Category: Drew Sykes

Augmented reality is AWESOME from what I’ve seen and read. While it’s in the early stages, the possibilities of what it will bring are pretty huge. That being said, I’ve got a few questions about where it may go:

1. With augmented reality giving the user a chance to use motion to control virtual items, how could it be used in the medical field? Will it be good for training? Could we end up in a place where medical education ends up being like the game “Operation” but with augmented reality?

2. What are some practical ways augmented reality could be used in the working world?

3. Is Augmented Reality the first step in the direction towards a real-life “Avatar”? Why or why not?

Video Games.  Pretty freakin’ cool topic this week. Of course, like anything else, they don’t make ’em like they used to, do they? Personally, I think they peaked with the Super Nintendo and fell into close second with the N64, but with their ever-growing popularity, that’s obviously just me.

Anyway, here are a few questions I have on the subject:

1. The idea of video game simulation in the military came up in the readings.  As video game technology advances and becomes more realistic, how effective will these simulations be in terms of field training? Will they ever be effective enough to REPLACE field drills?

2. Video game advertising has become more prominent with the advent of online gaming, and it hit a peak in 2008 when Obama became the first politician to campaign in a game. How do you think video game advertising will change in the coming years?

3. As motion technology like the Wii and the xBox Kinect evolve in the gaming industry, how realistic will the movements become in relation to the real activity? For example, will sports games involve the same full movements of the real sport? And will these technologies allow for adequate fitness plans?

What have the big-time news and broadcast corporations done to step into the online world?  And how do you think this affects their revenue?

After asking this question earlier in the week, I’ve managed to absorb a few of the things news and broadcast corporations have done and are doing to step into the online world and continue making money.

First off, journalism isn’t dying; it’s changing. Print is fading fast, but online journalism is EVERYWHERE. The difference now, though, is that the READER can immediately respond to the WRITER. They can read an article on the screen and comment back and forth, swaying opinions and getting their two cents to be HEARD.

As this kind of feedback has become prevalent in the news world, corporations have changed their websites to allow it, and they encourage it. The back and forth conversations inspire more stories create discussions that can benefit both sides of the issue.

While the advent of producer-consumer-producer journalism helps keep stories alive, you gotta wonder how the corporation makes money when the content is free.  Well, they find ways.

Advertising is all over these websites, and a lot of it is specifically targeted to the readers of the story. Stories about sports have sporty advertisements, stories about politics have campaign links, and etc. People pay the news groups for this ad space, and the news groups keep trucking as a result.

They also make money through subscriptions. Even though print is dying, people are still paying for news. Certain websites allow the main stories to be accessed for free, but after a point, the user has to pay. Doing this often teases the user enough so that they WANT to pay for full access.  It’s brilliant, and it’s done in all kinds of websites.

So even though news seems free, the corporations are still trucking because tweak our interests and find other ways to make us pay.

It’s crazy watching the way the Internet continually changes the producer to consumer cycle.  I remember first getting online and how cool it was, but how hesitant my mom was to let me order anything. Only a few sites seemed safe enough to give up your information at the time, and even then it seemed like a big deal. Now we do it all the time without even THINKING.  I know there have been a few times where the convenience of buying online has caused me to spend money.  If not for the Internet, I would definitely have a little more change in my bank account.  Ah well.

Anyway, the whole idea of Internet commerce and information distribution brings up this week’s questions. Here we go:

1. Competition is what keeps retail alive. To me, the craziest thing in this field is seeing two neighboring gas stations with prices differing by a fraction of a CENT. How do online retailers keep up with these kinds of price changes, and is it harder for them to stay afloat if they can’t keep up with their competitor’s changes?

2. Besides advertising, how do certain websites and Internet companies survive and draw revenue?

3. What have the big-time news and broadcast corporations done to step into the online world?  And how do you think this affects their revenue?

“Copyright” is a scary word in the media world.  Freaks me out.  There are the obvious rules and there’s fair use, but even those seem kind translucent to me. Of course, there’s also the philosophy of “if you aren’t SURE, don’t use it,” but either way, you lose. Say there’s a song or movie clip out there you REALLY want to use under fair use and you don’t because you’re not sure, then you miss out. If you use it and accidentally violate copyright law, you could get in pretty big trouble. Like being thrown in jail.

So copyright is scary. I’m telling you. And reading about it, I figured I’d drop a few questions about the subject. Here we go:

Internet video sites like YouTube and Vimeo are blowing UP these days. Anybody can post and view anything, and sharing is everywhere. How will the continuing development of these video sites affect copyright law and vice versa?

Copyright has been a sensitive word in the music industry since Napster rocked it like a hurricane 10 years ago. Now record companies put blocks on CDs and MP3s so that they cannot be reproduced from their original source. How would burning and copying CDs be a violation of copyright law, and do you think that these blocks are fair?

I saw “The Social Network” this weekend, which features two lawsuits Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg dealt with upon the success of the site.  Both involved parties claiming he used their ideas.  How can anyone know exactly WHO the original author was in cases like this?  And do you think there’s any way to know the real truth?

“One good thing about music—when it hits, you feel no pain.”

Bob Marley said it, and it’s true.  Music defines moments in our lives and gets us through the good and bad.  It’s everywhere, and there are more genres than we can count.  The question is, though, in today’s technology-obsessed society, do people still produce ORIGINAL sound?

Jaron Lanier doesn’t seem to think so.  In his book, “You Are Not A Gadget,” Lanier claims that nothing original has been created in music since the 90’s.  He says that all we do now is steal sounds and songs from previous artists.

A lot of the weight behind Lanier’s claim comes from amateurization in music, or the opportunity for anyone with the right equipment to create and share songs.  He argues that, because of today’s techno-savvy population, new artists come out and steal the work of others.  The music industry is so saturated now that it’s easy to overlook the original producer, and someone who has “borrowed” a sound may get discovered before the creator.

This DOES happen from time to time. It’s most commonly seen in hip-hop, where artists often sample hooks and chord progressions from songs that have already been produced.  We also see it when artists cover other artists.  And, sadly, true theft of sound occurs sometimes too.

Now, none of this means that there are no longer any new forms of music being created!  I’d argue that, if anything, new music is INFLUENCED by past music, not stolen from it.  Different outliers pave the way for genres, like The Beatles for rock and roll and Marvin Gaye for R&B, but even those guys were influenced by people and musicians before their time.

My opinion is that new music is created all the time, and that amateurization is HELPING with these new sounds.  Yes, it saturates the market, but it also widens the spectrum of material being created.  Of course there’s shit, but there’s also GOLD.  Giving the Average Joe a chance to make music opens a whole new WORLD of possibility for the overall sound.  The industry will adapt to these new artists, and as always, for everyone one new musician discovered, thousands will be left behind, but with new technology, millions more will get the chance to follow their dreams and change the music world.

So Lanier is right to the degree that old sounds are used for new music, but it’s more of an influence thing.  Amateurization opens up new possibilities for sound, and gives EVERYONE a chance to make something new.

Jenkins talks about media convergence, or the overlap of content into several different forms of media, as a major corporate strategy of today.  How does the ever-evolving world of fan fiction affect this system, and how does it influence what new content is professionally produced?

Parodies and fan-made films are popping up everywhere. Based on this, as well as the fact that almost anyone can pick up the technology needed to produce a film, how do you think amateurism will affect the future of digital cinema and the film industry in general?

Lanier’s take on the “hive mind” that Web 2.0 and technology are creating is pretty unsettling and cynical. While his opinions are over-the-top, he makes some decent points throughout. One the stuck out for me was his stance on music, and how nothing original has been created since the 90s.  He claims that all we do now is steal from previous artists.  How accurate do you think his statement on music is, and how is amateurism affecting the production of music today?

Knowing what we discussed in class this week, I would change my three questions to incorporate the idea of agenda setting in today’s society. The compare/contrast of the different news sites’ versions of the same story really intrigued me and freaked me out at the same time. In this case, the agenda is definitely set by the media, but told in a way to please the specific reader of each site. If a reader of site A slips onto site B, he could be offended by the way the story is told, even though it’s the same news. From this, it seems like there will always be a left/right element of storytelling. You just have to find the one that fits your own views, because otherwise it becomes a sporting event.

As for my actual questions, I think it’s most fitting to answer my third based on our discussions in class this week. On Monday, I asked, “What are some ways we see propaganda being used in today’s social networking sites, such as on Facebook and Twitter?”

Even though we discussed this based mostly on news media, propaganda is all OVER these websites. Look at your Facebook page for example. Open your profile, and the right side is a column of advertisements that involve items and programs YOU are interested in (how do they DO that?).  MySpace has ad campaigns on every page you open, and YouTube ALWAYS has a current preview for a movie or message about a cause at the top of the page.

Why do they do this? They want you to get INVOLVED and spend your MONEY. The sites are free, and they have to pay for everything somehow.

Several aspects of the Institute for Propaganda Analysis’ “The Fine Art of Propaganda” are seen in the way these sites advertise. First off, bandwagon is EVERYWHERE. The movie trailers boast reviews and several of the ads (especially the fitness-based programs) claim to be “the #1 way to do whatever it is we’re advertising!” Well, if that’s the case, I better get on board! Twitter doesn’t directly advertise using this technique, but the feature of the “Trending Topic” makes it hard t o miss the most popular items and discussions of the day, making you feel left out if you don’t get involved.

Transfer/Testimonial are seen in MySpace ads involving celebrities and their interest. These often feature actors and musicians interviewing each other based on what they like, conveying the message of “I’m famous and I enjoy this, so you should check it out.” This occurs all over Twitter as well, but from the celebrity tweet as opposed to direct advertising.

Card-stacking is relevant as well, and mainly seen in before/after images of fitness program advertisements. By showing the after image, they say “this is how YOU could look if you got onboard with our program,” and it makes the idea of getting into better shape more appealing. Of course, they never mention the hard work and commitment that’s involved. They just want you to check it out.

We are definitely bombarded by propaganda every time we look at our social networking sites. Granted, it doesn’t mean we have to fall for the advertisements, and they’re not always in the foreground, but sometimes those random 80’s t-shirts look pretty darn cool.

The Media Systems Dependency Theory is obviously relative to our coursework in that it deals with how audiences, social systems, and media systems interact with each other. In today’s working world, how do social networking sites affect our jobs, and how do we fall into the ideas of this theory in our use of these sites?

The Social Learning Theory states that we learn certain things in life by observing the acts of role models. Typically, this would make you think of a younger person looking up to and learning from an older authority figure, right? Well, how about the use of social networking by the 50+ generation in a world where the younger folks are constantly involved with these sites? How do you think the Social Learning Theory falls into place here?

Propaganda has always been a powerful force of motivation in communication. What are some ways we see propaganda being used in today’s social networking sites, such as on Facebook and Twitter?