Human Microphones?

Human Microphones?

Media has always been the voice of the people - well some of them anyway. Over time this number has grown - parallel with developments, some ground-breaking in education, technology, industry, equality, and culture. But who are 'the people'? And are they still in control?

Let's suppose for a second the goal of New media from the beginning was to provide a voice to every individual - has it succeeded?

How long would a total revolution from a top-down media system take? Most would agree its' face is already unrecognisable, and be quick to knock the makeover. What have we lost? What have we gained? What must be noted, is whether ideas are groundbreaking or not is irrelevant (in much the way we cannot assume that every time someones' opens their mouth a topic worthy of conversation will sputter out). It boils down to the management of that clutter, its' prioritisation and that old chest nut, media literacy.

The unwillingness of even western democracies to embrace New Media speaks all to loudly to a fear of loss of control. American President Barack Obama, who was elected on the back of landslide New Media fanfare, is himself dismissive of the topic. Where it was thought his election might usher in 'digital-driven democratic change' (Tapscott, 2010), 'instead (the White House New Media team) find themselves shunted off the sidelines, used at best as PR prop.'

The use of New Media to not only organise but sustain revolution (namely those in Egypt and ongoing in Libya) in the face of top-down corruption (which may be viewed as to any corrupt bureaucracy) is now not only clear, but glaring. It now calls for an admittance on on the part of Western policy-makers; as highlighted by Hilary Clinton's inaction through action towards' Internet freedom' (Shirky, 2011); that either the gravity of New Media tools remains beyond their comprehension, or that they have something to hide.

References

Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change in Foreign Affairs. Volume 90, Issue 1; pg. 28, 15 pgs.

Tappscott, M. (2010). New Media leader exposes myth of Obama's 'bottom-up' Internet-driven 2008 campaign. Accessed March 28, 2011. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-media-leader-exposes-myth-obama039s-039bottom-up039-internet-driven-20#ixzz1HsIDJYVy

Superior Technology

Superior Technology

It took me a while to jump on the iPod bandwagon. I clung desperately to my Creative until they were all but extinct. The iPod had won.

But had the superior technology? Certainly not.

My Dilemma? I look at my iPod now with a mixture of disdain and reverence; yes it holds all of my music, and syncs so easily with my MacBook; but is this the kind of audio quality I want?

However when the Pope himself can be quoted as saying 'Computer technology is the future,' a larger internal dilemma is being overlooked by third parties.

I defined myself by not only by the music on my MP3 player, but by the player itself. (And with the varying iPod colour options available, it is clear that this is in part Apple's intent with their product as well.) Self-defintion through not only music, but through technology. Through science and engineering, not through faith.

If one can deduce from a playlist whether someone is a 'thinking person, a discerning individualist, a lover of fun, of high and low culture' (Levy, 2006), the mere fact the leader of a religious institution such as the Catholic church, not only owns an iPod, but embraces future technologies suggests a shift, (albeit a small one) in otherwise stubborn thought.

As a staunch Agnostic with Atheist leanings, the implication is perhaps that the superior technology does not always have to lose out.

And that for all the logical arguments in the world, sometimes an iPod just works better.

References

Levy, S. (2006). The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture and Coolness, New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 21-41.

Me, Myself and I

Me, Myself and I

Social networking plays an increasingly prominent role in our lifestyle, and as such, in that of our self-perception. Through these sites we create, maintain and principally connect with others through the proxy of a descriptive 'Profile' (Donath and Body, 2004), the internet equivalent of the self. Interacting with friends, co-workers and acquaintances while permitting them some limited access to view others within your own network whom they might not interact with otherwise.

The reliability, or veracity of the information displayed on these sites, or Profiles, however, is inherently user-defined. While 'a public display of connections is an implicit verification of identity' (Donath and Body, 2004), it is perhaps not a verification of personality, interests or even appearance. Pearson (2009) aptly discusses users as 'actors', putting on a performance defined in turn by the performances' of their peers.

Ultimately it falls to the individual to interpret and analyse a Profile. And while it may be argued that the same is true for real-world connections; drawing conclusions based on someones' appearance, or their vocabulary, tastes in music; this would be incorrect, at least for current users. 'Online, these mediated environments mean that there is a blurring between front–stage and back–stage' (Pearson, 2009). The changes in communication (through technological advancement) over the past century have drastically altered not only our definition of communication, but our understanding of its' repercussions on the self, and others both in and outside of our networks.

References

Donath, J. and boyd, d. 2004. Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, volume 22 (4): 71-82.

Pearson, E. 2009. All the World Wide Web’s a stage: the Performance of Identity in Online Social Networks. First Monday, volume 14, Number 3.

Rabbit, or Duck?. 2011. Image from: http://rickischultz.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/rabbit-or-duck1.jpg

Welcome

Greetings all

This is a communique from the interweb, coming to you from space, etc, etc, something something….words