Response on:
New Media and Internet Activism: From the ‘Battle of Seattle’ to Blogging - by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner
This article talks about how over the years new media, especially the Internet, has been used by different organizations and individuals for various purposes. In one instance, the Internet is bringing people together, comparable to an online community, in unison to fight for a similar cause. Several campaigns have been established with the help of the Internet’s ability to disseminate information globally. Some use the media to their advantage to bring about more awareness, promote peace, and offer support to those affected by war and terrorism. The Internet can act as a carrier for worthwhile, justifiable causes as well as for an individual’s personal intentions. Whether there are hidden agendas, harmful information and the like or not behind the purpose of setting up these online institutions and movements, we must be more conscious of the existence of such meanings when viewing media around us.
Due to the Internet’s dynamic, multi-functional structure, separate cultures have been created as a result, such as hacker culture and internet militancy. Such groups have been able to form and further develop themselves because of the interactive capabilities new media offers. New mobile technologies even make possible interaction with people around the world at any time anywhere. As a new phenomenon, the mobile phone is increasingly becoming an all-purpose device that will fulfill basic communication needs and help accomplish or even ease one’s daily tasks in life. Globalization is now beginning to develop and occur from below with citizens and the mass population out there as opposed to capitalist corporations. I think groups such as the “hacktivists” are benefiting society by helping along the progress of globalizing the Internet and other new media. Hacktivists are better informing citizens and providing free alternatives to the Internet and other technologies that were once controlled and owned by governmental organizations.
However, freeing up the control of the Internet has recently lead to the danger of abusing and misusing applications such as blogs to broadcast and influence others with narcissistic individual attitudes and views. Though, if one were to look at it from another point of view, one may see that these blog posts are in fact encouraging more social interaction. Blogs today are gathering people from all over the world to form a wide range of groups, each focusing on a certain interest of some kind. Moreover, what has become of this new way of communicating with people online is the emergence of a blog culture. Unfortunately, blog cultures are being accused of clogging search engines with useless information and blamed for distastefully creating profit for corporations that are linking up key words in blogs for revenue. I agree that when we may be searching for a particular subject or topic online, we are most often ending up with a lot of irrelevant, useless junk as opposed to real, authentic information. There are, of course, other blogs that are being put to good use, including ‘warblogging’ which raises awareness about anti-war efforts, and political blogs that harmlessly distribute and share certain opinions and information across the net. What we now must learn to recognize is the possibility of dishonest reporting within blogs in addition to how and what bloggers are doing to help advance our society. Kahn and Kellner state that “bloggers are expanding the notion altogether of what the internet is and how it can be used.” As a whole, the Internet has allowed for an interactive, free domain for which people can now communicate similar and/or contrasting views and ideas. The Internet is a new place of struggle and of argument and debate in real time; it is reaching global extents in an efficient and speedy manner.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
COMS 591 Blog 2
Response on:
Some Exploratory Notes on Produsers and Produsage - by Axel Bruns
Axel Bruns, taking after Alvin Toffler who coined the term ‘prosumer’ in the 1970s as being “a more informed, more involved consumer of goods”, comes up with a new terminology of his own: the ‘produser’. Produsers are those who engage in both producing and consuming activities and constitute the new generation that will defy the traditional boundaries set between (the distinct roles and definitions of) producers and users. This new generation, which Bruns calls ‘Generation C’, allows everyone involved to equally share, access, and exchange information and knowledge, while at the same time, iterate old and thus create new content. Users now being able to participate in the production process as well represent the shift towards an individualized line of products as opposed to the once mass-produced industry of goods.
I think this is a good trend that is occurring because users, who are partaking in collaborative and continuous development, are creating relevant content and products and services that are specifically demanded, instead of mass producing unwanted items. It is making way for efficiency. Bouncing ideas, comments, and feedback off of one another helps produsers create a path for further improvement on products as opposed to raw competition to bring out the best.
A good moral and legal issue Axel Bruns raises in his article is the risk of opening up content to the public, for the basis of new produsage sites is to be open. If the sites became entirely open-source, produsers’ rights would be sacrificed and they would cease to be recognized for their hard work. Produsers are worried that if their efforts were widely dispersed, it will conversely result in counterproductivity. For example, presenting false information can cause great and irreversible damage. On the other hand, if these sites were not open to some degree, how would produsers be able to collaborate with each other to build improved material? The answer is that produser sites are open to the extent of a hierarchal system where only the privileged is allowed access. Thus, as hard as it may be, produsage sites of the new generation must find a middle ground between “openness and structure.”
Moreover, responsibility issues are also in question. Bruns says that government intervention should be implemented to equal out the chances of participating as a produser, to smooth out the divide lying between those more privileged and those who are less; with privilege being measured by technological skills, social and economic standings, etc. I agree with this suggestion. Governments are not so much intervening as they are positively supporting produsage of media, goods and services. I see the government’s will to help through their emphasis on bettering education for young generations today. They are preparing and teaching students how to become produsers within various environments. Should we be paying more attention to politics? Is the importance of the role of politics too far hidden behind, possibly even replaced by mass media, especially in terms of entertainment forms? Bruns states that we may be losing sight on where our priorities lie, of what is important because of the heavy impact of how media influences us. However, Bruns remains optimistic for what may come in the future: “If prodused media become a credible and wide-spread alternative to produced media forms...it could rekindle a desire on their part to once again become active produsers of democracy, rather than mere passive audiences.”
Some Exploratory Notes on Produsers and Produsage - by Axel Bruns
Axel Bruns, taking after Alvin Toffler who coined the term ‘prosumer’ in the 1970s as being “a more informed, more involved consumer of goods”, comes up with a new terminology of his own: the ‘produser’. Produsers are those who engage in both producing and consuming activities and constitute the new generation that will defy the traditional boundaries set between (the distinct roles and definitions of) producers and users. This new generation, which Bruns calls ‘Generation C’, allows everyone involved to equally share, access, and exchange information and knowledge, while at the same time, iterate old and thus create new content. Users now being able to participate in the production process as well represent the shift towards an individualized line of products as opposed to the once mass-produced industry of goods.
I think this is a good trend that is occurring because users, who are partaking in collaborative and continuous development, are creating relevant content and products and services that are specifically demanded, instead of mass producing unwanted items. It is making way for efficiency. Bouncing ideas, comments, and feedback off of one another helps produsers create a path for further improvement on products as opposed to raw competition to bring out the best.
A good moral and legal issue Axel Bruns raises in his article is the risk of opening up content to the public, for the basis of new produsage sites is to be open. If the sites became entirely open-source, produsers’ rights would be sacrificed and they would cease to be recognized for their hard work. Produsers are worried that if their efforts were widely dispersed, it will conversely result in counterproductivity. For example, presenting false information can cause great and irreversible damage. On the other hand, if these sites were not open to some degree, how would produsers be able to collaborate with each other to build improved material? The answer is that produser sites are open to the extent of a hierarchal system where only the privileged is allowed access. Thus, as hard as it may be, produsage sites of the new generation must find a middle ground between “openness and structure.”
Moreover, responsibility issues are also in question. Bruns says that government intervention should be implemented to equal out the chances of participating as a produser, to smooth out the divide lying between those more privileged and those who are less; with privilege being measured by technological skills, social and economic standings, etc. I agree with this suggestion. Governments are not so much intervening as they are positively supporting produsage of media, goods and services. I see the government’s will to help through their emphasis on bettering education for young generations today. They are preparing and teaching students how to become produsers within various environments. Should we be paying more attention to politics? Is the importance of the role of politics too far hidden behind, possibly even replaced by mass media, especially in terms of entertainment forms? Bruns states that we may be losing sight on where our priorities lie, of what is important because of the heavy impact of how media influences us. However, Bruns remains optimistic for what may come in the future: “If prodused media become a credible and wide-spread alternative to produced media forms...it could rekindle a desire on their part to once again become active produsers of democracy, rather than mere passive audiences.”
Thursday, October 4, 2007
COMS 591 Blog 1
Response on:
So Much for the Magic of Technology and the Free Market: The World Wide Web and the Corporate Media System - by Robert McChesney
There is the common belief that the Web runs public space for everyone to use, but in fact, Robert McChesney suggests that it may be the commercial media companies that are controlling it through their possession of new technologies and large capitals, which thus gives them the power to dominate and control audiences. He also points out that these very media corporations try very hard to maintain their status by limiting the power of smaller firms to enter or produce in the market. It is a sad but true fact that “power is [largely] determined by how much money an individual has”.
Although it may be somewhat true that the big media corporations are dictating the Web and other digital communication technologies, the government has always been there to try and best control and prevent monopolistic action. Despite the fact that the government is frequently accused of helping set up monopolies by regulating and thus controlling the free market, McChesney does not fail in giving credit to the unmentioned efforts the government has provided for continual research and development in the field.
On another note, it is said that the Web has the capability of taking away the monopolies of “media giants” because the Web creates competition among corporations. Through competition, it can be said that the Web revolutionizes society in terms of expanding the global exchange of information as well as offering an opportunity for different medias to converge with one another and create more new technologies. As a result of these new technologies, McChesney states that only positive things are achieved: more ambitious entrepreneurs are taking part in the markets, and companies are competing to produce better-improved products at a lower cost, which will overall benefit the whole of mankind.
However, when new technologies are at hand, it is only natural for big media industries to want to stay ahead of others and thus engage in constant competition to seek the next innovation. This accumulated knowledge is what gives a media corporation more power and more importantly, profits. This being said, I have to wonder if the normal citizen is even interested or concerned about the economics or any details involved in the structure and system of the market? I think the majority of society is clueless and uninterested because the battle for discoveries of new technologies is only seemingly making their lives more efficient, “better” and more-improved. People are just not critical enough about the consequences and are not asking the vital questions he lists in the article. This is why further research into the new media category is imperative.
One thing I found interesting was that the article pointed out the idea that the Web may be devaluing other media. For example, it is a very possible matter that when the Web combines with other medias such as television or radio, it will not only be taking away the value but the entire entity of the “older” media giants themselves. He says there will be a blurring of communications and media into a single sector of digital technologies. Again, will society give it a second thought to question what the consequences are going to be when this happens? I think McChesney gives us a great start in venturing more into the research of this area as he very thoroughly points out in his article the positive and negative effects surrounding new media and its communication technologies. He also informingly teaches us how to avoid unwanted outcomes.
So Much for the Magic of Technology and the Free Market: The World Wide Web and the Corporate Media System - by Robert McChesney
There is the common belief that the Web runs public space for everyone to use, but in fact, Robert McChesney suggests that it may be the commercial media companies that are controlling it through their possession of new technologies and large capitals, which thus gives them the power to dominate and control audiences. He also points out that these very media corporations try very hard to maintain their status by limiting the power of smaller firms to enter or produce in the market. It is a sad but true fact that “power is [largely] determined by how much money an individual has”.
Although it may be somewhat true that the big media corporations are dictating the Web and other digital communication technologies, the government has always been there to try and best control and prevent monopolistic action. Despite the fact that the government is frequently accused of helping set up monopolies by regulating and thus controlling the free market, McChesney does not fail in giving credit to the unmentioned efforts the government has provided for continual research and development in the field.
On another note, it is said that the Web has the capability of taking away the monopolies of “media giants” because the Web creates competition among corporations. Through competition, it can be said that the Web revolutionizes society in terms of expanding the global exchange of information as well as offering an opportunity for different medias to converge with one another and create more new technologies. As a result of these new technologies, McChesney states that only positive things are achieved: more ambitious entrepreneurs are taking part in the markets, and companies are competing to produce better-improved products at a lower cost, which will overall benefit the whole of mankind.
However, when new technologies are at hand, it is only natural for big media industries to want to stay ahead of others and thus engage in constant competition to seek the next innovation. This accumulated knowledge is what gives a media corporation more power and more importantly, profits. This being said, I have to wonder if the normal citizen is even interested or concerned about the economics or any details involved in the structure and system of the market? I think the majority of society is clueless and uninterested because the battle for discoveries of new technologies is only seemingly making their lives more efficient, “better” and more-improved. People are just not critical enough about the consequences and are not asking the vital questions he lists in the article. This is why further research into the new media category is imperative.
One thing I found interesting was that the article pointed out the idea that the Web may be devaluing other media. For example, it is a very possible matter that when the Web combines with other medias such as television or radio, it will not only be taking away the value but the entire entity of the “older” media giants themselves. He says there will be a blurring of communications and media into a single sector of digital technologies. Again, will society give it a second thought to question what the consequences are going to be when this happens? I think McChesney gives us a great start in venturing more into the research of this area as he very thoroughly points out in his article the positive and negative effects surrounding new media and its communication technologies. He also informingly teaches us how to avoid unwanted outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)