Category: Alison Hydrick

“In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”

I quoted this statement in my framing questions earlier this week, and I would like to focus my response on a single part of the quote, “…but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”

In many ways, this statement can be compared to a dog chasing its tail.  The mentality of free is different from the business and quality aspects of free.  For example, take Anderson’s “power of the penny” example.  People were willing to pay 14 cents more for fancy chocolate than generic chocolate when the generic chocolate cost only a penny, but when the generic chocolate was free and the fancy chocolate was still only 14 cents more, people went for what was free.  The fancy chocolate was never more than 14 cents more expensive than the generic, but as soon as something is labeled as “free” societies mentality toward the product changes.

Then take companies like Hulu and Pandora.  Their products (the streaming of video and music) are free, but to make more money they are adding more commercials and the option to stream without the annoying commercials for an annual price.  Now, in contrast to the “power of the penny” example, what is free isn’t necessarily what society wants.  Now people lean toward the “fancy” option instead of what is free.

Then the whole idea of demonetization, on the surface, seems to contradict the idea that  “the force of economic gravity will win.”   The most obvious example involves Microsoft and Britannica.  When Microsoft created Encarta, people only had to pay for the CD once, and the price was much less than that of the hard copy encyclopedias.  Thus the encyclopedia industry went from being a 600 million dollar industry to a 100 million dollar industry.  With the current recession, this change seems like it hurts the economy instead of helping it.  While the “force of economic gravity” won in relation to individual purposes, it lost in relation to the overall economy.

All in all, I can compare the economic changes occurring in the Digital Revolution to those that occurred during the Industrial Revolution.  Machines took away the jobs formally done by skilled craftsmen and society had to learn to function with this new way of life, and eventually the economy and society learned how to function in a more technological age.  History always repeats itself.

Anderson stated, “In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”  If this statement is true, in 100 years will there be a need for educational facilities like Elon or will there be enough free information and programs online to completely change the educational system?  Will teachers follow the same path that print journalists are currently on?

While Anderson is resolute in the fact that traditional journalism will cease to exist as we know it, I am skeptical.  Anderson does not take into account the professionalism of journalists.  I think people will always turn to major networks for news because professionals report on it.  Will the freedom of information trump professional journalists?

If you take the arguments presented in Free on an international level, what are the effects of free information on areas of the world like China and North Korea?  Piracy has already introduced many in China to Hollywood films, so what will happen when information begins to trickle past the government’s grips.  (Because as more and more information becomes more easily available, the government won’t be able to block it all.)

In reference to You are Not A Gadget, Lanier is critical of Internet projects including Wikipedia, open source software, video pranks and spoofs and the “hive mind” in general.  It almost seems like Lanier loved the Internet when it was very new and major corporations were not involved.  He is so against people taking a piece of code or software and editing it just a little to produce something new, like mashups.  My question: Are all of these things Lanier is arguing against so passionately really that bad?  Yes, we are in a “hive mind” society now, but is that necessarily a bad thing, or is it just a new aspect of culture?

In reference to Lanier’s “hive mind” concept:  He claims that the new collective ethos as seen in Google searches and Wikipedia diminishes the individual voice and leads to something similar to a mob rules situation.  How is this possible with all the citizen journalism and amateurism online today?

When I proposed these questions earlier in the week I did not see the connection between them, but now, after a little class discussion and some time to ponder Lanier’s work I see that the two inquiries are indeed connected, but in a hypocritical way.

Lanier argues so hard against the new “hive mind” mentality, but he also argues against things like mashups, Wikipedia, etc.  These arguments are conflicting because citizens are using mashups, amateurism, etc. to speak outside of the hive mentality.  The are taking what Hollywood and other major corporations produce and are changing it to reflect their personal thought, emotions and personality.

As for Wikipedia and citizen journalism, average Joe’s are breaking away from what major news networks and large corporations tell them what to think about and go out and set their own news agenda.  Furthermore, the information that citizen journalists uncover is often the information those large corporations are trying to hide from public knowledge.  This is a huge example of breaking away from the hive mentality, in that people are going out and reporting on some of the same topics as the big companies, but are incorporating their own thoughts and ideas in doing so.

On the topic of Wikipedia, while this online encyclopedia is informational and does not include opinions, (well, it isn’t supposed to), it contains information posted by regular people who research and post what they think is relevant on the topic.  Furthermore, unlike traditional encyclopedia’s and the hive mentality, Wikipedia includes what people think is important, not what companies tell them to think is important.

The creation of mashups and amateurism helps people break out of the hive mentality, but it is also important to remember that knowing that this mentality exists and knowing how to operation within and outside it is important.  Whether we like it or not, this is the way our society is, and we need to not only realize this, but also know how to manipulate it to our needs.

No, Mr. Lanier, I am not a gadget.

The Star Wars article discusses several parodies that come with amaturization.  Many of these works have gained fame, including the spoofs of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the snuggy commercials and a lot of music by Weird Al.  Have amateur filmmakers really changed the overall movie industry?  Or are most of these films limited to film festivals or youtube?  I have a hunch that most people will not seek out amateur films, and will always go for the multi-million dollar Hollywood production.

In reference to You are Not A Gadget, Lanier is critical of Internet projects including Wikipedia, open source software, video pranks and spoofs and the “hive mind” in general.  It almost seems like Lanier loved the Internet when it was very new and major corporations were not involved.  He is so against people taking a piece of code or software and editing it just a little to produce something new, like mashups.  My question: Are all of these things Lanier is arguing against so passionately really that bad?  Yes, we are in a “hive mind” society now, but is that necessarily a bad thing, or is it just a new aspect of culture?  At the moment, prior to all class discussion, I feel like Lanier needs to accept that the Internet has exploded in popularity, business and amaturization and get on with life.

Lanier also discusses the “information overload” but never exactly gave his solution to the problem.  This might be one of the few points that he made that I agree with.  What can be done about the information overload that cramps the Internet?

Yes, I have several questions concerning Lanier’s “hive mind” concept.  He claims that the new collective ethos as seen in Google searches and Wikipedia diminishes the individual voice and leads to something similar to a mob rules situation.  How is this possible with all of the citizen journalism and amateurism online today?

This week I opted to answer someone else’ questions instead of the ones I posted a few days ago.

How are community-based websites, such as Wikipedia and Second Life, shaping our cultural understanding of the Internet? What are the social-norms and values (or even self-governing rules of conduct) of participating in these forums and how have they developed?

After discussing community-based websites like Wikipedia, I have a better understanding of how websites like this are influence the culture of the Internet as a whole.  Sites like Wikipedia are shaped everywhere, and one person builds on another person’s work to create a final product, much like the original freeware.   The evolution of Wikipedia has created a sense of digital teamwork, and now society can see the result of this teamwork in the well-known Internet encyclopedia.

On the negative side, when regular citizens work together to create a project as large as Wikipedia the final product is biased toward what the citizens want to learn more about.  In a way, this is an example of citizens taking part in agenda setting.  Wikipedia has a large amount of information on popular culture, but not nearly as much information concerning abstract subjects including science, mathematics, the arts and technology.

As for self-governing and conduct, community-based websites have proven that people can work well without an authoritative, governing figure.  Continuing with the Wikipedia example, people can tag articles as being biased, needing citation or containing inaccurate content.  So, citizens will keep the content of Wikipedia as professional as possible and watch out for inaccuracies.

Another example of self-governing and conduct on a community-based website is Shockwave.com.  On this site relevant, appropriate comments float to the top, and inappropriate and irrelevant posts float to the bottom and receive far fewer views.

Community-based Internet websites have proven that citizens can work together to create huge projects and have the ability to monitor behavior and content.

In the digital age everyone can publish things online.  What does this development do to professionalism of those who make their careers publishing content?

With the rise in peer to peer sharing, what does this do to copyright law? Doesn’t this pose problems for intellectual copyright?

Chapter seven discusses agenda setting.  Is this concept still relevant in the age of the Internet, citizen journalism, blogs, youtube and an abundance of information?

Following today’s class discussion concerning agenda setting I would have to say that, yes agenda setting still plays a role in our current media environment.  Major media sources seem to be the first to tell people what to think about, and from there the blogs, citizen journalists, etc. take that message to another level.  However, in some cases it is the citizen journalists who are the first to break big stories, but the major media outlets soon pick up the stories and play the footage/air the information and then society as a whole is aware of, and thinking about the story.

Furthermore, in an effort to maintain their status and avoid being “scooped”, especially by citizen journalists, the major media organizations are willing to pick up any story gaining popularity on Facebook, Twitter or any other social site.  So, while agenda setting doesn’t play the role it used to in that major news organizations can no longer be the first to choose what the public will think about, it does influence public thought, even if it can’t always choose the topic.

In response to my classmate’s question: “Why is it that when a new technological advance is made, society fears social change?”

I think when a major new technology hits the market and begins to be accepted society doesn’t fear social change as much as they fear the loss of an old way of life.  Take print journalism for example, people are currently worried about what will happen to the industry in light of the digital convergence.  However, the overall medium of printed word will never go away, it will just find a new form.  While the industry is wading through this period of change, wonderful new methods of story telling like multimedia, animation, audio slideshows and interactive websites have emerged.  Yet, these hybrids of the old and new are often ignored because people tend to focus on the negative in that the old ways of print journalism are changing.

All in all, people fear what will be lost, not what the future holds.

The purpose of this study is to examine why new media and interactive media fit into Christian culture.  The main goal of this research is to discover the motives behind using new and interactive media in lay ministries, the church and missions efforts.  In examining the motives for the use of new and interactive media, research will be done to discover if the new media is consumed in Christian communities because the audience seeks it out, or if new media is recommended to Christian communities in hopes that their perceptions of the world will be altered or the information presented will be internalized without question.

Following the completion of said research, I hope to have gathered enough information to formulate a theory concerning the reason why new media is used in Christian culture.  As the overall goal of this research is to discover why new media is used, the research will be completed in qualitative form.

I intend to use a variety of sources for my research including scholarly research already completed on the topic, interviews with ministers and Christian media professionals and a survey questioning Christians’ motivations to use new media.

In an effort to analyze previously conducted research in a new way, I intend to use the sources I find when completing my literature review and developing questions from the ideas presented in these sources and presenting said questions to current professionals in the Christian media industry and Christians in general.  Furthermore, I intend on presenting the findings from past research to those participating in interviews and surveys in an effort to see if the participants agree with past findings.  This way both media professionals and media consumers’ can comment on the scholarly research on the topic and provide their own thoughts, thus furthering the research already completed on the topic.

Furthermore, I intend to question Christian Media professionals and consumers about interactivity and Christianity.  I hope to discover why consumers seek out this type of media, and what consumers use said media for.  Hopefully, I will discover which parts of Christian communities embrace interactivity and why they feel this media is appropriate for them. I want to learn what Christian Media professionals plan to do with interactive media in the future, and how they feel their plans will be received.

Such a study has the potential to form a theory concerning the motivations behind the use of new and interactive media in Christian culture. Such a theory could say a lot concerning the opinions of Christians and the methods they choose to employ in their effort to spread their beliefs.

Chapter five discusses Weiner’s Cybernetics.  I have several problems with this theory; firstly, I am unsure if a social sciences theory can be developed from mathematics.  While I see how the theory concerning feedback was derived, I don’t think I came entirely from the math. What the science was dealing with was entirely technical, but Weiner’s Cybernetics has to do with people’s reactions, which aren’t scientific. Furthermore, the theory states that the stability/instability of a group rests on their reaction to a message.  I have a problem believing that that stability of society rests on the feedback of its members.  Rarely will people “go off the deep end” as a result of a message, and there are normally several voices of reason.  Is this theory at all applicable?  Or is it just too cut and dry?

In response to the case study on foul language on television, which was an application of the social learning theory in chapter six:  According to the theory, because young people heard foul language on television repeatedly and saw that it was not often met with a negative response they themselves would use foul language more often.  This is similar to the magic bullet theory, but instead of “monkey see, monkey believe” it’s “monkey see, monkey do”.  Does this theory fail to take external influences into account? I.e.-parents, teachers, etc.?

Chapter seven discusses agenda setting.  Is this concept still relevant in the age of the Internet, citizen journalism, blogs, youtube and an abundance of information?

In reference to one of my classmates’ questions concerning whether qualitative or quantitative theory is more useful in communications theory and whether each have their own pros and cons:

I think both are equally useful in communications theory, but which one the researcher chooses depends the type of research being conducted.  If the researcher is doing introductory work on a topic, quantitative research is probably better because it gives numerical evidence and is easier to generalize than qualitative research.  However, if someone previously conducted a study on said topic, then the researcher could choose to do a more in-depth study using the qualitative method in order to discover the reasoning behind the statistics and why people feel the way that they do. This study would dive deeper into the topic than a quantitative study.

In reference to another classmates’ question concerning how understanding theories applied to mass audience can help them as a communication professional:

As a communication profession it is important to understand theory because theory is the basis for how the media being created affects people, how changes in the media can change reception and how the media being created can better suit society as a whole.  In essence, theory is research completed on our products, just on a huge scale.  It’s almost like free market research, and we should embrace it.  Theory can aid us in knowing the best ways to create media to suit our audiences’ needs and how slight alterations in our work can change the way our pieces are received.

In reference to another classmate’s question pondering the validity of theory in that at the root of theory assumption prevails.

Social sciences will always be a little bit less valid than studies conducted in chemistry or biology because we can’t put things in a test tube, control the environment and come up with a result that is true all the time.  It is impossible to control the environment in social science because we study what people think and how they react.  However, we can come as close as possible to make very general, possibly true assumptions concerning communication theory. Unlike truly scientific theory, social science theory is always evolving and being tweaked.  Research on a topic is never truly complete, as there are always more things to include in the study, a different demographic to test or a medium to change.