Category: Ashley Dischinger

It’s interesting to consider that although new forms of journalism are quickly exploding (online news sources, social media, citizen and participatory journalism, etc.), there is still a void in the form of a successful advertising revenue model, according to The State of the News Media report. During my time as a journalism undergraduate student, my classmates and I often mulled over the ways in which “new” news sources would be able to sustain themselves, especially when considering online papers that can be accessed without a subscription. The general consensus was that advertising is more than sufficient for generating a substantial amount of ad revenue. It’s alarmed to face the reality that newspapers, including online, experienced a 26% drop in ad revenue in 2009. If online ads are not proving to be a successful business strategy, is there a way that advertising executives could enhance the current model in a way that would bring it more success? Is the problem simply that we are still in the midst of a transitional phase, and users still have not adapted to be receptive to online ads? If 79% of online news consumers say they rarely, if ever, click on an online ad, surely there must be a more efficient strategy for targeting specific audiences? Or perhaps there is an alternative means of salvaging the news industry through news media. Paywalls and paid subscriptions for online publications are often met with hostility from users who are accustomed to infinite online access. But as the report says, maybe a potential solution would be a hybrid of old and new models? When considering the new models of sites like Pandora and LinkedIn users still have the option of visiting the site for free, but loyal users won’t have a problem with paying a slight fee to have access to a wider range of features, or even to obtain unlimited access. Are models such as this, where users can opt-in to pay for premium services, the key to keeping journalism afloat?

The notion of “free” in the context of the digital world carries many implications. Take Anderson’s observation about the psychology of free, for instance: people often associate (perhaps subconsciously) free with inferior quality. But does this necessarily mean that the majority of people will be willing to pay that extra premium price just to have greater access to information?

I would argue that online users actually demonstrate behaviors that discredit this theory. Anderson somewhat touches on this with the concept of “the penny gap.” When users are presented with the ultimate choice of paying a specified amount, they will surely being to weigh their options and question whether the price is worth it.

After a slight internal debate, I think my generation in particular is going to favor the option of free goods/information over any kind of transaction cost. We’ve been raised on the Internet, and arguably brought up with the idea that we can find “anything” online for free. Legal and moral issues aside, with enough determination, it’s not too difficult to find anything online for free.

When we are accustomed to downloading free music, movies, books, newspaper articles and other forms of information, what happens psychologically when we are informed we might have to pay for something? Personally, I experience a sense of frustration, stemming from the fact that I actually associate the idea of the Internet with freedom. Freedom to search, freedom to educate myself and the freedom to obtain this information… for free.

Like we said in class, if something is thrown at us for free, we’ll probably have a difficult time turning it down, simply for the fact that it is free. But have we actually reached the point where we feel entitled to free content online? Certain newspapers experienced a negative backlash when initially introducing paywalls to their online components. Students become frustrated when working on a research paper, only to reach the obstacle of being required to pay for information past the abstract of a particular article.

Psychologically speaking, it seems that when many of us are confronted with the ultimate “is it worth it?” question, many of us will turn to an alternative source where we can find the same information for free. After all, we are living among the age of information explosion within the online realm- with so many choices at our fingertips, why resort to the option that forces us to pull out our wallets?

Chapter 11 of Applied Mass Communication Theory discusses the market structures of monopoly and monopolistic competition, as applied to the media. The chapter asserts that a competitive market remains the furthest from a true monopoly. I can’t help but wonder, when considering current social media monopolies such as Facebook, if perhaps the two market structures are actually related? After doing my panel presentation, I’ve found plenty of research supporting the idea that it’s the very presence of this monopoly that has initiated the birth of alternative social networking sites that challenge the Facebook-dominated social networking scene.

The relationship between audience needs and the advertiser is quite complex, according to Chapter 11, often times with one side favored over the other. Could the disconnect between these needs be narrowed with the growing presence of targeted advertising online? Technology allows for researchers to gather data based on your online activity, which then generates data about your assumed interests, shopping habits, etc. Do these technologies allow advertisers to more accurately pinpoint their audiences’ needs, even if the audience is unaware? Furthermore, does this strategy have a significant impact on the amount of advertiser revenue generated, since companies are more likely to advertise with the assumption that more specific audiences can be targeted?

Earlier in the week, I posted framing questions regarding the growing trend of amateurization. I questioned some of the ways that amateurization will continue to challenge and expand our creativity, as a society. Jenkins’ theory of participatory culture was further demonstrated in the documentary we watched in class on Wednesday, dealing with the related issue of copyright infringement. Copyright issues have certainly become a highly debated topic within the entertainment industry. The documentary specifically emphasized the immediate effects within the music and movie sectors worldwide.

Returning to the idea of amateurization: copyright infringement issues come into play as soon as you start examining much of the user generated content that is easily found online. Take YouTube, for instance: a hefty portion of the video content includes video “mashups,” parodies of now-famous news clips (Bedroom Intruder song, anyone?), remixes of popular songs and even entire TV episodes that are posted without permission. In some ways, it can be argued that the thought, time and effort put into these instances of amateurization, fosters the creative energy of our society. At the same time, there is a sector that would argue against the spread of this content due to directly ripping off others’ work. As I saw this tension played out in the documentary, I began to question whether we can ever achieve some degree of a happy medium between allowing the creation of amateur content (in an effort to encourage creativity, free of restrictions) and limiting the sharing of content that isn’t completely original (to avoid copyright infringement.) It’s a topic that we will continue to debate in the years to come, and perhaps we will never reach a direct solution. But regardless on where you personally stand on the issue, this generation is inarguably the first that is witnessing the revolutionary trend of amateur-infused content, reflective of the larger theories of collaboration and participatory culture, which is ultimately fostered by the Web.

After reading the Jenkins reading, I began thinking about the implications of the empowerment of the media’s “amateur” content producers. The first question that came to mind was with the rise of decentralized circulation, and anonymous attributions of this content, how will this impact our ability to filter through the massive amounts of information we encounter? It’s easy to label information on a site like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal as credible sources, but what about the anonymously submitted stories or videos? Do we write them off as “junk” since we don’t know their origin, or do we judge based on the legitimacy of the content?

Stemming off the idea of amateur content, in what ways will amateurization ultimately lead to a more creative pop culture? Published content is no longer limited to those with a professional background. It seems like those that previously experienced limitations to presenting content are now able to easily and economically produce and share this content with the masses.

Finally, with the emergence of the participatory culture, which uses technological developments to transcend the barriers of the industry’s commercial sector, will traditional corporations eventually become obsolete? Will the media eventually morph into a mass collection of content fueled by the low-cost grassroots model of this participatory culture? Jenkins’ essay places a great deal of emphasis on the strengths of the participatory culture, which could directly impact the media’s future business model.

My week 3 framing questions focused on a chapter of Here Comes Everybody, which we haven’t yet discussed in class. Still, upon reading further in the book, I think I can begin to respond to my initial questions with a little more insight. I questioned the concept of amateurization that is now prevalent in the world of online journalism. I questioned Shirky’s negative opinion, as I originally saw it, of the massive amounts of “junk” that we can find online and the importance of learning to filter through it in an educated way.

After reading the following chapter on personal motivations and collaboration, I better understand that Shirky doesn’t consider all user-generated content to be junk. In fact, he uses the example of Wikipedia which often gets a reputation for producing mass amounts of inaccurate or insignificant information on its pages. But rather than undermine the collaborative efforts of amateurs to produce the content, he recognizes the surprising success of the site. He does admit that the site revolves around the very idea of publishing before filtering. Still, he concludes that “Wikipedia articles get better, on average, over time.”

Shirky even goes as far as to credit the freedom of these amateur contributors, arguing that the very reason the site functions so well (and remains relatively valid) is because of the personal motivations that wouldn’t necessarily exist in a professional environment. Psychologically speaking, people like to see their own work published, especially when writing about a subject they care about, which encourages them to put forth their best work, free of financial ties. In this sense, pages like Wikipedia are essentially user-generated content at their core, but it doesn’t necessarily undermine their validity, due to the personal motivations of group collaboration. This isn’t to say that 100% of amateurization is legitimate. This is where our filtering skills must come in- a topic that I still hope to learn more about later in the week.

Chapter 4 of Here Comes Everybody, “Publish, Then Filter,” really struck a cord with me because the topic of amateurization is one that is constantly debated among journalists. Shirky even poses the question: “Surely it is as bad to gorge as it is to starve?” He seems to paint user-generated content in a negative light. Granted, it is important to learn how to filter through the “junk,” but aren’t those hidden treasures among the user-generated content the very things that we celebrate about Web 2.0? Without the concept of audience participation, wouldn’t we lose vital pseudo-journalistic content? (I’m thinking of photos that are instantly Tweeted from the scene of breaking news, where perhaps journalists and other news media have not yet arrived, etc. This content is certainly published before it’s filtered, but isn’t the sense of timeliness and contribution for the sake of conversation the whole point?) On a similar note, how can the average Internet user learn to become efficient filters of the mounds of conversation found in communications media?

Rationale/motivations: For my research topic, I want to examine the ways in which interactive elements are changing the face of narrative journalism. Traditionally, mainstream news publications have shied away from this particular genre, mainly due to time and space constraints. However, the exploding presence of online media presents an unprecedented platform for narrative journalism to thrive. More specifically, interactive graphics such as video, slideshows, illustrations, etc., have the potential to effectively supplement the narrative stories in an online forum. Web sites such as Slate magazine are quickly gaining popularity as they embrace narrative journalism with interactive graphics. I think it will be fascinating to explore the effectiveness of interactive elements in modern narrative journalism, as well as the ways in which interactivity has the potential to enhance a traditional narrative.

I wanted to choose a topic closely related to the field of journalism, since my undergrad degree is in this field. I’m extremely interested in the changing face of journalism, but I wanted to find a topic beyond the cliché of “news is moving online.” Narrative journalism is a more specific area that interests me, and I like the fact that interactivity is probably more crucial to this sector than standard news stories. I also think this would be a great concept to lead into my Capstone for the spring, since I initially wanted to find something that was journalism-related… this just puts a more unique spin on it.

I’ve already found an interesting collection of recent studies on the subject that I’d like to more closely consider. One study, for instance, examines the “journalistic paradigm” as narratives move from the news room to online forums. The study ultimately found that interactive media resulted in more complex, layered narratives. It also implies that there is now a changed process of newsgathering for these online narratives. Another study looks at the ways in which online writing and accompanying interactivity affect the way that readers process the information. I want to compare a wide variety of studies such as these in order to pinpoint the specific ways that interactivity is changing the field of narrative journalism.

Engagement with social theory: In the broadest sense, this topic relates to human communication theory on several levels- interpersonal and societal. Some more specific theories this topic relates to include the narrative paradigm theory and the uses and gratification theory.

Methods: I’m going to base my research largely on previously conducted research. I’ve already found a substantial collection of noteworthy scholarly studies. Additionally, there is a multitude of reliable news sources that have recently published stories that can supplement the research studies. Ideally, I would like to include some of my own research to provide a “mixed methods” collection of data, but this is something I’m still considering.

Outcome/novelty: I hope that the outcome of my research thesis will highlight the specific reasons why interactive media are enhancing narratives through the lens of specific theories, as well as the ways in which these media are changing the narrative journalism field as a whole. After gathering more preliminary research, and noting the related theories that have already been projected, I think the specifics of the potential “novelty” of my thesis will arise.

1. Chapter 5 briefly discusses the “summary of the Transmission of Direct Effects Model” in studying how messages are transmitted, received and have an effect on people. he reading says this paradigm is based on the idea that media messages were assumed to have a direct influence on those who were exposed to them. But what about messages that don’t have a direct impact on the audience? What are studies that have been conducted on ineffective ad campaigns, for instance?

2. I always think the idea of social responsibility and the press is an interesting one. According to this theory, the press is obligated to provide a truthful account of events to its readership, among other responsibilities. If there is an instance of an embellished story, does it directly affect the public’s trust in that particular publication?

3. According to the uses and gratifications theory, many goals of mass media use can be derived from data supplied by individuals themselves as they report their interests and motives. I’m always interested in learning about the varying motivations for using new technologies, so what would be some of the specific uses and gratifications of the iPad, and how are they different from the motivations of using a standard MacBook or other Apple computer?

• Are there any particular reoccurring theories that seem to be most relevant to interactive media studies (more specifically, recent studies in the implications of social media growth, for instance?) …And if so, what do these theories suggest?
• What, if any, are the theories that have become outdated since the fading of traditional media and the subsequent birth of interactive media?
• What research or studies have been conducted most recently that has given way to brand new theories about the development of interactive media?
• What are the most highly debated theories regarding the development of interactive media, and/or what are, if any, the theories that have been widely accepted?