Citizen Journalism is giving us unprecedented documentation
of life-changing events. Thanks to the invention of the smartphone, nearly
everyone in the world walks around with a camera and video recording device in
their pocket at all times. Not only this, but they have the ability to instantly
broadcast anything they capture to a worldwide audience. Janey Gordon (2007) discusses the implications
of this trend in relation to three case studies; the SARS outbreak (2003), the
Sumatra-Andaman Tsunami (2004) and the London Bombings (2005). Gordon (2007)
covered the different ways in which citizens used their mobile phones these
situations but I find one use in particular very exciting; the new-found
ability to capture incredible images as they’re happening and instantly show
the world.
Last year, a devastating tsunami hit the north-eastern coast
of Japan. A collection of the most amazing amateur footage was immediately
uploaded to YouTube and watched by millions. These videos showed the
approaching wave followed by the incredible destruction. Social networking
sites such as Facebook and Twitter went crazy with updates and messages. Citizen
journalists reported every second of this disaster to the world. Clay Shirky
(2009) discusses this in relation to the earthquake in China. Like the Tsunami,
ordinary people were recording the event as it was happening. BBC even found
out about the earthquake from twitter which I found quite funny.
The reason I find citizen journalism so exciting is that
years from now, when children want to learn about the Tsunami that hit Japan
way back in 2011, they will have access to a ridiculous amount of information; news
reports, photos, videos and comments from people who actually were there will
be at their fingertips. There will be no more assumption in future history
lessons. Imagine if this technology was invented earlier; we would probably
know who shot JFK, Tupac and Biggie. Just food for thought. Thanks for reading.
Peace
References
Gordon, Janey (2007), The Mobile Phone and the Public Sphere: Mobile
Phone Usage in Three Critical Situations, Convergence 13/3 Pages:
307-319.
Shirky, Clay (2009) How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can
make history
A lot has happened since
Henry Jenkins wrote his article ‘The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence’
(2004). He discusses the changing relationship between the producers and
consumers of the media and poses many questions about the future of this relationship.
According to Jenkins (2004), media convergence is the reason for this ever-changing
communicative landscape. Instead of the traditional ‘we talk/you listen’ media
model of old, ‘the people formally known as the audience’ (Jay Rosen) can now
create and manipulate messages and release them into the world with effortless ease. This is just
one aspect of media convergence that Jenkins covers. These days, media
convergence is both a top-down corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven
process (Jenkins, H 2004).
In 2004, Jenkins discussed
nine important negotiations he believed were apt to occur. I found
it very interesting to read through his predictions of the future in comparison
to the present. One that stood out for me was his stance on micro-payments in
relation to online music sales. He nailed it. When he wrote this piece, micro-payment
technology was still an idea being kicked around the office; now it has
effectively killed the retail music industry. I would love to hear his current thoughts
on what he wrote back then. For the most part, many of the issues of 2004
regarding media convergence are still considered issues today.
The revolutionary Apple II
Jonathan Zittrain’s
article ‘The future of the internet and how to stop it’ (2008) also compared
future and present. In this case, Zittrain (2008) discussed Steve Jobs’ release
of the iPhone in 2007 compared to his release of the Apple II PC thirty years
earlier. Both were revolutionary pieces of technology, but with different user
capabilities in terms of content manipulation. The Apple II allowed its users
to input and rewrite code in order to personalize the functions of the technology
whereas the iPhone is the opposite. It is sterile. Rather than a platform that
invites innovation, the iPhone comes pre-programmed (Zittrain, J 2008).
This difference in (for
lack of a better word) permissions relates to Ted’s comparison of the iPhone
and Android smartphone from the lecture (Mitew, T 2012). The Android, like the
Apple II, allows outsider coding to change the capabilities of the phone. Mitew
(2012) mentioned that they can even be programed to control other appliances
and electronics around the house such as opening the garage door and changing
the track on the CD player. I was unaware of these capabilities until now.
Although extremely cool, are these ‘permissions’ worth the risk of viruses? I
believe that most people are happy to sacrifice innovation for protection. I
have never owned nor used an Android smartphone so I am hardly in a position to
critically compare the two but I am willing to go out on a limb and say that
the iPhone is the cautious person’s smartphone. I can only assume iPhone users
generally don’t care about the coding; they just want their phone to work. I
believe this is what Steve Jobs was getting at when he said:
“We define everything
that is on the phone. . . . You don’t want your phone to be like a PC. The last
thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to
make a call and it doesn’t work anymore…” (Zittrain, J 2008)
That's my two cents
anyway. If you haven't already seen it, take a gander at the unveiling of the first iPhone (the intro anyway). I love how pumped everyone is in the crowd. Thanks for reading.
Peace.
References
Jenkins, Henry (2004),
The cultural logic of media convergence, International Journal of Cultural
Studies, Volume 7(1): 33–43.
Zittrain, J. (2008) "Introduction". In J.
Zittrain The Future of The Internet And How To Stop It (p. 1-5)
Mitew, T 2012, Convergent
Media Practices, lecture, BCM112, University of Wollongong, delivered 19 March.
Marco Cucco (2009) discusses blockbusters in great detail and as a big fan of ridiculous
special effects and action, I was happy to read his stuff. Everything Cucco
(2009) covered in relation to blockbusters was to be expected – big budgets,
big effects, big audience, etc. That being said he did divulge some useful
information on the origin and history of the “genre”. Like that the word
“Blockbuster” had a military origin and that “Jaws” (1975) was the first movie
to open on a large number of screens on opening weekend (Cucco, M 2009).
Cucco (2009) then
pretty much gave a break down on how to market a blockbuster to the public. I
found it interesting the number of movies that fail to turn a profit compared
to those that do. Being a self-proclaimed ‘movie buff’, I enjoyed reading about
the tactics that marketers use (and succeed) to get me in the theatres. Cucco
(2009) mentions something that has always annoyed me. Blockbusters never get
any credit. They are absent at the Oscars while the worst movie of year takes
home the statue (case in point – ‘The
Hurt Locker’). Movie critics tear them to pieces and give horrible movies 5
stars. I created a movie review blog for another subject for just this reason.
I haven’t added to it for a while but feel free to check it out - http://thereelreview1.blogspot.com.au/
While
reading Steve Collin’s paper on Copyright and Fair Use, It reminded me of James
Watt’s patent of his steam engine design. Watt’s invented the first real steam
engine and slapped a patent on it that restricted any one replicating or building
on his original design. This patent gave him a monopoly on the industry but
also set the industrial revolution back some years. Ironically, not only did Watt
use the patent system as a legal cudgel with which to smash competition, but
his own efforts at developing a superior steam engine were hindered by the very
same patent system he used to keep competitors at bay. It is only after their patents
expired that Watt really started to manufacture steam engines (Boldrin, M,
Levine, D.K. 2007).
Collins
(2008) describes fair use as a safety valve on copyright law to prevent
oppressive monopolies (like the one Watt had on the steam engine) and I believe
it is very necessary for true creativity to flourish. Brilliant ideas are born
every day but we can’t rely on that same person to build on and evolve that idea.
I believe copyrights hinder creative progress but at the same the absence of copyrights
could take away a person’s desire to create. I guess it’s a necessary evil.
What do you think??
Thanks
for reading.
Cucco, M (2009), ‘The promise is great: the blockbuster and the
Hollywood economy’, Media, Culture &
Society, 31/2: 215 – 230
Collins, S (2008), ‘Recovering fair use’, M/C Media Culture 11 (6)
Boldrin, M., and Levine, D.K. (2007). Introduction. In Against Intellectual
Monopoly (pp. 1-15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press [URL: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/anew01.pdf]
It’s no wonder that
everyone takes Marshal McLuhan’s coined phrase “The medium is the message” the
wrong way. It’s so easy to do. I must admit, the first time I heard the
phrase I resorted to the most common definitions of “medium” and “message” and
immediately disagreed with McLuhan’s view. Mark Federman’s article ‘What is the
Meaning of The Medium is the Message?’ (2004) helped clear up any confusion and
(for lack of a better word) redefine the key words. He discussed McLuhan’s idea
that the message is not the content of a play or newscast, but the change in
attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium
(2004). Furthermore, a medium is "any extension of ourselves" and is not restricted to Broadcast and Print. McLuhan
suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and
feet (2004).
While I agree with
McLuhan’s idea that noticing change in our societal or cultural ground
conditions indicates the presence of a new message (2004), I feel he could have
said it in a less-confusing way. “The medium is the message” does have a ring
to it but almost everyone who hears it for the first time will misunderstand
it. Stay tuned for my revised McLuhan phrase.
I have read a lot of
Henry Jenkins throughout my short time at university and he is probably my favourite
media scholar. ‘Worship at the altar of convergence: A new paradigm for
understanding media change’ (2006) helped clear up a lot of my misconceptions
regarding convergence. My original understanding was that convergence is the
flow of information through different media channels. While this is part of
Jenkins’ definition, it is so much more. It is also the media industry
collaborating and branching out into new avenues as well as people taking the media
into their own hands. Jenkins (2006) discusses the changing relationship between the traditional sender/reciever media model to a more two-way, interactive one. The media is becoming both a top-down
corporate-driven process and a bottom-up consumer-driven process (Jenkins, H 2006).
While reading about the
many different areas of convergence, I found myself dwelling on the argument
that, sooner or later, all media content is going to flow through a single
black box into our living rooms. Jenkins disagrees with this argument straight
away, but it is an interesting idea. Could there be one device to rule them all
in the future? The smartphone is getting pretty close and the new gaming consoles
(Ps3 and Xbox) are can supply most of your media needs but in the end,
I think Jenkins is right.
References
Federman, M (2004), What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message? 'McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology', pp1-4
Jenkins, H (2006) “Worship at the altar of convergence”: A new paradigm for understanding
media change. In H. Jenkins, Convergence culture: Where old and new
media collide (pp 1-24)
For those of you who haven't been in one of my classes before, welcome to my blog. My name is Aidan, i am in my second year of a Digital Communication major and throughout this semester i will be posting my thoughts and feedback on BCM112 as well as anything else i feel is relevant. Feel free to read, forward, or comment on any of my posts and i will do the same for you. Peace.
