Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Andrew Keene Responses
Andrew Keene defines democratized media as content that is both created by the masses and consumed by them as well. Keene has several problems with democratized media and Web 2.O in general. Keene believes that the democratization of the media ultimately undermines truth, sours the civic discourse, and belittles the expertise and talent of individuals. What Keene refers to as the Web 2.0 revolution is in his opinion delivering superficial observations of the world around us, instead of the critical analysis we may have been used to in the past.
Also, Keene goes on to say that user generated content is decimating our “cultural gatekeepers” as the expertise of professional critics, journalists, and editors are being replaced by amateur bloggers. Basically Keene is exposing the idea that there is so much unfiltered information circulating on the internet that the purveyors of actual verified information (professionals) are getting lost in the shuffle. According to Keene the Web 2.0 revolution is a maelstrom of useless information involving less reliable news and less culture. In what Keene talks about as a flattened editor- free world, independent bloggers, podcasters, etc… can post their amateur creations at will with no form of fact checking. In the end, Keene advocates that democratized media is diluting our culture, we as a society cannot tell the good content from the bad.
Answer to Question 2.
The difference between Andrew Keene and David Rushkoff’s view of social media is that Keene believes that social media is not really a good thing. Keen believes that social media in the unfiltered state that Web 2.0 allows it to be is useless information. Social media is unverified and thus untrustworthy. Keene thinks that because of the anonymity that the internet provides anybody from corporations, to biased political commentators can create a post and call it news. However, David Rushkoff on the other hand is more cautiously optimistic about social media, but he believes that ultimately social media is good if used responsibly. I think I lean more towards Rushkoff’s view on things. Keene outright distrusts social media, but Rushkoff sees the potential.
Here is an article about amateurs written by Ruskoff
Also, Keene goes on to say that user generated content is decimating our “cultural gatekeepers” as the expertise of professional critics, journalists, and editors are being replaced by amateur bloggers. Basically Keene is exposing the idea that there is so much unfiltered information circulating on the internet that the purveyors of actual verified information (professionals) are getting lost in the shuffle. According to Keene the Web 2.0 revolution is a maelstrom of useless information involving less reliable news and less culture. In what Keene talks about as a flattened editor- free world, independent bloggers, podcasters, etc… can post their amateur creations at will with no form of fact checking. In the end, Keene advocates that democratized media is diluting our culture, we as a society cannot tell the good content from the bad.
Answer to Question 2.
The difference between Andrew Keene and David Rushkoff’s view of social media is that Keene believes that social media is not really a good thing. Keen believes that social media in the unfiltered state that Web 2.0 allows it to be is useless information. Social media is unverified and thus untrustworthy. Keene thinks that because of the anonymity that the internet provides anybody from corporations, to biased political commentators can create a post and call it news. However, David Rushkoff on the other hand is more cautiously optimistic about social media, but he believes that ultimately social media is good if used responsibly. I think I lean more towards Rushkoff’s view on things. Keene outright distrusts social media, but Rushkoff sees the potential.
Here is an article about amateurs written by Ruskoff
Monday, March 7, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Folksonomy
Com155-133 Spring 2011
Folksonomy
With the advancement of technology a person has a whole cornucopia of information in which to access, people have the ability to go online and go to various news sites like the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. With the advent of portable devices like the I-touch or smart phones, which can surf the web, people can be updated constantly about what is going on in their world. In fact with many people turning to the internet for information, traditional print news outlets like the New York Time or the Washington Post had to create an online component in order to compete. One would be hard pressed to find a newspaper in print that did not have a website; even the Poughkeepsie Journal keeps its readers up to date with a website. However, this flow of information is not a one-way street as the availability of the technology around them allows them to report the news and reach millions of people.
Most phones nowadays are equipped with a video camera that allows a person to record anything they like; some of the more advanced phones can capture video that is near or is actually high definition. When an event happens of great significance or of random happenstance, news outlets like CNN often use amateur video, captured on cell phone video recorders, in order for their wider viewing audience to see what has transpired; with almost every cell phone equipped with a camera news organizations have virtually thousands of potential camera men and women out there to capture all sorts of events. On the tragic day of September 11th, 2001 when the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists news organizations used video footage captured by ordinary people in conjunction with footage by their own camera people in order to for people to see the totality of the situation, but the average citizens who were there at ground zero were instrumental in capturing the first few minutes. However, the influence of average people being involved in the news cycle need not only be regulated to the extreme of 9/11, but can even be felt to a somewhat lesser extent. Whenever, there is a hotly anticipated movie in the process of filming, sometimes the firs pictures you get on set are not ones sent by the official movie studios, but of people taking a picture with their cell phone.
The widespread use of popular internet resources like You Tube or Blog Spot has given rise to the amateur journalist. Websites such as You Tube has become a vehicle in which people can voice their opinions on any number of topics such as the politics of the day. Some “internet journalist” has gotten so popular that they can even rival some traditional news outlets; one such example is the Yong Turks. The Young Turks is a liberal internet talk show that is showcased either through live steaming or You Tube; the show claims to be the first internet television radio show ever and the largest online news show in the world. The Young Turks received a lot of attention for the ninety nine hour on air filibuster done during the Samuel Alito nomination. Also, there are the bloggers who post their opinions on their blog; these bloggers gain a certain level of trust with their readers (social currency) which in some cases allow them to garner relationships with their viewers that rival those of traditional news outlets like CNN. For instance blogger who has an opinion on the current protests going on in Wisconsin could have as much credibility as Wolf Blitzer at CNN. Although, the ability to contribute or even report the news gives people freedom not seen just a few century or so ago there is a downside. When a person wants to become a traditional reporter they go through the traditional routes such as going to school and taking the necessary programs, which in the long run makes sure people adhere to the same standards. However, the amateur blogger blows that out of the water. They did not receive the same education that a professional would have at an accredited institution. Douglas Rushkoff, in his article “Rise of the Amateur,” he stated, “the rise of amateur activity online has given many people an exaggerated sense of their own competencies—and a diminished sense of yours…As is often the case with new technology, people have mistaken their access to your tools for the competency to use them” (MPI). In the past there used to be select group of individuals who reported the news, but now with the rise of online tools there are now many sources and not all of them bother to do any form of fact checking, but potentially carry the same influence as accredited sources.
In the end, having many amateur sources of information in which to choose from is not necessarily bad, but I do believe that given all that is out there on line a person has to be very careful which source they should trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)