FarmBoy's New Media Theory Blog

final blog - final thoughts

2005-11-28T21:56:00.000-08:00

Unbelievable. The semester has practically come to a close. I'm finished with my readings. I give my final presentation on Wednesday. This is my final blog.

Wow.

In my first blog I briefly mentioned how I had never blogged before. Now as I reflect on my blogging experience, I find myself an old pro. A full-fledged, experienced, web-savy blogger. Time for another "wow."

I never really believed in blogging. I don't care what other people have to say about the mundane events of their day. I don't care what their opinions are on current events or public policies. And if I did care, I'd ask them what they thought - I wouldn't want to read about it on a computer screen. I have better things to do.

And part of me still hangs on to those beliefs. Still, I'm beginning to understand the power of the blog. Maybe it's some inner form of voyerism, but I've enjoyed reading the blogs of my fellow classmates. I've come to appreciate their opinions and their insights. I can't even begin to count how many times I would read my classmates' blogs and say, "I never thought of that." Yup. Time for yet another "wow."

This whole blogging exercise was good for me. It made me step outside my simple, safe, straight line box and instead embrace something "new" and "cutting edge." And as I think about it, maybe that's what "new media" is all about - stepping outside the familiar and embracing the unknown. Being courageous. Being bold. Experimenting with technology. Playing with ideas. Getting outside that box.

Yes, I'm still a lover of "old media." I prefer phone calls over emails. I enjoy journals more than blogs. I'd rather watch LOST on my t.v. than on my ipod (actually, I don't even own an ipod, because I don't download music - I listen to the radio.) But... while I love my old media, I now have a greater appreciation for the brave new world of everything "new."

"New" is gutsy. "New" is exciting. Without "new" I would never have the "old" to love.

So there you have it - my final thoughts in this my final blog.

It was quite a ride.

reading response - Sterling

2005-11-28T21:39:00.000-08:00

The readings keep getting better and better. Sterling offers a fun, quick, in-your-face analysis of folksonomies. He presents a clear and concise explanation of the idea of the folksonomy, and then offers his convincing take on the implications of the (possible) evolution of folksonomies.

I share Sterling's reaction - folksonomies may not be all they're craked up to be. Sure, it's great to have another way to organize the vast amounts of digital information we constantly distribute and consume. But perhaps it's possible to have too many ways to organize information? Imagine a library. (Yeah, I know... who needs libraries when we have the internet? But just imagine a library, anyway.) Libraries are organized by an amazing system of letters and decimals thanks to one Mr. Dewey. Any librarian can find any book in any library thanks to that amazing system of classification. Now imagine a library that doesn't use the Dewey Decimal system and instead relies on library users to organize the books themselves. People organize the books in a system that makes sense to them, but not necessarily to anyone else. And when a librarian goes to find a specific book she doesn't know where to begin her search.

Organization is great, but sometimes enough is enough. Is it necessary to tag EVERYTHING? And how can you find anything if there aren't rules regarding the filing and organizing process? What works for you might not work for me. What makes sense to you might not make sense to me.

So folksonomy is great in theory, but in practice it's just a big ol' mess.

reading response - World of Ends

2005-11-14T20:12:00.000-08:00

Wow... This is by far the best and most engaging article I've read for this class. The writing style is simple and straight to the point. The authors don't try to impress their readers with fancy schmancy words. They don't spend time over-analyzing irrelevant topics. Instead, they offer a clear and concise argument about one of the most misunderstood elements of modern society - the internet.

Anyone who uses the internet should read this article. Every ISP should read this article. Telecommunications companies, major music labels, the television networks - they'd all benefit from taking the time to read this article and learning the three "basic rules of internet behavior: 1. no one owns it; 2. everyone can use it; 3. anyone an improve it."

And instead of me going on and on about how awesome this article is, I'll say just one more thing - go read it for yourself.

reading response - Shirky

2005-11-14T19:09:00.000-08:00

When addressing barriers to social software, Shirky asks one question that stands out in my mind:

"Can Paypal be integrated into group software, so that groups can raise and disperse funds in order to pursue their goals? (Even Boy Scouts do this in the real world, but it's almost unheard of online.)"

I notice that this article was first published in 2003, and I can't help but think about how much the idea of raising and dispersing funds through online groups has grown and how much easier it's become in the past two years. For example, online groups played a HUGE role in the 2004 presidential election campaigns. Howard Dean ran an all-out internet campaign blitz. He created a large internet following and raised a tremendous amount of money through his website. His campaign targeted young, internet-savy voters, and those voters were given the ability to donote to the Dean campaign with the simple click of a mouse.

The same can be said for the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee. The RNC currently has an extremely user-friendly website. Bush supporters can click-to-join a wide variety of special interest groups. These groups receive specialized emails and newsletters. They have specialized meetings. And most importantly, they encourage group members to donate money to promote the interests of the group. (Once again, donating money is as easy as typing a credit card number and clicking the "submit" button.)

It seems political campaigns have taken advantage of the evolution of social software, and they've capitalized on the money-making potential of this growing technology.

reading response - Shaviro

2005-11-06T17:53:00.000-08:00

Out of all the claims Shaviro makes in Connected, I found his claim on page 7 to ring with the most truth: "Being online always means multitasking."

Until now, I've never really stopped to consider just how much multitasking I do whenever I'm online (and my computer is ALWAYS online). Right now as I write this blog, I'm also chatting with a few old high school friends on AIM. I'm monitoring my buddylist - who's coming and who's going? I'm checking the latest news headlines on my scrolling news ticker. And most important... I have a browser window open to the Google homepage. Any time some random name, place, or idea comes into my head, I google it on the spot.

I am multitasking like crazy.

Shaviro says, "Being online means always multitasking." Shaviro speaks the truth, at least as far as I'm concerned. Multitasking has become a part of my online experience. Even when I'm not at the computer, my computer is still online and it's still multitasking for me. My buddylist alerts me when friends sign on or sign off. Outlook continually checks for new email messages. My news ticker refreshes with the latest headlines every 5 minutes. My poor computer never gets a break.

I like to think that this multitasking has helped make me more productive. I like to think that multitasking has enabled me to finish more projects in a shorter amount of time. Unforunately, this isn't always the case. My multitasking is little more than online "doodling" - especially those meaningless Google searches.

Yes, being "connected" allows me easy access to vast amounts of information. Being "connected" allows me to stay in contact with friends and family members from all across the globe. But being "connected" can also be a big waste of time - just check my internet history page... I've got the Google search results to prove it.

reading response - Shaviro

2005-11-06T15:19:00.000-08:00

In the opening pages of Connected, Shaviro discusses the modern preoccupation with overcoming "the digital divide," as everyone strives to jump onboard "the network." He mentions the idea of making wireless internet access "available to anyone, anywhere, at any time."

In the two years since this book was published, the this idea of overcoming the digital divide has exploded into a full-fledged obsession. Cities all across the United States, from San Antonio to San Francisco to Philadelphia, are experimenting with city-wide wireless internet access for the masses. Cell phones are no longer used merely for verbal conversations. Cell phones can also send email, provide internet access, play music, and play videos. Cell phones and computers merged into Blackberries and Sidekicks. Today we have so many tools to tear down the digital divide.

But are these tools a good thing? Do they make life easier, or more complicated? What are the benefits of giving everyone access to "the network?" What are the drawbacks?

These are questions that I find myself wrestling with as we continue to explore issues of new media in today's society. Shaviro addresses these concerns when he mentions that sometimes the problem is not figuring out how to get onto the network, but "how to get off." If I turn off my computer, I still get email on my Blackberry. If I turn off my Blackberry, my cell phone still rings. If I turn off my cell phone, I still get bombarded with television messages. If I turn off the television, then the radio takes its place as the prominant message carrier. If I turn off the radio and only engage in verbal, face-to-face communication with other people, then there's always the possibility that our conversation will be interrupted by the ringing of the other person's cell phone of the buzzing of their Blackberry.

Tearing down the digital divide seems like a good idea... But maybe instead of making life easier, it just makes it louder and more complicated.

reading response - McPherson

2005-11-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

McPherson spends the majority of her work discussing race and "whiteness" on the internet. However, I found her comments to be similar to those made by other academics in other books/articles I've read in previous classes. And to be quite frank, discussions on "whiteness" and all of the negative aspects of "whiteness" tend to make me upset. So instead of focusing on the main thesis of McPherson's work, I've opted to pay attention to one particular statement she makes on page 118.

McPherson quotes from Sherry Turkle and addresses "cyberspace's ability 'to give people the chance to express multiple aspects of the self', making 'possible the creation of an identity so fluid and multiple that it strains the limits of the notion' of identity."

I see so much truth in this statement, especially when I recall my days in middle school. AOL was the newest and hippest thing since the Nintendo 64, and everyone who was anyone in my class was "online" with screen names like, "KatieChic," "PinkLady13," "BBallStud," and "SuperDude171." I remember how I would have some of the guys from the football team over at my house on a Saturday night, and we would spend hours on AOL talking to the girls in our class. Now most of these guys were the stereotypical macho football player types who scratched, belched, and flexed their way through the school day. They never even attempted to be charming or suave when it came to the girls.

But get these football players online and they were COMPLETELY different. They used words like "sweetie" and "cutie." They engaged in long, drawn-out discussions with girls about feelings. They even used the four letter L word. Apparently being physically removed from the girls gave these guys the confidence to show their sensitive sides - sides they'd NEVER show during a typical school day. And by sharing this part of their personalities with the girls, the guys were able to break free from the mold of "stupid, insensitive jock" and instead create some meaningful relationships (if any relationship in 7th grade can be called meaningful).

So who were the REAL jocks - the belching and flexing macho dudes who strutted the hallways? Or maybe the eager, sensitive guys typing on the keyboard? Having the ability to go online blurred the lines of identity and enabled these jocks to showcase elements of themselves that they had never felt comfortable showcasing to anyone.

(And on a side note... I was SuperDude171 and my first breakup happened online, when KatieChic put the breaks on our relationship. It was the end of 8th grade and Kaitlin told me I just wasn't "there" for her. I would always talk to her online, but I "ignored her" during the day at school. I guess I had issues with the whole real life/online life identity thing.)

reading response - Bell

2005-10-31T20:39:00.000-08:00

In An Introduction to Cybercultures, David Bell addresses the debate surrounding the existence of online communities. In his exploration of the "pro" side of this debate, Bell states: "...not only are online communities real communities, but...they have the potential to support face-to-face communities."

As I think about this statement, my mind automatically focuses on The Facebook. The Facebook could definitely qualify as an online community, and I would suggest that it also definitely supports the face-to-face communities on campus.

For example, when The Facebook first hit Pomona last fall, I was instantly addicted. I would spend hours browsing through people's profiles and learning things about my friends and classmates that I never knew before. One thing that caught my attention was the section of the profile where users list their political affiliation. Being a born-and-bred Nebraska Republican, I proudly listed "conservative" on my profile. I went through my entire freshman year thinking I was one of the only Republicans in my class. But after The Facebook came along, I was able to see that some of my friends were actually closet Republicans! We instantly created a Facebook conservative community and engaged in political dialogue.

But along with creating an online community of Republicans, The Facebook helped support this new community in the "real life." Before The Facebook, I never knew who I could look to as an ally during political discussions in the classroom. Now I know who I can call on for backup when a professor challenges my ideas on healthcare or taxes. In fact, last semester during one of my classes I sat in "Republican Row." I, along with five of my fellow conservative classmates sat in the same row of desks every day. We rallied together after we discovered (through The Facebook) that all of us were Republicans. And because we were able to build a community online, we were able to build a community in the classroom.

Who would have thought that something as "brainless" as The Facebook could actually apply to Bell's academic discussion of New Media and online communities?

reading response - Kinder

2005-10-27T11:31:00.000-07:00

On page 351 Kinder asserts, "All narrative forms provide some degree of interactive spectatorship (even if it is simply a matter of bringing one's own associations to a tale), and they are always driven by a search engine of curiosity and desire." Even though we've touched on this subject during our class discussions, for some reason I never truly bought into this notion until reading these words from Kinder.

I am reminded of some of our readings from the beginning of the semester - readings that I found extremely stale and verbose. My interactive spectatorship with those readings was based on my "search engine of desire" to finish the readings as quickly as possible. I was not interested in immersing myself in the texts. Instead, I wanted to read what I had to read and learn what I had to learn without going above and beyond in terms of comprehension. I didn't really care. I just wanted to finish.

I then contrast that with other members of our class who found those readings extremely compelling and relevant. Their interactive spectatorship with the readings could have been based on their "search engine of curiousity" to learn more about the topics in the readings. They did not want to "just get it over with," but instead they wanted to ponder the assertions of the authors and analyze their arguments.

My interaction with those texts was an interaction of putting up with a necessary evil. Their interaction was an interaction of critical analysis. We all read the same texts. We're all in the same class. Yet, because of differing "search engines," we approached the texts in different ways.

reading response - Anderson

2005-10-26T10:52:00.000-07:00

Anderson discusses what he views as the rise of the database narrative, suggesting "the interactive database narrative may well prove to be the defining storytelling structure of our time."

I couldn't help but wonder about this statement. Will the database narrative really take the place of traditional storytelling structures? My first inclination was no - there is no way that a database can overshadow a book. There is no way that a database can out-shine a movie or television show. However, after I stopped to think about Anderson's argument in relation to my own personal experiences, I began to see that he makes a legitimate point.

During my time at CBS News, a constant topic of conversation in the newsroom was the evolution of our website - CBSNEWS.com The network executives in New York announced that they wanted all of the producers and correspondents to utilize the website to tell their stories in a way unlike anything that had ever been done at CBS News. Here's how it would work: Videographers would follow producers and correspondents through the process of research, interviews, follow-up phone calls, writing, and editing. The videographers would then upload these video clips onto CBSNews.com, giving viewers a look "behind the scenes" at the news gathering process.

While the entire inside access idea was ultimately put on hold, I am beginning to draw some parallels between that idea and the idea of the database narrative discussed by Anderson. If/when CBS gives viewers the opportunity to follow a story from start to finish, they will in a sense begin to embrace the database narrative. No longer will viewers be limited by having the ability only to watch a news story in its final, complete, and edited form. Instead, viewers can select several options from the story's "database" - from the raw footage to the interviews, from the research to the editing process. Viewers can watch "elements" and put the story together for themselves.

If/when CBSNEWS.com puts this idea into practice, it will be a remarkable innovation - not just for the news business, but for media theorists, as well.

reading response - Reinventing Comics

2005-10-10T13:39:00.000-07:00

I am intrigued by McCloud’s idea of an “infinite canvas,” which he discusses on pages 222-231. Five years have passed since this book was published, and McCloud’s infinite canvas is getting oh-so-close to becoming a reality.

Zooming and scrolling – two technological difficulties according to McCloud – have become almost seamless thanks to broadband technology and high-speed processors. The poor computer screen resolution that troubles McCloud is quickly becoming a non-issue. We are continually moving closer and closer to having all of our technological ducks in a row, thereby enabling the infinite canvas to come closer to the forefront of our media experience.

And thank goodness - because just as newspapers and other print media have had to embrace digital/online technology to stay competitive, comics will be no exception. If the comic industry wants to survive, it’s time for an extreme makeover. A digital canvas might provide the necessary kick in the pants that will knock traditional comics out of the stone age of pen and ink, and into the new world of high resolution interactive digital media.

reading response - Reinventing Comics

2005-10-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

McCloud begins his discussion describing the up-and-coming development of the “graphic novel.” As McCloud continued his examination of high-culture comics, I found myself wondering what a graphic novel would look like. Can comic-style illustrations and comprehensive literature really go together?

My initial reaction was a big fat NO WAY. Adding childish pictures to a nuanced novel would cheapen the literary form and transform the work into nothing more than a kid’s picture book. Pen and ink drawings of Jo and Amy would take away Little Women’s “classic literature mystique.” Thought bubbles coming out of Mr. Darcy’s head would drastically change Pride and Prejudice.

And then I remembered my first exposure to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. I was in first or second grade, and my dad bought me a copy of The Hobbit that looked like a giant comic book. I couldn’t put it down… I devoured every page, and when most of my classmates were still “seeing Jane run,” I was off on an adventure with Bilbo Baggins.

There is no question that The Hobbit is looked upon as a classic literary work. So did this comic-book style presentation cheapen the story, as I suggested in my initial reaction to graphic novels?

On page 33 McCloud says, “…visual strategies set comics far apart from prose when handling subtext…” And this suggestion has helped me understand the power of the graphic novel. My first copy of The Hobbit kept relatively true to the original edition’s dialogue, and the illustrations and thought bubbles didn’t cheapen the story. In fact, the opposite occurred. The comic book conventions added depth and provided perspective that is sometimes difficult to grasp in a Tolkien novel. Tolkien’s verbose descriptive paragraphs were condensed into illustrations, allowing the reader to get to the heart of the story without being distracted by subtext. And yet, the subtext still existed. The illustrations were so detailed and so precise that to this day I still find graphic elements that I never noticed before.

McCloud has a point – it just took a trip down memory lane before I could see it.

reading response - Disappearing Rain

2005-10-06T15:12:00.000-07:00

Wow... Can it be true? Did I just read a hypertext and not hate it?

Yup. It's true.

Disappearing Rain is a great example of a hypertext where the reader has some element of "control" over the story, and yet the story still makes sense. Character development still occurs. A somewhat-linear plot still develops.

As I clicked my way through Disappearing Rain, I found myself anxiously wondering, "What happens next?" And I wasn't disappointed - my curiosities were satisfied (unlike the my awful experience with Afternoon). The hypertext offered answers.

However, while I found Disappearing Rain more enjoyable than Afternoon, I still prefer a strictly linear story told in a traditional way. I love flipping from page to page in a book. I love clicking from page to page on a website. Perhaps I'm just not "hip" enough to embrace hypertextuality. Or maybe hypertextuality just isn't "user friendly" enough for me to appreciate it.

No matter the reason, I'm not a fan of hypertext. Yet, Disappearing Rain seems to take a step in the right direction, bringing us one step closer to a hypertext that makes sense and is relatively enjoyable for the casual reader.

reading response - Espen Aarseth

2005-10-04T10:56:00.000-07:00

In Aarseth's exploration of cybertext in relation to the political dynamics between authors and readers, one statement caught my eye. Aarseth asserts on page 164, "...the politics of the author-reader relationship, ultimately, is not a choice between paper and electronic text, or open and closed text, but instead is whether the user has the ability to transform the text into something that the instigator of the text could not foresee or plan for." When the reader is able to re-create a text, or transform it into something new and different, then the reader strengthens his power in the reader/author relationship.

As an example of this, Aarseth points out "Trekies" - die hard Star Trek fans who hold annual conventions, develop alternative plot lines, and re-work existing scripts in an effort to expand and change the show's themes. I had a Trekie in my high school graduating class. He was the nerd of all nerds. A UFO chasing, Spock-quoting, comic book fanatic who went through high school without participating in the typical "high school drama." Instead of worrying about who he would ask to Homecoming or how he could rise in the social ranks, he was completely committed to Star Trek (and several other shows which most high schoolers would classify as relatively "lame.") He would stay home on Friday nights watching re-runs. He would attend the conventions. He would write fan fiction. He would dress up in costumes.

At the time I thought, "What a loser." And while I still think his obsession was somewhat strange, I'm glad I could recall his obsession as I read Aarseth. I now have a better understanding of his love of Star Trek, and I also have a better understanding of Aarseth's explanation of the reader/author power dynamic.

This kid had to have felt empowered by his obsession. He was passionate about a media text, and he devoted countless hours to achieving a "closeness" with the text that the occasional Star Trek viewer could never come close to achieving. His "loser" actions (wearing Spock ears in P.E., writing fan fiction in English class) were merely his way of taking ownership of a text. Just like everyone else in high school tried to control aspects of their lives which seemed vitally important (homecoming dates, social status, etc.), he was trying to control aspects of this media text - a text which was a central part of his personal identity.

And obsessed fans can have quite a bit of power over the author of a text. Aaresth discusses the use of online message boards, and these message boards have popped up all over the internet and are a major tool of Trekies and other die-hard fans of various media (usually television shows). One example which comes to mind which illustrates this shifting of power from author to reader to author by way of the online message board. I'm a huge fan of ABC's spy drama ALIAS. During season one of ALIAS, one of the main characters was an annoying newspaper reporter. The reporter constantly put his nose where it didn't belong and would always ask the wrong question at the wrong time. I hoped the ALIAS writers would kill off the character because I just couldn't stand him.

It turns out other fans had my same feelings, and they posted these feelings on various online message boards. ALIAS creator J.J. Abrams was a regular reader of these message boards. In an interview he told a reporter how fan reaction to this character led him to make changes to the character and his story line in the second season of ALIAS, and by season three Abrams had the character practically written out of the show. Abrams said he liked the character. But since the fans weren't responding, he was willing to make some (radical) changes.

Aarseth's reader/author power dynamics couldn't be more clear. The author has the ultimate power, but the reader holds quite a bit of power, as well. And in our consumer-driven society, perhaps the reader wields more power than the author. Because if a media text isn't making money, then it's usually pulled off the market.

reading response - Afternoon

2005-09-29T15:09:00.000-07:00

I'm beginning to feel like I used to feel in 7th grade pre-algebra class. Whenever my teacher attempted to teach my class about the "value of x + y" and why "z = 42 + 21," I would always say, "Why do I have to learn this? When will I ever use this in the real world?"

My teacher never had a satisfying answer to those questions, and I've never had to know the value of "x + y" in the "real world." (Only in other math classes that I was forced to take.)

Well... once again I find myself confronting a subject matter which takes my brain into the "what the hell?" mode. As I make my way through this hypertextual work of bla called "Afternoon," I am more confused and more upset than I ever was in my 7th grade pre-algebra class.

Perhaps that's because I'm a linear thinker. I always stay inside the box. I always color inside the lines. "Afternoon" smashes the box into tiny little pieces. "Afternoon" wanders outside the lines. I don't like it. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense.

What's the story? Who are the characters? What's the point?

Having the ability to fully participate in "Afternoon" by clicking on random words is a novel idea - but all I ended up with was complete frustration. I went from one slice of a story to another, and the two rarely seemed related. Just when I thought I was finding a common storyline or a shared thematic thread, BAM!!! I'm taken to an off-the-wall segment that doesn't even come close to relating to the previous sections.

Maybe this Nebraska Farm Boy isn't "cultured" enough to appreciate this type of new media. Maybe this Nebraska Farm Boy is too set in his ways, refusing to open his mind to new ideas. Or maybe, just maybe, this Nebraska Farm Boy represents the "typical," "non-academic" out in there in the big wide world, and believe me - there are a lot of us. We are the people who enjoy a good supermarket tabloaid. We are the people who regularly watch "Entertainment Tonight." We are the people who consider John Grisham a classic American author. And when it comes to "Afternoon" and other similar types of new media, we just don't get it. Frankly, we just don't care.

"Afternoon" was a waste of my afternoon. I'd gladly trade "Afternoon" for an afternoon spent flipping through the pages of People Magazine, watching reruns of "CSI," and listening to the latest teenie-bopper music on KIIS FM.

I'm content staying inside the box. I'll always color inside the lines.

reading response - New Writing Space

2005-09-29T11:25:00.000-07:00

On page 30, Bolter elaborates on some of the marked differences between written text and electronic text, paying particular attention to hand-written letters versus email. He suggests that hand-written letters have more substance and connect the reader to the writer on a more personal level. The reader can hold the letter in his hand, thereby holding a part of the writer's state of mind. The reader can see the writer's handwriting, thereby seeing part of the writing process. Hand-written text provides a deep, introspective link between the writer and his work - the writing is an actual extension of the writer.

However, Bolter views email on a different level. He asserts that email removes the writer from the reader. The reader of an email is not holding anything of substance. Rather, he is reading images on a glowing computer screen. There is no distinct link between a writer and his email - the writer seperates himself from the email through the process of typing on a keyboard.

Bolter then addresses hypertext, suggesting that hypertext connects both readers and writers in a multi-faceted and complex way. In a sense, hypertext combines the substance and connection of hand-written letters with the technological advances of email. When readers can modify the text of a hypertext, true writer/reader interaction takes place.

I'm grateful to Bolter for bringing these differences to my attention. I've never considered the differences between various forms of textual representation. I've always thought that words are words, no matter how they're written or how they appear. However, I now have a deeper appreciation and understanding of writing and writing comprehension.

And I wonder what Bolter would say about blogs? Like the hand-written letter, blogs can be completely personal and introspective, composed with a unique individual style. At the same time, blogs are electronic in nature, like email. And finally, blogs implement elements of hypertext - allowing readers to post comments and follow interactive links. Is it possible that blogs combine all of the elements Bolter discusses into one single "ideal" mode of written communication?

reading response - As We May Think

2005-09-24T20:39:00.000-07:00

What a fascinating read... Bush was definitely ahead of his time when it comes to technological development. He seems almost obsessed with the idea of "dry" photos. I wonder how he would react to today's digital photographs, where photos are appear instantly on a televison-like screen. I'm sure he would be excited about the technology.

In fact, I'm sure Bush would be excited about all of the technological developments that have created this culture of hypermedia in which we live today. With the internet, hypertext, and countless computer programs (Adobe Acrobat and iTunes coming to mind), transferring, locating, and storing information have already reached a level which would impress Bush. However, we still haven't reached a point where all of these processes become seamless and completely accessible by everyone.

But that means we have more development to do. How exciting. I can't wait to see what the future has in store for media and media technology.

reading response - Gitelman

2005-09-24T17:10:00.000-07:00

Gitelman makes several thought-provoking statements throughout these selections, but one statement on page 223 stood out in my mind: "Interactivity is only active to a point, since its vaunted flexibility is programmed ahead of time by agents or institutions of power, be they authors and editors or programmers and manufacturers."

I've never given much throught to the notion of "action" in "interactive" media. I guess I assumed that since a medium was interactive, I had control over my media experience. Gitelman suggests the opposite - that my "actions" have been planned, composed, and choreographed by the controlling powers-that-be.

I remember a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book I used to read back in elementary school. It was the story of a daring prince who risked life and limb to save a beautiful princess from an evil dragon. I loved the story because for a few moments I really was a brave prince going on an adventure. But this adventure was not completely under my control. There were certain sections of the book which always made me upset, in particular the section where I had to choose which route to take to the dragon's lair - the road through the haunted forest or the road through the sweltering desert. I always wanted to say "none of the above." There HAD to the a better way to save the princess, but this "interactive" book didn't give me an opportunity to discover another route. My fate was sealed. Choose one or the other.

So much for really choosing my own adventure.

Perhaps this example is a little too childish for Gitelman, but it works for me. It illustrates the point that all of these "interactive" media are only interactive to a point. Deep down they're all programmed, choreographed, and planned. The author of my Choose Your Own Adventure book wrote two possible endings, and each choice I made led to one of those possible outcomes - no room for creativity, no chance for discovery. My actions were predetermined.

I see examples of this in some of my other media experiences. "American Idol," a television show where the audience interacts with the show to determine the outcome is only interactive to a certain extent - audience members can only vote for one contestant. They can't vote for "none of the above" or "all of the above." They can't provide a write-in vote, nominating their best friend to become the next American Idol. The show is interactive, but it is also choreographed.

Video games are quite possibly the king of interactive media, but they are also methodically planned by programmers. I can control my movements, but only those movements that the programmers have programmed my character to make. I can choose where to go, but I can only go where the programmers allow me to go. Some doors open, others are just scenery. Some windows break, others don't. Again - it's all planned.

So I guess Gitelman is on to something - something that I should have picked up a long time ago... Interactive media are not truly interactive. The only thing that is truly interactive is life itself, and even then some things are predetermined by rules, social constraints, and the big guy upstairs.

I wonder how my Choose Your Own Adventure book of life will turn out? I guess time will tell.

reading response - Understanding Media: Part I

2005-09-19T12:39:00.000-07:00

Wow... It's week three of class and I have yet to enjoy any of the readings. Why must all of these writers insist on composing such complicated sentences? Why do they use fifteen words when seven would suffice? Why do they bounce from idea to idea with almost no connective tissue between their thoughts? The topic of this class is media. Media is exciting. Why can't these writers make their work just a tad more gripping and "reader friendly?"

And that's my rant for the week.

In the midst of McLuhan's academic babble and seemingly unrelated flow of ideas, a few phrases grabbed my attention. First, on page 13 McLuhan mentions the following quote from Napoleon: "Three hostile newspapers are to be feared more than a thousand bayonets." I find this statement quite compelling. One of the greatest warriors of all time feared the written word more than he feared a deadly battle? It appears the old cliche is true - the pen really is mightier than the sword. Napoleon is not the only powerful political figure who has recognized the importance of avoiding bad publicity. Today's political officials (with their legions of media/communication consultants) work tirelessly to bolster their media image. Winning the support of the New York Times editorial board is a major victory for a political candidate. Receiving complimentary front-page coverage in the Washington Post is nothing less than a dream-come-true for political figures.

And this obsession with media image extends far beyond newspapers. If you turn on your television during the months of October and November you're almost guaranteed to be bombarded with campaign and issue advertisements. Some political figures go even further. Before his run for California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger turned to the talk show circuit to improve his image - making appearances on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno and having a live, heart-to-heart discussion with Oprah Winfrey.

We've already discussed how we live in a hypermediated culture. Therefore, it makes sense that politicians and other public figures strive to stay in the good graces of the media, since it is the media that provide so much information to the general public.

What's the best way for a candidate to lose an election? Ruffle feathers at the New York Times and piss off Oprah Winfrey. Perhaps Napoleon was on to something... I'm sure the George Bushes and John Kerrys of the world would gladly face a firing squad if it meant avoiding an angry Maureen Dowd and a raging Oprah. Supportive media are vital for those living in the public eye.

*** Is this what I was supposed to take away from McLuhan? Probably not. I'm sure I was supposed to focus on how "the medium is the message" and the rest of McLuhan's amazing thoughts. Oh well - maybe next time. If he can hold my attention for more than 5 minutes at a time, then I'll gladly expand upon his intellectual insights. ***

reading response - Understanding Media: Radio

2005-09-18T22:50:00.000-07:00

McLuhan presents two points which appear contradictory on the surface: 1.) radio promotes listener isolation; and 2.) radio creates a global community. How can both of these statements ring true at the same time?

I decided to give this a good think, and here's what I came up with after analyzing my own radio-listening habits...

It's true that radio promotes isolation. I can think of countless times when I gathered with my friends to watch a TV program or to watch a movie, but I cannot think of a single instance where I gathered with friends specifically to listen to the radio. Today, listening to the radio is (mainly) a solo activity. (I say "mainly" because if I'm driving and have passengers in the car, the radio is usually on, therefore making radio-listening a group experience. However, we're in the car to go from one place to another. The radio is not the focus of the experience.)

But while radio promotes isolation, it also creates a sense of community, especially where call-in talk radio is concerned. I'll listen to Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh while I'm working alone at my computer or lounging alone on my couch, but I don’t feel like I’m alone. I’m surrounded by the voices of people from all over the country who are sharing their opinions and voicing their concerns. A community is created, where Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh act as the mayor, and I and my fellow radio-listeners are the citizens.

What a paradox – I’m alone when I listen to the radio, yet I’m not really alone. I’m part of a “community” when I listen to the radio, yet I’m actually by myself.

reading response - Orality and Literacy

2005-09-11T12:37:00.000-07:00

On pages 134-135, Ong discusses "the contrast between oratory in the past and in today's world." He notes that the development of television and radio (and I would add the internet) have greatly increased the size of a political figure's audience. Gone are the days of lengthy debates and verbal dueling in front of a live audience. Instead, political figures use these new technologies to reach a large segment of the population in the most efficient way possible, and quite often the most efficient way is through tight sound bites and scripted comments.

As I recall moments from the 2004 presidential campaign, I begin to view the modern political debate as nothing more than a choreographed exercise in talking point distribution. Candidates rarely engage in heated back-and-forth discussion and analysis. Rather, they look for any opportunity to change the course of the debate to preconceived topics and ideas.

Why has this occurred? What happened to the brutal, combative debating style that Ong refers to when describing the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858? One possible answer can be found on page 135 when Ong reasons, "Candidates accommodate themselves to the psychology of the media." Today's media offer political figures a faceless, anonymous audience. As such, candidates can choose to focus on what their advisors and strategists deem as important in garnering the best media coverage instead of catering to the reactions and emotions of a live, in-your-face audience.

I wonder what would happen if the modern debate style transformed into the combative oratory of the past. Would the John Kerrys and George Bushes of the world fare well in an unscripted, no-holes-barred verbal brawl? Could they survive a debate with no rules and no regulations? My guess is that they couldn't. Modern politicians have come to rely too much on advisors and support staff. They don't write their own speeches. They don't formulate their own talking points. The skilled verbal warriors of past political ages have been replaced by prepackaged communication light-weights. More attention is given to the color of a candidate's tie and the part in his hair than his ability to effectively stand up for his principles.

How sad.

reading response - Orality and Literacy

2005-09-09T10:34:00.000-07:00

Throughout our selections in Orality and Literacy, Ong makes several assertions regarding the differences and relationships between oral cultures and written cultures. One statement which caught my eye appears on page 7: "... of all the many thousand languages...spoken in the course of human history only around 106 have ever been commited to writing to a degree sufficient to have produced literature, and most have never been written about at all." This is amazing. Out of all of the various languges spoken on this planet, about 100 of them incorporate writing? What a unique and fortunate people we are to have the opportunity to communicate both orally and textually. I cannot imagine living in a society where written communication is a foreign concept. How could I function in a world without John Grisham? How would I survive without a dictionary? That world would be a very strange place, indeed.

Along these lines, on page 121 Ong discusses how the "list" as we currently know it is a product of a writing-centered language. Oral cultures do not have lists because they rely on vocalizations of words and terms instead of visualizations on a written page. Again, I cannot imagine living in such a society. I am a list-maker. I make "to do" lists every morning. I make "goal" lists every month. I make "pro and con" lists whenever I struggle to make an important decision. Making lists is something that seems so natural to me, and yet the entire list-making process is unique to text-centered cultures. How do people in primary oral cultures remember what needs to be done? How do they keep track of their daily chores and assignments without having a trusty list to navigate them through their day? I would be lost without a list, but perhaps this is because of my text-centered bias created by growing up in a literate culture. Maybe if I grew up in a primary oral culture I wouldn't need lists to stay organized.

An additional concept which struck me appears on page 128, where Ong suggests that "print created a new sense of the private ownership of words." It makes sense that people didn't worry about plagerism when there were no texts to copy. Repeating a story orally seems less dishonest than copying a written text. I can't even begin to count how many times I've repeated stories other people have told me, usually without referencing the original teller by name. But if I were to copy a written text in a paper without referencing the author I would be breaking academic standards and setting myself up for a big "F" in the course.

Yet, while the development of print brought about this sense of ownership of words, can words ever be completely owned by a single person? After our discussion of remediation I can't help but wonder if any text is ever completely original. All writers are influenced and inspired by other writers. How can any single sentence be completely unique if remediation continually occurs?

And that's about as deep and introspective as I get. This book was somewhat of a challenge to get through, so I'm relatively impressed that I was able to come up with a few insights (if you can call them that) to share.

reading response - Remediation (pgs 20-50)

2005-09-03T11:45:00.000-07:00

The concept of immediacy and transparency in media intrigued me. I had never given much thought to those ideas until now. At first these concepts fell into my mental category of "fancy words in academic essays." But I wanted to try to get beyond my bias against academic theory and verbose mumbo jumbo, so I took some time to actually think about immediacy and transparency. Have I noticed these concepts in my life? Here's what I came up with:

One of the stories I worked on this summer for CBS News involved gesture technology. If you've seen the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report," Cruise's character uses gesture technology to manipulate computer data through the air with the flick of his wrist or by pointing his finger. The movie is set in the future, implying that gesture technology is a futuristic idea. However, it exists today.

The military has adopted gesture technology in an effort to speed up communications and data digestion during military operations. Commanders don't want to sit in front of a computer screen and push buttons, they want to point and flick and move. They want the data to be right in front of them, surrounding them. They want instant access to vital information without being bogged down by the limitations of a keyboard and mouse. In Bolter and Grusin's terminology, they want immediacy and transparency.

When I think about immediacy and transparency in relation to gesture technology, the concepts suddenly become much more clear and understandable.

Here's another place I think I might have found immediacy and transparency:

Yesterday I sat in front of my computer and looked at my screen saver. Three electronic-looking clown fish moving through electronic-looking digital water. The fish "swam" with jerky movements. There was no sound. There were no bubbles.

The screen saver looked like... a screen saver. There was a distinct barrier between me and the fish on the screen. I didn't feel like I was part of the screen saver. I didn't feel like I was looking at a real acquarium. So I went out to Best Buy and came back with the latest in electronic acquarium technology. Boy oh boy, am I impressed...

My new screen saver is both immediate and transparent. This new electronic acquarium has 3-D tropical fish swimming in smooth, random paths. The fish make bubbles that you can both see AND hear. The digital water glistens as a digital light shines over head. When I look at this screen saver, I no longer feel like I'm looking at a computer. I'm looking at my very own tropical acquarium, and I don't even have to think about cleaning the tank.

The advances in technology used to make this screen saver program definitely made it more immediate and transparent. Perhaps that's why it's the #1 best-selling screen saver? Again, something I wouldn't have noticed if not for Bolter and Grusin. I don't want to be limited by my keyboard or computer screen. I want my computer and its software to be as realistic and lifelike as possible. According to Bolder and Grusin, I'm not alone.

response - The Intruder

2005-09-03T09:14:00.000-07:00

Due to some technical difficulties I was unable to view the first few pages of The Intruder. The program finally started working during the "whorehouse" section. I couldn't quite figure out what I was looking at. Was that a giant vagina dropping random objects into a bucket?

Call me old fashioned, but I think I would have found this story more powerful and engaging if it appeared in a plain-text format instead of audio covered by weird, cheesy, video game-ish visuals.

Is this an example of hypermediation? Or maybe it's an example of what so many in academia call "creativity" and "artistic expression." I call it strange. Perhaps I need to open my mind to new, revolutionary forms of media. But for now I'll call things like I see 'em. A giant vagina dropping a crucifix into a bucket? Strange.

If this is the future of "new media," heaven help us. Give me a good hardback book or a framed oil painting any day. Save the interactive vaginas for later.

reading response - Remediation (introduction)

2005-09-02T21:47:00.000-07:00

During the first few pages of the selection when Boulter and Grusin mention "hypermediacy" in television news, my mind automatically jumps to images of CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. The cable news networks pack as much media into their broadcasts as possible: swirling graphics, pop-up factoids, and that ever-present crawl of headlines at the bottom of the screen. With all of these images and words flashing on the screen, I sometimes have difficulty paying attention to the story being told on the air. This continual flood of information sometimes sends my brain into "overload mode." Perhaps that's because I have problems focusing. Or maybe that's because all of that "hypermediacy" is just way too hyper.

Bolter and Grusin also suggest that new meda and old media play off of each other in a quest to stay relevant. I think I might have found an example right here southern California - the cross-over between the Los Angeles Times and KTLA Channel 5. On the LA Times's website, users can access news stories in streaming video format courtasey of KTLA. KTLA often offers a preview of what will appear in the latest edition of the LA Times. Granted, both KTLA and the Times are owned by the same media conglomerate (and this is an issue in and of itself), but this also seems to be an instance where the "old medium" LA Times and the "newer medium" KTLA incorporate aspects of each other while hoping to take advantage of the "newest medium" of the internet. Maybe this isn't quite what Bolter and Grusin were trying to say, but I found the cross-over compelling, anyway.

I'm having trouble arriving at a concrete understanding of Bolter and Grusin's terms of "mediation" and "remediation." This is likely a problem, since the whole selection deals with this concept of "remediaton." Right now both "mediation" and "remediation" seem like made-up academic words. Hopefully I'll get a better grasp on these terms in the days to come as I continue reading.

ready... set... blog

2005-09-01T19:08:00.000-07:00

I've never been a big believer in blogs... I tried having a Xanga site and that lasted for a grand total of about three hours. But this time my educational future depends on my blogging capabilities. So for better or worse, here we go.