Ruby's Advanced Media Issues Weekly Blog

Course blog for ARTS3091 S1 2013 Ruby Flew z3332043

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 10: The Generosity of New Media - Science Technology and Innovation

Having looked previously throughout the course at the implications of new media, this week's readings and lectures focused on exactly what new media technologies are lending to the world of science. New media has provided a medium for scientific research, data and innovations to be communicated to the public, and in turn leads to social change. And, when I think about it, scientific research makes the headlines almost every night of the week in one way or another, so I think there is a mutual dependence for both the science and media in that scientific research is highly newsworthy, and the media provides for a platform for the organisation and dissemination of scientific data. 

Which leads me to one of this week's readings that particularly stood out to me, titled 'Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science' written by Kevin Kelly for The Scientist. In his insightful article he discusses how science to the present day has enabled humans to keep reinventing it, however the future of science lies in media and technology which will enable us to learn new ways of organising scientific data. "Right now, with the advance of communication technology and computers, we have entered a new way of knowing. The thrust of the technetium's trajectory is to further organise the avalanche of information and tools we are generating and to increase the structure of the made world" (Kelly, 2010). 

Below is a video that explores how science and new media are working together - and this video provides information for scientists to benefit from using new media, in particular how scientists should shape and package their data for journalists to use and communicate most effectively. 

References:

Kelly, K., (2010) 'Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science', The Scientist Magazine

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 9: Micropolitics, Networks, Designing for and Living in New Communities

Perhaps one of the greatest implications of new media would have to be the way it has strengthened the sense of society, community and social change in an unprecedented way. We really are living in a brave new world, where the phenomenon of the Web 2.0 has allowed us to change the world from 'the bottom up'. Who says you have to be an organised political party to influence policy? Social media allows us to conglomerate online and take things into our own hands. Below is a YouTube video of a FlashMob in Times Square, New York. A FlashMob is an assemblage of people organised entirely online, where random people meet up in a public place and perform something choreographed over the web... Take a look. 

And here is another YouTube clip about online activism and creating social change through social media... pretty cool. 

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 8: Big Politics - The Fate of the State

Who would have thought twenty years ago that we would ever be able to directly communicate with the current Prime Minister of Australia at the click of a button? The millennium brought with it the Web 2.0, and it was set to change the world as we knew it. It has opened up infinite possibilities and connected the world. If we consider politics in relation to new media and in particular social media, such as Twitter, Facebook and websites like WikiLeaks, we can see just how much politics has changed - and possibly predict where the 'fate of the state' is headed. 

Like a moth to a flame, politicians have taken to social media as a shiny new tool that allows them to self-publish their bullshit and campaign without going through journalists or having to attend press conferences. Hurrah for politicians! Politicians now have Facebook and Twitter accounts, which (apparently) they update themselves and respond to comments personally, making voters feel more connected with leaders and feel more involved. From this the potential for citizens to effect change exists, such as by organising rallies or putting pressure on political leaders when enough people publicly express their opinions on policy.

Also, social media means the way we receive political information and news has changed, as we are firstly more selectively searching for and choosing the news we want to view, and secondly we are receiving our political updates via streamed and shared YouTube and other video clips, perhaps leading to a more diverse range of citizens engaging with politics, such as young people and lower socio-economic status citizens who would not typically read newspapers such as The Australian, watch political programs or watch news bulletins as frequently as those particularly interested with politics. 

From this, we have seen a much more transparent government, where political updates, news and information is more readily available and instantaneous, is shared rapidly and is less likely to be manipulated or concealed before the world sees it. The reading 'Against transparency: the perils of openness in government' by Lessig unpacks issues surrounding the 'transparency movement' that the Web 2.0 has created, saying "Like the decision to go to war in Iraq, transparency has become an unquestionable bipartisan value". He goes on to describe how he remains pessimistic about the current state of 'naked transparency' despite the rest of the world taking to the idea of raw political information being available online to citizens without going via journalists. He is concerned that "The problem, however, is that not all data satisfies the simple requirement that they be information that consumers can use, presented in a way they can use it", and suggests that data made available directly to citizens online should be annotated and put forward in a way that it can be understood.

I agree with this that there are problems with transparency, but I would have to say my primary concern would be how this transparency is exploited by politicians rather than how consumers may or may not understand data or information without going via a media mogul. Either way, with the way that politics has been changed by new media in the past decade, while it is impossible to imagine what new technologies will bring, I think the next decade will see politics change more than we can anticipate, and I predict the gap between politicians and voters will close if not altogether. 

Lecture word: Transversality 

References:

Lessig, L. 2010. Against transparency: the perils of openess in government, New Republic, site accessed 28th April 2013, <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0#> 

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 7: Transversality

Transversality by definition is a mathematical term to reference how spaces interact. In the context of this week's lecture and readings, transversality can be understood as a way to examine how journalism has changed from its traditional form and is merging into another space: the digital/online platform. When looking at the 'framing' of the changing state of journalism as an issue, the most common debates surrounding this change both academically, professionally and socially most commonly involve loss of jobs, loss of revenue, citizen journalism, a loss of tradition, or more broadly, the general 'decline' or 'death' of journalism.

However, if we were to step outside the framing of this issue and think transversally about the 'death' of journalism, we would ask ourselves what is the actual situation with the merging of traditional journalism to digital and networked media?

Well, the short answer is journalism isn't dying, just changing. Yes traditional job roles for graduate journalists are scarce. For hopefuls like myself, the dream of having a story published on the front page of a broadsheet newspaper, printed on paper with real ink, is probably a dream best hung up to dry. Or, as soon to be graduates we could pull our heads out of the sand and embrace the new and improved state of journalism. Essentially I would say the role nor importance of quality journalism has not been lost, but rather enhanced with the potential of new media technologies. Today we can read about a news event *and* watch the actual accompanying footage of that event. Also, unlike the traditional broadsheet newspaper which advocated for a mass audience, aside from the unlikely event that your 'letter to the editor' would be published, online journalism has created a more transparent society as we can comment on published stories and be involved in debates with other readers.

In looking briefly at the current state and effects of the changing state of journalism, it is clear that in fact journalism is not dying, there is still a lot of journalism happening, it is just changing in mostly form and content to an extent as well.

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 6: Data and Media - An unrequited love?

In a world where data consumes us, describes us and perhaps even defines us, is data a friend or foe? Is there a conflict resolution needed between data, the media and us? These are all questions that this week's lecture and readings brought up. 

The Web 2.0 has enabled us to upload content quicker and easier than ever before. Take for example Instagram, as just one of millions of applications that allow us to upload, store, share and download data with the world. In one respect this has brought the world closer, sharing experiences in real time quite literally from the palm of our hands to another. It is daunting to think that 'liking', 'commenting' and 'sharing' has become an everyday activity for the entire world, and this is just one example of data sharing that new media has allowed for. New media has revolutionised the world, enabling insurmountable amounts of data to be uploaded, stored and downloaded like never before. However, with this, issues are brought to the table. Essentially, we must ask ourselves, is data a help or a hindrance for us?

This week we also looked at the Actor Network Theory (ANT) to help conceptualise this topic. The ANT is a sociological theory that is used to describe objects as networks, linking concepts with material things. It simply means that in an assemblage (a coming together of sorts) both the "human" and "non-human" actants are equal and are mutually dependent, for example in relation to data, the assemblage may be Instagram news feed, and the "human" actants are us, while the "non-human" actants are the iPhone, the Web 2.0 and the camera. If we are to relate the ANT to our thinking about data and media this week, I would personally say that while data is perpetually imploding, that rather than bringing up a question of whether there is conflict between data, media and us, the larger issue at stake is in fact possibly how data and media is getting away from us: are we chasing media or are media chasing us?

One of this week's readings was titled '10 ways data is changing how we live' written by Conrad Quilty-Harper published in The Telegraph in 2010. I found it succinct and interesting, and very relevant to what we were discussing this week. The author listed and described 10 ways that data is changing our everyday lives, in the areas of shopping, relationships, business deliveries, maps, education, politics, society, war, advertising, linked data and the future. Considering these are highly significant aspects of our everyday lives, it is incredible to be reminded of just how much data and new media are changing the world around us, and I have to say if this article is anything to go by, data is changing the world for the better, making it a more transparent, smaller place to live in. Of particular interest in this article was the author's reference to how data is impacting on education, referencing the school assessment data which is now communicated publicly to rank schools, stating "Although there have been questions raised about the methodology behind the analysis, it's still a great example of how new and previously unseen data can add a different perspective on a subject that affects everyone's life" (Quilty-Harper, 2010). 

So to personally answer this week's questions put forward to us in the lecture, I think data and media are a match made in heaven, creating a new assemblage at large and helping us as a collective society to move forward. I think the relationship between data and media are the way of the future, the way forward. 

References:

'Actor-network theory', Wikipedia, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory [accessed April 24 2013]

Quilty-Harper, C., (2010) '10 Ways data is changing how we live', The Telegraph, available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7963311/10-ways-data-is-changing-how-we-live.html [accessed April 24 [2013]

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 5: Realities

Much like the age old ambiguous question of what came first, 'the chicken or the egg?', this week's lecture and readings got me to thinking about what comes first: actual reality or virtual reality. New media technologies are allowing us to not only participate in an online world, such as Facebook, but even allowing us to create virtual worlds, like Second Life. Furthermore, such technologies are in fact blurring the line between real life experience and a separate virtual experience that, I believe, may even exist as an entirely separate realm or ecosystem to our "real life" realities. 

Take for example the photography application Instagram that can be downloaded onto our iPhones and iPads. For what started out as an app for editing and sharing photos, it has now imploded into a virtual world that is both a check on your popularity (based on how many 'followers' and 'likes'  you can get) as well as a putting forth of an ideal version of your life (albeit through the sepia filter). Gone are the days of celebrities being endorsed for wearing a brands clothing in public, now they are being endorsed for putting an Instagram photo up of a product. 

It is kind of eery to think that through an app on your phone you can follow what people are doing every day through what they upload. Are they uploading their realities to a virtual world, or is this just them creating a cropped an edited virtual reality, only showcasing the part of their lives that they want to? Are their realities much different to what they present in their virtual realities? I'm calling it: new media technologies are creating new "virtual worlds" altogether. And these "virtual worlds", however we present them to our followers, coexist alongside a thing called our "real lives"... remember them? Instagram is just one example of just how the relationship between media, culture and society has changed for good. I can't help but wonder, with the way technology is progressing and changing so quickly, will we soon be living in a society where our "virtual worlds" and profiles surpass "real life", and people will only communicate via media technologies? Imagine... 

Yesterday, my friend and I decided we wanted to get in some exercise and ran up to the top of the lighthouse at Palm Beach. It was a spectacular Autumn day and the view from the top was breathtaking. Only later did I realise that we had managed to share that experience of standing on the edge of a deserted cliff overlooking the Peninsula and not exchange one word about it, or simply sat and experienced the view and the stillness. Instead, we had managed to look at the view through the lens of our iPhones, snapping away in a vicarious attempt to get the perfect Instagram shot, then we had run back down. This made me realise that this idea of the virtual surpassing reality was already happening. We had in a sense almost had a real experience, virtually. We were really there at the top of that cliff, but if we didn't upload it for our "followers" to see, did it really happen? 

In one of this week's readings, titled '7 Ways Augmented Reality Will Improve Your Life' , author Lauren Drell said  "(augmented reality is) a way to use technology to redefine space, and it places a virtual layer over the world with geographic specificity ensuring a good fit". Interestingly, she believes that areas of our lives will be greatly improved because of augmented realities, such as learning, shopping, travel, and exploring with maps. 

I think this week's lecture and readings were really insightful and relevant to what we are experiencing, as students of a media generation. I cringe a little every time my Dad says hello to a "random stranger" when we're walking down the street, but he cannot understand why I have "random strangers" as "friends" on Facebook, and as "followers" on Instagram. Oh, the ignorance of a generations difference. 

Lecture word: Experience

References:

Drell, Lauren., 2013, 7 Ways Augmented Reality Will Improve Your Life, accessed online at Mashable.com on April 11 2013, http://mashable.com/2012/12/19/augmented-reality-city/

Murphy, Andrew, 2013, Reality - Actual, Potential and Virtual Lecture, The University of New South Wales 

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 4: Individual, social and global memory

This week's lecture and readings theorised ideas of how media technologies are influencing our experiences and memory.

Firstly, the lecture got me thinking about memories and how media technologies actually function as an online record of our experiences and essentially are a memory keeper, much like an external hard drive for our brains. An example I thought of was Facebook's 'timeline'. On our individual profile pages, we have a timeline where Facebook actually orders our lives into years and highlights significant events in our lives based on our photo and video uploads and status updates. Rather than having these merely exist in our psychological memory, our experiences and memories are virtually stored on an online data base which can be accessed by the world.

Furthermore, not only does Facebook store our individual experiences and memories, but is a virtual memory bank of our social relationships also. For example, Facebook offers a link called 'see friendship' which will take you to a kind of profile page of your relationship with another Facebook friend, showing all your photos and videos together and every 'conversation' you have had over Facebook together. Our constant Facebook use is being recorded, and Facebook is a memory bank for not only our online experiences but our actual experiences and relationships.

As the reading highlighted, there is much debate surrounding ideas of natural memory verse technological or 'forced' memory. It has been suggested that our ability to naturally retain memories and rely on our psychological ability to consciously retain experiences in the form of memories will be weakened by a reliance on external forms of memory retention or storage. Personally I would say that certainly to an extent as media technologies develop further and further we are placing a heavier dependence on external forms of memory retention such as Facebook or word documents or websites. However, are we forgetting that throughout history we have had a reliance on external 'hard drives' for the storage of our experiences. No we may not have had online storage databases but throughout history we have relied on external forms of recording our experiences, from ancient Egyptian writing on pyramid walls, to Aboriginal cave art, to simply handwriting in paper notebooks. I would say the current state of our reliance on online recording of our experiences are only another semi-permanent, potential step in the evolution of external memory keeping.  

Lecture word: Metacommunication

[rubyflew-blog]

Week 3: Media ecologies

I grew up as a child of the 'net generation' and I cannot imagine anything different. For me, time spent 'chilling out' as an 8 year old meant time spent staring at a Windows '97 monitor doing random Google searches. In high school, afternoons were spent chatting to friends on MSN for hours on end and sending meaningless albeit hilarious emoticons to one another (it didn't matter that we had just spent all day at school together). Come university and I can send a text quicker than I can handwrite a sentence. So I got to talking to my Dad the other day about just how different our upbringings really were. Sure, we had similar values instilled in us, were both made to snack on Vegimite sandwiches and apples and get a job when we were old enough to see over the counter, and we even grew up in the same suburb. But dare I say Dad grew up in a simpler time, when reality was reality and that was that. He would get home from school and play in the street until dark, or go down to the beach. Instead of hanging out with his friends online, they would, you know, actually go and hang out at one another's houses. This got me to thinking, just how far has society really come in in the past century and how much have media technologies had to do with this? Does 'reality' even have the same meaning anymore?

As technology has advanced over the past century, a social evolution has unfolded and continues to unfold. Today, media is not only a part of our daily lives but it is actually shaping and reshaping our everyday human experiences. The line between what is reality outside of media technologies and what becomes our everyday reality because of media technologies is blurred.

This brings me to the concept of media ecologies, which as discussed in the lecture is an apt way of describing the realm of reality that has been created by the colliding of humans and media technologies. Neil Postman described this concept in the lecture as 'Media ecology is the study of media as environments'. Media and society have interjected to create a perpetually evolving and unfolding online environment where everyone and everything is linked. The lecture further explained this by saying 'Rather than a closed and harmonious system, an ecology is open and unstable, driven by internal dynamics and external shocks'. For example, not only are technologies linked and continuing to be linked even further each day, such as Facebook and Instagram and how you can search for both on Google, but the world is also becoming more closely tied and a much smaller place thanks to these media technologies. 

Many questions come up for me when unpacking this concept. The biggest and scariest question that came to mind was how do we as young adults of the 'net generation' experience reality compared to our parents experiences of reality when our experiences are so closely linked with media technologies? For example, I went skydiving in Switzerland last year, and posted a status on Facebook about it right before I did it. Afterwards, I uploaded a video of the skydive up onto Facebook, and linked a photo from my Instagram. Would I have had the same experience if media did not exist? Nobody all the way back in Australia would have even known I had jumped out of a plane that morning, until I got home and told them of my experience in person. It is scary to think how closely tied our experiences are with media. I can't help but wonder, do media exist for us or do we exist for media? 

Lecture word: Machinic