopier and the printing press, it has risen in profile over the last decade thanks to new and emerging technologies, and more specifically; the internet [Bruns 2008]. Citizen journalists finally have a medium where there is an open inflow and outflow of information in which they can freely engage as produsers. The impartiality, neutrality, and non-discriminatory nature of the internet has also reinstated the democracy of media and encouraged us to shake free of traditional closed news processes [Jenkins 2008; Bruns 2008].

Citizen journalists are defined as average, ordinary people, without professional journalistic training, who are using new media technologies as tools to create and distribute material and content that is often alternative to main stream media representations [Glaser 2006; Bruns 2008]. The need for space to host and promote the prodused material of citizen journalists has pushed the global development of independent media centres and popularity of sites like Slashdot, PlasticsNews, Current_TV, OhmyNews, and even YouTube [Bruns 2008]. Much to the despair of professional journalists and traditional news producers [see Farmer 2006], this is clear evidence that humanity is craving a greater level of diversity and independence than media gateways are providing.

Bruns [2005; 2008] calls citizen journalists “gatewatchers”; describing the behaviour of citizen journalists as monitoring the output “gateways” of news publications, media outlets, and other information sources (including government and NGOs). It is from this watching that Bruns [2005; 2008] suggests information is drawn with the intention of re-evaluating, reinterpreting and/or re-contextualising it to produce new media and content that is alternative or corrective to the mainstream. However I believe many people engaging in citizen journalism today are surpassing their roles as gatewatchers, instead becoming gatekeepers.

Citizen journalists, or more specifically investigative journalists, are actively seeking new information, information not made available through traditional media gateways. Pursuits like that of Peter Joseph (see Zeitgeist) or Jeremy Scahill (see the shadow of citizen journalism) are opening new gateways to information otherwise kept under lock and key. The internet facilitates the open publishing of this information, allowing it to be communally evaluated, responded to, and built on in a palimpsestic process [Bruns 2008].

The best part about all of this? Anyone can pursue their own zeitgeist, with the knowledge that they will have the means of legitimately reporting their findings as a citizen journalist in a context in which they can be heard [Katz 1997; Bowman and Willis 2003]. We are in an incredibly privileged position to take charge of our own lives, and discuss and reflect on what is happening around us. We have the means to search for new information, and open new gateways whenever necessary.

We have a right to our opinion, and we have the right to be informed. We also have the right to choose. The right to choose between what we are told is true, and what we actually believe to be true. We hold the keys to make this choice. We are the gatekeepers.

REFERENCES

Bowman, S. and C. Willis. 2003. We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. In American Press Institute: The Media Centre, ed. J. D. Lasica. http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/weblog.php (accessed May 13, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2005. Chapter Two: Gatewatching. In Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production, A. Bruns, 11-30. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 69-100. New York: Peter Lang.

Farmer, J. 2006. Citizen Journalism Sucks. In The Age. http://blogs.theage.com.au/media/archives/2006/10/citizen_journal.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. New York: Oxford.

Glaser, M. 2006. Digging Deeper: Your Guide to Citizen Journalism. In PBS: Media Shift, M. Glaser. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/09/digging_deeperyour_guide_to_ci.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Katz, J. 1997. Birth of a Digital Nation. In Wired, Iss. 5.04. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.04/netizen.html (accessed May 11, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2007. Videoblogging, Citizen Journalism, and Credibility. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/2007/03/videoblogging.html (accessed May 13, 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 13, 2008).

The future of Zeitgeist

2008-05-12T22:54:00.004+10:00

For anyone who knows of Zeitgeist or read my earlier post on it, this is for you!
The sequel is coming! Check out the preview below or access it from YouTube...

I say bring on October.

Otherwise if anyone is studying (or has studied) political communication at QUT you may also recognise the opening scene of the preview from Lyndon Johnson's 1964 Daisy TVC. Just another one of those quirky coincidences.

Love it.

The Shadow of Citizen Journalism

2008-05-12T21:59:00.007+10:00

I wanted to post the following youtube video from The Nation's Jeremy Scahill, an investigative journalist. Scahill wrote the book Blackwater, which is about the rise of private security contracting in Iraq and the wider implications of this, and is widely considered to be an expert on private military companies.

One of the things I found intriguing about this post is the extensive amount of both praise and criticism it has received on youtube (at the time of posting it had received 9782 comments after being live for over a year - true not huge by youtube standards, but still worth noting).

One recent comment states:
"Oh look more biased youtube videos. YAY FOR FAKE JOURNALISM! Just because he wrote a book means he must know something right? We'll see, but don't always believe what you read."
While another replies:
"Fake Journalism? Do you even know who this guy is? His book, "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" is VERY well cited. VERY WELL! Read it, and then comment on this author's work... The sources are excellent. He is very respected as an investigative journalist. And it isn't easy to find 100 sources, FYI. You don't just go looking on the internet, it would take a VERY long time to do."

For me this sort of thing encapsulates what citizen journalism is all about, and demonstrates exactly how online communities evaluate content and information (such as in this instance through commenting). I love that technologies like the internet have enabled us with the power to put our opinion out into the world, releasing it for others to pick up and toy with and do with what they will. The rise in citizen journalism gives me hope that the future of media will be a collective forum where everybody has the opportunity to openly evaluate and contribute, rather than a platform from which we are fed the majority views that often remain unchallenged.

I'm not arguing that we are passive recievers of media. I also understand that citizen journalism does have negative potential, such as a loss in quality (but then what is quality?!), particularly with the growing breadth of available information and content available to us. I know quantity does not always equal quality, but I am of the opinion that I would rather have access to a greater and more diverse range of information sources that I can evaluate myself, rather than have access to only a limited number of sources that have already been pre-evaluated for me. The second option might make life easier but it also makes it easier for your life to be controlled.

On the actual content of the clip, I'd heard of private contracting in the US for the war in Iraq but didn't realise that it is potentially this extensive. Ofcourse what I have heard has come from sources like Scahill, never the mass media. I loathe to think what sort of world we would live in should citizen journalists not exist! Hallelujah for alternatives! Hallelujah for choice! Hallelujah that not everybody takes things on face value or just because somebody says they are so!

INVITATION TO COMMENT PLEASE!

An argument for putting produsage in the dictionary

2008-05-11T08:40:00.004+10:00

After reading the first installment of Henry Jenkin’s interview with Axel Bruns I believe I have finally gotten my head around the concept of produsage. More importantly however I now understand why it is useful to have a term that encapsulates a wealth of concepts that essentially embody the same (or very similar) ideas. Let me try and share some of this understanding.

We are witnessing the dawning of a new age, where produsage is being born. Yet many of us remain obliviously ignorant. It amazes me that people still cling avidly to traditional business and communication models when there is such a dominant consensus that humanity is moving beyond the previously separate forms of producer, distributor, and user/receiver/consumer [Flew 2005; Bruns 2007]. The emergence and adoption of technologies like open source software (see also OSI) and Web 2.0 are enabling each of us to realise our potential as involved, interactive, and intelligent participatory beings [Jenkins 2002; Bruns 2008]. Slowly, we are becoming consciously aware of our new reality.

In short, for those of you who don’t know (or have never heard of) what produsage is, it is an umbrella term coined by Axel Bruns that describes the overarching new trend of user-led content creation/production. Common examples of produsage include wikis (particularly Wikipedia), open source software (like FireFox and Linux), citizen journalism, and online gaming communities (see Second Life and/or The Sims and/or W.O.W). Produsage.org defines produsage as the act of produsers (a hybrid of the words production and user), and has identified four key principles that are prevalent in all produsage environments:

open participation and communal evaluation
fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy
unfinished artifacts and continuing processes
common property and individual rewards

For greater depth and exploration of these principles please see Produsage.org or Bruns’s companion book Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.

Jenkins [2008] has described the term produsage as “somewhat awkward” while others (myself previously included) have wondered whether it is just another industry related buzz word that will fizzle into nothing. Either way this lack in eloquence does not diminish the need for an alternative way to express the resurgence of commons-based approaches to production and use that is occurring [Bruns 2007; Produsage.org]. Perhaps it is this awkwardness, or because we are slow in adapting to change, that produsage (the word) has not (yet) taken off. This semester I have been increasingly convinced that “produsage” and “produser” have in fact earned their place our dictionaries, and our vocabularies.

Oxymoronically the shift in the information age towards digitisation, convergence, and participatory culture (reflected most significantly in the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) has been gradual [Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2008]. Lacking a revolutionary upheaval, we have tried to fit these changes and new developments into our pre-existing conceptual frameworks [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005; Bruns 2008]. Unfortunately this practice is largely counterproductive, particularly in an era where innovation is a necessary part of the evolutionary process [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005]. Bruns [2008] insists that “if we continue to use the old models, the old language to describe the new, we lose a level of definition and clarity which can ultimately lead us to misunderstand our new reality”.

Although many of us may not even realise we are taking part in produsage, we all (well, those of us comfortably sitting on this side of the digital divide anyway) have the potential to do so. It is our willingness to share content and intellectual property that makes this “iterative, ongoing, evolutionary process” of produsage work [Bruns 2008]. Our ability to remix, repurpose, and recontextualise available information, as well as contribute our own, is the real power behind the palimpsest of knowledge that is the World Wide Web [Bruns 2008].

Bruns [2008] imparts that “it doesn’t matter so much what we call it in the end, but a term like ‘produsage’ provides a blank slate which we can collectively inscribe with new meanings, new shared understandings of the environments we now find ourselves in”. If understanding our world and the environment in which we operate is generally considered a crucial component in securing a future that we can be optimistic about then I say let’s take the term produsage and run with it. What better time to expand our understanding than now?

Other Bloggers with insightful posts on this topic:

Please also see my COMMENT in response to Megallagher's blog

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2007. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 25, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. Chapter One: Introduction. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 1-7. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Eight Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-8-slidecast-produsage?src=embed (accessed April 25, 2008).

Dwyer, J. 2005. Communication Foundations. In Communication in Business: Strategies and Skills, 3^rd ed., J. Dwyer, 3-97. Sydney: Pearson.

Flew, T. 2005. Creative Industries. In New Media: An Introduction, 2^nd ed., T. Flew, 115-138. Melbourne: Oxford.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The New Media Book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Produsage.org. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Venturelli, S. 2005. Culture and the Creative Economy in the Information Age. In Creative Industries, ed. J. Hartley, 391-398. Oxford: Blackwell.

COMMENT in response to Megallagher's Blog

2008-05-09T20:34:00.008+10:00

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Megallagher entitled Produsage, Generation 'C', and the PR powers that be, that was published to her blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Meg, I admit I was initially drawn to your blog because you are studying the same degree as me and we are both majoring in public relations! I also have a passion for drama, play netball, and love travelling! It’s always nice to find a kindred spirit online.

After reading your post on Produsage, Generation ‘C’ and the PR powers that be I have to say that your concise statement of the difference between produsers and producers is the best explanation I have read to date. It will be taken out of context by reiterating it here but I can’t help it:

“Simply put, producers have a finished product with a tangible name on it, produsers have a developing product which is transient.”

Axel Bruns could not have said it better himself. From this moment of brilliance I am loathe to disparage anything! However I have some minor criticism to make that I will leave for you to decide whether or not to you will take them on board.

Firstly your post would benefit enormously if you hyperlink relevant text. This is a very simple measure, and makes it easier for readers wanting to access the same information as you, or pursue a better understanding of a particular term or concept with the effortless click of a button [Problogger.net]. Here for example you could have linked Bruns to his site Produsage.org, and the pages relating to the key principles of produsage, and produsage as a working definition. The same could have been done for Trendwatching.com.

Secondly I would have loved to have heard your own opinion on produsage a little more. Your post is an excellent summary of produsage from the perspective of Axel Bruns, but does not fully engage with the content. Perhaps with wider reading you could have developed your own argument, as well as integrating your PR focus throughout the post, instead of tacking it on to your conclusion. I suggest any of the work by Yochai Benkler (specifically The Wealth of Networks), Michel Bauwens (see the P2P Foundation), and Henry Jenkins (who were all mentioned in the Week 8 podcast) as well as Charles Leadbeater (particularly Living on Thin Air), Simon Cottle’s News, Public Relations and Power, and the rest of Terry Flew’s book New Media.

Finally, if you are interested in how the changing media landscape is affecting the PR industry I suggest you spend some time exploring PRinfluences.com and/or odwyerpr.com. I have also found the following useful:

Search Engine Lowdown: the search industry queries new media

Top Rank Online Marketing: Online Marketing Blog

Clikz: Creative New Media PR 101

These sources may help you find more relevant and PR specific examples for your blog, as well as expand your knowledge base to give your argument greater complexity.

How Do Communities Evaluate Quality?

2008-05-08T12:57:00.003+10:00

Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.

As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."

By Ella, Nat and Emma.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.

Zeitgeist

2008-05-08T12:15:00.008+10:00

In tutorials many of us have been watching videos that epitomise different unit concepts. This week a friend introduced me to a documentary called "Zeitgeist". This was a little coincidental as the word zeitgeist cropped up briefly in one of our Bruns (2008) readings as well as in the week 6 lecture. Along with equipotentiality I have another new word to add to my vocabulary! By definition the word zeitgeist stretches back to the German Romantics period and comes from the latin zeit, which means time, and geist, which means spirit (see Wikipedia). The literal translation can be taken to mean spirit of time but in a practical sense a zeitgeist is the prevailing moral, intellectual, and cultural climate of a given era (see Dictionary.com).

So not only did this film absolutely blow my mind, but it ties in with the notion of citizen journalism. Not that Peter Joseph, the creator of the film Zeitgeist, is a journalist in the traditional sense - in fact this is his first ever documentary film - but he is an actively concerned citizen putting his bit forward in contribution to this great global community. The film has received critical acclaim from independent critics and the online community since its online release in late June 2007, so much so that a sequel is being developed and due for release in October 2008 (for a preview of the sequel see here ). The information might not be anything new to conspiracy theory junkies but it comprehensively presents the audience with information that you are never going to find in the mass media. Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist provides an independent and well documented report on of the distribution of power in society and the dissemination of truth.

Zeitgeist was created entirely not-for-profit, as an inspiration to people to look at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that things are not always as they same. Sure we might all laugh at the simplicity of don't believe everything you see/hear on television, but the reality of the matter is that many people do - even when they are adamant that everything they see/hear is taken with a grain of salt. Maybe we do this because it is easier or simpler to take what we are given as face value (I doubt I would be the first to admit that analysis and evaluation of all information I take on board in any given day requires enormous effort). Most of us also have a tendency to disbelieve things that contradict or challenge our current understanding or beliefs. Even on a good day I sometimes struggle to dig that little bit deeper and stretch my understanding, especially if the benefits of doing so are not explicitly apparent.

With that said do be careful and scrupulous when watching Zeitgeist because the information documented is subjective and the opinions presented are very definitive. However Joseph himself stated that "it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized" (see here). So before you write it off as a load of rubbish check out the extensive lengths that Joseph went to in research for the film, and remember sometimes it's good to challenge yourself. It's alot to take in in less than 2 hours but worth sitting through!

Basically so you have some idea about what you are getting yourself into Zeitgeist is segmented into 3 parts:

The Greatest Story Ever Told - on religion and "the Jesus myth"
All The World's A Stage - on 911 and what "really" happened
Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain - the conspiracy behind central banking

If you want more of a briefing on it before watching I suggest you have a read of what Wikipedia and/or the IMDb says about it, but both entries are quite short. You could also try the interviews with Peter Joseph on YouTube and/or the following WordPress blog posts: Peter Joseph's Movie Zeitgeist and Another Post On Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist.

To watch the actual movie please see:

On Google
OR
Zeitgeist The Movie - The Official Site

You can also read an interactive transcript of the first third of the film (with a promise that the following two thirds are being developed).

A whole new world awaits...

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang, 37-100.

COMMENT in response to Brendam's Blog

2008-05-07T14:42:00.007+10:00

The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Brendan Yates entitled Online communities, and the offline hype, that he published to his blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:

Brendan, while I found your post online communities and the offline hype reasonably well-informed and engaging to read, you made some remarks that I was compelled to comment on.

You question the validity of virtual links and whether these relationships are actual relationships. I believe that virtual links are valid and that the relationships established in online communities are no less “real” than those occurring offline. While there may be a greater capacity for deception online [Sclove 1995; Bruns 2008], this should not detract from the significance and value of relationships built online, especially those built from mutual respect and honesty. While Flew [2005] is a very credible source, your post would have benefited from a wider reading into what elements are conducive to forming a prosperous community. I would suggest Peck’s The Different Drum [1987] and Rheingold’s The Virtual Community [2000]. You may also find my post shaking the stigma stuck to life online relevant.

I also seriously disagree with your statement that “by using the internet to expose ourselves social, we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves, and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships”. I am not contesting the inability of online relationships to embody a physical connection, or suggesting online communities should usurp offline relationships. However using the internet as a communication tool and medium for social interaction does not mutually exclude what you call “real-world” relationships (for a well reasoned discussion on this see Wellman and Gulia’s article Virtual Communities as Communities).

What is wrong with a person who finds the most enjoyment in life from playing xbox live or second life (see my post why we fear the influences of electronic games), or uploading videos onto YouTube (see my post a revelation of the “real” value in YouTube), or simply hanging out in internet chat rooms? How are these activities any different from (or lesser than) the activities we participate in offline? In online environments there is a much greater scope to explore who we are as people, and find our niche in the pursuit of acceptance and self-satisfaction [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. While online communities might not be a “cure” for our social inadequacies they are certainly not “corrupting to people’s lives”. Perhaps read Smith and Kollock’s Communities in Cyberspace [1999], or reread Flew [2005] if you are still wondering on this matter.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-6-slidecast-online-communities?src=embed (accessed April 10, 2008).

Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. April 10, 2008.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2^nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Sclove, R. 1995. Technology and Democracy. New York: Guilford.

Smith, M. A. and P. Kollock. eds. 1999. Communities in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194. New York: Routledge.

PLEASE NOTE

Due to technical difficulties this comment was unable to be posted directly to Brendam’s Blog and the post online communities and the offline hype. As an alternative I emailed this comment to Brendan for his reference.

The power to change

2008-05-05T19:38:00.006+10:00

After listening over the KCB201 Week 6 podcast again in preparation for blogging and our Virtual Cultures assessment, I picked up on the significance of Axel's conclusion to his speil on online communities. It goes something like this:

The true power of community is that if there are enough people that come together who agree on certain things, and agree that certain changes need to be made, then they have the power to change our environment.

I simply wanted to post something about it because something about that statement really hit home with me.

Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but the way I see it is this:

If we can crawl out of the dark pessimistic holes that so many of us are hiding in, and actually do something about the things in this world that need to change, then together we can build a brighter future!

I'm going to continue my love affair with YouTube by posting a video from crossmack who shares my enthusiam about this topic.

Unfortunately he is suffering from from the same dilemma as me - where do I go from here? If you need some inspiration, this is a good place to start.

Viva La Revolution!

Shaking the stigma stuck to life online

2008-05-03T16:53:00.015+10:00

I’d like to kick this off with a somewhat dated quote from Morgan Scott Peck:

We know the rules of community; we know the healing effect of community in terms of individual lives. If we could somehow find a way across the bridge of our knowledge, would not these same rules have a healing effect upon our world? We human beings have often been referred to as social animals. But we are not yet community creatures. We are impelled to relate with each other for our survival. But we do not yet relate with the inclusivity, realism, self-awareness, vulnerability, commitment, openness, freedom, equality, and love of genuine community. It is clearly no longer enough to be simply social animals, babbling together at cocktail parties and brawling with each other in business and over boundaries. It is our task – our essential, central, crucial task – to transform ourselves from mere social creatures into community creatures. It is the only way that human evolution will be able to proceed.

[Peck 1987, 165]

Twenty years on, have we made any progress? It perplexes me that despite the widely acclaimed benefits and value of the internet as a way to connect, network, and communicate with people, there remains a stigma attached to online communities. These communities are stuck in a quagmire of pessimism and stereotypes, with their members unable to be liberated. The irony in this is that life online is one of the most liberating and democratic environments that we have the opportunity to exist and participate in [Rheingold 2000; Flew 2005; Pesce 2007].

With the exception of the issues arising from the global digital divide (which I will not deal with here) the internet is fundamentally neutral, impartial, and non-discriminatory [Reid 1999; Hartley 2005; Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. In an online environment you can communicate across boundaries irrespective of nationality, culture, gender, income, and any other demographically defining feature that would otherwise restrict you in the 'real' world [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008]. Logically these conditions should be conducive to moving humanity forward [Schuler 1996; Kollock and Smith 1999; Rheingold 2000], reflecting what Peck [1987] describes as a genuine, or true, community. Yet spending too much time on the internet (regardless of what you might be doing online) is still commonly perceived as unproductive and unhealthy [Wellman and Gulia 1999]. It is unfortunate that investing time and attention in these online communities is exactly what makes the majority of them prosper.

Rheingold defines online communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships” [2000, 5]. I see this as only the first brick in a much bigger building. Like offline communities they emerge from the coming together of people who share similar interests/values/goals etc. [Flew 2005; Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. However, online communities differ in that they come from a context that transcends physical limitations and circumvents traditional social hierarchies [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. Online communities are defined by their users, where expression is through participation and your value is defined by the contributions you make [Hartley 2005; Bruns 2008]. Over time these communities are shaped by their members; expanding, contracting, and evolving accordingly, increasing in complexity and adapting to change in ways that are not foreseeably possible by offline communities.

There are two broad identifiable arguments tarnishing the reputation of online communities. The first stems from the fear that we will see a rise in hate groups and negative communities [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. I understand that the internet provides a medium for the development of socially destructive communities, such as pro-ana groups, homophobic groups, racist groups – the list goes on – but like it or not, these communities existed offline long before they went live on the internet. While it is true that existence online may have accelerated the contact and communication between these negative communities [Bruns 2008], why should these bad apples ruin the reputation of all the 'healthy' online communities? The second entails the concern that the increase in online communities, and the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, is leading to a wider social disconnect, that threatens societal stability [Bruns 2008]. While I think this argument has some merit, particularly in that no online activity can ever replace our physical senses, it seems to echo the voices of those who are resistant to change. There is always a risk with change. Fear of this risk should only hold us back when the risk outweighs the possible benefits. I think these fears are unfounded and are holding back the real potential of online communities.

I believe that there has been too much focus on how people are connected, and we have lost touch with why people are connected. If the main difference between online and offline communities is the forum in which they choose to communicate [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008], does it really matter what this forum is as long as the purpose of communication is being achieved? If interactive communication is pivotal to social growth and communal enrichment [Peck 1987; Reid 1999; Kollock and Smith 1999], it stands to reason that as long as we are connected, and communicating in a positive and effective manner, how we are connected is irrelevant.

We may be a long way from attaining Peck’s [1987] "genuine community" status, but on the path to this nirvana shouldn’t we nurture what is good about the communities we do have? Online communities in virtual space deserve our respect and acceptance just as much as offline communities in the 'real' world. I remain hopeful that those of us immersed in life online will (eventually) be able to shake off the negativity that shrouds virtual communities and paints them as lesser than real. Only then will they be able compliment and coexist peacefully with the offline world.

Please note:

Online communities are also called virtual communities. These terms are commonly used interchangeably and construe the same meaning.

See also the following posts:

Why we fear the influence of electronic games (parts one and two) – for an extended case-study on gaming, media effects, and our fear of technology.

A revelation of the “real” value in YouTube – for further understanding of the value and importance of online communities, specifically the YouTube community.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-6-slidecast-online-communities?src=embed (accessed April 10, 2008).

Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. April 10, 2008.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Hartley, J. 2005. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3^rd ed. New York: Routledge.

Kollock, P. and M. A. Smith. 1999. Introduction: Communities in Cyberspace. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 3-26. New York: Routledge.

Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2^nd ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Pesce, M. 2007. The Human Network: Mob Rules. http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=27 (accessed March 3, 2008).

Reid, E. 1999. Hierarchy and Power: Social Control in Cyberspace. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 107-133. New York: Routledge.

Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Schuler, D. 1996. New Community Networks: Wired For Change. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194. New York: Routledge.

"equipotentiality"

2008-05-01T12:28:00.004+10:00

Anybody else wondering what equipotentiality is? Axel Bruns refers to it in this weeks reading as well as on produsage.org. I was curious so I googled it...
ALAS! Wikipedia was not very helpful on the matter this time round, and google didn't turn up much. I went a little further and searched for Michel Bauwens (who Axel attributes the concept to) who advocates, explores, and documents peer-to-peer practices.
I'm still not very clear about what EQUIPOTENTIALITY means, but as far as I can gather in the context Axel uses it, it is best understood as the opposite of credentiality. It relates back to peer-to-peer production, open source software, and produsage in that equipotentiality is the "process of allowing for self-selection of participants, followed by communcal validation, followed by open access... a priori decision to open participation to anyone that has the potential to have the right skills, rather than to anyone with credetials" (see here).

For further interest here are some fellow bloggers who have showed an interest in this concept and related theories:

Richard Poynder
Sam Rose
Intergral Visioning

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

How is open source different from commercial production?

2008-05-01T11:33:00.002+10:00

In open source the source code is freely and openly available for everyone to view, edit and use, within a limited-rights licence. For example: FireFox and Linux. In the closed source, commercial model, source code remains confidential and must be bought by the end user. For example, the average user cannot access the source code for Windows Internet Explorer; only the in-house software developers are allowed access. The business model for open source software is to provide services to the commmunity, where as closed source's aim is to sell a finished product. The success of open source hinges on the active contribution and interest of users. In contrast, the motivations for the success of closed source production is the fiscal benefit to the commercial production team.

Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:

1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.

2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.

3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.

By Emma, Ella and Nat.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

Can you build a creative hub?

2008-04-30T14:18:00.002+10:00

On a tangent for a moment – an interesting debate that came out of a tute class last year was to do with the KG UV (aka Kelvin Grove Urban Village), and again the other day with a town planning student now working with a company on the UV: One of the key concepts behind the design of the UV was to build and then foster a ‘creative hub’ that would bring together intellect, imagination, innovation, inspiration (how many other I words can come up with here?) etc. in a creative environment. For what purpose? Because creativity fosters creativity of course! And creativity is good for all right? So I agree with this well enough, but my question is – can you actually build and foster something like this? Isn’t attempting to artificially construct this sort of environment ignoring the essence of these creative hubs? Nobody would have guessed 10-20 years ago that West End or Fortitude Valley (previously what some would call dreg areas of Brisbane) would turn into these insanely expensive, highly sort after, culturally intense, and now almost pretentious areas! I see creative hubs as something that just sort of happens naturally (almost like creativity itself), and if you try and force these environments to grow then it simply ends up destroying (or at least disbanding) them. I honestly don’t think that just because you put chic restaurants with modern architecture and some funky sculptures that creativity will automatically be born. The collective support networks built by struggling artists and expanded as they grew from one another that these original creative hubs spawned from cannot be made. Alright enough, I’m not bringing anything new to my argument. And sure maybe this little blog is just a vent against what the KG UV likes to call “student accommodation” consisting of ridiculously priced absolutely tiny rental rooms that the vast majority of students wouldn’t even come close to being able to afford… but have a think about whether planning this creative hub is actually going to be conducive to bringing in and nurturing a creative spirit. Invitation to comment PLEASE!

A revelation of the "real" value in YouTube

2008-04-30T13:21:00.005+10:00

After being impressed by the profound videos we are often shown in tutorials (to which Charlie the Unicorn is absolutely no acception) I turned to YouTube in search of something that would encapsulate the importance of online communities and highlight the value of these communities as part of the "real" world. After a rather lengthy amount of searching and many frustrated combinations of keywords later, my quest for a flashy video, smoothly cut, with catchy music and stunning graphics came to a rather abrupt end. I suddenly realised that on YouTube, these videos are far and few between. In this came my revelation.

Avid and popular YouTube user Paul Robinett (also known as Renetto) suggests that “people are innately born with a desire to communicate and to have a fellowship and community with each other”. Robinett’s Who Are You video (see below) expresses that the value of YouTube, and essentially the internet, resides in the community of users. Since the posting in August 2006 it has received 181,107 hits (correct at time of blogging) and a wealth of comments praising Robinett for identifying the value of community and challenging the stereotype of YouTube users as timewasters who have nothing better to do than film goofy videos for the sake of their own amusement. True not all the comments entailed praise, but at least some users were appreciative in their own right.

A refreshing and honest response to Robinett’s post came from YouTube user 1938Superman. The following video, re: who are you? (our online community), is 1938Superman’s personal reflection on online communities.

The opinion presented in 1938Superman’s video, while subjective, can be applied beyond YouTube users, to all users of the internet. It is a raw and insightful comment on the value of online communication, and the virtual communities that grow from this.

YouTube isn't about the technically elite sharing their latest works, but it is about interaction, communication, and a democratic inclusiveness. The same goes for the internet, and the many online communities exisiting within its endless boundaries. The real value here is that online environments are essentially nuetral and non-discriminatory, allowing for true self expression to immerge. Sure you might get torn to pieces once you put yourself out there, but another virtual identity is only a click away.

Finding who you are online is a much less evasive and frightening journey. Maybe once we have this more defined sense of self those of us previously socially incapacitated may find the courage to become active in the "real" world. And if they/you don't what is actually wrong with living life online? It's your life, your choice, and your community.

Success, the music industry, and a little bit of optimism.

2008-04-27T12:46:00.002+10:00

What determines success? I think that the answer to this question is above and beyond an individual thing. My immediate thoughts usually come back to something along the lines of wealth/money/fortune, fame/popularity, but ultimately happiness and contentment. So where am I going with this? Given the fragmentation of cultures, the rise of hyperlocal socialization and industry, and the fall (or at least decline in market share) of many big businesses, is this changing the way we view success.

Consider the music industry for example. The popular music industry is dominated by four multinational corporations: Sony BMG; Universal; AOL Time Warner; and EMI. But over the last decade there has been a considerable rise in independent labels, sole traders and small media buyers who compete directly with the smaller companies and labels that make up the "big-four" record groups. I suppose it is still generally assumed that to crack the "big time" in the popular music industry you still have to be signed to one of these major labels, but to be a successful musician? Maybe not so. These days you can make something out of almost anything with dedication, persistence, resilience, and an entrepreneurial spirit (Graham 2007). It is this entrepreneurial spirit that can give emerging artists an edge to make the difference in the highly competitive and volatile popular music industry (Graham 2007; Martin 2006). It is this entrepreneurial spirit that is challenging big businesses and threatening their market share. Emerging artists have so many more avenues and technologies available to them, and as they are no longer encumbered by large and costly technologies, even someone in a remote area who has never seen city lights can be making and producing their own work. These reduced costs and space have resulted in more musicians (and other artists across other areas) being able to record, produce, and distribute through their own means. However, this has of course consequentially heated up the competition and broadened consumer choice. In a way it is a paradox, because while so many more people are able to create and promote their own work in their own way this allows consumers to be much, much more discriminatory and selective in their choices.

It’s generally accepted that the biggest changes in the music industry have come from digital mp3 formatting technology and file-sharing. These technologies have revolutionized music production, distribution, and audiences. Aside from presenting (huge) challenges associated with copyright and intellectual property, digital formats have not only contributed to the growth of highly interactive music-orientated PayTV stations (such as Channel [V] and MTV Australia) but have, or should I say are, ultimately stretching the boundaries of endless “possibilities and complexities of ever-changing, collaborative creation” (Martin 2006, 323-324). Unfortunately even though these new opportunities for creation, innovation, and inspiration should be celebrated, there is still only a weak link between what can be considered as talent and the recognition and success of this (Martin 2006, 327). In Australia, state governments have begun to nurture the popular music infrastructure, particularly through recognizing ‘contemporary popular music clusters’, like the one found in the Queensland suburb of Fortitude Valley (Homan 2006, 252). Ah, ‘creative clusters’ – another buzz word of the moment! These clusters serve as a breeding ground for emerging music artists and give them an opportunity to immerse themselves in the music industry with recording studios, live music venues, and other music businesses concentrated in the one area (Homan 249-252). It is through this avenue that emerging music artists may get their foot in the door of the music industry. The increase in talent quests such as Triple J Unearthed, and reality TV programs like Australian Idol also gives emerging artists a launching pad for their music careers, but once launched you are at the mercy of the populace.

Continuing on from the revolution of digital formatting is the change in audience building and the use of technologies associated with Web 2.0. New media platforms and internet sites that support file sharing and/or encoding devices, such as MySpace, Esnips, AMIE Street, and YouTube have given emerging artists the opportunity to self promote their own music and begin to accumulate a fan base without ever signing a record deal (Graham 2007). This works well with the reverse value structure of the mass mediated industry, where things, such as music, retain more value with each use, as well as enabling artists to distribute their music on a global scale and to an endlessly diverse audience (Graham 2007; Martin 2006, 321-324; Sternberg 2006, 335). Most musicians are able to overlook the fact that they are at the mercy of various encoding devices, and face a reduction in sound quality, in light of the opportunities the internet and digital revolution brings. I think that the music industry’s concerns over viability due to the threat of digitization are not unwarranted, but they should be looked on more favourably considering the advantages, particularly for emerging artists, that these technologies bring. Supporting the local infrastructure of the popular music industry, encouraging entrepreneurial activities and spirit, and embracing and utilizing new technologies is the best way to foster the growth of emerging popular music artists and for them to elevate their own success. This of course extends beyond the music industry and goes for all new technologies and all industries across the board. Pessimism is not a healthy thing – Keynesian economics anyone? Sure we should be wary of how these new technologies are used, but to try and suppress their potential because we are scared of them is putting limits on the unknown! Maybe I’m too optimistic about humanity, but I would like to believe that the majority of people doing good out there outweighs those doing bad. Logically as long as this isn’t thrown off balance then there should be an exponential growth of good work being done, that will be able to trump anything bad that ever comes along.

REFERENCES

Graham, P. 2007, 2 September. Popular Music. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology. [Lecture: KCB104 Media and Communication Industries].

Homan, S. 2006. Popular music. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner, 238-258. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Martin, F. 2006. New media, new audiences. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner, 315-328. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Sternberg, J. 2006. Youth media. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner, 329-343. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Re: KCB201 Asmnt2 Criterion Matrix Query

2008-04-24T12:51:00.001+10:00

To all my fellow KCB201ers - during tutorials today we had some discussions about the criterion matrix for assignment two - specifically the "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" section. Below is my email correspondence with Axel:

"Hi Axel,

During my tutorial today there has been considerable debate about interpreting section four of the criterion matrix for assignment two.

It seems to be the understanding of myself and my peers that "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" related to your comments on other blogs and does not apply to your actual blog entries. Our tutor Thomas has interpreted this section of the criteria as relating to your comments as well as how you link out to other resources in your blog and comment on these resources in the text of your blog.

Could you please clarify this?

Thanks, it’s appreciated by me and my peers!

Ella"

And very prompt response:

"G'day Ella !

Thanks for getting in touch about this. Please also have a look at the way the required standard for this criterion is described for each grade, which might help explain it further:

* at the very basic level, we expect you to engage with your peers via comments on their blogs (and responses to their comments on yours, where appropriate) - what we're looking for here, and what will be seen as evidence of more sophisticated engagement, are constructive and insightful comments and intelligent and respectful discussion: in other words, a mere "I agree" or off-topic remarks won't rate as well as thoughtful responses which promote further discussion between you and with others

* at a more sophisticated level, you'll find that bloggers also often conduct discussion and debate not simply by commenting on one another's blogs, but by posting substantial responses on their own blog which pick up on topics explored by others (these could be your fellow students, or outside bloggers and others authors whose work you have found online) and add significant further original thought - we would see this as evidence of a higher level of social networking and interaction with peers

So, put simply: if you see interesting ideas on someone else's blog and add a comment there, then that's a start (and the more insightful and constructive the comment, the better you'll do as we mark you on this criterion).

If you see someone else's post or article, and this inspires you to publish an original blog post of your own in which you link to and engage in substantial dialogue with their ideas (perhaps even getting a real back-and-forth conversation going), then that's an even more sophisticated way of engaging in critical interaction with your peers.

I hope that helps ?"

And I hope this helps some of you! All the best with everyone’s assessments!

The Machine is Us/ing Us

2008-04-24T11:14:00.001+10:00

This post is really just a learning tool for me to see if I can upload a video (through embedding a link) and create links within a blog...

Hopefully it works!

The link I have embedded is for Michael Wesch's video Web 2.0... The Machine is Us/ing Us. If you haven't seen it then go check it out, it is insightful and thought provoking, even for the technically inept of us.

Wesch’s video “Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us” epitomises the rise of convergence culture and the DIY movement of content creation. It was picked up immediately from its YouTube broadcast and quickly spread across the global network that is the internet, going on to win the best video category at the 2007 Wired Rave Awards. Wesch seems to have been driven (in true DIY fashion) to create the clip in the hope that it would spark reflection on the power of technology, and the responsibility we have as users of these technologies to grasp this potential and use it for the benefit of humanity (even if this is only on a very personalized, or hyperlocal level).

Wesch makes some profound comments on the way we communicate in our complexly interconnected world/s and the possibilities of digital technologies, with emphasis on Web 2.0. John Battelle (whose Searchblog focuses on “thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more”) posted a short interview he conducted with Wesch on his blog (see http://battellemedia.com/archives/003386.php) which gives a greater insight into Wesch’s video and the man himself. Battelle’s blog post also signifies the way collaborative web-based technologies have created the potential for scholarly discussion in the mode of conversation. The web speeds up the response process that is otherwise disengaged and detached in traditional forms of academic argument.

I found many of the comments attached to the original post almost as astute as the original interview. Both Wesch’s video and Battelle’s post are highly insightful and engaging resources when considering the influences new technologies, convergence, and changes in the way we are communicating (eg: through networks), are having on all aspects of our lives.

Why we fear the influences of electronic games PART TWO

2008-04-21T11:38:00.002+10:00

OK - so if you didn't read PART ONE of this post you might want to do that before you read this bit. PART ONE dealt with the issue of violence in electronic games, and continuing on with that I'm going to try and address the other main part of my mothers argument that electronic games make people not only violent but also ANTI-SOCIAL. Alright, here goes...

The term antisocial, while often being expressed as anti, or against, social, or society, in relation to electronic games, has come to refer, in this instance (or atleast from my mothers perspective), to the potentially addictive quality of electronic games and the lack of socialisation associated with such addictions. I’ve got to say that on this part of the argument I’m probably more with my mum – while I don’t think violence is caused by too much gaming, people alienating themselves from traditional social activities so they can be gaming instead certainly does in my limited experience. BUT on that note, perhaps I’m just offended that my brothers would rather spend time gaming then hanging out with me. I guess it’s not so much that gaming makes you anti-social, but it changes your social patterns and behaviours. Just like any hobby that someone else doesn’t understand, its about what YOU do for enjoyment, not the person sitting beside you…

I suppose what it comes down to is that the comment that electronic games make people antisocial is to an extent over publicised and exaggerated and suffers severely from stereotypes such as “nerds” and “key-board junkies”. Nevertheless, this anecdotal evidence should not be discounted. These personal experiences give us an opportunity to gain depth in our knowledge of the impact of electronic games on individuals, past that which can be found in the constructed artifices of a laboratory experiment.

The surfacing and acknowledgement of gaming cultures have fuelled the notion of electronic games being a bad-habit. But one must ask, what distinguishes a good habit from a bad one? In essence, gaming is little different from other hobbies that we indulge in because, to the individual, it is a rewarding experience (sorry I realise I’m sort of repeating what I said just before). Here is a good quote from Marshall (2004, 70):

Calling this process of involvement and mastery addiction is medicalising what many of us do in all sorts of pursuits from gaining competence in playing sport to understanding a subject or language. Although (this) compulsive behaviour may be irritating to those around who are not playing and there may be a sense of wasted time, (players are) simply motivated by a desire to master the particular game in all its intricacies.

This is particularly true for real-time strategy games like Age of Empires and Command and Conquer, where you have the opportunity to play God, as well as role playing games and first person shooters such as classic Dungeons and Dragons or Halo III: Combat Evolved, where characters become a projection or an extension of yourself (Quittner, 1999).

Another element of electronic games as a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour is illuminated by Robert Kerbs (2005) who divulges that while gaming cultures can be thought of as pro social through their level of interactivity, the environment and atmosphere in which these cultures are cultivated may not be so healthy. Since its mass introduction in 1994, the world-wide-web has gathered over 380 million users (ok note that this is 2005, I’m sure its grown massively beyond 380mil…) and acts as a key to intricate expanding virtual realities and cyber-worlds. If you have ever played or even heard of Second Life you will see what I mean. I guess what Kerbs (2005) was trying to say is that this portal to a new virtual presence is not without dangers. It would be detrimental to forget that social interaction and communication has a physical element that does not and can not exist in an online network. Sure I have a facebook and a myspace and I chat on msn and am writing this blog with some small hope that it might get read but I tell you what, I’d take a face-to-face conversation with a friend any day over my online ‘social’ activities. Jenkins (2006) makes the point that while gaming cultures can extend past the world of the internet, to clubs and social gaming with friends and family, physical communication and the element of touch is lost on these online cultures (Jenkins, 2006). And if you’re still not persuaded (sorry if this is about to be totally inappropriate) think about whether you would rather cyber-sex or real sex… Unless you’re being a smartarse I would say the majority of people would opt for real sex.

With that said demand and demographics that previously defined games and gamers are changing, perhaps due to the release of games like Nintendogs (by Nintendo in 2005), The Sims (by Maxis first in 2000) and Everquest (by Sony Online Entertainment first in 1999). As more and more games emerge that are typified by their element of social interaction and those who play, electronic games can no longer be seen as an independent pastime for boys cooped up in computer rooms at school. Online and offline gaming cultures are a new segment in society, existing on local and global scales, where gamers from every context can engage and exchange with others, enriching their own gaming experiences through networking, knowledge and understanding (Kerbs 2005).

Forgive me for this next comment but I’m trying hard to see both sides of the argument here – it seems to me that while elements of contemporary gaming can be described as social, there persists some pervasive elements in electronic gaming with the potential to manifest antisocial behaviour and self-isolation. In my eyes addiction, to anything, is not a healthy thing. Another citation from Marshall (2003, 72) who quotes Martti Lahti on the alluring concept of electronic games:

One of the characteristics of video games throughout their history has been an attempt, with the help of various technologies, to erase the boundary separating the player from the game world and to play up tactile involvement. Indeed, much of the development of video games has been driven by a desire for a corporal immersion with technology, a will to envelop the player in technology and the environment of the game space. That development has coincided with and been supported by developments in perspective and the optical point-of-view structures of games, which have increasingly emphasized the axis of depth, luring the player into invading the world behind the computer screen.

It is this very nature that Lahti is arguing that provides an environment where the merger of boundaries between the real and the corporeal is encouraged to take place. In 2003 the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article on a young gamer who was found dead at a cyber-café booth after playing Diablo II for five hours straight (Sydney Morning Herald, 13/1/2003). While the article was slightly removed from context, this case is still significant in representing the potential severity of allowing ourselves to overindulge in electronic games (or anything for that matter), despite how aesthetically pleasing or interactive we find them.

Lou Robson raises a similar alarm for Australians, stating that ‘hundreds of Queensland couples are calling it quits as a result of computer game addiction’ (The Sunday Mail, 22/1/2006). Everquest, a MMORPG (massive multi-player online role playing game for those of you who don’t know the acronym) has developed an obsessive following since release and can be viewed with a sense of irony. Everquest is often used as an example to support arguments for the pro-social developments of gaming, and yet the multiplicity of EverQuest widow’s detailing the disintegration of their relationships with gamers hooked on ‘EverCrack’ is an undeniable demonstration of antisocial behaviour as a direct result of electronic gaming. Kerbs (2005) re-establishes this allusion to gaming as a form of drug as ‘The (gaming) industry is the only industry… that refers to its customers as users – similar to illicit drug dealers who sell their wares to their own users’, with the most solemn part in this being that the average age for gamers is now close to 30 and we can no longer blame our age for this childish profligacy.

Although most of the evidence supporting the existence of a psychological condition of game addiction is anecdotal, the quantity of these documented experiences is considerable, so much so that detox clinics for game addicts have been opened in China and Europe. Allowing indulgence and letting the line between fantasy and reality to fuse during game time is acceptable as long as you are able to self-monitor and self-regulate (Van Horn, 1999). It is when we are unable to do this that we risk falling into antisocial practices and jeopardising our place in society and our relationships with those around us.

Electronic games have become ‘a normal and everyday experience for the more than two generations of 50 million Americans that are now in adulthood, whose memory and imagination have been coloured by Atari, Nintendo and Sega, the same way that the memory and imagination of previous generations were tinted by television, cinema and vinyl records’ (Marshall, 2004, 62). While much research is focused on the effects of electronic games on children, perhaps because they are naively seen as unwittingly more susceptible to overindulgence (Gauntlett, 1998), advances in electronic games and their availability have given rise to the development of gaming cultures and progressed to cater to much more diverse audiences. It must be admitted however that surrounding these cultures is an underlying community dis-ease (take that as a pun if you like) and the willingness to slip too far into these often violent fantasy worlds.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that it is obvious that the vast majority of people are able to recognise the difference between reality and the reality of a game. But I do think that we should be mindful of the minority who cannot. Maybe we wont be able to ever pin-point abnormal behaviour to a particular cause but even if one individual is unexplainably affected by an electronic game, whether it is a violent or antisocial or some other form of negative response, it should be identified and utilised as a precaution to others. Equally, if an individual is inexplicably affected by an electronic game in a positive way, this should then be publicised so others may reap similar benefits.

I think that it is unfortunate that violence and antisocial behaviour are an inescapable part of our modern world, but whether or not this behaviour is spawned from new technologies (in this case electronic games) and their related activities is doubtful. It is inevitable that this blemish on humanity has a permanent quality that can only be reduced by a unanimous effort to remain open to the fears that exist within society. A fear is still a fear, whether it has validity and substance or not, and can only be overcome by being confronted. So the jury remains out on the question: what do we have to fear from electronic games?

REFERENCES

Banks, J 2002, ‘Everybody knows that gaming makes people antisocial and violent’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture Gaming Cultures at Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, on 11 May.

Gamer Widow: Gaming’s other half, 2006, an online gaming community, http://www.gamerwidow.com/ (accessed 12 April 2008).

Gauntlett, D 1998, Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model, http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm (accessed 23 January 2008).

Jenkins, H 2006, Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked, PBS, Arlington Virginia, http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html (accessed 10 June 2006).

Kerbs, R 2005, ‘Social and ethical considerations in virtual worlds’, The Electronic Library, vol. 23, no. 5, 2005, pp 539-546.

Marshall, P D, 2004, New Media Cultures, Hodder, London.

National Institute on Media and the Family: Mediawise 2006, ‘Watch what your kids watch: computer game addiction’ http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_gameaddiction.shtml (accessed 12 April 2008).

Quittner, J 1999, ‘Are video games really so bad?’, Time, vol 153, no 18, pp 50-59.

Robson, L 2006, ‘Game over’, The Sunday Mail, January 22, p 27.

Sydney Morning Herald, The, 2003, ‘Computer addict found dead at screen’, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 13

Van Horn, R 1999, ‘Violence and video games’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol 81, no 2, pp 173-174.

Apologies again for any referencing errors!

Why we fear the influences of electronic games PART ONE

2008-04-21T10:37:00.001+10:00

OK so I know this blog is meant to be for KCB201 but I figured it’s MY blog and I can post stuff on here even if it deviates from the unit content. So this isn’t a personal rant, but after a lengthy ‘discussion’ (ok lets be honest – argument) with my mother I figured it was time to address the issue of gaming, and whether online gaming in particular is actually ‘bad’ for you…

My mother, an avid media effects supporter (at least to an extent) is constantly trying to restrict the amount of gaming my brothers do. I myself am not a gamer (probably from suffering at the hands of my brothers mercilessly slaughtering me every time I make an attempt to play) but have watched this debate rage for as long as my brothers could pick up a controller or figure out that spacebar = jump/shoot on any of the old school pc games. Particularly since the beginnings of xbox live and World of Warcraft I have watched my mother slowly lose ground in her argument that “too much gaming promotes anti-social and violent behaviour”, because while these new environments might not necessarily be traditional social circles, they are most definitely engaging, active, collaborative, and many other words that can be related to what I would call “social.”

But my mother is not alone. The effect of electronic games on individuals and society is a debate that is as intense as trying to complete Halo on ‘legendary’. In my opinion to state that electronic games make, or do not make, people violent and anti-social is a misleading generalisation that ignores the grey between the black and white. However, it is our prerogative to search for an answer to the ills of humanity, and experiencing cognitive dissonance as a consequence may be unavoidable.

Electronic games, a term utilised by David Marshall (2004) to encompass all forms of new media games from arcade games to computer games, have become an integral part of contemporary society and culture. Around the world people use electronic games for all sorts of purposes, from anything as simple as a leisure activity, to an ultimate escape from the daily trials of life. But what this increasing focus on games, gaming, game players and the culture that is developing around them, may mean for the future, is yet to be seen. Ok that was not meant to be as ominous as it sounds…

To accurately present the possible influences of electronic games on behaviour, it is necessary to deal with violence separately from antisocial behaviour. There is a ‘slowly growing body of evidence’ (Sanger et al. 1997, 63) reflecting concerns that violence and antisocial behaviour are the results of using electronic games. However, a distinction between the two must be clearly made in order to interpret how electronic games impact individuals and society, as the relationship between violence and antisocial behaviour is not one of simple cause and effect.

Part of the problem with identifying potential links between gamers’ behaviours and the games they play is that there is an inherent inconsistency with the way researchers have defined violence, and that media effects research has no specific parameters that enable it to be standardised (Scott, 1995). David Gauntlett (1998) impresses that this is because media effects research initially approaches the problem of societal violence backwards, ‘by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings’. In this case, arguing over if the chicken or the egg came first is unproductive as it is obvious that violence existed long before electronic games. Anybody ever study roman history? If you said no I suggest you go watch a film like Gladiator and you might start to get the idea. I doubt that I am alone in that suggestion that what we should be doing instead is going directly to the perpetrators and channelling the question of why violence is still continuing today through them.

For productive research, with relevant conclusions, to take place, exactly what constitutes violence needs to be clearly defined and understood. Assault, indirect hostility, irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion and verbal hostility are considered seven subscales of aggression (see Scott 1995). From this it is easier to understand why violence is difficult to quantify because everybody comprehends it differently. It follows then that media effects researchers need to construct a scale that measures the degree of violence in any given electronic game. This is supported by Tony Reichhardt (2003) who highlights the reliance of media effects researchers, like Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman, on basic correlations found between violence and electronic games. Reichhardt (2003) advises that standardising research efforts in this field will help identify potential causal relationships rather then just tenuous links. And I’ve got to say that after two years of discussing media effects at uni I am more then a little sceptical in regards to any “causal” relationships found in this sort of research. Unfortunately for media effects researchers I think they are desperately trying to hold on to a theory that would provide a neat solution to violent and anti-social behaviour in society, conveniently ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Columbine massacre anyone?

I should also note that of course not all games are violent. John Banks (2006) emphasises the diversity in game genres, comprising of sports based games, platform adventure games, simulations and puzzle games, role playing games, strategy games and fighting or action games (including first person shooters). Banks illustrates that despite the focus in the media on violent games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, not all games, not even all the popular ones, are violent. However, with the release of games that are becoming increasingly realistic in terms of graphics and context, such as Manhunt (by Rockstar in April 2004) and the fourth in the Hitman series, Blood Money (by Eidos Interactive in May 2006), gamers’ curious fascination and enjoyment of blood, guts, gore and fatalities is probably one of the key ‘reasons’ behind those concerned with media effects.

In discussing whether electronic games make people violent, my biggest point (particularly when arguing with my mother) is that it is not simply monkey see monkey do. We’re not simply passive receivers, but interactive living beings filtering, receiving, analysing, interpreting, and then regurgitating how we perceive the world and the information in it. Gauntlett (1998) says ‘the point here is not that the content of the mass media (should) not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by studies (in media effects) which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools’. And I should probably point out that neither of my brothers are fools. We have all been socially conditioned and, with the exception of the mentally unstable, we are capable of making choices that reflect our conscious. It is these choices that define who we are and what sort of behaviours we exhibit.

Something that really hit home for me was from Alan McKee (2006), one of my first ever lecturers, who proposed that media effects research is the progeny of moral panic, spawned from advancing technology and culture that threatens the golden age of past generations. I mentioned the Columbine massacre earlier – well it is events like the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, where the press broke a tape documenting Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold describing their planned shootings as reminiscent of the first person shoot game Doom, result in hastily drawn conclusions driven by the need to explain the occurrence of such tragedies. This subjectivity and emotional proclivity continues to hinder the findings of media effects researchers. To put it bluntly there is no substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that electronic games are a cause of violent behaviour. Reichhardt (2003) dryly notes that considering how many people have played the game Doom and its sequels, and with violence in the United States at a thirty-year low, the logical violence epidemic that would follow Doom directly making people violent does not exist.

So let us turn the argument on its head for a moment. Sanger (1997, 64) has suggested that ‘the violent and destructive elements in (electronic) games serve a cathartic purpose in allowing players to release stress and tension in a contained situation’. Perhaps they are a way to become liberated from the pressure in our lives… However these arguments tend to ignore the intensity level of games, and that they are everything but relaxing. Anybody watching a gamer in action can see the tension and excitement building from the time the start up credits are rolling. Not that I’m any different – trust me you don’t want to be around when I’m wielding a Nintendo Wii remote around!

Quittner (1999) describes electronic games as being ‘all about adrenaline, and the easiest way to trigger adrenaline is to make someone think they’re going to die’. Even in classic G rated games like Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario Brothers, the will to survive envelops gamers, mind and body, where any invasion of your focus means certain death and the undoing of all your hard-work up until your last save. Approaching someone high on adrenaline, and interrupting their concentration will commonly result in, at the very least, a snappy remark about how it’s all your fault that they died. This reaction and its severity will of course be determined by the individual, and the context of their game play, but I must say that I learnt quite quickly to keep away from my brothers if they were engaged in a game that required even only a minimal amount of skill.

I think that the key issue is not exposure to violence as depicted in electronic games or even with gamers’ apparent obsession with gore and fatalities. It is, instead, those subgroups and individuals, who demonstrate violent dispositions, mental instability, or abnormal characteristics that we should be actively exploring so we can work towards an unbloodied future.

References

Gauntlett, D 1998, Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model, http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm (accessed 23 January 2006)

Marshall, P D, 2004, New Media Cultures, Hodder, London.

McKee, A 2006, ‘Everybody knows that the media makes us do it’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture The Effects Tradition at Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus, on 9 March.

Quittner, J 1999, ‘Are video games really so bad?’, Time, vol 153, no 18, pp 50-59.

Reichhardt, T 2003, ‘Playing with Fire?’ Nature, vol. 424, pp 367-368.

Sanger, J., Wilson, J., Davies, B. and Whittaker, R. 1997, Young children, videos, and computer games: issues for teachers and parents, Falnor, London.

Scott, D 1995, ‘The effect of video games on feelings of aggression’, The Journal of Psychology, vol 129, no 2, p121.

Van Horn, R 1999, ‘Violence and video games’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol 81, no 2, pp 173-174.

APOLOGIES FOR THE REFERENCING - I've done it off the top of my head so its probably not to the tee of our QUT Harvard style...

Convergence culture and related technologies

2008-04-13T17:32:00.004+10:00

Remembering its a lazy Sunday afternoon, the weather today has been wonderful, but its heated this house like a sweat box and I needed SOMETHING to take my mind of it! So before I really get started on this blog I figure it is probably a good idea to revisit some of the ideas already address in our virtual cultures unit. A thankyou in advance to fellow students, my team mates, Emma and Nat and Bre who helped contribute to this post that is essentially an adaptation and expansion on what we have already disclosed on the KCB201 blackboard discussion board.

Lets begin by discussing a buzz word of the twenty-first century: convergence. In short convergence has had (and continues to have) a huge impact on cultures and societies around the world. Henry Jenkins (2006), debatably the key scholar in this area, has outlined three principle ideas relating to the concept of convergence.

1. MEDIA CONVERGENCE
I’m sure to many people in society (like my parents) the introduction of television does not seem like that long ago. These days tv is spread across not only a traditional television set, but also on your mobile, your computer, your pda, and a variety of other formats. This simple example demonstrates how media content is now spread across multiple platforms.
Much media convergence has been driven by consumer demand to have single devices with multiple functions. This is not to say that we will end up with one all-encompassing device that we can do everything from/with, something that Jenkins (2006) heavily emphasises. Jenkins (2006) notes that the increase in multi-platformed fully integrated devices not being the ultimate technological solution is evident in that the majority of consumers who own multi-function products (eg: a mobile phone) don’t actually use all (or even many) of the other capabilities of the technology. I know for me personally my phone is a reasonably up market model, but there are functions on it I don’t think I’ve even heard of! For me my phone is a way to text and call people, and occasionally take photos with, but that is about it. In contrast, my twin brother uses his phone not just in the way I do but also as an mp3 player, access to the internet, an alarm clock, an organisers… just to name a few!
The circulation of media content across these different platforms depends heavily on user-led active participation and engagement with the content and the platforms it is available from. Perhaps this links back to Jenkins (2006) who argues that there are two different forces behind convergence - consumer led convergence (cultural shifts of consumers seeking new information) and technological convergence (where new technologies become intertwined and we are forced to use multi-function singular devices, rather then multiple single function devices).
2. PARTICIPATORY CULTURE
It is now common knowledge that forces like globalisation have caused a significant increase in international networking and cultures are now beginning to overlap and intertwine as we become increasingly involved in the lives of others (on a local, national, and international scale). Technologies like the internet have encouraged behaviours that promote engagement and interaction with media of all forms, as well as people of all kinds. The barriers to communication have been beaten down, opening our ability to access and connect with the world around us and the people in it.
We are encouraged to source our own information and then share it with others. We are able to evaluate this information and twist it to our own purpose. From this process we are creating new information and building an active knowledge base. Because of participatory culture there is a cyclical process of information that is being enrichened and developed as it is constantly evolving. Users are becoming more active and connected with media. Social networking and interactivity is a key to being involved and simply living. Our participation is changing our culture/s, and we are becoming noisy and very public as a result.
3. COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Flowing on from participatory culture is the notion of collective intelligence. There is widespread sharing and collaboration of information, which then turns into knowledge through sharing this information with others. If we look at it from a very basic mathematical perspective, collective intelligence comes down to if we know "A" and share it with another person who knows "B", we now know "A&B". Collective intelligence would not be viable without convergence and culture is very much centred around this collective and shared body of information and knowledge. Convergence is making culture more intelligent, involved, and intertwined.

So where does technology fit into all of this (other than being a tool from which waves of change like convergence are crafted)? We’ve had it hit home by Axel Bruns in his KCB201 lectures over the past couple of weeks: simply, technology is not just a device, or the functions a device, but it is how we use this device and its functions for our own purpose/s that makes technology significant. By being active and using technology to meet our own means we can extend the original functions of the technology and make it our own. This is not to say that the intangible design/concept/idea/philosophy behind the technology (material/physical object) is not important (of course it is!), but the real importance lies in how technology becomes part of our society/culture. If we consider technologies from this perspective it is easier to consider technologies as cultural technologies that are socially constructed and dependent on the user, instead of the traditional philosophy.

I should probably be referencing all those sentences. OK you want more academia, I’ll give it ago. Flew (2005) explores the fact that culture comprises of several different tiers and his book New Media explores in depth the notion that technology is increasingly becoming more than an impacting component on culture, and it is becoming ingrained as a part of cultural forms and development. Flew (2005) states that on a rudimentary level culture is built from physical objects/tools/artefacts and our tangible presence here on earth. Technology, and new technologies, is/are part of this. On this level content and information is produced and distributed through these mediums. From this dispersion of content culture begins to coalesce and form around recipients of this information. This is becoming what Bruns (2008) would call a palimpsestical process! After the cultural foundations are built (which, for the record, are not necessarily static or stagnant bases) our systems of knowledge and the meaning that is socially construed from the culture/s we are immersed in determine the further development and projection of any given culture. Here we can see how technology moves from being on the outside of cultural foundations to being engrained in every level of cultural development.

With that said, if man maketh the technology can technology maketh the man? I don’t think so! We are not defined by the technologies around us because we have the ability to choose how we use these technologies. Sure we may be limited by the technologies abilities, and our own abilities to know how to use a particular function, but this is where the importance of creativity and innovation comes in. Without creativity and innovation in our culture/s and societies around the world we are lost.

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201: Virtual Cultures. Queensland University of Technology. Weekly Lecture/Podcast, March 6 - April 3.

Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne: OUP.

Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence” in Jenkins, H., Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide, New York: New York University, 1-24.

Some thoughts on Virtual Cultures

2008-04-03T12:28:00.004+10:00

Wow ok so I've never blogged before and am doing this for a QUT Creative Industries KCB201 assessment piece.
I'd say most of my blogging to come are going to be long winded and wordy because its what I do. Hopefully something substantial will be able to be extracted out eventually...
So hello and welcome to all you fellow bloggers and especially any KCB201ers out there!

Alright this is not an official post so I'm not going to make a big thing about being scholarly or academic, but I thought I'd post some of my thoughts on KCB201 aka Virtual Cultures content so far this semester. So coming into my third year of studying media and communications some of this stuff has become so familiar to me that I just assume everybody has thought about it, knows about it, wouldn't be confused by it. Apparently not. My parents are both intelligent beings, always open to discussion about life the universe and everything, but I try and talk to them about things like DIKW, convergence, niche markets and hyperlocal(ism?), even something so seemingly simple as the social networking trend, and they look at me like I'm speaking a different language...

Maybe its just my generation, and the new generations coming, we take these things for granted. Things like computers and the internet for example. I mean wow, I can remember the day we got our first family computer. This old clunky grey box with a screen so rounded the picture would be warped from any direction you were looking unless you were sitting directly infront. I remember playing games like commander keen and pod racer. I remember clicking that space bar so hard from jumping and firing that eventually it would rattle if you so much as brushed your fingers against it! I remember the load up screen (with what was it, MSdos or something? Please excuse my technical illiteracy!) and when the technology was so slow but nobody cared waiting for the load up because it was just such an amazing thing. These days I get frustrated when programs dont open instantly, or if it takes more then about 10 seconds to load a new page. Where did my patience go?

I take things like the internet for granted. Its so easy to forget the huge technological divide that our world teters on the edge of. I can understand that if you never have something, never experience it in the first place, then you don't know what you're missing out on to miss it in the first place. But does that make it ok? Will the rest of the world ever catch up? This is not to say they necessarily want to, but in my personal opinion I think that the good that has come from technology such as the internet outweighs any potential harm it may have. Sure people can misuse technology for their own gain and to the detriment of others, but I honestly think the majority of people have atleast a primitive level of moral development that goes beyond that. Atleast I would like to believe that. Maybe I'm too naive or optimistic, but I'd rather have a world full of optimists then pessimists any day.

OK I'll admit this post is really not going anywhere worthwhile, but I'll wrap on regardless - I want to be part of this new participatory culture! I think networks should be encouraged and I think we should all do our bit to contribute to that mass of information continually building out there in the world. So maybe this particular post isn't going to do that, but who knows what is to come. Hopefully next time I log on I will have something profound or insightful to comment on. I'm waiting on some more inspiration.

Or it could be I just like the 'clack-clack' of my typing and the sound of my own voice (in my head ofcourse, dictating to my little fingers tapping away on the keyboard), whether I have something worthwhile to put up here or not...