Posts Tagged: Political Economy of the Media

1.) To combat this kind of elitist “aristocracy” of users, will there be an increase in Digg-like sites that cater to other diverse audiences? Will there ever be a site an aggregate news site that truly fulfills Digg’s promise of a “democratic” news source?

Just doing a quick search, I noticed that there were “Digg-like” sites catered to such audiences as bloggers, web developers, and designers. There are also sites like Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Fark which compete against Digg to act as aggregate news sites. I noticed that these sites also skew towards a similar flavor of posts as Digg does. There are a lot of news articles about technology, gaming, and web trends. One site that sticks out to me though is Stumbleupon which allows users to create a profile and tell the site what their interests are. Categories range from sports to art to gaming to politics. The site then presents random pages that fit the user’s criteria. Although I don’t see a lot of other sites doing this (especially news sites) I do think that the idea of users choosing their own news stories will continue to grow.

We talked in class about the idea of a “Daily Me” or a news site that presents a customized newspaper catered to specific user tastes. So one can imagine, in the near future, waking up in the morning, firing up the iPad, reading the news, and it presents all stories that YOU would be interested in). This sounds appealing to many users but is this really the direction that we should be heading in?

User control seems better than an elite group of gatekeepers on sites like Digg or news editors on big news sites, but are people going to be truly informed if they are only receiving news that they want to read and ignoring the rest? It could be argued that this is similar to traditional newspapers and people just taking out the sports section or life section. I just feel more uncomfortable with people creating their own news sources.

2.) It is inevitable that other future political candidates will  utilize social media in their campaigns but how will it be different from the election in 2008? The Web 2.0 world moves at a rapid pace so what new social media outlets will be utilized? And how else can candidates leverage the tools of interactivity to win elections?

Obama did an excellent job leveraging social media, like Facebook and Twitter, to help him in his campaign. I definitely see many politicians following suit. I am curious to see if politicians utilize other experimental social media tools such as location-based services, like Foursquare. I could visualize some really interesting uses for such applications. I could see users winning custom badges/stamps by attending rallies and speeches. I could also see politicians rewarding people who check-in at their events with exclusive announcements or campaign swag on the site.

I think that whatever new applications come out, politicians should not be afraid to take some risks and try new things. The younger voter power cannot be ignored and trying new techniques online can bring about big rewards in the long run.

Earlier in the week we all posed several questions to our classmates and ourselves, expecting to have them answered and I think through the reading and class discussion I can handily answer most of my own questions.

To my first question regarding timeliness of studies and how in depth they can go, there really is no set answer. Through the discussions of several theories, it has become clear that no method is perfect and all studies can be shattered by another study that is done with more thought or more research. We discussed Einstein briefly in class and one of his most famous quotes follows: “The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality…” This quote alone says it all.

We should never be satisfied with the information we are given through research. In saying that, I believe that every study has some form of heuristic value. No matter how valid or falsifiable a study is, it has the possibility to get our brains working. It is only when we stop questioning that our need for research has ceased to exist. To me, heuristic value is somewhat of a cyclical process because once the information has been displayed, even if we don’t realize it, the new information is locked in our subconscious.

Take the discussion we had in class about Political Economy of the Media. None of us really had thought about several corporations controlling everything that we see in the media, but as soon as the idea was brought up, there were hundreds of ideas running around in the classroom, trying to make sense of what we were discussing. It is through this and other examples that I say research is never finished and methods can always be improved upon.

As to my question regarding online survey vs. written survey, I feel a study is immediately assumptive if it expects all of its sample to be able to partake in an internet survey. With a written survey or telephone questionnaire, it is much easier for everyone to have an equal chance to answer. Researchers would be making the same assumption with an online survey as the researchers behind the cultivation theory, assuming everyone is the same, with no thought into background, ethnicity, etc. Although an online survey might be quicker, if you want to reach the best sample, other survey techniques would serve the findings better.