Category: Jordan Thorndyke

My first question this week asked about the potential benefits to interacting in the virtual realm. I took a class last semester called “Computers in Society” in which we discussed similar issues. There are several examples of people who have met on sites like Second Life and World of Warcraft and met and got married in real life. I think that often times the people drawn to these sites are ones who want to escape their every day life. For example, one article I read gave the example of a woman who went on Second Life as a male avatar because it made her feel more powerful than she did in her male-dominated real-life workplace. For these people, the online world provides a social outlet that probably combats loneliness or feelings of frustration that they feel in the real world.

Next, I asked about whether we will begin to expect the real world to meet the same customization that the online realm presents to us. I am going to go with a “no” on this one. I think that most people are able to separate the real world and the virtual world, and people understand that the opportunities available to them online are not necessarily the same as those open to them in their personal life here on planet Earth. For example, a broke, lonely, in-debt college student can parade around as a rich, successful tycoon in a virtual world and experience things that would never be available to them in their every-day life. As long as this person doesn’t have some sort of mental illness, I think they’d understand that there is a difference to the things they can choose or customize in their online world and what they can (or can’t) in their real life.

Finally, I asked about ethics in online realms. I think that people should police each other in virtual worlds. If someone is pretending to be a pedophile on a virtual site, then other members of that site should call him or her on it. People on these sites should make it clear that behaviors that aren’t OK in the real world are also not OK in the virtual world. Anything that makes other users uncomfortable should be policed, since we can’t exactly call the cops every time someone is raping and murdering women on Pleasure Island in Second Life. I don’t know that the users who do these things on virtual world sites are more likely to do these activities in real life, but there is something a little disturbing there that begs for someone to keep an eye on it. The only people who can make sure that other users behave ethically are the people that use the site– therefore its up to them to make sure that behavior in virtual worlds is kept in line.

1. There is often criticism and backlash toward people who spend a great deal of time on sites like WoW or Second Life. But what positive things have emerged out of such virtual worlds? Are there social benefits to experimenting in the online world?

2. The Papagiannidis and Bourlakis article discusses the ways in which virtual world members can customize their retail transactions to meet their specific needs. Is it possible that there will come a time when we expect this in the “real world” as a result of what is available in the online world?

3. Should we be concerned with the people that participate in illegal activities like pedophilia and violence in online realms? Does that mean they are more likely to do those things in real life?

My first question this week asked about how filmmakers will react to the growing market in the interactive entertainment industry. I believe that as the gap widens between the amount of money made by the gaming industry and that of the film industry, filmmakers will try more radical approaches to storytelling. I can see in the not so distant future a feature length film similar to the YouTube thing we watched in class (was that this class or iMedia strategies?) where you can choose the direction of the film. This will be a lot more expensive and time consuming for filmmakers, actors, videographers, etc… but the end product could be really cool and will allow the audience to connect more with the film.

Next, I asked about how video games will continue to grow and fill a niche in our society. I am reminded of the discussion we had in class about how video games like the Wii have become a replacement for board games in modern families. I dated a guy whose family would spend hours on the weekend playing the Wii together. While this is a little weird coming from someone whose family is rarely ever in the same town, much less the same house, I guess that for families/friends/partners looking to connect and share something, video games could be a good outlet. I know that a lot of video games allow you to use headsets to communicate with other users. This reminds me of phone calls or skype. I can see long distance friends or couples meeting at a specific time in the gaming world to play against each other. I think this could be a good outlet for staying connected to one another, even if you aren’t in the same physical space.

Finally I asked about how the gaming industry will change our field. I don’t think it will do any more harm than anything else in terms of stifling our creativity. The most talented and creative designers will continue to get the jobs. The most talented and creative writers will be able to write the stories. And the most talented and creative directors will continue to direct the experience. It isn’t replacing other industries, it is instead adding to our options as interactive experts. Just taking a look at our program, you can see that there are people who would be capable of designing for a game, coding for a game, filming for a game, writing, producing sound, etc. There are dozens of jobs available for people with expertise in interactive entertainment within the gaming industry.

1. Now that the video gaming industry has become more lucrative than the film industry, how will this effect the way other types of media are created? Will filmmakers, photographers, and other storytellers move to more interactive narratives?

2. How do video games as a social experience compare to other types of media? For example, will people begin playing video games on first dates, rather than going to movies?

3. How has the interactive entertainment industry affected the job market in our field? Has it improved it for the better, or changed it in a way that stifles creativity and individual thinking?

1. The Boyd articles discusses how teens create and update SNS profiles based on their perceived audience? How do we portray ourselves different on the Web than we would in other mediated spaces and why do we do so?

2. What implications will we see from the way that teens and young adults use the Web today? How will it change the way society views certain behaviors, or will it change it at all?

I can’t provide an answer here that has any kind of scientific or research-based evidence. However, I can say that I think people are narcissistic by nature. They want to show themselves off and they want to show themselves off in a positive light. People have a tendency to post things that communicate the “OH MY LIFE IS SO GREAT!” message. Or if they are going through a hard time they may take the “WOE IS ME, FEEL SORRY FOR ME!” approach.

We don’t know the implications of these public portrayals yet. It will be interesting to see the news agencies pull up 30 year old Facebook pictures of Presidential candidates getting drunk or high at a party in college. Or using status updates/comments from decades before to enhance political mudslinging. It seems like our society will lower its moral standards as life becomes more and more public. We’ll see that even the woman who sits next to us in church every Sunday has a tagged Facebook photo of her making out with the preacher at a bar.

Everyone has an intrinsic desire to be liked. We want people to envy our lives, to think we’re cool. That’s why we stalk our ex-boyfriends or our current bf’s ex-girlfriends. We want reassurance that our lives are better than our enemy’s. We need the competition to thrive, so we post things to make our lives into a narrative, filled with drama, comedy, successes and failures.

3. How will WikiLeaks affect how government is run? Will transparency become a bigger priority if officials are afraid of being caught up in corruption? Or will we have to move toward a more militant and secretive state in order to protect sources and information?

I think our discussion in class today was really interesting regarding transparency. Wikileaks hopes to encourage transparency in government but is unable to provide transparency within its own organization. However, I do think the fear of being caught it enough to keep officials and governments more transparent. It could work the opposite way in cultures that already have a more militant or dictatorial governments but in systems that value democracy and power of the people, I believe it will work to the benefit of the governed.

1. The Boyd articles discusses how teens create and update SNS profiles based on their perceived audience? How do we portray ourselves different on the Web than we would in other mediated spaces and why do we do so?

2. What implications will we see from the way that teens and young adults use the Web today? How will it change the way society views certain behaviors, or will it change it at all?

3. How will WikiLeaks affect how government is run? Will transparency become a bigger priority if officials are afraid of being caught up in corruption? Or will we have to move toward a more militant and secretive state in order to protect sources and information?

1. What are different concepts of citizen journalism? How does it affect mainstream media and the way we use the Internet?

2. What are some of the ways that interactivity can change the ways politics operate? Will political candidates be more “in-touch” with constituents as we continue to live more and more of our lives in an online sphere? Or will it only add to an already existing disconnect with the digital divide?

3. How have other countries used the social networking tools that Obama used in his 2008 campaign? Have they seen the same amount of success?

My first question this week focused on how the Internet is affecting the type of news content being disseminated to today’s audiences. One thing I came across in the readings is that people are now able to choose what content they receive, more so than ever. Instead of sitting through a 30 minute newscast to hear one story that interests you, you can now type an issue into a search engine to receive the latest, up-to-date information about a topic. This is a major hit to traditional news sources, but I don’t think it is necessarily a death sentence. Although it is easier to go online and choose the content you want to view, this isn’t entirely different from scanning a newspaper for the stories you want to read.

This question also reminds me of what we are talking about with Customization and Personalization in iMedia Strategies. Users are now able to customize news sites/feeds/etc. to receive only the kinds of updates they wish to receive. The news industry now has to be a jack of all trades in order to meet the demands of consumers and users.

My next question dealt with ethics. Ethics has always been a major issue in the news industry. Without ethical behavior, news sources are at risk of losing their credibility. If I had to take a guess, I would say that journalism is in more ethical trouble than ever. Now that we can edit and change information within seconds, there is less incentive to get information right the first time. The desire to break the news first online will often outweigh the truthfulness of the writing. Why do the research now if you can go on and break the news and just press a few keys to edit it later? Before we entered a 24 hour news cycle, when newspapers/newscasts only came out once a day, journalists had to work harder to get information right the first time.

My final question asked about agenda setting, and how citizen journalism is affecting the theory. I believe that things like Twitter trending topics, blogs, and other forms of citizen journalism are changing the things we think about. Instead of having a newscaster telling us what is important, we can read about obscure topics or pop culture and choose for ourselves. It’s a scary time for journalists. Having earned my degree from UNC’s J-School, it makes me wonder how educators and professionals are going to adapt to the changing times? Will we see the old forms of media fade and die, or will they find ways to change to meet the consumer needs?

Only time will tell.

1. How does the Internet play a role in the kind of news content being disseminated to different audiences? How can newspapers and traditional news sources adopt so that they can still make profits and remain credible news sources?

2. What role will ethics play as we create new ways of sharing news and content?

3. How does citizen journalism affect old theories like agenda setting? Is the news industry still setting the agenda, or do people have more of a choice about the issues they think about and perceive as important?

Anderson’s Free is an interesting read for those of us studying the changes in digital media. This week I asked about how the concepts of a free market will change how we use the internet. The best example I can think of is one that Anderson used in the book about internet advertising. Old systems of advertising do not work for the Internet. Google uses ads for cars next to articles about cars. A print medium would not use this system because it would infer a lack of credibility.

I think the important question here is why? What is the difference between a print source and an internet source? Do we just automatically assume that those who write Internet content are have sold their souls to the devil (aka advertisers)? I guess so. Maybe we have place more trust in print sources, even now. I believe more in the New York Times than I do in Google for news information.

I think its a generational thing. I also asked about how notions of “free” affect how we think about things like piracy and open source software. I think that those of us who have grown up with the Internet see information as free to use. Why pay for something when you can rip it off? We don’t see it as stealing. I would never go into a store and steal a CD, but I have downloaded music illegally (although I pay for it now through iTunes). Because I’m able to read the New York Times for free or watch TV on Hulu for free, I don’t see why I should pay for other content, like movies or music. I’d rather let the advertisers pay for that.

I’d predict that eventually, all content will move to a free market. I can see a time in the future where third-party systems pay for the things we want to download and keep. I don’t think we will ever revert back to old notions of free like “buy one get one free” or “free gift.” I think that the new systems make much more sense for the way we consume media. Anderson’s examples of how Apple makes money not from selling the music, but from selling the iPods. Prices for iPods will stay expensive so that maybe downloads can one day move to free. Its difficult to predict how notions of free will change with evolution of the Internet, but I believe that Anderson hit on some important points and probed some interesting questions in his book.