Category: Bettina Johnson

Week 8 – Journalism

StateOfTheMedia.org

1. The biggest question facing news media in today’s changing digital world is if traditional methods (print, TV, radio) will survive.  Is it possible for people to give up ALL media for online/digital news?  Will the TV in our homes be replaced with a giant computer screen that provides everything we need to know straight from the internet?

2.  Is it possible for our society to eventually become completely paperless (no books, magazines, newspapers, printed fliers and handouts, etc) and rely exclusively on digital bits?

3.  Is it possible for journalism to die completely as an industry?  Will all news become participatory and overseen by communities?

4.  Television became an essential part of presidential elections back in the 1960s.  This past presidential election proved that an online presence is essential.  Will an understanding of online advertising and fund raising negatively impact an older candidate’s chances at winning against a younger candidate?

5. What would be the best business model for online media to adopt now that traditional advertising revenue numbers are plunging?  Would paid online subscriptions be an option?

It’s all about “freeconomics” and it’s being driven by the technologies of the digital age as the price of bandwidth and storage continue to drop.  Free started in the twentieth century by companies giving away something that encouraged purchases of other goods.  Now that we have entered the bit economy, free can really be free.  For example: while bloggers don’t post ads on their sites, they hope to enhance their reputation and by doing do get more paying work in return.  In today’s world a reputation’s credits can turn into cash.

But free does not simply apply to the digital world.  Advertisers have been known to pay some or all of the cost of publications.  Free versions of services sell premium versions.  Bands give away music to in return for paying shows.  The idea of free is becoming much more prevalent in today’s economy and industries need to learn to adapt to this growing economic trend.  This is a time period when we will see which companies fail and which companies “get it”.

The most difficult part of this new economy is to get users to pay anything at all.  The enemy of “free” is waste.  You are less likely to waste something you pay for and, in this sense, free can cause more harm than good.  For those of us that have more money than time, we would rather pay to have something done for us than do it ourselves.  It’s a time saver.  A successful example of this is iTunes.  Prices come with guarantees and free typically doesn’t.  Producers in the digital realm will find themselves completing with free.  It is not going away any time soon.

Google is a company that understands the world of “freeconomics”.  They first invented a way to search online that gets better as the web gets bigger.  Their next idea allowed advertisers to create as that matched keywords or content and bid against other advertisers to obtain the most prominent positions.  They then created other online products to extend their reach and only added ads when it made sense.  As a result, Google wants information to be free because as the cost of information falls it makes more money.

But lower prices can be disruptive.  The free classifieds site Craigslist has taken billions of dollars our of America’s newspaper companies since it’s found in 1996.  With technology, the notion of scale can also make a difference.  If only one out of thousands of Wikipedia visitors decides to create an entry on the site, you still benefit with a pile of information from around the world.  Microsoft’s Encarta CD encyclopedia was put out of business and they put traditional physical encyclopedias out of business before them.

Week 7: Digital Goods / Digital Markets

FREE – The Future of a Radical Price
– Chris Anderson

1. Anderson discusses how “free” got started in the twentieth century by companies giving away something that spurred purchases of related goods.  What is “freeconomics” and what is it being driven by in today’s world?

2.  In 1996 the Village Voice became a free newspaper.  Since it no longer charged a subscription fee, readers perceived that it had a lesser quality.  On the other hand, The Onion started free and stayed free.  It is a much bigger success.  How is this possible?

3.  Anderson points out that, sooner or later, most producers in the digital realm will find themselves competing with “free”.  He also mentions that free can sometimes cause more harm than good.  Why should we go “free” if there is harm?

4. What is the engine behind “free”?  What is it that allows people to try pricing schemes that would otherwise seem insane?

5. What is Google’s reasoning behind wanting information to be free?  What does Anderson’s argument mean when he says lower prices are disruptive?

6.  China is a country where piracy has won and where the notion of copying work of others is a gesture of respect.  Chinese students have a hard time understanding that plagiarism is wrong.  Is there something we can learn here?

Applied Mass Communication Theory: Chapter 11
– Rosenberry and Vicker

1. Nearly all media businesses need to serve two markets simultaneously: audiences and advertisers.  However, one is always favored over the other and it’s rare that both benefit.  Is it possible to fix this dual market arrangement so that it is more fair?  Or should we select one of the markets to always be favored no matter what?

2. The goal of economics is determining what gets produced and who benefits by it.  But if online content is thought to be free, how do online producers benefit?

As media and technologies have advanced over the centuries, society has changed with it.  Has law kept up with all the changes and adapted adequately?

This was the final question I posed in my framing post earlier this week in regards to the sociocultural contest of interactive media.  After reading and discussing in class, I think it is apparent that society has outgrown the law and it needs to be rethought.  Digital mediums have brought copyright, sharing, and the idea of professional versus amateur to a whole new level.  Just as some societies may be afraid to adopt the new technologies in our world today, I believe our world is afraid to adapt new laws to accommodate these new technologies.  It’s time for a change and we can no longer fit our new world into our old regulation model.

The younger generation makes this issue apparent through their disregard for pirating consequences.  Although everyone knows that downloading copyrighted material is illegal and there is big talk that those who take part in these activities will be punished, we don’t hear of a lot of follow through action.  It’s common knowledge that a lot of younger people’s digital content was not paid for and that sharing this content with others is expected among friends.

So where are the repercussions.  If we don’t enforce the rules in this realm, how will other laws concerning wrongdoing be viewed?  Will vandalism and shoplifting also been seen as a something that can be brushed away or not taken seriously?  How will this shape the younger generation and what implications will this behavior and attitude toward law have on society in the future when they run the world?  Frankly, I am a little nervous to see how today’s kids will turn out.

I am also concerned about the trend toward free content online.  Unfortunately, since the Internet’s beginnings back in the late 1960s it was always deemed as and intended to be  a free medium.  However, I don’t believe people know how quickly the Internet would explode onto the societal scene and be integrated so deeply into our modern lives.  Although everyone today is accustomed to the idea of free content online, I think this needs to change.  Just because we are used to something doesn’t mean it is the best method.

As mentioned early, it seems that the world is afraid to change laws to adapt to the new digital lives we live.  Everyone demands free, free, free, free.  But in reality this isn’t possible or fair.  Internet users want a socialist society online but shutter at the idea in real life.  For some people, the Internet is their main world and their main source of income and societal development.  We can not treat the online world as if it is not connected to real lives.

Week 6: Sociocultural Contexts of Interactive Media

Remix
– Lawrence Lessig

1. Lessig outlines two cultures – the read-only culture (RO) model of the past and the read/write culture (RW) of the present digital age.  He uses the concept of blogs to explain how consumers redefined their relationship to the content industry through comments and tagging and that we now posses the digital tools to expand upon production.  These comment features have made their way to media news sites and jumped to a new level in dialogue.  If the internet is a source of free flowing information, should media outlets be responsible for comments left by readers on their site?  Or should reader content be monitored, thus going against the free flow?

2.  Today, digital culture permeates our lives to such an extent that it is hard to come up with anything we would deem as “new”.  The current generation will quote content from various sources to create something “new”.  The combination of content may be different, but can this remix of pre-existing content really fall under the category of new?

3. Lessig describes our sharing economy as not being regulated by a metric of price but by a set of social relations.  While Wikipedia has proven that this type of economy can be successful (people are in it because they want to be), should this mindset be applied to all internet content as a whole?  In what realms does a sharing economy not work well for all parties involved?

4.  The book offers 5 steps toward more efficient copyright law (deregulating, clear title, simplify, decriminalizing the copy, and decriminalizing file sharing).  Although these may all be thoughtful suggestions, I believe most people see copyright violation as trivial and there will always be a way to find pirated material unless more strict punishments are put in place.  Should the government simply revamp copyright laws or is stricter enforcement the real problem?

Applied Mass Communication Theory: Chapter 9
– Rosenberry and Vicker

1. The First Amendment sounds absolute in its wording (Congress shall make no law).  Did the founding fathers really want us to take this amendment as literal as it sounds?  If they were observing us today would they be satisfied with the various tiers and levels of protection we have placed on different types of expression?

2.  Privacy is a hot topic in today’s digital world, especially when it comes to social networking and e-commerce.  However, should the government put laws in place that make up for people’s personal choice of providing identifying information on a medium that was built on the idea of free flowing information?  We provide this information at our own risk and to satisfy needs to associate with the internet.  Is it our own fault that the world can read so much about us?

3.  As media and technologies have advanced over the centuries, society has changed with it.  Has law kept up with all the changes and adapted adequately?

Week 5: Amateurization

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars
– Henry Jenkins

For the longest time fans of media (whether it be music, video, print, digital, or whatever) were solely on the receiving end of whatever the producers gave their audiences.  Now the fans have the opportunity to take the content they love and manipulate it.  But should we consider this a welcome opportunity?  Copyright is always one of those scary topics that people think they understand.  Where do we draw the line on borrowed content?  Thanks to the digital age, there is a growing tension between receivers and producers.  But which side should be upset?  Should we have access to what others have created and fashion those ideas into something new?  Or should the producers have the sole right to limit how their content is used and intervene in the sharing process?

In “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars”, Henry Jenkins explains that the interactive model of mass media is more symbiotic than the old model to which we have become accustomed.  He argues that culture is the result of fans interacting with the content they love.  We are no longer parasites that simply feed off whatever is handed to us. We respond and remix.  We reshape and create new ideas.  But somehow copyright always gets in the way.  Yet, it seems that the knowledge and severity of a judge in a copyright case would have a significant impact.  The laws still seem fuzzy to me, and I’m sure others feel the same.  Why else do we have groups trying to find loop holes in the system.  Something isn’t clear.  Jenkins stresses the need for regulations to be normalized.

Jenkin’s whole purpose for his article was to suggest that this is the way things should be.  He doesn’t see content as making society dumber, it’s how we handle the content.  What we do with it in the end has more meaning than the content itself.  So why take away that opportunity to respond?  According to Jenkis the world is more diverse through participatory means.  And I agree.  The reason we have expanded out ideas at light speed is because of sharing.  We share and build and grow.  Not only have the tools to share media become easier and cheaper, the tools to produce what we see at the movies or on TV is also dropping in cost.

This leads me to one of my framing questions for the week: At the end of the article, Jenkins asks what we can expect for the future of digital cinema.  Do amateur filmmakers have a chance at becoming the majority and will big movie producers go by the wayside? Although it seems hard to believe amateur individuals can step up to the big guys in any field, I wouldn’t want to say this couldn’t happen in the future of media.  Media has become collaborative and it has pulled talented people into the mix that may not have normally had the financial means to join in.  Personal computers are becoming people’s at-home-studios.  Most things that used to require a crew and special equipment can all be accounted for simply through a digital program.  One person can orchestrate the production of a film using tools sold at the consumer level.  I think we are well on our way to seeing more amateur films.  Because the internet has made it easy to share ideas and content and costs have come down in regards to production equipment, the next big producer could be Joe Shmoe working out of his one room apartment on his laptop.

Week 5: Amateurization

You Are Not A Gadget
– Jaron Lanier

1. Lanier introduces his book by referring to “open culture.”  He explains that web 2.0 promotes freedoms people have never experienced through technology until the twenty-first century.  But who is this freedom benefiting most?  Humans or machines?

2.  According to “You are not a Gadget,” the most important thing about a technology is how it changes people and society.  It seems that every 5 years we are learning to use new technologies that we never knew we needed or would make such a large difference in our lives.  But is all this new technology being developed too quickly and negatively changing people?  Is the pace causing these new gadgets to hurt us in the end?

3.  Of all our outlets, advertising has been able to hold strong during the digital transition.  What type of power will advertising hold in the digital future?

4.  We have become accustomed to free access for most Internet information.  Lanier asks if it’s too late to go back and write new rules.  Once society knows they are at an advantage they will not accept change that seems like a step back.  Did we goof up during the development of the web by allowing free access or is this exactly what the web is designed to do (otherwise we would be going against the logical model)?

Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars
– Henry Jenkins

1. As I was skimming the article, I began to wonder if some of the media listed (books, cable, film, magazines, etc) would eventually be completely wiped out.  Do you think society will come to a point in the future when everything will be digital?  Radio, newspapers, television have all had to settle into new niches over time as new mediums became available.  Would it be easier to scrap all the old and promote one platform that includes everything?

2. At the end of the article, Jenkins asks what we can expect for the future of digital cinema.  Do amateur filmmakers have a chance at becoming the majority and will big movie producers go by the wayside?

I have always had a lot of questions about Wikipedia and how it goes against typical business models and information collaboration we have learned to trust through the centuries.  This week’s readings and discussions in regard to the rise of networks helped clear some of this blurriness.  It seems that Wikipeida turned everything upside down in terms of company existence and economic rational.  It is the epitome of collaborative production in our new digital age.  Anyone can now share what they want, when they want, and with whomever they want.  With Wikipedia, groups come together to create something new that cannot be made by one single person to the same degree successfully.  Today we have new tools that allow larger groups to collaborate.  But is this effective?  Yes, because it takes advantage of non-financial motivations and allows for different levels of contributions.

Wikipedia began in 1995 under the idea of becoming a user-edited site.  It was intended for small groups of like-minded individuals that trust each other.  Now it has transformed into a collection of millions of contributors on a global scale.  However, it brings up the question: does this type of information gathering need manager oversight?  In our new world, we have adapted to a spontaneous divisions of labor among groups.  Someone starts a thread and others fill in and edit content as it is added.  The page is never completed because it can always have more information added or taken away by anyone.

But what about the accuracy of this information?  Won’t people post irrelevant or false information (intentionally or unintentionally).  Of course errors will appear.  However, those dedicated to the information will weed out the bad and leave the good.  If there is ever a dispute about content that was added or taken away from a page, anyone can look up the history and even pinpoint the specific user in the backlog.  The reputation of contributors is created from this digital history.

Wikipedia now rivals traditional encyclopedias.  In fact, the amount of information on the site is 25 times larger than that found in encyclopedias.  Plus, users need to wait an entire year to have an updated version of the printed encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is always up to date, is free, and constantly growing.  Although I don’t know who is in charge of information gather for encyclopedias or how this process works, the online community is responsibly for the content of Wikipedia and we are all working together for free to create the largest collection of information.

In terms of economic rational, company existence in the first place is now in doubt.  We can go online and create content whenever and wherever suits us best.  It will be interesting to see how companies evolve as we move toward a new economic approach and move away from an accepted and historic approach to business.

Week 4: The Rise of the Network

Here Comes Everybody! – Clay Shirkey

1. If markets are such a good idea, why do we have organizations at all?  Why can’t all exchanges and value happen in the market?

2. Is company growth always a good idea?  Why are big companies failing?

3. Our world used to be a one-way flow of information: Messages were developed and then we consumed them.  Content was filtered and there was no interaction.  How were we able to switch to a two-way interactive approach?

4. What is non-financial motivation and how has it shaped digital information collection?  Are traditional business theories in danger?

5. How does the internet play into money and company growth today?  Have companies become smaller or have they gotten smarter?

The Wealth of Networks – Yochai Benkler
Ch. 1-4, 10

1.  What are some characteristics of information production as an economic phenomenon?

2. How do we know that the content produced by widely distributed individuals is accurate and trustworthy (Wikipedia)?

3.  Should society be concerned that our new freedom will fray social ties and fragment social relations?

Since I am a history enthusiast on the side, the historical aspects of mass communications intrigued me in this week’s readings.  Only humans use symbols to convey concepts and ideas either through spoken language or written visual imagery.  Early communication records are visual pictures scribbled on walls that depict the world at that time.  Obviously, we are unsure of very primitive spoken language since this was harder to record.  However, we then advanced to written language using symbols that have evolved over time into an alphabet we recognize today.  Symbols were first used either to convey things in the world or ideas and then morphed into representing sounds that could be put together to make words.  In our modern world, there are times when simple images work better to convey a message than written language.  For instance, people across all cultures and languages recognize a figure walking on a yellow street sign but not everyone would understand a word written in a different language.  Ancient techniques still work best when communicating to massive audiences with different backgrounds.

Mass communication is a result of the Industrial Revolution and is considered a more modern development in the history of human interactions.  Although we have had written language dating back thousands of years, large-scale reproduction of these symbols was not possible until the invention of movable type and the printing press (only 500 years ago).  Before this time an audience was relatively small and restricted to geographic location.  Communication earned the term “mass” when ideas were spread quickly by reproductions of written language.

For centuries mass communication was a one-way method from communicator to audience.  With the advancements in new media we are able to receive immediate feedback from an audience, which in turn creates a two-way conversation never before possible in such large masses.  Mass communication was not possible until technologies were developed to reproduce our written (or drawn) works in large quantities for distribution.  Before modern times communication was much more personal. As we use the term mass media today, it refers to communication that is “mediated or enhanced by technology.”

Today, the defining characteristics of mass communication (scale, direction, impersonality/anonymity, simultaneity, transience and audience) need to be rethought from a digital perspective.  There is no one-way flow of information anymore.  Computers blur the number of recipients and the ability to provide feedback as an audience member.  Confusion among researches expanded as they discovered the Internet didn’t fit traditional ideas of mass communication anymore.  We now have to recognize the difference between the sending and receiving of mass messages and those received through interpersonal and small group mediums.

Although communication grew to larger audiences over time thanks to technological advances that spread ideas more quickly, people still learn directly from others.   However, social norms, trends and customs come from the mass media.  Movies and YouTube videos play a role in people’s motivations. Magazines and print paint a metal image of how women see themselves compared to others and what trends are popular for the upcoming season.  Bloggers have brought various subjects or events to the world’s attention and influenced public officials.  It is evident that mass communication not only has an effect on people, but it is also a powerful source of social norms and behavior.