The internet has been described as a “technology of freedom” (Sola Pool in Flew, 2005, p. 88), a place where freedom of expression is encouraged and therefore it is a flourishing ground for a diversity of sources that are rich in information (Flew, 2005, p. 88). Practically everyone that has access to the internet has the potential to be a publisher (Bruns, 2005), and therefore people are not just users of information and news, they are produsers, simultaneously using and producing content (Bruns, 2007). These capabilities are brought about by the collaborative and creative nature of Web 2.0 (Bruns, 2007), and I believe they have had a great affect on more traditional forms of information sources, such as newspapers.
Newspapers were once the most important form of mass media (Cunningham & Turner, 2006, p. 97), however with new media technologies such as the internet rapidly changing the media environment, I believe that this statement is no longer plausible. Research has shown that the readership base for newspapers continues to decline (Cunningham & Turner, 2006, p. 5), with this partly being a result of the increase in a diverse range of media outlets online that offer rich content and attract and cater to niche audiences (Cunningham & Turner, 2006, p. 321). An effect of the increasing amount of user-led news websites seems to be that the democratic process is changing, becoming more participatory in nature (Jenkins, 2007).
While I still consider traditional newspapers to be relevant in today’s media environment, I do not believe they are as important as they were in the past. The internet has allowed people to evolve from being passive users of newspapers (with the exception of being able to contribute to an editorial section) to being active users or produsers (Bruns, 2007) of online news. This has been facilitated by the emergence of many online independent media outlets such as Indymedia, which is a “network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth” (Independent Media Centre, 2008). Indymedia is just one example of an online news site that offers alternative views to traditional news and caters to niche audiences, with others being Slashdot, UQ News Online, and Wiki News to name a few.
Through my study of virtual cultures, I have noticed that the emergence of online news sources has allowed many more people to have a voice in regard to important issues, decreasing the importance of the traditional journalist. The internet facilitates participatory and citizen journalism, where "the intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires” (Bowman & Willis in Wikipedia, 2008). On the internet, people can form communities around a news site, maintaining and updating it within minutes of a change in news, which is impossible for newspaper publishers to do. Also, where there were once geographical boundaries in the collection of news due to newspapers’ tangible qualities, the internet allows a person to gather news from around the world instantly.
In the future, as technology advances and plays a larger part of our lives, I can see traditional newspapers becoming obsolete. However, I am sure that this transition will be met with much resistance, as newspapers are a part of our history. However, the capabilities of the internet allow many more people to participate in the production of news and therefore the democratic process , which I believe is important. I believe that people will always crave information, and the ways in which they access information will be forever changing. Whatever the future holds for news production, it seems that one thing is for sure: the future is user-led (Bruns, 2007).
References
Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative Online News Production. Chapter One: Introduction. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://snurb.info/files/Gatewatching-Introduction.pdf.
Bruns, A. (2007). The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from http://snurb.info/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf.
Cunningham, S. and Turner, G. (2006). The Media and Communications in Australia. 2nd ed. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Flew, T. (2005). New media: An introduction. 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Independent Media Centre. (2008). About Indymedia. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Henry Jenkins@Beyond Broadcast 2007. [Interview with Jenny Attiyeh of ThoughtCast]. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://thoughtcast.org/casts/beyond-broadcast-2007.
Wikipedia. (2008). Citizen Journalism. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Online Cultures and Politics
In Terry Flew’s book New Media he addresses how new media technologies are allowing the emergence of virtual cultures. As I have observed, there are many different types of virtual communities that have evolved from people with specific interests and goals mobilizing and collaborating. Online cultures based around social networks, MMORPGs and wikis are possible due to technological developments accompanied by a change in the ways in which people use technology (Flew, 2005, p. 61). A consequence of people using technologies for social interaction is that they have altered the technologies to being ‘cultural technologies’, which are not merely “material forms that impact upon culture, but rather as themselves cultural forms” (Flew, 2005, p. 21).
Many people, including myself and my peers, engage in virtual cultures for an array of reasons such as social interaction and game play, however one reason that I believe is becoming particularly important in democracies is political involvement and activism. People’s engagement in politics online is changing the face of democracy, giving ordinary citizens “political leverage” (Flew, 2005, p. 62). Citizens can use online communities to organize, campaign and debate (Leadbeater, 2008) and by like-minded people mobilizing around a cause they can gain power (Leadbeater, 2008) and influence public opinion, as “in groups people can accomplish what they cannot do alone” (Noveck, 2005). Recently I have noticed that politicians have also caught onto the power of new media technologies for campaigning and reaching audiences that they were previously unable to reach. Many high profile politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair have utilized YouTube and other social networking technologies to talk, blog and vlog (Coutts, 2007) with audiences around the world, and what was an "'information revolution' is becoming a social revolution” (Noveck, 2005).
However, there have been concerns about peoples’ increasing involvement with social technologies and how this may be fragmenting society, as people within specific online communities may get stuck in an ‘echo chamber’, choosing to network and debate only with people who share their views (Leadbeater, 2008). Out of their niche online groups then, people may “project their value system onto others and fail to comprehend how someone else may possibly think differently” (boyd, 2005, p. 199). Therefore, it is important for diverse online groups to connect and affect one another (boyd, 2005, p. 208) and for a range of political views to be expressed.
Due to technological innovations, politics is no longer spectatorial, it is a participatory practice (Jenkins, 2007), and I believe that both citizens and politicians are using the internet and other new media technologies to their advantage. With the political landscape shifting with technological changes, it will be interesting to see where the future for democracy is heading. As long as groups online do not get stuck in echo-chambers and become fragmented from society, I am sure that the future is a bright one.
References
boyd, d. (2005). Sociable technology and democracy. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.danah.org/papers/ExtremeDemocracy.pdf
Coutts, S. (2007, May 20). Politics and the internet. [Radio transcript]. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2007/1924783.htm.
Flew, T. (2005). New media: An introduction. 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Henry Jenkins@Beyond Broadcast 2007. [Interview with Jenny Attiyeh of ThoughtCast]. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://thoughtcast.org/casts/beyond-broadcast-2007.
Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social software for social change. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms/xstandard/social_software.pdf.
Noveck, B. (2005). A democracy of groups. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_11/noveck/.
Many people, including myself and my peers, engage in virtual cultures for an array of reasons such as social interaction and game play, however one reason that I believe is becoming particularly important in democracies is political involvement and activism. People’s engagement in politics online is changing the face of democracy, giving ordinary citizens “political leverage” (Flew, 2005, p. 62). Citizens can use online communities to organize, campaign and debate (Leadbeater, 2008) and by like-minded people mobilizing around a cause they can gain power (Leadbeater, 2008) and influence public opinion, as “in groups people can accomplish what they cannot do alone” (Noveck, 2005). Recently I have noticed that politicians have also caught onto the power of new media technologies for campaigning and reaching audiences that they were previously unable to reach. Many high profile politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair have utilized YouTube and other social networking technologies to talk, blog and vlog (Coutts, 2007) with audiences around the world, and what was an "'information revolution' is becoming a social revolution” (Noveck, 2005).
However, there have been concerns about peoples’ increasing involvement with social technologies and how this may be fragmenting society, as people within specific online communities may get stuck in an ‘echo chamber’, choosing to network and debate only with people who share their views (Leadbeater, 2008). Out of their niche online groups then, people may “project their value system onto others and fail to comprehend how someone else may possibly think differently” (boyd, 2005, p. 199). Therefore, it is important for diverse online groups to connect and affect one another (boyd, 2005, p. 208) and for a range of political views to be expressed.
Due to technological innovations, politics is no longer spectatorial, it is a participatory practice (Jenkins, 2007), and I believe that both citizens and politicians are using the internet and other new media technologies to their advantage. With the political landscape shifting with technological changes, it will be interesting to see where the future for democracy is heading. As long as groups online do not get stuck in echo-chambers and become fragmented from society, I am sure that the future is a bright one.
References
boyd, d. (2005). Sociable technology and democracy. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://www.danah.org/papers/ExtremeDemocracy.pdf
Coutts, S. (2007, May 20). Politics and the internet. [Radio transcript]. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2007/1924783.htm.
Flew, T. (2005). New media: An introduction. 2nd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2007). Henry Jenkins@Beyond Broadcast 2007. [Interview with Jenny Attiyeh of ThoughtCast]. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://thoughtcast.org/casts/beyond-broadcast-2007.
Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social software for social change. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms/xstandard/social_software.pdf.
Noveck, B. (2005). A democracy of groups. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_11/noveck/.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 has changed the way in which people use the internet. In the past, Web 1.0 users would access data and information; however Web 2.0 users to do much more than simply retrieve information, they can also be creative, share information, social network, and simultaneously use and produce content. Web 2.0 allows users to be produsers. Tim O’Reilly gives examples of how Web 1.0 has evolved into Web 2.0 by comparing websites. For example, in Web 1.0 people would use Britannica Online to access information on a range of topics, however in Web 2.0 Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia where all content is user generated is the norm for accessing information.
An example of the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 was given by Ellen Thompson and Alice Steiner in their lecture "A Day in the Life of CI Librarians". This example shows the changes made to the Arts Libraries Society (ARLIS) webpage to transform it from being data based to being social, collaborative and interactive.
The ARLIS Website changed from this (Web 1.0)...
Although Web 2.0 is a relatively new concept, my experience with the internet is mainly using Web 2.0 applications. Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, peer-to-peer file sharing and importantly participating in virtual cultures and communities rather than just being a passive user of the content. The question now is what the internet will evolve into next. There is already talk of Web 3.0 and even Web 8.0, and it will be interesting to see this evolution.
Steiner, A. & Thompson, E. (2008). A Day In the Life of CI Librarians. [KCB201 Lecture]. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1.
An example of the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 was given by Ellen Thompson and Alice Steiner in their lecture "A Day in the Life of CI Librarians". This example shows the changes made to the Arts Libraries Society (ARLIS) webpage to transform it from being data based to being social, collaborative and interactive.
The ARLIS Website changed from this (Web 1.0)...
To this (Web 2.0)...
Although Web 2.0 is a relatively new concept, my experience with the internet is mainly using Web 2.0 applications. Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, peer-to-peer file sharing and importantly participating in virtual cultures and communities rather than just being a passive user of the content. The question now is what the internet will evolve into next. There is already talk of Web 3.0 and even Web 8.0, and it will be interesting to see this evolution.
Steiner, A. & Thompson, E. (2008). A Day In the Life of CI Librarians. [KCB201 Lecture]. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
