It’s Only the Beginning!
I can’t believe that I actually made it through this semester with my head on straight. Unlike any rational person, I decided that I was organized enough to take five, yes five, graduate courses while working part-time. Thankfully, the only thing that suffered was my sleep. I’m actually glad I took so many as it taught me a very valuable lesson: I can do anything I put my mind to. That being said, unless you plan on living off Coke or Coffee and minimal sleep, don’t take 5 classes. Now on to this course.
I have to say that I am very happy with the array of subjects covered throughout the semester. I know that is much more to be learned but I feel like we’ve covered the basics and discussed some very interseting concepts. At the beginning of the semester I was a bit hesitant to blog, especially my papers, but I quickly got over it and I rather enjoy it now. I’m pretty sure that if I didn’t take so many classes my blog posts would be doubled. I’m not sure if it was the amount of reading or my lack of free time but I wish I had more time to think about each article and concept to really explore all areas.
I would not change the blogging format but but I wish there was a way to for the class to be a little more interactive. Maybe a chat room on a set day/hour or something along those lines. I also wish we had the same amount of time for the paper as we did for the final blog postings on every module. There were a few times were I felt rushed and didn’t know if I quite understood all the material that was given. Again, it could be because of my personal situation.
Overall, I enjoyed the class and came away with a clearer understanding of what was, what is, and what may be.
Thanks for a great semester!
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (0)Do You Remember the Time…
This week, Townshed Chronicles and Murphy’s Law Rules made arguements as to why remembering every single life event may not be such a good idea and I couldn’t agree more. In “I’m not a pychic, but my best friend is” and “Future, Grim or Good“, both bloggers rightfully question if keeping surogate memory back-ups can create a true feeling of “security”. I don’t know how much more secure I feel having backup digital pictures on my hardrive or my various online account. Sure, it gives me a little piece of mind knowing I have my images stored but do I completely trust it? No.
While I take a ton of pictures, I chose NOT to chronicle every part of my life. If it is important to me I will but there are certain events in my life that I do not need pictures to remember. As Murphy points out, what happens when we solely rely on cameras or other capture technology? Will our ability to remember things cease to exist? It’s a known fact that our brains shrink in size the older we get and many elderly suffer from dementia. Will these “memory devices” speed up the process?
I understand why someone might want to recall every nanosecond lived, but I just don’t see the practical use. Sometimes I wish I could remember my first year of life, but then again, what would it really consist of? Lots of cooing and spit? Everyone has an event or person they would rather forget. Even if with a program as MyLifeBits you had the option not to look at any recorded event, in the back of your mind you knew it was there and may have the inclination to look at it. Why relive bad memories? Maybe I’m missing the point completely here.
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (0)Critter Bots
Dr. Halavais suggested in this week module that the military can be a great indicator of things to come. If this is true, then get ready for critter bots. Defense contractor BAE systems is looking to develop small critter like robots that would be useful in situations that would be too dangerous for human troops to enter. This is very reminecent of The Terminator, The Matrix and as Wired.com mentioned, Minority Report. 
I know that we have the tools to create them but I’m more concerned with how they will be used. I don’t ever want to be pulled over for speeding and end up talking to a robot than a police officer.
Filed under Gadgets/Devices, Response Papers | Comment (0)The New Frontier
I am a daughter of an ex-hippie surfer turned school social worker. My mom, another school social worker, is quite the opposite. Saturday mornings, I would usually wake up to the beautiful sounds of Jimmy Hendrix’s guitar riffs, Janis Joplin’s haunting and honest voice, and the troubles of every great blues artists ever. Led Zepplin , The Who, Chuck Berry and The Beatleswere also household names. Sundays, however, were reserved for Salsa and Merengue. After church, my dad would sometimes play the congas while Tito Puente was in the background telling it how it is.
For those that know me, my dad’s love for music and passion for Rock & Roll, along with the Yankees, was passed down to me. I sing and music is infused in my every inch of my being. If I were stranded on a deserted island the one thing that I could not live without would be my cds and iPod. Music runs through my blood and acts like white blood cells healing what is broken.
However, music was not the only my dad introduced me too. Besides growing up in a house full of melody, my father’s favorite subject, Science-Fiction, also influenced me quite a bit. I have very fond memories of sitting around the TV watching classic shows and cartoons such as I Dream of Jennie and The Jetsons. However, my favorite, as well as my dad’s, was Star Trek. This all sounds like I grew up in the 60s or 70s but in reality I am a product of 1980.
As a kid I was fascinated with the technology on Star Trek and The Jetsons and often wondered why we didn’t have it. I couldn’t understand that it was not real. If it worked in TV, why not real life? I wanted a real working Rosie. Not surprising, some of that technology we now possess such as the cell phone or Nextel-like walkie talkies was originally seen on Star Trek. Even video conference calls were seen on both shows. We haven’t mastered the “Beam Me Up, Scotty!” type of teleportation but I believe that the introduction of mass personal fabricators (PF) will be a step in the right direction.
Your Wish Is My Command
As I stated, personal fabricators may indeed be seen as a majic lamp or teleportation of sorts. It will change the way we communicate and computer in a very large way. A PF machine is basically a “machine that makes machines” (Gershenfeld, p. 3, 2005). These PFs can take the shape of a printer and instead of printing on paper it will “print” an actual 3d object.
One can immediately see the implications for medical and scientific use. For example, if a researcher in Hong Kong has come up with some sort of prosthetic device that could be used to help with spinal injuries he then can not only “print” out his own 3D prototype, he can send his blueprint to a colleague in New York City and have that doctor also “print” out the same. Instead of waiting for it to be built somewhere the two doctors will not be restricted by borders to discuss this prosthetic device. Of course, it may not be the real working thing but it can certainly help out in the planning process.
On the more personal side, we theoretically can customize our clothing and shoes to fit our exact body type. However, copyright and trademark infringement comes into play if you try to replicate a pair of Christian Louboutin heels. I predict that the PFs will act like sowing machines. Like garment pattens, we will be able to buy programs that have the specifications of whatever it is we want to create. The inks will be equivalent to thread.
Gershenfeld also made a valid point about the digital divide. I agree that instead of just simply shipping out computers, we should try to equip others with the machines to make products relevant to their needs.
Out With the Old and In With the New
In the TED talks “The beckoning promise of personal fabrication“, Niel Gershenfeld states that the “digital revolution has already happened and that we do not need to keep on having it”. Are we in fact ready to put a stop on this revolution? Is there more to be made that isn’t a spin or an upgrade of an existing technology? If you look back at how devices have evolved, it is clear that it all builds on existing technology. We are just creating smaller and faster versions of the original ones. As Kurzweil puts it,this evolutionary process ”creates the capability to produce more technology”.
Desktop computers evolved into laptops; telephones evolved into cell phones that have now transformed into “convergence devices”. This ever increasing demand for newer and better technology is forcing the deployment of new gadgets every other month. I predict that there will be a time were we hit the ceiling where it will by physically impossible to make devices any more compact. Sure, smaller devices are convenient as they can be taken along anywhere and the more storage capacity the better. However, I am a little worried that those who are privileged to have access to technology will soon lose their sense of appreciation for it.
It would be interesting to conduct research focusing on peoples attitudes towards new devices and how and why it changes with introduction of newer models. I’d also like to see how quickly they would adopt a newer version. I think this industry can be best compared to that of the fashion industry. As soon as a new trend comes out it becomes ”so last season”. As Heidi Klum says on Project Runway, “You either in or your out”. I don’t think it can get any more clearer than that. Pretty soon, were are going to have a massive crisis with all the computer waste we are creating.
Sending you forget-me-nots, to help you to remember
In the The Persistence of Memory, Gordon Bell describes how he is digitally “lifelogging” every moment of his life with help of technology. While I applaud his efforts I’m not sure I would want to record every single second of my life and every single person I met.
In listening to his interview I started questioning why it has become so important for us to have digital memory backups. Is it because we are an egocentric society and love looking at ourselves? Or is it because it is in our human nature to want to cherish special moments? Or is it because we know that we will all inevitably perish and want to leave a trail behind to let future generations know you existed? I dont’ have the answer but I’m willing to bet its a mixture of all three.
I am one of those people you see with their digital camera at every chance they get. I like to have memories of every event, even if I don’t think I’ll look at all the pictures. Taking pictures has always been a hobby for me since I was a little girl but when I got my first digital camera I become obsessed. Digital pictures, in my eyes, are more reliable in terms of storage and ability to manipulate them. You can reprint on your home printer or order prints through pharmacies or online. You can also multiple ways of backing up your digital emories such as flash drives, hard drives, cds and photo hosting sites. It has become incredibly easy to take pictures, download, upload, and share.
World in Your Pocket
As stated earlier, technology is constantly evolving and it is doing so at incredible rates. By the time something new comes out we still haven’t mastered our current technology. I wonder if it truly is the consumer driving this movement or the developers who can’t stop themselves from designing. Either way, people seem to adopt the new and improved at the drop of a dime.
The industry certainly seems to be moving to the mobile sector in a big way. Not only do most people own smartphones or some type of convergence device, but they are using it in ways never imagined before. As Rheingold quotes Tom Standage, “the mobile Internet will be something different and will be used in new and unexpected ways.”(p. 1, 2002). These devices allow for users to download music, ringtones, created and send e-mails, text, and instant messaging, take pictures and video, and serve as a personal planner. Granted, mobile Internet technology still has a ways to go, but it now allows us to browse in ways only dreamed of. It even lets us sign in to our MySpace accounts. Many convergence devices also come equipped with GPS technology making it easy to find your way locally or globally.
I have to agree with Dr. Halavais that “locative” information will drive mobile technology. Take Boost Mobile’s LooptGPS service. This technology is being labeled the “first social mapping service”. Essentially, anyone with Boost Mobile Loopt can receive locative information of where you are at all times. This is contingent upon you sharing your location, however, so you can restrict access to who you want “tracking you”. There are several pros to this service. You can set up events much easier and received RSVPs, you can create your own social network on your journal and send pictures or messages, you can Geo-tag places on the map with comments and pictures that your friends can see, and find friends with ease. However, where is the privacy here?
This sort of locative information would also come in handy if I’m lost on my way to a friends house. All I would have to do is locate them and follow the map. Then again, all I need is GPS or Mapquest. I don’t necessarily need to know where they are. I think this can be a powerful tool, however, for parents with young children or teens as it lets them know where they are. Of course teens can leave their phone at their friends house while they go off to a concert but in theory it would work. I wonder how many relationships Loopt has broken up though?
While I may enjoy all of these functions, I think at times too much of a good thing is bad. For example, Dr. Halavais suggested that pretty soon there will be a wave of people who will want to get their phones implanted under their skin. Granted, convenience reaches the max with this scenario but do we then become dehumanized? Have we become so attached, literally, to technology that we will go to extremes to never be without it. The answer is yes, we will. If for one minute I can’t find my cell phone I start having a mini stroke. A big reason is because like most people, I stopped relying on my memory for the numbers. It is very convenient not having to know 50 numbers. I’m sure this constant need to be connected is not healthy but how do you break ties with something that has become an integral part of our everyday lives?
Works Cited:
Bell, G. The persistence of memory.
Gershenfeld, N. (2005). Fab (Selection). New York: Basic Books.
Gemmell, J., Bell, G., & Lueder, R. (2006). MyLifeBits: a personal database for everything. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 89-95.
Gershenfeld, N. The beckoning promise of personal fabrication (TED).
Halavais, A. (2008). Module 7 Lecture. ICM 501: Intro to Interactive Communications, Quinnipiac University.
Lets Go Surfing in Hawaii five01’s Deep Blue Sea please…
YES! I’m not the only one who wants to fight the power! Both Hawaii and Deep Blue Sea’s made similar arguments for net neutrality as I did in this weeks module. In Hawaii Five01’s “Ethics Are For Everyone” the author states that “you have to be a skilled professional to work in either radio, television or newspaper industries meaning that only a small number of people are producing the media and millions of others are consuming it.” Special emphasis on the small number of people producing while millions consume. The fact that a handful of people have the control over what millions watch, hear, or read makes the Internet all that more vital to today’s society.
The Internet gives us all an even playing field to truly express our freedom of speech. It also gives us a venue to display our creations whether it be of the literary, visual, or audio form. If you browse over to YouTube you’ll notice that most videos are user-generated and not music videos or movie clips. Every day someone is thinking out of the box and uploads their work to others to see which in turn can encourage others to do the same. This peer-to-peer inspiration cannot be overlooked. As Deep Blue Sea argues in Land of the Free?, to sell the Internet to one of these companies such as AT&T would be to abolish the very concept that the Internet is founded upon - sharing information of any kind to anyone.” We must not let our imagination and intelligence be suppressed by big corporations. We must let it be known that the Internet was made for us and now by us. But above all we must create responsibility.
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (0)Shut the Blinds Please.
Google Me
As Dr. Halavais states, search engines indeed are a form of an oracle (p.1). You can find absolutely anything on any subject on any continent. It truly is a remarkable work of technological art. ”Search Engine Society” suggests that the reader Google the phrase “Google is your friend” and I did just that. The number of hits increased from 363,000 to 12,300,00. Google is more than a search engine. It has become part of our culture. I often find myself saying to someone “just Google it, you’ll find it”. Often more than not they Google will hold the answers, well the links at least. It has even crossed over the music world with a song titled “Google me”.
Yes folks, Google seems to be taking over the world. (I did manage find one site, however, who clearly is not a friend.)
As the song suggested, I took the liberty and Googled myself. I was quite surprised to see how many other Evamaries or Evamarias there are. However, what disturbed me is that some of my personal info, such as age and state I live just to mention a few, were available through various people finding sites. One in particular is called Rapleaf. It has a rap sheet of your social networks and other groups you belong to. I was able to click on a link to MySpace and was directed to my page. Thankfully its set to private (not that it matters anymore). It even maintained an old wish-list I created on Amazon.com. Search engines afford us the most efficient way to find information at our ease, including information that you might have thought was private.Where do we draw the line? How is it that others can see what I want to purchase?
I Always Feel Like Somebody’s Watching Me, and I Get No Privacy!
There is no question that the Internet has made my life easier. I can do basic functions such as pay bills, share pictures, and send an important message at the click of a mouse. Open-source technologies, like blogging, have afforded me a platform to speak my mind freely with very few restrictions. This freedom is welcomed and refreshing. This very class works because of the almighty blogosphere. However, do all these technologies and applications come with a price? You bet.
Basse states that “technology is not an immutable force, outside of human control…and that people make decisions about access to and use of personal information” (p. 401). I’m not so sure if I agree. Yes it’s true that if i post a picture online I may have given up some privacy. However, I don’t knowingly grant permission for companies to drop cookies in my cookie jar without a warning. How then am I making a decision as to who I want tracking my online activity? Is it ethical for companies to store your private information so that advertisements can be better tailored to you based on your online behavior? Where do we drawn the line between intrusion and simply customizing?
Anonymity has basically gone out the window while Big Brother is right there looking in. As seen in the video by CNBC titled “Big Brother, Big Business“, everything we do is being tracked. From computer use, cell phone use, debit card purchases, education, jobs, addresses, phone numbers, online groups and even car maneuvers; your life is under one large digital microscope. I understand that by putting pictures of myself online I there is a certain degree of privacy that I give up and yet, those pictures are there to only be viewed by friends, not the entire world. I have a hard enough time with telemarketers calling me during dinner time, now I have to watch my back for some rouge spy satellite recording my every move. How very James Bond of them.
However, I am a big supporter of technology being used to save someones life or catch criminals. There really is no win-win situation for the consumers. Is it fair to those of us who are not partaking in any illegal or dubious activities? Shouldn’t my personal life stay personal?
Save the Internet, Save the World.
As Sir Tim Berners-Lee states in Humanity Lobotomy, “Freedom of connection with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet. And now it is the basis of the society we’ve built on the Internet”. However, the very existence of this society is being threatened by big telecommunications corporations. Anytime big corporations feel threatened they push their way in with their deep pockets and Armani suits in attempts to buy off whatever it is that they want. This time, telecommunication giants, like AT&T and Comcast, want to buy the Internet, in essence, the people who use it. Not only are they taking a much longer time implementing the fiber optics network, they want to charge the consumer for both connection and additional fees for certain media files. Their vision of the information highway includes many tolls along the way.
Undoubtedly this will create yet another digital divide. First there is the gap between those who can afford computers and access the Internet versus those who must utilize libraries and schools for access. Then there is the difference in quality and quantity of functions and applications available between those two groups. Now, there may be yet another divide between those who can afford both the connection and other fees with those who simply cannot.
They understand that the Internet and World Wide Web is important but they don’t understand why it is important to its users. If they did they would not want to control its users or content. The Internet is not just a mode of searching information; it’s a mode of unadulterated creativity, a way to speak freely across borders. It is a democracy. You and I are given an even playing field to speak our minds via blogs, message boards, podcasts, videos, and social networks. The content found on the Internet is practically all user-generated. Why should we be charged more for our own creations?
Telecom corporations are acting like a bunch of spoiled children who didn’t get to play video games growing up. Instead of bracing this social-technological revolution they are want to become keepers of it, only letting the users access information in the way they see fit. While they offer the connection to the Internet, historically they had little to nothing to do with the creation of it. How can they then feel worthy enough to become the masters of the cyber universe? Is this campaign to control online users rooted in their feelings of under appreciation for the service they provide? If so, please everyone, send them Hallmark cards. Maybe all they need is a hug.
Works Cited:
Baase, S. (2007). Professional ethics and responsibilities. Gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues in computing. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Halavais, A. (ND). Search engine society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Filed under Response Papers | Comments (6)
I concur.
From all the response papers it seems the consensus is that a user-centered approach is the best method when it comes to the creation process. In “It’s Not Easy Being Green“, Tonka made an extremely valid point in stating that “The more efficiently and effectively designers are able to understand user behavior, the importance of their emotional attachment without scrapping all remnants of individual inspiration, the better off all of us and the results technologies themselves will be.”
Although it is best practice to involve those who you are designing for, the creators should still be able to design without losing their personal touch and flair. For example, some people argue that the trademark white iPod earbuds attract the attention of would be thieves versus other ear phones. However, if you take away the white earbuds you take away part of its identity. What would iPods be without them? I understand that while this isn’t a usability issue, it is as every bit important seeing as it gives it an aesthetic appeal.
It’s obvious that the best bet would be for a true convergence of user needs and designer inspiration. Both parties, however, need to be aware that some give and take needs to occur.
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (0)Convergence: Creating the Hybrid Viewer Generation
In Online vs. Tv, Murphy’s Law Rules argues that “online does not replace on TV, but it adds to the content, and can add to the experience”. Being an avid TV and Online video watcher, I couldn’t agree more. I am what you might call an hybrid. Not only will I sit down to watch a television program, I will also watch it online. The later is especially true if I happened to have missed a particular show. (Right now, I’m a little upset that I missed Britney Spear’s appearance on How I met Your Mother so you can bet that I will be watching it tomorrow Online.)
I am what Murphy’s Law Rules refers to as a “double dipper” that “surf the web while watching television for content that is not related to what they’re watching”. I’ll check e-mail, weather, blogs, pictures, my MySpace page or Youtube. Occasionally I’ll surf for my favorite shows, episodes, or pictures. I find that I’ve become adept in watching shows while conducting business Online. I’m sort of a multi-interactor. Admittedly my Internet usage is higher during commercials though.
Although in the beginning many television networks were apprehensive about making full episodes available online, I would be willing to bet that this has actually increased viewership. It may also help attract new audience members who normally would not have sat to watch a particular network or show. I’m sure that it has helped bring in more advertisment seeing as most episodes run :15 ro :30 ads before the content starts.
This convergence of media can create loyalty among its established viewers who also happen to be avid Internet users. Society loves having options and whats better than being able to watch your favorite shows online giving you the freedom to play, pause, or rewind at your leisure. You can bet that if I enjoyed a particular episode I will share the link with my friends, even with those who wouldn’t normally watch it. Why? Because my friends can decide on their own time if they like or not. If they don’t all they have to do is press stop or close the window and viola.
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (0)Blogs: Man’s New Best Friend
Communication can take place through various forms. No matter what medium is utilized, the object is to effectively transmit a message to the intended recipient(s). Since some form action is usually taken by all parties involved, it is often assumed that any type of communication can then be seen as interactive.
Although many communication professionals use the terms “interactive communication” and “interactive media” interchangeably, I’m not convinced that they truly can be. As Dr. Halavais points out in New Communication Professions, there is no definitive definition for what “Interactive Communication” is. The term is thrown around by many different media sectors all who have their own take on it. While I do not pretend to have the answer, I do have my own interpretation.
I believe that Interactive Communications takes place when two or more people, or groups, actively participate in an exchange of ideas through different interactive mediums and these ideas should have a strong enough impact to have caused some change in each communicative partner. This still leaves me with two questions, what can be considered a true interactive medium and if there is a certain degree the change has to reach in order for it to be considered true interactive communications.
Viva la Revulucion!
There is no denying that we are currently entering the new “Participation Age” (Scoble and Israel, 2006, p. 53). Just in case you weren’t aware of it, there is a revolution going on and those who don’t connect soon will be left behind in the cyber dust. Although the invention of computers was certainly monumental in the technological evolution, it was the introduction of the Internet and World Wide Web that made computers all that much more significant. It changed the way the world communicated in just a few years, some would argue overnight.
Change is the one constant variable that you can always depend on. It is inevitable and it occurs in every business sector. Not surprisingly, the Internet and Web have had significant impact on almost every industry, from the media to medicine. One cannot ignore the changes that have occurred in the past few years which have caused many in the Internet community to dub it the “Web 2.0“.
Although many “conversational technologies” such as “e-mail, instant messaging, SMS, chatrooms, and the telephone” have allowed people to communicate efficiently, the introduction of open source applications, such as social networks, blogs, and wikis, are taking conversations where no man, or woman, has ever been before (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 3). In Naked Conversations, Scoble and Israel state that it is a revolution which is “transforming the way businesses communicate, not just with customers, but with their entire constituencies” (2006, p. 3). The Revolution as Scoble and Israel see it, revolves around blogging (2006, p1).
Captians Web Log, Stardate 3.22.2008: Entering the Blogosphere:
A web log, or more widely known as a blog, ”is a website where entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order” (Wikipedia, 2008). Bloggers have the freedom to express and publish their opinions on any subject and aach blog has the potential to be read by the entire global Web community. Although I did not start blogging until this course, I understood its importance. Sure, I can join a message boards or send instant messages, but I wouldn’t reach a mass audience simultaneously.
More importantly, blogs have given rise to a new generation of “journalists” or what Burns refers to as “produsers” (2006, p.3). The interesting thing about the Internet and blogs is that there is a niche for every subject. Although some blogs are “abandoned within a year”, the fact that they give everyone the freedom to express their thoughts alone is incredible.
“Bloggers, like many people, are generally suspicious of the smooth-and-refined language of official spokespeople” or “corpspeak” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 4). This is were blogs can be beneficial to a companies image or product awareness. Blogging can achieve what press releases can’t; a much more personal connection between the company and it’s consumers.
By taking part in these “Naked Conversations” you can better gage how consumers view your products or services. Most importantly, it can build trust between the company and the consumer as it did for Microsoft (Scoble & Israel, 2006, pp. 9-22). Whether it’s praise or complaints, companies should want to know what their customers are saying about them. After all, they need them in order to afford the company jet.
Follow the Leader:
It is encouraging to see that many companies are following in Microsoft’s footsteps. Media giant, The New York Times, is one company who seems to understand the benefits of open source applications. The Times have created a section dedicated to a variety blogs all focusing on different subjects. Not only can subscribers, and non-subscribers, get the news online, they now can be an active participant in cultivating stories.
Toyota Motor Company also is taking advantage of the power that the blogosphere has. They have created a blog titled “Toyota’s Open Road Blog” in which Irv Miller, Group Vice President for Toyota Motor Company USA’s Corporate Communications, uses to accomplish several things. He not only utilizes it to post information on new vehicles, products, and services, he uses it as a DIY PR campaign to clear up any misconceptions about their vehicles. Although Toyota has a well established Public Relations department, it is interesting to note that they are taking a proactive approach in “shift[ing] the focus from products to relationships” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 15).
This conversation revolution is causing some media professionals to ask if the mass media is dead. To this I answer no. Traditional media such as journalism, broadcast TV, radio, and public relations have a secure place in the communications world. Media outlets are simply evolving, not disappearing. What this revolution of open source applications is causing is a convergence of media. Media outlets are simply evolving, not disappearing. We now can see our favorite shows on our flat screens (for those that can afford them!), online, and on our iPods. Radio programs are also being streamed online. The change taking place is not in what is being reported; it is in how its being distributed.
Here is a very informative video on this subject from AlwaysOn.com.
The “referral power of the blogosphere is exploding and marketing and PR executives must embrace this reality or risk losing control of their messages” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 13). Scoble & Israel will be happy to know that there are PR executives who are aware of this revolution. One such executive is Joan Stewart. Ms. Steward runs her own blog titled “The Publicity Hound’s Blog” in which she shares tips and tricks to achieving better press.
In her post PR Types Don’t Understand How Consumers Use Media, she outlines a word-of-mouth campaign that incorporates many of the interactivities and open source applications talked about throughout the semester. Her list includes:
- A company blog.
- Posting comments at other blogs that discuss a company’s product, service, cause, issue or interest. (See “Let bloggers create publicity for you.”)
- Something as simple as a “tell a friend” box at your website.
- A contest in which consumers create a clever video of how they use your product or video, upload it to YouTube and compete for prizes.
- Encouraging customers to write a product review and post it at your website
All of these suggestions can surely increase profits and begin to build a “trust network” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 18). Talscott & Williams argue that ”only the connected will survive”. Companies that resist this “revolution” may soon suffer the consequences.
DIY PR: You can’t handle the Blog!
A much more visible group that has come to realize the impact blogs can have on brand image are celebrities. Currently there is an emerging trend for celebrities to blog and some are becoming avid bloggers. Through the use of blogs celebrities can establish that they are ”real people, not borgs” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 12). A slew of celebrities such as Kanye West, Rosie O’Donnel, Brooke Hogan, and David Beckham maintain almost weekly blogs.
For example, Brooke Hogan, more famously know as Hulk Hogan’s daughter, maintains a blog through her MySpace account. Aside the fact that her parents are going through a divorce, Mr. Hogan was involved in some controversy involving one of her friends. Ms. Hogan chose to express her feelings on this matter on her blog. Not only were her fans reading it, but the ultimate celeb blogger, Perez Hilton, posted excerpts from it on his blog. Comments were left on her page as well as Perez’s page. She reached much more than her intended fan base proving that blogs are “word of mouth on steroids” (Scoble & Israel, 2006, p. 31).
Celebrities also using their blogs as a DIY public relations campaign. Most recently Lauren Conrad, star of MTV’s The Hills, blogged about a particular article ran in US Weekly in which she felt her story was not reported accurately. She used her blog to clear the air and let her fans know her version. As with Brooke Hogan, Perez Hilton once again posted excerpts from LC’s original blog on his.
Fans seem to enjoy reading celeb blogs because as Dave Winer states, it “reveals authenticity” and can make the celebrity feel more ”real”. Isn’t this the juice that reality TV thrives on?
The Dark Side of the Source
The Internet enables us to do research, shop, pay bills, download music, watch videos, keep in touch across borders, and allows us to join groups tailored to our tastes. In Democracy and Filtering, Carl R. Sunstein argues that while the Internet is a ”wonderful development for democracy”, the Internet is “increasingly engaged in the process of personalization” (2005, p. 58). This filtering system that many of us have limits us to only our opinions unnecessarily leaving out those who don’t share our views. I know that it can be unpleasant to read opposing opinions, but I argue that we need those to contrast with what we believe in order to gain a more complete perspective.
I have had my share of “online filtering” experiences. Before I joined the MySpace community I was a part of MiGente. It’s an open social network, much like MySpace, only for those of Latino background. Although it was great to communicate those who share similar cultures, I found it a bit limiting. Granted, you don’t have to be Latino to join but its slogan, “The Power of Latinos”, may turn off some people from registering. Seeing as I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds I didn’t want to lock myself into one online community. Please don’t get me wrong, I totally understand why websites like MiGente or BlackPlanet are empowering; they give us online voice. I personally just felt the need to venture out and join something that wouldn’t give me an identity solely based on my culture or ethnicity. I think using both social networks is ultimately better than just one. Here in lies the power of the Internet. Altough many do filter out what they do not relate to, you still have endless possibilities to search for different things.
For any blogger or vlogger, the power of word of mouth can be both a blessing and a curse. Once something is on the Internet, it can be found by virtually anyone. This is especially true for celebrities. Whether it is an unflattering photo, video, or blog post, it will spread like wildfire. People may forgive, but the Internet does not let us forget. This can become a publicists nightmare. Not only can such artifacts be duplicated and posted on other blogs, much like Perez Hilton, they can also be aired on TV, radio, and even printed.
Seeing as there is an incredible amount of freedom and no set rules in the blogosphere, individuals should be more responsible in what they spread globally.
Works Cited:
Burns, Axel. (2006). Wikinews: The Next Generation of Online News? Scan Journal 3(1).
Halavais, A. (2008). New Communication Professions. Module 5.
Scoblel, R. & Israel, S. (2006). Naked Conversations. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-62.
Steward, J. (2008). PR Types Don’t Understand How Consumers Use Media. The Publicity Hound’s Blog.
Sunstein, C. (2004). Democracy and Filtering. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 57-59.
Filed under Response Papers | Comment (1)Please Try Our Latest Model: 2.0
The little Web that could has made it a long way from its humble beginnings in a relatively short period of time. It has gone from being a tool for publishing information and e-commerce to a conglomerate of digital collaborations where every online user puts on the the hat of the audience as well as producer. It seems in recent years we have entered what is being called Web 2.0. Although the term may imply that is is an upgraded version of the World Wide Web it’s still fundamentally the same. The major difference is, what Dr. Halavias refers to as, its ability for a deeper level of mass interaction. With the advent of social networks, open-source applications, and wikis, online users have been catapulted to a whole new era where e-mail and IM are no longer the most efficient means of communication. Interaction is now the name of the game.
Wikinomics 101
I view a wiki as a digital brainstorm. Anyone can freely add, subtract, or modify their ideas on a wiki. While I use Wikipedia almost on a daily basis, I have never added any information to it. Frankly, I’ve never really understood how valuable a wiki could be. After reading Tapscotts and William’s “Wikinomics”, it became quite apparent that wikis and open-source applications can only aid and not hurt communication. As Tapscott and Williams state, the convergence of collective intelligence will soon be used “for more serious purposes” (2006, p. 4).
As Tapscott and William’s mentioned, wikis could be successfully utilized for educational purposes. Quinnipiac University is a perfect example. If you take a moment and log on to Blackboard you will notice that many of your classes have a wiki option under the communication tools. It’s encouraging to see that educational institutions are keeping up with the changes and are making full use of all available technology to aid in the learning process.
If it is proven that wikis can be used at the university level, then they should have equal sucess at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels. As The Science of Spectroscopy suggests, wikis could be used to track class group projects. A wiki could offer each group a more effective and faster way to monitor and modify their progress. Instead of students being bombarded with a non-stop flow of e-mails from other members, the wiki can serve as a one stop shop for the entire group. I know for a fact that wikis would have made communication more efficient among fellow group members during my undergrad years. This in turn would have led to better group project outcomes. We cannot forget, however, that access to and familiarity with computers and the Internet will factor in as to how effective each student can use a wiki.
Wikis remind me of something that I saw recently in the movie “Accepted“. The college featured gives the students the freedom to come up with their own set of classes so that they study only those they wish, however strange they may be. Students wrote their choices on a white board for all to see. Isn’t this type of brainstorm a wiki of sorts? Yes, it looks more like grafiti and doesn’t have the same interactivity that a wiki has but isn’t this how it all started;poets and writers jotting their thoughts put on paper, or in this case a board.
CommonCraft has a great video on how wikis work.
We the People
I’ve always viewed online politics as being somewhat passive. However, seeing as this year is the presidential election, politicians have paid close attention to creating a real online presence. Barack Obama’s website is a perfect example. Not only does he have a running blog, the site allows for his supporters to open their own accounts and create blogs. He also employs what Tapscott & Williams refer to as “Weapons of Mass Collaboration” such as Facebook, MySpace, MiGente, BlackPlanet, Flickr, YouTube and many more (2006). His website also allows for users to download ringtones and pictures. Hilary Clinton’s campaign website also offers many of these same features.
Senator Obama’s online campaign team clearly understood that by incorporating an interactive website along with social networks, it would allow his supporters to collaborate on a deeper and more meaningful level. The truth is that in this day and age the fastest ways of getting your message across is through the Internet. His supporters can not only obtain information on his views, they can discuss their opinions among other fellow supporters across the country. This in effect can lead to a convergence of collective intelligence.
Quite honestly, I’m a little surprised at the lack of online interactive politics. By towns utilizing wikis or any other open-source application, local public officials could better gage what topics and issues are most important to its residents. Town hall meetings are still essential but I believe better and more effective communication could be achieved by a collaboration, or convergence, of both mediums. Wikis would serve as an online platform where every citizen is guaranteed a spot to add their input. There are, however, a group of community minded people who are have recognized the importance of an open source government.
However great a presidential candidate’s website might be, there is still a need for what some are calling an open source governance or wikigovernment. Wikigovernment is a “model of government” where interested citizens can voice their concerns and opinions in an extremely interactive medium through the use of open source software or applications such as wikis (Wikipedia, 2008). The best example of such a model can be seen on Metagovernment.
An open source government allows any person who has immediate access to the Internet to make contributions. These contributions will be weighted based on the ratings given by fellow contributors. There also are different levels such as community, metro, and meta, that people can participate on. Although Metagovernment is in its infant stages and won’t be fully functional until 2009, the promise of this website holds is phenomenal.
Most recently, Utah State Representative Steve Urquhart created a wiki titled Politicopia. I have to say given the state that the world is in, it is encouraging to see that the Internet and Web are being used to help bring communities together in hopes of creating positive and profound change. Politicopia, although just used for Utah residents, is a great example of how we can actively participate with other people from all walks of life in the exchange and creation of ideas. True mass collaboration and interaction can take place on this platform.
Sharing is Caring
How can we have a true convergence of intellect and technology if the digital divide is still very much alive? Large socioeconomic and cultural groups locally, domestically, and globally are unfortunately not being included in this participatory culture. In this weeks lecture Dr. Halavais touched upon this subject. I firmly believe that it is not safe to assume that just because a person can in theory access a computer at their local library, they will have the same online experience or exposure as a person who readily has access at their leisure. The truth of the matter is that not all libraries are equipped with this technology. Some small town libraries, and even cities, do not have nearly the amount of computers needed for there to be equal access to its residents. Not only is the demand high and the supply low, but there are time limitations and even content restrictions.
Talscott and William’s argue, “not all participants are created equal and some consumers have greater abilities to participate in this emerging culture than others” (2006, p. 3). Given this fact, I propose the only way to achieve equal accessibility, there has to be a “long tail” effect in the distribution of devices and Internet subscriptions. Chris Anderson made the compelling argument in “The Long Tail” that if everything were made available enough people would flock to whatever it is they searched for. Could this notion of making everything available be used in bridging the digital gap?
Frankly, every person in every household, in every city, state, and country would need to be equipped with some form of electronic device with Internet capabilities enabling them to access the Web to collaborate, create and distribute content interactively. While it is a daunting, not to mention an expensive and almost impossible, task to supply every household on Earth with a computer, as I see it is the only true way to take full advantage of open-source technologies, social networks, and wikis.
Talscott and Williams brilliantly state that “None of us knows everything; each of us knows something” (p. 4,2006). Given this knowledge, it is easy to see how the Internet and World Wide Web is rather incomplete. Yes, there are millions who are plugged in, but what about the millions of others who are not? They represent many different cultures with ideas, beliefs, and knowledge that are not being digitally expressed. However, as I learned through Metagovernment, there are programs like OLPC XO-1 that aim on providing a laptop to children in developing countries around the world.
Can mass interaction achieve its full potential if a significant amount of the worlds population lives day to day without access to the same information technologies? If it is true that we live in a world “where only the connected will survive” then we certainly need to work at light speed and get plugged in. (Talscott & Williams, 2006).
Works Cited:
Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired, 12(10).
Halavais, A. (2008) Module 3. Lecture: Relationship of mass society to mass interaction.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture, Introduction: “Worship at the alter of convergence” (pp. 1-24).. New York: NYU Press.
Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics (Intro & cap. 1). New York: Portfolio.
Image Credits:
1. Accepted movie still image: www.smart-popcorn.com
Filed under Response Papers | Comments (3)