Jonathan Anderson - New Media Culture

My sixth and final blog entry is going to focus on the idea of, “how can we trust technology?” In some ways this goes back to the whole idea of nostalgia about the future or the pessimism of dystopian and disunited future in which instead of making our lives better like in Star Trek it has made things worse like in Blade Runner. Obviously, these views are extreme compared to the concepts we have been analyzing over the past few days, specifically the movie we watched over the previous two class periods “Hacking Democracy” in which supposedly error proof machines that take the possibility of human error out of the equation can actually very simply and easily be hacked to change the outcomes of elections. While this isn’t necessarily a case of the machines rising up against their human masters (like in Terminator), but rather humans being able to manipulate the machines to make it so the outcome of an election goes a certain way. The main point is that the fact that there is no check in place to verify the machines vote totals because they are in theory “unfailable” this means that if someone does hack them and change vote totals no one will ever know. It was interesting in the way the video portrayed how completely alone the people were that actually cared enough to challenge the authority of the system. It was also very interesting to see how based on the region of the country this was occurring in, both the Republicans and Democrats were skeptical of these machines. Yet despite this, nothing was being done to correct the problem. Essentially it left me personally feeling disenfranchised more so then in the past because machines counting and flipping vote totals ends up realistically meaning that it doesn’t matter who votes for who, in the end, it matters whose the last person to touch the memory card, because they are the person who decides the outcome of an election in a certain region of the country. Essentially setting things up for one big conspiracy. I always worry about technology and computers (one of the reasons I have always hated taking online classes or even tests online - as can be seen as recently as Quiz 4, in which you are never sure if you are being scored accurately because there is no paper trail). The positive side of things is that it is very rarely malicious, but at the same time if only tech savvy people knows how to manipulate or change computer programming or if a code is broken or fails, then that small group of people have a tremendous edge over the rest of the population.

Posted by ande7597 at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my fifth blog entry I am going to make it as quick and concise as possible (because I realize I have been writing novels when it comes to some of my blogs lately). For this entry I figured I’d better touch on Professor Stearns book, because, A, she’s our professor, and, B, because back in High School I used to Instant Message a lot. As a result I found some of the things the book was focusing on very reminiscent of such conversations that I remember having with random girls during High School normally over AIM. The whole concept of instant messaging is unique because as opposed to chatting in person, or even over a cell phone, online you can do so with a distinct break from reality. In many respects you are in the comfort of your own home and you aren’t forced to reply back immediately. Instant Messaging services were really popular back during the years of around 2000-2004 because they were what texting has now become - a huge fad. At the time texting was typically difficult, expensive, and difficult to multi task with. Whereas instant messaging was quick, free, easy, and could be done while doing numerous other computer related activities. I find the whole move from instant messaging to texting very interesting because it really shows a complete shift in technology. While people still use Instant Messengers to a certain extent, because phone companies began selling texting plans at extremely cheap rates, because PDA’s (mini computers) and cell phones integrated to become smart phones, and because they are mobile, texting has really become the new phenomenon. Moreover, the shift from rating sites like Hotornot and Buddypic to social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook which now incorporate certain levels of immediate chat have further diluted the instant messengers to a point where why use and IM service when you can use Facebook Chat that has been integrated into one platform. All of this shows a huge paradgrim shift and shows how fast technology can change and adapt. This is so amazing because Professor Stearn didn’t write this book that long ago, but even commented in class how now she would probably rather look at Social Networking sites now in the present day since they are the next evolution of Middle and High Schoolers chatting online.

Posted by ande7597 at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my fourth blog entry I am going to discuss how the digital divide (in terms of first to third world countries) is something that is happening whether we like it or not. Our old technologies are being shipped to Africa because frankly we don’t want them here anymore, and it doesn’t make sense for us to withhold stuff that we would put in a dumpster that people in other places around the world would love to have. However, in places like Africa this means that certain general technological processes are not happening. A good example of this is that there are no telephone landlines have been laid, in the majority of Africa, rather cell phone towers have been put up (which makes more sense now), but it also means they are skipping a general step in the technological development process. Instead of going from landlines to basic cell phones, they simply have cell phones. Another way to look at it, is most of these third world countries will never hear of a PDA, but they will hear of a Blackberry or Iphone. In theory, this isn’t a huge deal, but it is an interesting concept to look at. For awhile in America PDAs were supposed to be the next big thing, but once they were integrated with a cell phone and became “smart phones” PDA nearly disappeared completely. This concept of integration has caused a massive shift in the way we utilize technologies. An example is that a lot of people get their news online rather then reading an actual newspaper or watching it on TV. Bringing this back to Africa is that most of Africa is by passing early evolutions of technology when American companies get involved and want to make a profit. Sure computers from the 1980s are fine. But to give them Windows Vista when they have never seen a computer before is a huge leap forward. Two of the major worries about this process is that, major U.S. companies (or Western companies) will hold so much economical capital over these regions that the countries themselves will never be allowed to compete, and the western world will dominate. Another concern is that in certain places (such as China) old computers are being stripped for parts that dramatically hurts the environment. Both of these issues show how if the western world doesn’t set an example. Other countries aren’t going to go out of their way to protect themselves or the environment because its better for them to strip computers and skip over steps if it means a better life for them immediately.

Posted by ande7597 at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For this third Blog entry, I am going to focus on the Frontline special “Growing Up Online”. I had seen parts of this episode before, and now again we watched most of it in this class. So I figured I might as well watch the whole thing again. Which is what I am doing right now, while I am writing this blog. Initially when I saw the video I thought it was extremely well done and does a very good job at looking into how kids and teens utilize the internet (in mainly social ways) However, after watching the introduction again just now, the episode seems to somewhat over hype some of the problems that occur in regards to how teens use the internet. The video shows a mother at one point exclaiming how the internet allows people just to enter into the lives and houses of teenagers. However, in reality we know that that isn’t true. Sexual Predators online is something that is a reality, but a very small one. In truth very few incidents of people meeting up in person happen. Most of the time when Teens meet someone online they will never meet in real person. At one point the video discusses how Greg (a teenage boy) is linked to his computer “its part of his persona” and “they are unwilling to be out of the loop for even a short period of time”. Greg on the other hand explains how his parents don’t even understand the new media technologies that have come out at one point saying how his mom thought Microsoft Word is email. I love how the video picked a high school that obviously has an extensive amount of money, because the principal is saying that they have LCD screens in every room and touch screen monitors. Heck we don’t even have that in college! The whole issue between this digital divide that occurs between the age range is an obvious by product of the fact that people don’t or haven’t grown up with these kinds of technologies. This in turn leads to a massive variation in what the new society is going to be. What’s funny is how all of these kids express their “intimate secrets” such as using spark notes in school. However, these secrets are going to be shown to the world when the video premieres. I found this fact incredibly funny. However, I like how on one side the video highlights how cheating has become rampant in terms of using things like wikepedia or spark notes, but yet at the same time one of the teachers discusses how this fast paced world teenagers are experiencing, may actually help them later in life. The more multitasking you can do, the more then can accomplish. Thinking back its extremely amazing how much things have changed since even I was in high school. Back in 2004, while people had cell phones they weren’t used nearly to the extent as now. Moreover, social networking sites were near nothing. While Myspace was starting to get traction, most of these new media’s that influence society, had not yet become popular. All of these sites like Facebook Youtube, Myspace, etc. have all came into “true existence” during the past 3-4 years. A major new website that has gained incredible traction in just the past couple weeks is Twitter. The amount of attention this site is getting is incredible. I first heard of this website at the start of the semester in one of my classes, but just the other day Ellen Degenerous was talking about it extensively on Jay Leno (hello 10 million new users). Its really funny how everyone wants to be a part of the latest greatest thing. But in essence Twitter is a slight evolution of “Facebook updating“. But for some reason Facebook updates obviously aren’t good enough because people need to twitter too. The episode discussed a lot more things, but the main point is that the special seemed to extensively highlight the dangers of the internet as well as how parents cant keep up. What interesting about this is that a lot of adults now have Facebook pages, but yet even as more people give in to “social-networking” new and better websites will be developed and the bottom line is that each next generation will have a better understanding of new technologies because they have grown up with these things.

Posted by ande7597 at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Frontline special that we watched in class on the L.A. Times, was extremely interesting and thought provoking. For a long time the “death of newspapers” have been a common theme that has been brought up as an inevitability. This is because the general population, especially the younger portion, has begun to acquire their news from online sources. So why should this draw as much focus and concern as it has been, if newspapers are an old business model that is failing, and a new and better one has been developed? Well, the problem is that most of these new business models get their actual news from the old model of newspapers. It has been well known that TV news stations have long acquired stories from newspapers (Especially investigative reporting) but most major sites such as Google and Yahoo simply pull together news stories from other sources. In effect this means that they give away their information for free and in turn this gives the newspapers nothing in profit. Well if most of the revenue comes from advertisements then why does the fact people aren’t paying for the information still matter? It is because if less people look at the paper, then less advertisers will want to place ads in the paper, thus resulting in less money. Moreover, as the video pointed out, papers used to get a large portion of their funds from classified, and those have almost entirely moved online, because its easier and free to do. Even though it has historically been more visible and easier to put things in the paper, now with new technologies and popular websites, classified have made the transition to the web very easily. So as the money dries up, newspapers are forced to make cuts to their staff and reporters, which in turn means that the overall coverage also decreases, and investigative reporting (that typically takes a lot of time and money to do) disappears nearly entirely. This is because while those type of stories win awards they don’t take in money. The general population typically cares about entertainment and sport related stories then news, and investigative reporting always falls by the wayside because it not simply reporting what has happened, but digging and discovering the truth, which takes time and American culture has a very short attention span. Because of all this, it means that as cuts continue newspapers will have less reporters to go out and dig for stories. In turn, this means that the role that Journalism is supposed to play in society of being the 4th estate, doesn’t occur to the level or extent it is supposed too. Thus Journalism is not properly serving the purpose it is supposed to. So the death of newspapers (or at least the budget cuts the Frontline Special describes) means that Journalism is in decline, which in turn means that Democracy at its core is at risk.

Posted by ande7597 at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I have surprisingly never written a formal blog before. I have spent an extensive amount of time on blogging related sites, such as Facebook, which includes blogging elements, or at the very least an ability to inform people about your daily life and thoughts. But, I have never felt the need to do more then what I do on Facebook. Moreover, I have learned that sometimes I write too much and typically people wont read my blogs. This is actually a surprisingly good seg-way into discussing how while the media (and specifically the news) has become more democratic over the last couple decades due to the introduction of the internet and other new media technologies, the actual communications hasn’t necessarily increased. This is because, while everyone now has a chance to express their opinion, in reality, very few people read blogs unless they are written by a celebrity or better yet a well known person such as a news anchor or reporter who is already read by many people in the general “old forms” of media (such as TV and Newspapers) thus almost defeating the purpose entirely (of having regular people‘s voices heard). Instead of increasing the use of two way communication, what has instead happend is that a lot of people can express their opinions, but they end up expressing them to a very small number of people. This in essence, makes it so the medium is, in effect the message. Content itself doesn’t matter unless it is properly distributed or advertised. Certain websites and blogs get a lot of hits or views, but more often then not, blogs acquire a very small number of responses. This in turn directly correlates to why I have personally never have written a blog because it typically doesn’t get looked at by enough people. This is why Facebook and other social networking sites has made blogging or at least “notes” (as Facebook calls them), a viable option to use for writing, because at least on Facebook your immediate friends can be tagged in notes informing them that either, A, they may be interested in reading what you wrote, or B, you personally want them to read what you wrote. I don’t know how much we are supposed to write for each of these, so I am going to end here and see if this was an adequate post.

Posted by ande7597 at 5:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)