Peter Fleck, Garrick Van Buren, Jeremy Iggers, and Cristina Lopez look at how the media might be changing as a result of wireless.
Peter Fleck [Peter’s blog] and Garrick V Buren are advocates for access to everyone and everyone to wireless. [ Garrick’s blog]
Garrick Van Buren and Peter Fleck represent “all of the bloggers.” They begin by showing satellite imagery of the earth (Google Earth)—beginning on a global scale, zooming in on the Twin Cities metropolitan area, all the way into Garicks’s house. Garrick argues that blogs allow for very specific regional coverage—garage sales, school board meetings, local crime, etc. These are neighbors talking to neighbors—media for the neighbors by the neighbors in the language of the neighbors. This is the promise of regional wireless.
It’s not just voices talking—it’s conversation. Bloggers blog to each other, they share, they argue, they discuss. But the conversation must include all voices. It’s important to ensure access for everyone. It is Peter’s hope that the internet will eventually become as ubiquitous as the telephone.
Newspaper is now the weblog, TV is now videoblog, the cost is nearly $0, and rather than the media being centralized it is now distributed.
Peter is interested in how wi-fi fosters community. It is the easiest and cheapest way to provide ubiquitous internet connectivity. We don’t have to dig trenches and string wires. One can connect anywhere at anytime with a variety of devices. The Minneapolis wi-fi cloud will allow for Ethernet access, not just wireless antennae.
As far as creating community, the cheaper it is, the more people will be likely to use the network. The cost of the Minneapolis cloud will not only be competitively priced (and cheaper than many services), but will also provided much larger amounts of data to be uploaded—most commercial providers severely limit upload amounts.
Next Peter turns to media—starting with world-wide media like the New York times, then down to local media outlets and blogs. Minneapolis has one of the largest blogging community in the country. Garrick points out that he often gets his news from sources like the New York Times through the lens of local bloggers, who filter, comment on, and discuss the stories. Some local blogs include MNSpeak, Minnesota Monitor, PF Hyper Blog, etc.[ Doc Searles Buzz.MN ]
Place blogging [ Placeblogger [ is “hyper-local,” —citizen media. It’s about voices; each person in the community can have a voice that is heard by the community and beyond. “It’s amazing. It’s unbelievable. It’s scary.”
Jeremy Iggers speaks about The twin Cities Daily Planet. The Daily Planet is now almost one year old. It is a portal for citizen news and media. It is community focused—news that resonates within the community; news the community is not getting anywhere else. [ TCDailyPlanet ]
Jeremy begins by showing a story on the MDP done by MNstories.com one year ago. The inspiration for the MDP was Ohmy News international. [ MNstories New America Media
]
According to Jeremy, American newspapers are in crisis—budget cuts, resources being shifted from urban communities to affluent communities, etc. There is a need for someone or something to fill that void. The MDP tries to fill this role, covering local, community stories from a local angle.
MDP has a number of local media parters: Park Bugle, Southside Pride, The Northeast Beat, and many other local neighborhood media outlets. [Northeast Beat ]
MDP offers citizen journalism training. They have a partnership with Hamline U which sends students from their International Journalism program to work with the MDP. MDP is working to build partnerships with local ethnic media as well. They have news in Hmong, Somali, and Spanish.
Christina Lopez rounds out this part of the conference. Christina is not a media practitioner; her background is in academics. She starts out by talking about some myths of media criticism. Media criticism is not about tearing-down. It is interested in forming theories of media, and discovering how media stories work—the frameworks they create that help us to think.
She decided to look at some print media stories on wireless and some of the myths that are bubbling up. In a story of wireless coffee houses, the reporter observes that the two—coffee and wi-fi—go naturally together. Here there are some myths coming to the surface: that technological advancement is inevitable, and that technology creates the myth of anytime anywhere access. Her issue with this is not that this is a false story that needs to be debunked, but rather that there are some contradictions that need to be resolved: the downside of the “anytime anywhere” access means that the boundaries between work and leisure are becoming blurred. Greater access to information is wonderful, but the downside is that we as workers may now be expected to manage more and more data and to do more with it. These stories don’t mention the downside, as a result they are somewhat Utopian—mythic.
[ Seattle PI article ]
In a second example from Corpus Christi, there were repeated references to the potential users of the network as “consumers.” Uses for the network included shopping and government services. It’s not these activities that she finds disturbing, but the fact that the media is creating an identity that the user should identify with. Consumers are passive—they’re roles are smaller, more limited, than citizens.
In a third example she refers to a story about an initiative to create a wireless network in Harlem, which seeks to empower the community members. But this brings up another myth—that new technologies will regenerate communities. One must be cautious and think critically. How do we define community? Who will participate? This is an immensely complicated issue—communities are not magically created. One must take in to account community groups and existing institutions. It also takes a lot of work to create digital communities. One study on message boards found that 5% of the community was posting 80% of the time. It takes a lot of work to get everyone involved. [ Wireless Harlem]
Finally it’s important to keep in mind the histories of media. For example, when television was introduced, it was seen as a medium with great potential for education and for creating communities. This is no longer seen to be the case. Radio too had a similar romance in it’s early days. Will wireless have a same fate?