Category: Jordan Mohr

My questions for this week are:

1. If infoenterpropagainment is the order of the day for political media platforms, is the constituency just as complicit in allowing out-of-context information to stand in for the truth?

2. Doses the advent of Web 2.0 technologies truly mean that the political due process is in the hands of a community-by-community basis rather than a centralized political machine?

3. Are grass-roots social networking sites more powerful than the traditional central governments in regards to making immediate, localized social change?

1. How do we separate valid information from hearsay in our digital age?

2. Is the future about collaboration rather than competition between news sources?

3. How reliable is the citizen Journalist?

This weeks questions were:

1. What consitutes “free” in our time?

2. Does the word “free” connote effective change?

3. What are the long term effects of Utilitarian and substitute based marketing initiatives?

In an attempt to answer these questions I looked to the work of Chris Anderson to explain the meaning of free in our time and the connotations it has with piracy. In the countries of China and Brazil the issue of piracy has become a secondary issue when it came to satisfying the demand of the public for various issues. Whether it be luxury items or subsidized prescription drugs, the fact of a grossly fluctuating market has forced many world govenrments to consider secondary options to benefit from piracy.

For example in China, nearly 95 percent of the music that is listened to by the average person is pirated. Music is considered both an unnecessary expenditure of the middle class and something that is trivialized. Instead of wasting annual dividends on court costs, the Chinese have made their revenue from the artists themselves using talent for commercials, radio spots and merchandise sponsorship. Also, in regards to luxury items such as designer wear, the Chinese have adopted the custom of purchasing an authentic item while supplementing the rest of their wardrobe with knockoffs. It is with the inclusion of this fact that Anderson talks about the concept of Induced Obsolescence.

This concept is basically the copying of registered and trademarked goods, often in reproductions of inferior quality. This allows a mercantile economy to move trends from the elite to the masses within a short span of time. In Brazil This has become the absolute norm. In the “Bad Copy” documentary we saw techno brega musicians copy American songs and remix them with very loud and Bass oriented techno lyrics for “big sound system” concerts. Why? Mere promotional campaigns. In a heavily subsidized economy like Brazil, the average citizen does not have the income to support such luxuries. The same applies to the health care system of the country. Years ago, Brazil experienced an alarming AIDS epidemic that could have only been countered by widespread distribution of retro viral drugs. The ability to sustain the demand of such drugs was not economically feasible and as such the Brazilian government issued an ultimatum to the pharmaceutical giants to lower their prices on AZT medicines, or risk the consequences of allowing the disease to spread. Today Brazil is the largest manufacturer of royalty free prescription medication.

The concept of “free” does promote effective change in market dynamics and social welfare. It has also lead to a large substitute based market where the average consumer can readily afford what was previously only available to the financially well off. The issue with piracy is not the artists/manufacturers rights. The real issue is the consumer industries not having the foresight to create new methods to satisfy a growing demand in a stagnant market economy.

Earlier this week I had a few question pertaining to Intellectual property Law:

1. In terms of Intellectual Property Law- who is really aggrieved?

2. Is Internet Piracy a violation of criminal or civil law? Where does the jurisdiction for such crimes end?

3. Where do we draw the line between defamation and parody?

Yochai Benkler is quoted in his book The Wealth of Networks” that in a Commercial Economy the primary term of exchange is currency and the value of it. In a sharing economy, monetary transaction is both both unnecessary and generally frowned upon. In this alternative model an exchange of labor is called for. With these two differences raised we now look at the fundamental driving forces of both.

The commercial economy is driven by a market (protected throughly from fraud) that consistently produces technology and increases personal wealth. When the cost of inventory falls, efficiency of said market increases. This in turn creates a diversity of creativity that goes beyond the original producer or artists intentions. So here we must ask, “Does the right to innovate depend on the community or the hierarchy of the institution that legally granted this right?” Very hard to say, except Benkler states that commercial economics relies on price and the correlation of that to resource allocation. Sharing economies on the other hand are based solely on the interconnected nature of social relations.

The refusal of monetary gain and need to increase revenue are the main point of contention between commerce and sharing. So where does ownership begin and end? Who really owns anything? The answer may very well be in the changing of our times. In terms of the violation of intellectual property law it is wise for those concerned to refocus their attention from pure profit to regulation. An interesting scenario could be presented from the documentary Bad Copy. In Brazil we saw local song remixers take American music and add new beats to existing compositions. Could we as a society impose absolute regulation or introduce limited circulation of music for promotional means? If say, music is given to individuals that mix music but the same said music is not given out for profit who does it hurt? There only seems to be the potential for increased interest rather than a violation of artistic merit. This goes beyond profit, rather it is the promotion of social cohesion and new markets.

Ok the questions that I have this week are:

1. In terms of Intellectual Property Law- who is really aggrieved?

2. Is Internet Piracy a violation of criminal or civil law? Where does the jurisdiction for such crimes end?

3. Where do we draw the line between defamation and parody?

The questions that I wanted to put towards everyone were:

1. Are we in the midst of a Neo-Artisan Revolution?

2. Are Liberal Democratic societies the ideal system for the Networked information economy?

3. Will an information exchange subsidize areas with poor human development?

I was struck by the phrase “In the networked information economy, the physical capital required for production is broadly distributed throughout society. Personal computers and network connections are ubiquitous. This does not mean that they cannot be used for markets, or that individuals cease to seek market opportunities. It does mean, however, that whenever someone, somewhere, among the billion connected human beings, and ultimately among all those who will be connected, wants to make something that requires human creativity, a computer, and a network connection, he or she can do so—alone, or in cooperation with others”. Is it now that social market economies are returning to the individual and not a large faceless system? Modern society has been built with the financial willpower of large companies and centralized governments. Now that the individual professional has a niche as a large power broker, is this the signal of a new artisan culture? Are we to say that human ingenuity and craft can be upheld as equal to or greater than industry? That is a thought for deliberation.

I mentioned that the opinion of Liberal,Democratic societies being the ideal environment for the Networked information economy. Nowhere in the history of mankind have people been allowed to commit to, a readily available participation in a large and diverse group with a unique range of skills. Not only are the cost benefits enormous but the potential to link multitudes of individuals for change is astronomical. In this system the virtues of individual freedom, a more genuinely participatory political system, a critical culture, and social justice can be attainable. Aside from this idealized vision of how Shirkey and Benkler view a perfect world, I still have doubts.

My concern is how an information exchange can subsidize areas with poor human development. True technology does promote a society that is stable and economically sustainable, to a degree. The use of open source software and humanitarian groups aiding in technology programs for underdeveloped countries does help in generating new opportunities for competing in this globalism world economy. What of local and tertiary problems like ethnic schisms, drought, climate change, a failing health care system and other social problems? I recognize that our digitally linked generation presents a strong cohort to aid in remedying these issues. However, I still feel that society, our entire Networked information economy, must come together as a whole to create a lasting impression.

1. Are we in the midst of a Neo-Artisan Revolution?

2. Are Liberal Democratic societies the ideal system for the Networked information economy?

3. Will an information exchange subsidize areas with poor human development?

1. Who is ultimately responsible for conveying the truth to the public?

2. Why is it that when a new technological advance is made, society fears social change?

3. Does the Media seem to be disposed to observations or perceptions?

This week has been an interesting insight in regards to how users and participants in media are equally accountable for the flow and agendas that media represents. First we have to consider how society holds seemingly holds responsibility. There are several models displayed in the Social Responsibility and Theories of the press section. News media should be the following: Truthful and comprehensive to current events in meaningful context, a forum for commentary and criticism, a place to project ideals, opinions and attitudes to different groups in society, and being the penultimate means of mass communication. There are four schools of thought that correspond to and oppose this traditional model.

The Libertarian model expressly revolves around the idea of a marketplace of ideas free of central government. This ideal is lacking in an integrated moderation system which means that either chaos or civility can accompany discussion at any given time. The most moderated model is that of Social responsibility. Here the media is self-restrained to promote diverse opinion. However, government regulation comes in to play to lessen the chances of the most dangerous impulses. The Authoritarian model, best exemplified by Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and modern autocratic regimes entail total government control. The press is completely censored, diverse opinion is set aside for the state’s official opinion and differing sentiment carries harsh consequences. The final ideal is that of the Totalitarian model, or the “Soviet model”. Here the media is expressly used as a propaganda tool and is thus an instrument of the state.

Accountability does not only extend to societal mores and the public’s responsibility rather it also applies to the individual. This is an interesting thought to consider when we see social changes being met with mixed reactions. The human mind is naturally averse to change due to the thought of perception and selection. Perception is a filtering process where the individual looks for familiarity and thus comfort in new surroundings. In terms of the media, perception corresponds to differing perceptual channels. These can be automatic and thus totally engrossing, Attentional Perception which allows the individual to  sub-consciously sort audio-visual subjects that have varying appeals of interest, and Self-reflexive which means the individual can consciously sort subjects and process them in order of importance. In regards to the thought process of the individual I have thought of how the media is more in tune with either perceptions of the individual or agenda setting observations.

The answer is that media subjects are whatever the individual derives from it, including the responsibility to interpret the world. The Japanese Martial Arts Philosopher, Musashi Miyamoto, is quoted in his book “The Five Rings” regarding the vision sense as “sight being observation and perception being intuition”. In other words the individual must perceive what cannot be seen. In this information overflow it is wise to go by this teaching. To observe and receive an expressed opinion makes an event relevant to the individual. However the power of perception, when used wisely and without bias, can provide insight and clarity when the line appears to be blurred.

Feel free to comment on this, thank you everyone.

The Birth of Citizen Journalism

The concept of citizen journalism is a relatively new phenomenon that has played a new role in how citizens interact with the media. No longer is the average citizen a receiver of nightly television broadcasts but is now an active participant in how the news is shaped. In the past few years it has become increasingly clear that the use of social networks and user generated content is now the first link in the media’s distribution of news. I wish to explore and examine the potential this new social trend has.

In the last few years I have seen how the tactics of civil rights groups adapted and changed across the globe. The change is the struggle to counteract measures imposed by governments that have little regard for human rights. In viewing the 2008 documentary “Burma VJ” I watched as how the videographer named “Joshua” shot footage from a concealed Canon camera, and uploaded edited content onto a yahoo account for Radio Free Burma based in Denmark. This method helped capture the exact actions taken during the September 2007 protests by the Burmese government as thousands of protestors took to the streets of Rangoon. In addition to the Burmese opposition using this technology as similar scenario played out on the streets of Tehran in July of the previous year.

The opposition party of Mir-Hossein Mousavi disputed President Ahmadinejad’s reelection by staging a mass protest in the Iranian capital. In response the government ordered a crackdown of all telecommunications centers to disrupt personal cell phone communication as well as text messages directed to outside sources. In a move that stunned the world, the opposition groups turned to social networking sites as well as the micro-blogging site twitter. The Iranian authorities attempted to shut down the nations web services and restart them at lower bandwidths, only to find that the very computer literate activists often used open web proxy servers to get around net sanctions. The conclusion of these examples of social unrest was that anti-authoritarian opposition was digitally mobilized, yet could not be sustained without outside help. It is here that I wish to begin my research.

I hope to examine these two instances while keeping in mind how the citizen journalist theory applies to both. In each instance I will cite the methods that succeeded, what did not succeed, and how the international community could have further assisted them in fighting for their civil rights. This topic will be a sociological case study that will be conducted through virtual ethnography. The theory of Media Determinism will be invaluable as societal norms of communication depend on the means to which individuals collaborate. Keeping in mind that the uses of social networking in these instances are seemingly a utilitarian approach, I will analyze samples of tweets and messages relayed through sites sent out by these activists. I will also examine the government responses to the actions of opposition groups. As this is a new field I hope to uncover new theories and possibilities as to how the public can further exercise its self-determination through our interconnected age.

My questions are:

1. Who is ultimately responsible for conveying the truth to the public?

2. Why is it that when a new technological advance is made, society fears social change?

3. Does the Media seem to be disposed to observations or perceptions?