1. Sum up Michael Wesch's main point about the web (or Youtube in particular) in one paragraph.
Michael Wesch holds a utopian view of web 2.0 and YouTube. He believes it has revolutionised the way he can socialise and connect with each other, and praises the way that YouTube can create online communities and bring people together. He describes the web as an ‘integrated mediascape’ of social media and networking sites, with us in the middle of the sphere. Wesch also notes the speed at which videos can spread over the web and become viral in a matter of days or even hours.
2. Write down your understanding of the following terms used by Wesch: "networked individualism", "the invisible audience phenomenon", "context collapse", and "connection without constraint".
networked individualism - This refers to how an individual can be alone yet connect socially with a network of other people through the internet.
the invisible audience phenomenon - This refers to the idea that one does not know who their audience will be when they are filming a video, and in the case of webcam videos are talking to no one, yet their video will later be viewed by an uncontrolled audience; ergo the invisible audience.
context collapse -This refers to the idea that videos can be taken out of their original context and put into new contexts online.
connection without constraint - This refers to how people can connect via the web and there is no restriction to who can view their material, who they can connect with, and how they can behave.
3. On the whole, do you agree or disagree with Wesch's ideas? Why?
I agree with Wesch because I believe the internet and web 2.0 can be a superb outlet for people to socialise, create communities, make friends, and share their views and ideas with like-minded people. YouTube is a great forum for this communication in my opinion.
4. How might Wesch's ideas be applied to the music industry (or, at least, the production of music)?
Wesch's idea that one can perform to an online audience comes into play when talking about the music industry, as YouTube has allowed many artists who would not get exposure or audiences to perform their music on camera, to be uploaded and viewed by audiences on the web. YouTube was the start for many artists including Justin Bieber and more recently the Bajan band; Cover Drive.
Monday, 5 March 2012
Sunday, 4 March 2012
How might the influence of new media be said to strengthen or weaken the public sphere?
Web technology has the capacity for re-establishing the public sphere, giving the global public the possibility to freely and equally debate various issues. This new technology, including social networks, can provide a thriving forum for democracy through the new choice, plurality and freedom of speech. This social media was vital in the recent Syrian uprising, however some people still do not see this new social media in a utopian light, and do not believe this rechnology really strengthens the public sphere.
During the Syrian uprising, camerphones and other media tools were used during protests to offer a first hand, ground level view of the unrest, including angry people chanting outside a government buildings. Photos and videos of these protests could then be uploaded, shared and spread fast to other viewers. By recording the protests, the raw footage could be shared with those unaware due to censorship of protests by the government, whom did not want news of the protests broadcasted across Syria for fear of copycat behaviour. The internet was used as an outlet to share this suppressed information. Skype was also used to avoid monitored phonelines, again avoiding the surveillance of the repressive state. However censorship was continually used to counteract these breaches for example they shut down the internet across most of the country one day to stop Syrians from viewing videos of protesting, on websites such as Facebook. The speed of distribution through the web however did weaken censorship and the state's power, as it was practically impossible to hide evidence of the protests while everyone was getting hold of it so fast online. This citizen journalism conveys Gauntlett's idea that citizens now have similar powers to the traditional media 'Gods' in terms of their ability to decide what they publish and how it is interpreted.
The internet could again be seen as dangerous in this situation however, as people recording videos and uploading them could be tracked through the powers of the internet. Despite this clear risk, people still used the social media as a tool of freedom to express views and divulge information. Out of these issues arises the debate over whether the internet is more dangerous than it is democratic, as although it can be used for the aforementioned good causes, people with a dystopian view of the web would argue that it can be used as a dangerous tool, and also a superb tool for government surveillance. One example of the internet being exploited for deviance is the story of a man in Scotland posing as a gay Muslim girl on a blog before revealing his identity when the blog came to light. This shows how easy it is to create and distribute false information or profiles via the web. Although this particular case could be seen as some form of peace activism, it does show a danger of the web in the way that we can be fed lies through blogs or sites such as Wikipedia which anyone can edit. Although it shows democracy it also shows the web is misused often and these democratic tools present in web 2.0 can be taken advantage of. This weakens the public sphere as the reality and legitimacy of people and debates comes into question when the online medium is used.
Contrary to this negative aspect, there are also cases of citizen journalists disproving the legitimacy of the traditional media. For example; the Ian Tomlinson case, where the aforementioned man died during protests in London. The police and the media reported that attempts to revive the man were stopped by protesters pelting medics with bottles. However, one American citizen captured footage on his handheld device which proved that Tomlinson was in fact attacked (seemingly unprovoked) by the riot officers, which lead to his fatal injury. Therefore, from a utopian standpoint, this suggests that the internet and the coinciding democratic input from citizens, does strengthen the public sphere in our society.
Before the internet the public sphere could be seen as weak, as Habermas noted, because there was no forum which everyone could use for discussion. Opinions were formed based on what was fed to the people on television and what people discussed in small groups. The internet however has offered access to different realms of belief, and opinions which would not be heard as widely without web 2.0. This online discussion element therefore strengthens the public sphere despite coming with its downsides such as the issue of false identity. As the web continues to develop it is likely to become flooded with a wider range of views, values and issues than ever; and one wonders whether legislation will be enforced to censor or restrict access to who can publish what on this world spectrum. The case of Ryan Giggs' super injunction being broken by around 70,000 Twitter users, exemplifies the power the web gives people to expose whatever they want, completely uncensored. Putting the web on a leash could demolish the strength it has added to the public sphere through its new democracy, however putting no limitations on it could lead to the web's power becoming out of control.
During the Syrian uprising, camerphones and other media tools were used during protests to offer a first hand, ground level view of the unrest, including angry people chanting outside a government buildings. Photos and videos of these protests could then be uploaded, shared and spread fast to other viewers. By recording the protests, the raw footage could be shared with those unaware due to censorship of protests by the government, whom did not want news of the protests broadcasted across Syria for fear of copycat behaviour. The internet was used as an outlet to share this suppressed information. Skype was also used to avoid monitored phonelines, again avoiding the surveillance of the repressive state. However censorship was continually used to counteract these breaches for example they shut down the internet across most of the country one day to stop Syrians from viewing videos of protesting, on websites such as Facebook. The speed of distribution through the web however did weaken censorship and the state's power, as it was practically impossible to hide evidence of the protests while everyone was getting hold of it so fast online. This citizen journalism conveys Gauntlett's idea that citizens now have similar powers to the traditional media 'Gods' in terms of their ability to decide what they publish and how it is interpreted.
The internet could again be seen as dangerous in this situation however, as people recording videos and uploading them could be tracked through the powers of the internet. Despite this clear risk, people still used the social media as a tool of freedom to express views and divulge information. Out of these issues arises the debate over whether the internet is more dangerous than it is democratic, as although it can be used for the aforementioned good causes, people with a dystopian view of the web would argue that it can be used as a dangerous tool, and also a superb tool for government surveillance. One example of the internet being exploited for deviance is the story of a man in Scotland posing as a gay Muslim girl on a blog before revealing his identity when the blog came to light. This shows how easy it is to create and distribute false information or profiles via the web. Although this particular case could be seen as some form of peace activism, it does show a danger of the web in the way that we can be fed lies through blogs or sites such as Wikipedia which anyone can edit. Although it shows democracy it also shows the web is misused often and these democratic tools present in web 2.0 can be taken advantage of. This weakens the public sphere as the reality and legitimacy of people and debates comes into question when the online medium is used.
Contrary to this negative aspect, there are also cases of citizen journalists disproving the legitimacy of the traditional media. For example; the Ian Tomlinson case, where the aforementioned man died during protests in London. The police and the media reported that attempts to revive the man were stopped by protesters pelting medics with bottles. However, one American citizen captured footage on his handheld device which proved that Tomlinson was in fact attacked (seemingly unprovoked) by the riot officers, which lead to his fatal injury. Therefore, from a utopian standpoint, this suggests that the internet and the coinciding democratic input from citizens, does strengthen the public sphere in our society.
Before the internet the public sphere could be seen as weak, as Habermas noted, because there was no forum which everyone could use for discussion. Opinions were formed based on what was fed to the people on television and what people discussed in small groups. The internet however has offered access to different realms of belief, and opinions which would not be heard as widely without web 2.0. This online discussion element therefore strengthens the public sphere despite coming with its downsides such as the issue of false identity. As the web continues to develop it is likely to become flooded with a wider range of views, values and issues than ever; and one wonders whether legislation will be enforced to censor or restrict access to who can publish what on this world spectrum. The case of Ryan Giggs' super injunction being broken by around 70,000 Twitter users, exemplifies the power the web gives people to expose whatever they want, completely uncensored. Putting the web on a leash could demolish the strength it has added to the public sphere through its new democracy, however putting no limitations on it could lead to the web's power becoming out of control.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
The Long Tail and Wikinomics
1. What is Chris Anderson’s theory of ‘the long tail’?
The long tail theory refers to the idea that more profit can now be made from more fragmented audiences consuming different, smaller 'niche' products, rather than a mass audience all buying into a few extremely popular products.
2. What does the theory of ‘the long tail’ mean for the music industry and to other areas of the media such as online television?
In regards to the music industry, the long tail theory means that labels can now make just as much money, if not more money, from signing a collection of distinct artists with small fanbases, rather than simply holding a few artists with bigger audiences. The variety and choice of music available now means that there is a very fragmented audience all buying into different artists and genres, whereas in the older days when there was less choice and variety, pretty much everyone would buy the same few genres of music from a few artists who hold mass audiences.
3. What is Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams’ theory of Wikinomics?
The theory of wikinomics describes how people can come together and collaborate in order to create products or in the case of Wikipedia; a website. This user participation is revolutionary as there is no one person or company pulling all the strings, it is simply everyone coming together and doing their part which means it is less effort for everyone and the profits and benefits of the creations do not all go to one or a small selected number of people.
4. What are the four big ideas of Wikinomics and how might these ideas be applied to the music industry?
The four big ideas of Wikinomics are peering, sharing, thinking globally and openness. Peering is the idea that content can now be shared between peers easily through websites such as Facebook; in the case of music one can easily upload a link to Facebook which leads to a YouTube video of a song. This song being uploaded to YouTube is the sharing.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Arab Spring
The Arab Spring refers to the Tunisian and Syrian revolutions. We looked at how social media and web 2.0 influenced and effected these events.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoRspCp5Xn0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoRspCp5Xn0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Are The Media Becoming More Democratic?
The last two decades has seen remarkable technological advancements in the world, including the introduction of web 2.0. This refers to the new social networking, sharing and publishing websites which have turned the internet into a database which anyone can contribute to, and a community that anyone can be a part of.
David Gauntlett argued that the traditional media were not democratic because they had all the power over censorship and could decide what news and content the general population were exposed to. The traditional media Gods (newspapers, broadcasters) now share this power with the general population. Citizen journalism can now be carried out and published in seconds via web 2.0, meaning that no longer does one have to work for a newspaper or broadcaster to find out and spread news to millions of people. This citizen power was portrayed perfectly in Tunisia in 2010 when the government censored protests due to fear that they would be seen and spread and copycat behaviour could take place. However the footage of protests, and the reasons behind it were exposed via video sharing online. Facebook was uncontrolled by the government and many Tunisians used their mobile phones to record the protests and share the recordings and information they had online. This shows another of David Gauntlett's points; that special broadcasting equipment is not needed as it would have been 30 years ago, instead anyone with camera phone and internet connection can share these vital pieces of information of footage. This would suggest that the media is becoming more democratic as there is no longer an elite force of traditional media holding all the cards, it is now just as easy for regular people to share information. It could be argued however that people still do not trust citizen journalists as much as more established sources as they are less reliable; as easy as it is for people to post a story quickly, it is just as easy for them to make one up quickly.
Mozorov agrees that the web can be used as a democratic tool, especially through social networking websites such as Twitter. An example of this is when an injunction taken out by Ryan Giggs was broken by around 70,000 Twitter users, however the law could not punish all these people, therefore they all got away with their 'crime' and the information was let out from the clasp of the courts and higher forces. However one negative point which Mozorov draws from this is that the internet can make it easier for the government to track people and monitor them. An example of this is when police in the UK discovered messages sent via Blackberry Messenger which aimed to instigate riots. Although in this case it was for the greater good, it does not hide the fact that the government can still track our personal messaging and calls (an issue recently brought to light during the News of the World phone hacking scandal).
The idea of censorship can also be applied to the music industry with there being many legal situations surrounding music on YouTube now. Sony are one of a number of companies who often withdraw audio tracks from YouTube videos for fear that people will just use the website to listen to the aforementioned music for free. David Gauntlett's ideas over the democracy of media can be related positively to the modern music industry. As he said in regards to journalism, expensive equipment is no longer needed to create or publish a story; everyday common equipment works just as well. In the modern day, it is easy to rent out a studio to record a song, promote it via YouTube or Myspace, and distribute it online via iTunes and similar websites or companies. This of course improves the democracy of the media as it gives power and control to the people to compete with big label artists, or even get signed by a big label, as stars such as Soulja Boy and Justin Bieber were after their big breaks on Myspace and YouTube respectively.
Overall it does seem that as technology advances and becomes more available to the general public, the opportunity for citizens to contribute to the online database and discussion increases, which would suggest that the media is indeed becoming more democratic, although it is also becoming more controversial and it should be remembered that these technologies can be used in negative ways as well as positive or democratic ways.
David Gauntlett argued that the traditional media were not democratic because they had all the power over censorship and could decide what news and content the general population were exposed to. The traditional media Gods (newspapers, broadcasters) now share this power with the general population. Citizen journalism can now be carried out and published in seconds via web 2.0, meaning that no longer does one have to work for a newspaper or broadcaster to find out and spread news to millions of people. This citizen power was portrayed perfectly in Tunisia in 2010 when the government censored protests due to fear that they would be seen and spread and copycat behaviour could take place. However the footage of protests, and the reasons behind it were exposed via video sharing online. Facebook was uncontrolled by the government and many Tunisians used their mobile phones to record the protests and share the recordings and information they had online. This shows another of David Gauntlett's points; that special broadcasting equipment is not needed as it would have been 30 years ago, instead anyone with camera phone and internet connection can share these vital pieces of information of footage. This would suggest that the media is becoming more democratic as there is no longer an elite force of traditional media holding all the cards, it is now just as easy for regular people to share information. It could be argued however that people still do not trust citizen journalists as much as more established sources as they are less reliable; as easy as it is for people to post a story quickly, it is just as easy for them to make one up quickly.
Mozorov agrees that the web can be used as a democratic tool, especially through social networking websites such as Twitter. An example of this is when an injunction taken out by Ryan Giggs was broken by around 70,000 Twitter users, however the law could not punish all these people, therefore they all got away with their 'crime' and the information was let out from the clasp of the courts and higher forces. However one negative point which Mozorov draws from this is that the internet can make it easier for the government to track people and monitor them. An example of this is when police in the UK discovered messages sent via Blackberry Messenger which aimed to instigate riots. Although in this case it was for the greater good, it does not hide the fact that the government can still track our personal messaging and calls (an issue recently brought to light during the News of the World phone hacking scandal).
The idea of censorship can also be applied to the music industry with there being many legal situations surrounding music on YouTube now. Sony are one of a number of companies who often withdraw audio tracks from YouTube videos for fear that people will just use the website to listen to the aforementioned music for free. David Gauntlett's ideas over the democracy of media can be related positively to the modern music industry. As he said in regards to journalism, expensive equipment is no longer needed to create or publish a story; everyday common equipment works just as well. In the modern day, it is easy to rent out a studio to record a song, promote it via YouTube or Myspace, and distribute it online via iTunes and similar websites or companies. This of course improves the democracy of the media as it gives power and control to the people to compete with big label artists, or even get signed by a big label, as stars such as Soulja Boy and Justin Bieber were after their big breaks on Myspace and YouTube respectively.
Overall it does seem that as technology advances and becomes more available to the general public, the opportunity for citizens to contribute to the online database and discussion increases, which would suggest that the media is indeed becoming more democratic, although it is also becoming more controversial and it should be remembered that these technologies can be used in negative ways as well as positive or democratic ways.
Monday, 6 February 2012
According to Gauntlett, what was "the media" like in the past and what changes have now occurred?
David Gauntlett suggests that in the past the media was headed by big corporations (he referred to them as media Gods) e.g broadcasting corporations and newspapers. These media Gods fed news, information and entertainment down to the people, and therefore these corporations had all the input and could decide what to expose us to and what to censor effectively.
How far do you agree with Gauntlett?
I would say that I agree with Gauntlett on this issue, as the people had no input in media therefore the population had to completely trust the higher media powers and their stories. However this issue may not be solved by citizen journalism and input of the general population as Gauntlett suggests, because the problem with these citizen sources is they have no credibility unless they have hard evidence e.g recordings.
How might Gauntlett's ideas be applied to the music industry?
David Gauntlett's ideas suggest that the general population can contribute to the news now as they have the equipment, and this revolution can be applied to the music industry as music can also be made by anyone now. No longer is it difficult or expensive to get hold of recording equipment to produce and record music. It is also easy now for anyone to distribute their music. The big labels no longer control what music is put out, as anyone can upload whatever kind of music they want on the internet, which can earn them fans and even a recording contract. Websites such as Myspace and YouTube have been instrumental in helping young musicians find fame in recent years, thanks to the technological advancements brought to us by the internet and web 2.0.
David Gauntlett suggests that in the past the media was headed by big corporations (he referred to them as media Gods) e.g broadcasting corporations and newspapers. These media Gods fed news, information and entertainment down to the people, and therefore these corporations had all the input and could decide what to expose us to and what to censor effectively.
How far do you agree with Gauntlett?
I would say that I agree with Gauntlett on this issue, as the people had no input in media therefore the population had to completely trust the higher media powers and their stories. However this issue may not be solved by citizen journalism and input of the general population as Gauntlett suggests, because the problem with these citizen sources is they have no credibility unless they have hard evidence e.g recordings.
How might Gauntlett's ideas be applied to the music industry?
David Gauntlett's ideas suggest that the general population can contribute to the news now as they have the equipment, and this revolution can be applied to the music industry as music can also be made by anyone now. No longer is it difficult or expensive to get hold of recording equipment to produce and record music. It is also easy now for anyone to distribute their music. The big labels no longer control what music is put out, as anyone can upload whatever kind of music they want on the internet, which can earn them fans and even a recording contract. Websites such as Myspace and YouTube have been instrumental in helping young musicians find fame in recent years, thanks to the technological advancements brought to us by the internet and web 2.0.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Citizen Journalism - My Tram Experience
In this video David and I discuss the citizen journalism aspect of the controversial viral video; 'My Tram Experience', whether it has had a positive or negative impact, and how much this citizen journalism is a tool of democracy in the new age. Citizen journalism refers to the idea that in the 'We media' age, anyone can record and upload footage of anything, whereas in the past the traditional media powers (e.g newspapers, broadcasters) were in control of what we were exposed to and what was censored from the population's viewing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)