Category: Mollie Lambert

In my first question this week, I asked how we can use virtual environments to teach, especially kids, valuable life lessons.  I think that the best way that we can use virtual environments for children is to teach them positive and healthy Internet and technology use.  Over the past few weeks, we have talked a lot about Internet addiction.  In the video we watched in class on Wednesday of the boy in England who was addicted to video games, the class consensus was, “Why isn’t the mother doing anything about this?”  I believe that using technology responsibly is an essential part of education today.  So, if that means your five year old daughter is allowed to play on Webkinz for 30 minutes a day, that could be a positive use of the virtual environment.  If children are taught from an early age to use virtual environments effectively and responsibly, perhaps the rate of technology addictions would decrease.

In my second question, I asked why companies sometimes put a lot of emphasis on metaverses instead of products in the real world.  I think that a company’s presence in a metaverse is first and foremost important advertising.  But, I also believe that the hype of real-world companies having a presence in virtual environment has not become as crucial as it was once thought.  For example, when Second Life came out, many thought that this was the future of advertising, commerce, the world, etc.  So, Coca-Cola, American Apparel, and many other businesses literally took up shop in Second Life.  However, many of them no longer inhabit Second Life, because the virtual environment did not rise to the popularity that was expected.

The third article talked about user security on Second Life.  It is very scary what can happen to people in virtual environments when they do not know what they are doing– and even sometimes when they are experienced users.  The story that I found most scary was about the avatars that lurk around places that people who only log on for business purposes, and lure them into other parts of the game.  Earlier, I spoke about technology education for children, but it is not enough to only teach children.  Everyone needs to know the tools and dangers of popular technological features so that they can remain safe.  Some people are scared of these technologies– this is not necessary if they are told how to use them.

1. In the first article, it discusses how users learn to use a game and the world that the world creates.  Now, I am not familiar with these games as a player, but the things that the article discusses as things one must learn to be successful in a virtual environment sound similar to ways to be successful in the real world– learn the rules and follow them, be social, you can’t do everything alone, and things are complex and challenging, but you can find a way to get through them.  My question is, how can we use virtual environments to teach these values to children and others in a way that is fun– as well as show that these characteristics transfer to real life?
2. In the second article, it states that the strategies used to build customers in metaverses do not transfer to their products in real life.  Why would a company focus their attention on virtual goods instead of the real ones?  What are the implications of this?
3. Education is the key.  In the scenarios talked about in the third article, many of the situations came about because someone who didn’t know what they were doing logged on to Second Life.  I have never used Second Life before, and this article would make me want to take a class or seminar on it before signing up.  We often forget with the fun aspect of technology comes  a lot of power and responsibility.  As we gain more tools, we must learn to use them correctly.  What are some of the ways that people at Second Life and other organizations do to teach the public about their virtual reality and how to stay safe while using it?

This week I would like to comment on the two videos that we watched about video games.  In the first video, a keynote address by Jesse Schell, he goes into great detail about how one day in the future, our whole lives will consist of a big game that brings us points– and satisfaction.  To me, this was a very scary, and unrealistic, thought.  First of all, it reminded me of things that parents say to their little kids to get them to do things that are good for them– like eating Brussels sprouts and brushing their teeth.  In fact, he even gives an example of earning points by brushing your teeth with a specific toothpaste.  Now as someone who rarely plays video games, this whole concept of life becoming a game seems absurd.  Instead of playing the game of Life (the Milton Bradley version, with the pink and blue pegs as your “avatar”), there are no avatars and you are playing for real benefits, like college scholarships.  Now, I can see the advertising benefits of having a world that is set up like this, but I don’t think it is a good thing if advertising starts to have that much control over our lives.  Oftentimes, it seems like ads are everywhere now, but in the world that Schell described, they were not only forever present, but providing direct incentives for using certain products.

We also watched a documentary on gaming culture yesterday in class.  First, I was struck by the segment about the generation gap when it came to technological understanding.  It reminded me of a video that we watched in Interactive Media Strategies of a usability test of a website being conducted with a child.  The four year old girl had no problem navigating, and even told the administrator that there should be a fill bucket.  I was shocked at a four year old could accurately name a the fill bucket tool– not just recognize it.  Secondly, I disagreed with the segment that discussed virtual environments as being a direct substitute to human interaction in business.  I personally cannot see a difference between having coffee with a bunch of avatars while we talk on the phone, versus having a telephone conversation.  To me, having coffee in a virtual cafe does not add to interpersonal relationships.  I wonder what it is about meeting in a virtual space that adds intimacy.  In addition, I do not hear of this happening a most businesses– will this be the business meeting of the future?

Video games are a very interesting subject because they have the capability to open up, literally, whole new worlds.  I still have concerns as to what this will mean for interpersonal relationships.  But, maybe the idea of interpersonal relationships will simply morph to include online relationships.

1. The article on the video game industry states that in 2008, the industry took in 11.7 billion dollars.  What portion of that money comes from sales, and what portion comes from advertisements?  Is it like the broadcast/print model where most comes from ads and only a tiny portion comes from product sales?
2. The way Bogost describes the hypothesis of Schell, it sounds like what parents do to get their children to behave, or what how you train a puppy.  If you do this good thing, you will be rewarded with a treat.  This concerns me that adults could be dumbed down and treated like children or puppies in order to do good things?  How exactly does Schell see this game-like award system working in real life?  Is this really a good thing?
3. A few of the articles discuss video games and the military.  What are the effects of having military-simulation video games on a society?

So, this week, I am not going to directly answer the questions I asked earlier this week.  Instead, I want to reflect on the topic, reading and discussion that I found very interesting this week– Wikileaks.

Before this class, Wikileaks was not something that I heard about often, but it has intrigued me.  Is it good journalism, or anti-patriotic?  Is Julian Assange a hero or a traitor?

I watched a video a few weeks ago when Wikileaks released the Iraq Logs.  It was an interview with CNN in which the interviewer asked Assange about the charges being held against him.  He refused to answer the question.  The journalist then rephrased her question, giving Assange a chance to defend himself.  He got more upset, and after a brief verbal back-and-forth with the journalist, Assange ripped off his mic and walked off the set.  This interview gave me a very negative impression of the man behind Wikilieaks.

This week in class, we watched an interview with Assange from TED Talks.  Though this interview painted him in a better light, I am still not decided on my feelings toward the man or the organization.  When this interviewer asked the audience if they thought Assange was a journalistic hero or government traitor, the response was overwhelmingly in favor of the hero persona.  It appeared that only a few people, in comparison, thought of him as a traitor.  In this interview, Assange discusses the process they go through to verify their stories.  In fact, when something has not been verified, they let their readers know.  Assange even shared this piece of infomration in a way that got a laugh from the crowd.  This part of the interview was very humanizing.  On a whole, this video was a much more flattering portrayal of Assange.

We also discussed this week the great marketing that Wikileaks does before they release a big piece of information.  For instance, for weeks before the Iraq Logs were posted, there was discussion around are-they-or-aren’t-they.  There was a lot of hype before any information was shared with the public.  In addition, Wikileaks gave an exclusive to four of the biggest and most influential newspapers in the world.  This worked as a cascade model effect– information was given to a select number of people who have the power to pass it along to large numbers of people.

It is clear that Wikileaks is controversial, and has positive and negative attributes.  However, it is a good example of the trend of the watchdog model not only keeping an eye on the government, but also on the mainstream media.

1. In the chapter’s discussion of ethics models, they focus only on journalists.  How can these models for making ethically-sound decisions in the workplace transfer to other professions such as advertising and public relations?
2. This chapter lists the codes of ethics for a number professional societies.  Though they differ based on the profession, there are many similarities.  They all have clauses dealing with independence and fairness.  How would the context of these ethics vary across the different professions?
3. Media Law and Media ethics often intertwine.  What are some examples of when a law and an ethic have not agreed?

In my first question, I asked how gatekeeping will change in the digital age.  I thought that the article’s discussion of a “gatewatcher” as opposed to a “gatekeeper” was a very good analogy.  The word gatekeeper implies to me a sense of elitism– and this is becoming the case in gatekeeping less and less.  Anyone can affect what is news, not just an elite few in a newsroom.  A good example of this is the “60 Minutes” issue a few years ago.  The program reported inaccurate facts about President Bush, and it was the blogosphere that called the prominent news empire on their mistake.  Because bloggers were up in arms about the mistake, and could prove the inaccuracies, staffers were fired and Dan Rather ultimately resigned.  These bloggers were gatewatchers– paying attention to what was reported, and making sure that it was accurate.  I think that a combination of gatekeeping and gatewatching is good model for journalism, specifically political journalism.  It keeps everyone honest, especially in topics where people are passionate and opinions can easily masquerade as facts.

In his article Lilleker says that audiences are becoming harder and harder to reach.  In my second question, I asked how audiences can be so hard to reach.  I want to expand on my point of view here.  I can see how audiences could be harder to reach purely because of the magnitude of options viewers have.  The drastic fragmentation of audiences could lead to people being harder to reach.  However, I think that with all of the technology available to us, people are just a click away.  It has never been easier to get feedback from users on stories and opinion.  And, this feedback often shapes the news.  When what I tweet shows up on the bottom of the screen on CNN– that is visible, that is making me very easy to reach as an audience member.  Thus, even though audiences are greatly fragmented, it is much easier to reach out to the audience you do hold.

In my last question, I asked if there was a link between citizen journalism participation and political participation in Iceland.  This political participation could come in the form of running for office, helping to campaign, or simply taking part in the democratic process by voting.  Indeed, it did create more interaction of citizens.  Ordinary citizens took to the web to discuss issues facing their country.  Political initiatives entered the national arena by people who did not have direct political authority.

1. The Goode article calls for a new form gatekeeping.  How can gatekeeping be monitored when there is a large number of people setting the agenda for the news?
2. In the Lilleker article, he states that audiences are getting harder to reach.  I would argue that this is incorrect.  With the rise of the Internet, social networking, and citizen journalism, people are easier to reach than ever.  How is it that people can be so involved and yet so hard to reach out to?
3. With all of the articles, there is a common theme of  citizen journalism and politics.  Specifically in Iceland, is there a link between high citizen journalism participation and high political participation?

In my first question this week, I asked if the media could get people to pay for content using subscription or pay-as-you go models, or if a new system would have to be invented.  The State of the Media report suggests that people will not pay for content.  However, I think that this will have to change over the next few years.  The current business model is not working, and something has to be done.  I think that in order for change to be affective, many of the major news outlets will need to follow the same model, forcing people to pay for their content.  Some people will still go to blogs and other sources, but most will adapt.  Just as we all adapted to paying per song on iTunes, we will learn to deal with the new system.

In my second question I noticed that when citizen journalists were polled about their motivations, money rated very low.  Yet, when asked about future needs, money and creating a business model was rated very high.  I was curious for this discrepancy.  I believe that this is also a sign of how things will be changing in the next few years.   Like the changes that will most likely take place in traditional news as discussed in the first question, citizen journalism publications will need to adapt as well.  People want to make money on things that they invest so much time in, like a journalism blog.  This may not mean that viewers will have to pay for the content, but maybe more ads will appear, or bloggers will find another way to make money.

In my final question I asked if it was possible that traditional news outlets, such as newspapers, will completely forgo their original format and go entirely online.  I do not think that this will happen any time soon.  First of all, newspapers still get a significant amount of revenue from ads in their print edition, and many of these advertisers do not want to pay for online ad space.  In addition, there are still people who want to pay for a print copy, and expect the quality of that paper to be consistent.  Maybe in a few decades when the generations that grew up reading the newspaper at the breakfast table are gone, there will no longer be a need for newspapers, but I don’t think that day will be here anytime soon.

1. Most people say they do not want to pay for their news.  In The State of the News Media, they offer two solutions and ask people if they had to choose, which would they pick: a subscription model, or a pay-as-you-go model.  Many said neither.  Can news organizations get people to pay for content, or is another, more creative approach needed?

2. Citizen journalists were asked their motivations for starting their website.  For most, money was rated very low.  Yet, when asked about their future needs, they discussed adding revenue, improving the business model, and advertising advice.  These two ideas seem contradictory to me.  What could be the cause of this discrepancy?

3. I found it interesting that the study found that most of the online news traffic is on the websites of traditional news outlets.  They them made the correlation that if cutbacks are made in traditional media, it is also affecting what readers get on their online outlets.  Is it realistic to think that traditional news outlets will go completely online– for example, there no longer be a New York Times newspaper, only a NYTimes.com?