My first storify!
I have chosen to do my storify article on women and the developing world. Women comprise of 70% of the worlds poor. This is a astonishing number. The Storify will look at various issues surrounding women in the developing world such as sexual violence, AIDS, poverty, educaiton and son on. This will all be supported with great media!
http://storify.com/kl09jo/women-and-the-developing-world
Hope you enjoy!
After reading my peers blog posts and reviewing the comments on my initial blog post, it seems that I share similar views with my peers. Citizen journalism is a new way of collecting, distributing and reporting news and it does not seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. The Internet and social networking sites have allowed citizens to engage in content that they find relevant and interesting. I am very interested in social media and receiving and releasing relevant news.
One of my peers mentioned citizen journalists are sharing their interests and personal knowledge. I believe this is definitely the case. Also, if someone is passionate about a subject than this should give it more credibility. However, as mentioned in the articles, websites such as Twitter are inherently bias and may not be credible. So, one of my peers asked how can we overcome bias on twitter? I think this is very difficult to say. Consumers of new media ought to take what they see or read and assess it critically. However, not everyone does this and people are so consumed by what they read and hear. This even happens for mainstream media. Thus, I think it will be difficult to overcome bias and improve credibility.
Lastly, one of my peers brought up that we will never see mainstream media be obsolete. I certainly agree with this statement. Mainstream news is great and everyone around the world uses it on a daily basis. However, with the rise of social media and other websites we will certainly see more citizen journalists. I believe people sharing his or her own experiences of breaking news are definitely more interesting than a reported sharing the news. However, than why do we even have jobs in journalism? Perhaps, the way citizen journalism is going there unfortunately may be a decrease in journalists.
Photo from: http://pressinamerica.pbworks.com/w/page/18360163/Citizen%20Journalism
The world wide web (WWW) is a fascinating sphere which has evidently evolved in past decades. Social media is one aspect in which the WWW has evolved. Some people see social media as a good, and others see it as an evil. I believe that social media has been a great medium for both citizen journalism and social activism. Ever since joining social media sites I am able to keep up to date with the latest news easier and quicker. I am also able to connect with organizations from all around the world on sites like Twitter and Facebook. If people are interested in something than they can easily “like” or “follow” their page and connect. The Internet is very influential nowadays. Jenkins and Thorburn (2003) note that 50% of Internet users under the age of thirty said the internet had affected their vote in elections- findings that suggest a generational shift in political culture. Indeed, the internet has been substantial in politics (look at Barack Obama in the first election). The Internet and emergence of social media has also been important in citizen journalism and impacts new ways of journalism.
Citizen journalism refers to the accumulation of largely journalistic activities which draw on the voluntary contributions of a wide-ranging and distributed network of self-selected participants (Bruns & Highfield, 2012, 4). I believe citizen journalism is a collective way of democratically using and producing news. I believe new advances in social media encourage participation in citizen journalism and social activism. As mentioned earlier, I am certainly an active consumer of social media and am in many ways utilizing it to become more socially active. I believe that citizen journalism is interesting. It allows people who are usually the audience to now inform others of news and become journalists in their own way. In many ways I re-tweet to bring awareness or to share a news story. I am becoming a journalist in my own way, no credentials, just passion for issues and a Twitter account.
Bruns and Highfield (2012) address the issue of objectivity in journalism. Since much new media and journalism involved commentary this brings forth issues of the journalistic ideal of objectivity. However, I agree with the authors in suggesting that objectivity “remains little more than an ideal” in professional journalism, and have been deeply compromised in practice by political and corporate pressures (Bruns & Highfield, 2012, 6). If regular news is biased and politically driven than citizen journalism should not be any more credible or objective. I think social media sources such as Twitter are a great way to reproduce news even if it is just 140 characters. Twitter describes itself as ‘‘a real-time information network that connects you to the latest information about what you find interesting’’ (Hermida, 2012, 660). However, Twitter poses a dilemma for a profession based on a control of verification, critics point to the amount of unsubstantiated material on Twitter, questioning the credibility of messages (Hermida, 2013, 663). If people are recreating news on Twitter and becoming citizen journalists than they probably are interested in the topic. I believe if people are reporting news on Twitter than regular people viewing the tweets ought to verify its accuracy. However, nowadays people on twitter can release information, and then “actual” news sources will get a hold of the information. I certainly think tweets are a great new medium for news. As mentioned, if regular news sources can not be “trusted”, then citizen journalism can be a great alternative to news media and told by someone who is engaged in the topic.
References
Bruns, A. & T. Highfield. (2012). Blogs, Twitter, and breaking news: The produsage of citizen journalism. pre-publication draft on personal site [Snurb.info]. Published in: Lind, R. A. ed. (2012). Produsing Theory in a Digital World: The Intersection of Audiences and Production. New York: Peter Lang. p15-32.
Hermida, A. (2012). TWEETS AND TRUTH: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism Practice. 6:5-6, p659-668.
Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn. Introduction: The Digital Revolution, the Informed Citizen, and the Culture of Democracy. in Jenkins, H. & D. Thorburn eds. (2003). Democracy and New Media. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. p1-17.
I choose this article because I think it relates to many issues of gender and politics in society. Now that women are allowed into combat roles in the military it is interesting to see how the dynamic will change. This article seems to suggest that women in combat is very similar to the position of women in regular society. As you view my podcast, you will see where I stand on this issue.
ALSO: correction, i said the author in “his” article, i meant HER (female author)… oops!
I Hope you enjoy!
Katie
Reference
Gottfried, Barbara (June 20, 2013) “Women in Combat, a Mirror of Society?” Time Magazine
http://nation.time.com/2013/06/20/women-in-combat-a-mirror-of-society/
After reviewing other peers blogs and the comments left on my blog, my peers and I share similar viewpoints. This week’s readings about copyright laws and the music industry gave me the opportunity to see the music industry differently. It seems that the music industry is difficult to regulate and my peers and I think it is best left untouched by corporations and in the hands of consumers. As mentioned in the Lessig TED talk online new media is “celebrating amateur culture- to produce for the love of what they are doing”. I very much agree with this statement and think that people are recreating music and sharing files online in a new way than ever before. However, this is problematic for the music industries interests and the artists who are producing music in hopes of receiving compensation.
My peers asked what if I were a famous musician and the effect piracy would have? I agree with one of my peers who commented that we have failed to put ourselves in the shoes of the producer. This is somewhat difficult to do because I cannot imagine the type of effect piracy would have on producers of music and film. However, I can assume that it does have a substantive affect. It seems that before new media was around, artists solely relied on record sales as the best source of revenue. Nowadays, artists have to venture out and produce a name for themselves beyond just their music. Perhaps, this is a direct correlation to the decline in record sales due to Internet piracy. Indeed, there are negative consequences to downloading music for free. This is not only detrimental for the artist but the whole music industry. I think we often fail to consider all the nameless, faceless figures that are also negatively affected by Internet piracy.
In the end, I believe that it is hard to change people’s opinions about Internet piracy. Governments and the music industry can enact various copyright laws and policies. However, consumers of new media will find ways and loopholes to receive files online for free.
#ThrowbackThursday
This weeks readings were quite interesting and really got me thinking about copyright laws. Prior to this course, I knew copyright laws existed however in many ways thought I was not directly affected. However, in everyday life we are all taking photos, music, videos etc. and often without proper sourcing or payment. Often when I purchase music it either has to be very good or somewhat “free” (i.e. a gift card, ITunes card). Perhaps this rationalization is somewhat sad. I believe we are living in a society where online material ought to be fast and free.
I think this week readings really tied in great with last weeks, and how new media and the “Big 5” are controlling everything, everywhere! With the case of Napster, the music file sharing system, the Big 5 existing market oligopoly was reinforced (McCourt & Burkart, 2003,334). The Big 5 media companies are global, large and multi-billion dollar companies. However, it seems that music sharing online still exists, which has implications for copyright legislation in the music industry. I do not think the free online music sharing is going anywhere. As noted consumers enjoy new media free and fast. This is indeed the benefit to online music sharing. Steinmetz and Tunnell (2013) identifies various motivations to engage in piracy which include: the desire to share content, to sample content, not being able to afford content and a desire to undermine copyright law and the content industry (56) .People will always have these desires and motivations. However, there are copyright issues and the music industry does need to make money. The term copyright is very broad nowadays. “Copyright now covers anything fixed in a tangible medium of expression and reaches anyone who makes a copy or other use of the original work” (McCourt & Burkart, 2003,338). This seems like everyone I know has had copyright implications. Indeed, copyright legislation is to protect the interests of large companies, such as record labels. I believe policy protection and legislation is necessary. However, with the expanding avenues of new media it seems very difficult to place restrictions, especially with the recording industry and piracy. I also believe there is difficulty with devising a legal or moral guideline on what is piracy. People could being “pirating” something and not even know it. The mention of service fees or monthly payments in regard to music online may seem feasible to some but not everyone. Today, people can listen to torrent music files often before CD’s are released. Thus, this poses a difficult problem for how music industries ought to respond to the piracy. Perhaps, ignorance is bliss and we all ought to remember that consumers of new media want it fast and free. One the other end, maybe if music industries and governments worked together to incorporate some type of education regarding piracy and a younger age this may combat the issue. I think people nowadays are so used to piracy online that it is not thought about and we may not see the consequences it does have. Until then, I think I will continue to download files for free (oops).
References
Photo From: http://deterritorialsupportgroup.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/wikileaks-napste/
McCourt, T., P. Burkart. (2003). When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. Media, Culture & Society. 25 (3), pg. 333-350
Steinmetz, K., K. Tunnell (2013). Under the Pixelated Jolly Roger: A Study of On-Line Pirates. Deviant Behavior. 34 (1), pg. 53-67
Hello, this is my short video for Module 4.
I have never done anything like this before so please bare with me in this video!
I have chosen to look at women and Canadian politics. This video is a brief introduction to women in formal Canadian politics as well as some barriers to women entering politics.
Statistical information was found on Wikipedia (see references below). I also used iMovie to create this video as well as various photos from Google Images ( see references below).
Hope you Enjoy!
References
http://www.paulbien.com/2012/06/what-pile-of-crap-summer-political.html
http://ctya.org/blog/women-and-politics/
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/01/it-gets-worse-kathleen-wynnes-first-100-days/
http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/womens_leadership/women_politics.html
“Women in Canadian Politics” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Canadian_politics
After reading other blog posts this week I believe my peers and I have similar viewpoints. I believe it is possible to build this “cultural commons” in new media. One commenter mentioned YouTube as a means of cultural identity (where the consumer is the ultimate producer). I found this particularly interesting and never really thought about it before. I think videos and posts are put online to target specific audiences. In the end, both consumers and producers are in control. I believe copyright laws are essential to creativity. However, remixing an existing video to recreate seems to be an acceptable practice, as long as the final product is not the same message as the original production. There are many videos, which attempt to do this, and I enjoy them. I think there should be some freedom with remixing and original production. I mean as long as some credit is given?
As for me recreating original content, I thought I did not quite partake in this. However, I post video links and photos on social media sites. So I am definitely a consumer and producer. As one commenter mentioned, me writing this blog is essentially producing online content. I have to be aware that I properly source photos and outside text while still trying to remain original in my words.
In the end, I believe the Internet ought to remain a free identity, which is controlled by producers and consumers. Indeed, there is currently a marketization of culture with new media and regulatory and policing measures are being introduced and implemented. Big media should not restrict people from cultural creativity online. However, I understand certain laws and restrictions. People ought to own the rights to their intellectual property. However, if one wants to recreate this property, then it should and can be done in a way that respects all parties. When it comes to big conglomerates they ought to stay “out of the way” because then it seems biased and economically driven. Today, consumers of new media ought to be smart and consider the laws online as well as their own individual work.
I believe nowadays almost everyone is engaged in some type of media. I agree with Jenkins that new consumers are more “socially connected” (Jenkins, 2004,38). Personally, media consumes me and I am okay with it. Besides social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) I find myself more of a consumer of new media rather than producer. I enjoy watching You Tube videos frequently. I visit webpages and blogs as well as read news articles online. When it comes to producing content I prefer to leave that up to others. It would be odd for me to post a video of myself, however I am so eager to post photos on Facebook. I enjoy new media and am an active consumer of it.
This weeks readings were quite interesting. I found some reoccurring themes, which I will explore with regards to new media. These were neoliberalism (new economy), globalization and media conglomerates. “People who own ideas have become more powerful than people who work machines and, in many cases, more powerful than people who own machines”-UK analyst John Howkins (Miller, 2004,59) . I think this quote is relevant and relates to the idea of producers/consumers as well as cultural creativity. In today’s society many “big shots” are owners of their own creations. These people also want to have full rights to this, rightfully so? Miller (2004) interestingly notes that the world’s cultural structures are dominated by nine corporations (Miller,2004,60). For one instance we think that there are all these creative minds producing new media and products globally, however are all categorized under these conglomerates. This is where Jenkins’ (2004) paradox comes in where new media technologies are expanding the range of delivery, however there is a large concentration of the ownership of media (Jenkins, 2004, 33). The media conglomerates are certainly connected with globalization. We live in a global world where everything is somewhat connected especially in media. However, how does one dismantle these conglomerates? Well we don’t. In the era of neoliberal policies, new media will remain with self-regulation. Yes, this may seem problematic. As a media consuming society we will lose the ability to have any true influence over the directions that our culture takes if we do not find ways to participate in active dialogue with media industries (Jenkins, 2004,42).In turn, we ought to be more socially constructive of these new medias.
With copyright laws and media restrictions, consumers might find it more difficult to express online. Perhaps these restrictions are good. However who will set these policies? If we leave this to big media corporations then all new media self-interests will prevail on a global scale. However, these copyright laws are essential for cultural creativity. As consumers of this media perhaps we should question authorities. However, with such a large space for new media this seems difficult.
References
Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43
Miller, T. (2004) A view from a fossil. International Journal Of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 55-65.
Photo From: http://blog.clickhere.com/2012/content-first-device-second/new-media-environment/
With the famous Prostitution case (Bedford v. Canada) coming to the Supreme Court of Canada June 13, 2013 I thought it would be interesting to do a Wikipedia search “Prostitution in Canada”. Wikipedia is a very popular website. It is becoming increasingly used as the first and sometimes only stop for online encyclopedic information (Royal and Kapila, 2009,138). However, the credibility of Wikipedia is often criticized. Wikipedia articles are completed by multiple contributors with no overarching “supervisory role” (Jensen, 2012,1181). Some may see this as a problem and contributes to lack of validity in the work. However, every statement ought to be based on published reliable sources (Jensen, 2012,1177). Also, does the fact that the posts are eventually checked and unwarranted comments are removed, make it more credible? I think Wikipedia is a factual source.
An interesting part of Wikipedia pages is the “talk page”. This is evidence of Wikipedia’s collaborative nature, “where anyone can comment on or complain about the article” (Jensen, 2012,1177). Considering Prostitution is a very controversial subject and there are many viewpoints it would be interesting to see the discussion on this topic Prostitution in Canada had some comments in the talk page by various authors. I found this particularly interesting. The fact that there is a page where people can voice concerns both good and bad makes it seem quite democratic. I think concerns with Wikipedia draw on the fact that page content is based on bias or viewpoints of the authors. In turn, the talk page is a good way to address the bias and perhaps change the posts if necessary. I found it interesting how different authors could discuss their concerns with information on the page (For example, the legality of Prostitution). In Canada, the legality of Prostitution is quite confusing since overall Prostitution is legal, however some activities surrounding Prostitution are illegal. The talk page is great for showing where information was found (i.e. Criminal Code of Canada).
Another area of discussion I found interesting on the talk page was “Etiquette”. There were concerns over deleting paragraphs on the Wikipedia page without proper discussion. I find this very democratic. If Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, who is to have the say of deletion? However, the author who deleted the paragraph suggested he did so since the content was highly speculative in nature. There is much back and forth discussion, which is both critical in nature and also very nice. For example one author commented, “Your latest edits are definitely an improvement. Keep up the good work!” I think it is nice for people to dedicate their time on Wikipedia to write informative posts. Also, that they are having meaningful discussion regarding the posts is great.
The last interesting debate on the talk page was surrounding trafficking. I particularly liked one comment “There seems to be an attempt on Wikipedia generally to turn every page on prostitution into a discussion on the evils of trafficking as if the two were synonymous”. In turn suggesting that the trafficking section was much longer than the main page and most content should be removed. To someone reading this article prior to edits and knowing nothing about Prostitution in Canada could in turn have biased knowledge on the subject. The fact that this bias was acknowledged allows for the page to be more balanced and credible. I believe the talk page to be very knowledge based and the discussion from authors was interesting. The tensions on the page were acknowledged properly and concerns were addressed. Not one author made a personally biased remark on the talk page nor discussed any particular credentials. Therefore, “Prostitution in Canada” talk page was collaborative in nature, which made for a credible Wikipedia page.
A criticism of Wikipedia is that it reflects the viewpoints, interests, and prominences of the people who use it (Royal & Kapila, 2009,138). However, I think I like having people who care about a subject to write on a subject. The page regarding Prostitution in Canada from an outsider was evidence based. There were 78 references and many being from Government sources and published journal articles.
Users of Wikipedia dedicate their time and energy to developing and sustaining a “vast array of networked products and services” such as collections of informative posts on topics (Dijk & Nieborg, 2009,860). These people ought to be taken seriously. If Internet users were to look at talk pages, perhaps the Wikipedia pages would be more credible, since people would see how much time and effort goes into these pages. Yes, there will always be room for silly or unnecessary comments, however majority of information is well thought and conversed.
References
Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812. Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182
Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.
Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.
Other Blogs:
http://developingworldp0li.wordpress.com
http://andrewcbacon.wordpress.com
Photo From: http://www.tradebit.com/usr/ebook-reader/pub/9002/436497814620267842885Pic.jpg
gendered politics 
