#n8862737

[kcb206group12]

#teamgina #RHOMelbourne #bigdata #followme

Big Data is considered a ‘currency across industry’ (Woodford, 2014) and in today’s new media-focused world, is what is created when we tweet, post a Facebook status or even look up something online. A particular feature of this week’s lecture on Big Data that interested me was Twitter and its involvement in the creation of data. 

In terms of new media, Twitter is a breeding ground for the creation of data through hashtags, trending topics and multiple networks. Hashtags not only serve a purpose for sharing thoughts about which Melbourne Housewife is your favourite (#teamgina for your information), but also provide a simple way to collect data for analysis (Woodford, 2014). Beyond hashtags however, are networks that represent data through interpersonal communication about similar topics (Bruns and Moe, 2013). These networks allow groups of users who share similar interests to communicate in ‘personal publics’ (Bruns and Moe, 2013) and participate in follower-followee networks. This ‘meso’ level of the networks is only superseded by the ‘micro’ level, which is concerned with replies on Twitter (Bruns and Moe, 2013). This particular type of interaction is considered mind-bogglingly extraordinary to a fifteen-year-old girl who spends her life spamming Harry Styles with hundreds of tweets, only to have him respond and make her dreams come true. This type of personal interaction is fleeting on Twitter, but is hardly a possibility on other social networking sites such as Facebook.

  Speaking from experience (six out of eight of the Real Housewives of Melbourne have answered me AND Gina and Chyka follow me, big news I know), it does make you feel personally connected to that other person, whether or not it’s only for a few seconds. That something about what you said made them respond to you, not the hundreds of other people attempting to get a response at the same time. This type of interpersonal communication serves a further purpose rather than simply tweeting under a hashtag, or following your idol on Twitter in the hope that one day, they would follow back (language warning for the video). 

  Until recently, the notion of tweeting under a hashtag has been unique to Twitter (until Facebook decided to job on the bandwagon). Still, it’s not often you see your Facebook news feed littered with comments from every friend about the same show. Unless it’s the weather report, in which case all of my Facebook friends are apparently meteorologists. This idea of discussing and sharing opinions about a particular television show or Hollywood awards event under a particular hashtag allows us to understand how we interact with each other, both nationally and internationally. Twitter has allowed us to communicate without barriers, share opinions with the world and connect with the people we admire most, all while creating big data to be nit-picked and analysed by bigger powers.

Should we be worried? Possibly, but unless we’re having a Too-Much-Information Tuesday or Follow-Me-Around-Friday moment on Twitter, what’s the problem with picking which Housewife’s side you’re on? It may provide an approximation of which housewife has a larger following, and could even encourage a retweet if you mention them, but that’s about it. Rock on, #teamgina.

   Reference List

  Bruns, A & Hallvard, M. 2013. “2. Structural Layers of Communication on Twitter.” In Twitter and Society: An Introduction. Accessed May 8, 2014. http://mappingonlinepublics.net/2013/11/04/announcing-twitter-and-society/

  Woodford, Darryl. 2014. “New Media, Big Data and Telemetrics (guest lecture by Darryl Woodford)”. Accessed May 8, 2014. http://www.dpwoodford.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/KCB206-Big-Data-Lecture_Small.pdf

[kcb206group12]

Emoticons: Simple Tool or Pop-Culture Phenomenon?

The growth of new media communication has allowed audiences to use technologies in order to converse across ‘time and space’ (Sauter, 2014). A particular part of the lecture and readings that caught my attention was the reliance on portraying emotions via online communication.   

  New media communication has not only provided new platforms for interaction to take place, but has also created unique ways to engage with the ‘world, each other and ourselves’ (Sauter, 2014). The tools of new media communication enable audiences not only to communicate with words, but also other creative mediums that allow us to converse and display emotions convincingly.

  Emoticons are particularly used to indicate emotions and almost ‘online’ facial expressions in terms of new media communication (Skovholt, Gronning and Kankaanranta, 2014, p.2). The use of emoticons has developed with new media over time with the particular rise of ‘Emojis’, an application created for smartphones.

Although created by an independent application developer, the Emoji app has quickly become associated with Apple as the primary emoticon app, and has also experienced flow-on effects to be used on other platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. The Emoji application has become so much of a standard that it has not only been immersed in new media communication, but also popular culture. Shoe designer Del Toro has taken the symbols and used them for fashion, positioning them on the toes of $340 slippers (Schuessler, 2014). 

  Katy Perry also used the Emojis in her lyric video for her song ‘Roar’, making it a lyric video with no actual words, but rather using emoticons to depict the words of the song (possibly to emphasise the lyrical genius behind the song). The development of new media communication is evident, as we are watching a texting conversation take place in a music video, where emotions are being portrayed to communicate the lyrics.  

  Such the prominence of Emojis in new media communication that a quiz is available to see what emoji matches your personality (just in case you were wondering, mine was the Sarcastic Side-Eye). The quiz is based on seemingly unrelated topics with questions such as “Who is your favourite Britney Spears?” and “What is your favourite Olympic sport?” However the end result gives you the answer you’ve clearly been waiting for since installing the application on your smartphone.

  While the circa-2005 colon and bracket version of the ‘smiley’ face clearly portrayed emotions relating to the message being sent, the rise of the Emoji may have complicated this process. Whilst it may be fun to momentarily confuse your mother with an array of Emojis ranging from a crying cat to a circus tent, what is the value of such trivial things to conversation? How does a ladybug portray emotions? After all, emoticons were created simply to assist in conversation rather than taking it over completely. 

   Overall, the development of new media communication has been shaped by conversation ‘accessories’ such as emoticons. The progression of emoticons has plunged into pop-culture platforms such as the fashion and music industries, possibly losing it’s initial purpose of simply portraying emotion over online communication.

  Reference List

  Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 6 lecture slides – New Media Communication”. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232448_1

  Schuessler, B. 2014. “New Del Toro Emoji Accessories Are The #BrownSwirlyFace”. Accessed April 12, 2014. http://www.refinery29.com/2014/03/65060/moda-operandi-edie-parker-del-toro-collaboration#slide

  Skovholt, K., Gronning, A. and Kankaanranta, A. (2014). “The Communicative Functions of Emoticons in Workplace E-Mails :-)”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Accessed April 4, 2014. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12063

[kcb206group12]

Citizen Journalism: Actual Journalism?

The once high barrier built between the producer and the audience has been knocked down through evident ‘paradigm shifts’ and ‘new models of entertainment making’ (Sauter, 2014). Two concepts that caught my attention this week were citizen journalism, and the notion of the inclusionary vibe.

  As Shefrin (2004, p.278) points out, producers will ‘attempt to use the Internet to maximize profits’. This has lead to the exponential growth in news being displayed online, making it accessible from anywhere at anytime. The growth of the Internet along with the evolution of social networking has bought about a diverse way in which news is reported and shared: citizen journalism. As Sauter (2014) defines, citizen journalism is ‘laypeople interacting with media organisations to share opinions, personal stories, photos and videos of news as it happens’. This new type of journalism is particularly prominent on Twitter, where users can ‘live-tweet’ an event as it is unfolding and update followers seconds after it occurs. Twitter allowed citizens to inform, effectively, the Internet of the Boston Bombings and eventually became a crucial factor in spreading news and developments about those responsible. News of the bombings was first heard due to Twitter where people, professional journalists or not, tweeted in 140 characters or less based on what they’d seen. Live-tweeting particular events such as the Golden Globes, or Miley Cyrus’ twerking-fest at the VMA’s however may question the notion of ‘citizen-journalism’. Although Cyrus’ performance generated 300,000 tweets per minute at its peak (Kantrowitz, 2013), does moaning about whether or not she should be dressing that way or questioning if the middle-aged man she was grinding on was enjoying it a little too much really qualify as ‘journalism’? Yes it spread the opinions of millions of people, but in the end did the live-tweeting contribute to solving a crime? Or inform people about a possible terrorist attack as it was happening? Not so much. Therefore, where used appropriately, citizen journalism and in particular ‘live-tweeting’ can develop a story faster and to a greater extent compared to traditional news platforms.

  As discussed in week five, the notion of the inclusionary vibe ‘demands attention to consumer input’ (Shefrin, 2004, p.274). This concept encourages producers to heavily involve the audience in the entire process of creating media entertainment, from general ideas to when it becomes available. This inclusionary vibe also links to another proposition discussed in the lecture and readings, which is the participatory fandom. Through forming alliances with the audience and ensuring fan culture are understood and respected, producers and creators alike can converse and ultimately use their dedicated audience to promote content (Jenkins, 1992). Twitter once again provides an opportunistic platform for producers to connect with the members of their particular fandom and to also involve and communicate with fans like never before. Twitter is used as a tool particularly by celebrities who simply give out follows, retweets and favourites and consequently make fans’ dreams come true. While this system is of course ideal for the mega-fan who spams their idols with hundreds of messages daily, it’s not necessarily idyllic for celebrities who deal with Internet trolls.

  The entertainment industry and new media provides infinite opportunities for producers and audiences alike. Where used properly, notions such as citizen-journalism provides real opportunities for news to spread faster and to more people, compared to the traditional system.

  Reference List

  Jenkins, Henry. 2003. Textual poachers: Television fans and participatory culture. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

  Kantrowitz, Alex. 2013. “Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance Drove Over 300,000 Tweets Per Minute”. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkantrowitz/2013/08/27/miley-cyrus-vma-performance-drove-over-300000-tweets-per-minute/

  Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 5 Lecture Slides – New Media and the Entertainment Industry”. Accessed April 4, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232447_1

  Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281. 

[kcb206group12]

The Informational Economy's New Employees

New media has not only permanently altered today’s media landscape, but has also changed the way media integrates with work and society.  Particular concepts that interested me from both the lecture and readings were the ever-increasing notion of the informational economy and rise of new media labour.

  As Castells highlights, the informational economy is ‘a society organized by a networking logic’ (1999, p.400). In this society, we rely on processing, and developing our knowledge of technology more than ever before. The informational economy involves an ever-changing work landscape, where companies in particular are becoming global, expansive and working together to do so (Castells, 1999, p.400). Technological advancements also only encourage these progressions. While the informational economy can prove an advantage for many reasons, it can also encourage sizeable global companies to become incomparably large. It can eventuate in the same few organisations acquiring multiple businesses.

  For example, Facebook’s 2012 takeover of Instagram led to many questions about the reasons behind the $1 billion deal (Filloux, 2012). Instagram was considered a large competitor for Facebook, and many considered the purchase cowardly, and that Facebook’s owner Mark Zuckerberg was ‘scared of the internet’ (Filloux, 2012). In terms of the informational economy, the deal in a way encourages both global companies to work together in order to create something larger, and something better for users. However, it also deters the networking society’s working landscape, as these companies are no longer coming together to simply work on projects, but are instead working together under the same roof. Facebook’s takeover of Instagram also caused much public discussion about Facebook’s motives in terms of competition, bettering its own mobile site, buying users on a different platform and purchasing a ‘hatching egg’ before anyone else could (Hill, 2012). The move also led to multiple parodies, depicting these public opinions.

  Facebook’s very public takeover was also highly publicized, mainly due to the public’s free coverage. The blurring of consumption and production means audiences do not realise their contribution to various sites and companies, and instead almost exploits users as a commodity (Fuchs 2014, p.107). Users are often unaware of this, due to the increasingly blurred lines between work and play on the internet. Each time we ‘like’ a page on Facebook, follow another person on Twitter or Instagram or even browse a website, it sends information to advertisers. This information can then be used to promote similar products ‘liked’, shared or previously viewed on other web pages. While this exploitation isn’t exactly harmful for users, it does raise questions about where, and how much of our information gets shared.

  The informational economy therefore affects both users and companies alike.  The exploitation of users and unknown whereabouts of information are both topics that question the ethic nature of the informational economy, however the constant growth in society will only ensure the continuation in today’s media landscape.

  Reference List

  Castells, M. (1999). “An Introduction to the Information Age.” The Media Read: Continuity and Transformation. London: Sage Publications.

  Filloix, F. (2012). ‘Facebook’s Instagram takeover highlights its insecurity”. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2012/apr/16/facebook-instagram-takeover

  Fuchs, C. (2014). “The Power and Political Economy of Social Media”. Social Media: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications.

  Hill, K. (2012). “10 Reasons Why Facebook Bought Instagram”. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/04/11/ten-reasons-why-facebook-bought-instagram/

[kcb206group12]

Produsers: Underappreciated or Overspoken? Week 3 Blog

The creation of new media has permanently altered the process of conception and consumption for both producers and consumers in today’s media landscape. Two particular concepts that interested me from week three were the notion of the ‘produser’ and the notion of spreadbility. 

The rise of the ‘produser’ (Bruns, 2008) has in a sense empowered the audience due to their increasing involvement in the creation of new media. Produsage allows the audience to create user-generated content and has encouraged them to contribute in a ‘participatory culture’ (Sauter, 2014). The audience can be considered a produser through simply posting or creating their own content; anything that allows their voice to be heard (Green and Jenkins, 2011). Celebrity blog site Perez Hilton was founded in 2005, and has quickly become one of the most regarded (yet questionable) gossip sites on the internet. Perez Hilton himself has creating a blogging empire, with four operational gossip sites, a YouTube channel, and various social networking sites. He has used his website as a platform to discuss his views on particular celebrities and promote his personal opinions. While the notion of the produser has bought about equality and empowerment for the audience, it can also result in unwanted circumstances such as backlash, criticism and as Perez (un) fortunately discovered, possible public humiliation (language warning towards the end).

The creation of new media has also brought about the notion of spreadability, where audiences making meaning by interpreting media based on their backgrounds and experiences (Green and Jenkins, 2011). The audience passes along a message if it is considered relevant to them individually, and the more people a particular message passes through the larger it becomes (Green and Jenkins, 2011). Spreadability has made it possible for messages to be broadcast across many different media platforms, namely social networks. These social networks allow a message to reach millions of people in minutes, and from this the audience is able to receive and spread information even further.

For example, the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy was documented on the virtual reality of Twitter rather than real-life. Not only did information about the natural disaster spread as it was happening, but those affected also shared insights. Since New York City was without power, it became the norm to check the social networking site for updates and for audiences to even post updates themselves whether these were true or false (Rea, 2012). It became too easy for users to tweet untrue information in less than 140 characters and for other users to interpret it as the truth. Other social networking sites such as Instagram and Facebook became platforms for users to create and share memes, accounts dedicated and a string of false pictures of the natural disaster. The reliance on spreading information through this media had its obvious implications. False information can so easily be spread, and with a natural disaster being such a major example, believing a lie and finding it to be untrue can cause serious psychological harm.

The notions of spreadability and the produser are both advantages for us as the audience when treated correctly. Both can cause implications, however provide more opportunity than harm as they enable the audience to create, share and spread content considered important to them.

  Reference List

  Bruns, A. 2008. “The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage”. Fibreculture Journal, 11: 2. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/12902/1/12902.pdf

  Green, Joshua and Jenkins, Henry. 2011. The Handbook of Media Audiences. Malden, Wiley-Blackwell.

  Rea, P. 2012. “Relying on Twitter During Hurricane #Sandy”. Accessed March 20, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pietro-rea/twitter-hurricane-sandy_b_2059980.html

  Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 3 – Creating and Consuming New Media Content Lecture slides”. Accessed March 20, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232445_1

[kcb206group12]

The Invisibility, Domestication and Self-Formation New Media Serves (Week 3 Blog)

The intersection of new media is exceedingly present in our everyday lives. In week two, specific concepts that caught my attention were the integration and domestication of new media, and new media as a tool for self-discovery.

  After studying the definition of new media in week one, what particularly caught my attention in week two was the domestication of new media; because we are so accustomed to living with new media we no longer notice its immense presence (Deuze, 2012). Deuze’s suggestion we live ‘in rather than with media’ is inherent in our daily activities (Deuze, 2012). Thanks to today’s media landscape, our immediate thought is to share anything deemed relevant on multiple media forums. We are able to Instagram a photo or 15-second video, post a photo or a status on Facebook, Vine a seven-second video, post a video on Kik; the possibilities are near-endless. Today’s obsession with the ‘selfie’ also renders our inhibitions and awareness of technology around us. There are even blogs dedicated to showcasing selfies that have been taken even at the most inappropriate of times, simply in order to share them on various social networks (shown here and here). 

  While this invisibility of new media may serve as a convenience to many in society, the implications of it do not. Sharing personal media without a second thought can lead to repercussions for ourselves, and anyone we decide to involve in the media. A concern that could be raised is the question of whether we are too invested in media, that it has bizarrely become part of our nature, and that media has become an inherent characteristic rather than a useful mechanism.

  New media can also serve as a tool of self-formation. New media allows us to create a version of ourselves on social media through posting photos and statuses to create ‘public displays of connection’ (Donath and Boyd 2004, 71). Multiple social media platforms now allow us to create almost a scrapbook of our lives, allowing audiences to see where we have been, and more commonly what we wore to the gym and even what we ate after said gym session. Instagram now allows us to tag photos under our very own ‘photo map’, which pinpoints exactly where photos were posted on an actual map. Under Facebook’s recently altered layout, users had every photo, status or check-in ever posted filed into years, and hence created a timeline of events to look back on. Snapchat also allows users to add photos or videos to their ‘story’, making content available for others to view multiple times. Audiences are constantly provided the opportunity to paint an ideal image of themselves, separate from what may actually our true ‘identity’ known to family, friends and those we work with (Sauter, 2014).

  However, is creating this ideal virtual ‘identity’ of ourselves is healthy, mentally or physically? Not only do we share this apparent version of ourselves, but we also compare ourselves to the identities of those we ‘follow’ on social networking sites. By viewing the ideal ‘identity’ of others using social networks, we at times forget that these versions of ourselves or of others may not necessarily be real. We wish for ourselves to be better based on a virtual reality.

  As explored in week two’s readings and lecture material, new media can serve as a tool of self-formation, and is so present in our lives it has become invisible to our conscious.

  Reference List

  Deuze, Mark. 2012. Media Life. Camden, Polity Press.

  Donath, Judith and Boyd, Danah. 2004. “Public Displays of Connection”. BT Technology Journal, 22 (4): 71. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/215202769/fulltextPDF/29C7AEBCEF4A4BF9PQ/8?accountid=13380

  Lievrouw, Leah and Livingstone, Sonia. 2006. Handbook of New Media. London, SAGE Publications.

  Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 2 Lecture PowerPoint slides – New Media and Society, New Media and Identity”. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232444_1