Category: Mollie Lambert

In my first question this week, I asked if we adopted the 20th century version of free, could we tackle some of the problems we are having today with our idea of free.  In the 20th century, businesses would give something away for free that would then encourage consumers to buy a companion product.  Today, especially in the music industry, consumers get a product for free, and the business receives nothing in return.  Indeed, in some respects, we are starting to move back to the 20th century idea of free already.  In Brazil, for example, artists do not make money on their albums, for all intensive purposes they give their albums away for free.  In exchange, they expect their fans to come to their shows.  In addition, the site that we looked today in class– noisetrade.com— gives away music for free in exchange for information on fans.  The music industry cannot go on as it is now, with its old mentality and the modern idea of free.  Change is inevitable.

In my second question, I noted that consumers have a negative feeling towards content quality that was once offered for a price becoming free.  I asked if people would be willing to pay for content that was once free.  I believe that people will expect a rise in quality if a free product acquires a price.  For example, many iPhone apps are offered for free, but you can opt to pay for a different version.  Consumers expect for the paid version to have more features and be a better quality product.  When a price is attached to something, consumers have a different attitude towards that product.

In my third question I asked how our societies can be influenced by the idea of Free in China and Brazil.  I have already discussed in my response to question one how Brazil is interpreting Free in the music industry.  I think that this could be a model that America could learn from, but at the same time I think it would be very hard to implement this music business model in America.  Both businesses and consumers are so used to our model, broken as it is, and change could be hard.  Many music consumers do not go to concerts and the music industry is so dependent on record sales.  I don’t think the Brazilian model could be adopted.  In China, music artists make nothing on their record sales, but use the exposure their pirated music gives them can turn into celebrity, which in can lead to a profitable career through the opportunities that fame offers.  We see this model already in America, especially with reality TV.  People have become “famous for being famous.”  I think this model would catch on in American society easier than the Brazilian model because it is not a completely foreign concept to us.

1.  I was fascinated by the antedotes of Gillete and Jell-O and how these companies used Free to build their empires.  Now, our concept of Free is completely different from what it was in the 20th century, but if we were to adapt the of idea of Free– something free that leads you to buy something else– could we use this concept to tackle some of our big “Free” problems of the 21st century, such as music copyright?

2. Anderson discusses that our present idea of Free is relative, not absolute.  If something that we once had to pay for is now free, we expect a decline in the quality.  However, if something similar emerges that is free, we will not question its quality.  How does this concept work reversed?  How do consumers feel about paying for something at was once free?  Will they do it?  Will they expect a higher quality?

3. Anderson discusses how Free is incorporated into the cultures of China and Brazil.  How can our society be influenced by their Free culture?

In my first question this week I was confused about Lanier’s discussion of the “Fourth Quadrant.”  He talks about this quadrant, but in a roundabout manner such that I am not sure what he means.  In addition, if this is the fourth quadrant, what are the first three?  I was still unclear about this concept, so I did a little research.  Lanier is referring to an idea posited by Taleb.  Lanier is discussing the idea of the “wisdom of the crowd”– the intelligence of a crowd.  Taleb’s Fourth Quadrant comprises of “problems that have both complex outcomes and unknown distributions of outcomes” (59).  What Lanier is saying here is that the wisdom of the crowd can be dangerous when they are asked questions that are too complex.

In my second question, I asked about the circle of empathy, and if people really do change drastically when their circle is expanded or contracted.  I think that Lanier gives a harsh statement on the subject, but it also has a lot of truth to it.  So much of who we are as human beings is made up of our environment and those in it.  Those we associate with do have a strong impact on us.  However, I also think that there are parts of us that will never change based on those around us.  We are all programmed a certain way, and specific things cannot be changed.  When technology enters the equation, our circle has the ability to grow exponentially.  This could be a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on if this expansion leads to an adaptation for the better or for the worse.  But, there is know question that our circle will change parts of who we are, especially with such a drastic change in our circles’ diameters.

In my last question, I asked how grassroots fan productions fit into corporate media convergence.  Upon further reading and contemplation, I can easily see how the two are related.  The Star Wars fan productions added to the already large amount of Star Wars content available.  Star Wars fanatics had more content to interact with, which can get them excited about the professional Star Wars content.  If someone likes a fan production, they are more apt to buy the official DVDs, T-Shirts, and everything else that is associated with Star Wars.  The corporate media, especially in regards to Star Wars, has converged to include just about any trinket that you can think of– figurines, clothing, toys, etc.  Fan content can only add to the hype.

1. Lanier talks about a “Fourth Quadrant.”  I am unclear as to what this quadrant system refers to, and specifically what are the other three quadrants in regards to crowd schemes?
2. Lanier spends a large part of the first chapter talking about a Circle of Empathy.  He says that when you change your circle, you redefine your self.  This seems a little strong to me.  Are we so wrapped up in who we associate with that we are redefined completely when we change our circle of empathy?
3. Jenkins talks about convergence in both grassroots campaigns and in corporate media.  I understand how fan productions are part of grassroots convergence of media.  But, how does grassroots Star Wars fan productions fit into corporate media convergence?

In my first question that I posed earlier this week, I was concerned with the idea of creating Internet/ technological identities.  I wondered if people ever eventually started to morph into their technological identity in real life because it is actually truer versions of themselves (due to social pressures).  Benkler’s example of children in Japan who act completely differently in their communication through technology than they do in personal interactions intrigued me.  I am not sure that I am any closer to answering this question.  Benkler does not go into why this is the case in the book.  He merely used this as an example.  I believe that further research and possibly experimentation would be needed to fully answer this question.  This is a fascinating idea that people can act so drastically different through texting and social networking than they do during face-to-face interaction.

In my second question, I asked what the motivations could be that lead a person to participate in peer production projects, such as Wikipedia.  What motivates people the most is an interest in the subject that they are writing about.  This can explain why there are so many more articles about pop culture than there are about eighteenth century poetry.  In addition, I have learned the the number of people who have contributed to Wikipedia went down in the last year for the first time.  This could be because the novelty of this peer production site has worn off, or it could also be because many of the articles that people were motivated to write about and edit have already been created in such a fashion that it does not require any more edits.

Finally, in my last question, I asked a hypothetical question about the idea of concepts becoming to difficult for humans to solve based on our experience and cultural awareness.  This question is also very hard to answer because it is hypothetical and quite abstract.  Perhaps a better question would have been to ask if there are any ideas that are being posited right now that are beyond our current human experience or cultural awareness.  Though Benkler does not answer this question, it would be easier to answer this question through further research.  Even though something may be beyond our scope right now, I believe that as our society continues to grow and evolve, one day it may become a relevant and reachable goal.

1. Chapter 10 discusses the use of Internet networking to go against social norms of a society.  Benkler gives the example of children in Japan who act completely differently online with friends than they do at home and at school.  Many people create personas for themselves online, and I am curious as to how one might compartmentalize their thoughts and their life so as to have an online persona and a “real” persona.  Do they ever cross, and could one’s real personal eventually morph into their online persona, as in the case of these children, when their online persona is their actual personality, and the “real” persona is just a suppressed version of that person?
2. I was struck by the number of people who devote themselves to creating content on Wikipedia.  Though the number of very active contributors is quite low, I can only imagine the time it takes to create on Wikipedia 100 times in a month.  Though this is the concept behind Wikipedia, what motivates people to spend so much time adding to the site?
3. In the second chapter, Benkler lays out three categories of input for information and culture.  He explains the third category: “The third factor is human communicative capacity—the creativity, experience, and cultural awareness necessary to take from the universe of existing information and cultural resources and turn them into new insights, symbols, or representations meaningful to others with whom we converse.”  So far open-source software and Wikipedia are within the human communicative capacity.  When will an idea go so far that it will not be successful because it is beyond the experience or cultural awareness of most users?

Walter Cronkite vs. Joe the Plumber: What effects have social media and citizen journalism had on the traditional news and does the public trust information from social networks as much as they trust the information from traditional news?

Research Description

For my research project, I will be examining how social media and citizen journalism through social media, specifically Facebook and Twitter, have affected traditional news outlets.  This topic is very relevant to society today, as social media use continues to grow more popular for both corporate and recreational purposes.  Social media tools are being used for journalistic purposes by both trained journalists working for news outlets, and by amateur citizen journalists who share their reports on the sites of major news outlets and on their personal sites and profiles.  Through this study, I hope to build on the theories and findings of other researchers on the topic of specific effects social networking sites and citizen journalism have had on traditional news outlets.  It is impossible to separate this idea, however, from audience perceptions of social media in the news.  Some people view the content of untrained journalists as “mindless blather” (Bentley 2008).  Others think “public can offer us as much new information as we are able to broadcast to them. From now on, news coverage is a partnership” (Sambrook).  I hope to gain new insights on this topic by researching the public’s opinion of the legitimacy of citizen journalism and news shared on social networking sites and what this means for the future social networks as news-distributing media.  I then hope to come to conclusions about how the two ideas of social media journalism vs. traditional journalism and audience perceptions intertwine, and possibly what this could mean for the future of traditional journalism.

Research Methods

I intend to conduct this survey mostly as a content analysis of what other researchers have found on the topic of traditional journalism’s role in the age of social networks amateur journalism.  I plan to do this research to include journal articles, university studies, books, and online databases.  I also plan to conduct a few interviews with journalism professionals about the changes that they have personally seen and experienced in the past few years.  These professionals could include a producer or editor, news director, and/ or web content producer.  I will also interview a young adult who uses his Facebook page to share current events with his Friends through links, statuses, and postings.  For the second part of this study, I intend to create a survey to send out to college students, who are the future generation of news content receivers.  In this survey, I will ask them where they get their news; if their Friends or Followers on Facebook and Twitter, respectively, share posts with current events or news content; if yes, whether these are bias reports; whether they consider these sources are legitimate; and which sources they view as most reliable.

Bentley, C. H.  (2008).  Citizen Journalism: Back to the Future?  Retrieved from http://citizenjournalism.missouri.edu/researchpapers/bentley_cj_carnegie.pdf

Sambrook, R.  (2005).  Citizen Journalism and the BBC.  Retrieved from http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100542

Understanding communication theories from both the past and the present can help us analyze and comprehend the media in our society today.  In my previous posts, I posed questions about studying communication theories.

In my first question, I asked how we can learn from theories that have been proven false.  For example, the Bullet Theory, or Hypodermic Needle Theory, is no longer accepted as an accurate portrayal of the relationship between media and audiences.  The Bullet Theory states that the media inject ideas into an audience and the audience then immediately takes on that belief.  This theory, however, does not take into account the fact that audiences actively take in and process what they see and hear in the media.  Today, when audiences have more and more ways to be active pursuers and participants in media, this theory not valid.  Even so, I believe it is important to be aware of this theory, and others like it, because it tells us about how our thought on communication has evolved through the years.  Understanding why something is no longer true is just as valuable a piece of information as understanding the latest theories.

In my next question, I asked how the schema theory could be applied to entertainment, or another faction of the media other than journalism.  First, let me pose a scenario.  Suppose someone is watching an episode of Glee– a show about misfit kids, cheerleaders, and jocks who all join a glee club, become friends, and tackle the challenges of adolescence together.  The viewer will take into account their own high school experience and judge the validity of the actions of the the characters based on those experiences.  In this example the schema theory can most certainly analyze entertainment.  People judge all sorts of things that they receive from the media based on their experience in order to understand and feel more secure in the world.

Lastly, I asked if the commodification of culture is still relevant in our digital age when media companies are constantly trying to produce something that stands out from the competition.  As I pondered this question, I came to the realization that this attempt to be unique is part of the commodification metaphor.  Commodities need to evolve and be innovative to competitive in the marketplace,  just as media and culture change to better compete to serve society.  So, competition does not falsify the Commodification of Culture Theory, but solidifies it.

1. Chapter 5 discusses many early research findings in mass communication.  Some of them can still be applied to mass communication today, but others of them are outdated, or have been proved false.  What do these theories, although falsified, say about communication and our society that makes them still important to understand today?
2. The schema theory states that when information becomes available, a person uses past experience to process the new information as a way to make sense of the complex world.  I can easily see how this would make sense with news and journalism in the media.  How can this theory be applied to other forms of media, for example entertainment?
3. In Schiller’s commodification of culture theory, he states that viewing information as something to be “sold” can explain the simplistic and similar “products” in the media.  I have noticed in the past few years, many media outlets are trying to be more innovative in order to stand out from the competition.  In the modern age, is the commodification of culture still relevant with all of the variety available to consumers?

Understanding the user is an important step in maximizing the potential of a medium.  Through studying mass communication theory, one can grasp a better sense of particular users.  In my questions that I posited earlier in the week, I was curious about how certain communication research affected the user.

In my first question, I asked about Wimmer and Dominick’s idea about how one could study people in their natural environment when that “natural setting” is online through social networking sites.  I am still not completely sure how one would go about a practical study of observing people on Facebook other than analyzing their profiles and activities, though.  I guess the bigger question that this brings to the surface is the larger concept of a “natural setting” and what constitutes a natural setting.  I believe that this circulates back to the idea of the user–  some users may act on social media sites in a very natural way.  Using social media is second nature.  Social media are still fairly new phenomena, however, and for many people, it is not a natural part of their lives.  These people are still trying to figure out how they will use social media, how the media can help them, how long they will spend on the media, etc.  So, the “natural setting” is in the eye of the beholder– or user.

For my second question, I asked how one could be sure that their human research subjects are only being affected by one variable.  In order to be sure you are only testing one variable, you could create a survey for your participants to learn about anything else in their lives that could skew the results, or you could pull from a specific group that you knew was void of certain problems.

In my last question, I asked how one’s knowledge of communication theories could be beneficial in a workplace environment.  I believe that knowing these basic mass communication theories can greatly benefit one’s career.  I believe that such a knowledge would make one more aware of the consequences of their actions because they have a bigger picture.  Heres a scenario: Two people are working in a newsroom of a local television station.  One reporter possesses the skills to be a vivid storyteller.  The other also possesses these same skills, but has also studied the agenda-setting theory, uses and gratification theory, and the narrative paradigm theory.  This second reporter will be able to produce a story that audiences will more likely be more proactive about viewing, will understand the reasons the producer assigned them that story, and will be able to better communicate with their audience.  We should all hope to be reporter number two.  For in any profession, we should hope to use the theories to tell a better story and connect with our audience.