Category: Taylor Williams

After going back through my blog posts, I found a framing post I never responded too and I read my questions and surprisingly, they related to my interactive presentation and a project I am completing in another class. Social networking is all around us and it is changing advertising in many different industries. Facebook and other social networking sites have changed socialization in many different societies and the privacy component has changed it as well but in a good or bad way? There are many components that contributed to the positive expansion of certain industries but it is harming many other areas of society. I actually watched a story on Good Morning America this morning that talked about facebook breaking up marriages and causing quite a few relationship issues because of the heavy reliance on the media.

1. Are social networking sites negatively hurting interpersonal communication by providing a technology mask that does not allow some to show who they really are?

In my opinion, facebook is helping in some ways with relationships and helping people meet new people and reconnect with old friends but interpersonal, face to face communication is not what is used to be. I love the fact that I can sit next to a human being and have a conversation with them but for some people, it might be tough to conduct a conversation with a complete stranger because they hide behind a computer screen all the time. Come on people, get out and socialize, facebook will not be around forever!

2. Does the term “friend” take on new meaning in this day and age because people are more prone to accept a complete stranger because they know a friend of a friend? Is that friendship at all?

The term friend takes on new meaning when it comes to social networking but the term “friend” is very broad in itself. There have been many studies that talk about how people think kids do not understand the meaning of the word friend because of facebook but I think the term friend has be very indecisive in its meaning for quite some time now. I feel like social networking is blamed for anything that goes wrong in the social world these days and in many cases, they are wrong!

3. Are privacy settings on certain SNS’ effective if companies and/or professional organizations can get around them? Therefore, is facebook a means of truly expressing yourself if it is used as a deciding factor when getting a job?

It is wild how so many companies have hired people to be in charge of searching facebook and twitter accounts of potential employees. People love facebook but not very many realize it could be the deciding factor for a job one day. There are ways to get around privacy settings and in some instances, they are not even needed but it is the thought that counts, or is it?

After the discussion on the emergence of particular types of games and in general the emergence of the virtual world, it can be said the virtual world takes the place of a “real” world for many people, or does it? By the 1980’s, some social MUD’s focused on a social aspect and for a text based game, that could be difficult to convey but when the shift from MUD’s to Massively Multi-player games, it was evident that the growth of the virtual world would expand to many walks of life. The introduction of graphical games has contributed to physically seeing what they could not before and as human beings, seeing is believing. The popularity of World of Warcraft is an example of this visualization emergence because in our society, war is a prominent issue that is discussed in the news. Nonetheless, I do not believe World of Warcraft correlates to the war our country is currently fighting, it provides a path and opportunity to know and understand war. I have never played this game so I am not going to speak on its behalf when it comes to the emotion it conveys but just the title provides some what of an interesting visual stimulus.

In our reading for Monday, the authors state it is “shared interests that provide a reason for people to come together on the internet, while networks of practice provide the technological means to share and create practices,” could this be a definition of media convergence and how the virtual world has contributed in many ways to the perceptions of reality? I think the virtual world has undoubtedly contributed to the “idea” or concept of media convergence. I think what the author said is a great way to describe the design process of certain video game types. The shared interests of the users is imperative but who is designing the technology is imperative as well. The games are carefully analyzed, studied, played, scored, rated, etc before they even hit the market. Why this false reality people?

My second question was: are the visual mediums that provide a sense of place, space and physiological embodiment only hindering users from experiencing actual reality because users find comfort in their own home from the “real life” virtual world they see on a computer screen or television?

I think there are some cases where many people find comfort in a game and facing everyday life becomes a chore and a task. These extreme cases hinder the individual from interacting through interpersonal , face-face communication which many psychologists say contribute to a healthier professional atmosphere. I am not saying it is necessarily unhealthy to play these games but it walks a fine line when it comes to actually helping with communication growth but yet again, or does it? I also think this is a tough area to study and study effectively because there are some things that games contribute positively but does the bad outweigh the good here? Addiction to technology is becoming the fastest growing illness in todays era and although technology is a broad term, the virtual world is a large chunk of that term.

3. Due to the virtual world, is there a separation from imagination and reality anymore? Are these games “just games” anymore? I do not think these games are “just” games nowadays. There has been an increase in crimes of passion relating to virtual worlds and there is little separation between reality and imagination. These games are consuming the lives of people of all ages and it’s not letting up. The popularity of these crime games has seen an all time high during the past few years and when will it stop or when will there be another route established in relation to this issue? There are many things involved with the virtual world that makes it hard to fix the problem. It is a worldwide phenomenon and I do not see any deviance in the future.

1. The authors state it is “shared interests that provide a reason for people to come together on the internet, while networks of practice provide the technological means to share and create practices,” could this be a definition of media convergence and how the virtual world has contributed in many ways to the perceptions of reality?

2. Are the visual mediums that provide a sense of place, space and physiological embodiment only hindering users from experiencing actual reality because users find comfort in their own home from the “real life” virtual world they see on a computer screen or television?

3. Due to the virtual world, is there a separation from imagination and reality anymore? Are these games “just games” anymore?

After going through and reading all of the readings for the week and pulling from topics we discussed in class, I honestly did not realize how much the gaming industry has touched our generation and the military. In the movie digital nation that we watched in class today, they discussed how digital technology has been a huge cultural change for the MIlitary and the defense division. The technology in the military is quite advanced and for good reason, it needs to be. However, it is interesting that the defense division needs to be technologically advanced for the main reason of keeping up with other countries. Is the technology we use because we really need it or is it just because we must keep up with the technology of other countries so we are not considered weak or inferior. Especially with the case of video simulation is it really needed if the military can be trained in the field or through actual field exercises.

1. It was interesting to read about the early emergence of video gaming from its use by military and defense operations. My question is: Could video game simulation help with military tactics or does it just portray a false reality that soldiers prepare themselves for if the game does not effectively portray a particular environment?

In my opinion, I think video game simulation in training our military personal may be good for imagery but not for actual field training. These simulations portray an environment the soldiers will be in but training using video controllers and not real guns is only hindering an individual from getting real experience with a gun. I am not saying the military only uses video game simulation because that is obviously not true but is it really necessary to have these simulations if they end up only being a game for the soldiers and not an effective means of portraying a particular environment? I guess that depends on the soldier.

2. The authors state that the goal for these military video simulations is perfectly simulated human interaction and the current result is a fairly narrow and reductive representation of human behavior, therefore, should the video games include many different types of interfaces to engage the user better? Or is simplicity the best when trying to portray a certain type of environment where content retention is more important?

One thing I am unsure of and did not get a concrete answer from the reading is that  video game simulation seems to be interactive but are they interactive through only one interface medium? Are the users able to touch the screen, use a controller to control actions, allow for options in the simulations or does it only allow the soldier to explore what they are told to explore? I think if the military is going to use video simulation so religiously then the users should be allowed to choose there path through it because most of the time in combat situations, individual decision making is going to be imperative, not leadership orders.

3. Do many of these military simulation games walk a thin line when it comes to media ethics or does that really matter when trying to prepare soldiers for the worse to come?

I think in the case of video simulation for the military, media ethics is brought to a whole new level because they are preparing for the worst and should be shown the worst. Although, some of the things our soldiers see in war can not be simulated in video because emotional responses are much different. Video can help with mental preparation but it will never replace the emotional situations they will face. Media ethics is an issue in the gaming industry but does it matter, people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of restriction.

This week I decided to read ahead because I wanted to get a better perspective on everything we were going to discuss in the gaming and entertainment industry. I found the most interesting article the one on military use of gaming and therefore formed my questions around that article!

1. It was interesting to read about the early emergence of video gaming from its use by military and defense operations. My question is: Could video game simulation help with military tactics or does it just portray a false reality that soldiers prepare themselves for if the game does not effectively portray a particular environment?

2. The authors state that the goal for these military video simulations is perfectly simulated human interaction and the current result is a fairly narrow and reductive representation of human behavior, therefore, should the video games include many different types of interfaces to engage the user better? Or is simplicity the best when trying to portray a certain type of environment where content retention is more important?

3. Do many of these military simulation games walk a thin line when it comes to media ethics or does that really matter when trying to prepare soldiers for the worse to come?

Facebook and other social networking sites have changed socialization in many different societies and the privacy component has changed it as well but in a good or bad way?

1. Are social networking sites negatively hurting interpersonal communication by providing a technology mask that does not allow some to show who they really are?

2. Does the term “friend” take on new meaning in this day and age because people are more prone to accept a complete stranger because they know a friend of a friend? Is that friendship at all?

3. Are privacy settings on certain SNS’ effective if companies and/or professional organizations can get around them? Therefore, is facebook a means of truly expressing yourself if it is used as a deciding factor when getting a job?

The definition of a journalist is much like the definition of interactivity; there are many different ways to classify it but in the end which one really matters. It seems that citizen journalism takes on personal meaning for many of my classmates and it seems the future of journalism is clear but is it what we want? I am all about being able to produce your own content but in many cases, people walk a blurred line. My questions this week were very broad but they are questions that I have and still don’t completely know the answer too.

1. Has the concept of news agenda setting changed with the development of citizen journalism? Does interactivity play a role in what is produced?

As far as agenda setting, I think citizen journalism has played a factor in what “the news agenda” is and what people see. However, it is a much broader spectrum of news stories. Nonetheless, there are still the stories that take precedent because of its nature and how it will help/hurt the country. Citizen journalists provide more opinions and response to news stories as well. The professional level for many of the citizen journalists is not on the same level as a research journalist because the credibility and reliability for many comes from an unbiased opinion and the voice of many citizen journalists is swayed.

2. The article states “citizen journalism is seen to present a challenge to mainstream corporate media, it is tempting to conceive as of a “movement” with intrinsically oppositional characteristics,” is the motivation behind citizen journalism an intrinsic need or an extrinsic product of society?

I think the intrinsic motivation is a result of  extrinsic motivation from society. We live in an age of living free with the ability to produce information on the internet and the will to seek out information on our own. Many people want the freewill to form an opinion for themselves without watching the news that many feel is censored. Yes, we all have the right to all of the above freedoms but do not abuse them. It seems websites like digg.com allow for the use of free voice but that is not always a good thing with this site. Basically, people are motivated from their own internal purposes but what I am saying is those purposes and needs have been formed by an external factor: society!

3. Has the idea and revelation of interactive media contributed to the citizen journalism phenomenon because of the active engagement the audience has with news mediums

I think it all depends on how interactivity is defined yet again. In the case of citizen journalism, is interactivity a product or a process? The use of interactivity on the web has contributed to citizen journalism because they are creating and producing the news, sports, entertainment, etc in a way that is gathering large user audiences. Interactivity as a process also is very important because it effects politics and the bigger process. User engagement is always important which makes me think it has contributed to citizen journalism? In the end, I am a journalist, I want professional credibility so digg.com, I have an opinion but you will not see me post it on your site.

1. Has the concept of news agenda setting changed with the development of citizen journalism? Does interactivity play a role in what is produced?

2. The article states “citizen journalism is seen to present a challenge to mainstream corporate media, it is tempting to conceive as of a “movement” with intrinsically oppositional characteristics,” is the motivation behind citizen journalism an intrinsic need or an extrinsic product of society?

3. Has the idea and revelation of interactive media contributed to the citizen journalism phenomenon because of the active engagement the audience has with news mediums?

This week I throughly enjoyed reading the annual report on American Journalism because this is a career I hope to go into but I feel like before I even have a chance at it, there are many outlying factors that will prohibit me from being the best I can be. Citizen Journalism is fairly new to the media world but who is to blame or should there be blame placed at all? Information accessibility has converged with the media but it is not just how to access information but produced information from “unreliable” sources. Information credibility has shifted and whether that is good or bad, in my opinion, depends on the individual.

1. According to the reading/overview, “Citizen journalism at the local level is expanding rapidly and brimming with innovation. This year’s report includes a new study of 60 of the most highly regarded sites. The prospects for assembling sufficient economies of scale, audience and authority may be most promising at specialized national and international site,” which brings me to my question: Is citizen journalism the pillar of media convergence or a menace to the journalism world?

2. The section of Network TV and the Audience talked about the decline in nightly news network television, could the decline in the nightly news be a reflection of the recession? The data shows a slow decrease overtime in the viewership and demonstrates a strong correlation between the economy sink and viewership

3. In the section about magazines, it states “even in the 21st century, when the mode of delivery may be digital rather than print, some believe the magazine is still rooted in these distinctions from the 20th. The magazine involves a level of reflection at its heart that cannot fully be the focus of other kinds of news operations,” Are magazines still a popular paper information outlet because of its distinct focus on a particular theme or interest for a specific audience? Or, will magazines eventually fall short to the digital media convergence era we live in today?