Blog 4, Week 8: I have the power!!

Everything in the world is constantly trying to improve itself. People, technology, businesses, most things in this world would strive to try and improve and better itself. Bob Ellis’s article, ‘Sleepless in Canberra’, discusses how politicians such as Kevin Rudd work tirelessly and he gives an example where ‘He's up till 3am, and back at work at 6am. He attends important meetings in Sydney, Tokyo and Copenhagen all within two days. He's at a night function in Perth and, four hours later, enduring a live interview with Fran Kelly”. This is a clear example of politician 2.0. A politician aiming to improve themselves and their work.  

The real question is whether or not they succeed? There are new tools out there such as technology, which can definitely lay a helping hand in improving people and institutions. New media is forcing people and institution to change and adapt to the new circumstances. It is creating a new culture and this is making social change inevitable.

Charles Hirschkind has discusses a great example where new media has helped and even forced an improvement in a nations country and even their culture. Hirschkind discusses in his article,  ‘From the Blogosphere to the street: The role of social media in the Egyptian uprising’ how “2orking online via Facebook, twitter, and within the Egyptian blogosphere. Working within these media, activists began to forge a new political language”. This shows how new media has helped push forward a revolution. We see change now where the weapon of choice and power isn’t guns anymore but a keyboard. It reminds me of the phrase; that the pen is mightier then the sword. I have always believed this to be the case and now more then ever new media and new media outlets have created a whole new battlefield where people have only just begun to realise the power they have…

Blog 3, Week 7: can you teach and old dog new tricks?

I personally hate change. If I could I would avoid it at all costs. Yet sadly I have learnt that change is inevitable. I am also learning that not all change is bad. Sometimes change can be for the better and improve things. Technological determinism says that technology will force us to inevitably change our habits including our social and cultural habits. However is this a bad thing? Or should we continue to frame our thoughts and actions the way we have traditionally framed them?

The music industry has been transformed enormously the last decade or so. The traditional framing of the music ecology was to buy the CD or album of the artist you desired. This could be seen as the circle of life. The following video is from Disney’s The Lion King where Mufasa discusses the circle of life with his son Simba (only need to watch the first 35 seconds although I wouldn’t blame you for watching the whole video!). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po_jA5jE_X0

Mufasa discusses the ‘delicate balance’ and how ‘we are all connected’. When we bought CD’s from the local music store that was a delicate balance that promoted the circle of life. It allowed for musicians and studios and so on to get paid and that was the main and only system in place. And most importantly, it worked. Now however many people download their music illegally of the internet for free and many artists, studios, shops and employees in all these industries are complaining that they are losing money and work.

The journalistic ecology is in the same boat. There is no more traditional framing of buying the newspaper. That is a dying concept. Many are now reading the important, if not all articles online at no cost. The New York Times have recently argued that they may introduce a pay wall and charge people for reading online. I find this interesting and don’t think it will work as I believe that it is too late and people understand the wonderful world of the internet and how times have now changed and wont go back to the old traditional ways.

Blog 2, Week 6: love and marriage

For a relationship to succeed, the two opposing parties need to be compatible. There needs to be a way for the two sides to bond together. Data and media are no exception to this law. At first glance it would seem as both data and media compliment each other, where both rely on each other to succeed and flourish. Raw data needs media outlets to be seen or heard. Data is usually there for a reason and wants to be heard and seen. Media is the outlet for reach data reaches us, hence a successful and working relationship with a purpose.

Paul Edwards, in his paper ‘A Vast Machine’, discusses computer models collecting information in order to disperse it into data for those interested. This is the exact type of relationship that this blog has been discussing. Edwards says how “sensors pour colossal volumes of digitized data into disk drives”. This is a great example of how data and media are working together. Data is collected and then distributed accordingly.

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) is a concept thought of by Bruno Latour. ANT Theory looks at assemblages and networks and dissects exactly how they come together, looking at every little detail. It treats each little detail as an equal and believes that each part is needed to complete the assemblage/network. I find this very interesting when discussing the relationship between data and media as I believe that by dissecting it using ANT theory, we can see exactly how it all comes together and is needed to work together. I believe that we have a symbiotic relationship here where one part cant function properly without the other.